1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) from 2011 to 2021, what is the annual number of cases of mental distress or psychiatric issues reported by teaching staff in (i) Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges, (ii) Institutes of Technical Education, (iii) Polytechnics, and (iv) Autonomous Universities; and (b) in light of the next normal of living with COVID-19 and home-based learning in 2020/2021 and beyond, what is the Ministry doing to alleviate the stress encountered by teaching staff.
2 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether there has been an increase in a teacher’s workload and blurring of lines between work and personal time; (b) whether steps have been taken to measure the mental health index of our teachers; and (c) whether there are efforts to ensure that our teachers are not overwhelmed and suffer from burnout.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Our teaching staff have shouldered a heavy responsibility to ensure that our students can continue learning safely during this COVID-19 pandemic. Workload for teaching staff has increased as they are responsible for ensuring that students are educated about and comply with the safe management measures. Each time a confirmed case is notified, staff need to follow-up on contact tracing and communications. When home-based learning (HBL) was declared, teaching staff also needed to make the necessary arrangements, with additional support for students who may not adjust as well to HBL. All these efforts are necessary to allow teaching and learning to continue, despite the pandemic.
To keep track of staff sentiments and well-being, the Ministry of Education (MOE) conducts dipstick polls, school visits by senior management and engagement surveys. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) also conduct surveys and staff engagements with leaders.
MOE and the IHLs have put in place measures to address the concerns raised by staff on workload. At the system-level, MOE has reprioritised initiatives and reduced schools’ involvement in HQ work and pilots.
Schools have also been given greater flexibility to pace the implementation of selected initiatives, including deferring implementation, if it helps to spread out staff workload. For example, Secondary schools and JCs were given the option to defer the implementation of Blended Learning to 2022 instead of Term 3 of 2021, as originally planned.
At the school-level, we recognise that ground practices may vary. We have called on school leaders to reprioritise school programmes, establish clear expectations on teachers’ availability and work hours and encourage supervisors to check in with their officers regularly. For example, school leaders have been providing guidance on avoiding parent-staff communications after school operating hours except for urgent matters, such as those involving the safety and well-being of students. This can minimise the blurring of lines between work and personal time.
In line with the streamlined health protocols, ring-fencing policies and contact tracing processes in schools have now also been significantly simplified and teachers’ workload related to COVID-19 management is being reduced.
Similarly, the IHLs have implemented various measures tailored to their institutions, such as reprioritisation of work tasks, to reduce workload and setting clearer expectations that staff need not reply to work emails after office hours unless there are exigencies.
To support staff who need help, MOE provides free counselling services. In addition, MOE, Polytechnic and ITE staff who are public officers can access the whole-of-Government counselling hotline. Staff in the Autonomous Universities have access to either in-house or external counselling services. Before COVID-19, about 50 staff from our schools sought support from MOE’s in-house counsellors annually. The annual number has increased to about 80 since 2020. Similarly, the number of IHL teaching staff seeking counselling support has increased. We do not have more detailed data, as information from all counselling sessions is kept confidential and staff are not required to report mental distress or psychiatric issues.
We recognise the exceptional demands that COVID-19 has placed on our staff and have put in additional effort to promote a positive and supportive work environment for staff well-being across schools and IHLs, such as organising workshops covering stress management and self-care. As part of a new well-being initiative since September 2021, schools have nominated Wellness Ambassadors for staff to receive training on how to provide basic peer support and encourage their peers to seek help. Training has commenced in end-October. Some IHLs are implementing similar initiatives.
To support staff in implementing home-based learning effectively, MOE and the IHLs have provided professional development courses and resources. Learning teams within and across schools also allow staff to collaborate and share good practices on the design and delivery of online lessons.
The well-being of our staff is of paramount importance and MOE and the IHLs will continue to strengthen our support for staff to help ensure their well-being.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister for his reply and note the sensitivity of some of the information. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, yes, we are aware and we thank MOE for the various mitigation measures to help lighten the stress and mental distress of teachers as well as educators across our educational institutions. The first question is, what are the further concrete steps that MOE can take to reduce further pressures from various stakeholders, non-essential workload and support better work-life harmony, so that teachers and educators can also attend to their loved ones?
The second supplementary question is, can I suggest to the Minister that school leaders, especially, set the tone to look after the well-being of teachers, staff and educators in operationalising MOE's policies as well as meeting the schools' expectations?
My third supplementary question is, to overcome mental health and well-being issues, can I ask MOE HQ and educational institutions alike to work closely with our teachers as well as with teachers' and education's cluster of unions to better manage this issue on the ground, as we hear it is brewing; and in addition, also partnering the community and building the right societal values, especially as we move and chart the way forward in the next normal?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for his questions and, more importantly, for his concerns for the welfare and well-being of our teachers. I should say a couple of things to set the context as I answer the three supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay.
First, I think we should all thank our teachers and educators because, over the last two years, it has really been very tough on them. We are one of the few systems in the entire world that have managed to keep our schools going and to allow our students to continue learning with minimum disruptions during the last two years. So, I really want to say a big \"Thank You\" to all our teachers for going all out.
Not many of us realise that in order to keep our school system going, the workload for our teachers has more than doubled. In order for us to switch seamlessly from physical schooling to home-based learning, our teachers need to spend a lot of time preparing more than two sets of lesson plans: one set of lesson plans for the school, the physical schooling; and one set of lesson plans for the home-based learning, just in case we need to switch over seamlessly. On top of that, to be able to take care of the higher-needs students who would still need to return to the school during the home-based learning period.
On top of all this, the school leaders and teachers also have to perform the role of contact tracing in case there are cases in the school. We have to do this without additional manpower support. We have seen the challenges that even MOH, together with the support of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), had and how big a challenge this can be. So, all the more, I am deeply appreciative of the efforts by our teachers.
Over the course of the last two years, be it the vaccination programme or the mental and social emotional stresses experienced by our students and their families, many of these will culminate in their experiences in the school, which our teachers also have to manage.
With that at the back of our mind, what can we do as a society to help our teachers manage? Because they are, ultimately, not only teachers but they are also fellow Singaporeans. They also have families that they need to take care of.
I would like to answer the three supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay in three parts: what are things that we can do in the short term, things that we can do in the longer term and things that we, as a whole-of-society, can do together to better support our teachers. The fundamental belief is this: if our teachers are well taken care of, they will be able to take care of all our children well. But if our teachers are not well taken care of, if they are not in the best condition, then it is also very difficult for us to expect them to take good care of our children, our students.
In the short term, as I have mentioned, we have adjusted various programmes in order to lighten the workload of our teachers. We have adjusted the schedule as to how we roll out new programmes. We have given the schools some of the flexibility to adjust the scheduling, for example, the implementation of blended learning. And for the Full Subject-Based Banding roll-out, we will have to make some adjustments in order to alleviate the workload on our teachers.
The second thing that we can do in the short term is to use technology for us to scale up the lessons, especially for home-based learning. While in the long term, this will help to lighten the workload of our teachers, in the short term, it actually requires our teachers to do more because we have to switch over from the current physical schooling curriculum to the online curriculum. Many of our teachers will need to learn new skills. But our hope is that, over the longer term, as we leverage technology to scale up the lesson preparation and even some of the class sizes, then we will be able to devote more time to the higher-needs students.
Overall, as a system, it is quite unrealistic for us to expect that we can double the amount of resources overnight. In order to focus more attention and bandwidth on the high-needs students, we will need to find other ways to scale up our curriculum teaching so that we can save some time and bandwidth on the other areas where we can.
The third thing in the short term that we have done is to insert what we call surgical breaks into the term time so that, in case there is a spike in the number of cases where the workload is very high, we can give our teachers a slight break. An example of this is, this year, Term 4, where we took one extra day to declare it as a school holiday after the PSLE marking. That one extra day would have given us a period of about nine days continuously for some of our teachers to take a bit of a break and to spread out their load during the PSLE marking. These are things that we will continue to do.
The fourth thing that we are doing is to make sure that when MOE communicates with our teachers, we do it systematically. We know that this is a large system that operates with 50,000 educators, more than half a million students. We try not to make too many changes too quickly. This allows time for the teachers and the school leadership teams to make the necessary adjustments.
In the longer term, we would need to do much more to help our teachers cope. One is to use technology to scale up our teaching resources so that we can, as I have mentioned, apply the time more surgically to the higher-needs students.
The second thing that we can do to better equip our teachers to manage this is to equip them with the skillsets to detect potential mental health issues among the students and their fellow peers. We are applying it, starting from the National Institute of Education (NIE) curriculum, all the way to their professional development and continuing training. So, these are things we will do over the longer term.
Over the longer term, I would also like to see our teachers systematically given a break or sabbatical, whereby they can go out and recharge themselves. And not just to recharge themselves but also for them to acquire new perspectives, new skills, new connections to bring back to the school. That is my wish over the long term and we will progressively roll this out.
Finally, can I say that to better support our teachers, we really need a whole-of-society approach. Let me say this: I think our teachers work very hard; they care a lot for our students. I do not think our teachers are afraid to work hard. But in working hard, they must be given a sense of agency, that they are in control, that they are doing things with conviction. That is important. And this is why I keep emphasising that no matter how hard our teachers and school leaders work, they must feel that they are in control, with a sense of agency. They can take charge of things, they can customise the curriculum according to the needs of their students, because every school has a different profile of students and no two children are similar. We need to allow teachers and school leaders that autonomy to customise the programmes according to their school needs, according to their students' needs.
\t
The second thing that I think I would say is that we, as a whole-of-society, must also help our teachers in a form of partnership. I will give a very simple example. Our teachers care a lot, many of our teachers even give their handphone numbers to their students, just in case their students get into trouble outside school hours. And I have heard many stories of our students, sometimes calling the teachers in the middle of the night because they got kicked out of home, because of family issues and our teachers respond. This is the extent to which our teachers go, to take care of our students beyond the curriculum time in school.
But in giving out their handphone numbers to the families and the students, we also hope that the families will not abuse the trust. It is one thing for the child to call up the teacher at midnight to say that he is in trouble. It is another thing for the parent to call up the teacher at midnight to ask whether tomorrow the child has spelling and should wear a red or blue T-shirt. If the child does not remember, so be it. It is part of his learning experience. We, as parents, do not need to overly protect our children and deprive them of the learning experience.
I think we need to establish this clear understanding as expectations of parents and society, and that of ourselves, get heightened, a lot of expectations are projected onto our teachers as well. That is why we need to strengthen this partnership. This is the reason why I want to strengthen the partnership between the schools and the parents support groups, not so much just for the parents support groups to support the schools, but also for the parents support groups to support one another in helping one another set the correct expectations, so that we can have a strong partnership between parents and teachers in bringing up our children.
Last but not least, I would say this: in the COVID-19 situation, there are many changes. We may not be perfect and we will not be perfect. All of us can pull together and help one another overcome some of the imperfections that we are facing. Sometimes, we have to make changes. Sometimes, we have to make changes at the last minute because of the circumstances. But all of us can pull together and help one another. For example, some families prefer HBL, some families prefer physical schooling. There will not be a situation where we can meet the needs of everyone.
But we can all help one another, that when we do not get the things that we want for ourselves, for our families, let us not burden the teachers with the excessive demands on the teachers to try and fulfil our own personal needs. That, I think, will go a long way in helping our teachers cope as well. One of the common feedback from our teachers is that most of our parents are very supportive of our teachers, but there is a small minority of parents who place a very huge demand on our teachers. It is perhaps unfair for the teachers if they are unable to spend their time and take care of all the students because of the high demands placed on them by a very small group of parents.
So, we really hope and want to work together with the parents. We also want to work together with society, including the unions, so that we can better support our teachers in an all-rounded way.
Mr Speaker: If I can remind Members, perhaps let us confine our supplementary questions to just two. And if I can request our office holders to keep the responses short. Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. And I thank Minister Chan for sharing about the short- and long-term perspectives of supporting teachers. I think our Government has always been very good with adopting technology enablement to support all our civil and public servants. We have always done very good on that front. But Minister Chan has also acknowledged that a lot of the stress that the teachers feel come from students reaching out to them, things that happen outside of the classroom.
So, I would like to add on to the perspective of our support to teachers on the human support element. I would like to ask the Minister whether any of the support plans that MOE has rendered to teachers can involve none of them requiring to be further trained. When we try to support someone, but we also require them to go through further training to provide peer support, again it adds to the load on their bandwidth and stress.
Number two, I am not sure whether this was covered and I missed it: are there currently any cost subsidies that teachers can have access to when they need to see external counsellors or psychologists to deal with their stress or anxiety levels?
And number three, in line with the perspective about rendering human support, whether MOE will consider, potentially in the long term, developing a team of Allied Educators' supporters or educator carers, to provide a listening ear and pastoral care to our teachers, so that they do not have to take the weight and the burden of all these difficult situations that they are faced with – whether it is their students' mental health, their own mental health – and they have someone to talk to?
And lastly, the question is about whether MOE is effecting any kind of mindset change within the system and amongst school leadership and principals to change their mindset towards the notion that hard work is what it is, and teachers just need to suck it up. Because I think we have seen interviews of teachers that they feel like they do not have a safe space to go to. So, thank you, I hope the Minister can clarify on this.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the four supplementary questions in turn.
First, on the issue of training, we do want to equip our teachers to pick up the signs of distress that may happen to their students and also to their fellow peers. To the extent that we can, we would want to do this as part of their professional training. Having said that, one of the things about counselling services is this: be it students or teachers, they all need someone that they can trust in order for them to open up to the counsellors or to the peer, to share. Without this trusting relationship, it is not a function of how many counsellors that we have. Even if we have the counsellors, be they para-counsellors or full-time counsellors, we need this trust relationship to be established. Which is why from Secondary schools and above, we try as much as possible for the first layer to have the peer support, for each of them to be able to identify their own issues and also to look out for their peers. And then, we escalate it to either the family or the teachers, and we escalate it next level to the full-time counsellors. So, we need to triage this.
The second question, on the subsidy, I do not think the cost should be an issue. As I have mentioned in my reply, there are services available to all our teachers as part of the Public Service as well.
Yes, we are trying to increase the number of Allied Educators and also the para-counsellors but, as I have mentioned, it is not just the numbers that are important; it is also the trust relationship that needs time to build up that is important for the students and the teachers to open up. Definitely, we want to promote a safe environment for people to come forward and seek help. Which is why, just now, in my reply, I mentioned that we do not actively go and track the number of people who seek help because we do not want to give people the wrong impression, that if people seek help, they become a part of the statistics and so forth.
Finally, if I may just make a pitch on this issue for people to come forward and seek help – be it the students or the teachers. We tend to look at mental health as a black or white issue: I am mentally okay, or I am mentally not okay. We may need to update our concept. Let us look at it as a kind of fitness level. We all grow in our fitness level, with a bit of training. Today, I might not be able to run as fast or as far. But with a bit of training, tomorrow I can run further and faster. And mental health is also like that. Today, I might not be able to cope with some things. But tomorrow, with a bit of training, stretching, I might be able to cope a bit more and that is how we grow as individuals.
If we move away from the binary concept of mental health, then I think it would encourage people to come forward and say that we are much more prepared to come forward and seek help, if we think that we are unable to accomplish a task. There is no shame in this. Once we overcome that level of fitness and we become even fitter, we can then take on more stresses and that is how we grow as a person.
With that perspective and that mindset in all school leaders, teachers and students, we will be able to better encourage our people to seek help when they need to. And it is just to stretch ourselves a bit more, to train ourselves up so that we can do better tomorrow than what we have done today.
Mr Speaker: I seem to recall that I had mentioned that it should be only two supplementary questions. To keep it simple for Members, can we just have one supplementary question per person?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Migrant Workers Staying in Dormitories Seeking Mental Healthcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower regarding migrant workers living in dormitories (a) from January to October 2021, how many (i) sought mental health care and (ii) had to stop work temporarily due to severe mental health concerns; (b) how does the data compare to that of 2020 and 2019; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted any research or survey to ascertain the mental well-being of these workers; and (d) what are the efforts to further manage their mental health as many of these workers are still unable to leave the dormitories.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, as we have shared in our replies to Members Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Louis Ng's questions on migrant workers' mental well-being earlier, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is committed to supporting the mental well-being of our migrant workers. We are sparing no efforts to strengthen the mental health support ecosystem for them.
Since last November, when we initiated the Project DAWN task force, DAWN has worked with our non-government organisation (NGO) partners, healthcare partners, employers and dormitory operators to develop such an ecosystem to look out for migrant workers, to listen to their concerns, to identify those who need more support, as well as link them with the appropriate care channels.
First, we are raising the awareness of mental health issues and we are broadening the outreach of training in basic mental health and psychological first aid, or PFA. Second, we are working with our NGO partners to make counselling and para-counselling more accessible. Third, mental healthcare has been made even more accessible. Any migrant worker identified to have need for or to benefit from mental healthcare will be linked up with the appropriate services, including the counselling hotlines. In particular, an escalation pathway with the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has been developed to ensure timely care for more severe cases when necessary.
Between January and September 2021, 98 work permit holders were admitted to IMH. This was lower as compared to the same period in 2020, but was higher as compared to 2019, during the pre-COVID-19 era. An earlier study, which was conducted by Yale-NUS on migrant workers' mental health from June to October 2020, showed no notable difference in stress, anxiety and depression levels amongst locals and migrant workers, although there were indications of higher levels of stress amongst migrant workers with movement restrictions.
Nonetheless, any easing of movement restrictions will need to be done in a careful and calibrated manner, so as not to trade one stress for another. In particular, as you have heard in Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary's Ministerial Statement yesterday about our healthcare system, we have to be mindful that we do not treat the stress of one where there is some restriction of movement for our migrant workers, to overwhelming that of our healthcare system.
Since August last year, we have allowed dormitory residents to visit recreation centres, or RCs. We recently increased the frequency of RC visits to thrice or three times a week, up from once a week.
We have also removed pre-visit testing requirements for vaccinated migrant workers, which benefits more than 98% of the dormitory population.
\tConcurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make the RC visits more engaging.
We have also recently expanded community visits from 500 to 3,000 vaccinated migrant workers per week. We have expanded to include Geylang Serai or Joo Chiat, in addition to Little India. We have also extended the visit duration to eight hours at each time.
Members of the House, we remain committed towards caring for our migrant workers' mental well-being through a good support system, as well as to continue to ease measures safely. MOM will continue to monitor the mental health of migrant workers by working closely with our partners.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question with regard to training. Minister mentioned that we are ramping up psychological first aid training. Specifically, is this peer support training for migrant workers to provide support for each other, or is this support for employers to provide a more supportive workplace environment, in terms of mental wellness, or is it both?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Edward Chia for his supplementary question. Indeed, we approach this training on a very holistic manner because mental health awareness, the ability to be able to identify and escalate very quickly and to do constant surveillance and constant monitoring and engagement is a multi-disciplinary, multi-pronged approach that is needed through the support of dorm operators, by our FAST ambassadors on the ground, by the employers, by the NGOs, the partners and, of course, ultimately, the tertiary healthcare providers, including IMH.
We have a multi-pronged approach when we started Project DAWN last year. DAWN is an acronym. \"D\" stands for depression, \"A\" stands for awareness, \"W\" is wellness and the \"N\" stands for normalisation, how do we help the migrant workers normalise back. The DAWN task force started with seven core initiatives. They are grouped according to primary prevention, secondary intervention and the third part, not really tertiary, but where we help them to rehabilitate back into society.
As a result of that, we have got buddies, we have also worked with volunteers. They become the friends of ACE. We call that the FACE network. So, it is a multi-pronged approach to reach out to all of our migrant workers who need help.
I am happy to go deeper into the details, perhaps if we have time. But I think, given the amount of Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that we have to cover today, I will leave it at that. I hope it answers the question.
\tMr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I have one supplementary question for the Minister. Minister spoke about the pilot, which saw an increase in numbers from 500 to 3,000. Can the Minister share with the House what were the considerations that determined that number 3,000? Why not 2,000 or 4,000, because that will give the public and those who are looking at this issue more closely some ideas as to when further opening can potentially take place or, at the very least, when certain foreign workers who may need a little bit more assistance can be attended to by the relevant agencies and individuals?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. The question of easing the restrictions for our migrant workers to go out into the community is constantly on our minds, not just all of us in MOM, particularly the ACE Group. They are also at the back of — well, not at the back of our minds, but on an almost daily basis, we contemplate. We planned for the easing of the restrictions as early as December last year; this was about a month after we formed the DAWN task force.
At different times when we planned, with the drawer plans that we have in place, each time, we were hit by different curve balls. You would have read about the Delta variant. At any particular point in time where we try to ramp up, easing the restrictions, there were new and significant turns of events that did not allow us to do so. We then focused on the singular approach of ensuring that all of our migrant workers are protected through vaccination. The vaccination centres were set up and our focus was really making sure that we protect them.
When we were able to bring them up to a high level of vaccination within the dorms, again, we tried to work on a mechanism for easing. In my earlier interview with The Straits Times and with the media, I said, \"The key thing was finding a safe and a very calibrated manner\". And I think that there were obviously subsequent events that have overtaken us. In spite of that, once we have achieved that high level of vaccination, and we also had enough evidence to show that those of us who have received and completed the two doses of the vaccination, the incidence of complications was significantly less than for those who are unvaccinated. With that, we took on that pilot in mid-September to allow 500 to go out.
We also sought feedback through our survey with the migrant workers to ask them what would be important for them when they go out to visit these community areas. Many of them wanted to go to a religious place of worship. So, our ACE Group then engaged the Hindu temples, the mosques, as well as churches to see how we could accommodate them to let them fulfil their religious needs. We also worked with the shopkeepers and so on. We identified shopkeepers, the retail shops to make sure that social distancing was adequately maintained. We reached out to the churches, the temples, the mosques to get them to support us and we started that pilot visit.
We also had to ensure, as we move towards endemicity, at some point, we were concerned about, given the space that they are living in, to ensure that the infection, if it comes into the dorm, it does not spread. So, we took all the necessary precautions in terms of pre-event testing before they left. And after coming back, we also tested them.
When we were able to ascertain that the entire visit was safe, that we were able to adequately address the physical, mental and social needs; on top of that, keep them medically well-protected, we then ramped up from 500, increasing it sixfold to 3,000. And we also increased the areas.
At each step of the way, there were quite a fair bit of logistical arrangements that we had to make, including arranging for the buses to bring them there; also making sure that the itinerary, the programmes planned for them were adequate. In the beginning, we even had to nudge employers, because even though we opened up 500 a week, we found that, for a while, we were only getting about 50% to 60% of them coming on board. There were also migrant workers who signed up, only to cancel at the last minute. So, these are all the logistical issues and so on that we had to plan through. Once we were able to smoothen out all of these different gaps and so on, we then moved on to increasing the number to 3,000.
The plan, hopefully, in the ensuing weeks and months ahead, is that as we move to this new normal, is not to restrict but to open up even more. At this particular point in time, because we had just started the 3,000 last weekend, just about three days ago, we will maintain and watch it for a while. I hope that answers the questions.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Universal Definition of Mental Disorder and Mental Disability Across All Legislation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Law whether the Government will consider (i) adopting a common and universal definition of mental disorder and mental disability across all legislation and (ii) conducting a thorough review on all relevant criminal legislation to incorporate appropriate safeguards, protection and support for persons with mental disorders or mental disabilities who have to interact with the criminal justice system.
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, the Member's question has two parts. The first part of the question is whether there can be a common definition of mental disorder and mental disability across different legislation.
The issue of one's mental condition arises in many different contexts in the different legislation. Let me just give a few examples.
There are provisions that are aimed at protecting persons with mental conditions from abuse. For example, section 376F of the Penal Code deals with the procurement of sexual activity with persons with mental disabilities by means of inducement, threat or deception and defines mental disability as, and I quote, \"an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder of the mind or brain which impairs the ability to make a proper judgement in the giving of consent to sexual touching\".
There are also provisions which deal with the detention of persons with mental conditions. For instance, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act allows the detention of a person who suffers from a mental disorder, where a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution is of the opinion that the person requires in-patient treatment at the psychiatric institution and such detention is necessary in the interests of the person's health or safety, or for the protection of other persons. Sir, you can see that the first is quite a different situation from the second.
There are also provisions to protect the interests of persons who lack mental capacity. For example, the Mental Capacity Act addresses the need to make decisions for persons who are 21 years of age or older when they lack mental capacity to make those decisions for themselves. Under the Act, a person lacks mental capacity in relation to a matter, and I quote, \"if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain\".
Mental disorders and mental disabilities take many different forms, with different levels of severity and impairment. The different provisions are drafted to deal with the different specific contexts. There is some variation in the way that mental conditions are treated. However, the Government is open to suggestions for a common, universal definition of mental disorder and mental disability if such a definition can meet the policy intent across all the different pieces of legislation.
The second part of the Member's question is about whether we will review all relevant criminal legislation to incorporate appropriate safeguards and support for persons with mental conditions who interact with the criminal justice system.
Safeguards are built in for persons with mental health conditions in the criminal justice system.
MHA's response to Question Nos 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the Order Paper for this Sitting will address the safeguards during investigations. In addition to those, there are procedural protections at the trial stage for witnesses, including those with mental conditions. For example, the State Courts administer a Witness Support Programme for vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases, such as adults with mental capacity below the age of 18. A trained volunteer will be assigned to the vulnerable witness to accompany and provide the emotional support to the witness before, during and also after the hearing.
Due regard is also given to the mental conditions of accused persons when they are prosecuted. For example, the criminal case will not proceed if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and, consequently, incapable of making his defence.
If the accused is capable of making his defence but was of unsound mind at the time he committed the act that he was charged with, the Court must acquit him and report the case to the Minister. He may then be confined in a psychiatric institution, with periodic reviews of his state of mind.
The Court may also take into account the offender's mental condition in deciding the appropriate sentence. In appropriate cases, the Court can impose a Mandatory Treatment Order for the offender to undergo psychiatric treatment, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment.
\tIn prison, inmates with mental health needs have access to the necessary treatment for their condition.
Sir, the current framework has been built up over a period of time. Of course, as and when we realise or we observe that it can be improved, we will do so. If the Member has any suggestions for improvement, we invite her to share them with us and we will consider.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
\tDr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the clarifications on this. I think we have moved far along in the mental health and well-being discourse. I do note that the Minister said there is always continual review for this. I was wondering whether there are any reviews upcoming and whether the Interagency Taskforce for Mental Health and Well-being can look into this to figure out a common meaning and understanding for future legislation.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Dr Shahira. We do review from time to time but do not let the fact that there is or is not a review constrain any suggestions that you might have to give to us. So, we welcome that at any time.
Certainly, as I have said earlier with my illustrations, there are some nuances to be looked at and to be appreciated in the contexts of the different standards and the different contextual circumstances in which mental disability or treatment, or even mental capacity, might arise, and how they are defined in the context of certain pieces of legislation. Some seek to diminish responsibility, others seek to deal with the questions of whether you can appropriately consent and yet others deal with the question of whether we should appropriately protect the person with disability.
So, if we can find a common standard across the spectrum that deals with all these various policy intents and purposes, then, of course, we welcome the Member to propose a definition to us and we will consider it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Suicides and Attempted Suicides by Age, Race, Educational Level and Economic Background","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the annual number of suicides and attempted suicides, broken down by (i) age, race, education level and economic background for each of the years between 2011 and 2015 and (ii) race, education level and economic background for each of the years between 2016 and 2020; and (b) what are the causes that led to these suicides and attempted suicides.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the number of suicide cases is publicly released in the Report on Registration of Births and Deaths by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) on an annual basis, where there is a breakdown by age and race.
From the published data, we can deduce that by age, younger people 19 years and below, account for disproportionately fewer suicides, while the converse is true for people aged 60 and above. By race, Malays account for disproportionately fewer suicides, while the converse is true for Indians.
Breakdowns by education level and economic background are not available.
There are usually multiple factors that may lead a person to commit and attempt suicide. These factors include relationships, family, social, financial, mental and physical health issues.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. Just one supplementary question. May I know what are the follow-ups that are taken by relevant Government agencies in helping those who are saved from attempted suicide?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach to suicide prevention. Government agencies and stakeholders in the social service sectors work together to prevent suicides by promoting upstream prevention, encouraging help-seeking, providing support to at-risk groups and offering crisis support. For example, for youths, for young people, we have MOE enhancing upstream efforts through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools, and mental resilience and well-being programmes in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
There have also been efforts to raise parents' awareness in mental health to help them support the well-being of their children in school. We have individuals and families with social emotional needs who can get counselling from touchpoints like Family Service Centres. HPB also conducts mental well-being programmes.
For working adults, we have support through HPB, roadshows and workshops, to provide stress management tips and techniques to employees, as well as various campaigns through NCSS.
There are also efforts to help with early identification and encouraging help-seeking. School teachers, academic staff, even peers in schools are encouraged to look out for people who need interventions and support is given to them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Just a short supplementary question. Are these help measures mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary made mandatory for such individuals, those who were being saved from attempted suicide?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Usually, the support that is given flows from the support when we identify or when they are sent to hospitals. The support is automatically given. As to whether or not they wish to proceed, that is something that we cannot force them to. But this support is available and, typically, usually with the provision of this guide and counsellors on hand, they are usually getting the support that they need.
\tMr Speaker: Next question, Mr Faisal Manap.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Treatment for Those with Clinical Depression and Anxiety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2016 to 2020, what is the annual number of individuals receiving treatments for mental health issues; (b) how many are treated for clinical depression and clinical anxiety specifically; (c) what are the profiles of these individuals broken down by race, age, education background and economic background; and (d) what are the known causes that led to these individuals suffering from anxiety/depression.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): From 2016 to 2019, based on data reported to the Ministry of Health (MOH), a yearly average of about 49,800 Singapore residents received treatment for mental health issues at our healthcare institutions. This includes the public and private hospitals, polyclinics and general practitioner (GP) clinics. The data for 2020 is not available yet.
During the same period, the average number of residents seeking care for depression and anxiety was 33,700 and 34,500 respectively. However, the numbers include repeat attendances and are not unique headcounts.
Approximately 60% of patients with anxiety or depression are under 60 years old; 70% are of Chinese ethnicity; about 30% live in 3-room or smaller public flats. Breakdown by patients’ education level is not available.
Findings from the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study (SMHS) show that unemployment and divorced or separated marital status are significantly associated with depression. The same study postulated that stress may be a risk factor for development of anxiety disorder. The 2010 SMHS found that nearly half of those with depression and anxiety also had chronic physical illness.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. Just one short supplementary question. Does MOH have a ballpark figure of the annual amount of expenses that are being used to tackle issues related to mental health? A ballpark figure for annual expenses.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: This data is not what the Member requested for; I do not have it on hand. But if the Member wishes, he may file a further Parliamentary Question with specifics on this matter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Enforcement Agencies' Investigation Protocols for Teenagers and Those with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether a volunteer under the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects was present during CNB’s interviews with Justin Lee.
8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether law enforcement agencies will review their protocols and implementation measures for dealing with crime suspects who are minors or who may have special needs.
9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs regarding persons under 18 years old who were arrested by the Police in the past five years (a) what proportion had a history of mental health conditions; (b) how many were hospitalised or died subsequently whilst under Police investigation; (c) what were the reasons for these hospitalisation cases and deaths; (d) what were the outcomes of the investigations following the arrests; and (e) what support is available to young persons with mental health conditions facing Police investigation or arrest.
10 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how do law enforcement agencies identify vulnerable persons and persons with mental disorders or disabilities when they interact with the criminal justice system at first contact; (b) who conducts these assessments in the law enforcement agencies; and (c) whether law enforcement agencies are adequately staffed with qualified professionals to make these assessments.
11 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in drug-related investigations involving minors, what are the approach and safeguards taken by the Central Narcotics Bureau especially in cases where the minor has a history of medical or mental health issues.
12 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how can family members of a young person, whose death is suspected to be related to the person’s interaction with the criminal justice system, can request for a formal investigation into the death; (b) what are the criteria used to evaluate the need for such investigations; (c) how does the Government ensure that investigations are undertaken with neutrality by an independent party; and (d) whether the Government is committed to provide to the family the outcomes from the investigation.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 to 12 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, these questions arose from the case of Justin Lee, who was investigated for drug offences. A summary of CNB’s investigations was released on 22 October 2021. They show, in essence: Justin Lee had been advertising the sale of LSD stamps, a Class A controlled drug, on a messaging app. CNB officers did test buys of the drugs from him, twice, to verify that he was, in fact, selling the drugs. He was arrested on 3 February. He was cooperative during his arrest and did not put up any struggle.
CNB officers were not aware of any issues with Justin’s mental health when he was arrested. His mother, Ms Cecilia Ow, was present when Justin was escorted back to his house on 3 February for a follow-up anti-drug operation.
The Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects is used for suspects under the age of 16. The scheme, together with the age limit, had been announced publicly in January 2017. It was also discussed in Parliament in March 2017, where the age limit was made clear. Since Justin was 17 years old, there was no Appropriate Adult. However, the interviews CNB officers had with Justin were video recorded because of the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence he was being investigated for. The video recordings have been shown to his mother, Ms Cecilia Ow, on 22 October 2021.
We should add that there is also a separate Appropriate Adults Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities, in short, AAPMD.
During the first video-recorded interview, Justin mentioned to the Investigation Officer (IO) that he had previously been diagnosed with depression. CNB proceeded with the interviews. Justin answered questions without any signs of distress and did not appear to be in need of any assistance. Justin was composed and coherent, able to logically articulate the flow of events, including sharing about his research on drugs and his trafficking modus operandi. The IO assessed that he did not need to stop the interview to bring in an Appropriate Adult under the AAPMD Scheme. However, as stated, the interviews were video recorded.
Justin was released on bail on 4 February after about a day in custody. His mother came to meet him and brought him back. Justin was charged on 23 June for drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He was released on bail on the same day. This was done with AGC advice.
The next day, on 24 June, Justin was charged in Court. The Prosecution was ready to take the plea. Justin’s Defence Counsel requested for adjournment. He did so a total of four times, so the case kept getting postponed. Finally, it was fixed for hearing on 23 September. Throughout this period, Justin was out on bail and, as far as CNB is aware, he was at home.
He fell to his death near his home on 16 September.
Toxicology report from the Health Sciences Authority showed traces of LSD and Nitrazepam in Justin’s urine and blood when he fell to his death. This would indicate that he had taken these drugs. But this cannot be stated with finality and is subject to the Coroner’s findings.
I have looked at this case and asked: why did this young person fall to his death when he was out on bail and was staying at home? Thirty-two weeks, or about eight months, after he was arrested and released? It is very sad. The young man could have had a far better future. The question is: how can we bring across to more of our young people the danger of drugs? How can we also bring across to them and their families, that even if they are arrested, they will still have opportunities to reform and the agencies will help them give up drug-taking and that there can be a good future ahead?
\t
We have been putting out this message quite a lot and will have to continue to do so, so that parents and persons who are arrested understand the process. You have done wrong, but that does not have to be the final word. Our system is designed to give second chances to help you rehabilitate. And many have succeeded. We have to get that point across. We changed our laws on dealing with pure drug abusers, to not treat them as criminals. Instead, we focus on getting them to change the drug habit. In Justin’s case, he was trafficking drugs and seems like he was also abusing drugs. But with the right help, he could also have changed. And our processes are structured to provide that guidance and help, after he is dealt with in Court. We bring in the family into these efforts as well because, without adequate family support, it is difficult to help the young person.
The young man had a lawyer, he was living with his family and the case was set to proceed in Court. And after the hearing, if he was found guilty, he would then, normally, be put on a path to help him change, rehabilitate himself, as we have said earlier.
CNB had also made every possible facilitation for him. For example, bail. Usually, suspects charged with drug-trafficking offences will not be released on bail due to the high flight risk. However, in view of Justin’s age, CNB released him on bail after serving the charges to him on 23 June and allowed him to report to Court the next day.
So, what made him jump to his death on 16 September, when he was staying at home? As I have said, this was some eight months after he had been arrested and released. What happened in those eight months? He had been charged and the case was fixed for hearing. What else happened? I think it is difficult to say. Is it the fact that the case was coming on in seven days’ time? Did he speak with anyone about the oncoming case and his concerns? Were there other issues? How did he have traces of drugs in his blood? How is it that he appears to have consumed drugs before his fall? There are many questions and it is difficult to do more than conjecture what the answers are.
I will now deal with the questions that have been asked. The questions relate to law enforcement agencies’ protocols when conducting investigations.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked if we plan to review our protocols for dealing with young suspects and suspects with special needs. There are regular reviews to ensure that they are up to date. Ms Denise Phua, in 2016, and Ms Sylvia Lim, in 2017, had asked if all persons under 18 can be supported with an Appropriate Adult during interviews. Given that the AAYS scheme applies to all persons under 16, the point really is whether it can be extended to persons who are 16 and 17. We have told both of them that this would be reviewed. There were some difficulties in expanding the scheme to suspects in this age group. So, we decided to operationalise the current process, which was announced in 2017, for a period first, while we consider if, and, if so, how we can deal with the issues. We will announce our decision in the next few months as to whether we can extend the AAYS scheme to persons who are 16 and 17 years old.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about CNB’s protocols when conducting drug-related investigations involving young persons with a history of medical or mental health condition. If it is made known to the officers that the subject has medical or mental health conditions and would require special attention, prior to bringing the person in to assist in the investigation, CNB officers will contact the parents or school first, if operationally feasible. Under these circumstances, they will activate an Appropriate Adult to be present during the interview.
If the subject displays any medical or special needs during the interview, officers will pause the investigation and activate support measures, such as activating an Appropriate Adult or sending the person to the Institute of Mental Health for assessment. CNB will also obtain medical reports to assess if the subject is mentally fit for prosecution. If the person is observed to be capable of being interviewed, the officers will carry on with the interview. The point is that they will use their discretion, based on their observations.
Dr Tan Wu Meng asked for statistics on persons under the age of 18 arrested who had a history of mental health conditions, and those who, subsequently, were hospitalised or passed away. We do not track such data. It is also not meaningful for us to track it. These individuals may have passed away or been hospitalised due to varying reasons not related to the investigations, such as inherent health problems or injuries sustained by themselves. Regarding the outcomes of the investigations, out of 9,485 persons under 18 years old arrested from 2016 to 2020, only 16% were prosecuted; so, 84% were not prosecuted.
I will emphasise this. Justin’s case falls in the small minority of 16%, because he was openly trafficking. The general approach when dealing with young suspects is to, where possible, avoid criminalising their conduct, give them a second chance and help them in their rehabilitation. Suitable youths who have been arrested for minor offences can be referred to diversionary programmes, such as the Guidance Programme introduced in 1997, which has a strong focus on counselling and rehabilitation. Placing youth offenders on diversionary programmes allows them to be accountable for their actions and prevents disruption in other areas of development, such as education. Justin will also have been placed on such processes, after sentencing, if he had been found guilty.
Dr Shahira Abdullah asked how law enforcement agencies identify vulnerable persons and persons with mental disabilities. Training is given to our officers in this respect. The Home Team has also worked with the Agency for Integrated Care to increase officers’ awareness of mental health conditions and help them to identify and respond to persons observed to have some mental health issues. In gist, the officer will check if the person has a Developmental Disability Registry Identity Card issued by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), look out for information that the person may be undergoing treatment at healthcare institutions for diagnosed mental disabilities and observe the behavioural traits of the person.
Dr Shahira Abdullah also asked how family members of a young person, whose death is suspected to be related to the person’s interaction with the criminal justice system, can request for a formal investigation into the death.
There are two possible scenarios here. First, the person may have been in official custody of a law enforcement agency at the time of death. Second, the person may be undergoing investigation and passed away subsequently due to suicide, while not in custody.
Under the Coroners Act, both scenarios would be deemed as reportable deaths, and the Police must investigate the cause of the death. The Police are required to report their findings to the Coroner, who is a judicial officer appointed under the State Courts Act.
In the first scenario, a Coroner’s Inquiry must be held to determine the cause of and circumstances connected with the death. This is required by law.
In the second scenario, it is not mandatory to hold a Coroner’s Inquiry. However, the Coroner may still decide to hold an inquiry, after considering other factors, including the desire of any member of the deceased’s immediate family to do so.
Specific to Justin, we need to be clear: Justin was not in custody at the time of his passing away in September. He was in custody for investigation for about a day in February. Since his release on 4 February, he had been staying at his home, except for the one day in June when he reported to CNB and was charged in Court. His was not a death in custody.
Regarding Mr Leong Mun Wai’s question on whether an Appropriate Adult was present during Justin’s interviews, I have already answered it at the beginning of my reply. The Member does not appear to be aware of previous announcements and discussions on the scheme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for the clarifications and explanations. Just recently, we heard about six officers who were injured in the line of duty – and those are only the reported cases. In the fight against drug abuse, I think CNB officers face similar and more serious perils as well.
I have one supplementary question. How are our CNB officers trained to handle young suspects and persons with mental disabilities and, at the same time, balance that training so that it would not compromise the operational effectiveness and also their safety?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, CNB officers have to deal with various situations. The profile of the people that they deal with also vary. As such, it is important for them to be well-equipped not only from the socio-emotional perspective but also to have the skills to go on the operation as well as to engage the public with regard to preventive drug education. And I am appreciative of the Member recognising that their job requires the skills and training and, as such, it is something that they place their emphasis on, not only as part of the job scope but also about protecting Singapore.
I interact regularly with CNB officers and one thing I am proud of them for is that they are very clear about their commitment and passion in protecting Singapore, to ensure that the harms of drugs do not penetrate or affect the lives of Singaporeans. This is something that I feel very proud of our CNB officers for.
And CNB equips its officers with the skills to handle their jobs through various structured and customised training programmes. As part of the core skills training for new CNB officers, they learn the protocols to handle young suspects and persons with mental disabilities, such as the Appropriate Adult schemes. And all officers, in fact, undergo refresher training on how to manage such suspects and offenders. They are also required to pass an annual proficiency test to ensure that they are proficient in handling young suspects and persons with mental disabilities. So, in some parts of the training, where they learn about conducting video-recorded interviews, trainers will also revise the Appropriate Adult schemes and provide relevant case studies so that they are able to relate to and be familiar with the situations which warrant the activation of the scheme.
So, essentially, they are trained and they get refreshed and they share case studies together because every case is different. I hope I have answered the Member's question.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\t
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Earlier, the Minister of State made extensive comments about the case of Justin Lee. Justin Lee was my resident and I would like to clarify that I understand from his family that the Coroner's findings into his death have not been issued yet. Therefore, I am reserving any questions that I may have until after the findings have been issued.
Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question on the cut-off age for protection of young persons under investigation.
Earlier, the Minister of State specifically mentioned the Appropriate Adult Scheme and that the cut-off age of 16 years had been announced in 2017, so, everyone should be clear about that. But at the same time, I think he will acknowledge that in 2019, we did have a change in our CYPA, the Children and Young Persons Act. We amended the definition of \"child\" to extend the cut-off age to 18. Does MHA then not accept the fact that the spirit of that would require all measures protecting young suspects to have a cut-off age of 18 instead of 16? We can understand that it may need to be phased in and so on but, at the very least, does the Ministry not agree that we must commit to moving all these protections, whether legal or procedural, to the cut-off age of 18, in line with the amendment to the CYPA on the definition of \"child\"?
Mr Speaker, may I have your leave to ask one question about special needs suspects?
\tMr Speaker: Short one, please.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: I beg your pardon?
\tMr Speaker: Keep it short.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. For special needs suspects, the Minister of State mentioned that there are Appropriate Adults also available to help vulnerable adults. Some of the special needs suspects may actually be non-verbal or non-communicative and perhaps only the family members understand what he or she is trying to say. So, I would like to ask whether law enforcement agencies do allow family members to assist in the investigation process so that the communication can be better understood?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, indeed, as I have shared earlier, we are reviewing it and as such, we will announce the outcome of the review in the next few months.
We take note of the Member's view on the CYPA. I want to assure the Member this is something that we have also been looking at and we also want to make sure we facilitate this.
Nevertheless, as I have shared with the House earlier, there are constraints that we are facing with regard to the Appropriate Adult Scheme because essentially, the Appropriate Adults are volunteers. We will need more volunteers to support the expansion to cover more young suspects. In order for them to come on board, we need to train them. We also need to provide face-to-face training to ensure that the volunteers are well-equipped to perform their roles. During this current pandemic, there are constraints on conducting face-to-face training due to the safe distancing measures. Hence, it is not easy to ramp up the pool of Appropriate Adults quickly.
Currently, we have about 331 volunteers for the AAYS and 320 volunteers for the AAPMD. As an estimate, if we expand the AAYS to cover suspects aged 16 and 17, we will need to increase the pool of volunteers to double of what we have today. If this age limit is further increased to 21, this would be even more significant. Expanding this scheme is not straightforward. Without a sufficient pool of Appropriate Adults, interviews will be delayed until an Appropriate Adult is available. This could add more strain on the person who is being investigated.
For the second question, I would like to share with Ms Sylvia Lim that we take every investigation seriously. We train our officers to better understand the behavioural component, the needs of the suspect, as well as how we can facilitate the interviews, all in the name of doing it fairly and professionally. So, if there is a need for us to reach out to the family members, we will do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, just one clarification for the Minister of State. Throughout the investigation in February, did the Police offer to activate the Appropriate Adult Scheme for the mentally-challenged? Or is it incumbent in our system that the suspect should ask for it and the Police do not volunteer it?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As I have shared earlier, we want to be fair and professional in how we deal with the suspects. We will observe, we will find all ways we can, to see if there is a need for support. So, it is not that the person has to declare or has to ask for it. Even if the person does not ask for it, when we feel that it helps in the investigation process, we will activate it. We want to make sure that the person has a fair process, as part of the investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Facilitate and Expedite Entry of Migrant Domestic Workers to Meet Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from January to August 2021, what is the number of domestic helpers who were allowed entry into Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the pilot scheme to bring more migrant domestic workers to Singapore.
14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider prioritising approval of migrant domestic workers for households with healthcare workers so as to facilitate quality work-life balance amidst the pressures brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) brought into Singapore under the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) pilot programme since it was introduced in July 2021 for the safe entry of MDWs; (b) what are the typical agency fees charged; and (c) what more can be done for the lower- and middle-income households who have urgent need for MDWs but may not be easily able to afford the fees involved for the programme.
16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the Government’s actions to halt or delay the entry of new migrant domestic workers (MDWs) into Singapore in the last few months due to the COVID-19 situation locally or abroad, whether the Government will consider any measures to temper any resulting increase of salaries for transfer MDWs caused by the delay of new MDWs into Singapore.\t
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 13 to 16 by Mr Ang Wei Neng, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Dennis Tan together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises that there are still many families waiting for approval of their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to enter Singapore. To manage COVID-19 importation risk, entry approvals for MDWs were tightened since May 2021, resulting in the number of MDWs entering Singapore being reduced from an average of 3,400 per month from January to April this year to 900 per month from May to October.
As the regional COVID-19 situation improves, MOM is able to give more entry approvals. From 15 October 2021 onwards, we have opened up new applications for the entry of fully-vaccinated MDWs for entry from 1 November and after. More MDWs will be able to enter Singapore in the coming months if the COVID-19 situation continues to stabilise locally and regionally.
Due to the high demand for entry, we will continue to prioritise families with caregiving needs for the entry approvals. We will also facilitate the entry of MDWs of households with healthcare workers so that the healthcare workers can better focus on their frontline work. For those employers who are not successful, they may wish to access the application portal by ICA in subsequent weeks as entry slots are periodically made available.
With more entry approvals in the coming months, the demand for transfer MDWs is expected to ease. Households that require MDWs urgently may wish to consider the commercial programme by Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) or AEAS. MDWs who already possess documentation overseas can be on boarded onto the programme within a week and there are slots available. AEAS and its partner employment agencies will adjust the programme according to demand to compliment the entry of MDWs through the mainstream channel. As at end of October 2021, the AEAS initiative has facilitated the entry of more than 1,000 MDWs from the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar.
Given feedback from employment agencies, AEAS will also be expanding the scheme to India. The fees charged vary across employment agencies, service providers and home countries of the MDWs. Households in financial difficulty can apply for a waiver of costs of local COVID-19 tests and local SHN dedicated facility accommodation for newly-arrived MDWs in Singapore.
While there has been a limited number of MDWs entering Singapore over the past months, the number of MDW transfers has remained stable. The average monthly salary of transfer MDW was $630 last year and has increased to $660 as of September 2021; so, about a monthly increase of $30.
The past months have been challenging for families waiting for the entry and arrival of the MDWs. We thank families for their patience. We will continuously review the entry approval quotas, together with the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF), with the view to fulfil the needs of families as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. We are very thankful that MOM is able to increase the quota for MDWs. We know that many families are very anxious about getting their domestic workers to come to Singapore. We understand that the average is 900 per month from May to October. So, what is the number that MOM is expecting from November to maybe the next three months so that they can have better expectations?
Also, for the 1,000 MDWs that have been facilitated to come in through the commercial programme, what is the breakdown by country? Are there any challenges in a specific country where we find it more difficult to bring in the domestic workers to Singapore than other countries?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for the questions. On the number of MDWs who are waiting to enter Singapore for the next three months, there are several thousands. But I think the more important point is how we are able to gradually increase the entry of MDWs while protecting public health in Singapore. As I have said earlier on, we are committed to continue to look at increasing the entry approval quota, together with our MTF colleagues, so that we can clear as many MDWs to come in as possible for the next three months.
For those employers who are unable to wait, who have very urgent needs for the MDWs to enter and are unable to get a slot on ICA's SafeTravel Portal for the next 60 days, they might want to consider the AEAS option, the commercial option. I was just looking at the information this morning, there are still slots available. In fact, MDWs overseas who have the documentation ready can be onboarded very quickly, within a week or two and can definitely arrive in Singapore within the month.
On the question about the different countries, I think we all know that the common countries that MDWs come from are Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar and India. Indonesia and Philippines, because of the demand, many of the households in Singapore prefer MDWs from these two countries. So, naturally, there are more MDWs that are waiting to enter Singapore from these two countries.
Fortunately, for the past few months, the bulk of the 900 per month who entered Singapore were from Indonesia as well as the Philippines. For Myanmar and India, we also know flights were affected by the Not-to-land (NTL) that was determined by MTF. This NTL has been lifted recently. So, we are also hopeful that employers will be able to bring in the MDWs from Myanmar and India for the next few months. Again, the AEAS option already extends to Myanmar and, soon, to India as well. We hope that employers will keep an open mind and opt for this scheme if they need the MDWs to come in urgently.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-24, 26-29, 31-39, 41, 45-58, 61, 63-71, 73-75 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 17-18, 25, 30, 40, 42-44, 59-60, 62 and 72 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 3 November 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [1 November 2021], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Manpower]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. Raising the retirement age is essential for Singapore because it benefits our workers for this new economy. Singaporeans can retire when they so choose but raising the retirement age will provide a vast majority of our workforce with a longer runway to contribute to the economy, learn new skills to stay engaged and be able to continue to earn a fair and decent wage to sustain their lives and further build their savings for retirement eventually.
During one of my community engagements with residents, I came across Mr Tony Ho, aged 74, who continues to work as he is willing to put his acquired skills and experience to help companies create value to our economy. Most recently, he helped to design and execute a new production facility in Tuas for a trading company which wanted to do its own manufacturing. He further guided them on how to manufacture these products to be of high quality so as to achieve local market sales. Mr Tony Ho is a positive example of how our seniors can remain employable, leveraging on their experience and continue to contribute to the larger economy.
Raising the retirement age will allow our current workforce who are in their early 60s and have optimal capacity and positive attitude, to continue to be a core contributing force for our economy. They are a part of the experienced workforce we have in the economy, that is, those with more than 15 years of working experience, that forms the core of any company’s competitive talent base – from senior management to professional functions and operations.
This is an essential reframing of how we need to look at the future workforce composition within a company and across all industries. This is an essential reframing. Those in their 40s up to the age of perhaps 65, should be the new bedrock of our competitive economy as we compete higher up the value chain where experience and know-how will be the new value proposition.
Raising the retirement age progressively would allow Singaporeans to work for a longer period instead of being forced to retire due to a perception of what is considered old age. As we proceed to make this happen, there is also a need to ensure that our current social systems and training models support this extension. I propose two suggestions to allow the benefits of raising the retirement age to be distributed more equitably.
First, is to accelerate the changes of the age from which the step-down model of CPF contribution rates takes place from 55 to 60; second, is to accelerate the development of vocational transformation maps along with Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).
As we raise the retirement age progressively, I believe we need to make an adjustment to the age from which CPF contribution rates change. The core principle of the CPF contribution rate remains sound and that lowering it at a specific age encourages our employers to continue finding hiring older workers attractive.
I am heartened that the Government had accepted the recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to start the CPF step-down rate at age 60. I would like to propose an acceleration of the implementation of these increases in CPF contribution rates in tandem with the changes in statutory retirement age.
The continuation of an employee's CPF contribution at the same rate, both from employers and themselves, even after 55 years, sends a clear signal that work should be recognised and valued for its intrinsic worth during the most productive periods of an employee. Such a shift in mindset throughout the workforce will also prove helpful as we commit to include more middle-aged workers into the bedrock of our workforce.
Cost will always be a concern for employers but the reality today with our demographics is that real value is also being created by those above 55 inside many companies. Studies have shown that what matters more in a modern economy is the productivity of teams of workers, rather than individual workers. Hence, the solution might be to employ a mixture of vigorous young workers and more experienced older workers. We need to take careful steps to bring our society in tandem with our economy and, in doing so, allow employers to reap the benefits of such investments in human capital and employees to feel valued enough to continue innovating and increasing their productivity.
For Singapore’s human capital advantage to be sustained, we need to enable our workers to always remain relevant in this fast-changing economy. For our older workers, we need to help them translate their experiences into updated contributions to their job functions and the overall economy. As ITMs are scoped based on sectors/verticals, we need to introduce more horizontals in the form of vocational transformation maps.
Taking a look at ASEAN’s built environment industry, human capacity with the skills and experience remains vital to optimise the integration of advanced digital technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), AI, robotics and cloud computing. For example, energy specialists go through upskilling courses before they could advise MNCs that are aiming for net zero emissions, or factories looking to measure their Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) leading indicators. Digital tools should not be seen as the new takeover in making our economy an efficient one, but these tools are to assist our workers who are equipped with upgraded skills to effectively harness these tools. In this way, we can empower as many senior workers as possible who have credible experience in a vocation to translate their skills and experience to new areas of applications in the digital and green economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I support raising the retirement age to give our senior workers the option of continuing to work and contribute to our ever-growing economy, given their vast and valuable experience. I hope that the Government will also consider my two suggestions: (a) to accelerate the changes of the age from which CPF contribution rates step down from 55 to 60; and (b) to accelerate the development of vocational transformation maps along with ITMs.
We have the opportunity now to reframe our workforce composition for the future and move Singapore into being a competitive and inclusive talent capital.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Today, Singapore is ranked as one of the countries with the highest life expectancy and we stay healthier for longer even as we grow older. However, like many other developed countries, our population and workforce are ageing rapidly. The Retirement and Re-employment Bill enables seniors who wish to continue working to do so, allowing them to stay active and contribute to our economy. The Bill will also enable businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers.
I am in support of this Bill. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and the re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market.
I would like to propose three key areas for improvement. Firstly, expediting the legislation of Fair Employment Practices; secondly, promoting a fundamental shift in our HR policies; and, thirdly, the community effort to redesign jobs that leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Let me touch on each of these key areas.
Firstly, we have to expedite legislating the TAFEP guidelines on Fair Treatment at the Workplace to protect and provide opportunities to our senior workers.
In the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, it states, and I quote, “Employers should not stipulate age as a requirement for employment unless there are legal or regulatory requirements which must be stated clearly. Words or phrases that suggest preference for job candidates of a particular age group should also not be used in job advertisements. Examples include “young” or “youthful work environment\".
However, a cursory check on recruitment websites shows a clear age-bias. On Jobstreet, a job posting for a Quantity Surveyor describes the job highlights as “good career advancement, young and positive work environment.” Just last week, posted on 25 October, a recruitment ad for a part-time horticulturalist states “Looking for part-timers to work in a young and fun environment”.
These are just two of many examples that can be found.
Beyond recruitment ads, we would have heard anecdotal stories of how seniors were asked pointed questions about their age at job interviews, leading to the common perception that their age hindered them from proceeding further and securing the job.
During our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), we would have come across older workers who felt that they were forced to retire as they felt their employers assessed their suitability for the job was based solely on age rather than the objective assessment of their job performances or relevant health conditions. Some also highlight that they were subjected, or they felt that they had unfair re-employment contracts as they were offered re-employment with the same job scope while receiving a lower remuneration or benefits package.
Hence, to meet the intent of the extension of the re-employment and retirement age, this amendment must be accompanied by legislation to ensure fair treatment for our senior workers.
In a recent discussion about retirement and re-employment with the residents in Pasir Ris, Ms Judith highlighted the common question of whether it was a case of “have to work” or “want to work” for our seniors.
Residents Raymond Puah and Charlie Cheong shared that, in addition to protecting and providing opportunities for our senior workers through legislation, the best way to secure re-employment is to upskill and remain relevant in this job market. Mr Raymond Puah even shared that he took the opportunity cost of forgoing overtime pay to upskill and better prepare himself for retirement.
Educating employers and legislating Fair Employment Practices will provide opportunities for our seniors who have to work. However, to create a suitable environment for seniors who want to work, we must drive fundamental changes in our HR policies.
To better prepare our senior workers, employers must deliberately engage them in a structured career planning conversation well before retirement age. Job requirements must be clearly defined, along with the relevant skills required such that workers are aware of the prerequisites for future re-employment. This would allow workers to add value to the organisation even as they mature. There should not be a case where age is used to assess the workers’ suitability for any job.
Hence, it is crucial that the extension of re-employment and retirement age must be accompanied by employers spending time developing a retirement and training plan for our maturing workers. For example, given that digital competencies are enablers for re-employment, can the Ministry consider basic digital skills training as a prerequisite for our senior workers in preparation for retirement?
Another area to look into is the feasibility and adoption of flexible work arrangements that are already commonly practised around the world. Most of us start work in our 20s and, as we reach retirement age, we would have spent 40 years or more working. By then, there would be less financial pressure as our children would be independent and would likely want to spend more time outside of the work environment and enjoy a better quality of life as we head towards full retirement. Hence, it is understandable that our senior workers want to continue working but with a more flexible work arrangement more suited for their life stage. How do we encourage companies to consider flexible work arrangements, such as shorter work weeks, part-time employment or even job sharing between two or more persons?
That brings me to my third point on redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors instead of their weaknesses.
I am sure many of us have heard our seniors share their struggles to find employment opportunities outside of roles, such as cleaners, security guards and other labour-intensive roles requiring long work hours.
Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with these jobs per se. However, they can be physically demanding and require long work hours which do not play to the strengths of our senior workers. How can we come together as a community and provide jobs that leverage on the strengths of our senior workers’ knowledge, experience and wisdom instead? What have we learnt from the past 20 months where many of us have been able to work productively from anywhere and at any time? Can we look into these remote and flexible work arrangements to ensure that our senior workers have more re-employment options?
Can we employ our senior workers to conduct virtual training classes to share their intrinsic industry knowledge, or provide virtual customer service assistance, virtual consultation or even virtual career coaching?
We can even harness technology to redesign jobs for non-PME roles as well, such as helpline operators for carpark gantries, or monitoring lift performance and dispatching teams for lift maintenance, which they can easily do from the comfort and safety of their own homes.
We must redesign jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. This will provide better opportunities for re-employment and, at the same time, unlock this potential human capital to support our workforce. Failure to do so would mean that a significant portion, a third of our workforce, not being properly and purposefully allocated to add value to our economy.
For this to be successful, we must work together. Employers must be willing to spend time to restructure jobs. Mature workers must be willing to train while our unions continue to encourage and assist, and Government agencies must provide structural support for this transformation. Though there are many job redesign initiatives in various industries, such as in cleaning and retail, how do we get more companies on board? Of the half million business entities in Singapore, how many are actively looking at job redesign to hire more workers? Given that job redesign takes a lot of effort and guidance, does the Ministry have sufficient resources devoted to this end? As a community, how do we encourage and adopt the right mindset to feel responsible in creating these employment opportunities for our senior workers?
I would also like to highlight that although there are many support schemes available, it is difficult to make sense of all the information available on the MOM website. Can the Ministry consider making it more user-friendly by streamlining the available information to assist the companies?
I have spelt out ways to create an age-friendly labour market. Arguably, this takes considerable commitment of time and resources which many of our SMEs can ill afford. This means that SMEs may simply not have sufficient bandwidth to understand the full range of fair employment practices, nor the time and experience to implement career planning and redesign programmes. Given that SMEs account for an estimated two-thirds of all employment, we need to make the education process easier for our SMEs.
Can the Ministry consider requiring all HR practitioners of organisations having more than one employee to attend a course on understanding fair employment practices before they are allowed to recruit employees and designate at least one employee of the organisation as a fair employment practices champion, similar to what we have for safety at the workplace? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This amendment Bill will enable senior citizens who wish to continue working to do so. In view of Singapore's ageing population, the amendments will also enable businesses to benefit from such highly-experienced workers.
However, in order to achieve the Bill's objectives, the raising of the retirement and re-employment age must be complemented with anti-age discrimination laws, such as those provided by the TAFEP Guidelines, so that we can protect our senior workers.
We should also change mindset and HR policies, such as having in place flexible work arrangements or career planning, for re-employment.
We should also strive to redesign jobs that can harness the strengths of our seniors so that we can provide more opportunities for senior workers.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments enable seniors who wish to continue working to do so. Given our ageing population, it also enables businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce and, eventually, eliminate the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market. We must expedite the necessary legislation to protect our senior workers and implement fundamental changes in our HR policies. We have to look into redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Together, we must look at this challenge holistically and realise that we all have a part to play in this solution. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, with longer lifespans, our employment model has to change to enable our seniors to continue working if they wish to do so. Older workers have a wealth of experience which they can tap upon to continue contributing to our economy, as well as wisdom and insight, to share with younger cohorts in the workforce.
Therefore, I support the proposal to increase the retirement age and re-employment age gradually, from 62 to 63 years and from 67 to 68 years respectively from next July, to eventually reach 65 and 70 years by 2030. This will give employers time to make the necessary adjustments and preparations.
At this stage in our seniors' lives, depending on individual health conditions and personal preferences, it is very likely that most will have some changes to the scope of their work. Re-employment negotiations provide the opportunity for employers and employees to work out new arrangements, including options, such as flexible and part-time work.
However, for some senior workers who need the incomes, they may not have much room in re-employment negotiations. Older workers with lower education levels are particularly vulnerable to poorer workplace treatment. The fear of losing jobs keep some in unfair arrangements or toxic work environments. Some of these problems may be localised within departments; other issues may be prevalent or systemic within an organisation or a sector. On the other hand, due to such difficult conditions, there are workers who resign before reaching their retirement age or forgoing re-employment offers. We need to find ways to protect and help them.
Some examples of problematic work conditions include additional duties not within job scopes, volume of work which is difficult to complete during work hours, not providing appropriate or functioning equipment, and refusal to compensate for additional time and expenses incurred in the course of work. Workers may hesitate to seek help from the human resource department or MOM for fear of losing their jobs.
I think it is very important for senior workers, especially those who are in lower-paying jobs, to be informed of their rights and to be educated on how to assert their right to fair treatment at work. Even more importantly, they need to be assured of support from the Ministry and have confidence in the enforcement of workplace protection legislation.
By right, the individual HR departments should handle complaints and feedback, but they may be perceived to be pro-management.
I would thus like to suggest that the Ministry consider making it mandatory for companies to hold regular town hall meetings with employees to share feedback and report on follow-up measures. They must have clear protocols in place to allow whistle-blowers to complain safely and provide multiple avenues for feedback.
Next, I would like to comment on an amendment in the CPF (Amendment) Bill to simplify the process of distributing unnominated monies. I welcome more expedient payouts from the Public Trustee to a beneficiary representative. It may go some way to help dispel a persistent myth that unnominated monies are taken by the Government. This issue had been addressed more than once in this House and it was made clear repeatedly that CPF Board and the Public Trustee's Office (PTO) will attempt to locate and contact the next-of-kin so that they can claim the monies. Furthermore, there is no deadline for them to lay their claims. CPF should review its strategy to reach out to the public to address this misunderstanding.
Last, I have a concern regarding the amendment to treat top-ups to members' Retirement Accounts or Special Accounts as non-refundable gifts. Presently, the monies will be returned to the givers when the recipients die and, in certain circumstances, refunds to the givers are allowed. There are some merits to the current arrangement. For example, top-ups to parents' accounts from children may not be equal and the children who contribute may have some assurance that, in the event of their parents' death, their unused top-ups would be returned to them.
This will change with the amendment. Not all children are keen to have their top-ups shared among the beneficiaries of their parents' estate. Some children may be deterred from topping up their parents' accounts and the impact may be felt more among elderly women who have less CPF savings in the first place and tend to outlive their husbands. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior workers who need the incomes do not have much leverage during re-employment negotiations. Older workers with lower-education levels may be more likely to encounter poorer workplace treatment. As they are afraid of losing their jobs, some employees endure unfair arrangements or poor working conditions. On the other hand, some senior workers are unwilling to continue accepting such difficult conditions and choose to resign before reaching the retirement age or forgo re-employment opportunities. We need to find ways to protect and assist them.
Presently, CPF top-ups, upon the death of the recipients or, in certain circumstances, can be returned to the givers. The arrangement has its merits. For example, top-ups to parents’ accounts from children may not be equal. With the amendment, future top-ups will not be refundable. Not all people are willing to let their top-ups become part of their parents' estate to be shared among all beneficiaries. I worry that with this amendment, there will be fewer people who are willing to top up their parents' CPF accounts, and elderly women will be more affected. Most of them have less savings and longer lifespans.
(In English): With this, I support both Bills.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the CPF (Amendment) Bill.
Projected inflation in a post-COVID-19 world has caused much anxiety. Many people are getting increasingly worried that they will not have enough savings to support retirement.
We can take heart that our CPF is an acclaimed retirement income system that is a constant work-in-progress. The Government is always reviewing and refining it to ensure it stays relevant with the times. The latest Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index report graded our CPF system as being on par with countries like Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The grading meant that it has a sound structure with many good features but some areas for improvement. I believe our Government is always working towards closing the gaps.
I would like to seek some clarifications, Mr Speaker.
First, I note that there are plans to allow the Public Trustee to disburse un-nominated CPF monies to a beneficiary representative on a member’s death. The beneficiary representative would then distribute the monies to the beneficiaries. This would apply if the total amount of the member’s CPF monies does not exceed the specified limit. Does this policy serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees? This would be welcomed as I have residents who are still waiting for years to resolve the distribution of CPF monies. Can the Ministry also clarify how this process will be simplified and sped up? Who is eligible to be a beneficiary representative and what is the specified limit?
With that, I understand that there is still some amount of hesitancy towards nominating beneficiaries. The topic of death remains a heavy one to broach and some CPF members tend to take it for granted that there will always be a seamless transfer of CPF monies to their families. I would take this opportunity to remind all that life is unpredictable. We all know that. Arranging how our assets will be distributed would bring great peace of mind. I also urge the Government to remind members in simple terms, if possible, and make it easier for them to nominate their beneficiaries.
Next, can the Government clarify the amendment to abolish refunds of Retirement Sum top-ups to the giver in any event? As far as I am aware, refunds were never supposed to be given for accepted top-ups under the Retirement Sum Topping-Up scheme. And this is especially so because members who make CPF top-ups get personal income tax relief based on their contributions. This policy is clearly stated on the CPF website. So, can the Ministry clarify what were some circumstances under which refunds were approved, if any?
Third, I note with interest that the amendments also seek to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the Act by providing for certain matters to be prescribed by subsidiary legislation, or to be determined by the Board or the Minister, instead of being stated in the Act. May I clarify if this is being introduced with the various appeals for greater flexibility of CPF usage in mind?
Fourth, how long would it normally take for the CPF monies to be returned to the beneficiary when the CPF member has passed away? I think many members have raised this. I note that the payment of interest would cease upon notification of a member’s demise in respect of the amount outstanding to the credit of the member that has not been transferred to the general monies of the CPF. If it takes a significant length of time, like a year or so, that is quite a significant amount of interest that is lost. So, how can transfer be expedited with minimal loss of interest?
Mr Speaker, fifth, when shares or classes of shares in any approved corporation are purchased with money withdrawn from the Ordinary Account, the designated shares will vest in the Board when the Board is notified that the shareholder is deceased. So, who makes the decision if there are rights issues, or opts to sell the shares because of mandatory purchase by a majority owner?
Mr Speaker, Sir, most Singaporeans agree that CPF savings are essential. They also appreciate that it is a safe and effective way to grow one’s retirement savings. I was a member of the CPF Advisory Panel from 2014 to 2016 and one of the recommendations was that every CPF member should be encouraged to have his or her own CPF LIFE plan with incentives to top-up the CPF Accounts for families with lower balances. This is especially important for housewives who are relying on their husband's CPF LIFE payouts, as women tend to outlive their husbands. The Panel had proposed then that members be allowed to transfer their CPF savings above what they require for Basic Retirement Sum to their spouses' Special or Retirement Accounts. In this way, each spouse would benefit from the extra interest for lower CPF balances and have their own lifelong income from CPF LIFE.
So, I am glad to see that amidst the uncertainties of the pandemic, there was a 40% increase in the number of members who made voluntary top-ups of their own or for their loved ones’ CPF savings. This is a testament to the trust that Singaporeans have in the CPF system.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have residents who hesitate to top up their CPF because they are afraid if they need the money, they will not be able to get it out. These tend to be the people who have lower incomes, who would benefit most from the additional top-ups. The difficulty to tap on large sums of CPF savings in times of need, such as a major illness, remains a significant pain point. I hope the Government will take this into consideration and introduce greater flexibility into the system.
Circling back to our performance on the Mercer Global Performance Index, our weakest link is the sustainability of the system, which was given a rating of 59.9 out of 100. What are the Government’s plans, moving forth, to improve in this area? Besides CPF, are we looking at other options, like tax-approved group corporate retirement plans? Are there plans to increase the CPF withdrawal age? The Netherlands, which is among the top ranking on the index, is raising its pensions withdrawal age from 65 to 67 years old in 2024.
Naturally, any change to the withdrawal age should be done with great deliberation, without discounting the concerns of those who worry that they will not be able to leverage their CPF savings in times of crisis. Perhaps, improving flexibility of withdrawals in tandem would help to alleviate such concerns.
Minister Tan See Leng, in his opening speech, had highlighted that amendments to the CPF Act aims to allow more flexibility and to simplify the CPF processes. I am supportive of the move to keep it simple and focused on the retirement objectives. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, with your leave, I will address Members' queries on the disbursement of un-nominated CPF monies and leave my colleague Minister Tan See Leng to deal with everything else.
Sir, I thank Members for their comments and suggestions. I believe the broad thrust of the speeches made by Members has been supportive of a more expedited process to disburse un-nominated CPF funds but some questions have arisen as to the process and how we safeguard the integrity of the disbursements, which I understand. And I will deal with the questions raised by Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira on this point.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and some Members have raised concerns that there could be a lack of recourse in cases where the beneficiary representative, whom I shall call \"BR\", does not exercise fairness in distributing the deceased’s un-nominated funds or unreasonably withhold the funds from beneficiaries. Ms Ng Ling Ling has raised some questions concerning the application process: how to identify the BR; how the Public Trustee intends to ensure the welfare of the remaining beneficiaries.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat sought clarifications on whether the policy will serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees. He also asked who is eligible to be a BR and what is the specified limit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the BR process: whether it could simplify and speed up the distribution of un-nominated CPF funds.
Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the recourse that next-of-kin may have in the BR approach. Ms He Ting Ru sought clarifications on the specified limit and how it will be determined; and whether it may be changed over time.
Sir, let me first broadly outline the purpose of introducing the BR approach in this case. It is, as I have mentioned earlier, to simplify and make easier to facilitate the beneficiaries’ claim through the distribution of un-nominated CPF monies via the BR; and also to facilitate the beneficiaries, the speed at which it can be done, while at the same time managing and mitigating the risk of disagreement or conflict which might arise between the beneficiaries.
And to be clear, by beneficiaries, I refer here to those who are eligible for and entitled to the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated monies under the Intestate Succession Act for non-Muslims and the Administration of the Muslim Law Act for Muslims. The BR approach will, therefore, benefit these eligible beneficiaries of the deceased CPF member.
As a comparator, the BR approach, in this case, that we have introduced is not an entirely new concept.
Members might recall the “proper claimant” approach adopted by CPF Board which applies to cases where the nominee passes away after the deceased member has passed away and before the CPF funds could be distributed to the nominee.
CPF Board pays out the CPF monies due to the nominee to a “proper claimant” who is a party that claims to be entitled to the monies or assets. So, the concept and process are similar and, in some ways, modelled on the \"proper claimant\" approach.
We have considered the operation of that scheme and also thought about the issues of potential abuse that could be mitigated and addressed in this current BR scheme. So, we have introduced various safeguards to ensure that the beneficiaries’ rights and interests remain protected.
Let me now address them in the context of Members' questions.
To answer Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how a BR is identified and also Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question on who is eligible to be a BR, let me first explain that a BR is not “pre-identified” by the Public Trustee's Office (PTO). It is not pre-identified from the list of eligible beneficiaries.
Rather, letters are sent out to the deceased CPF member’s next-of-kin and the individuals who reported the death, to invite them to submit a claim.
Upon receipt of the letter, the eligible beneficiaries of the deceased can come together. They can then, amongst themselves, identify and choose a representative. If they can all agree on that, that is the one representative that will come forward, on behalf of this pool, to make the claim and receive the payment from PTO.
If the eligible beneficiaries, however, cannot agree on a BR, or do not wish to appoint one, or is unable to come to an agreement as to how to distribute the un-nominated CPF funds amongst the eligible beneficiaries, then the current claim process will apply. So, we will default back to the current position. It will be a little bit more complicated, more forms need to be filled up, more information is to be provided to PTO but it will safeguard the process where there might be some disagreement between the beneficiaries.
The PTO will also carry out the following steps to safeguard the rights and interests of the eligible beneficiaries. This addresses Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how the Public Trustee intends to ensure that the welfare of eligible beneficiaries will be taken care of.
It will be a requirement of the application process for the BR that the eligible beneficiary applying to be the BR must declare that he or she is either the sole beneficiary, or that he or she has obtained the consent of all the other eligible beneficiaries which the BR is seeking to represent in making the claim.
The PTO will then confirm with the other eligible beneficiaries directly that they have given their consent, before the PTO pays out any un-nominated funds, CPF monies, to the BR for the BR’s onward distribution to the other beneficiaries.
Additionally, upon receiving the information, PTO will also undertake independent checks to verify the eligible beneficiaries’ details provided by the BR against available existing records. So, do a bit of due diligence to cross-check the information, to cross-verify the information provided by the BR. If there are discrepancies, the PTO might require further clarifications or further information before disbursing the funds.
To Ms Mariam Jaafar’s question, in cases of dispute over the nomination of the BR, the eligible beneficiaries may seek recourse by informing the PTO of the dispute. If that happens, the PTO will not proceed with the application for the BR to distribute the un-nominated sums. It will instead discuss with the eligible beneficiaries and see whether some consensus or an agreement can be reached. Failing which, again, we default back to the current standard process, as I mentioned earlier.
If despite these steps taken by the PTO to weed out these cases, there might be situations where the BR receives the un-nominated CPF funds before the disputes are surfaced and, subsequently, there are disputes over how it is disbursed or the manner in which it is done, the eligible beneficiaries can seek recourse against the BR directly under the law.
So, the new proposed section 25A(7) of the Bill makes it clear that any recourse that any person might have against the BR for any amounts paid out by the PTO to the BR are not affected even after payment of the un-nominated sums by the PTO to the BR.
On Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms He Ting Ru’s questions on the specified limit, I think Minister Tan See Leng earlier mentioned that the specified limit will be set at $10,000. Besides the PTO’s actions taken to safeguard the rights and interests of the beneficiaries, the framework is in-built with a safeguard to only apply to cases where the deceased member’s un-nominated sums do not exceed this sum. This specified limit, in our view, strikes a balance between expediency in the disbursement of the funds and safeguarding of the beneficiaries’ rights and interests, particularly in the context of larger estates. A specified limit of $10,000 would allow around half of the current number of cases coming forward to make a claim for un-nominated sums and we believe that, of this half, a substantial number will be uncontentious and will benefit from an expedited scheme like this.
To Ms He Ting Ru's question, the specified limit can be reviewed and adjusted in the future, if necessary, to allow more people to benefit from the BR approach. But we suggest we let this run for some time and iron out any rough spots before we look at adjustments subsequently.
With the various safeguards put in place for this new BR approach, eligible beneficiaries, in appropriate cases, who have consented to the BR receiving and distributing un-nominated sums, can benefit from this simplified and expedient new process.
Both Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how the BR approach will assist in simplifying and speeding up the process. Apart from what I have mentioned earlier, let me highlight that the BR approach only requires the BR to provide proof that he or she is the eligible beneficiary with all the beneficiaries’ details, including his or her own. The BR need not submit proof of eligibility of all the other eligible beneficiaries, so this cuts down part of the administrative time and effort. The BR approach relieves the other beneficiaries from administrative inconvenience. By and large, in the majority of these cases, there is no disagreement, as I have mentioned, and, in such a situation, particularly amongst family members, the facilitation of the disbursements can be much faster.
Once the PTO receives confirmations, as I have outlined earlier, from all the eligible beneficiaries and the verifications are done, the application can be approved. In our estimation, the un-nominated CPF monies under this scheme could be disbursed to the BR within about two weeks from the approval of the application, as compared to a much longer period of time under the current standard claim process.
Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the efforts made to contact and facilitate the disbursements of CPF monies of a deceased member to Singaporean family members who might be overseas, especially in light of the current continued travel restrictions in the ongoing pandemic.
As the PTO oversees the distribution of un-nominated CPF sums, I will address this point only on un-nominated sums, as far as the PTO is concerned, where the member did not make a nomination.
In such cases, the PTO will take steps to reach out to the deceased member’s next-of-kin, regardless of whether they are residing in Singapore or overseas. Using the next-of-kin’s last available address registered with the National Registration Office, the PTO will write to the next-of-kin using that address. Obviously, efficiency is subject to whether the address is accurate, whether it has been updated. If the overseas address is not registered, then PTO will rely on the member's next-of-kin to provide the office with any available alternative information.
Deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can also choose to contact PTO to enquire about the deceased CPF member’s un-nominated CPF monies. The process is entirely digital, the deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can submit their application to the PTO via the PTO’s online application form, together with any necessary supporting documents to evince or substantiate their position, including and proving their familial relationship.
Payments will also be disbursed electronically via telegraphic transfers or demand drafts if they prefer, or whichever other method, to their overseas account. So, generally, the answer to Ms Jaafar's question is that we will take proactive steps within reasonable information to identify these beneficiaries overseas and we will also try and facilitate in as easy as possible the distribution and disbursement of sums to them.
Mr Louis Ng suggested publishing guidelines or frameworks to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses the Public Trustee typically agrees to defray. To Mr Louis Ng's question, relevant information on PTO’s reimbursement of funeral expenses is already currently available on PTO’s website. The reimbursement of funeral expenses out of a deceased member’s un-nominated CPF monies is capped at $6,000.
Eligible beneficiaries who intend to claim for the reimbursement of funeral expenses from the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated CPF monies may do so by submitting the relevant Funeral Reimbursement Form, with the appropriate supporting receipts and so on, after obtaining consent from the rest of the beneficiaries.
Mr Louis Ng also suggested allowing the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who might have incurred these expenses in good faith.
Under the CPF Act, the Public Trustee has the duty to distribute un-nominated CPF monies only to eligible beneficiaries. By extension, reimbursements for funeral expenses can only, therefore, be made to eligible beneficiaries and not to a wider pool, beyond what the statute provides. Such a requirement serves to protect the interests of the deceased CPF member’s eligible beneficiaries when the cost of the funeral expenses is being claimed. This also alleviates the risk of the PTO making payment to a claimant whom the eligible beneficiaries might well dispute the entitlement of the payment to.
Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed the questions raised in relation to the BR scheme and the un-nominated CPF funds. May I seek Members' clarifications on this point, if any, before Minister Tan See Leng proceeds to address the other issues raised by Members on the two Bills?
Mr Speaker: Clarifications, please? Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I have two questions. Firstly, the Minister shared that upon receipt of letter, the parties will identify and choose a representative. If they are unable to reach agreement, then the current standard claims process will apply. In this regard, I wish to check whether the PTO can consider offering an alternate dispute resolution process, for example, through a mediation, when parties are unable to identify and agree on a representative so that the matter can still be processed expeditiously. That is the first question.
The second one is locating the beneficiaries, whether the PTO would consider perhaps, to find out whether the beneficiaries have any PayNow accounts and actually explore for the funds to be transferred through that manner.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Ms Hany Soh. On her first point, to the extent possible, PTO will obviously try to facilitate. I think it is in everyone's interest, including PTO, to try and find a solution and find consensus on a BR, so that the process can be simplified and expeditious. Failing that, the Member knows that there are a number of options for mediation for the parties to come to a consensus. It is not always standard and not always easy for every such situation because the reasons for the conflict may differ from case to case. But to the extent possible, PTO will try to facilitate.
On the Member's suggestion on PayNow, obviously, given the range of different electronic options I have outlined earlier, we will certainly consider PayNow or any other electronic payment platform options as viable alternatives.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"BP","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech.\" – [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":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by thanking Members for their suggestions and support for the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill and the CPF (Amendment) Bill.
There were many points raised, reflecting the wide spectrum of views and the common interest we share in supporting our senior workers and fellow Singaporeans. Allow me to make a few general points before I address specific comments from Members on the Bills.
I thank Members for their various suggestions on CPF, as well as our retirement and re-employment policies. We constantly and continually review our policies and we will take Members’ suggestions into consideration.
Members recognise that legislation is not everything. The speeches have touched on the need to adjust our culture and our mindsets, both as a society and as businesses. Members also touched on important questions, which the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers had deliberated on extensively. In doing so, they considered the many perspectives which emerged from their public engagements, before arriving at their very balanced recommendations.
On the issue of whether a statutory retirement age is still needed, as highlighted by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Workgroup had considered this very carefully.
It looked at the experiences of other countries and found that countries without the equivalent of a statutory retirement age do not necessarily have better employment rates for senior workers, despite some of them having anti-discrimination legislation already in place. Some progressive employers may take the initiative to abolish their internal retirement age and allow workers to work for as long as they wish, and we wholeheartedly applaud them.
But as Mr Heng Chee How emphasised, the statutory retirement and re-employment age is still important as a floor and safeguard against employers who might not be as progressive. The continued relevance of this approach is borne out by facts. Singapore’s average effective retirement age has risen faster than the OECD average. These considerations, and the data that support them, are captured in the Workgroup’s comprehensive report. I encourage all Members to study the report.
On pace of implementation, the tripartite partners negotiated this very carefully before arriving at a consensus. The plan to raise the retirement age and re-employment age to 65 and 70 respectively by the end of this decade is ambitious, but it is achievable.
The first increase will take place on 1 July 2022 and it is on schedule. The timing of future adjustments will depend on prevailing economic conditions, but the resolve to stay the course is clear.
Mr Louis Ng asked why the range of retirement age that the Manpower Minister can prescribe in the law is being reduced from 62 to 67 years to 62 to 65 years.
Members of the House, before 2012, the concept of re-employment had not been introduced yet, so the only lever we had was the retirement age. But since then, we have seen how the concept of retirement age and re-employment age works well in combination. After consultation with stakeholders, the tripartite partners have agreed to continue with this strategy and, beyond raising the retirement age to 65 by 2030, they have also agreed to raise the re-employment age to 70.
The proposed legislative amendments thus fully reflect the tripartite consensus on this roadmap. This is our model: tripartite consultation with stakeholders, tripartite consensus and then tripartite implementation, with legal changes to reflect the plan.
We do not rule out future changes to our approach. This model of constructive tripartism will ensure that we are able to adapt and respond to such needs in the decades to come.
Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have spoken on the need to ensure that employers fulfil their re-employment obligations and that re-employment offers are fair. I agree. The system has worked well thus far. Tripartite partners have agreed upon a reasonable set of guidelines, laying out employers’ and employees’ responsibilities.
I will just highlight a few guidelines that are more relevant to the situations that Members have raised.
First, early communication and discussion are critical to ensure that re-employment offers are reasonable to both parties. The Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees make clear that employers should engage employees at least six months before they reach retirement age.
Second, on the issue of medical fitness, they should offer re-employment to eligible workers who are medically fit to perform any job within the company, not just the existing job role. Employers are also advised to presume that their senior employees are medically fit, unless there are clear reasons to believe otherwise. To Ms Ng Ling Ling’s concern, having chronic conditions alone cannot be used to justify denial of re-employment, if it does not affect their ability to perform the job.
The re-employment framework is designed to balance the need to enable senior workers to continue working, while giving employers sufficient flexibility so that businesses can remain nimble and sustainable. Different businesses may also face different challenges. So, we must strike a very careful balance.
I thank Ms Janet Ang for sharing her journey and her views towards retirement as a senior executive. Indeed, different individuals have different needs and expectations as they approach retirement. While some may want to stay on in their current roles, others may desire a job role with reduced work intensity or see themselves trying out new roles. This is why the tripartite partners have agreed that employers and employees should be given the flexibility to negotiate adjustments to the job roles, wages and benefits, as long as they are reasonable and based on factors like productivity, responsibilities, skills and the employer’s wage system.
Notwithstanding this, the vast majority of re-employed workers continue on their existing contract or a new contract in the same job. More than 95% of workers re-employed in the same job did not experience any cuts to their wages and benefits.
If an employer has considered all available re-employment options within the organisation and is unable to identify a suitable job for the senior worker, the firm may offer him or her an Employment Assistance Payment, or EAP, as a last resort. Let me reiterate – this is as a last resort, to help the worker tide over while he or she seeks alternative employment.
To Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Patrick Tay’s queries about the sufficiency of the EAP amount, a fine balance was struck by the Tripartite Workgroup. If the EAP is too high, it may deter employers from hiring jobseekers who are approaching retirement age. If the EAP is too low, employers may too readily offer to pay the EAP. Nevertheless, the tripartite partners agreed to increase the minimum and maximum EAP amounts from 1 July 2022 onwards. This is in tandem with the growth in general wage levels.
Ms Ng Ling Ling also asked about the success rate for conciliation of re-employment disputes. After more than 10 years of implementation, we find that the majority of cases are often resolved expeditiously at mediation. This leaves a few cases that need to be surfaced to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) for adjudication.
Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Janet Ang, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Nadia Samdin also highlighted ageism and discriminatory employment practices as a concern. We agree that ageism and workplace discrimination of any form have no place in Singapore. As Members have noted in their speeches, the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, which I co-chair, is deliberating on the scope of legislation to address workplace discrimination. We are making progress in the discussions and we hope to finalise our recommendations by the first half of 2022.
I am glad that Members’ speeches in this House over the past two days also recognise that legislation is not a silver bullet nor a panacea. In this regard, I agree with Mr Heng Chee How, who has very wisely pointed out that strengthening the employability of our senior workers cannot start only when they are near retirement age. There is a need to invest in retraining and employment facilitation not only for our senior workers, but also for the future cohorts of senior workers. As Mr Patrick Tay has highlighted, employers play an instrumental role in this. And we are committed to providing the necessary assistance, including funding support. To Ms Nadia Samdin’s query on the extension of the Senior Employment Credit beyond 2022, we will also study it and update in due course.
Members of the House, I have already spoken extensively on the various ways that the Government is supporting upskilling and employment opportunities for senior workers in my response to several Parliamentary Questions last month. So, today, I will just highlight the critical roles that our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF play in this endeavour. The Company Training Committees, or CTCs, established by NTUC early this year, are making their impact felt. The CTCs bring together the employers, HR and employee representatives to identify gaps and opportunities and develop the necessary training plans to align a company’s workforce to its business transformation roadmap. This ensures that our senior workers’ training needs are correctly identified, to enable them to contribute productively for many more years to come.
As highlighted by Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Abdul Samad and Ms Janet Ang, it is also important for companies to have structured career planning conversations with their employees, especially for those in their 40s or 50s. This allows training needs and suitable job roles to be identified early. Employees will also be more motivated to pick up new skills if they have a clearer picture of how they fit into their companies’ future plans. We are working with both SNEF and NTUC to encourage more employers to do so.
There are many other areas where the tripartite partners have been working closely on, including encouraging job redesign and flexible working arrangements, which Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Nadia Samdin have raised. We encourage the tripartite partners to do more and we will continue to give our fullest support.
Even as we make these legislative changes today, we will also continue to work with the tripartite partners to study best practices and review our framework where necessary to ensure its continued relevance. As mentioned by Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, it is also important for our workers to adopt a lifelong learning mindset. Continuing Education and Training, or CET, is just as important as pre-employment training (PET), as a means for our workers to upgrade their skills, remain relevant and keep pace with global trends and developments.
Let me now address Members’ points on the CPF (Amendment) Bill.
First, in response to points made by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh, let me reiterate that the proposed amendments to the CPF Act will not change the rules for CPF lump sum withdrawals or other social support schemes like Silver Support.
On CPF withdrawals, Mr Abdul Samad and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested to allow members to start their CPF monthly payouts earlier, while on the other hand, Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested to start later.
First, let me reassure everyone that the Government has not suggested changing the Payout Eligibility Age. The Payout Eligibility Age, or PEA, is not linked to the retirement or re-employment age. The current PEA of 65 strikes a balance between timely access to retirement income and providing a sufficient runway for members to build up savings for retirement, especially as Singaporeans are expected to live longer. Members continue to have the option to defer the payouts for higher monthly payouts. In fact, yesterday, I shared that for every year that they defer after 65, the increase could be up to 7% more per annum.
Members will also continue to have the flexibility to make lump sum withdrawals from age 55, years before they start their monthly CPF payouts. The banker friend that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has, and I believe is likely to be as successful as Assoc Prof Lim himself, will be able to withdraw amounts well above the retirement sum at 55. This includes the $5,000 that he can withdraw unconditionally and the amounts in excess of his Basic Retirement Sum, given that he will likely own a property.
Similarly, the amendments to section 15 of the CPF Act are only intended to simplify it, and not alter the underlying policies and operational flexibilities.
Mr Louis Ng, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked what constitutes a “significant condition” in the Bill. Today, Members with conditions of any kind, including auto-immune or neurological diseases, can qualify for early withdrawal of CPF savings if they are certified by a doctor as having a reduced life expectancy or being permanently unfit to work, or lacking mental capacity. These are now collectively referred to as “significant conditions”. The Bill provides for these same grounds to be prescribed in the Regulations. Therefore, there are no changes to the qualifying rules for early CPF withdrawal.
I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for her observations on how decisions could be communicated to CPF members and would like to assure that CPF Board will certainly be mindful of her concerns. To Ms He Ting Ru's point, I would like to clarify that members with reduced life expectancy will, indeed, be able to benefit from the automatic disbursement of Ordinary and Special Account monies that I mentioned in my speech yesterday.
On Ms Ng Ling Ling’s suggestion to allow waiver of loan repayments under the CPF Education Loan Scheme for such members, I am happy to confirm that CPF Board already does so today on a case-by-case basis.
In simplifying the CPF system, CPF Board will also ensure that implementation is smooth for its members. On the top-up rules and the position of givers, CPF Board will take into account Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestions. I do believe that Singaporeans top up their loved ones’ CPF accounts out of the generosity of their hearts and to help boost their loved ones' retirement adequacy. This simplification should, therefore, not discourage top-ups. The objective is to simplify things for members, in response to feedback that the existing rules can be confusing.
Some top-ups are refunded to givers when their recipients exit the CPF system, while, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat observed, other top-ups are treated as gifts to recipients and not refunded, including cash top-ups made after 2008.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh spoke about facilitating the disbursement of nominated monies. CPF Board already reaches out to nominees, including those overseas, once it is notified of a member's death and it disburses the monies within a month, having allowed time for medical institutions to deduct any medical bills from the deceased member's MediSave Account.
Nonetheless, CPF Board has plans to continuously streamline the disbursement process for nominated CPF monies and I thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestion on this.
Beyond simplifying policies and streamlining processes, CPF Board will also continue to strengthen its public education and outreach efforts, as Mr Melvin Yong and Miss Cheryl Chan highlighted.
This will include educating members on the benefits of CPF top-ups to self and loved ones; nudging members to make nominations; making clear that nominations, like wills, are, indeed, revoked upon marriage; and clarifying the treatment of CPF monies upon members' passing, as alluded to by Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh and Ms He Ting Ru, as well as Ms Joan Pereira respectively.
We will also explore Ms Hany Soh's suggestion to send notifications to divorcees to prompt them to review their nominations.
Several Members of the House have provided feedback on policies which are not quite within the scope of today's Bill.
For example, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Miss Cheryl Chan on the allocation of monies across CPF accounts, Mr Yip Hon Weng on the Basic Retirement Sum, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh on housing issues, Mr Patrick Tay and Miss Cheryl Chan on self-employed persons, as well as Mr Saktiandi Supaat on tax-approved group corporate retirement plans.
The Government will take all these into consideration as we review our policies from time to time.
Finally, on the raising of CPF contribution rates for senior workers, I thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Edward Chia for their support for our longer-term plans, including the eventual full contribution rates for workers aged between 55 and 60.
The Government will support employers through the CPF Transition Offset, which Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have all touched on. This will be implemented on 1 January 2022 as part of the Senior Worker Support Package. This is in tandem with the first increase in CPF contribution rates for senior workers.
In closing, I would like to thank Members of the House for their support of the Bills.
The two Bills will help our members in three main ways: first, by providing members the flexibility to work longer if they wish to; second, by making it easier for members to build up their retirement nest egg; and third, just as important, by making it easier for members to receive their retirement payouts.
Together, the Bills will help our members better prepare for and enjoy their retirement. But the work does not stop here. We are confident that further progress on senior worker employment will be made. We will continue to simplify rules; we will continue to improve communications to our CPF members.
With the support of Members of the House, businesses, unions and, most importantly, fellow Singaporeans, we will be a more inclusive economy and society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister regarding the statutory retirement age.
Earlier, he mentioned that the consensus among the tripartite partners was that this was still necessary on the statute books as it serves as a floor to protect workers. My question is that most, if not all, employment contracts, as I have mentioned in my speech, do have a termination clause where either the employer or the employee can give notice of a short period, one to two months, to stop the employment relationship and no reasons need to be given. And if notice is not sufficient, payment in lieu can be made in accordance with that clause.
So, would we not agree that, actually, that clause can be exercised at any age of the employee? To that extent, my question is how far does having a statutory retirement age in that sense undermine the operation of that clause which is in the contract?
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. Indeed, I am aware of the fact that many companies, especially those hiring, those with senior management employees, for instance, have this clause which puts many, many workers on fixed employment contract terms.
We should look at it from different angles. At the point of the recruitment, particularly when his tenure, based on the fixed contract, has expired and if he is looking for a job, and if, say, it is within three to five years of the statutory retirement age, no company should deprive him of the opportunity of being employed because of the fact that he is near the statutory retirement age. That is the first point.
On top of that, if an employee has been dismissed on grounds of age, and if they believe so, this retirement age allows the employee to appeal to MOM to look into it and to investigate whether there were grounds.
To Ms Sylvia Lim's point about many of these contracts being fixed-term contracts, the tripartite committee on workplace fairness will also look into the legislation covering age discrimination in the workplace.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification.
I have a clarification with regard to the eligibility payout at 65. Firstly, as I have said in my speech, I am not here to encourage people to work to their last breath. Has MOM done a study on how many of those actually choose to retire early, maybe because of age or they just want to retire early? Hence, can they actually ask for their CPF payouts to be at an earlier age compared to 65? That was the main gist of me requesting for the Ministry to explore the possibility if someone decides to retire before the legislative age because they want to do something personal. To them, it is their money and they are also requesting whether they can get part of the share.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member, Mr Abdul Samad, for his question.
If I can use an illustration. At 55, the member can withdraw a guaranteed sum of $ 5,000, provided he has the money in his CPF account. In the Retirement Account, he is expected to have the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS), which I believe is pegged at $93,000 today. If his property is pledged – and I believe the majority of Singaporeans today would have a property and it is pledged to the CPF – he can withdraw not just the $5,000 at the age of 55, he can also withdraw a sum higher than the $5,000 from his Special Account and his Ordinary Account. That is what is current today.
If he has the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) set aside, which is double that of the BRS – I think it is now $186,000; because it is $93,000 multiplied by two – if he does not have his property pledged to CPF, he can withdraw, again the minimum $5,000, and amounts in his Special Account and also the Ordinary Account.
So, the Payout Eligibility Age (PEA) set at 65 is really reserved for the amount, the BRS or the FRS, in his Retirement Account to stream out the monthly payout starting from 65. For those who were born on or after 1958, this will go into CPF LIFE and it will be streamed out as an insurance annuity that will be paid out for life every month.
I hope that explains the stance. Nowhere in any of the changes that we are proposing today, which I hope that Members will support, would change any of the dynamics whatsoever. The members can still withdraw their money from age 55 onwards, but subject to those conditions that are already in existence today.
Mr Speaker: Any other 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. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (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":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The CPF (Amendment) Bill 2021 is linked to the previous Bill in our Order Paper – Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill 2021. In the debate we have just had on that Bill, I have explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate although they are still welcome to do so now, if there are any additional questions or views. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (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":"Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Energy Market Authority of Singapore (EMA) Act, Electricity Act and Gas Act underpin the energy market structure and regulatory framework we have today. The EMA Act charges EMA with the duty to create a market framework for electricity and gas, promote fair and efficient market conduct, protect the interests of consumers and the public in electricity and gas supply and promote the efficient use of energy utilities. The Electricity and Gas Acts establish the regulatory regimes to ensure competitive, secure and reliable electricity and gas supply to the industry and the public.
Yesterday, I spoke about the pre-emptive measures that EMA will be taking to safeguard Singapore’s energy security in the near term to address the recent supply crunch and volatility in global energy markets. However, energy security is not just about ensuring the robustness of our current energy supply. It is also about looking into our energy future.
With the power sector accounting for about 40% of Singapore’s carbon emissions, decarbonising the power sector is a key pillar of our efforts to combat climate change. MTI and EMA have embarked on a multi-decade programme to decarbonise our power sector. We will need to make a shift on many aspects – reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, maximising solar deployment, working with our regional partners to develop renewable energy sources and developing new low-carbon alternatives.
We should not underestimate how challenging this journey will be. Some countries are experiencing an energy crunch because they have not provided sufficient safeguards and contingencies for their transition. This Bill will provide EMA with three important powers to secure our electricity supply over this transition.
We are proposing to update the relevant Acts in three key areas.
First, to empower EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate power infrastructure to safeguard our energy security and reliability.
Second, to enhance the protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure.
And third, to empower EMA to impose energy and carbon efficiency on parties licensed under the Electricity Act.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill.
Safeguarding energy security and reliability – first, I will speak on our amendments to ensure that we have a safe, secure and reliable supply of electricity which is critical to Singapore’s survival.
Today, we rely on the private sector to provide sufficient generation capacity and the critical infrastructure needed for energy security and system stability. This ensures market discipline and cost effectiveness. However, the global energy transition introduces various risks and uncertainties in energy markets. For example, it is unclear when new energy solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage may become cost-viable for large-scale deployment. It is also unclear how natural gas may feature in the future global energy mix.
These uncertainties may inhibit private investments. For example, generation companies may not be willing to invest in new generation capacity to replace older retiring generation units. They may also not be willing to invest in new technologies that incorporate cleaner fuel. Banks may be increasingly reluctant to finance generation projects which are needed but are not based on renewable energy.
To safeguard energy reliability and security during the energy transition, we must give EMA the option to step in and provide the critical infrastructure and services needed to ensure the proper functioning of the energy sector.
The first key amendment, therefore, amends section 3 of the Electricity Act and the Second Schedule of the EMA Act, to empower and enable EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. Examples of such infrastructure would be generating units, energy storage solutions and transmission infrastructure, including those that may be required for cross-border electricity trading.
This will allow EMA to provide the required critical infrastructure when there is a need to do so. One example is the Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT). OCGTs are quick response units that can be brought online quickly to augment any shortfall in generation capacity, such as when there are unplanned outages among other generation units. These quick response units are necessary for the security and reliability of our electricity system. However, there is little private sector interest to build these units as they are less competitive compared to the Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. The existing OCGTs in Singapore are more than 30 years old and they are long overdue for replacement. EMA could step in to build new OCGTs.
Where needed, EMA may directly operate the critical infrastructure or set up a subsidiary to do so. Should EMA or its subsidiary operate the critical infrastructure, operational Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs, similar to the regulatory requirements that licensees are subjected to today, will be imposed, in lieu of licensing requirements. The Bill also expands EMA’s borrowing powers in the EMA Act to allow EMA to issue bonds, in addition to borrowing through commercial or Government loans, to finance the construction of these critical infrastructure.
Mr Speaker, in moving this amendment, I am mindful that the powers to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure are broad and can affect the commercial considerations of the stakeholders in the power sector. In EMA’s industry consultations, power generation companies were concerned that the units that would be owned and operated by EMA would compete with their units in the wholesale electricity market and depress wholesale electricity prices. There were also concerns that EMA would act as both regulator and owner/operator of the generation unit. These are valid considerations. Allow me to address them.
First, this amendment is worded broadly to provide EMA with the flexibility to react to the wide range of scenarios which may undermine the security, stability and reliability of our energy sector. Our preference is for the private sector to build, own and operate the electricity infrastructure. I would like to assure this House that before exercising this power, EMA would have explored alternative solutions to provide the critical infrastructure that is needed.
Second, EMA will be putting in place safeguards to ensure that they do not compete unfairly against the private generation companies. For example, EMA may set up a separate subsidiary to own and operate a generating unit and will put in place proper procedures and governance structures to mitigate any conflict of interests.
The second key amendment updates the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to make it an offence to damage any infrastructure housing or intended to house any transmission electricity cables, gas transmission pipeline or submarine gas pipeline in the territorial waters of Singapore. This is needed to enhance protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure.
Currently, sections 80 and 85 of the Electricity Act, and sections 32, 32A and 32B of the Gas Act, only penalise offenders who damage the actual cables and pipelines. However, as the infrastructure housing these cables are an important part of the transmission network, EMA will be expanding the scope of the offences in these sections to cover such protective infrastructure as well. The offences carry the same penalties as those for damaging the actual cables and pipelines.
Moving on to the third amendment, the third key amendment empowers EMA to enhance the carbon efficiency of parties licensed under the Electricity Act. Currently, around 95% of our electricity is generated using natural gas, which is the cleanest form of fossil fuel. Even as we ramp up various sources of low carbon energy, such as solar energy and tap on regional power grids for low carbon energy, natural gas will remain an important source of energy for us over the next few decades. To reduce the carbon footprint of electricity generation, it is important that we gradually shift towards cleaner and more efficient modes of power generation.
The Bill expands EMA's regulatory functions under the Electricity Act to include implementing policies and strategies connected with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the import, export, generation, transmission or supply of electricity. Under clause 3(k), these policies and strategies may be imposed on licensees through Codes of Practices.
This move towards a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is part of a larger effort to shape a more energy- and carbon-efficient power sector. Since 2018, EMA has rolled out incentive schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant for Power Generation Companies, to encourage power generation companies to improve energy efficiency. To date, more than half of the larger generation companies have tapped on the grant to make improvements to their generation units. However, as low carbon technology matures and becomes more cost-competitive, it is timely and necessary for the sector to move beyond incentives and grants and to empower EMA to regulate on this front.
EMA will work with the industry to develop reasonable standards and provide a transition period for existing generation units as needed.
This amendment will also complement ongoing economy-wide initiatives to lower carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes, to transition the power sector towards low carbon generation sources.
The Bill also makes several miscellaneous amendments to the Electricity, Gas and EMA Acts and related amendments to the District Cooling Act. These include streamlining the licence application and extension process for all electricity and gas licensees, clarifying the prudential obligations of specified licensees in the event of an insolvency situation, clarifying inspection obligations in connection with gas installations and updating key terms and definitions in the Electricity Act.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the power sector is at an important point in its development. We have made ambitious commitments to reduce our carbon emissions and combat climate change, but the developments unfolding around the world also serve as a stark reminder of the complexity of this transition. As energy forms the bedrock of our economy and our society, it is especially important for Singapore to manage the transition well and seamlessly.
In finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA had sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation exercise earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.
This Bill is necessary to ensure that EMA has the necessary levers to navigate the energy transition, while ensuring that our energy supply remains secure and reliable. My Ministry will also continue to monitor and study further enhancements to legislation to facilitate a smoother energy transition while safeguarding Singapore's energy security, reliability and affordability. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two key areas in this Bill that sets out the powers. One, for EMA to safeguard energy security; and two, to enable EMA to implement policies to reduce carbon emissions.
Firstly, on energy security. Sir, this is the most interesting time to debate on energy security and energy resilience. Energy prices are surging in the global markets due to a combination of factors: supply crunch, weather, soaring demand and geopolitical tensions and so on.
And this would soon translate into higher electricity prices to consumers. It does not help that a number of the electricity retailers, also impacted by the recent price volatility and have exited at this time, leaving thousands of households who have subscribed to the fixed plan exposed to the impending hike in electricity prices.
Adding to the uncertainties, the imported piped natural gas from Indonesia is also disrupted, leading to EMA taking the extraordinary pre-emptive steps to establish standby fuel facilities where power generation companies or gencos can draw upon.
Credits to MTI and EMA for also establishing the liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure about a decade ago to serve as a back-up source to the piped gas supply. This is most critical as, today, 95% of our electricity is generated from natural gas and, by far, still the cleanest fossil fuel to date.
Beyond the current energy woes, the longer-term challenge for Singapore would be how we can repower ourselves as almost all the existing natural gas-powered plants will reach the end of their shelf life and would be retired in the next one to two decades. What would be the new mix of energy sources in the future that will be both efficient and resilient and also meet our sustainability goals?
It is a key strategic policy decision the Government has to make and to implement. But this major transition to a more efficient, resilient and sustainable energy architecture for Singapore also requires new executive powers to effect massive industry changes and restructuring.
Among others, this Bill empowers EMA to directly build, acquire and manage these essential electricity infrastructures, if need be, to ensure the resilience and security of our power supply. It also enables EMA to issue licences, import of electricity and issue bonds to finance these critical facilities.
Sir, I support giving EMA these powers to ensure that the country will be reliably powered. This is of paramount importance. In situations of crisis or significant market disruption, EMA may require this delegation of authority to take necessary decisive actions. I will go further to submit that critical infrastructures like power generation which has a direct bearing on our security, economy and the well-being of our people should be a nationalised company or maybe even Temasek-linked companies.
This would ensure that the power generation companies would be operated and invested with our long-term national interest in mind. This is especially so for a small island economy like Singapore, where we lack the scale. Power generation infrastructures do have their useful lifespan and obsolescence.
It requires continuous long-term investments to renew, repower and invest in new capacities to meet our growth demands. There is now also the added sustainability emphasis as well as the need for further resiliency to be built into our future energy supply. Whilst doing all the above, we also want to ensure that electricity prices stay affordable to consumers and to businesses.
All these requirements and often competing needs may not be best served by commercially-run business enterprises. Having these infrastructures largely owned and operated by, say, foreign commercial entities, may leave us exposed to potential disruptions should the parent head offices or other subsidiaries of these companies run into problems or that they have no plans to reinvest and merely want to sit out the legacy investment till it is fully depreciated.
Of course, the Government can regulate to require the gencos to close the line, but we know that too much of regulations and directives can actually kill the enterprising spirit and defeat the purpose.
The other steep challenge faced by power generation companies is the ability of the company to fund the long-term capital expenditure needed to renew and to grow the capacity. Not all companies are able to raise long-term capital which can stretch more than 10 years or 20 years, at a reasonable cost. The commercial returns from the generators may not be adequate to service such long-term debts which also come with project risks and, therefore, higher risk premiums.
Hence, I am supportive of the new provision in this amendment that allows EMA to raise capital or issue bonds to finance the construction of these projects where necessary.
Sir, next, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as provided in this Bill.
This is needed to facilitate the decarbonisation of our gencos and, importantly, it signals the way forward in how we generate electricity. Besides enabling EMA to push for carbon-efficient technologies through this Bill, there are also the upcoming carbon taxes to incentivise the reduction of carbon emissions.
In recent years, we have seen more forward-looking businesses incorporating sustainability into their corporate agenda. Hence, rather than use the powers derived from this Bill to institute broad-based measures, I would suggest that EMA can look at more targeted measures to move the sector towards lower emissions.
With the progressive build-up of the four supply \"switches\" and the diversification of the various energy sources, the regulations and the development of the sector would also need a more differentiated approach.
Sir, as this Bill is also about resilience, can I use this opportunity to seek a progress update from the Minister on the alternative sources of energy that EMA is developing? In particular, whether hydrogen, which has been quite talked about, can be a viable source or game changer for Singapore energy supply; and also, what would be the likely timeline?
Sir, my final point is on the transition risks as we journey towards the new landscape. As EMA embarks on this multi-decade programme to transit to a low-carbon, four-supply switches setting, it would, understandably, change the overall market dynamics of the incumbent operators.
Some of these new plans may directly or indirectly impact the operations and financial performances of these players. How would EMA ensure that this transition can be smoothly carried out with no or minimal disruptions to our energy supply? Also, what is the estimated infrastructure cost to realise our new energy vision?
In this Bill, there is also an amendment to clarify the ability to draw down on electricity retailers' deposits to offset outstanding settlement payments to protect consumers' interest.
This amendment is necessary in light of the disruptions in the open electricity market that we saw. So, I urge EMA to look into further measures to mitigate these counterparty risks; including allowing for the novation of some of these in-the-money fuel hedging positions from the retailers who may have abruptly exited the market, to allow this novation of this contract, this position that they hedged on, to come to the new retailers the consumers choose, for example, SP Services, so that consumers' interests can be safeguarded. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the recent natural gas supply disruptions and consequential increase in electricity prices have brought to the fore the importance of strengthening our nation's energy resilience. To date, five electricity retailers will be dimming their lights and others have stopped accepting new customers. This has impacted over 150,000 customers, who will most likely have to pay more for electricity in the coming months.
This may be just the tip of the iceberg of people affected by increasing electricity prices. About 714,000 households which had not previously switched to a retailer in the open electricity market are paying a regulated electricity tariff, which has increased by 32% since last September. According to the answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I asked in January, 79% of HDB 1- and 2-room households and 63% of 3-roomers are paying the regulated tariff compared to just 40% of those living in landed properties.
This indicates that lower-income Singaporeans may be disproportionately impacted by higher electricity prices.
Other households which have locked in lower rates in their retail contracts will soon face their day of reckoning when they renew their contracts, as the new rates will reflect the higher prevailing electricity prices.
This electricity price hike could not have come at a worse time for many households. Our economy has yet to fully recover from the pandemic-induced downturn and many Singaporeans are still struggling with job losses, salary reductions and disrupted careers. Many are working and studying from home, resulting in higher household electricity usage.
I would like to reiterate the request I made yesterday for lower-income households to be given a one-off special additional electricity rebate to assist lower-income households during this difficult period. This should be on top of existing U-Save rebates, which were calculated before the current electricity price increases occurred. I appreciate Minister Tan See Leng's reply yesterday that he is exploring with MOF further means to help and is working out the details with them.
The current electricity price increase can be traced to disruptions in the supply of natural gas to Singapore and higher demand globally. In the last few months, the curtailment of the flow of gas from Indonesia's West Natuna gas field and the lower landing pressure of gas supplied from South Sumatra has severely impacted a vital source of our power generation needs.
The Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that is before the House today is timely, as it seeks to better safeguard Singapore's energy security. It enables the Energy Market Authority (EMA) to construct, acquire, manage and protect electricity infrastructure and authorises EMA to implement policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the generation of electricity.
It is comforting to know that EMA will be able to step in to build, own and operate power generation plants, if needed. However, in practice, will this be done only as a last resort, for example, if existing gencos fail in their roles? Or is EMA already making plans to directly build and operate critical electricity infrastructure like undersea cables to import electricity from overseas?
I note the Minister just said in his Second Reading speech that the Government's preference is for the private sector to build, own and operate electricity infrastructure and that, before exercising this power, EMA will explore the other options available. The Minister has also assured the House that EMA will put in place Government structures to mitigate conflicts of interest. Can he elaborate on what these Government structures will be to ensure fair competition in the electricity market and mitigate conflicts of interest?
The Government has announced plans to embark on a multi-decade programme to transition our electricity generation to low-carbon generation sources through four supply switches. These are: first, by increasing energy efficiency of natural gas power plants; second, by accelerating solar deployment; third, by tapping on regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports; and, fourth, by developing low-carbon solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS).
About 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. This is unusually high compared to other countries and it carries concentration risks. Recently, the tiny European nation of Moldova, which gets almost all its gas from Russia, had to declare a state of emergency over a gas shortage. The Russian state gas giant, Gazprom, hiked its prices four-fold, then reduced supply when Moldova refused to pay. Moscow has been accused of weaponising its gas monopoly in Moldova, which recently elected a pro-Western president and parliament.
In Singapore, around 70% of our natural gas is piped from Malaysia and Indonesia. Will we face similar threats should relations with our neighbours get rocky, as they do from time to time? In fact, it may already be happening, even in the absence of diplomatic problems.
In February 2020, the Indonesian government announced that it intends to halt gas exports to Singapore by 2023, when one of our two gas pipeline contracts expires. This ought to set off alarm bells, given our heavy reliance on Indonesian piped natural gas.
Over the years, Singapore has worked hard to diversify our national water taps away from an over-reliance on imported water from Malaysia to ensure a more robust and sustainable water supply. We need to do the same for our energy supply switches. How will the Government diversify our current 95% dependence on imported natural gas for power generation? Clearly, we cannot afford to shift back to dirty fuels like coal and oil, which, in any case, also need to be imported. Therefore, our future lies in greater reliance on renewable energy.
The third supply switch envisions tapping on regional power grids for clean energy imports. Singapore is planning to import up to four gigawatts of low-carbon electricity by 2035, which is expected to make up around 30% of Singapore's electricity supply. However, the proposed import of electricity from solar farms in Australia's Northern Territory will be via undersea cables running through Indonesian waters. This could provide the same political risks as transnational gas pipelines. The Indonesian government had to approve the undersea cable route last September and it is unclear how long this approval will be for. On 22 October, Malaysia announced that it will not allow renewable energy exports to Singapore. Their former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, questioned why non-renewable energy exports to Singapore were allowed.
Australian support for the export of renewable energy to Singapore may also wane with political winds. Some NUS researchers recently warned that the Australian government may suffer some pushback from its powerful coal lobby.
On the flip side, even countries which support the development of renewables, might prefer to use that clean energy domestically to meet their own net zero pledges.
With Singapore potentially sandwiched between competing interests that we have no control over, how will the Government manage the political risks associated with importing 30% of our electricity in the future?
With both natural gas and electricity imports carrying risks, we need to strengthen our indigenous capabilities to produce clean energy.
Our geography and highly urban landscape limit our renewable energy options. We do not have wide open deserts to set up large solar farms, but we have plenty of building rooftops and intense tropical sunlight. Solar power, however, tends to be intermittent. When the sun stops shining, the electrons also stop flowing.
Fortunately, battery technology has improved tremendously in recent years, driven by the growth in electric cars. At the same time, the price of lithium-ion batteries is expected to fall 45% between 2018 and 2030. Better energy storage systems will smoothen out the imbalances between supply of and demand for solar power. EMA has said it is targeting a two-gigawatt peak of solar energy by 2030, Yet, even if this target is met, solar will supply only around 3% of our total energy demand. Is this really the best we can achieve with solar?
Are we planning for a large-scale deployment of solar panels on building rooftops, reservoirs and even offshore islands? Are we providing companies sufficient incentives to boost adoption of energy storage systems that are paired with solar installations?
Besides solar energy, have we done a deep dive to explore other renewables like tidal energy, geothermal energy and offshore wind farms? We do not have much time to diversify our energy sources away from natural gas. As countries shut down their pollutive coal-fired power plants, natural gas will increasingly be used as a transition fuel. This will reduce the supply available to us and raise its price.
The Government, industry and our people need to double down to innovate and come up with more clean energy solutions to diversify our energy mix, strengthen our energy resilience and meet our current climate change pledges. Singapore's energy transition must be accelerated but managed well to ensure that our lights stay on and our electricity bills remain affordable. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to safeguard our energy security, enhance the protection of critical energy infrastructure and reduce our emission of greenhouse gases.
Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
Sir, the Bill proposes, amongst other things, to take significant steps to reduce Singapore’s carbon footprint. This is a timely move, as countries review and renew their climate change commitments in light of the mounting evidence of the widespread damage that climate change will have on our future generations if no action is taken.
According to various scientific studies, the main driver of modern climate change comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases that gets trapped in our atmosphere, causing the Earth to heat up. I, therefore, fully support the proposed changes to the Electricity Act, which will allow EMA to set greenhouse gas emissions standards. Over time, this will be an important lever for the Government to force power generation companies to use more energy-efficient technologies.
This legislative lever is especially important, given Singapore’s ambitious push, under the Singapore Green Plan, to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040 and to have all vehicles run on cleaner energy, such as electric vehicles. But even if electric vehicles have no tailpipe emissions, they can still leave a significant carbon footprint if the source of our energy generation produces large amounts of greenhouse gases. Empowering EMA to set emissions standards for power generation companies is, therefore, vital for us to realise our international climate change commitments and to truly go green.
I would like to ask for an update on the projects funded under the Ministry’s first Genco Energy Efficiency Grant Call, which was awarded back in 2020. It has been just over a year since the EMA awarded $23 million in grants to Senoko Energy, Tuas Power Generation and YTL PowerSeraya. Have these three companies seen their energy efficiency projects bear fruit? How much does the Government expect to invest for the second Genco Energy Efficiency Grant Call, which is currently open for submission?
Mr Speaker, more than 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. This puts us at a severe disadvantage during global energy crises, such as what we are facing today, which has caused wholesale electricity prices to spike.
The Bill’s proposal to empower EMA to acquire, build, own and operate critical power sector infrastructure, if there is a failure in the private market, can be seen, therefore, as an important safeguard for our nation’s energy self-sufficiency should such global conditions happen again in the future.
However, once the Bill is passed, EMA would have the power to act as both regulator and owner of generation companies. EMA would then be able to compete in the Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market and could, through the sheer financial might of the Government, dictate wholesale electricity prices. I am, therefore, glad that the Minister has assured in his Second Reading speech earlier that the appropriate safeguards and processes will be put in place to ensure fair market competition and prevent conflicts of interest from arising.
Mr Speaker, the recent spike in wholesale energy prices has resulted in some retailers in the Open Electricity Market having to exit the consumer retail market. Minister Tan See Leng spoke at length about this during yesterday’s Sitting, in response to the Parliamentary Questions filed by me and various other Members of this House.
According to the Minister, the exit of these retailers has affected about a tenth of household consumers in the Open Electricity Market. We cannot underestimate the negative impact that this has had on affected consumers. Their contracts have been cut short and they will need to migrate to a new retailer that offers more expensive electricity plans, or have their accounts transferred back to SP Group and pay for their electricity at the regulated tariffs.
The prolonged telecommuting work arrangements due to COVID-19 has also meant an increase in the average household electricity consumption during this period. Taken together, affected consumers face a double whammy in terms of having to pay more due to higher prices and an increase in energy consumption.
Consumers have the most to lose when an electricity retailer decides to call it a day. That is why CASE had, in 2018, worked closely with EMA to embed consumer protection measures into the Open Electricity Market. Consumers affected by the closures of their energy retailers will have their security deposits refunded. They can also choose to terminate their contracts early with exiting retailers without any termination fees, before their accounts are transferred to the SP Group. CASE had also worked closely with EMA on consumer awareness roadshows to highlight key information, such as their consumer rights if their chosen energy retailer closes.
Despite these safeguards, some consumers remain unhappy at having to suddenly pay more due to the business failures of the electricity retailers. Their unhappiness is understandable. While we cannot turn back time to shore up the poor business fundamentals of the exiting retailers, what we can do is to learn from this episode and prevent a similar exodus from happening in the future.
Markets often operate in a cycle and periods of volatile energy prices will happen again. What are lessons that the Ministry has learnt from this episode and how does the Ministry intend to prevent another exit of multiple electricity retailers when volatility arises once again? Does the Ministry plan to review the mandatory hedging position by electricity retailers, particularly those who do not possess any electricity generation capabilities, and require them to hedge more aggressively so that we can avoid a repeat of an exodus of retailers when the wholesale electricity market turns volatile again?
Sir, the move to fully liberalise the electricity retail market in 2018 was a game changer that allowed consumers to enjoy significant savings and the ability to choose electricity plans that fit their lifestyles. Since its launch, retailers have been able to provide prices that are lower than the regulated tariff offered by SP Group. But this may not necessarily always be the case. Just like in any market, prices can rise and fall. If the current global energy crisis persists, market prices may soon rise above the regulated tariff. I hope that this exodus of retailers will not end up becoming a false dawn for the Open Electricity Market and I hope that the Government can do more to ensure market stability, while ensuring that consumers continue to enjoy attractive electricity prices and more competition in the market.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill is a timely move that paves the way for Singapore to act on our climate change commitments. But as we pursue our path towards energy self-sufficiency, we must recognise that we will continue to be a price-taker in both the short and the medium term. We should, therefore, do more to protect our consumers, who have the most to lose in a volatile energy market. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is one that is close to my heart as I have been in this industry, alongside the workers, since 1995. I started as a Technical Officer in a power generation plant and, thereafter, transited to providing consultancy and advice to Government agencies, consultants and contractors in protecting our power cables and gas pipes during the course of construction works. The works can span from simple roadside digging to major projects like commercial buildings, even deep excavation tunnelling works. I enjoy and take pride in doing my job for one reason: ensuring that our energy network remains uninterrupted, secure, reliable and efficient at all times.
Sir, I would like to touch on two parts of this Bill, namely, about allowing authority to build its own capacity of new generation plants for security and reliability; thereafter, not forgetting the importance of driving towards zero carbon emissions through energy efficiency enhancements, solar deployment, use of regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports and the adoption of new technology. For the information of the House, I am the General Secretary of the Union of Power Gas Employees (UPAGE), which currently serves and represents workers in this industry. Any change to this business model will affect our workers, either directly or indirectly.
Workers in this industry have gone through major changes since 1995, starting with the corporatisation of PUB’s electricity and gas departments into Singapore Power, currently known as SP Group. Union leaders back then faced challenges from workers who were worried about the security of their rice bowl once they were no longer in the Government sector. Moving forward to the late 2000s when our big generation companies were sold to foreign investors, many workers became more agitated and anxious. The founding UPAGE leaders had to walk the ground to hear them out and give assurance that their concerns have been heard at the highest level. This was possible because our leaders back then were closely engaged by Government leaders on the rationale for the changes in the energy business landscape. That laid the foundation for the strong bipartite relationship between UPAGE and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) which exists until today.
From my earlier exchanges with management of generation companies, they have relayed to me some observations and concerns with this Bill. The first of which is the longevity of the power generation companies or gencos in Singapore and the long-term employment viability for their employees. These companies currently employ more than 1,000 workers and changes to the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will have an impact on them.
A fundamental principle of the electricity market has been the segregation of contestable and non-contestable business segments with EMA as the regulator to oversee the industry. A vibrant, balanced and competitive market is essential to encourage continued investment and the renewal of old assets and to provide adequate drivers to adopt new technology and improve efficiency. This would translate to the training and upskilling of the genco workers, ensuring that their long-term employment can create exciting opportunities for new entrants.
This proposed Bill provides the ability for EMA, or an entity wholly owned and/or controlled by EMA, to finance, build, own and operate a power plant. The industry players are concerned that a direct intervention by EMA in the Singapore power market may signal a market failure to the investors that have already gone through a sustained period of losses. Gencos, particularly those which are foreign-owned, are likely to regard the regulatory risk in the Singapore market as high and will be reluctant to invest in new capacity or repowering of their ageing units.
In light of this, the appeal is for EMA to observe the power market for a few more years to understand if the recovery is sustained and whether private developers are investing in new capacity or repowering their ageing units. Alternatively, if the current business model is deemed unsustainable, maybe EMA could consider revamping the market to one that is re-nationalised and carefully planned, taking a more holistic consideration of Singapore’s needs to have secure and sustainable energy supplies supported by home-grown talent.
Notwithstanding the above concerns, the industry players are in support of the Government’s intention to reduce carbon emissions through a long-term, low-emissions development strategy. They concur that this critical objective can be achieved via a multi-pronged approach, including energy efficiency enhancements, increased solar deployment, use of regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports and the adoption of new technology.
This will then bring me to the next part of my speech on increased attention for climate change and the journey towards embarking on energy transitions and, closest to my heart, efforts to train and prepare our workforce for the future.
Many generation companies across the globe are only now shifting from coal and oil to natural gas and renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower. Singapore, as a small city state with little natural resources and renewable energy options, has always had to rely on fuel imports to meet our energy demand. We had, in the early 2000s, made the shift from oil to natural gas to power our electricity generators. This was a big shift for us as a nation, as natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The adoption of natural gas has helped Singapore manage our carbon emissions since the switch.
Sir, myself, together with my fellow UPAGE leaders, have a close working relationship with EMA on issues that relate to our energy story, as we are the Union that represents the workers in this industry. EMA has never failed to provide the necessary support and guidance on matters that relate to the business outlook that will directly affect the workforce both in the current moment and also preparing for the future. It is at such meetings that UPAGE was informed of this transition journey that will be undertaken by the Government to decarbonise the power grid while meeting our economy's and social energy demand via tapping on four switches, or energy supply sources, as was also announced at the 2019 Singapore International Energy Week.
In making the big shifts in energy supply, I would like to encourage industry players, especially those in the clean energy sector, to consider leveraging this transition to tap on new opportunities. I strongly encourage our Singaporeans, not just those in the power sector today, but also those who are still studying or considering a career transition, to consider joining the new and exciting opportunities in the green economy. NTUC and our Employment and Employability Institute are contributing to this national effort by working with the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) to increase workforce supply and redesign jobs in the solar industry to meet future demand.
Closer to me, I would like to share I am blessed and grateful to be an employee of SP Group as we always believe in training our workers not just for increasing the productivity level, but also learning new skills for the future. With this energy transition in mind, UPAGE and SP Group management have started on a journey called Fusion, which stands for Future Skills in Everyone, back in January 2018. Since then, courses and programmes, such as Introduction to Future Grid, Energy Efficiency, requirements for installation and commissioning of Grid-Tied Photovoltaic systems, energy storage systems and more, will be introduced as we progress. Through this, more than 1,600 of the workers have attended close to more than 20,260 hours of training.
Sir, I believe it is important to share the efforts by the power and energy sector workforce, not just because I am one of them, but, more so, to remind ourselves that they have ensured the safe and secure generation, transmission and distribution of electricity from the power stations and the import, production and distribution of gas, from the gas plants and gasworks to consumers like us.
While the Bill talks about the change of energy source security and reliability, we must not forget the manner it is brought to businesses and consumers like us. During the circuit breaker last year, this group of workers were either out in the hot sun or humid conditions inside the plants and stations to ensure that businesses and consumers can have a continuous and uninterrupted supply. I hope we do not just feel upset when the tariff rates go up, but do also bear in mind the efforts of the workers that ensure our electricity and gas reach us at home.
To all my fellow power, energy and gas sector workers, thanks for your tireless effort in this challenging time so that our fellow citizens can enjoy watching their favourite movies and cooking good and healthy food in the luxury of their homes.
Before I conclude my speech, we note that the energy transition to cleaner energy sources is but one way that we can reduce our impact on the environment. All Singaporeans can do our part to reduce our energy use, for example, by adopting more energy-efficient appliances and solutions.
Sir, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I would like to record my strong support for this Bill to ensure our country's energy security and reliability.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The world is gripped by an energy crisis. The demand for natural gas has remained at multi-year highs with no clear signs of easing; the same applies for fossil fuels. With 95% of Singapore's electricity generated by natural gas, our electricity market is bearing the full brunt of this energy crunch. Electricity prices were highly volatile. The Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP) recorded extremely volatile intra-day figures in the past month. This has also forced several electricity retailers out of the Open Electricity Market (OEM), so it is quite timely for us to discuss this Bill of resilience.
This Bill allows the Ministry and EMA to robustly safeguard Singapore's energy security and resilience. The amendments effect this in two ways.
First, to enable EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. Second, to empower EMA to require licensees to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. I will address these in turn.
Mr Speaker, high capex and the great energy transition have diminished investors' appetite to invest in gencos, at least in the short term. Therefore, EMA must be able to address failures in the private electricity market. The proposed amendment to empower EMA to acquire, build and own this critical infrastructure will ensure that this energy supply remains resilient.
However, it is not without concerns. There are concerns that the EMA would potentially act both as a regulator and owner or operator of generation units. The Ministry has reiterated its commitment to ensure a competitive wholesale electricity market. I seek the Minister's clarification on the proper governance structures to mitigate against potential conflicts of interest.
Next, on empowering EMA to impose requirements to reduce GHG emissions. I have spoken in this House on how critical it is to curb climate change on a few occasions. We must reduce GHG emissions to the greatest extent possible. There is no time to waste. Emissions in Singapore are largely dominated by the energy sector. It accounts for 38% of the nation's carbon emissions in 2018. Thus, to help in combatting climate change, we must lower carbon emissions by promoting energy efficiency within the energy sector.
The proposed amendment enables EMA, with more tools, to reduce GHG emissions. For example, it can introduce policies to decarbonise electricity generation and mandate the uptake of cleaner technologies.
First, could the Ministry clarify if EMA's efforts to reduce GHG emissions would necessarily translate into higher business costs for companies? If so, what are the scale and extent? And, in turn, does it also mean higher electricity tariffs for consumers? If so, what is the longer-term strategy to soften this impact for consumers and businesses, especially the SMEs and lower-income households?
Second, the existing Energy Efficiency Grant for Power Generation Companies or gencos disburses grants of up to 50% of qualifying costs for gencos to invest in energy-efficient technologies. In 2020, three gencos were awarded a total of $23 million for energy-efficient projects. These projects would translate into taking about 9,200 vehicles off the roads annually.
However, my concern is that gencos might be constrained by the new policies while grappling with high price volatility. High price volatility makes it difficult for them to forecast revenue streams and apportion funds to adopt greener technology. The quantum of the grant might be insufficient to beef up the genco's appetite to do so.
We need to further incentivise and support gencos to switch to greener technologies. Clearly, increasing the quantum of the grant is one way but not the only one. We can also introduce flexibility tied to energy price trends. This can allow the companies to plan and manage their cashflows better.
Next, on the OEM, it was introduced in 2018 and many consumers benefited from competitive pricing and innovative offers. However, the price of natural gas in 2018 was half of what it is today. Analysts have suggested that the recent exits from the OEM can be attributed to the high number of retailers in the OEM market. This makes them less able to reap economies of scale. It also makes it more difficult for retailers to build up financial reserves, reducing their ability to weather negative market conditions.
The global energy crunch will persist for some time. The volatility will only be worsened by the shifting of investment to renewables and cleaner energy sources. Could the Ministry share on its plans to support these OEMs while developing a more sustainable longer-term framework? Perhaps, there is scope to reduce the number of approved retailers to avoid disruptions to consumers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill safeguards Singapore's energy security and resilience. This is done alongside our pursuit of combatting climate change by reducing emissions in the energy sector. Yet, there are difficult trade-offs, not the least in terms of higher costs for businesses and consumers. We must develop plans to combat climate change sustainably. Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions above, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the privilege to join in the debate on the subject of the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Singapore's energy network, like our water network, is a critical national infrastructure. I rise in support of the Bill.
Climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind. This House has committed that the Government, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore, will deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. The multi-Ministry Singapore Green Plan 2030, which was unveiled at Budget 2021, is an exciting vision and a rallying cry for the whole of Singapore to work towards becoming a sustainable smart nation. And Singapore has made strong commitments to reduce carbon emissions for a more sustainable future with water, food and energy being three critical pillars of our Singapore Green Plan 2030.
The energy sector, as the Minister has said, has a key part to play as it accounts for about 40% of Singapore's carbon emissions. The Minister has also shared in his speech that Singapore will be embarking on a multi-decade programme to transition our electricity generation to low carbon generation sources through four supply \"switches\". First, by enhancing the energy efficiency of natural gas power plants; second, by accelerating solar deployment; third, by tapping on regional power grids for low-carbon electricity imports; and fourth, by developing low-carbon solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage solutions, which will enable decarbonisation in the longer term.
The Government will, therefore, need to manage the transition across all of the four national \"switches\" while maintaining energy reliability and affordability. This Bill has been set out to enable EMA to implement this energy transition without disruption while ensuring the sustainability, security and reliability of the power sector. To ensure energy resilience, there has to be some degree of re-regulation, I suppose, even as Singapore has gone through a phase of de-regulation for a strategic resource, like electricity supply.
To rely entirely on import for our fuel to generate electricity does have its challenges, as we have experienced. Now, countries like Japan, after the Fukushima incident, has stocked up on gas supplies and so has China, which is now able to release gas stocks due to shortage of coal. So, while competition has helped to drive electricity prices down for a while, the recent surge in energy prices has led to the exit of many retailers and left some consumers exposed. This is yet another example that we cannot leave it to the market to find its equilibrium for a strategic resource like electricity.
Hence, the amendment to this Bill is timely. The authorities have to take proactive steps to ensure energy security, including taking control of critical infrastructures and balancing market optimisation, with provisions for operational continuity and resilience.
Amongst the amendments is one which enables EMA to acquire, build, own and/or operate critical infrastructure. There has been a decline in investor appetite for the building of new generation capacity as the world transitions to cleaner energy sources and the COVID-19 pandemic only makes the situation worse. This amendment will enable EMA to ensure the reliability and resilience of our energy pillar should private sector fail to step up. The amendment will also enable EMA to raise capital or issue bonds for infrastructure should EMA need to step in.
This might, of course, be viewed as a step back in an otherwise deregulated market. I seek the Minister's indulgence that I have more questions than answers and hope that he can clarify my questions and provide a clear narrative of Singapore's strategic approach going forward to ensure energy resilience.
First question: how will the investment of existing power generation players in Singapore be protected?
I understand that there was a public consultation, like the Minister has mentioned. What were the industry's main concerns and how does the Government plan to address those concerns?
MTI, with EDB and MOF, are extremely skilful in selling the strengths of Singapore as an investment destination and for putting together the whole of Singapore's capabilities and incentives to attract visitors to come. Why does MTI think that the private sector may not continue to invest in this space? What is needed in order for Singapore to continue to be attractive for the big players in the energy space to land, expand and contribute to the building of our four supply \"switches\".
It is, of course, prudent for Singapore to build our capabilities if we are to ensure resilience and security in our key pillars. We have done it for water with our four national taps, built our own capabilities in desalination as well as NEWater, amongst others, and built a strong DNA that will ensure our water resilience and security will not be threatened. So, in the wake of recent challenges with the exit of power providers, it looks to me like a timely wake-up call that we ought to be prepared to do the same for energy. So, how will Singapore plan to execute this strategy? Do we have the skilled resources to undertake such a programme?
And lastly, how will we pacify the players in the market that there will be fair play and no unfair competition and how will we continue to attract investments in research and innovation in this whole sector? And what is the impact on Singapore households and businesses? Notwithstanding my questions, Mr Speaker, I fully support the Bill.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed amendments to this Bill will ensure the sustainability, security and reliability of our power sector. By setting green standards, we are sending a clear signal that our commitment on sustainability towards the Singapore Green Plan 2030 is beyond rhetoric and about getting things done.
To strengthen energy resilience, the Government has a dual strategy. First is the diversification of energy sources by harnessing four switches, namely, natural gas, solar, regional power grids and emerging low-carbon alternatives. Second is by working closely with the generation companies to provide critical additional capacity. The adoption of this dual strategy delivers sustainable energy for Singapore and supports a viable industry that contributes to our GDP.
Notwithstanding, I would like to put forward three clarifications to this Bill.
Firstly, on the insertion of “(f) the inspection of electrical installations to assess their safety”, in section 2 of the Electricity Act, I would like to ask what sort of authority would a market support service licensee have to enter a resident’s premises and on what grounds would this be reasonable. In addition, what is the remedy to these safety issues and what are the specific safety issues EMA is most concerned about?
Secondly, on the insertion of “in connection with any purpose under paragraph (a), to construct, acquire (whether by purchase, lease or otherwise), develop, manage (including by leasing out for use) or operate…”, in section 3(3) of the Electricity Act, I would like to ask whether the use of the word “operate” involves full operating maintenance cost.
Thirdly, on the insertion of “This section [except subsection (1)(c)] applies to any infrastructure (including cable pipe-blocks and tunnels) housing or intended to house any transmission electricity cable, as it applies to any high voltage electricity cable under the management or control of an electricity licensee…”, in section 80 of the Electricity Act, I would like to ask whether the minimum refers to high voltage, 6.6 kilovolts and 22 kilovolts, or transmission electricity cable, 66 kilovolts or higher? In addition, has MTI or EMA assessed the need to protect all above-ground access to underground infrastructure, especially since the core intention is to protect the underground infrastructure itself?
I also have three proposals for MTI’s consideration.
Firstly, we must continue to work with the private sector to provide additional capacity, reduce energy wastage and implement innovative solutions to optimise usage of energy. The district cooling system is one innovative and practical example. It is an underground centralised cooling and heating system for air-conditioning of buildings. With district cooling, building owners need not invest in having their own chillers, thereby removing capital expenditure. Currently, we have one at Marina Bay that is managed by SP Group and another in the upcoming Tengah development.
Ice tanks form part of a unique design feature of district cooling systems which harnesses energy to cool the ice tanks when demand is low and provides additional cooling capacity when demand is high. This system effectively shifts the electric load requirements and optimises energy consumption throughout the day by tapering any need for energy surge or sub-optimal usage of compressors. Such new innovation implementation is necessary as current split units used in residential buildings – that is, both public and private – operate in poor energy efficiency, primarily average more than 1.5 kilowatt per tonne, because they are air-cooled and, typically, also have half or less the lifecycle.
These split units could be retrofitted with a centralised chilled water system that could operate at a significantly better energy-efficient average of less than 0.65 kilowatt per tonne that capitalises on economies of scale.
As global temperatures are set to rise, Singapore needs to fundamentally change the way we cool spaces and scale efficient cooling systems. Beyond implementing new innovations, such as district cooling systems in new developments and estates, we need to explore ways to implement such systems in mature business districts and residential estates. Beyond grants, such as the district cooling grant, we should tap on private sector innovations and financing schemes.
For building owners who would like to convert their existing chiller plant ownership into a utility-based cooling as a service, the private sector can offer to buy over the chiller plant from building owners and sell back chilled water as a utility. This way, capital expenditure is avoided by leveraging on the private sector’s innovative financing model. This will help building owners’ cashflow to support their core businesses, especially during this tight economic situation, and make the transition to more sustainable consumption easier.
Separately, as we implement an energy reset, urban planning perimeters and uses should consider various energy needs throughout the day. The peak energy needs of one activity can be curated to offset another activity through different demand periods and leading to more optimum use of energy. This could be an important new criterion for URA’s future requirements in mixed use developments.
Secondly, we should leverage on the latest advancements in building management software. With the maturity of digital solutions in the built environment today, there are significant opportunities to leverage on enterprise software as a service, often priced at affordable rates, with advanced fault detection and diagnostic and AI features to analyse for actionable insights and optimise energy efficiency, especially during low building occupancy, so that energy usage commensurates with the level of occupancy and activities.
It can also proactively support predictive maintenance which improves plant resiliency and efficiency. This is done through smart sensing, automated response and optimisation. With its advanced features, it would also ensure the health and wellness of the built environment, supported with optimal ventilation where it is required to minimise or eradicate the infectious disease risk. Thus, it also enables clean air for the health and safety of the occupants.
Based on current industry advancements, there have been proven cases that such software-driven approaches have estimated savings between 20% and 40% of energy consumption at a building and plant level. The added cost benefit of such software deployment is that it involves much lesser investments compared to hardware capital expenditure.
Lastly, adopting a similar design principle from the district cooling system where cooling capacity is stored, I would like to propose coupling Energy Storage System (ESS) to existing gencos to further improve the peak capacity demand and spinning reserve. If there is enough ESS capacity installed in the grid, it could minimise the supply-demand mismatch on a faster and larger scale. This would increase the resilience of the grid by providing more cushion to unexpected events when energy demand surges unexpectedly.
Mr Speaker, as energy forms the base input of all products and services, it has a direct impact on Singaporeans and residents. Fluctuations in energy prices affects Singapore’s cost of living and any disruptions have immense negative consequences for our industries and this puts jobs at risk. There are clear downside risks to jobs and livelihoods.
As we work towards reducing emissions, we need to ensure that this does not limit our economic growth. We need our economy to grow to provide good jobs for Singaporeans.
This amendment Bill addresses both the downside and limiting factors of our current energy strategy by boldly diversifying our energy sources, investing in new innovations to both optimise our energy usage and tapping on new forms of sustainable energy. Consequently, by investing in new taps, such as importing clean energy from regional grids, it will provide new growth opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans. I believe that we can reap the benefits from building a sustainable and efficient energy system that serves our national needs while enabling us to compete globally.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, uninterrupted and affordable access to energy is one of the cornerstones of modern civilisation. From keeping the lights on and putting food on the table, our ability to get to work or powering the devices that have become so integral in both our personal and professional lives, energy is the bedrock of what makes life powered by technology possible.
Fossil fuels have been the primary source of meeting our energy requirements for decades. However, the world has become increasingly aware about the negative environmental impacts of fuelling our energy needs primarily through fossil fuels. How we cross over to cleaner energy matters. Do we wait until after the switch from gas to green to make an impact? Or do we take incremental steps to do what we can in the here and now as we make the transition.
I am glad to see the Government's conviction to retiring almost all existing natural gas fuel power plants over the next one to two decades as part of our enhanced 2030 nationally-determined contributions and 2050 long-term low emissions development strategy.
We have already seen some exciting ways which Singapore plans on harnessing greener energy options, such as solar energy, clean energy imports and low-carbon alternatives. In July this year, we officially open one of the world's largest floating solar farms.
As we debate this Bill, COP26 is underway in Glasgow.
Natural gas power plants provide more than 95% of Singapore's electricity demand today. So, I am heartened by the recent announcement that Singapore intends to import 30% of our electricity supply from low-carbon sources by 2035, for example, through subsea cables from Indonesia and Australia.
I am also glad that EMA will verify the cleanliness of energy inputs, including requiring proof of carbon output. So, steps are being taken.
As we move to ensure the importation of energy from more carbon-neutral sources, I hope that the overall supply chain in which the energy is transported here will also be taken into consideration when evaluating the reduction in carbon footprint from these efforts. And in the same vein, I hope that we will also apply rigorous environmental and sustainability standards in the construction of the infrastructure.
In this Bill, I support the levers proposed to require, not just encourage, power generation companies to improve the energy efficiency of their existing units and shift towards cleaner and more efficient modes of power generation as the amendments enable EMA to implement policies, standards to require electricity generation licensees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, it would be important for EMA to start work early alongside industry for successful compliance with these standards. I would also like to ask if EMA is planning for a transition period for such companies and, if so, how long will this be?
Next, the proposed amendments to have EMA build, acquire, own and operate critical power sector infrastructure if the private market fails to do is a prudent one towards safeguarding the security of our power system although I recognise that certain stakeholders are concerned that these units would compete with existing units in the Singapore wholesale electricity market with the effect of depressing wholesale electricity prices.
I also support the move to allow EMA to raise capital and issue bonds as this protects our energy plans to a better degree from adverse market forces. Few governments can or choose to fill the infrastructure investment gap alone. With the Minister's approval, EMA will now have the ability to raise capital not just from the Government, but also any source in or outside of Singapore. I think it is important for Singaporeans to be able to participate and benefit from supporting the nation's infrastructural goals. Will preference be given to Singaporeans who would like to participate in the issuance of such an infrastructure bond? And under what conditions would EMA look to raise capital from outside of Singapore? In the event that large amounts of overseas capital are approved of and raised, will the Government make the sources of such capital public knowledge?
Given the lessons we can glean now from the instability of such markets, I stand in support of the spirit of the move, but I do seek some clarity in the execution.
On the instability of the energy markets, we have seen a few reports of private energy retailers closing due to rising prices. In this Bill, there are clarifications on the ability to draw down on electricity retailers' deposits to offset outstanding settlement payments and this move intends to protect consumer interests to reduce the amount of default costs borne by consumers in the event of insolvencies. It has been reported that at least five energy retailers have announced exits, while others have stopped taking on new customers and are considering changes to their business model. I applaud the Government for taking the prudent step of protecting consumers' interests by drawing down on these deposits. However, many of these companies have employees, too. And in these difficult circumstances, I would also like to ask if the Government will also consider ensuring that there is support for such employees from these companies who are choosing to downsize or exit.
The task of switching over from gas to green is a complex one and will take some time. We must pay careful consideration to ensure that while we are in transition, supply is reliable and prices are stable. Given our limitations as a small city-state, I am cognisant that we will have to straddle two walls before we can cross over the picket fence into greener pastures. On that note, Mr Speaker, I am looking forward to the journey from gas to green with stronger compliance and standards and protection for critical infrastructure and consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
It is, indeed, timely that this Bill is introduced at a time when there is turmoil in the electricity market which has resulted in licensed retailers throwing in the towel in Singapore. The price distortions disrupted the SGX electricity futures market, leaving the retailers in the cold as they could not hedge their exposure to the price volatility triggered by the rise in gas prices overseas. This certainly highlights the importance of Singapore ensuring that it has a strong infrastructure in place as part of our energy security.
Much has been said about going environmentally friendly and the power generation sector is certainly one big bloc. Decarbonising electricity generation is important and the gencos need to move from fossil fuel to cleaner natural gas. According to the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), since 2000, the percentage of natural gas used in electricity generation rose from 19% to more than 95%. Hence, we have to cut the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere.
But what is important is how do we manage this migration and ensure that it does not result in a hefty burden being put on the shoulders of consumers – from households to businesses, and to Town Councils in the management of municipalities. As we know, on all fronts, costs are rising from construction, manufacturing to transportation, logistics and manpower. We have to also bear in mind that, in the near future, we would be having higher GST and other taxes to add to the cost of generating electricity.
The Bill highlights the strategic move for Singapore to look at imports as the most viable option for decarbonising the power generation sector in the near to medium term. We are already importing all our energy supplies. As we are told by the EMA statement recently, the sharp rise in Singapore's spot electricity prices amid a global power crunch was exacerbated by a reduction in gas supply from Indonesia. Natural gas supply to Singapore from Indonesia has not fully recovered from disruptions in July, according to a news report on 18 October.
We will have to diversify our sources of energy and importing solar power supply from Australia-Asia Power Link (AAPowerLink) is one option on the table. Another is to tap on electricity from Malaysia which is to kick-start a two-year trial starting next year to diversify the country’s energy supply. We are also part of the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project that is known as a “pathfinder” to a broader ASEAN power grid system. This will be just somewhat similar to Britain, which imports hydropower from Norway, helping to ensure secure, affordable and sustainable electricity supplies for UK consumers. Nordic power exchange, Nord Pool, held its first auction in September 2021 to trade electricity on a newly launched interconnector between Norway and Britain as both markets grapple with tight energy supplies.
Mr Speaker, this Bill provides further enhancements to the role that EMA plays going forward and with extra powers. My first question is: in our outreach to the regional supply source and where subsea cables are needed to connect with Singapore, what does it mean for our energy infrastructure demands going forward? How will the evolution of technology in energy infrastructure affect us and, if needed, how much would it cost in terms of actual infrastructure and human capital requirements and where would these increased landing points be located as it comes in into Singapore? And with the need to invest in capital for the cables and the landing stations, how much more would these add to the cost for consumers, whether it is private or public built? What can our Government do to mitigate the higher cost going forward, maybe a few decades down the road?
Next, could the Minister share with the House how do we ensure the reliability of the energy supply from these external sources? In recent times, we have seen how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted operations in some countries. So, we need to think of contingencies so that we are not caught off-guard.
Mr Speaker, in fact, on 15 October, EMA said Singapore's power utilities might have to switch to using LNG because of the reduction in piped gas supplies from Indonesia. The resultant effect caused spot electricity futures on SGX to spike on those days. This also prompted the operator of the LNG terminal, Singapore LNG Corp, to look into boosting gas inventory to bolster energy supplies. We need to learn from this and look at how to manage such a scenario.
Another question is: if we are going to build a back-up capacity, how long can it last and do we have multiple sources for this back-up? How do we ensure, if one supply source is disrupted, the other external sources could still keep the supply flowing? I think some Members in the House mentioned this earlier, but it highlights the point that, besides diversity, we need to ensure that our external source supplies actually do not get disrupted significantly, even after diversification. For example, the natural gas supply to Singapore from Indonesia was disrupted in July and, as of October, the supply has not fully recovered. The July disruptions were blamed mainly on an unplanned shutdown at the Anoa field and planned maintenance at the Gajah Baru field, both located in Natuna, according to a report. Production in Natuna is down 27.5% from its previous peak to 370 million standard cubic feet per day.
EMA had also said that the disruptions in supply from Indonesia's gas fields in Natuna had contributed to a spike in our spot electricity prices. \"The recent spike could be attributed to a number of factors, including higher than usual electricity demand, the outage of several generation units, curtailments of gas from West Natuna, as well as low landing pressure of the gas supplied from South Sumatra,\" EMA reportedly said.
In fact, in February 2020, the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry of Indonesia said it would stop gas shipments to Singapore in the next three years to cater to domestic demand. \"Gas exports to Singapore will stop in 2023 and we will use the gas for the domestic market”, Downstream Oil and Gas Regulatory Agency (BPH Migas) head Fanshurullah Asa said, as quoted from the ministry’s press release. Indonesia's gas exports to Singapore come from the Corridor Block, which has a supply of 300 million standard cubic feet per day. The gas supply will be channelled into the Dumai Duri transmission pipeline to be distributed to industrial estates in Sumatra, namely, the Sei Mangkei Special Economic Zone in North Sumatra, among other destinations.
Our supply from Malaysia is also another uncertainty. The 18-year deal for delivery of natural gas was expected to start from mid-2006 via a new five-kilometre pipeline linking Petronas’ Peninsular Gas Utilisation Pipeline to the Singapore Gas Transmission System. There is no guarantee that the expiring contract will be renewed.
I believe, hence, we are moving to LNG as the alternative to fill the vacuum. This is where new offshore terminals will also add Singapore to a growing list of Asian countries deploying floating infrastructure. Can the Minister give the House an update on this undertaking and how are we coping with these LNG alternatives? When would LNG likely replace our demand for natural gas for use by gencos? And what steps are in place to avoid a worst-case scenario? Would it result in any supply shortage that may necessitate a back-out of supply to households?
At this point, if I could resurface the question whether we should consider using nuclear energy as part of our energy resilience, not within the confines of Singapore, but probably from far afield, for example. This idea is not new and our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 2008 had said that he had once considered tapping nuclear energy as the best alternative to fossil fuels for Singapore. Can the Minister share his thoughts on this, please?
Next, the Bill empowers EMA to acquire, build, own and operate critical infrastructure, including generation capacity. May I ask how EMA would play its role if it is a genco, wholesaler and regulator? Would this not open it to a conflict of interest? I think it would be useful if the Minister can share on this point. This would only cause the electricity market not to be a level playing field for all participants, if you interpret it from a conflict-of-interest perspective.
Lastly, can we also know how soon EMA would be embarking on building capacity and capability to build up its expertise to handle its expanded role in the next five to 10 years, especially so when this Bill explicitly highlights the fact that EMA's powers will be extended quite largely?
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill expands the Government’s power to safeguard our energy security and reduce greenhouse gases in energy generation.
I support this Bill as it has the potential to protect the day-to-day energy needs of Singaporeans and to contribute to our commitment towards fighting climate change.
I thank MTI for conducting a public consultation for this Bill and publishing a public response to inputs received. I hope we will continue this good practice of gathering and responding to public feedback for legislative amendments.
I have three points of clarification to make.
My first clarification relates to the expansion of borrowing powers. Clause 2(a) of the Bill expands the powers of EMA. With this change, EMA can now raise loans and grant charges over EMA’s property. I understand that the goal is to ensure energy security by freeing EMA to fund its construction of critical energy infrastructure. However, it seems like this change also opens a gap in our energy security. After all, borrowing from foreign financiers may also mean granting them rights and interests over parts of our energy infrastructure. Can the Minister share in what circumstances would such foreign funding be approved by the Government? What safeguards would the Ministry implement to limit the risks of foreign funding to our energy infrastructure?
My second clarification is on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In its response to feedback from the public consultation, MTI said that EMA would use its new powers under this law to develop “further targeted measures” that would reduce the power generation sector’s emissions. Can the Minister share EMA’s timeline for consulting the sector and for releasing new standards and policies? Put simply, we are already behind schedule. The latest IPCC report on climate change stresses that there is only a small window of opportunity left for countries to keep the 2050 temperature increase below two degree Celsius. Power generators will need time to adapt to any new regulations. Will the Ministry commit to setting an aggressive timeline for releasing EMA’s new policies?
In addition to sharing its timeline, will the Ministry proactively share with the public the expected emissions impact of any new power generation? After all, as Minister Grace Fu mentioned this year, the Green Plan is a living plan, designed and executed in collaboration with our people. Let us empower members of the public to understand and support policies that will help Singapore reach its climate goals.
My final clarification relates to cyber attacks. Today’s Bill focuses on energy security. However, it does not directly deal with one of the largest global threats to energy infrastructure: cyber attacks.
In 2008, an oil pipeline exploded in Turkey after cyber attackers managed to raise the pressure within the pipeline. In 2015 and 2016, cyber attacks in Ukraine shut down electricity to hundreds of thousands of people for hours. In May this year, a cyber attack forced the temporary shutdown of one of the US’ largest gas pipelines.
There have been many more of such attacks. We must be proactive and aggressive in closing any cybersecurity gaps in our energy infrastructure. To this end, I have three questions.
First, can the Government share how many cyber attacks have our energy and water infrastructure faced in recent years? I am talking about entities across the entire supply chain, including gas pipelines, generation plants, energy retailers and more. If the Government is not able to share the specific number, can it at least confirm whether attempts at an attack have taken place?
The Cyber Security Agency said in July that there had been no massive ransomware attack on our critical infrastructure. But have there been other types of attacks? After all, some attackers may aim to cause damage rather than collect a ransom.
Second, will the Government update our laws to ensure high cybersecurity standards in our energy and utilities sector specifically? Minister Josephine Teo said in October that the Government has been reviewing our cybersecurity laws. I hope that this review will consider new regulations specifically for our water supply and energy supply systems.
Third, does the Government have plans for dealing with a successful cyber attack on our energy and water infrastructure? Are there clear actions that would be taken on emergency supplies and crisis communications? After all, we can do our best to build defences, but we should not pretend that a successful attack will never happen. When it does happen, we must have contingency plans to address the unrest and emergencies that would emerge. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, with recent frequent reports on the tight energy situation both globally and locally, the topic about energy resiliency in Singapore and how this would impact electricity bills and the cost of living weigh on many people’s minds.
While logic will tell us that it is unavoidable for energy prices to rise in the short term due to a confluence of external factors, I think many would still find difficulty in understanding what we, as a nation, have to contend with in terms of the energy supply chain and its potential impact resulting in a situation of electricity shortage. Thus, it is, indeed, timely that we are now reviewing the changes required for energy resiliency in Singapore.
For this Bill, I have three areas to raise and seek clarifications.
First, the specifics about critical levers in the energy resilience measures. To enhance Singapore’s energy resilience in the longer term, it is important for us to look at it holistically from the entire value chain. We have existing assets and infrastructures that span this value chain today. But our challenge remains with the strong need for importation of energy sources. I would thus like to ask which aspect will our resiliency measures moving forward be focused on: raw material sources, including green options, energy generation, the grid distribution that supports low-carbon electricity or better balancing of power allocation and usage between industries and consumers?
In this year’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate, Minister Tan See Leng outlined that we are developing four \"supply switches\": natural gas, solar energy, regional grids and low-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen, to decarbonise our electricity grids.
Given our limited land and rooftop spaces, there is a practical limit to how much we can harness from solar energy within our shores. It is thus imperative that we look further to explore importation of renewable energy sources from other countries through regional grids. However, in the race to decarbonise each economy, neighbouring countries would have their own domestic carbon reduction commitments to achieve in the near term and may not be as forthcoming towards sale of these electricity sources to us.
Just this month, Malaysia’s Energy and Natural Resources Ministry announced that only non-renewable energy is allowed to be exported to Singapore, and power sales through self-developed transmission and interconnection facilities to Singapore will not be allowed. Apart from Malaysia, I believe we may encounter similar situations with others. How then would we prepare to overcome this if Singapore’s ability to import renewable sources are limited by export measures set by other countries’ domestic considerations? Could the Ministry share whether this change in stance from Malaysia has any impact on the trial project of the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP)?
It appears that continuing to import natural gas to fulfil our usage is inevitable. Today, it is a question about whether we have hedged sufficient supply to serve our needs. Tomorrow, it will be one about whether we have the ability to offset the carbon footprint generated from these non-green fuel sources.
In my view, establishing the ground infrastructure and having a detailed transition plan to accommodate the future combination of low carbon or green fuels in our energy generation and distribution system are fundamental. These infrastructure projects are extremely costly and the appropriate choice of technology selected at any point will give rise to future impact on sufficiency in supply while also having to meet the evolving and higher bars of climate change goals.
On this note, I would like to ask the Minister in the case that we switch to lower carbon sources, for example, hydrogen, this would mean some changes are required for the pipelines and electricity grids. There is also a likelihood for more public-private partnership to involve the local players and overseas companies with the expertise to enable adoption of microgrid supplies as we transition to prevent any disruption. May I know what are the expectations and parameters in which Singapore may likely adopt or move towards such changes?
Second, the impact on Smart Nation status for businesses and prioritisation for energy.
The transition towards being a Smart Nation and an attractive industry or business hub for global players to form a base in Singapore is an energy-intensive play and one with a long tail. Having said that, I belong to the school of thought that we should pursue this aspiration and continue to strengthen our ability to support these industries as they set foot on our shore. However, I feel that the path to evolve is one where the industry players and businesses here must take an active role in shaping and contributing their share of reducing energy needs and, concurrently, using technologies to enable adaptation of their facilities for usage of greener energy sources or to decarbonise existing infrastructures.
Similarly, as we prepare for the pivot towards mass electrification, for example, in vehicles, I would like to ask whether the electricity distribution grids and substations will be able to cope with the surge in usage and demand. If not, will further actions be taken to address them so as to ensure balanced stability in energy consumption over time?
Moving on, let me raise the point about consumption pattern and energy allocation of power supply. As a resource-constrained nation, we are resigned to the fact about our predominant need for energy imports. Yet, I believe it is ever so important for us to be more intentional and conscious with regard to our energy usage and allocation. As a manufacturing hub for higher value-add technologies and digitalisation, some services like data centres, foundries and green fuels will bring benefits to our broader ecosystem. But to serve their presence and expansion involves a relook at our manufacturing portfolio as well as production patterns.
There may be a need for us to be more precise on the roadmap of matching or differentiating their industrial activities’ needs versus the household activities and the office building demands by the time of the day. Has COVID-19 changed some of this and the new way of work? It warrants some hard look at the fresh data. In times of critical moments, how we allocate energy resources among various stakeholders could have far-reaching implications should there be any disruption to energy supplies or the need to meet our own carbon commitments.
Lastly, the longer-term plans for Singapore’s decarbonisation of energy sources.
Diversification has long been a cornerstone of Singapore’s public policy on resources, be it water or energy. While Minister Tan See Leng has outlined the four switches for energy, it seems difficult for us to embark on any material change of alternate supply from natural gas within the coming decade. Are there opportunities in the longer term to focus on how our carbon capture capabilities and storage or utilisation can be shared cross-borders or developed in locations where underground geologic formation permits? It would be helpful if the Minister can shed more insights on our plans in this area.
Notwithstanding the above raised, I support the Bill, as it is crucial for us to plan ahead on critical elements for future implementation and laying the path for our ability to adapt and change to cater to the ever-growing need for energy.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, as COVID-19 measures worldwide ease, we can expect that global demand will soon reach pre-pandemic levels. This is coupled with the energy crunch in natural gas and the recent rising cost of Brent crude. As a country, we must be keenly aware that we import our energy and we must compete with the rest of the world for our energy resource. But this ability to purchase and secure energy is only a short-term measure. We are facing the dawn of the next energy transition. As we rebalance our carbon-based energy, we are faced with several critical decision points to secure our energy for the future.
I have a few questions for the Bill. Can the Minister share what are the considerations when determining the value of the security deposit? What are the options available in the event when the security deposit is insufficient to cover its obligations? What are the trigger indicators to determine that a wind-up order is necessary?
With the empowerment to build, own and operate, can the Minister share if there will be initiatives to ensure that there are economies of scale and synergies that are collectively accretive to the overall industry?
With this amendment, how will the agency better plan the new energy transition that we will face in the near future? How are we building new capabilities and rebalancing our reliance on fossil energy? What is the future for hydrogen, nuclear fission and fusion to provide safe, reliable and clean energy to power the country and our industrious Singaporeans?
The key to any energy transition plan concerning any new energy – for example, hydrogen, nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion – we must develop a clear understanding of the limitations of physics, engineering limitations and, finally, perhaps most importantly, supply chain constraints, both in materials, fuel cycles and operational implementation.
I will not go into the details of solar, wind, geothermal, green, blue, grey hydrogen, the intricacies of tritium, deuterium or super-conducting magnetic tapes.
Critically, we must see past the hype, drill down to the basics and avoid oversimplification. We must be technically strong to analyse and interpret new technologies. We must be cognisant of the engineering challenges to build, operate and manage a safe, viable, resilient and sustainable system; above all, a system that contributes to the fight against climate change. I trust that this Bill will provide the ability to build capabilities to secure new sources of energy and for our future. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Members have raised very good clarifications and suggestions which fall into four broad categories.
The first category is on energy security and resilience, including the amendments to enable EMA to build, own and operate critical power infrastructure. Second, the amendments to enhance protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure. Third, provisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the environmental sustainability of the energy sector. And, finally, the impact of the energy transition on electricity prices.
Before I address these issues, I would like to thank Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Shawn Huang, for their questions and suggestions about the Open Electricity Market or OEM.
As I mentioned yesterday, the OEM remains viable but safeguards may need to be strengthened. We are very mindful of the higher electricity bills that households and businesses will be facing.
Today, households living in 1- to 2-room HDB flats, typically, benefit from GSTV U-Save rebates amounting to an average of about three to four months of the utility bills.
Together with the GSTV U-Save special payments, these households will receive rebates equivalent to about 4.5 to six months of the utility bills this year. This is what I also shared yesterday in my response to the whole series of Parliamentary Questions that were brought up and also the supplementary questions that were directed at us.
We will work with MOF to review and assess if more support is needed. My Ministry and EMA will study this closely and we will provide further updates when ready.
Let me now first address the first key issue on energy security.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the measures to enhance the security and resilience of our energy supply.
During Question Time yesterday, I spoke at length about the actions that Singapore is taking to safeguard our energy security amidst the ongoing global energy crisis. I will now touch on how we can ensure energy security over a longer term.
First, diversification in energy sources. From 2013, we have supplemented Piped Natural Gas (PNG) with imported Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
We have been ramping up solar energy production locally and we are now one of the most solar-dense cities in the world. However, as I have said many times, solar energy alone will not be sufficient to meet our energy needs.
Based on a study conducted by Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore, or SERIS, Singapore has a maximum solar potential of 8 gigawatt peak (GWp) and, that is, by 2050. I do not think we can wait till 2050. Even if we are able to harness all of that maximum solar potential, it would only roughly provide about 10% of our future energy needs.
So, regardless of the measures that we take through solar power adoption locally, we will still have to import significant renewable electricity from the region.
We are also developing and trialling new low-carbon alternatives, like hydrogen, as options for the longer term. I will speak and elaborate more on this later.
Second, beyond diversifying the types of energy that we use, we will also diversify the geographical sources of energy to manage our energy risks. This will be an important consideration in EMA's request for proposals (RFPs) for electricity imports.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the impact of Malaysia's ban on renewable energy exports to Singapore. Singapore lies in a region that has abundant renewable energy potential. For example, Indonesia has geothermal and solar power potential. Thailand, Vietnam and the Lao PDR also have good wind and hydropower potential. Beyond that, Australia is also a possible source. We welcome all companies which are keen to collaborate on the development of renewable energy sources to participate in EMA's requests for proposal for electricity imports.
The third point, back-up supply. Every source of energy has a risk of disruption.
Currently, power generation companies, or gencos as we call them, are required to stockpile at least 60 days of fuel reserves in the event of disruptions to our natural gas supply.
When we start to import electricity and harness more solar energy, we will also need to have sufficient amounts of other types of back-ups, including energy storage systems and generators. We plan to work with the private sector to build the necessary infrastructure to diversify and secure our energy supply.
However, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa pointed out, what we need may not necessarily be what private investors are able or willing to provide. Should this happen, we must be prepared to provide the infrastructure to ensure energy security and reliability for ourselves. Thus, we are moving legislation to empower EMA to acquire, build, own, and/or operate critical infrastructure. So, this is a very important and critical point.
Let me now address some of the specific issues that Members have raised about the scope of these powers.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Abdul Samad, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Janet Ang have asked how EMA intends to level the playing field between private investments and those that are built, owned and/or operated by EMA.
For a start, EMA will ensure that these infrastructures are subject to the same stringent standards and requirements as their private counterparts. EMA will put in place governance structures and, if necessary, separate subsidiaries to mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure accountability.
Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate that our preference has been, and continues to be, for the private sector to provide and operate the critical infrastructure. We remain committed to facilitating private sector investments in the energy sector.
I agree with Mr Shawn Huang that these amendments must benefit the business and household consumers.
In the event that EMA needs to intervene and provide the critical infrastructure and services needed, EMA will coordinate closely with industry stakeholders to avoid duplicative investments.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked if there are particular aspects that we will focus on to enhance the resilience of our energy sector.
The energy sector is a complex network of integrated systems. Every component will need to function well to keep the lights on. Besides ensuring access to energy sources, we also need to progressively upgrade and enhance our grid infrastructure to support rising electricity demand and a more complex power system with diverse and distributed sources of low-carbon energy.
EMA is working closely with SP Group to develop a digital twin of Singapore's physical electricity grid, which will make the transmission and distribution more accurate and efficient. We are also conducting testbeds on microgrids to assess their feasibility and ability to enhance grid resilience.
Mr Louis Ng has pointed out other threats to energy security, such as cybersecurity and foreign influence. My Ministry and EMA, are fully aware of these risks and we have put in place safeguards to address them.
On the cyber health of our energy system, there have not been any successful cyber attacks on Singapore's critical energy installations thus far, but we are not resting on our laurels. EMA has detected a few spoofing and phishing attempts targeting companies in the energy sector in the past few years, but these attacks were on IT and Non-Critical Information Infrastructure, or non-CII, networks. The spoofing and phishing attempts were also quickly contained and addressed. The operation of critical infrastructure, such as our gas and electricity systems, facilities, plants and equipment, was not affected.
Nonetheless, as I have said, we are not complacent and we take cybersecurity threats very seriously. The Electricity and Gas Acts and the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act give EMA and the Cyber Security Agency, or CSA, the mandate to address cybersecurity threats.
EMA has developed a cybersecurity governance framework for the energy industry, in partnership with CSA. Under this framework, the energy industry's Critical Information Infrastructure Owners, the CIIOs, are required to meet minimum baseline cyber requirements, such as isolating computer systems from the Internet.
Any cyber incidents must be reported to EMA and CSA within two hours, which ensure that remedial efforts can be carried out in a timely manner. This is in line with the reporting requirements for Government agencies with critical infrastructure.
EMA also organises regular industrywide exercises and sharing sessions to ensure the sector's resilience and readiness in emergency responses to cyber attacks. EMA will continue to work with CSA and the industry to ensure the robustness and relevance of our cybersecurity governance framework.
This is the same for our water supply infrastructure, with a clear framework and regular exercises in place.
On foreign influence through financing, EMA will ensure that the expanded borrowing powers to issue bonds do not compromise the security of our energy system. As a general principle, any borrowing by EMA to fund energy infrastructure will not be securitised to the asset. When entering into loan agreements with financial institutions, EMA will also ensure that lenders do not have the ability to influence decisions relating to the energy infrastructure.
Let me now address some of the specific issues that Mr Edward Chia has raised on the amendments to enhance the protection of critical electricity and gas infrastructure.
The Bill will make it an offence to damage protective infrastructure housing transmission electricity cables that are 66 kilovolts and above. These are high-voltage transmission cables that serve more customers. Damage to these cables will thus have a greater impact on our electricity supply to consumers and businesses.
This Bill also clarifies the existing role of SP Services Ltd, the market support services licensee or provider, in carrying out safety inspections of electrical installations in premises to ensure safe and continued operations. This includes testing to confirm that the devices operate as intended and ensuring that the electrical socket outlets are not installed near any water point. The inspections are arranged by the licensed electrical worker engaged by the owner of the premises, with the consent of the owner of the premises.
Several Members have also spoken about the importance of ensuring the environmental sustainability of the energy sector. We agree that this is very important and we are committed to decarbonising the power sector. Enabling EMA to require licensees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an important step.
In response to Mr Liang Eng Hwa's suggestions, EMA will use a combination of broad-based regulatory measures and targeted support measures to encourage the whole industry to decarbonise.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about our timelines for imposition of new greenhouse gas emissions standards.
The first iteration of the proposed measures may be released for public consultation as early as next year, that is 2022. In developing greenhouse gas emissions standards, EMA will ensure that these standards are reasonable and realistic, but they are also ambitious. Companies will be given time to transition. The public can monitor our progress in decarbonising the power grid via the Grid Emissions Factor report, or the GEF report, which EMA publishes on its website very year.
Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Melvin Yong asked about incentives to encourage the adoption of more energy- and carbon-efficient technologies.
Under EMA's First Energy Efficiency Grant for Power Generation Companies, S$37 million was awarded to four gencos to adopt energy-efficient technologies and equipment to reduce their carbon emissions. When completed, these projects are expected to reduce carbon emissions by over 48 kilo tonnes per annum. This is equivalent to taking about 15,000 cars off the roads annually.
Earlier this year, EMA launched the second grant call. EMA will review and calibrate the level of grants based on the carbon abatement potential of the projects.
But all of these efforts alone are not sufficient. We will need to continue to explore new energy solutions to meet our long-term energy needs and low-emission targets.
Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Janet Ang, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about our efforts to develop low-carbon alternatives, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage capabilities, hydrogen and nuclear technologies. The Government is investing heavily in research and development efforts and collaborating with like-minded international partners to understand the potential for deploying these low carbon technologies.
In reply to Mr Liang Eng Hwa, our current assessment is that hydrogen will only be commercially viable around 2040. However, many countries are investing heavily in lowering the cost of producing, transporting, storing and using hydrogen. So, its viability may well come sooner.
MTI and EMA are also actively exploring low-carbon sources of energy which can be produced in Singapore, including geothermal energy, and accelerating the deployment of solar energy, notwithstanding the limited potential that we have.
As for nuclear energy, while there have been advancements in nuclear reactor technologies which have the potential to improve the safety of nuclear generation, many of these are still in the research and development phase and they have not begun commercial operations.
So, we will continue to monitor the progress of these technologies, while also strengthening our capabilities to understand nuclear science and technology to assess the implications for Singapore. We will need to carefully calibrate our transition to manage its impact on energy security and reliability. At the same time, we will also need to press on with our energy conservation efforts and find ways to use energy more efficiently. I would like to thank Mr Speaker, Sir, for raising the temperature by a couple of degrees in this room after my exhortation yesterday, so thank you very much.
I would also like to thank Mr Edward Chia for his many insightful suggestions. We will consider all these carefully. Besides technologies and systems, another critical ingredient for the energy transition is human capital.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat would be pleased to hear that EMA has been updating and strengthening its capabilities to keep pace with the changing energy landscape over the years, through capability sharing platforms with industry stakeholders and foreign regulators. EMA is also working closely with the Union of Power and Gas Employees to implement upskilling and reskilling courses to empower the workforce with the necessary skills required to support the transition. And I am heartened to hear from Mr Abdul Samad that these courses and programmes have been well-received.
On electricity costs, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Desmond Choo have also raised concerns about electricity costs associated with the energy transition, including for electricity imports. While the cost of generation may be lower, infrastructure enhancements in the form of additional landing sites, subsea interconnections, back-up and grid enhancements will add to overall costs. This is an inevitable and necessary trade-off to address climate change.
EMA will continue to work closely with industry partners to explore and develop cost-competitive and secure solutions that will meet both our long-term energy needs and low-emissions targets. At the same time, the Government will continue to provide targeted support for vulnerable households to help them cope with higher electricity costs.
Mr Speaker, our energy market has served us well for the last 20 years. I would like to echo Mr Abdul Samad’s appreciation for the hard work and the dedication shown by our brothers and sisters in the power sector. My colleagues and I remain committed to building on this strong foundation, working closely with our industry and with our union partners.
I would like to thank Members for speaking on this Bill and for the valuable comments provided. This Bill will ensure that EMA, Electricity and Gas Acts continue to remain relevant and effective, empowering EMA with the necessary levers to navigate the energy transition while safeguarding Singapore’s energy security, reliability and affordability. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications, please. Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Sir. The Minister cited a study that found that Singapore can only reach a maximum solar potential of eight gigawatts peak by 2050 and this will contribute to only 10% of energy demand. Was this study based on current solar technology or did it include projections for future improvements in the technology?
I am asking this question because I just want to be sure that the Government does not limit its expectations of the potential of solar energy on account of this study alone because technology will improve over time and the viability of solar has improved tremendously in recent years and could improve much further in the years to come.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Giam for his question. The study by SERIS has taken in improvements in technology and it has also factored in new ways of deployment. However, as what the hon Member has also alluded to, technology keeps improving all the time. So, we have allocated a certain proportion of our energy mix – because it is one of our four switches – for renewable energy. And as long as the developments in solar power, in renewable energy continue to improve, that proportion can also continue to flex upwards. So, we are not tied down to a particular ratio in our energy mix. But moving forward, we are going to continue to explore and pursue all of these R&D initiatives relentlessly to become more and more self-sufficient.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.25 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Madam, our National Monuments form an integral part of our national identity. They serve as critical markers of Singapore's historical journey and development from pre-Independence and they are tangible manifestations of shared experiences and milestones in our history which strengthen our sense of belonging. They tell the Singapore Story and stand as enduring testaments to Singapore's history and nationhood.
The Preservation of Monuments Act, or PMA as I will call it, sets out the functions and powers of the Government and the National Heritage Board (NHB) in relation to the designation, protection and care for National Monuments. In particular, the PMA lays out the legal protection and the enforcement powers that NHB is empowered with to protect National Monuments from alteration and change, including damage and defacement, which would affect their character and significance.
Since the PMA was enacted in 1970, we have gazetted 73 National Monuments, which are accorded the highest level of legal protection amongst all of our built heritage in Singapore.
In 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced during the National Day period that the Government would preserve the Padang as a National Monument. Not only is the Padang one of Singapore's oldest open spaces for public recreation, it has also witnessed key milestones in Singapore's history.
These include the victory parade celebrating the formal surrender of the Japanese in Singapore in 1945, the swearing-in of Yusof Ishak as Head of State in December 1959 when we obtained self-Government, the announcement of the merger with Malaysia in September 1963, and our first National Day Parade in August 1966.
The current definition of \"monument\" in the PMA allows for the preservation of buildings and structures, as well as sites containing the remains of any such building or structure. The Padang, as an open space, however, does not fall within this definition. The PMA will, therefore, be amended to expand the definition of \"monument\" to include any \"site\", including open spaces and inland water, so that sites of national historical significance like the Padang can be preserved. Consequently, the Bill also proposes an amendment to the definition of \"monument\" in the NHB Act, for alignment with the PMA.
Madam, such a definition is consonant with many other overseas jurisdictions. For example, in Malaysia, Brunei, Hong Kong, the US and Australia, they also provide for the protection of historical and heritage sites or places, in addition to buildings and structures. Such protected sites include Central Park in New York City, which I believe needs no introduction, and which was designated in 1963 as a National Historic Landmark. Another example is the Domain in Sydney, a 34-hectare open space, which has been included in the New South Wales State Heritage Register.
With the expanded definition to include a site, certain aspects of the PMA will also need to be updated. For instance, in the current PMA, section 15(1) stipulates a list of activities that a person must not do in relation to a National Monument without the permission of NHB. These actions, such as \"reconstructing\", \"repainting\" and \"renovating\", apply primarily to buildings and structures.
To better protect sites which are to be preserved as National Monuments, we will also need to control actions, such as clearing, digging, excavating or cultivating horticulture, on the site. In addition, extracting, mining, quarrying or interfering with anything or groups of things that evidence human activity, past or present.
Under these amendments, which are set out in the new proposed section 15(1A), these new sets of actions will also require NHB's prior approval before they can be carried out on protected sites.
Madam, as part of our review of the PMA, we will also make amendments to improve protection of our heritage, to ensure that National Monuments are adequately protected from unauthorised alterations and changes. Before a monument or site is accorded the status of a national monument and protected by law, a Notice of Intention (NOI) is required by section 11 of the Act to be given to its owner and occupier, informing them of the Minister's intention to make a Preservation Order for that monument.
This signifies the Government's assessment that the monument or site is of such historical, cultural, traditional, archaeological, architectural, artistic or symbolic significance and national importance as to be worthy of preservation as a national monument. The owner and occupier are given a \"reasonable period\" to make any objections to the proposed Preservation Order. Every objection will be considered thoroughly by NHB which then submits its recommendations to the Minister. Under the proposed changes in this Bill, the public will also be aware.\tOnce an NOI is served, the monument or site becomes a proposed National Monument and NHB will make this public on its website. Interested parties can share their views and feedback on proposed National Monuments with the NHB.
It follows, naturally, that there should be some form of protection in place to prevent actions to the monument or site, including any alterations and changes that may alter the character and significance of a proposed national monument, before a final decision is made by the Minister to preserve it. Otherwise, the decision to preserve may be entirely defeated or rendered nugatory by alterations and changes taking place during the period in which objections are made and when we are still considering the objections.
Such protection is currently not provided for in the PMA. The amendments, therefore, in clauses 6, 7 and 11 will extend protection to monuments or sites that are the subject of NOIs.
According protection to a proposed National Monument even before final confirmation is also common in other jurisdictions. For example, under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in Hong Kong, the Authority may declare any place, building, site or structure as the \"proposed monument\". These places would then have the same protections as those which have been declared as a \"monument\".
Equally, in the UK, local planning authorities may serve a Building Preservation Notice to a building which is of special architectural or historic interest and is in danger of demolition or of alteration in such a way as to affect its character as a building or such interest. While the Notice is in force, the building is subject to the same protection as a listed building, which is the equivalent of a gazetted monument in Singapore.
The Hydro Hotel in Leeton, a historic accommodation house, and a barn at Michelmersh Manor Farm are examples of historic properties which have benefited from these protections in Australia and the UK respectively.
If the Minister decides, in a reasonable time, not to make a Preservation Order after the Notice of Intention is issued, the protections will be lifted accordingly.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, when the PMA was last amended in 2009, the Minister then noted that National Monuments ought to have greater heritage value and significance compared to conserved buildings and that illegal alteration works or destruction of any parts of such monuments should not be treated any less seriously than that of conserved buildings. This principle was applied, at the time, to the introduction of higher penalties for unauthorised works, as well as acts of destruction or defacement, for closer alignment to the Planning Act.
In 2017, the Planning Act was amended to include powers of forced entry where there is an apprehended commission of an offence and powers to take video or audio evidence on site. We will, therefore, in this Bill, accord monuments and proposed monuments with the same protection which follows the principle, as articulated in 2009. We, therefore, propose to amend the Act to align NHB's powers of enforcement and investigation with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is to allow NHB to carry out its enforcement and protection duties more effectively and also expeditiously.
Just as similar powers are accorded to competent authorities under the Planning Act, the amendments in clause 9 to section 27 of the Act will enable NHB officers who are public servants – namely, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector – to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant. This allows NHB to intervene, when necessary, to protect National Monuments from alteration, defacement or damage.
The legislation provides for the powers to be exercised judiciously, under specific conditions. Let me take Members through them.
First, NHB must suspect on reasonable grounds that an offence under the PMA has been or is being committed in relation to the land or site. These offences, which are defined in the Bill, are serious ones, such as the failure to maintain a National Monument or proposed National Monument in accordance with NHB’s guidelines; the offences also include unauthorised works or alterations; non-compliance with an enforcement notice; and wilful defacement, damage or interference. These are offences which could have grave consequences and irreversibly alter the character and significance of our National Monuments, if they are allowed to transpire.
In addition to having reasonable grounds on which to believe that an offence of the nature that I have described has been committed or is being committed, the public servant must also be able to demonstrate that he or she was unable to enter or is refused entry to the land or site in question.
In addition to these two conditions, upon entry, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector can only exercise their powers of entry to carry out their statutory functions in a manner as delineated in section 27(1) of the Act, namely: inspection of the National Monument or proposed National Monument; investigating any contravention or suspected contravention of the PMA; ascertaining whether any of the functions or powers under PMA should be exercised; or taking any action or carrying out any work authorised or required by the PMA.
Taking reference from the Planning Act, the amendments to section 27 of this Act will also allow the Director or Monument Inspector to take photographs or make an audio or video recording within the land or site.
Additionally, they may make measurements of the land and take samples of water, soil, vegetation or other similar substances from the land or site to better ascertain if there had been activity that has or could negatively impact the monument.
Currently, NHB may serve an Enforcement Notice to stop any activity that has caused or is likely to cause danger or damage to a National Monument.
We propose correspondingly to also extend this to a proposed National Monument as well. Hence, on that score, we propose to amend section 18 of the Act so that NHB can serve an Enforcement Notice to put a stop to any operation or activity that may place a proposed National Monument at risk of being altered, removed, damaged or destroyed. Members will know that, as I have mentioned earlier, this is for the period in between when a monument is being considered up to the time when it is either no longer being considered as a monument or it is then eventually gazetted as a monument, in which case, the usual protection as a monument would then apply.
These enhancements are intended to act as a safeguard to deter potentially errant parties who may cause harm to National Monuments.
Madam, the Bill further proposes two sets of miscellaneous amendments to the PMA.
First, as the PMA may also overlap with the statutory powers of other public agencies, the new section 22A in clause 8 of the Bill and amendments to section 15 of the Act in clause 6(g) will make clear that the provisions within the PMA will not constrain the statutory powers and duties of other public agencies.
So, for instance, certain powers may need to be exercised expeditiously at the site to safeguard public health. In those situations, those other public agencies will be able to take the appropriate action.
These amendments will also facilitate routine repair and maintenance works, which would not alter or damage a National Monument.
Second, Madam, the amendments in clauses 10 and 12(1) of the Bill will require the payment of composition fines collected by NHB into the Consolidated Fund instead of retaining them. This is to give effect to a 2016 policy introduced by the Treasury, after the last set of amendments were made to the PMA.
Madam, NHB has, thus far, worked well with owners and occupiers to ensure that our National Monuments are protected in accordance with the dignity they deserve, while at the same time not imposing onerous requirements on owners.
Going forward, NHB will continue to support owners and occupiers in their duty to maintain National Monuments. NHB will also take a considered approach to assess the specific circumstances and any concerns on a case-by-case basis, before exercising its powers and responsibilities under the Act.
Madam, some of our National Monuments are almost 200 years old – and in the case of the Padang even older. It is our duty to ensure that they continue to stand proudly for many years to come. There must, therefore, also be sufficient measures in place to protect the character and integrity of future proposed National Monuments which are deemed worthy of preservation.
These amendments, therefore, seek to strengthen the provisions in the PMA to further safeguard key markers of our national identity, for future generations of Singaporeans. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, it is important to safeguard our heritage for the benefit of future generations of Singaporeans. This Bill sends a clear signal on the importance of our heritage sites and gives the authorities the tools they need to protect these sites.
I have three points of clarification to make.
My first point is about the punishment for those who damage our monuments. The new section 15 provides some leniency to those who damage or alter our monuments. One situation is when a person acts in good faith to comply with a Government order or requirement.
I welcome this amendment. It would be unfair to punish someone who acts in good faith and is complying with a Government order.
In the spirit of providing effective deterrence against people damaging our monuments, could I also suggest that MCCY work with monument owners to ensure there are clear signs and labels to inform members of the public when they come across a monument?
The list of gazetted monuments is long. I am sure that many members of the public have no idea even when they are in or around a national monument. This will especially be the case as we expand the definition and start gazetting less concrete things like bodies of water and plots of land. Deterrence works best when expectations are clear, after all.
My second point is about clearer definitions. I agree with the existing defence in section 15(8) being retained. A person will not be liable for a section 15(4) offence if he had acted because of a person’s or property’s safety and had exercised all reasonable care to ensure that the act or omission would have no more effect on the “character or appearance” of the monument than was “necessary in the circumstances”.
Can the Minister clarify whether there are any guidelines or subsidiary legislation in determining how a monument’s “character or appearance” is affected?
As something that seems quite subjective, it would be useful to have some factors for consideration. Similarly, can the Minister also provide some examples of what may be considered “necessary in the circumstances” and whether there is a legal or factual threshold to be met?
My final point is about conditions for a warrantless entry. With the new section 27, a Director or a Monument Inspector will have the power to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant if certain conditions are fulfilled.
I agree with the Director and Inspector having stronger enforcement powers and understand that there could be certain situations where taking enforcement action can be urgent. However, I note that time sensitivity is not one of the conditions that have to be met for the Director or Inspector to enter the premises without a warrant. Can the Minister clarify why this is the case?
If the enforcement action is not urgent and no monuments are in immediate danger, I do not see why the Director or Inspector should not apply for a warrant before entering the premises. This will ensure that proper process is followed and reduce the likelihood of allegations of improper misconduct made against the enforcers. Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am supportive of the general direction of this Bill, the Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill.
In the Hollywood movie Monuments Men, the fictional President Truman is persuaded to set up a special US Army unit to preserve classic European works of art from the Nazis. The central idea behind the movie was to recognise that the value of our lives depends on economic concerns, but it goes beyond that.
Madam, in the uncertain times we live in, with geopolitical and economic certainties thrown up in the air, our heritage and monuments remind us of where we came from. A people who do not appreciate where they came from cannot chart a meaningful path forward.
Madam, we must approach heritage protection as a democratic effort, requiring buy-in and active involvement of different stakeholders, including monument owners, occupiers, civil society and the general public.
In this spirit, while I support the Bill, my speech will put forth suggestions in three areas of protection: firstly, protection of monument owners’ and public interests through appropriate judicial oversight; secondly, protection of our actual and proposed national monuments through stronger stakeholder engagement and support, particularly with civil society; thirdly, protection of heritage in a more holistic manner.
First, I would like to talk about protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of actual and proposed national monuments through appropriate judicial oversight.
I note with particular concern that section 27(2A) will enable the Monument Inspector to “forcibly enter” the site “without warrant” when they suspect on reasonable grounds that the site is being defaced, damaged or interfered with, “including by breaking open any outer or inner door or window”. I urge careful reconsideration. How is such violent action consistent with protecting our monuments? Such actions could damage the very monuments they are intended to protect.
While I do agree with the thrust of the Bill to increase protection powers for these sites, I believe the law needs to be more balanced and should not encroach on the rights of monument owners and occupiers, especially at the risk of damaging the actual monuments, unless absolutely necessary. I repeat the Workers’ Party’s position from the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, that exceptional Executive power must be matched with strong judicial oversight.
I have two specific questions to ask. Firstly, in what circumstances will the Monument Inspector deem it of such necessity to forcibly enter the site that the accompanying potential damage to the site’s windows and doors is justified? Can the Minister give some examples?
Secondly, in the 51 years of existence of the Preservation of Monuments Act, has the Government ever seen the need for forced entry without warrant into a monument or proposed monument to protect the site for the same reasons that confer such powers in the Bill?
I would like to suggest a circumscribing of the powers of forced entry without warrant by bringing in judicial oversight, unless in particularly exigent situations. The existing section 21 of the Preservation of Monuments Act already provides that the Director or a Monument Inspector may apply to the High Court, quote, “for any actual or apprehended contravention of the provisions of this Act to be restrained by injunction”, unquote.
In urgent cases, it is possible to obtain a temporary injunction from the High Court within days. The owner is compelled to comply with the injunction or may be charged with contempt of Court and possibly a jail term.
Hence, I propose to circumscribe the powers of forced entry without warrant to the following situations: firstly, non-compliance of the owner with an injunction issued under section 21; or, secondly, where there is reason to believe, on balance of probability considerations, that irreparable damage to the site will happen before an injunction order can be obtained.
I note, however, that in urgent cases, it is possible to obtain an injunction order fairly quickly. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on the substance of these proposals.
In the Hong Kong and UK equivalents of this provision, there are stronger checks and balances than what is proposed here. Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, section 5, also provides for public officials to have such powers of entry to inspect monuments. For entry into residential sites, written consent must be obtained from the occupier, or the Authority must give not less than 48 hours' written notice of their intention to enter. Furthermore, section 22(2)(b) of this Ordinance reads, quote, “no regulations made under this Ordinance shall confer upon a person any right which he would not otherwise have had to enter upon private land\", unquote. This is from Hong Kong.
The UK’s Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, section 88, also allows for forced entry into recognised heritage sites, but only with a magistrate’s warrant. According to guidance notes by the UK Institute of Historic Building Conservation, forced entry with a warrant, quote, “should be seen as a last resort”, unquote. And I quote, “To convince the Magistrates that forced entry is necessary, the planning authority needs to show what steps have already been taken to gain access by agreement and why these have failed\", unquote.
Thus, in Hong Kong and the UK, safeguards with independent judicial oversight are provided which protect private property owners’ interests, while balancing the need to protect heritage.
I note the Government’s reasoning that this provision is to align the PMA with powers of forced entry under section 27 of the Planning Act for protecting conserved buildings. However, the Planning Act provision does not have any mention of forced entry without warrant. Furthermore, we should remember that other than conservation, the Planning Act also covers land use and development in a broader sense and does not perform a monument preservation function.
Madam, my second proposal for better protection of monument owners’ interests is to ensure the certainty of timelines in, firstly, objections made to preservation orders; and, secondly, the duration of a preservation order.
When the Minister makes a preservation order in relation to a monument, sections 7(b) and (c) of the PMA allow the owner or occupier to make objections and require that the Board considers these objections and makes recommendations to the Minister.
However, there is no specific timeframe on how long the Minister has to consider these objections and make the final decision on the preservation order. Given the often onerous responsibility of maintaining a proposed national monument, it would be helpful for owners and occupiers of these sites to have greater certainty on the duration of the process. And I seek assurances from the Minister on this point.
I note that section 12 of the PMA does require that dwelling-houses that are served a preservation order be acquired by the state within a year, or the preservation order would lapse. But this applies only to dwelling-houses that “appear to be occupied” at the time of the issuance of the Order.
Once again, it may be helpful to take a leaf from Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, which clearly set out the process, procedures and timelines for how declarations of “proposed monuments” and objections may be made. Section 2B of the Ordinance provides that the declaration of a “proposed monument” only has effect for 12 months. Section 2C of the Ordinance provides that if the proposed monument is within private land, the owner or occupier may at any time apply to the Authority for withdrawal of the declaration. The Authority has to consider such objections within one month of the objection. If unsuccessful, the owner or occupier can pursue their objections further with the Chief Executive and Chief Executive in Council. The clear and transparent statutory timelines provide certainty for all stakeholders.
Madam, moving on to the second big concern of my speech, I would like to speak on how we can go even further in the protection of monuments and proposed monuments by deeper public engagement in the gazetting process, stronger support for owners in maintenance of monuments and ensuring the legitimacy of the PMA in relation to other laws.
Firstly, I urge the Government to engage the public and heritage groups more deeply in the process of gazetting a national monument.
As it stands, the process for making, amending or revoking a preservation order appears, by law, to be one solely between the owner and occupier of a monument and the authorities.
Section 11(7)(a) of the PMA provides that before the Minister makes, amends or revokes a preservation order, the Board is required to “give notice in writing of the Minister’s intention to do so to the owner and occupier of the monument and any land adjacent thereto which will be affected (by the preservation order)”. There is no legal provision or mechanism enshrined in law for members of the public or heritage groups to provide feedback or objections in this process. Such engagement seems to be up to the discretion of the Government, the kind of broad discretion that is often given to the Government in the language of many of our laws.
If our national monuments are sites that we, as a people, reflect upon as sources of meaning and identity, public and heritage groups must have avenues, inscribed in law, to provide feedback on whether sites should be preserved. This would enhance the public’s investment in the heritage preservation cause.
I propose we adopt, in subsidiary legislation, the same process as the Planning (Master Plan) Rules, specifically Rule 4, which requires that a proposal for an amendment to the Master Plan (for example, to designate a site as a conservation area) be advertised by notice and made available for public inspection. Rules 5 and 6 make provisions for members of the public to submit representations and objections to the amendments and require that, if the objection is not ruled frivolous, they have to be attended to by a hearing or public inquiry by the authorities.
I note that the amendment to section 11(12) does provide that the Board shall publish a list of monuments and proposed monuments, “in such manner as it deems fit”. May I clarify what this manner is and whether the Government can commit to publishing such a list online and for free?
Next, Madam, my first point on resources is in respect of the National Monuments Fund. Amendments to sections 4 and 5 of the Act extend the functions of NHB to cover “maintenance” of monuments and proposed monuments. I understand that NHB also administers the National Monuments Fund, a co-funding scheme.
Can NHB look into expanding the list of qualifying maintenance works? Increasing the amount of financial support for national monument owners will allow them to undertake timely and proper maintenance of monuments, thus delaying the need for major conservation works downstream. We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish.
My second point on resources is about the availability of craftsmanship expertise to restore and maintain monuments. One of our national monuments that had been gazetted early on in 1980 is Lian Shan Shuang Lin Monastery. In the 1990s, it fell into disrepair and was infested by termites. But the restoration and reconstruction took almost 20 years due to the difficulties in, firstly, finding local craftsmen with the necessary expertise and, secondly, bringing in foreign craftsmen.
Singapore currently classifies heritage building maintenance and restoration under the construction industry, so, these craftsmen can only work here as foreign construction workers. However, the highly-skilled and experienced craftsmen preferred for these projects are often older and would face the age limit obstacle when applying for a work permit. Furthermore, they would only be allowed to work on a single “construction” project, and would have to leave on project completion. So, there is no one available to attend to the daily maintenance of these heritage buildings. I also note that, in recent years, it has been even harder to attract such foreign craftsmen to come here, given that the pay in Singapore may not be significantly more attractive than in their home country. Could the Ministry look into this problem more closely in collaboration with MOM and perhaps consider relaxing entry requirements for foreign craftsmen by recognising them as such, instead of seeing them as “foreign construction workers”; and allowing them to work on multiple projects while here?
In the longer term, Madam, we need to build up local expertise. Could the Ministry work with local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and architecture or construction firms to professionalise career pathways for these craftsmen or artisans of heritage sites? Could IHLs also consider incorporating practicum options for IHL students to be involved in craft work on heritage projects?
Over the past year, I have spoken about the need to move more Singaporeans into trades jobs sustainably. It is said that many Singaporeans do not want to go into these jobs, such as highly-skilled construction workers and plumbers. To fix this problem of lack of local craftsmanship expertise, I would like to repeat my call for ensuring decent working conditions and enhancing the standing and pay of these jobs.
Next, Madam, on the new section 22A, this provides exemptions from Part IV Provisions for Preservation of Monuments and may mean that the provisions of other laws will always supersede a preservation order issued under the PMA. I would like to clarify: under what circumstances would the Government deem it necessary to use this provision?
To address this, I propose that statutory authorities be under a statutory obligation to consult the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and/or the NHB before taking or omitting to take any acts in relation to a national monument or proposed national monument.
A precedent for such an obligation is section 19(3) of the Parks and Trees Act, which requires LTA, before carrying out work or activity within a heritage road green buffer, to consult NParks.
The final concern I would like to highlight in my speech is the importance of protecting heritage in a more holistic manner so that the proposed amendments can be truly meaningful.
I will start off by proposing the incorporation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) mechanism into our heritage management policies going forward. The HUL mechanism incorporates community participation in the process, especially in the mapping, identifying and categorising of historically significant monuments and sites. It would bring us towards greater “democratisation” of heritage management and protection by giving a greater voice to broader communities and all stakeholders. This mechanism was recommended by UNESCO to all member countries for urban heritage management.
Next, besides being preserved, historic urban spaces in Singapore need to be used more adaptively, or they run the risk of being underutilised and “lifeless.” One such space that would benefit from such adaptive reuse is the Padang. In MCCY’s press release on this Bill, the Padang had been singled out as a site that will be proposed for preservation. Despite having borne witness to key historical milestones, the Padang today is regrettably an under-utilised public place. When there are no major events held there, it is deserted and almost \"lifeless\". Beyond simply preserving the site, could our urban planners and architects be challenged to imagine new ways of bringing the space to life, so future generations can be a part of its story?
Next, on our modernist, post-war architecture. Most of our preserved and conserved buildings are from the colonial era. However, our post-war, modernist buildings are equally, if not more, iconic, representing the prowess of our pioneer architects and engineers and the post-war growth of our nation as they strove to create something architecturally unique in the early years of our Independence.
I urge URA and NHB to explore the conservation of more post-war buildings and to ensure their economic sustainability through adaptive reuse.
Recently, Golden Mile Complex was gazetted for conservation. A number of buildings like the Pearl Bank Apartments and the old National Library have gone, but it is not too late to save what we have, like People's Park Complex, for example.
The Government can explore the promotion of rehabilitation of old buildings, which is also greener. For instance, some buildings in Krakow, Poland, have been rehabilitated: a market for merchants in the mid-13th century was turned into an underground museum and a bank in the 19th century was turned into a cultural centre.
Various tools can be used, for example, tying in rehabilitation with revitalisation of an urban core, a community improvement project, or offering grants and subsidies.
Next, Madam, going forward, I urge the Government to implement a mandatory heritage impact assessment (HIA) scheme for development plans that are likely to impact any heritage sites.
In an answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I raised in February this year, MND explained that every development proposal is subject to a robust planning evaluation process that considers the development’s impact on traffic, public health, environment, as well as built heritage. I urge the Government to go one step further in enshrining this process in law and committing to a rigorous and transparent HIA process with deeper engagement with the public and civil society.
A HIA scheme will better allow the Government and private owners to consider the impact of specific developments in a particular site on our built, as well as intangible, heritage. Mandatory HIA regimes have been implemented in other countries, even in land-scarce Hong Kong.
HIAs, for which there are recognised templates and prescribed processes, should be conducted at an early stage of planning and the public should be engaged.
URA commissioned a historical documentation study for the area in Bukit Brown that was meant to be exhumed. This was consistent with a baseline study of a HIA. However, for Bukit Brown, the study was, unfortunately, commissioned only after the decision to exhume the cemetery was made and, hence, no mitigation measures, such as an alternative alignment of the expressway, were proposed.
Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, one issue which I think looms large in the public mind and represents a potential conflict between the interests of the owner, occupier and heritage preservation mandate of the state is the status of 38 Oxley Road, the former home of our first Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If the house comes under consideration for preservation, it is this very Act, the Preservation of Monuments Act, that will determine what is due process.
The Workers’ Party does not have a position on what should be done with the house and neither do we think it is our place to decide, but what we care deeply about is the heritage due process that we hope will be upheld, in a rigorous, transparent and fair manner. Given the high-profile nature of this case, how it is handled will set a precedent for future heritage decisions. This will be monumental, pun intended, for heritage management in Singapore. In relation to this case, whether the wishes of a single individual are respected in relation to the national heritage interest, how the public is consulted, how negotiations with the owner and occupier are conducted, how heritage value is assessed and evaluated, whether our heritage institutions and laws are seen to be legitimate and effective – will resonate in the years to come.
On this note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, and, in conclusion, I call for stronger safeguards on the powers of forced entry without warrant, greater certainty of timelines for monument owners and deeper public consultations and engagement on monument preservation and conservation.
Madam, in the final scene of the movie \"Monuments Men\", the fictional President Truman asks George Clooney’s character if saving these great works of art justified the loss of a soldier’s life. This deep question goes to the heart of the tension between our economic or material aspirations and our cultural aspirations as a society. It should never be an “either or” question. We should use all of our ingenuity and resourcefulness as a people to ensure that the cultural aspiration never becomes the enemy of the economic one but, rather, its steadfast partner.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Madam, for a young country like Singapore, the protection of our heritage is important. Not only does it remind the future generations of our roots, it also reflects the values which the society holds dear.
In September, a man was charged under the Preservations of Monuments Act for wakeboarding at the Civilian War Memorial, which was clearly disrespectful of the National Monument. This may be a rare incident – which, I hope, did not leave any permanent damage on the memorial – but society and the Government has a responsibility to safeguard our National Monuments from damage and disrespect.
Today, we have more than 7,000 conserved buildings under URA and 73 National Monuments under NHB. To a layperson, it is not always clear what the difference is between a conserved and a protected building.
I am very happy to hear that the Government has reviewed the Preservation of Monuments Act and is stepping up protections provided under this Act. National Monuments ought to be accorded the highest level of legal protection in Singapore.
The Minister said that the Preservation of Monuments Act will align NHB's powers of enforcement with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is a good step, but I suggest that the Government look into whether there is a need to strengthen the legal protection of National Monuments beyond that which is accorded to conserved buildings.
In addition, I would like to ask about the efforts that NHB has undertaken, and will undertake, to educate the general public, particularly school children, on the significance of our National Monuments. Madam, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a young country like Singapore, the protection of our heritage is very important. Not only does it remind the future generations of our roots, but also reflects the values which the society holds dear.
In September, a man was charged under the Preservation of Monuments Act for wakeboarding at the Civilian War Memorial. This was clearly disrespectful of the National Monument. This may be a rare incident but I hope that this incident did not leave any permanent damage on the memorial.
But society and the Government have a responsibility to safeguard our National Monuments from damage and disrespect.
Today, we have more than 7,000 conserved buildings which are under URA and 73 National Monuments under NHB. To a layperson, it is not always clear what the difference is between a conserved and protected building.
I am very happy to hear that the Government has reviewed the Preservation of Monuments Act and is stepping up protections provided under this Act.
National Monuments ought to be accorded the highest level of legal protection in Singapore. The Minister said that the Preservation of Monuments Act will align NHB's powers of enforcement with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings.
This is a good step, but I suggest that the Government look into whether there is a need to strengthen the legal protection of National Monuments beyond that which is accorded to the conserved buildings.
In addition, I would also like to ask about the efforts which NHB has undertaken to educate the public, particularly school children, on the significance of our National Monuments.
(In English): The above clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking in support of this Bill and also for the various suggestions that have been raised.
I think we can all agree that there is really a need to better safeguard and celebrate our shared heritage and ensure that it is preserved for future generations to enjoy as well. So, the raison d’être behind this Bill is to step up our preservation and also our outreach efforts. I wish to assure Members that NHB will continue to work with and through the community to grow participation as well as ownership of heritage. After all, heritage is about our shared values, our shared vision, our shared sense of identity. We will do that as part of our Our SG Heritage Plan.
The amendments in this Bill seek to strengthen our sense of identity and belonging by enhancing the safeguards for our built heritage.
Let me plunge straight into addressing the queries raised by Members. First, by Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera on the scope of the enforcement powers under PMA, including our reasons for taking reference from the Planning Act.
Mr Xie Yao Quan, on the one hand, said that powers could possibly go beyond that of the Planning Act, given the relative consideration between the conserved property and the heritage monument. On the flip side, Mr Louis Ng asked if the powers could be calibrated further by including an explicit condition of urgency or time sensitivity. I think Mr Leon Perera also had several questions concerning the ambit of section 27.
I should assure Members that these powers would be exercised judiciously, as I mentioned. The fundamental consideration is to ensure that the value and distinctive nature of these places, monuments, sites are well-preserved and protected.
These amendments will ensure that our enforcement powers can be sufficiently robust as we expand the range of what can be gazetted as National Monuments.
As I mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments we have in this Bill will take reference from the Planning Act. These powers in the Planning Act have worked well to protect the more than 7,000 conserved buildings, but, at present, do not extend to National Monuments.
Mr Leon Perera drew a distinction and sought to say that there is no equivalent of forced entry on the premises should there be an apprehension or concern over damage to the property.
That is not correct. Section 27(1A) of the Planning Act provides specifically for there to be forced entry in the scenario where the officer concerned is reasonably satisfied that there is a risk of damage to the conserved property or to the property under the Planning Act. That was an amendment that was made in 2017, as I have explained.
To Mr Xie Yao Quan's question about powers that go beyond the Planning Act, we had thought about this and considered it, given the relative position of both types of properties. But we, eventually, decided against it. We felt that the proposed amendments in this Bill ought to be sufficient to ensure our objectives of better maintaining and protecting the National Monuments whilst, at the same time, requiring reasonable obligations from the monument owners and occupiers.
For Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng’s question on the proposed amendments to section 27 for the Director of the National Monument or a Monument Inspector, to forcibly enter the land or site without warrant, Members should look very closely at the provision in question, especially when one contrasts it with comparable legislation in other countries.
First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, this provision is operative only if the Director or Monument Inspector already suspects, on reasonable grounds, that an offence under the four delineated provisions has been or is being committed on the land or site.
Members have to bear in mind that this is in relation to a property that is likely to be an old property, an old building or an old site and damage would likely be irreparable and difficult to make up.
These four sub-sections that section 27 cites are matters which go to the heart of preserving and protecting a site. Section 13(7), for example, deals with failure to comply with the preservation notice. Section 15(4) is in relation to works or alterations that are being done to the monument or the proposed monument without prior permission. Section 20(1)(a) deals with non-compliance of an enforcement notice. So, in other words, there is already an enforcement notice and the officer suspects that there is a non-compliance with the enforcement notice. Section 22(1) deals with a situation where there is a defacement, damage or otherwise, an interference with the monument or the proposed monument.
So, we do not start with a blank canvas. We start with an officer having reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of these four scenarios is or are taking place, or is or are likely to take place.
On top of that, the provisions sketched out in section 27(2A) then further provides that the officer must either be unable to enter or is refused entry. To have more clarity on this, section 27(2B) provides that if the owner or occupier of the land is present, then the officer concerned must first, before entering, approach the owner or occupier, show identification, obviously, in that context, to explain the circumstances in which one needs to enter the premises.
So, far from the image which I think Mr Leon Perera sketches out where you come in, you barge in and you take down the door, bust open the gates – it is not that kind of scenario.
Section 27(2C) further provides that even if the owner or occupier is not on site, but someone else is, then the officer concerned must also approach that person, as long as that person demonstrates or appears to be in charge of the land or site concerned. So, again, every attempt is made to demonstrate that you are either unable to enter, or you have been refused entry, and these two sub-provisions that I have cited show that every effort must be made by the officer concerned to make an attempt to either speak to the owner or occupier or some other person who appears to have control of the site – and all that takes place before entering, as is explicit in both sections 27(2B)(a) and (b).
On top of that, once the officer comes into the premises, the purposes for which the officers are present on the premises are circumscribed by section 27(1). In other words, there are certain statutory functions and powers that the officers are in-charge of or responsible for, and those are the purposes for which entry is sought.
To the extent that we compare our legislation with comparable legislation overseas, it is obviously in different contexts. One also has to appreciate that the nature of monuments and sites will be different from one jurisdiction to another.
But if you take New South Wales as an example, it does provide that, after having given reasonable notice, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a building, object or a place has an item of environmental heritage, he can carry out inspection in that building – so, enter to carry out inspection.
In Hong Kong, as Mr Leon Perera said, provided 48 hours' notice is given, the officer concerned may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect any proposed monument or monuments.
In the UK, section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act provides that any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purposes of surveying any building on it, or any other land in connection with the proposal to include the building or exclude it from a list of works and so on. Further, any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for any of the following purposes that include surveying, ascertaining whether an order has been complied with, ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed and ascertaining whether any building or any land or any other land on site is being maintained properly, or whether it is in a proper state of repair.
So, these are the provisions elsewhere in other jurisdictions. I am not saying they are on all fours with our provisions. But you can see that the tenor of provisions elsewhere in the world do accept as a premise that there is a need, urgently or, on occasion, to enter a site, and the reason for that is obvious, as you are talking about premises, buildings, monuments which are of significant national and heritage value.
Mr Louis Ng asked if there were guidelines or examples to determine what it would mean for the \"character or appearance\" of a National Monument to be affected no more than \"necessary in the circumstances\", under the proposed amendments to section 15.
Madam, to help monument owners and occupiers fulfil their duty to maintain National Monuments in a manner which befits their status, NHB may issue specific guidelines to include an inventory of the key historic features that ought to be preserved for a particular site.
NHB also publishes broad technical guidelines relating to the repair, maintenance and management of monuments, for instance, how, in some cases, painting works should be conducted and how signages at the sites should be installed. These would also include features and actions which would affect the character of the national monument.
On that note, I have listened carefully to Mr Leon Perera's suggestion on how we can further help monument owners or occupiers maintain their premises better. I think we are in agreement with him. We will take steps to see how we can explore that better and, in the appropriate cases, support monument owners or occupiers to better maintain the historic features behind the monument.
Mr Louis Ng made suggestions, and I think Mr Xie Yao Quan as well, on how we could enhance other areas separately from legislation to better deter damage to National Monuments. Mr Louis Ng suggested clear signs and labels around National Monuments. He might be happy to know that, today, there is already a plaque at a prominent area at each of our National Monuments, such as at the entrance of the monument, to inform the public of the status of the property and also share its significance.
In some cases, such as the Civilian War Memorial, there may not be a single prominent public entrance, or public facing entrance. For these properties, NHB will work with the monument owners to put up prominent signages, where appropriate, to remind the public to pay due respect and so on to the National Monuments. On this, it is really not rocket science to know that you should not, at any time, deface, destroy, damage anything that is in public, let alone something that is of heritage and monumental value.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about NHB's efforts to educate the public on the significance of national monuments. Indeed, preservation and enforcement powers help us to safeguard National Monuments, but that, in itself, is not sufficient if the public is not aware of its significance and also appreciative of its heritage value. Many of us would have noticed that several of our National Monuments have also been given a new lease of life, to borrow Mr Leon Perera's words, \"through careful, adaptive reuse\", which is a pragmatic and sustainable approach to preservation. Even though their historic façades and structures are preserved, the internal uses may evolve over time. This allows members of the public to continue to interact with National Monuments whilst, at the same time, appreciating their history and significance.
Some examples include the former City Hall and Supreme Court, which are beside the Padang, and now houses the National Gallery. Members may also have gone past the former St James Power Station.
But the point about adaptive reuse is well-understood and, sometimes, it is a question of trying to balance modernising and preserving the heritage, and adaptively reusing, with imagination, to repurpose the interior, which, sometimes, can maximise preservation and also affinity with the public, who are drawn more to the premises rather than just by the façade.
To further increase public awareness and appreciation of our national monuments, NHB also runs a slate of programmes for the public. This includes walking tours for the public, learning journeys for school children, at least in pre-pandemic times, led by volunteer guides who share stories of the history and significance of the National Monuments. There is also the Milestones Through Monuments programme, introduced in 2019, which allows the public to learn more about the history of each monument through onsite exhibits and physical installations.
As I have mentioned, COVID-19 has impeded physical programmes to an extent and also NHB's outreach efforts. NHB has also kept up engagement of Singaporeans through digital means, instead of embarking on physical learning journeys for school children. As I have mentioned, NHB offers Monumental Robo-tours. Not only for school children, Members are always welcomed to try for themselves as well. It uses a telepresence robot to create a virtual tour experience for students who can sit in the comfort of their classrooms and still get to experience virtual tours of our national historic and heritage sites.
Other initiatives include the Music at Monuments digital programme, a series of musical performances held at National Monuments streamed online, which was released last year. And I am pleased to say – perhaps because people cannot be physically present as much as they would like to be – that it garnered more than 300,000 views, which is very encouraging.
These digital programmes will be with us for the long term, even after the pandemic. And they will expand the menu of the offerings. We have to promote knowledge of and affinity with our National Monuments and what they symbolise in our journey as a nation whilst creating their own new experiences, new memories, with members of the public at these historic places.
I would just like to respond to some of the specific points that Mr Leon Perera raised, in terms of trying to strike a balance. I have explained how section 27 is designed to work, but Members will be assured to know that, as far as NHB is concerned, any damage to the heritage site will be an absolute last resort, only if necessary to have a protection of the greater site itself.
In terms of the duration of the Notice itself, I have noted Mr Leon Perera's points and we can consider them. But one also needs to appreciate that as you look at gazetting or considering the gazetting of sites for preservation, no two sites will be the same. Some, in fact, after this amendment, will be a site, others might be a building. Some are larger, some are smaller, some have a more complex history and some require a little bit more work, as Mr Leon Perera also outlined, in terms of preserving and making sure that it is something that can be kept well.
So, we have framed it as \"a reasonable period\" in this case; that is the language of the statute. That is one way of doing it. Mr Leon Perera says, \"Why don't we follow Hong Kong?\", which says one year. But in some cases, one year is too short; in other cases, one year is too long.
For now, it is probably best for us to look at the sites and, given the level of interactivity that NHB has with stakeholders, with owners, with occupiers, with members of the public, with the heritage groups, it is sufficient for now, I believe, to leave it as \"reasonable period\", so that there is some flexibility in their engagement. And one can also have regard to the specific context of the site in question. And it does not have to be tied to a particular period, in all cases, for all sites or all buildings.
Mr Leon Perera raised the point about engagement. There is no provision in the Bill that stipulates a timeline and a plan for engagement, but Mr Leon Perera probably knows that NHB conducts public engagements regularly. In fact, some were done even before this Bill was canvassed and proposed. Likewise, in other jurisdictions, including those provisions that Mr Leon Perera looked at in Hong Kong and the UK, some have, some do not have, a formal process.
We have chosen not to have a formal process hard-coded into the legislation, but that does not mean that NHB does not engage. In fact, NHB engages the heritage societies I have mentioned regularly, including NGOs, docent leaders, monument owners and occupiers regularly. And also the grant applicants, those who take grants from NHB, we engage them as our stakeholders. NHB also conducts focus group discussions and public consultations for major projects and initiatives. Our SG Heritage plan is part of that. But also for museum or heritage institution revamps, NHB does public consultations on these.
And as Mr Leon Perera pointed out, in these amendments in this Bill, what will happen after the Minister has formed the intention to gazette a site as a monument, that will be published. Mr Leon Perera asked if it is online and if it is free. I think if it is online it will be free and NHB intends to publish it online, so that members of the public will know in advance if something is proposed to be gazetted as a monument. That is not to say that that is the only feedback that NHB gets. It does not stop anyone with any interest from making submissions and giving feedback to NHB at any time, which has happened.
So, what the provisions do is to say that the moment something is considered and an NOI is filed in respect of that particular site or building, then that would be published and members of the public will know about it.
There were some questions by Members on the operation of the new section 22(a). As I have explained in my opening speech, sometimes, for a site, besides being subject to regulations or orders on preservation, how it is to be conserved, preserved and so on, there is also a question of how it is otherwise maintained by other agencies. In some cases, it may be a sewer, in other cases it may be about the maintenance of the environment. What section 22A does is to provide that these other agencies may come in and deal with their area of operations, their works, without running afoul of PMA. To Mr Leon Perera's suggestion, he should be assured that there is close collaboration between MCCY and also with NHB, together with URA, whenever there are such works that concern or touch on or impact heritage sites or buildings.
Finally, on Mr Leon Perera's last point on due process, he can be assured that it applies to all. There is no one particular site that this has in mind. All sites and, in all cases, due process applies to all. I want to assure Mr Leon Perera that due process will always be preserved – pun also intended.
[(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":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2021 covers four sets of amendments. Two give effect to measures that were announced in the 2021 Budget Statement. The other two arise from our periodic review of the GST regime to clarify GST treatment and improve GST administration.
MOF sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. The public consultation was conducted from 6 to 27 July 2021. MOF has published on 1 October 2021 our responses to the key feedback received. We have evaluated the feedback received and incorporated them where relevant and feasible to do so. We thank the contributors for their inputs which have allowed us to refine the amendments.
Let me start with the first two sets of amendments, which relate to the changes announced in the 2021 Budget Statement on 16 February 2021.
We impose GST on all goods imported via land or sea, regardless of value. We also impose GST on goods imported by air or post with a value above $400. We currently do not have GST on goods imported by air or post with a value of $400 and below. This is a gap which puts local businesses at a disadvantage.
To close this gap, the first set of amendments introduces GST for goods that are valued up to the current GST import relief threshold of $400, or \"low-value goods\", that are imported via air or post from 1 January 2023 onwards.
The first set of amendments also introduces GST for business-to-consumer, or B2C, imported non-digital services, such as live interaction with overseas providers of educational learning and telemedicine.
The extension of GST to such imported low-value goods and B2C imported non-digital services under these amendments will complement the GST that we already levy on business-to-business, or B2B, imported services, and on B2C imported digital services from 1 January 2020.
Other jurisdictions have extended their GST or Value Added Tax, or VAT, similar to our proposed amendments. Jurisdictions that have extended their GST or VAT regimes to cover imported low-value goods include Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Similarly, jurisdictions which already tax B2C imported non-digital services include Australia and New Zealand.
The introduction of GST for low-value goods imported via air or post and for imported B2C non-digital services is necessary to ensure a level playing field for our local businesses and allow them to compete effectively. Overseas suppliers of goods and services will be subject to the same GST treatment as local suppliers. These amendments will also keep our GST system resilient in a growing digital economy.
The legislative changes for the first set of amendments can be found in clauses 2 to 4, 6 to 15 and 17 to 26 of the Bill.
Next, I will deal with the update on the GST treatment for a supply of media sales.
The second set of amendments updates the GST treatment for a supply of media sales. Media sales refer to the sale of advertising space for hardcopy print and outdoor advertisements, advertising airtime for broadcasting via TV and radio, and web advertising via email, Internet or mobile devices.
Currently, the basis for determining whether a supply of media sales is zero-rated or standard-rated depends on the place of circulation of the advertisement. If the media sales are circulated in Singapore, GST applies. If they are circulated abroad, then the supply of media sales is zero-rated.
However, this is no longer reflective of the state of media sales today. Online advertising has grown and is expected to account for an increasing share of advertising spending in future. Developments in digital technologies have changed the way that media sales are supplied and made it more difficult for suppliers of digital media sales to determine the place of circulation of the advertisement.
We, therefore, need to update and revise the GST treatment of media sales. Thus, with effect from 1 January 2022, the GST treatment for the supply of media sales will instead be based on where the person who contracts for the service, for example, a local or overseas headquarters or HQ, and the person who directly benefits from the service, for example, a subsidiary in Singapore, belong. For example, if the contractual customer of the media sales service belongs in Singapore, GST will be charged at the standard rate.
This amendment is provided for in clause 11 of the Bill.
Beyond these two sets of amendments, MOF regularly reviews the GST regime to clarify GST treatment and to improve GST administration. Let me now touch on the remaining two amendments in the Bill arising from this periodic review.
The first amendment arising from this periodic review updates the transitional rules for changes in GST treatment.
For supplies spanning the date of a change in GST treatment, the transitional rules under the GST Act and Regulations help taxpayers determine whether the old or new GST treatment applies. These rules were last amended in 2011.
Since then, there have been changes to our GST system. For instance, we introduced GST on imported B2B services and imported B2C digital services from 1 January 2020. We have reviewed the transitional rules and updated them in consultation with the industry. The proposed updated transitional rules will help prevent revenue risks, particularly for related-party transactions, provide tax certainty and ease the compliance burden of taxpayers whenever there is a change in GST treatment.
These proposed updated transitional rules will apply to changes, such as the proposed change of GST treatment for a supply of media sales, from 1 January 2022.
This amendment updates the transitional rules, such as to cover imported services, clarifies the application of elections under the transitional rules and makes various administrative changes that are necessary for a smooth transition of a new GST treatment. Clause 16 of the Bill provides for these amendments.
Finally, the second amendment arising from the periodic review of our GST system seeks to make miscellaneous changes to the Overseas Vendor Registration, or OVR, and Reverse Charge or RC regimes. These are regimes for enforcing GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and imported services. The miscellaneous changes seek to prevent revenue risks, provide tax certainty and ease the compliance burden.
These miscellaneous changes are found in clauses 4 to 6 and 25 of the Bill. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the process of digitalisation and forced many brick-and-mortar stores to take their businesses online. The learning curve has been a steep one and some are disheartened when they discover that after getting their store online, the challenges are far from over.
In the past two years, we had observed a significant increase in interest in online shopping. The borderless nature of the Internet would mean that Singaporeans also have easy access to foreign online marketplaces. Local businesses would now find themselves competing with online sellers from overseas, who are often more experienced and able to offer their goods and services at lower prices due to lower production costs and lack of taxes.
The Government’s move to apply GST to lower-value overseas imports via air is highly anticipated and welcomed by the local businesses that I have spoken with. The business owners believe reducing the cost differences between buying products locally and overseas would, to some extent, help to drive the consumer traffic inwards. But to achieve its intended purpose, the policies must be pragmatic and enforceable. With the sheer number of independent foreign merchants that offer direct shipping to Singapore, how will this policy be implemented?
Would GST be paid to the merchant or would consumers make the payment when their purchase reaches local customs? With this additional step of GST collection on an increased number of parcels, will this slow down the delivery process significantly? How could a possible decrease in delivery service standards be mitigated, while ensuring prompt collection of taxes?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, for digital services, the absence of customs intervention could mean a higher possibility of tax evasion. For example, if someone purchases a web design service from an independent designer overseas, is there any way for the authorities to track this transaction, besides self-declaration from the consumers? Would the Government work with international payment platforms, such as PayPal and Stripe, to better monitor the outflow of online payments from Singapore to overseas?
Besides administrative issues, the fact that this tax on lower-cost goods would affect lower-income households is another cause for concern. Some Singaporeans buy products from overseas that they cannot find locally. They will now have to contend with significantly higher costs as a result of increasing shipping costs and GST costs and not to mention the supply chain disruptions that we are facing now. For the lower-income households, every cent in savings counts. Being driven towards local options that are initially more expensive than its foreign counterpart may be a win for the local retailer, but, for the low-income consumer, it would feel like a loss.
A resident of mine recently learnt to shop online after receiving training from the Seniors Go Digital Programme. She has frequent backaches and was delighted to buy a brand of ointment from Indonesia, which is not available in any of the local supermarkets. She says it is much cheaper than her usual choice of ointment and more effective. With the new policy, she lamented that she may give up using it if it becomes too costly. So, I did tell her that she could try to suggest to some of our local supermarkets to bring in the product. As I understand, our local supermarkets and retailers have been heeding the Government’s call to diversify supplies. So, I would hope that our residents do not have to feel deprived of their favourite overseas products because it has become significantly costlier to purchase overseas.
Nonetheless, all this is happening in tandem with the scenario of a potential increase in local GST rates, which may take place by 2025. Singaporeans are still reeling from the economic impact of the pandemic. So, all these possible factors that may contribute to increased expenses may be very difficult to be taken as the normal scheme of things, even if the policy is necessary, and many countries have already implemented similar moves. A young resident tells me that he is feeling disheartened because he is still searching for a stable job after graduating, but costs of living are going up faster than he can find one.
The widespread popularity of e-commerce and foreign marketplaces in Singapore would mean that increasing GST not only impacts businesses, it also indirectly impacts Singaporeans’ costs of living. So, it is important that we address it as such. With that said, I understand that some major multinational online marketplaces, in fact, already incorporate GST into their goods and services and pay it directly to the Government. So, the number of consumers affected by the new policy may be less than expected. Can the Minister share data on how this policy may impact overall inflation and living costs in Singapore, even at the margin, especially so given the already inherent pressures and delays from supply chain disruption risks?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this policy would, in essence, help to reduce loss of Government taxes and improve fairness for local businesses, but some clarity on the actual enforcement is necessary. Moreover, the Government should address concerns with regard to the impact of the policy on the cost of living in Singapore. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, it felt like yesterday when I last spoke on the GST (Amendment) Bill which was introduced in Parliament in November 2020. Back then, I shared my concerns about the loss of public revenues through GST leakages and had also asked about the status of introducing GST on imported goods, a point which was first raised in Budget 2018. I shared then that the OECD had, in March 2019, endorsed new rules and frameworks for the collection of taxes on the online sale of goods.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 has resulted in dual impacts on the retail sector in Singapore: firstly, an acceleration in the already rapid growth of the e-commerce market; and, secondly, the continued struggle of brick-and-mortar retailers amid an uneven playing field.
Fast forward to this year, these points continue to be relevant, with online sales now representing 16.4% of total retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, in August this year and with vacancy rates of retail space remaining elevated at 8% despite declining retail rents since 2015, given the challenges faced by the retail industry and made worse by multiple waves of COVID-19-related restrictions.
From the perspective of supporting our local SME retailers and to address a growing source of tax leakage due to overseas online retailers and to correct a key imbalance faced by tax-paying retailers in Singapore, I would like to state upfront that I am supportive of this Bill and the ensuing changes to ensure a level playing field for our local businesses to compete effectively.
A year ago, Finance Minister Lawrence Wong shared that he was very happy that I had brought up this point and supported it, because the MOF will certainly look for ways to raise more revenues and I believe the Minister will be equally happy with my discussion today. That being said, I do have a number of clarifications and broader issues to raise.
The first is that, since 1 January last year, GST is now payable on digital services provided by the GST-registered overseas service providers. In December 2019, IRAS shared that more than 100 overseas digital service providers have registered for GST under Singapore's Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) regime and will be charging GST on their sales of digital services to Singapore consumers.
In November 2018, it was shared in this House that the Government expects additional revenue of about $90 million per year from this so-called \"Netflix tax\". Incidentally, Netflix has grown its subscriber base globally by about 1.5 times from 2018 to 2020, adding 37 million subscribers globally in 2020 alone. In Singapore, Disney+ was also launched in February this year, with many other over-the-top (OTT) services, Software as a Service (SaaS) and other forms of digital services witnessing prolific growth, due to the change in consumption patterns brought about by COVID-19.
I would like to ask the Minister: what was the assessed contributions from the tax on overseas digital services in the last financial year and how does it compare with initial estimates? More broadly, what has been MOF's initial assessment of the level of industry compliance, effectiveness of the administration of this tax and the number of cases of non-compliance by overseas vendors detected by IRAS so far?
Second, I understand that from 1 January 2023, GST will now apply to goods imported by air or post with a value of up to S$400, as well as imported non-digital services. In both of these cases, implementation is by way of extending the Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) regime, similar to how GST was being extended to digital services. Under certain conditions, a local or overseas operator of electronic marketplaces may also be regarded as the supplier of such low-value goods or imported services.
With the likes of Shopee and Lazada being the e-commerce marketplaces with the largest estimated market share here in Singapore and with these companies themselves being headquartered in Singapore, the focus on these popular electronic marketplaces and digital platforms does provide for an effective way to ensure tax compliance and proper GST collection. However, now that we are venturing into the realm of low-value goods, a significantly larger plethora of overseas businesses are now supposed to be GST-registered.
But the reality is that not all of them may be aware of this requirement and, even if they do, could simply decide not to go through this hassle to collect GST on the Singapore Government's behalf. A quick search on the IRAS GST Registered Business Search throws up four records for Shopee, five records for Lazada, 20 for Amazon but none for Taobao, by far the most dominant marketplace in China, for example. There could also be many more direct overseas vendors that may or may not be registered as well.
How then can IRAS ensure that there is a robust enforcement framework in place, to ensure that all those who fall within the scope of the OVR regime do so? In the absence of financial records of companies incorporated overseas, much less the amount of revenues they derive from Singapore specifically, how does IRAS make the determination as to which companies it seeks to audit or investigate? And whether the overseas tax authorities will be able to provide as comprehensive an information set that IRAS seeks to retrieve?
The third point is in relation to one of tax efficiency and IRAS has been an efficient tax authority, a consistently low cost of tax collection at less than one cent per dollar of tax collected over the past years. I recognise that this new Bill is also about protecting Singapore's revenue base, not just merely about the additional GST receipts from the imposition of GST on these categories of goods and services.
But how much does the Government expect to collect in GST receipts from each of the low-value goods and imported non-digital services? And what is the cost of tax collection in this regard and the expected level of resources and costs to ensure a comprehensive compliance and enforcement framework?
The fourth point is more of an adjacent one and while Singaporeans may not be able to travel overseas as freely as we would like to right now, we do yearn for the skies one day. As and when we do travel overseas, it is to be expected that one might be doing some shopping and bring home some gifts and souvenirs. Today, travellers are granted GST import relief on new goods that are purchased overseas and brought into Singapore for their personal use, with the relief amount set at $500 with 48 hours spent away from Singapore. Can I ask the Minister if this GST relief is expected to stay intact even when GST on low-value goods is in place from 2023?
Before I end, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about a number of broader but pertinent issues relating to GST.
The first is on the spectre of a looming GST hike from 7% to 9% amid current macroeconomic uncertainties. The Workers' Party has been voicing our concerns on the GST hike since it was announced in 2018 and I take comfort that Member Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared his concern on the impending GST hike, where he pointed out in his speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill last month, that this was originally announced before the pandemic. To which, Minister Lawrence Wong responded that, \"The Government has announced that the GST rate increase will take place sometime during 2022 to 2025. This remains unchanged and we will continue to consider all factors, including our fiscal needs as well as the prevailing economic conditions in deciding on the timing of the GST rate increase.\"
While I agree with the need to roll out GST on low-value goods and imported non-digital services, the target implementation from 1 January 2023, coupled with the \"sooner rather than later\" hike in GST rates, could mean a double whammy for consumers.
Yet, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this impending GST hike is weighing on not just consumer confidence but also on businesses, especially the retailers hard-hit by COVID-19-related restrictions. The Singapore Tenants United for Fairness group, for example, in commenting on the latest month-long extension of COVID-19 restrictions, shared that the frontline business community is in deep despair and disrepair, and I quote, \"To make matters worse, over the next 12 months, frontline businesses will be further hit by a likely increase of GST to 9%\".
The other factor that is critical to consider is that of inflation. High inflation would simply mean lower real incomes and, at the moment, the debate globally, which has yet to be settled, is whether or not the current inflationary pressures in the market are seen to be transitory or permanent. What I do know, however, is that MAS is concerned enough about inflation to surprise the market with a tightening of monetary policy in October, that is, last month, given that external and domestic cost pressures are accumulating.
For Singaporeans already grappling with inflation and higher household expenditures, that additional two percentage points may be too much to bear. Yes, there will be the GST Assurance Package that delays and does not deny the impact of higher GST rates. Yes, I acknowledge that there will be an enhancement to the permanent GST Voucher scheme, which, at the moment, only applies to those earning less than $2,300 a month, amongst other conditions. These may be progressive elements involved but does the raising of GST make our tax system as a whole more progressive or more regressive? I believe the answer is clear. Do we really want higher GST to be the straw that breaks the camel's back?
As I shared in my speech last year, we need to explore other forms of revenue sources before looking to an eventual GST hike to raise tax revenues. The Significant Infrastructure Government Loan (SINGA) Bill was passed earlier this year. We are now casting our GST net further overseas. We are raising carbon tax rates. We are considering wealth taxes. We are in the midst of the OECD global tax reforms which could, as Finance Minister Lawrence Wong pointed out, give Singapore some additional revenue. And as I have shared during the Budget debates earlier this year, not all Government revenues are included in the official Budget.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, while I support this GST amendment Bill, I cannot support a GST hike which will be an unnecessary burden on our fellow Singaporeans, especially at this point in time when inflation is a serious concern and a full recovery of the employment market remains uncertain.
We must have the courage to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to uphold a culture of fiscal responsibility, even if it means walking back on a prior decision made under very different circumstances. It is not too late to change course and I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of a GST hike.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Online sales in Singapore will hit an estimated US$8 billion this year. In a recent report by Bain & Company, e-commerce sales in Singapore are expected to grow to US$10 billion by the end of 2026. In the past 20 months, due to the confluence of factors, such as travel restrictions due to the pandemic, the growth of end mile-delivery platforms, lower-priced alternatives and our digitally well-connected population, online shopping has become the norm for us Singaporeans.
Since the onset of COVID-19, people have changed the way they shop and these changes are unlikely to reverse. A recent study in Singapore last year by Visa also found that three in four consumers in Singapore are shopping online more frequently because of the pandemic and one-third of Singaporeans also made an online purchase for the first time. The same survey also found that more than half of the respondents shopped less frequently in physical stores. This is likely due to the fact that we can purchase almost anything online now, from small, low-value items like cutleries, pots and pans, tools, mattresses and household items to expensive luxury items.
While most of us are enjoying the convenience of online shopping, a portion of our fellow Singaporeans, our small retail merchants, are struggling. In my recent discussion with our Merchants Association in Pasir Ris, our merchants, especially those that sell low-value household items, such as hardware, tools, curtains, small pieces of furniture and non-perishable products, shared that since the pandemic, their business has gone down by up to 40% to 50%.
Ms Ann Tan, a business owner at one of our neighborhood shops in Pasir Ris selling furniture, shared that her business has dropped by 50% and showed examples online where the overseas retailers were charging the same price for the exact same cupboards and shelves without GST. Bike shops also shared examples where small bicycles parts like grips, handlebars and gloves were all available online from overseas but not subjected to GST. The merchants also shared that some customers now are browsing the physical item in the shop, trying out the items, enquiring about the items but when it came to payment, some customers whip out their handphones and ask the shop owners for a lower price compared to what is available online.
The sale of these items used to be the bread-and-butter of our small retail merchants, but it is no longer. With people shopping less frequently in physical stores and the unfair advantage that overseas suppliers have by not paying GST, our neighbourhood businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Hence, our small retail merchants are hoping for a level playing field and the introduction of GST on low-value goods from overseas will be one of the enablers for that.
In addition to the introduction of GST on low-value goods from overseas, these small enterprises will need more assistance to remain competitive with the overseas online retailers. I am glad that we have programmes like IMDA's SMEs Go Digital which has a three-step checklist to go digital and the retail industry digital plan which provides a step-by-step guide on the digital solutions for local retail SMEs. These programmes assist our small retail merchants to start their digital initiatives. However, most of them, at least for the small retailers in Pasir Ris, have found it hard to sustain the digital activities as they are usually a one- or two-man operation and have no resources nor skillsets to continue with these activities.
Since the intent of introducing GST to low-value items from overseas is to level the playing field, can the Ministry consider the tax income from the activity to be used to provide more support for our neighbourhood retailers, such as hiring more consultants or trainers, to guide more retailers through their digital transformation and provide a support package for the small retailers to continue to sustain their digital activities? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tThe COVID-19 pandemic has changed our patterns of purchase drastically. While many of us enjoy the convenience of online shopping, other Singaporeans, such as neighbourhood shop owners, clothes sellers and small businesses, are facing challenges in running their business. Many of them have reported their business declining by 40% to 50% and one of the reasons was that prices of low-value items from overseas retailers are not subject to GST.
\t
\tBy imposing GST on low-value items from overseas retailers, we can help our small retail businesses by balancing the opportunities for all traders. We must also strive to continue helping our retail businesses to undergo digital transformation so that our small businesses can remain competitive in this increasingly challenging situation.
(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the onset of COVID-19 has seen an irreversible shift in our patterns of purchase. While many of us enjoy the convenience of online shopping, a portion of our fellow Singaporeans, our small retail merchants, are struggling to make ends meet. The introduction of GST on low-value items will help to level the playing field for our small retail merchants as, previously, low-value items from overseas retailers are not subjected to GST.
These are truly challenging times for our neighbourhood small retailers and we have to do more to assist them on their digital transformation journey. Notwithstanding the proposal above, I support the amendments.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","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":"BP","content":"[(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":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has often been mentioned under the same breath as rising inequalities in Singapore. The same considerations that went into levelling the playing field for our marginalised families and residents would have gone into this new Bill, which also seeks to level the playing field for our local businesses when faced with the harsh inevitabilities of a globally open economy.
The imposition of GST on imports of low-value goods below $400 seeks to address this problem, in hopes that local consumers channel their purchases to local suppliers rather than those abroad.
However, we stumble upon tricky territory, as such developments necessarily produce winners and losers amongst our local businesses whether we like it or not, or whether we notice them or not.
The imposition of GST on the import of low-value goods is justified by a bid to support local businesses and we can infer by the pre-set $400 benchmark that the cost is intended to be passed on to consumers rather than businesses, reducing the attractiveness of low prices of suppliers abroad that were previously not subject to GST and, thereby, channeling demand locally.
The levelling of the playing field here is a welcomed move amongst our local retailers as they look towards the sustainable and necessary pivoting of their businesses in light of globalisation, e-commerce and changing consumer habits.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, although this will not affect all businesses, with the imposition of GST on imported low-value goods, we threaten to weed out, arguably, the most local of all our businesses, that is, our home-based businesses.
Nothing says “local” like a home-based business, fuelled by the passions of Singaporeans, built from scratch in our own piece of Singapore property and incubated at their inception not by institutional investors, but by friends, family, loved ones and even neighbours.
I would like to tell the story of a home-based business owner named Jia Jia who started her home bakery three to four years back. Jia Jia never planned to become a home baker. Out of her passion for baking, she started baking in her parents’ home and archived her creations on Instagram. This attracted significant interest from friends and family, who enquired whether they could commission her to bake cakes for their parties and also make dessert boxes. Her consumer base grew gradually through word of mouth because of the popularity of her bakes and this allowed her to quit her full-time job to focus her attention on her passion-turned-livelihood in baking. Today, she continues to run her bake sales on her Instagram and she has about 9,000 followers on her page.
Jia Jia’s home bakery can be seen as the epitome of local business – businesses with humble origins in Singapore, run by locals for locals. Many of us have a Jia Jia in our lives, or a Jia Jia hopeful, particularly with the tail winds for local home-based businesses brought about by COVID-19. I remember I myself even hosted a “Passions to Profit – Mumpreneur” Home Baking Class with my colleagues from the NTUC Learning Hub and over 300 Mumpreneurs have signed up for the classes since then.
However, because of the GST imposed on the import of low-value goods, local businesses like Jia Jia’s might face a significant dent in their profit margins, especially if they source mainly from overseas. We may think that home-based businesses are supported because they are local, when, in fact, they are marginalised because they are small.
Not only is it unkind to expect home businesses to just die out because they are not scalable, but it is also presumptuous to think that home business owners necessarily intend on moving their businesses out of their homes. The home business owners I have spoken to believe they are \"here to stay\", insistent that their home-run businesses are what allows them to be personally involved in their passions.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, not all skilled artisans necessarily want to become factory owners because their passion also happens to be their job. We cannot legislate taxation in a way that potentially invalidates the business models of home businesses if we want Singapore to really be where passion is made possible.
Due to their lack of recognition in the formal economy, these businesses do not receive subsidies for equipment and, sometimes, have restrictions on who they can even do business with, with or without a licence, leading them to struggle to even compete with some of their larger SME counterparts, much less overseas competitors. They keep their prices affordable not just to drive up profit margins, but because they thrive on strong personal relationships with the very people they serve. Absorb the significant dent on profit margins passed on to them by GST and their businesses are in danger. Pass it to their customers and they would feel that they have done them a disservice.
Further, although it is desired that those affected by the GST on low-value imported goods would channel demand to the local economy, in the case of home business owners, this may not be so. Once again, it must be reiterated that it has always been passion over prices. Our home business owners take a lot of pride in their work and put their heart and soul into their craft. This is one of the biggest draws of supporting home businesses. You know that your product has passed through the watchful eye of a personally invested business owner.
And this is why the home business owners I have spoken to maintain that they would never compromise on quality. Sometimes, this commitment to quality requires imports, such as for quality ingredients or materials that simply cannot be found in Singapore. This commitment to quality could pinch their profit margins should they continue to import their ingredients.
Therefore, Mdm Deputy Speaker, when debating on the tax on importing low-value goods, the question is not whether or not we should be #supportlocal. The question is whether, by doing this, we are really supporting local. In our bid to level the playing field, have we inadvertently made the hill a little bit steeper for some businesses we had intended to support? Would we be able to then further level the playing field through other support mechanisms for our home-based businesses, financial or otherwise, because our home-based businesses are often left unnoticed?
Further, when debating the imposition of GST on imported goods, we must inspect the substantive benefits accrued to those we seek to uplift. At the peak of the restrictions last year, many Singaporeans were really quite dismayed to see the haunting photos of an empty Orchard Road and the impact on retailers in Singapore since then cannot be understated.
With the rise of online shopping and e-commerce, some predict that online competition could spell the gradual debilitation of retail in Singapore. And this is a ghastly prediction the imposition of GST on low-value goods seeks to reverse.
While this is all done with good intentions, I believe we should not merely aim to prop up the retail sector in Singapore, but usher a new golden resurgence. Just as Times Square, Ginza, Tsim Sha Tsui, Dongdaemun crown the vibrancy of their world-class cities, it is time that Singapore polishes our crown and restores the vibrancy of our retail sector. Merely levelling the playing field with price adjustments will serve us short term, but we cannot settle for stop-gap measures for what has once been the crowning jewel of urban life in Singapore, which is our retail sector.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I propose that these measures pertaining to price must be complemented with a wider ecosystem change that not only merely props up retail businesses but elevates the retail experience in Singapore. This brings me to the case of Pazzion, best known as a brand for female footwear in Singapore.
Pazzion opened its first brick-and-mortar store in Marina Square in 2005 and boasts its 10th local outlet as of 2019, in the meantime building its presence in Asia Pacific. What is interesting about Pazzion, however, is that, in recent years, it has broken out of its mould as a fashion business and opened a café over at Jewel, committing to becoming a lifestyle brand that sells experiences beyond goods. Any shop, online or brick-and-mortar, can peddle goods, but I would say brick-and-mortar shops are, at the moment, much better placed to deliver an experience.
It is my hope that retailers and mall owners in Singapore can partner up to deliver retail experiences beyond the delivery of retail goods, rejuvenating the retail experiences for Singapore and her visitors. This is how we will truly be able to make the case for retail in Singapore to return to its crowning glory. Online shopping makes purchases possible, but, here in Singapore, passion is made possible.
With this, I call for the distinction to be made for microbusinesses, especially our home-based businesses, when it comes to GST changes and other provisions for growth support. Further, I call on Government agencies to think bigger in revitalising Singaporean retail, going beyond propping up businesses in the short term, to architect a real retail environment for the ages. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill will update our GST regime. Significantly, this Bill will extend GST to imported low-value goods. This ensures a level playing field for local suppliers and overseas suppliers. Additionally, the Bill will also update the GST treatment for media sales to more closely reflect the reality of how services are advertised and consumed.
I thank MOF for consistently consulting the public on its Bills, including this Bill. I also commend the Ministry’s diligence in always providing summaries and its responses to key feedback received in its consultations.
I have two points of clarification to make on this Bill.
My first point is on the GST treatment for the supply of media sales. The amendments to section 21 mean that the GST treatment for supplies of media sales depends on where the customer and the direct beneficiary of the service belongs, rather than where the advertisement is circulated.
IRAS’ e-Tax Guide has provided some guidance on how to identify the “direct beneficiary” of media sales. In particular, the e-Tax Guide provides that the contractual client will, generally, be regarded as the sole direct beneficiary where two conditions are satisfied.
First, the service agreement does not require the services to be provided to another person. Second, the supplier liaises only with the contractual client and is accountable only to the contractual client.
Can the Minister clarify if both conditions must be satisfied in order for the contractual client to be deemed the sole direct beneficiary? Or is it sufficient that either one of the conditions is satisfied?
The e-Tax Guide also provides that when the two conditions are satisfied, the supplier does not need to look beyond the contractual client in determining the correct GST treatment. In the event that the two conditions are not satisfied, can the Minister share what other factors a supplier should take into account to determine who the “direct beneficiary” of the service is?
In particular, where multiple layers of contracts exist between a service provider and the beneficiary of a service, where should a supplier draw the line in determining its “direct beneficiary”?
My second point is on the use of best available information to determine whether goods are distantly taxable. The new section 14(1B) provides that a recipient may rely on the best available information to determine whether goods are distantly taxable if the recipient is unable to verify the location of the goods at the point of sale of the goods or how the goods will be transported to a place in the customs territory.
In the public consultation conducted on the Bill, MOF had declined to accept a suggestion that the Bill prescribe information that businesses should rely on to determine if a supply of goods are distantly taxable goods that fall within the scope of GST. MOF declined to prescribe the information to reduce compliance burden and has stated that IRAS will provide examples in its e-Tax Guide.
While the examples will be useful, what will also be important in the event of a dispute is which party bears the burden of proof. Can the Minister elaborate where the burden of proof lies and how the burden shifts in determining whether there was compliance with the tax treatment of distantly taxable goods? For instance, does the burden of proof shift to the Comptroller of Income Tax once the recipient is able to show a preliminary case that they relied on the best available information? Is the burden of proof then on the Comptroller to show that the recipient, in fact, had access to and should have relied on other information?
This clarification is important because the term “best available information” is so general that it might pose enforcement issues. Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, cross-border spending constitutes a key component of our e-commerce market. This is projected to reach $8 billion in 2025. As such, it is important to ensure that our tax policies are reviewed and revised accordingly. The decision to impose taxes on all imports by air or post will help to level the playing field for our local retailers. It will also help to supplement the increased Government spending in the upcoming years. I would like to share my thoughts on four issues.
First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to provide more support for lower-income households. I am concerned that imposing GST on all incoming overseas goods will lead to an increased burden on these residents. Has the Government done research or sought feedback on how foreign online retailers intend to handle this tax increase? Will it be absorbed? If not, how much of it will be passed on to the consumers? As this new Bill mainly impacts individual buyers, the additional tax will be a heavier burden for our lower- to middle-income families. This will be compounded by the impact of the GST hike that is likely to be implemented in the next few years.
Are there further measures on top of the existing Assurance Package and GST vouchers to mitigate the impact on them? Or can the quantum of these initiatives be increased to help families, given this new change? Will it be possible to utilise the Assurance Package or GST vouchers to cover online purchases, too?
Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to continue to encourage our local retailers to compete globally. Compared to many of their overseas competitors, which have large economies of scale, SMEs are disadvantaged, as they often have to pay high rental and labour costs. If the savings on purchasing foreign imports are reduced, this could diminish the attraction of overseas purchases, thereby encouraging more Singaporeans to support local businesses.
Nevertheless, why do Singaporeans shop from overseas sites? According to a survey, eight in 10 local respondents shared that the main reason was the overall lower cost of procuring goods and services from foreign sites. The second reason was the wider variety of international brands’ products and the lack of availability from local retailers. If Singaporeans cannot find their preferred brand, services or shopping experience locally, the imposition of the GST will do little to shift their buying behaviour towards local businesses.
As such, local businesses must not be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that they can rest on their laurels and become complacent with the perceived decreased competition from foreign markets. They must continue to innovate, use business analytics to understand their customers’ needs, establish global partnerships and bring in products that are in high demand. The Government must continue to encourage and support our local businesses to compete globally by embarking on digitalisation and by getting onto these online retail platforms. In this connection, perhaps the additional tax revenue from the imposition of GST can be funnelled to support the globalisation efforts of local businesses.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, my third point is on the need to tackle implementation challenges that come with the new taxation policies. With more companies and individuals obliged to comply with the new GST regime, compliance costs will, therefore, increase. What is the estimated number of low-value transactions in a year?
There may be a disproportionately large number of low- versus high-value transactions. As such, the Government may require disproportionately more resources to ensure that individuals comply with the new GST regulations. How will the Government ensure that there are adequate resources to enforce the new policies in an efficient manner? Will more personnel be hired to handle the additional workload at IRAS? In light of the additional cost to ensure compliance, has any study been done to weigh up the cost of compliance, including prosecution of GST evasion, and the potential tax revenue that may be generated?
With the new law, individuals are subjected to taxation or reverse charge. Is IRAS ready for the potential increase in enforcement action when this comes into play? As for businesses, local GST is imposed on all GST-registered companies in Singapore. They collect GST from the customers or absorb it. And the collective amount is paid to the Government. Will foreign retailers who wish to sell to the Singapore market be GST-registered? How will the Government engage these foreign businesses and provide them with the relevant legislative and administrative material, so that they have sufficient time to understand and apply the new practices?
Perhaps this ties in with my above point on compliance. There are foreign companies with a large online shopping presence in Singapore, such as Amazon, Taobao and Lazada. These companies allow smaller third-party companies to sell on their platform. Have the relevant stakeholders engaged these companies to collaboratively resolve the issue of compliance?
What if the foreign retailer withholds GST payment? How will the Government deal with overseas companies who fail to comply with our GST regulations? In the case of New Zealand, their Inland Revenue would monitor for non-complying retailers. Under international agreements, it can request counterparts in some countries to collect tax on its behalf or assess and pursue unpaid tax through a retailer’s national courts. Is this an option that we would pursue? Or will the burden then irrevocably fall on the customer as a reverse charge?
In addition, similar to Member Saktiandi Supaat's earlier point, how will consumers be made aware about whether their payment at the point of purchase already includes GST? And will they be told that they have to pay additional GST to collect their parcel in Singapore? SingPost has recently switched to an online cashless system for collecting GST on packages valued above $400. The new policy would see a significant rise in the number of packages due for GST payment. This could also provide opportunities for scams. Unscrupulous merchants may leverage on this to cheat consumers into paying them a sum to retrieve their purchase. Parcel clearance scams, where callers masquerade as customs officers asking for payment to retrieve a parcel, have not been uncommon even before this. It is thus imperative to educate consumers on when and where GST is to be paid and the official payment platforms to do so. I would expect that SingPost or other online delivery platforms would be well-equipped by then to address more queries concerning GST payments on their parcels.
How will the Government keep track of all parcels coming into Singapore and their GST payment status? Some packages may contain purchases from small businesses, or gifts from family and friends. Some may not come with invoices.
Second-hand items like those from eBay, may have had their GST paid when the items were first bought. Are these second-hand items still subjected to GST taxation a second time? It is also not unheard of that some foreign retailers would allow customers to under-declare the value of their purchases to evade taxes, or to reduce the amount of tax payment due. How will the Government police these?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, my last point is on the implementation for media sales. Many firms now employ gig workers from overseas or outsource to provide remote services like designing programmes or media pieces.
Such services are difficult to apply a quantum to and are easy to evade. As such, many of these services could be under-declared or not declared at all, to avoid GST. In addition, many of these small firms may neither have a turnover of $1 million nor are GST-registered. Will these firms – which may be acting as an underlying supplier or re-deliverer – be liable for reverse charge, if the services provided are below $400? If reverse charge still applies to these firms, can they still pass these additional costs to the consumers?
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, taxing all imports is necessary as e-commerce grows globally. Nevertheless, the Government should provide some support to lower-income groups who are impacted by such taxes.
In Yio Chu Kang, I recall meeting Mdm K during a house visit, who was a homemaker looking after three kids. Her husband, who is the sole breadwinner, is a delivery driver and does not earn a lot. Mdm K supplements her family income by importing children’s story books, toiletries and cosmetics from China and Korea, which are either cheaper or not available in Singapore. These items do not cost a lot. And Mdm K brings in items in small amounts. I, therefore, urge the Government to provide some support to the lower-income groups, micro businesses and entrepreneurs like Mdm K and her family who may be significantly affected by the changes, if the tax is passed to them.
This policy is also an opportunity for our local businesses to innovate, in the face of a globalised world. If local businesses are unable to improve their offerings and customer experience, they can expect our residents to continue shopping overseas. Our competition is the world. If we do not innovate, we will stagnate.
Finally, implementation is policy. We must ensure that the relevant agencies are well-equipped to handle the additional workload and customer enquiries. The policies must be well-enforced, with adequate information made accessible to the public, lest they become loopholes to be exploited for dishonesty and fraud. I support the Bill.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a Council Member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants but I do not advise clients on tax matters.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has to factor in many considerations and strike a delicate balance as it seeks to fulfil its mission. For example, there is the trade-off between protecting revenue and minimising the distortions of taxes on market competition. In addition, it has to find ways to optimise the efficiency of tax administration and avoid unnecessary enforcement burden.
One of the concerns of levying GST on lower-value items is whether the resources required to enforce the collection are worth the effort. But I can see why the Ministry is implementing GST on this category of goods. There is no better time to start than this current moment and e-commerce has become the hottest vertical in Singapore's tech sector during this pandemic.
To facilitate tax compliance for foreign online suppliers, IRAS should implement a simplified registration and compliance regime. In other countries, e-commerce platforms collect and remit the tax on the Government’s behalf, as they take on the role of a \"store\" with an offering of different supplies. In many cases, it acts as the sole point of contact with the end consumers.
Under our current Overseas Vendor Registration regime, I understand that foreign suppliers and e-marketplace operators which make significant sales of digital services to Singapore’s consumers are required to register with IRAS for GST. With this new legislation, the Overseas Vendor Registration regime will be expanded.
I would like to ask what if the foreign suppliers are non-compliant for the import of their goods into Singapore? Will the Singapore-based purchasers, like the consumers, be asked to pay for the GST? Can IRAS work with Electronic Distribution Platforms (EDPs), like Aliexpress and eBay, via a joint and several liability (JSL) notice mechanism to notify the foreign suppliers, as we are unable to regulate these suppliers effectively, to help us with the tax collection?
IRAS should concentrate its efforts in the fight against GST fraud and ensuring the effective taxation of cross-border online sales to raise additional revenue and strengthen the functioning of our tax systems. I understand the need to grow our tax base in order to fund other expenditures. For example, Australia recorded total revenues of over AUD 1 billion of GST collected in the first two years of operating its GST regime for online sales of services and digital products and in the first year of its implementation for online sales of goods. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One of the justifications for levying of GST on low-value imported goods sold online is to ensure fair competition for our domestic retailers against online retail platforms. Singaporean retailers are required to charge GST on their sales, but online retailers are not. While this measure may help some of our local stores narrow the price gap between them and online retailers, our consumers will have to pay higher prices.
Due to the pandemic and the Government's persuasion, many Singaporeans have changed their shopping habits. Cautious consumers should not be punished for remaining wary of crowded shopping centres and stores, especially as COVID-19 cases and hospitalisations are on the rise again. On the other hand, local retailers who have supplemented their business with online sales may face the double whammy of low footfall plus a new tax on their online sales of imported items.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister. Is this new approach meant to minimise the entry of high numbers of new gig economy operators, like the SMEs, into the GST system, perhaps with limited compliance capacity and knowledge of their tax obligations? I am concerned that the new economy operators, especially the micro-businesses and SMEs, may often have limited GST knowledge and capacity to comply while their activities may involve considerable GST revenues and create risks of competitive distortion that may be significant at an aggregated level.
Does IRAS expect the revenue impact of this approach to be significant when activity shifts from a limited number of established and largely GST-compliant conventional operators to a large number of gig economy operators that may remain outside the scope of GST?
Will bringing in these new gig economy operators into the GST net create undue pressure on tax administration and compliance challenges for the operators? How will IRAS use technology to facilitate GST administration and compliance? Are there third-party reporting obligations, taxpayer education and other activities to raise awareness?
How does IRAS enforce and collect the right amount of tax? The purchases that many Singaporeans purchase online are less than $400. So, many Singaporeans will be affected and feel that they are forced to pay the cost of COVID-19 even though the change will only happen in 2023.
Online sellers have found ways to evade paying taxes: posting goods without declaring, offering services on online social media, boosting cash transactions and running multiple sales websites. How will IRAS minimise such non-compliance?
Can a portion of tax revenue collected from these imported purchases be earmarked to strengthen the resilience of our retail sector in the event it encounters another major economic downturn like now?
I look forward to the Minister's response and would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members of Parliament who have spoken for their support of the Bill. The questions raised by the Members fall broadly into four categories.
First, how IRAS will implement GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and business-to-consumer, or B2C, imported non-digital services. Second, how IRAS will enforce collection and ensure compliance. Third, specific queries on the updated GST treatment for a supply of media sales. Fourth, feedback concerning cost of living and the GST Voucher Scheme.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng asked how GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services will be implemented. GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services will be implemented by widening the scope of our existing Overseas Vendor Registration, or OVR, and Reverse Charge, or RC regimes.
These regimes are not new and have been successfully implemented from 1 January 2020 to tax business-to-business, or B2B, imported services and B2C imported digital services.
Under the OVR regime, overseas vendors, such as overseas suppliers, electronic marketplace operators and re-deliverers that make significant B2C supplies of imported services and/or low-value goods imported by air or post to non-GST registered customers in Singapore will register with IRAS if they are not already registered. They will collect GST from their customers on such supplies and then hand the collected GST over to IRAS. Non-GST registered customers in Singapore include individuals like many of us here. This approach ensures a level playing field in terms of GST treatment, whether we buy such services or goods from local suppliers or overseas vendors
Mr Don Wee asked whether a simplified registration and compliance regime will be available for overseas vendors. Our current regime is not onerous. Overseas vendors can already choose to register under a simplified pay-only mechanism. The simplified pay-only mechanism allows overseas vendors to enjoy simplified GST reporting and documentation requirements.
Under the RC regime, which is only applicable to B2B transactions, local GST-registered entities will account for GST to IRAS when they import low-value goods via air or post or buy B2B services from overseas suppliers. Our RC regime does not affect most GST-registered entities in Singapore. This is how we keep the tax compliance burden low. This is because they are fully taxable persons entitled to a full refund on the GST incurred on their purchases and even their account for GST on the low-value goods imported by air or post or on imported services, they will still get a refund of this same amount.
Only a small minority of GST-registered entities here are subject to RC – these make non-taxable supplies, such as exempt supplies or non-business supplies, and cannot get a full refund of GST incurred on their purchases. This minority of GST-registered entities that are subject to RC include financial institutions and residential property developers.
For this minority of GST-registered entities that are subject to RC, they are required to account for GST on the imported services, including services procured from overseas gig workers, regardless of the value of the services.
Businesses with annual turnover of less than $1 million and not importing services exceeding $1 million are not required to register for GST and are not required to apply RC on their imported services. This is similar to how we do not require local businesses with less than $1 million annual turnover to register for GST.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how, under OVR, consumers will know if their payment at the point of purchase already includes GST and how Singapore Customs will know if GST has already been paid on a package. When consumers check out their purchases, GST-registered overseas vendors will charge and collect GST on the low-value goods at the point of purchase when the order is confirmed. This is similar to how, since 1 January 2020, GST is collected on imported B2C digital services.
Where GST has been charged and collected by the overseas vendor on the low-value goods, the overseas vendor will include the relevant information on the GST collected in the commercial document which is passed through the logistics chain. Import GST will not be payable at the border when this information is furnished to Singapore Customs. For example, for goods delivered via air couriers, the GST registration number of the overseas vendor is included in the summary list of parcels to be imported or in the permit declared to Singapore Customs.
Mr Louis Ng asked how GST-registered entities that are subject to RC can use best available information to determine if a purchase is subject to RC. As I have explained earlier, only a small minority of GST-registered entities here are subject to RC. When these entities buy low-value goods, RC will apply only if the goods are imported by air or post into Singapore. Singapore Customs already collects GST for all goods imported via land and sea into Singapore.
GST-registered entities that are subject to RC will usually know from its contract with a supplier whether the low-value goods it buys is located outside Singapore at the point of sale and whether the goods will be imported via air or post. However, there may be occasions in which the GST-registered entity only knows this information upon receipt of the goods.
Allowing GST-registered entities that are subject to RC to use the best available information to determine whether the RC applies is, therefore, meant to ease compliance by such entities.
Apart from information available at the time of purchase of the goods, the entities can use information at the point of goods receipt or other information collected by their business systems and processes to determine the location of goods and mode of shipment into Singapore. One example of such available information is the import and shipping documents that accompany the goods.
As it would be difficult to envisage all the types of available information that may be used, we will not provide a prescriptive list of information that GST-registered entities subject to RC can rely on. Instead, IRAS will provide examples on the type of documents or information in its e-Tax Guide. Entities subject to RC can approach IRAS for clarification if they wish to use other available information.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Don Wee, asked how we will engage overseas vendors and ensure that they comply with the new GST regime. First, since 1 January 2020, the regime is already in place for overseas vendors that sell B2C digital services to local consumers. This has helped IRAS gain experience in administering and enforcing the regime. The rules of our OVR regime are consistent with those of other jurisdictions. This makes it easy for overseas vendors to comply and also provides certainty for the industry.
Many of these overseas vendors are familiar with similar GST or VAT obligations in other jurisdictions. We are not the first jurisdiction to implement GST on low-value goods imported via air or post, or on imported services. For instance, Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have extended their GST or VAT regimes to cover low-value goods.
Our experience with OVR thus far since 1 January 2020 and the experience of other jurisdictions with OVR show that these multinational businesses do comply with GST or VAT obligations of the jurisdictions they make supplies to.
IRAS will make use of various information sources to identify and engage overseas vendors that should be GST-registered and verify their GST reporting after GST-registration. In the event of non-compliance, the existing penalty and enforcement regime under the GST Act will apply. IRAS is empowered to raise additional tax assessments, apply penalties and recover the outstanding tax payable directly or through the appointment of agents. Provisions in bilateral tax agreements will also allow IRAS to obtain information on overseas vendors from other tax jurisdictions.
IRAS has been actively engaging the industry, including overseas vendors, on the implementation details for the OVR and RC regimes. These include consultation on IRAS' draft e-Tax Guides and the proposed legislation. IRAS is also conducting outreach activities for potential GST registrants, including participating in workshops in various international fora and holding webinars, to educate overseas vendors on the new GST rules.
I will now proceed to address questions regarding the updated GST treatment for suppliers of media sales.
To recap, the GST treatment for a supplier of media sales will be revised from 1 January 2022, to be based on where the person who contracts for the service, for example, a local or overseas headquarters, and the person who directly benefits from the service, for example, a subsidiary in Singapore, belong. Currently, the GST treatment depends on where the advertisement was circulated. With the advent of the digital economy, including online advertisements, our GST treatment needs to be updated.
IRAS has provided guidance in its e-Tax guide to state that the person who contracts for the service, or the contractual client, will, generally, be regarded as the only person who directly benefits from the service, where two conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the service agreement does not require the services to be provided to another person. The second condition is that the supplier of the service liaises only with the contractual client and is accountable only to the contractual client.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether both of these conditions must be satisfied, in order for the contractual client to be deemed the sole direct beneficiary and how to determine the GST treatment of the supply of media sales in the event that both conditions are not satisfied. To clarify, both conditions must be satisfied for the contractual client to be regarded as the sole direct beneficiary. IRAS has provided examples in its e-Tax guide to illustrate this.
Where the two conditions are not satisfied, the determination of the direct beneficiary would be dependent on the facts of the case. As a general rule, the supplier should consider the party other than the contractual client stated in the contract that he is required to provide a service to and to whom he is accountable for his service deliverables. For example, if the media sales supplier's contract is with an overseas headquarters, but the contract requires the media sales to be, first, provided to a subsidiary in Singapore, or second, the media sales supplier is accountable to the subsidiary in Singapore for his service deliverables, then the subsidiary in Singapore is the direct beneficiary of the service.
In both instances, the supplier will have contact with the subsidiary in Singapore, the actual recipient of his service. Therefore, regardless of the presence of multiple layers of contracts, the supplier will know the direct beneficiary of his supply of service. IRAS will include more examples in its e-Tax guide to illustrate the situation where both of these conditions are not satisfied.
With the extension of GST to low-value goods imported via air or post and to imported B2C non-digital services from 1 January 2023 as announced in Budget 2021, this means that GST will apply to goods and services imported into Singapore. This, in turn, levels the playing field for our local businesses, as overseas suppliers of goods and services will be subject to the same GST treatment as local suppliers. This change also helps to defend our GST revenue base from being eroded as the digital economy grows and more people shop online.
Mr Sharael Taha asked whether the tax revenue from this measure could be used to provide more support to small retailers and help with their digital transformation. The revenue collected will form part of our total fiscal resources. We have set aside $24 billion over the next three years, as announced in Budget 2021, to enable firms and workers to transform and emerge stronger from the pandemic, of which a key focus is to support SMEs in their digitial adoption. There are schemes already in place, such as SMEs Go Digital, Heartlands Go Digital and SME centres, to help small retailers through ground support and consultancy services with their digital transformation.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for more support for microbusinesses and wider changes to support our retail ecosystem. We have implemented several schemes throughout 2020 and 2021 to help SMEs in the retail sector. We are also refreshing the Retail Industry Transformation map, or ITM, which lays out a longer-term vision for the industry as part of a broader refresh of the 23 ITMs, given disruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how this measure would impact overall inflation and living costs in Singapore, particularly for the lower- and middle-income.
The bulk of individual consumption, such as food, utilities, transport, education and health care, will not be affected by the change. These goods and services are, typically, bought from local suppliers rather than from overseas suppliers and thus are not affected by the extension of GST to low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether additional assistance will be provided on top of the Assurance Package and GST Voucher scheme. We have said that the Government will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised healthcare and education. To support lower-income Singaporeans, we already have other permanent schemes, such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), Silver Support and ComCare.
As part of our annual Budget, we have also provided additional support, such as Service and Conservancy Charge (S&CC) rebates and top-ups to Child Development and Edusave accounts. The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans, with more help given to the lower-income.
Let me now address the queries raised by Mr Louis Chua. He had asked for the GST collection from our existing OVR and RC regimes. And the answer to that is that it is about $250 million a year.
He had also asked about the number of cases of non-compliant overseas vendors under the existing OVR regime detected by IRAS so far. IRAS has not detected any cases so far and the overseas vendors are generally compliant.
He had asked how much does the Government expect to collect from each of the new measures. The measures would yield about $130 million a year.
And his final question was whether there will be any changes to GST import relief for those coming back from overseas. That will not change.
I think Mr Louis Chua then concluded by a call to review whether or not it is necessary to raise the GST rate. Let me say this.
First of all, today is not really the time to have a debate on whether or not we should raise GST as a whole, because today's Bill is focused on a very specific aspect, which is low-value goods. However, I want to just make a few general remarks, given that Mr Louis Chua has also made a call or some remarks on raising of the GST rate, which is really this.
You have to consider our revenue and you have to consider our expenditure situation. And I think Members of the House know this already. In terms of our revenue, taxes and fees are only 80% of our total revenue. We are already relying on the NIRC for 20%. That is one-fifth. Our revenue is not coming from taxes alone. And the budgetary surpluses of the entire last two decades have been called upon because of COVID-19. And because of COVID-19, because of the pandemic, we have had to dig into our reserves – not just NIRC, but the actual reserves. And the draw on our past reserves amounted to about $53 billion. That is our revenue situation – we are digging into the savings.
On the other hand, our expenditure, if you just look at the horizon – and I outlined this in my speech yesterday on the Adjournment Motion – we have very large expenditure items looming on the horizon. Firstly, ageing population and all the healthcare that comes with that; secondly, climate change and the need to have a sustainable future for Singaporeans; and, thirdly, renewing our social compact, bridging inequality, doing more for the vulnerable, helping those who are in need.
So, what do we have? We have a situation where our fiscal situation is already tight, because we are digging into our savings and our reserves. We have got impending challenges which require us to spend more and you also have the Workers' Party, on top of that, asking us to spend even more than that.
The money must come from somewhere.
The Workers' Party has attempted to put forward some suggestions. So, they have suggested tax increases; they support the tax change today. But you must remember that the kind of money that is raised from the GST change in today's Bill is in the millions. But if there is a GST increase of two percentage points, the amount of revenue raised per year is about $3 billion. You are comparing millions with billions. And the kind of expenditure that is required is billions.
The other suggestion that the Workers' Party has put forward is on land sales and to treat land sales as revenue. Actually, I have explained this before. But in a nutshell, what they are really saying is, if you have land, if you have property, today, it is in the physical form; when you sell it, you are converting it to cash, to another form – and the suggestion is to treat that as revenue. We do not treat it as revenue because you have not become richer by selling it. You have just converted it from a physical form to a cash form. It is just not prudent in terms of the way one should run a fiscal system.
So, I would just simply urge the Workers' Party to consider this: our fiscal constraints, the need to spend more and that the money must come from somewhere.
I had also, yesterday, outlined why the Singapore system – the taxation system and the fiscal system – is progressive and fair. It is built on principles that everybody contributes something, but those who have more contribute more. In fact, in some cases, a lot more. And what we do is we redistribute it to those who have less.
In terms of GST, as I mentioned yesterday, over 60% of the net GST from households and individuals is estimated to be from the higher-income and from the foreigners who live and work in Singapore and from tourists. Tourism is down now, but when you look at the mid- and longer-term projections, that 60% still remains the same. So, our GST system is a good example of how we do this redistribution and never forget that this Government will do what is necessary to support our people. When you consider the pandemic, we had five Budgets. Every time the MTF had to put in place measures that affect businesses, we put in place support. So, you cannot look at just one single item and say, \"Oh, this, by itself, please change, it is very onerous\". You do have to look at the bigger picture. And you cannot just look at a very narrow tunnel-vision thing.
The other takeaway is really that this Government will always make sure that whoever is in need, in genuine need, will have support. And the only way you can do that is to have diverse revenue sources which are sustainable; and for recurrent expenditure, to make sure that you have recurrent revenue.
That is all I plan to say about GST at this stage and I hope that this is something that the Workers' Party will reflect on.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that MOF will continue to review our tax regime regularly to ensure its relevance and its effectiveness in the digital economy. And I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 1.30 pm tomorrow.\" – [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":"Beyond Home Ownership: Supporting Diverse Aspirations Through Rental Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution covering the real estate industry.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, home ownership has been the hallmark of our public housing system. These were the words of former Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan in a 2010 commentary and were similarly echoed by Mr Bobby Chin, Chairman of the HDB in the HDB’s FY18 annual report.
Fast forward to 2021, as we grapple with the age of disruption, the complexities of the future economy and transitioning to a post-COVID-19 world, it is imperative that we take stock of our housing situation and approach to housing, such that they continue to meet the housing needs and aspirations of Singaporeans.
On that note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I just have one ask from this Adjournment Motion: that the Government significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme, with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households’ housing needs are well looked after.
Let us first take stock of the existing housing model in Singapore today, particularly as it relates to rental housing. When HDB first started building flats, it built rental flats. From 1960 to 1965, there were 42,408 rental flats versus only 2,967 home ownership flats, given the Government’s home ownership scheme really only started in 1964.
After decades of pushing for home ownership, when HDB resumed the rental building programme in 2007, only 1-room and 2-room flats were built. As at the HDB’s latest annual report, there were about 63,773 rental flats as of March 2021, compared to 1.02 million sold flats, out of which a dominant 97% of the flats are 1-room and 2-room flats.
HDB rentals today take on three different forms, the Public Rental Scheme (PRS), Interim Rental Housing (IRH) and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). The vast majority of flats, however, relate to the Public Rental Scheme.
Flats under the PRS in its current form are supposed to be heavily subsidised to cater to Singaporean households who, in the HDB’s words, have no other housing options. Another eligibility criterion is the low total household gross income threshold of not exceeding $1,500 per month, with monthly rents for a 1-room flat ranging from $26 a month to $205 a month and a 2-room flat from $44 a month to $275 a month.
Interim Rental Housing is similar to the PRS in that it is for low-income households with no family support and no other housing options, where the HDB will consider offering IRH on a case-by-case basis.
Lastly, the PPHS was part of the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package and helps to temporarily house families as they await the completion of their new flats. Rents are between $400 and $500 for 2-room flats, $600 to $900 for 3-room flats, and $1,500 for 4-room flats, depending on their location.
Fundamentally, I believe that there needs to be a greater diversity of housing options but, more urgently, the key problem, in my view, is that there is a severe shortage of HDB rental flats in its various forms today and supply is simply insufficient to meet current demands.
As I have noted earlier, there were 63,773 rental flats as of March this year, the vast majority of which would comprise 1-room and 2-room flats under the PRS. Worryingly, there are only about 1,600 rental flats under construction, which will be completed progressively by around 2025. In response to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) in May earlier this year, Minister Desmond Lee noted, and I quote, that: “There are currently about 31,000 1-room and 31,000 2-room flats. We have sufficient supply for households who need these flats”.
However, I understand from another PQ filed by Member Ms Nadia Samdin that the average waiting time for a rental flat has lengthened to about five months. I understand from a fellow Workers' Party Member of Parliament that HDB shared in a reply in late May that HDB is facing an island-wide shortage of 1-room flats and that all four zones are having an estimated waiting time of about six months from date of registration.
I recognise that part of this is also related to COVID-19-related constraints, such as taking up a longer time to spruce up flats that have been returned to the HDB before they are let out to new tenants. I am sure Members of this House would have received many requests by your residents to assist them with an appeal for a rental flat from the HDB, just as I have. Again, in response to my PQ in April this year, Minister Desmond Lee shared that, from 2016 to 2020, HDB received an average of 7,500 requests regarding rental flats and only about 35% or an average of 2,600 such requests were successful each year.
So, while we may say that a wait time of two months pre-COVID-19 is “okay”, the eligibility conditions around public rental flats are highly restrictive. In fact, the total household income cap of $1,500 a month is even lower than the Average Monthly Household Income from Work of the lowest 10% of resident employed households! Just how many truly needy citizen families have we excluded as a result of the tight eligibility conditions?
A similar situation can be said for the PPHS. Again, in response to my PQ in May, there were 110 2-room, 570 3-room and 60 4-room flats for the PPHS, or a total of 740 flats. As the Minister noted, the supply of PPHS flats is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks not immediately needed for redevelopment.
I acknowledge that in HDB’s press release in August, the number of existing PPHS flats is now 840, with another 800 more flats to be set aside over the next two years. It is commendable that HDB is doubling the number of PPHS flats. In absolute numbers, however, we are dealing with a very low base today, given that the demand for such flats has far exceeded the limited supply.
The HDB also introduced a household income ceiling of $7,000 and switched to conducting PPHS exercises every two months instead of monthly to, and I quote, “provide PPHS applicants with a larger pool of flats to choose from. This will improve the applicants’ chance of securing a flat”. However, the number of flats available still appears to be very limited at 60 in October and with a very high application rate of more than nine times, given 544 applications received, indicating excess latent demand that cannot be met with the existing supply.
Other than addressing the current demand and supply imbalance, just simply, why rental housing though? Here, I would like to share five aspects on why creating a subsidised and expanded public rental scheme for the wider population would be beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.
Firstly, creating a diversity of living options would better support the diverse needs of our fellow Singaporeans, especially millennials who are faced with limited living options. Going for a BTO flat has been the avenue to provide couples an affordable home for their future families. However, even if one beats the odds of securing a BTO flat, application rates of between three and 25 times were seen in the recent August sale exercise. Also, the average waiting time for BTO projects has increased, from an average of three to four years in the past to four to five years for ongoing BTO projects. And as I have shared, the odds of securing a PPHS flat is equally low. Meanwhile, resale HDB prices are now 12.5% higher than what they were a year ago.
Singaporeans who are more financially well to do have access to open market HDB or private residential rentals or even accessing serviced residences and co-living apartments. The desire by millennials to have a space of their own is well reported, with a Business Times (BT) article dated 18 June highlighting that more Singaporeans are moving out of family homes into formerly expat-dominated co-living properties and serviced residences. On 11 September, Today published a similar article, titled “Affluent and craving space to grow, more single millennials leave the nest for greater freedom”. Should we not cater to the changing housing needs and aspirations of all our millennials today regardless of their income?
Secondly, adequately satisfying the housing needs of young couples could arguably be supportive of our fertility rate, which has been steadily declining and is now at a record low of 1.1. Undoubtedly, a good number of couples have been affected by construction delays in existing BTO projects; and with low odds of securing a new BTO project, given high application rates, without a place of their own, are left with no choice but to rethink their family planning decisions. We need to recognise that everyone’s circumstances change all the time and we should cater to Singaporeans’ housing needs across life stages, as people may decide it is most appropriate to rent or buy at different stages of their lives.
Besides, by providing young couples with an alternative to save up larger amounts of capital which would have otherwise been locked up in their housing asset, this might encourage them to start families at a younger age and be open to having more children.
Thirdly, on workforce flexibility. The need for a dynamic and flexible workforce today would mean that individuals may need to take greater calculated risks or seek alternative pathways to advance their careers. What we have not adequately considered is that individuals require the financial freedom to pursue these tough choices. Would you still take up that overseas posting or pursue further graduate studies if you are tied to a significant mortgage or if it means your MOP would have to be extended?
Capital is an essential source of economic growth and, more so than before, largely dependent on productivity. Allowing rental housing to play a bigger role compared to home ownership could free up capital for individuals and, arguably, result in less of a rentier economy in Singapore and encourage more to have an entrepreneurial mindset.
This brings me to my fourth point on having to adapt well to a major trend today: the rise of the gig economy.
According to MOM, there has been an increase in freelancers from around 200,000 in 2016 to 228,000 in 2020, a 14% increase over the past four years.
Many of these freelancers do not have a regular source of income, thereby suffering from income insecurity during times of economic crises. While it is important for freelancers to exercise financial prudence when calculating what they \"can afford\", it is not easy to determine with pinpoint accuracy their level of earnings even on a day-to-day basis, much less over the next few years; and signing up for a 25-year mortgage may not be the most prudent decision.
Fifthly, and, critically, we need to promote true inclusivity and get rid of the stigma of HDB rental housing.
In her book \"This is What Inequality Looks Like\", Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn described the poor design of rental flats and frequent observations of cramped, distinctively damp and pungent smell of poorly ventilated corridors. The design of new-build rental flats may have improved, but there still remains a stigma associated with HDB public rental flats, which does not necessarily go away even if the Government has integrated such flats within BTO estates or, potentially, in prime location public housing estates.
This is evident even in a number of replies to my appeals to HDB for a rental flat for my residents, where the HDB officer describes HDB rental flats as being, and I quote “heavily subsidised to meet the housing needs of poor and needy citizen families who are unable to afford home ownership flats, have no other housing options and no family support”.
Renting an HDB flat need not and should not be seen as a sign that you are poor and needy and our position on rentals need to reflect that.
Above all, I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that home ownership is superior to home renting and that money spent on renting is money down the drain.
To use an analogy from the insurance world: is a whole life insurance policy necessarily superior to that of term insurance? Certainly, with a whole life policy, there will be a cash value attached to the policy should it be cancelled or sold after a certain period of time. This is non-existent for a term life insurance policy. Yet, a common saying in the insurance industry is, “buy term, invest the rest”, where one separates the protection element in an insurance policy from the investment motive.
I believe the same can be applied to housing and the saying that “tenants pay subsidised rents but own nothing” is only a half-truth.
It is comforting to know that I am not alone in my views on this. On 18 October, BT ran an interesting article, “Renting can be a viable alternative to owning a private home in Singapore”. As the title suggests, the author ran a simulation and derived an outcome where, financially, the difference between renting and buying is negligible. But the math, however, need not be true only for high-end private residential property.
Singapore today has a high home ownership rate close to 90%, similar to China. This is significantly above that of the OECD average of 68%. Importantly, I highlight that within the OECD countries, Switzerland and Germany have the lowest home ownership rates of 38% and 44% respectively, while, at the same time, having one of the highest GDP per capita and Human Development Index (HDI) scores globally. The correlation between home ownership and the level of prosperity of a country may not be as clear-cut.
Home ownership is thus more of a preference than a superior option per se.
Quality rental housing need not be an oxymoron and, globally, it is already well demonstrated that rental housing can be affordable, desirable and effective as a means to house a population. Take Vienna, for example. About half of social housing units are owned directly by the municipal government and the rest by state-subsidised, not-for-profit co-operatives. Private developers who build affordable housing projects must allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents, while the developer leases out the remaining units. As rents are regulated by the city government, affordability and access are maintained, with social integration a natural outcome of such housing arrangements.
As shared by Mr Kurt Puchinger, former Director of Planning in the City of Vienna, \"We don’t want to have a situation where you can identify the social status of a person by their home address\". With the appropriate framework of rights and responsibilities in place, both the public and private sectors can work together to achieve our social policy goals.
Given the relative resilience of the residential sub-sector as compared to retail and commercial during the COVID-19 pandemic, I am confident that there will be no lack of interest by private developers to partner HDB in coming up with innovative Build-to-Rent housing solutions if the Government is willing to take this bold step in public-private partnership.
Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, in his speech earlier this year, also suggested a Build-to-Rent model for Singapore, calling for the Government to encourage active and responsible participation by the private sector in this regard.
Looking at international case studies in Australia, the Queensland government is partnering the construction industry to deliver affordable rental housing through new Build-to-Rent developments – one of which is being developed by one of the Singapore-listed firms as well.
Even in China, where home ownership is one of the highest in the world, just like Singapore, the government has been encouraging the development of more rental-only projects through policy changes since 2018.
I acknowledge Minister Desmond Lee's comments at the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year that there is a rental market out there for people to rent smaller units, both in the private market, as well as in HDB flats. But the aim here is really to look at the aspirations of Singaporeans and see how we can provide the support for those aspirations through providing rental options from the HDB. We do not simply accept that Singaporeans can all purchase private property or resale HDB flats and stop launching new BTO projects, do we? Rentals of the HDB flats could then be priced at levels in between current HDB public rentals and HDB open market rentals.
Based on data provided by the HDB, median rental for a 3-room HDB flat ranges from $1,650 to $2,230 a month, with a rental yield of between 5.4% and 7.9%, based on median resale prices.
HDB open market yields are also significantly higher than those in the private residential market which are, typically, in the 3% range.
It is thus practical and important for HDB to provide rental options for the broader population, priced between that for public rental flats and open market rentals, as many of our residents find HDB open market rentals too expensive. This would also be no different from how PPHS flats are already being priced in principle and is simply just a shift from a home ownership subsidy to a home renting subsidy instead. This could also be restricted to Singaporeans, just like our current BTO and rental schemes today.
In addition, if home ownership is still an ideal the Government would like to champion, renters may be able to own their flats, albeit in a different manner. As it is, we have observed that the yields and yield spreads of residential REITs listed overseas are among the lowest among real estate sub-sectors, a reflection of the attractiveness of residentials to the financial markets and providers of capital.
The REIT market in Singapore today is the largest in Asia, ex-Japan, with a combined market capitalisation of about S$110 billion as at September. Just as how REITs allow for the fractional ownership of commercial property assets, the stock of HDB rental units can similarly be held in a REIT structure, be it a public or private REIT. This would also have the additional benefit of supporting the financing of the construction of new rental flats and is self-sustaining, reducing the cash costs on the part of the Government.
For Singaporeans, rather than take a 90% LTV loan for more than half our working lives, those who wish to can put up an amount of capital we are comfortable with into ownership of this REIT, with redemptions controlled to minimise speculation, just as how there are Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) restrictions for BTO flats today. Singaporeans can enjoy the benefits of renting, while also truly say that they own a HDB flat, or a part of Singapore's entire stock of HDB flats.
To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the idea of an expanded public rental scheme by HDB is not new. The Workers' Party has, in our 2019 HDB Working Paper, proposed the creation of a viable and expanded public rental scheme, which, in our view, is a realistic proposal to expand the universe of options for rental for those Singaporeans who want this option for a certain number of years.
Let us also remember that the concept of leasing is not new to HDB. The concept of owning a HDB flat is a misnomer where Singaporeans have signed with HDB a lease agreement and not exactly a sale and purchase agreement, albeit one which is for 99 years, lease payments are paid upfront and you are able to take out a loan to pay for it.
Further, the concept of having shorter leases is also not new. Today, elderly residents aged 55 and above already have the flexibility of choosing the length of lease on their 2-room flexi flats, ranging from between 15 and 45 years in five-year increments, as long as it covers them and their spouse up to the age of at least 95 years. It really is simply just a difference in mode of payment, where the lease payment is paid upfront, as compared to regular monthly payments in the case of conventional open market short-term leases.
What we need today is not just a ramp-up in new BTO supply, which, as I understand, is going to be more than 17,000 units in 2022, but one, a significant increase in the stock of rental flats today which only increased by a grand total of 438 in the last financial year; and two, the creation of an expanded public rental scheme by the HDB, whose mission is to provide affordable, quality housing and a great living environment which, dare I say, should not be constrained to simply building flats for sale.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us have the courage and ingenuity to go beyond the concept of home ownership and to evolve Singapore's approach to public housing to cater to the demands of the new economy, to build a more resilient and adaptable nation and to meet the housing aspirations of all Singaporeans.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Chua for laying out his views on housing and for his suggestions to make our public housing landscape \"more rental, less ownership\".
Since Independence, we have strived to support the diverse aspirations of Singaporeans. In recent years, the Government has been engaging citizens, more deeply and extensively, to consult and co-create solutions on issues we all care deeply about. This includes our public housing programme, which is unique and unlike any others in the world.
Home ownership has been the cornerstone of our public housing policy and a key tenet of Singapore's social compact. It was an audacious goal – to make it easy for citizens of a young, developing nation, to own their homes, to give families stability, develop a sense of rootedness and a concrete stake in Singapore's progress.
Beyond being homes, HDB flats are also valuable assets that can be monetised to supplement their owners' income during their retirement years.
We have more than achieved this goal. Today, Singapore has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, at 90%. This compares with 65% in the US, 72% in the EU and 63% in Australia. More remarkably, around 85% of our low-income households own their homes.
This reflects the priority the Government places on keeping home ownership attainable for Singaporeans.
New flats are priced with a generous subsidy and supplemented with grants for affordability. For buyers considering the resale market, we offer up to $160,000 in housing grants, with the grant structure heavily tilted towards the lower- and middle-income households. For many Singaporeans, these housing subsidies constitute one of the most significant bundles of subsidies that they enjoy.
We have also provided a steady supply of public housing over the years to meet demand and provide affordable and inclusive public housing for Singaporeans.
While our home ownership rate is high, we recognise that some may not be quite ready for home ownership and require some additional assistance and support. That is why we provide subsidised rental housing options targeted at specific needs.
For low-income households with no other housing options, we provide highly subsidised rental housing under the Public Rental scheme, as a social safety net.
The income guideline which Mr Louis Chua has referred to in his speech is not a hard-and-fast rule. HDB has and will continue to exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis, where necessary.
For families who need an interim housing option while waiting for their BTO flats, we rent out flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, or PPHS. We also provide Interim Rental Housing for lower-income households who need temporary accommodation while waiting to buy or collect the keys to their own flat and have no other housing options.
However, given the significant subsidies involved, such rental options are very targeted. Our aim is to help households in public rental eventually achieve home ownership as well. HDB and social agencies work closely to support rental households in overcoming the various challenges that they face.
For example, through Community Link, or ComLink, Government agencies and community partners work to support families with young children living in public rental flats, to help them achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
When families are ready, they can also obtain housing grants and personalised guidance from HDB's Home ownership Support Team on budgeting and the flat-buying process.
Our home ownership policies also support our family formation policies, which reflect another important aspiration of many Singaporeans. The recent World Values Survey in 2020 showed that families are important to Singaporeans and most want to have children, preferably two.
Changing societal trends may reshape how some Singaporeans perceive home ownership. More Singaporeans are remaining single and may wish to own their own homes, too, while some young people who do intend to get married eventually might also desire to live apart from their parents for a few years, as alluded to by Mr Louis Chua.
These are diverse aspirations and, understandably, lead to questions about whether our public housing policy can be more flexible in accommodating them.
HDB has moved on singles' flat ownership. Single buyers have access to housing grants and can buy smaller BTO units in non-mature estates. While our overall housing policy continues to support families, we recognise the home ownership aspirations that many singles have. For instance, some singles have had to forgo opportunities of forming families of their own because of caregiver responsibilities. Seniors who are single also tend to be more vulnerable than those who can count on the support of their spouses, children and even grandchildren. In such cases, home ownership can be material in improving a person's well-being as well as financial security. We are very mindful of the circumstances of this group and will continue to study ways to assist them.
As for expanding the range of subsidised rental offerings, especially for medium- to long-term accommodation, we would need to consider this very carefully. It is common to see young people renting their own apartments in big cities all over the world, but this is largely unsubsidised and subject to market forces.
This phenomenon also reflects different social circumstances. For instance, the city that one works in could be very far from one's hometown and, hence, living with one's parents is out of the question. In some societies, it is a norm for young adults to move out from their parents' homes, even if they do not work in a different city.
The rent that such tenants pay is a consumption expense, which could have gone into home ownership, if home ownership was within reach. But without public housing subsidies that support home ownership, some end up renting for many years, or even for life.
In Singapore, a wide range of open market rental options are also available in HDB and private estates, of varying sizes, locations and rent levels. Amongst these offerings, co-living appears to be increasingly popular amongst the younger generation. We have observed more Singaporeans taking up such co-living options, compared to previously where it mainly catered to foreigners. We will continue to study and monitor this trend further.
Mr Louis Chua suggests that there could still be a gap in the rental offerings today, as there are Singaporeans who prefer to rent instead of own for a certain number of years but are not eligible for public rental and do not wish to take up open market or private sector options.
Mr Louis Chua suggested that HDB rent out flats at rates set at a discount to that of the open market to meet demand from these groups. We thank Mr Louis Chua for his suggestion. It represents a change in the nature of our public housing policy and is something we would need to consider very carefully, for reasons of principle as well as practicality.
We see the provision of a subsidised rental option as a means towards achieving home ownership because we believe in the benefits that home ownership brings to Singaporeans.
Members of this House would be aware that we recently launched the new Prime Location Public Housing model, or PLH for short. In developing the new model, we embarked on an extensive engagement exercise to seek views from Singaporeans. Many suggestions were raised, including suggestions for the Government to rent out prime location flats instead of selling them as home ownership flats.
We had considered this suggestion carefully but decided not to adopt it for now for several reasons.
As I have shared, we continue to believe in the benefits of homeownership for Singapore and Singaporeans. Apart from this, without substantial rental subsidies from the Government, most Singaporeans would be unlikely to find it attractive to pay market rent using cash.
Flat owners who purchase a flat of sufficient lease and complete the loan payments are assured of a roof over their heads for the rest of their lives. The same cannot be said for those choosing to rent, as rental payments would continue to recur even after retirement.
We would also need to study the impact of introducing a new supply of rental flats at rates lower than market, which may affect rental rates across the board.
The same considerations would apply, if we were to contemplate the provision of subsidised rental options for public housing in the manner that Mr Louis Chua has described.
Madam, MND closely monitors evolving trends and social norms to identify market gaps to cater to the housing needs of our diverse population. For example, we introduced the 2-room Flexi scheme in 2015 as a new housing option to better cater to the diverse housing needs of families, singles and seniors. For seniors buying 2-room Flexi flats, they have the option of choosing —
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, can you round up?
Ms Sim Ann: Thank you — choosing from a range of leases, based on their preferences.
Madam, homeownership has been and will continue to be our key housing strategy for Singapore. Beyond just a roof over our heads, homeownership has provided Singaporeans with a sense of stability, security and belonging and has given us a strong stake in our country’s progress.
Nevertheless, MND will continue to study how Singaporeans’ preferences and aspirations evolve over time and continue to develop our public housing programme to meet changing needs. That said, mainstream rental represents a significant departure from our public housing policy and principles. It will reshape our social norms and could weaken our communities, because, unlike home ownership where people sink their roots, rentals are more transitory. This is not something we will embark on lightly, without deep consideration.
In the meantime, given our limited fiscal space, we will continue to prioritise our resources to support Singaporeans in achieving their homeownership aspirations, that is, homes owned by Singaporeans and not by private investors through REITs.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 7.31 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mdm Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.03 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Global Supply Chain Disruptions on Economy, Prices and Business Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the estimated impact of global supply chain problems on our economy; (b) which sectors are more greatly affected; and (c) what measures are available to help affected SMEs cope with the disruptions.
20 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the disruptions to the global supply chain (a) what measures is the Ministry taking to prevent potential profiteering, especially for essential products and necessities; and (b) what will be the wide-ranging impact on various sectors, such as food, equipment and appliances, machineries and construction materials.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As an open economy, Singapore firms will feel the impact of global supply chain disruptions to varying degrees, depending on their level of exposure to imported supplies and, more fundamentally, on their business practices.
Firms in the manufacturing sector are facing higher cost pressures as they import intermediate inputs from around the world. Similarly, firms in the construction sector have seen a rise in the costs of key construction materials, such as steel bars, granite, cement and read-mixed concrete, partly due to a global supply crunch amidst the global economic recovery.
Given rising cost pressures and a higher frequency of supply disruptions, businesses have to hold higher inventory buffers or provide more favourable payment terms to customers and suppliers which will require higher working capital. To help SMEs with their cash flow challenges, ESG will continue to support them through the Enterprise Financing Scheme.
Consumers, too, may experience some price increases as a result of supply chain disruptions. For instance, domestic food prices have risen on the back of an increase in global food commodity prices, which is due, in part, to weather-related disruptions and manpower shortages in key food-producing countries. In addition, congestion at ports around the world have led to higher freight charges and contributed to a rise in the prices of imported consumer goods in Singapore.
To mitigate against price increases on essential products, Singapore has been diversifying its import sources to encourage price competitiveness. For daily necessities, consumers can also make use of the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE)’s Price Kaki App, to compare the prices of groceries and hawker food to make more informed purchasing decisions. For low-income households, MSF continues to provide ComCare assistance to support their daily expenses. The Government keeps a close watch on the prices of essential goods and will continue to take action against businesses which seek to profiteer from the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Essential Supplies Reach Singapore Despite Global Supply Chain Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Transport in view of the disruptions to the global supply chain, what measures is the Ministry taking to ensure that essential supplies reach Singapore.
Mr S Iswaran: Disruptions to global supply chains arising from COVID-19 and adverse weather patterns have led to vessel delays and congestion in ports around the world. At the same time, air cargo capacity has also decreased and remains below pre-COVID-19 levels. These supply-side disruptions are occurring amidst a strong rebound in demand for both consumer goods and industrial supplies.
Singapore is keeping a close watch on these global developments. The Government has worked closely with our businesses to support their efforts to mitigate supply chain disruptions. For essential goods, such as food, we have adopted a multi-pronged approach of import diversification, local production and stockpiling. Today, Singapore imports food from more than 170 countries.
The diversification efforts are supported by our strong sea and air connectivity. The Port of Singapore is connected to 600 ports globally in 120 countries and operates 24/7 to facilitate the efficient movement of goods. There are daily sailings to every major port in the world, enabling traders and retailers to source from a wide range of countries. Changi Airport’s scheduled and chartered cargo flights have more than tripled compared to pre-pandemic levels, with over 990 weekly flights.
Efforts to diversify supply and maintain connectivity have helped. According to MAS’ latest macroeconomic review released on 28 October 2021, Singapore’s merchandise trade flows have held up relatively well amid global supply chain disruptions and the flow of essential goods and supplies for consumption and production appears to have been largely unimpaired.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19 Potential Treatments and Tightening Control over Drugs Sold Illegally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry track prescription drugs which have been imported, distributed or sold illegally in Singapore; and (b) what measures have been implemented to tighten control over the supply of these drugs to prevent them from reaching the wrong hands.
23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the investigation of potential treatments for COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singapore has been closely tracking the progress of COVID-19 therapeutic options under development globally and actively engaging key pharmaceutical companies. As a result, we have procured, in advance, a portfolio of COVID-19 therapeutics. Our current treatment options consist of five classes of drugs: steroids, anti-virals (Remdesivir), monoclonal antibodies (Sotrovimab and Regeneron), IL-6 inhibitors (Tocilizumab) and JAK inhibitors (Baricitinib).
All prescription medicines require approval by HSA before they can be legally supplied in Singapore and companies licensed to import or distribute prescription medicines are regularly audited. HSA works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to monitor and stop illegal imports of health products and monitor various local online sales platforms to detect illegal sales of prescription medicines. Anyone who contravenes this law can be fined up to $50,000 and/or jailed for up to two years under the Health Products Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Significance of Five Power Defence Arrangements in View of Its 50th Anniversary","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence how does Singapore view the relevance and significance of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) on its 50th anniversary and the recent conclusion of its Exercise Bersama Gold 2021, especially with a UK carrier strike group visiting South China Sea for the first time in many years and in light of the continuing tensions in the South China Sea.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) was established in 1971 to provide critical security for Malaysia and Singapore, then two young nations, following the withdrawal of British forces. Fifty years on, while the security context has changed, the remit of the FPDA has remained the same, that is, for member-nations to consult one another in the event of a threat or actual armed aggression against Malaysia or Singapore. This was reaffirmed by all member-nations at the recent FPDA Defence Ministers’ Meeting held in October 2021.
The FPDA also continues to bring value to its member-nations through exchanges and exercises that build confidence and enhance cooperation and interoperability across our militaries. In recent years, these activities have incorporated contemporary security threats, such as terrorism. Exercise Bersama Gold this year is the highlight exercise for the FPDA’s 50th Anniversary. The fact that, despite the pandemic, member-nations successfully held an exercise with around 2,700 troops, many ships and planes and a submarine, and pulled together a flypast and naval display over the Marina Bay area in Singapore reflects the strong, continued commitment of the five countries to the FPDA. It also underscores the FPDA’s non-threatening posture. Neighbouring countries understand and accept that the FPDA is not targeted at any one country or grouping, but has, for the past 50 years, been a transparent grouping that contributes to regional peace and security.
The FPDA complements other multilateral and bilateral defence exchanges which Singapore engages in. The Member mentioned the UK’s Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group's recent transit through this region. Singapore has longstanding defence ties with the UK – in part, because of history, through the FPDA, but also because of shared interest in upholding international law and a rules-based order. We have welcomed UK ships calling at Singapore for decades for FPDA exercises, as well as for bilateral port calls and replenishment stops. We continue to welcome the UK’s constructive engagement in the region.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Jobs Support Scheme Payments are Used Directly for Wage Support and Not for Executive Directors' Remuneration or Bonuses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry tracks data on the number of companies which have obtained Government grants, such as that under the Jobs Support Scheme, but have paid their workers less based on the amount of CPF contributions disclosed while the executive directors received bigger bonuses or remuneration in the same year.
27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Finance (a) how does the Ministry ascertain that Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payments are used for wage support; (b) what are the Ministry’s plans for clawback if JSS payments are found to have been used for other purposes, including senior executive bonuses or stock buybacks; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider publishing the list of organisations which returned all or part of their JSS payouts so that they can be given due public recognition.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government introduced the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) in 2020 to provide rapid, broad-based wage support to help employers retain their local employees during the height of the COVID-19 crisis.
JSS payouts are computed based on actual mandatory employer CPF contributions made to bona fide employees. The CPF Act requires employers to make CPF contributions on wages payable to their employees, subject to the prevailing wage ceilings. Employers will not receive JSS payouts if they fail to make CPF contributions for their employees for the respective reference month. Similarly, if employers cut wages for their employees during the respective reference month, their JSS payout will be correspondingly reduced. In other words, the JSS is designed as a reimbursement to help employers offset part of the wages already paid to their employees. Announcing the timing and schedule of JSS payouts allowed employers to take these payouts into account and retain local workers despite the challenging economic circumstances during the pandemic.
We also capped the Government’s co-funding under the JSS to the first $4,600 of gross monthly wages paid to each local employee. This means that employees and senior executives whose gross monthly wages are higher than $4,600 will have a lower effective JSS support.
Given how JSS payouts are computed, MOF does not track the data that Mr Zhulkarnain asked about. To prevent abuse of JSS, IRAS, as the administrator of JSS, has instituted a robust anti-gaming framework since the first JSS payout in April 2020. For cases with high risk of fraud, such as irregular CPF contributions to get higher JSS payouts, IRAS requires the firms to authenticate their CPF contributions before the payouts are released. As of August 2021, 1,889 cases have been denied or had their JSS payout adjusted. Cases with strong corroborative evidence to support JSS abuse are reported to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for further investigation and prosecution. As of August 2021, 10 cases are undergoing Police investigations.
Besides IRAS’ anti-gaming checks for JSS, the CPF Board also audits employers to check the accuracy of CPF contributions paid and wages declared. The CPF Board is also piloting the CPF Contribution Alert which allows employees to receive personalised notifications when their monthly CPF contributions are credited. Employees can conveniently verify the wages declared by their employers and CPF contributions paid by their employers against their payslip. Employees and whistle blowers can lodge reports to the CPF Board for any non-compliance of CPF contributions.
The JSS and other COVID-19 economic relief grants were meant to support businesses in this period of significant economic uncertainty. While the Government does not intervene in how business owners and board directors determine remuneration and bonuses for key executives, they are expected to practise good corporate governance and stewardship. In particular, a good practice is to exclude Government grants in the computation of a company’s financial performance for the purposes of determining remuneration and bonuses for key executives. This is because Government grants are not a result of the performance efforts of these key executives. We understand that the Singapore Institute of Directors will also be putting up some guidelines on best practices in remuneration governance soon.
For companies that are managing well, we encourage them to return the JSS to us, or donate the JSS received to a charity of their choice. It is commendable that companies which were able to cope well with the crisis have declined to receive JSS or donated the JSS received. Some have asked to remain anonymous for internal organisational reasons. Meanwhile, there are also companies that have chosen to use the JSS in other responsible ways, such as providing additional training to upskill their employees or expanding their operations, hiring more Singaporeans as a result.
We will need to study carefully the implications of publishing the list of organisations that have returned part or all of their JSS, balancing public recognition, requests for anonymity and the risks of placing undue pressure on other firms that have been using the JSS monies responsibly in other ways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19's Impact on Integrated Resorts' Investment Commitments in Singapore and on Impending Casino Tax Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) given COVID-19 disruptions to the hospitality industry, whether there are any changes to the timeline, investment commitment and nature of the S$9 billion combined investment commitment by the two Integrated Resorts; and (b) whether the new casino tax regime will still take effect in March 2022.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2019, the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) committed around S$9 billion in investment to build new world-class tourism and MICE facilities. The IRs remain committed to delivering on their expansion plans. However, with the disruption that COVID-19 has had on the construction industry, both IRs have indicated that there will be potential delays in the completion of their projects.
The new casino tax rates will still take effect from 1 March 2022.
29 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for National Development in light of the announcement on the Progressive Wage Model for the landscape maintenance industry (a) what efforts are being undertaken to encourage service buyers in the landscape sector to adopt outcome-based contracts instead of traditional headcount-based contracts; (b) whether there are plans to publish a service buyer’s guide on progressive procurement practices for the landscape sector; and (c) what support is being provided to landscape companies towards industry transformation.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks encourages service buyers in the landscape sector to adopt performance-based contracts, by providing them with guidance on relevant procurement practices. NParks is also supporting the Landscape Industry Association of Singapore in developing a service buyer’s guide for the landscape sector, to help facilitate the shift towards performance-based contracts.
As a major service buyer itself, NParks also awards performance-based contracts for landscape maintenance services. NParks evaluates tender proposals for these contracts based on the quality and price of the proposals, with the quality criterion taking into account the tenderers’ ability to deliver service outcomes. NParks has been increasing its emphasis on service outcomes in these contracts, by steadily increasing the weightage of the quality criterion in its tender evaluations from 20% to the current 40% over the last 10 years.
NParks also ensures that tenderers train their employees sufficiently to deliver good service outcomes, by requiring tenderers bidding for its landscape maintenance contracts to be registered in the Landscape Company Register (LCR) for at least two consecutive years. Companies on the LCR are required to fulfil the conditions of the Progressive Wage Model for the landscape sector, including training their employees appropriately for their job scopes.
To support the development of the sector, NParks launched the 10-year Landscape Sector Transformation Plan (LSTP) in May 2019 to digitalise, mechanise and professionalise the sector. Since the LSTP was launched, NParks has worked with stakeholders in the landscape industry and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to further support the sector’s transformation efforts.
For example, NParks has been working with IHLs to enhance their existing courses and develop new training programmes for landscape students and employees. This will allow trainees to learn a wider range of landscaping skills, including the use of mechanisation and digitalisation to improve productivity.
In January this year, NParks also launched a pilot to use various digital technologies to manage greenery and parks in the Ang Mo Kio-Bishan area. NParks is leveraging this pilot to familiarise and train the landscape sector’s companies and professionals, as well as students who will eventually join the sector, in the use of these tools and technologies, which will improve productivity and reduce the need for manual labour. When the pilot concludes, NParks will work with the sector to deploy these technologies progressively as part of NParks’ park and greenery management contracts across Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Raise Singapore Allowance for Low-income Government Pensioners in View of Inflation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to revise upwards the Singapore Allowance payable to low-income Government and Statutory Board pensioners to allow them to keep up with inflationary pressures.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Singapore Allowance (SA) was introduced in 1974 to help pensioners with smaller pensions, below a gross monthly pension ceiling, taking into consideration factors, such as significant inflationary pressures then.
Over the years, the SA has been periodically revised. The most recent revisions of the SA and the gross monthly pension ceiling were in 2019. We retained the prevailing SA and gross monthly pension ceiling when we reviewed them earlier this year, in view of factors, such as inflation remaining low. Going forward, PSD will continue to regularly review the SA and the gross monthly pension ceiling and, where necessary, revise them.
In addition to the SA, eligible pensioners with smaller pensions also receive other forms of support, such as Goods and Services Tax vouchers, Community Development Council vouchers, grocery vouchers, as well as service and conservancy charges rebates, in the same way as other eligible Singaporeans. Government pensioners who meet the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation criteria are also eligible for Medisave top-ups, outpatient care subsidies and MediShield Life premium subsidies under the Pioneer Generation Package and Merdeka Generation Package.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Dynamism as Singapore Faces Record Low Birth Rates and Rapidly Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister how does the Government intend to respond to the combination of record low birth rates and ageing to ensure Singapore continues to be dynamic and relevant to the world.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Low birth rates and an ageing population remain key demographic challenges for Singapore. Singapore’s total fertility rate (TFR) has declined to an historic low of 1.10 in 2020. At the same time, life expectancy at birth has increased, reaching 83.9 years in 2020. With a declining TFR and an increasing life expectancy, our resident workforce will age and could shrink over time.
The Government regularly reviews and updates our population and economic strategies to respond to these demographic trends and ensure that Singapore remains dynamic and relevant in the global economy.
First, we must continue to make marriage and parenthood a national priority. Raising birth rates is the critical and most sustainable solution to our demographic challenges in the long term. Over the years, we have put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to support Singaporeans’ aspirations to start and raise their families, including parental leave, childcare support, housing support and cash grants. We have also introduced a one-off Baby Support Grant of $3,000 to reassure couples to proceed with their parenthood plans amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond these, we are also partnering employers and the community to strengthen the whole-of-society ecosystem that is Made for Families.
Second, we help our seniors remain active and enable them to work for as long as they are able and wish to. An ageing workforce does not have to be an unproductive one. With higher education levels and continual skills upgrading, Singaporeans can continue to contribute meaningfully as long as they remain healthy and engaged. We will support efforts by employers to implement age-friendly workplace practices to better retain the expertise and experience of our senior workers. The Government has also committed to raise the retirement and re-employment ages to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030, and raise CPF contribution rates for senior workers, to support workers to continue to work in their senior years and maintain financial independence.
Third, we enable Singaporeans to access good jobs and opportunities as we transform our economy, while taking into account our demographic realities.
We are broadening and deepening our external linkages, including in new growth areas, such as sustainability and Digital Economy; and strengthening our innovative capacity and competitive positioning in global supply chains.
Domestically, we are making a concerted push — through the refresh of our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) — to ensure that our industries and firms are well-positioned to seize these new economic opportunities, create good jobs for Singaporeans and to uplift the productivity and wages of our workers through upskilling efforts.
The Government will continue to partner businesses, trade associations and chambers and unions to help our workers adapt to industry shifts and remain productive, including through SkillsFuture and SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
Where manpower and skills shortages become constraints, we must then complement the local workforce and welcome global talent and foreign manpower to work alongside us. We will continue to refine our foreign workforce policy, while ensuring fair hiring practices, preserving a level playing field for Singaporeans and enabling skills transfer to our people.
Our people remain our greatest strength, enabling Singapore to punch above our weight with a strong economy despite our lack of natural resources. We will continue to partner Singaporeans and key stakeholders to update our strategies as our demographic trends evolve and our economy transforms, and drive Singapore forward to a new and dynamic future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proper Disposal and Recycling of Battery Packs Given Rise in Battery Electric Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport given the rise of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), what are the measures taken to properly dispose and recycle battery packs today and in the future.
Mr S Iswaran: EV batteries are regulated under the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for e-waste, which came into effect on 1 July 2021. Under the EPR, companies that import EV batteries for supply in Singapore, whether as standalone batteries or as components of electric and hybrid vehicles, are responsible for the collection and end-of-life treatment of these batteries. These batteries are sent to licensed local e-waste recyclers or exported for treatment, where useful materials, such as cobalt, lithium, nickel and copper, are recovered. NEA is working with the local recycling industry to further build up Singapore’s capabilities to recycle EV batteries.
The Government continues to monitor other technologies and solutions for handling used EV batteries. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) is building up industry capabilities to repurpose such batteries as energy storage systems for grid applications. Such repurposing will extend the batteries’ useful lifecycle. The repurposed batteries can help to address solar intermittency and strengthen the resilience of the grid.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for HDB BTO Flat Buyers who Face Completion Delays and Evaluation Indicators for HDB Contractors with Poor Performance for Future Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the indicators used in an evaluation that an HDB contractor has shown “poor performance and subsequent failure”; and (b) in the case of Waterway Sunrise II, whether there can be a longer period provided to home owners on rectifying construction and building issues with their flats given the “poor performance” of the original contractor.
35 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development whether special considerations and priorities for interim rental housing are given to home buyers who are affected by completion delays of their HDB BTO flats, in particular home buyers of Waterway Sunrise II, where the delay is over a year.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB tracks the performance of contractors closely during the construction stage, based on a comprehensive monitoring system. This includes regular tracking of the project progress on site, to ensure early detection of issues to ensure timely and appropriate actions can be taken to bring the project back on track. Contractors are also assessed every six months under HDB’s Contractors Performance Assessment (CPA) framework, which takes into account the progress of site works, the quality of works completed, as well as site safety. Poor performance in any of these indicators during construction will result in lower CPA scores and impact the contractor’s ability to secure future HDB projects.
For the five HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) projects under former main contractor Greatearth, work at the sites had been progressing satisfactorily and there had been no signs of slow-down prior to Greatearth informing HDB that they had run into financial difficulties and were unable to complete the projects. HDB then engaged Greatearth to explore possible options, such as the provision of advance payments to allow Greatearth to continue with the projects. However, Greatearth did not have the financial ability to continue operations and made the decision to undergo liquidation.
In the case of Waterway Sunrise II, HDB had detected delays during its regular monitoring of the progress of works on site and had engaged the contractors on plans to catch up. However, despite HDB’s best efforts, the contractors eventually informed HDB that they were unable to carry on with the project and would have to cease operations on site. To safeguard the interests of flat buyers, HDB terminated the services of the contractors on 31 July 2020 and commenced proceedings to quickly bring on board a new contractor to complete the remaining works.
In general, once HDB detects any delays on BTO sites, HDB will assess the reasons for the delay and work closely with the contractors to bring the projects back on schedule. As termination will, generally, add to the delays due to the time required to bring a new contractor on board, such decisions are taken after careful consideration, when HDB assesses that the contractor is unable to fulfil its contractual obligations and that the appointment of a new contractor is the best option to minimise further delays and complete the projects.
Following the appointment of the replacement contractor for Waterway Sunrise II in October 2020, HDB has been working closely with the contractor to minimise the extent of project delays. HDB has also provided assistance to address COVID-19-induced challenges, such as manpower shortages and disruptions to material supplies. Despite the Government’s best efforts to provide support and assistance measures, Waterway Sunrise II is expected to be completed about six to nine months after the Delivery Possession Date (DPD). At present, this is the only BTO project where the delay has exceeded one year beyond the original estimated completion date.
HDB has informed the flat buyers of Waterway Sunrise II of the revised completion date and will continue to keep them updated as construction progresses. HDB will also be providing the maximum reimbursement sum that flat buyers are eligible for under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act.
We have also taken steps to support flat buyers affected by BTO delays and who need interim housing. From this year and over the next two years, we are doubling the supply of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), which provides an additional temporary housing option for first-timer households waiting for the completion of their new flats. We have also finetuned the eligibility conditions and allocation process to prioritise families in greater need of subsidised temporary housing. As the supply of PPHS flats will remain limited, we encourage flat buyers waiting for the completion of their BTO flats to continue living with their families or consider renting from the open market. We understand that many are able to do so.
On a case-by-case basis, HDB has also offered Interim Rental Housing (IRH) to affected buyers, including buyers of Waterway Sunrise II, who have lower incomes, no family support and no other housing options.
Upon the completion of the project, similar to all other BTO projects, HDB will conduct stringent checks to ensure there is no compromise in the quality of the project when the contractor hands over the flat to HDB, and home owners will be accorded the full duration of the Defects Liability Period (DLP) of 12 months starting from the date they collect their keys. If home owners provide any feedback on quality issues after the DLP, HDB will evaluate the feedback and see how best to assist the resident, 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":"Government's Response to Current Pace of Increase in HDB Resale Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the current pace of HDB resale price increases, where the third quarter flash estimates of the Resale Price Index was up 12.3% year-on-year, is in line with the Government’s intent to ensure a stable and sustainable property market; and (b) what are the measures the Government is considering for implementation to improve housing affordability.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government is committed to ensuring a stable and sustainable property market where prices move broadly in line with economic fundamentals. The recent increase in prices can be partly attributed to a broad-based increase in demand for housing, supported by the current low interest rate environment.
HDB resale flats continue to remain affordable. On average, the mortgage servicing ratio, which is the proportion of monthly income used to service mortgage instalment payments, has remained stable at 23% among resale flat buyers taking an HDB housing loan, over the past three years. This means that first-timer buyers, generally, have little or no cash outlay in servicing the payments for their resale flats as their mortgage loans can be paid using their CPF contributions. The Government also provides housing grants of up to $160,000 to ensure resale flats remain affordable for eligible first-timer families.
To meet the demand for HDB flats, HDB is on track to launch about 17,000 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in 2021, which are higher than the 14,600 and 16,800 flats launched in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Including the 5,300 flats offered under the Sale of Balance Flats exercises and open booking, a total of 22,300 flats will be offered in 2021. HDB will continue to ramp up the flat supply and will launch more than 17,000 flats in 2022 to meet the strong demand.
At the same time, we are continuing to monitor the economic and property market conditions very closely and will ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Correlation between Income of Singaporeans and Cost of HDB BTO and Resale Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the income of Singaporeans has been keeping up with the costs of BTO and HDB resale flats; and (b) in spite of over-subscription of BTO launches, whether the Ministry has done any studies on the long-term financial plans and abilities of the current generation of flat owners to pay off the loans.
Mr Desmond Lee: When pricing new flats, HDB applies a significant subsidy to the assessed market value of the flat so that new flats are priced below market, to ensure new flats are affordable. In addition, eligible first-timer flat buyers can also enjoy the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) of up to $80,000, which provides further support to lower- and middle-income families buying their first home. For resale flats, the Government provides housing grants of up to $160,000 to ensure resale flats remain affordable for eligible first-timer families.
HDB new and resale flats continue to remain affordable, as incomes have, generally, kept pace with new and resale flat prices over the past few years. On average, the mortgage servicing ratio (MSR), which is the proportion of monthly income used to service mortgage instalment payments, has remained at about 23% or below for new and resale flat buyers taking an HDB housing loan over the past three years. This means that buyers, generally, require little or no cash outlay in servicing the payments for their flats as their mortgage loans can be paid using their CPF contributions.
As the servicing of mortgage loans is a long-term commitment, we will continue to monitor the long-term ability of the current generation of flat owners to pay off their loans. The proportion of existing flat owners that faced difficulties repaying their loan has remained fairly stable – prior to COVID-19, the proportion of households on loans issued by HDB that were in arrears of three months or more remained below 5% from 2015 to 2019. This figure was slightly higher at 6% from January to September 2021, as some flat owners are still recovering from financial difficulties due to COVID-19 and HDB has reached out to them to offer assistance.
The Government will continue to monitor the housing market conditions closely and ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable public housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework for Keeping Debt Levels Sustainable for Autonomous Universities in Light of NTU's Recent Bond Issue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) what support or oversight does the Ministry provide to Autonomous Universities (AUs) which issue bonds, such as the recent sustainability bond issued by Nanyang Technological University, or taking on substantial indebtedness; and (b) what are the framework or restrictions on keeping debt levels sustainable for the AUs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our Autonomous Universities (AUs) are funded substantially by the Government for their operating and capital costs.
They may also from time-to-time borrow from the capital market to finance additional initiatives that complement those funded by the Government, to advance their mission in education, research, innovation and enterprise. The Board of Trustees (BOT) appointed by MOE exercises fiduciary duties, including oversight of investment strategies, internal audit and risk management. Any major decision on finances will have to be approved by the BOT or a finance committee appointed by the BOT, which would include members with the requisite finance expertise.
In the case of NTU, the decision to issue the sustainability-linked bond was approved by its BOT and the borrowing will go towards the financing of projects to support NTU’s corporate and sustainability goals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Recent Sharp Decline in Singapore Permanent Resident Population and Impact on Job Formation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the sharp decline of 6.2% in the Singapore Permanent Resident (PR) population is mainly due to extended stays by PRs in their citizenship countries abroad; (b) if so, whether there is any indication that the majority will return or relinquish their PR status; and (c) what impact this decline will have on job formation.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): From June 2020 to June 2021, the Permanent Resident (PR) population in Singapore decreased by 6.2% to 0.49 million. As explained in the Population in Brief report published on 28 September, the main reason for the decrease is because more PRs remained overseas continuously for 12 months or more due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.
We do not have sufficient data to ascertain whether these PRs are in their citizenship countries or elsewhere. It is also too early to conclude if these PRs will return or relinquish their PR status. In general, PRs who are overseas require a valid Re-Entry Permit (REP) to return to Singapore as PRs. The REP is renewable based on considerations, such as whether the PR is gainfully employed and contributing to Singapore or has family roots here.
Our PR population has remained stable at around half a million for over a decade and short-term shifts in the PR population are unlikely to affect resident employment trends, as citizens consistently make up about 85% of our resident workforce. Resident employment numbers and unemployment rates have been improving since the third quarter of 2020. The Member can refer to the latest data on MOM's website. We will continue to closely monitor the changes in our PR population as COVID-19 travel restrictions are steadily lifted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Due Diligence Checks are done in Singapore's Financial Services Sector Following Pandora Papers Leak","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister following the leak of the Pandora Papers into the public domain, what steps will MAS take to satisfy itself that Singapore-based professionals, trust companies and financial institutions charged with the responsibility of conducting the requisite due diligence checks under Singapore’s frameworks to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion are discharging their duties as required so as to preserve Singapore’s good reputation as a trusted and responsible financial hub.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): This question will be answered by my reply to Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Patrick Tay and Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, respectively, for the next Sitting. [Please refer to \"Investigations into Whether Singapore-based Individuals or Financial Institutions were Implicated in Pandora Papers Disclosures\", Official Report, 3 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 43, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Removal of Year-end Exam for Primary 3 and 4 Students on Their Learning and Stress Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will study the impact on students who do not have to take their Primary 3 and Primary 4 year-end exams; and (b) whether the removal of such year-end exams will lead to a less stressful education journey for Primary school students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE has cancelled the year-end examinations for Primary 3 and Primary 4 students this year to mitigate the disruptions to schooling caused by COVID-19. The intent is to provide more time and space for our students to re-adapt to school routines, for teachers to focus on students’ well-being during the phased return to schools and for schools to pace out curriculum recovery.
Year-end examinations help provide feedback to the teachers and students on students’ learning for the year, but they were removed this year due to exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, our schools, as part of their assessment practices, conduct other forms of assessment, other than the year-end examinations. These assessments give a useful amount of feedback for teachers to gauge the learning acquired and determine the learning support needed by students.
MOE is monitoring the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on the learning progress and well-being of our students. We will work closely with schools to ensure that our students’ learning and well-being remain safeguarded despite these disruptions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Tesla Cars Sold in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) from 2016 to date, how many Tesla cars are sold annually; (b) how many of these cars have Tesla's “Autopilot” Advanced Driver Assistance System installed; and (c) whether there has been any road traffic accident in Singapore involving a Tesla car on “Autopilot” mode.
Mr S Iswaran: From 2016 to September 2021, 558 Tesla cars were registered in Singapore. Five hundred and fifty seven of these cars have Tesla's \"Autopilot\" Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) installed.
Vehicles registered for use on Singapore roads must comply with internationally-recognised standards, such as those set out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The version of Tesla’s “Autopilot” system approved for use in Singapore is compliant with UN Regulation No 79. Even after engaging Tesla’s \"Autopilot\" system, the car is not autonomous; drivers are still required to have their hands physically on the wheel at all times and take control, as needed, to maintain safety. There has been no reported road traffic accident in Singapore involving a Tesla car on \"Autopilot\" mode.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Weekly Working Hours of Medical Housemen in Past Five Years and Measures to Reduce These Hours in Post-COVID-19 Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) in each of the last five years, what are the average weekly working hours for (i) housemen and (ii) medical officers and residents; (b) whether shifts of over 30 hours still occur for housemen; (c) whether the Ministry is reviewing resident doctors’ weekly working hours with a post-COVID-19 ambition of reducing them; and (d) whether working hours are impacted significantly by the size of each degree intake and number of doctors in each cohort.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Working hours for medical doctors depend on a number of factors, not just the cohort size and number of doctors.
The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has guidelines on the work hours of junior doctors, such as total allowable work hours per week and the provision of sufficient rest periods. Doctors undergoing training to be specialists also need to comply with guidelines for working hours and training. Efforts are made to ensure that the public healthcare institutions and doctors adhere to these guidelines.
Based on an annual survey of residents, 84% complied with work hours of a maximum 80 hours a week, 90% have at least a 10-hour interval between duty periods and after in-house calls.
Of special mention is the traditional night-call system for junior doctors. This is a 24-hour duty, which is a longstanding practice that all doctors have gone through to ensure a seamless continuity of care for the patients. To support the well-being of doctors, guidelines on the frequency and duration of night-calls have been introduced. For example, for Post Graduate Year 1 doctors, after a 24-hour duty, they should spend no more than six additional hours for handing over and other activities. Surveys showed that 85% complied with this requirement. Number of calls are mostly within SMC guidelines of four to seven per month.
Some of the departments have also introduced night float systems. Unlike the traditional night-call system, doctors on night float perform approximately 12 hours of on-site duty during evening or night shifts usually for one or two weeks at a stretch with no other duties in the day. MOH is studying if the float system could complement the traditional call system.
The profession and medical fraternity have traditionally undertaken the responsibility to take care of their juniors. In response to feedback from junior doctors about working hours and well-being, the Director of Medical Services in MOH had commissioned a national committee, chaired by a very senior doctor, to lead initiatives to promote and improve the well-being of junior doctors in the public healthcare system and look into factors associated with work-related stress among junior doctors, such as work hours, duration of night-calls and work structure. This is in addition to the various initiatives already in place in the healthcare institutions to look after the well-being of junior doctors.
MOH and the public healthcare institutions will continue to better support junior doctors and improve their well-being while balancing against the demands of the profession and the duty towards patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of HDB BTO Flats Taking Longer to Complete and Measures to Adopt Technology to Improve Productivity in Construction Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry foresees a trend where HDB BTO flats could take longer than the currently projected four to five years to complete; and (b) how is the Ministry steering construction companies towards increased use of technology to improve productivity and reduce reliance on manual labour.
Mr Desmond Lee: The COVID-19 pandemic has put the construction industry under significant strain. With the introduction of stringent safe management measures (SMMs) at worksites, tightening of border controls for foreign workers and disruption in the supply of building materials, many private and public sector projects have been delayed. The majority of HDB’s Build-to-Order (BTO) projects have been delayed by between six and 12 months beyond their Estimated Completion Dates (ECD) originally indicated to buyers.
In the face of these challenges, HDB has been closely monitoring the construction progress of all BTO projects and has rolled out extensive assistance measures to help contractors complete their ongoing projects, to minimise delays to affected flat buyers.
With these efforts and assistance measures, we have been able to minimise the extent of further delays to BTO projects. Thus far, the average waiting time for ongoing BTO projects, including delays brought about by the pandemic, has remained between four and five years. If the COVID-19 situation does not get worse, and barring any unforeseen circumstances, we do not expect the delays or average waiting time to be further lengthened.
To improve construction productivity and reduce reliance on manual labour, BCA has been working with the industry to adopt the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) building method on a wider scale. DfMA allows building components to be fabricated off-site in automated facilities and subsequently assembled on-site. This reduces our on-site workforce, raises productivity, improves workmanship and reduces disamenities to residents near construction sites.
DfMA adoption has doubled over the last three years, from 19% in 2017 to 39% in 2020. We aim to make DfMA the default building method, especially for large projects, as they have more economies of scale for off-site fabrication. To do so, BCA will enhance its Buildability Framework by raising the minimum Buildable Design Score (B-Score) for large commercial, institutional and industrial developments with Gross Floor Area (GFA) of at least 25,000 sqm. Firms can tap on the Productivity Innovation Project (PIP) scheme under the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) to help support the upfront cost of adopting DfMA solutions.
HDB has also worked with BCA to develop productivity plans for BTO projects. Thus far, HDB has implemented a wide range of productivity initiatives, including the adoption of DfMA building methods, and has achieved an improvement of about 25% in site productivity in 2020, compared to 2010 levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline between BTO Flat Application and Key Collection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the long term, what is the desired and acceptable timeline for HDB BTO home buyers from the time of application of an HDB flat to receiving their flat’s keys; and (b) what are the considerations for this desired timeline.
Mr Desmond Lee: Prior to COVID-19, the average waiting time for BTO projects launched in 2019 was between three and four years.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the construction industry and on BTO waiting times. The current average waiting time of projects launched in 2020, after factoring in delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is about four years. For ongoing projects, we expect that most flat buyers will be able to move into their new homes within four to five years after booking their flats, barring any further unforeseen circumstances.
We recognise that many home buyers want to move into their new homes and settle down as soon as they can. HDB strives to keep waiting times as short as possible and has rolled out extensive assistance measures to help contractors complete their ongoing projects in a timely manner. However, project-specific attributes, such as storey height, number of units and site conditions will cause waiting times to vary. Projects with challenging site conditions or taller blocks, generally, take a longer time to construct. HDB endeavours to complete all BTO projects expeditiously, without comprising safety and quality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parking Charges in School during COVID-19 Pandemic and Home-based Learning Days","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether teachers continue to be charged for school parking charges during periods of home-based learning; (b) whether any waivers of parking charges can be considered during these challenging times; and (c) whether the Ministry is looking into whether to continue charging teachers for parking on school premises.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Let me first clarify a possible misperception that our teachers do not come to school during periods of home-based learning (HBL). Even during HBL, some of our teachers continue to return to schools, to support and care for high needs students who still come to school. Others are also allowed to come back to schools if this is more convenient for them to conduct their HBL lessons or to prepare lessons for our students.
I thank all our educators for their dedication to their mission and call of duty and for their quick adaptation to the many changes throughout these last two difficult years. Despite the heightened demands, they have displayed exemplary professionalism and care to focus on the well-being of our students. We will continue to take care of our educators so that they can take care of our students and we will want to do so in appropriate ways in matters that concern their career development and well-being.
On the issue of parking which the Member has raised, Government and Statutory Boards, including schools, are required to implement market-rate parking charges. This arose from previous AGO audit observations. Given the long-term nature of season parking, season parking rates are not waived or refunded due to partial use. This applies to all Government-managed car parks, even if the season parking holder does not physically come into the office on certain days due to work from home or hybrid work arrangements. Hence, the parking rates are worked out on the basis of a flat monthly charge, with no pro-rating or waiver for days when there are days of non-usage. This also means that the monthly season rates typically translate to a fairly reasonable pricing, which is certainly the case for school season parking, as compared to alternative time-based parking options at nearby public carparks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting Minimum Occupation Periods for New and Resale Flats to Release More Housing Supply to Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for National Development given the current delays in the completion of several HDB BTO projects and the related crunch on public housing supply, whether the Ministry will consider reducing the minimum occupation periods for new and resale flats in order to provide more housing supply in the market.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flats are meant for long-term owner occupation. The minimum occupation period, or MOP, for new and resale HDB flats ensures that flat buyers purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flat, instead of quickly reselling the flats for profit. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs and deters speculative purchases, thereby helping to keep HDB flats affordable.
While reducing the MOP may temporarily increase the number of flats available on the resale market, it is unlikely to significantly increase the overall housing supply as flat sellers will need alternative housing and will add to the demand for resale flats. It would also compromise the intent of the MOP and could encourage short-term, speculative churning of HDB flats. This would then result in buyers paying higher prices for resale flats.
To ensure that flat supply remains responsive to the housing needs of our population, we will continue to monitor the market and demand situation and calibrate the supply of public housing accordingly. HDB remains on track to launch about 17,000 BTO flats in 2021 and we plan for next year’s BTO supply to exceed this. This year’s supply is already higher than the 14,600 and 16,800 flats launched in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Given the current strong housing demand, we will continue on this trajectory going forward to ensure that housing supply keeps up with demand. We will announce more details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Quarantine Order Allowance Distributed to Affected Persons and Average Waiting Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what is the total amount of Quarantine Order Allowance that has been distributed to affected persons; and (b) what is the average waiting time for the allowance payout.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To date, S$16.2 million has been distributed to eligible applicants under the Quarantine Order Allowance (QOA) Scheme. Typically, payouts are made to successful applicants within three months of submitting the QOA application. There has been a recent surge in QOA applications over the past two months and MOH is working to expedite processing of these cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Free Antigen Rapid Test Kits from Vending Machines for Self-tests Given Emphasis on Personal Responsibility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health in view of the updated health protocols announced on 8 October 2021 emphasising personal responsibility, self-management and a greater reliance on antigen rapid tests (ART), whether the Government will allow individuals to collect free ART kits for their own regular testing, from designated vending machines, to supplement the free kits that will be distributed to all households from October to December 2021.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Each individual who receives a Health Risk Warning (HRW) can collect six Antigen Rapid Test (ART) kits from vending machines located islandwide. Workers on mandatory regular testing regimes are currently also provided with free kits by the Government. To support individuals to self-test regularly, we had distributed six kits to each household from August to September, and are distributing another 10 kits from October to December. Individuals who need more kits can purchase them from major retailers and e-commerce platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Reports on Conduct of Debt Collection Agencies over Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past three years, how many Police reports have been made annually regarding the conduct of debt collection agencies or their employees and agents; (b) in how many cases was an offence made out; and (c) what are the outcomes of such cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police track reports where criminal offences are made out. From 2018 to 2020, there were, on average, about 400 Police reports a year pertaining to the conduct of debt collection agencies or their employees. Ninety-seven percent of these cases were classified as Intentional Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act and the rest were classified as offences, such as Mischief or Voluntarily Causing Hurt under the Penal Code.
Police will initiate investigations when there is a prima facie case which is arrestable. Where it is not arrestable, the complainant will be advised to pursue civil remedies, or file a Magistrate’s Complaint. From 2018 to 2020, Police investigated 192 cases.
Prosecution or other action will be taken with the advice of AGC, when it is assessed that a case can be made out, beyond reasonable doubt.
Thirteen of the above cases resulted in warnings and six cases in convictions.
MHA plans to introduce new legislation to regulate debt collection companies and their employees. We will be conducting public consultations soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients Eligible for Home Recovery Programme and Rate of Infection to Their Family Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health with new announcements that further restrict the movements of those who are unvaccinated, what accommodations are being made for those who are unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical reasons.
56 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) with regard to close contacts of COVID-19-positive cases who are issued with a Health Risk Warning, what is the percentage of these close contacts that became COVID-19-positive; and (b) how do these figures compare based on their vaccination status.
57 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has undertaken a study on the number or percentage of people infected with COVID-19 and eligible for home-based recovery who rely on informal carers at home; (b) what guidance or support is provided to informal carers in this situation to ensure care can still be provided during the period of isolation; and (c) whether the Government provides alternative care arrangements for those infected with COVID-19 and, if so, what are these.
58 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the probability of contracting COVID-19 from close contacts with COVID-19-positive family members on the Home Recovery Programme; and (b) how does this contrast with those who become infected at their workplace.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Members for their questions. I have addressed them in my reply to Question Nos 77 to 85 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Updated Protocols for COVID-19 Patients, Vaccination for Children and Delays in Response Time by Government COVID-19 Teams\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Deterrent Measures to Penalise Those who have Taken Part in Perpetration of Phone Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider increasing the deterring measures for those who have taken part, in full or in part, in the perpetration of scams or scam syndicates via telecommunication media to victimise the public.
Mr K Shanmugam: Depending on the facts of the case, persons who take part in the perpetration of scams can be charged with one of the cheating-related offences under sections 417 to 420A of the Penal Code, which carry imprisonment terms of up to between three and 10 years. MHA’s assessment is that these penalties are adequate for now.
The main challenge in combating scams perpetrated via telecommunication media is that most of the scammers are based overseas. We have adopted a multi-pronged approach to tackle them. This is led by the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams (IMCS).
First, we have strengthened enforcement. We have been actively collaborating with foreign law enforcement agencies to share information that may lead to the arrest of scammers based abroad. For example, between June and September 2021, the Singapore Police Force worked with the Royal Malaysian Police, Hong Kong Police Force and Taiwan Police, to bust 10 transnational syndicates involved in job scams, Internet love scams and impersonation scams.
Second, we are partnering stakeholders outside of the Home Team to combat scams upstream. One such initiative is ScamShield, an iOS mobile app developed by the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and GovTech, launched in November 2020. Apart from blocking SMS messages and calls from known scam numbers, ScamShield also has a function for users to report suspected scam calls and messages to the Police. As of 30 September 2021, there have been more than 210,000 user downloads, 1.8 million scam SMSes blocked, and 11,900 suspected scam phone numbers blocked. The ScamShield team is presently working on an Android version of the app which is expected to be released by end of this year.
In addition, IMDA has required the telecom operators to block international calls that spoof numbers, for example, 999, 995 and other numbers of our Government agencies. IMDA has also implemented the \"+\" prefix for all international calls since April 2020 to help consumers who are not expecting any overseas calls to be more vigilant and exercise greater care when answering such calls.
Third, we are strengthening public education and awareness. The best defence against scams is a discerning public. For example, we have been working with partners, such as the NCPC, to disseminate advisories to the public through various media and online platforms. We urge members of public to stay vigilant and also to watch out for their families and friends to prevent them from falling prey to scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Approval for non-mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to be Included in National Vaccination Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health what is the timeline for the approval status for non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, such as SinoPharm and AstraZeneca, to be included into the national vaccination programme under the Pandemic Special Access Route.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question No 72 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Assessment Criteria for Sinovac and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines for Inclusion in National Vaccination Programme\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on HSA's Consideration of COVID-19 Vaccines for Children and Progress of Obtaining Approval","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health regarding COVID-19 vaccination of children below 12 years of age, whether the Ministry can provide an update on (i) the vaccines that are currently under study or consideration by HSA and (ii) the progress of obtaining approval for use of these vaccines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question No. 72 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Assessment Criteria for Sinovac and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines for Inclusion in National Vaccination Programme\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for and Steps to Encourage COVID-19 Vaccination amongst Homeless and Rough Sleepers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) what has been the COVID-19 vaccination take-up rate amongst those who are homeless and rough sleeping in Singapore; and (b) what steps are taken to engage and encourage these persons to be vaccinated and receive their booster shots.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of 30 September 2021, 90% of the rough sleepers and homeless accepted into MSF’s temporary shelters have been fully vaccinated. We are unable to monitor the vaccination rate of those still sleeping rough on the streets. MSF is collaborating closely with partners to conduct physical outreach (in alignment with allowed group sizes) to continue to encourage these individuals to be fully vaccinated and get their booster shots when eligible. The rough sleepers can also walk into our mRNA vaccination centres without appointment to receive their primary doses since 10 August 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Counter Over-population of Pigeons and Resultant Harmful Pollutive Effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development what are the current measures taken to counter an over-population of pigeons and their harmful pollutive effects, such as decomposing carcasses of birds, discarded feathers and pigeon waste.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks adopts a holistic and science-based approach to managing the pigeon population in Singapore, comprising measures, such as food source reduction, habitat modification and population control.
Food made available by humans is a key driver of pest bird population growth. To reduce the availability of food sources, NParks works closely with SFA, NEA and Town Councils to encourage proper food waste management at food establishments and to enforce against littering and illegal bird-feeding. As part of its education and outreach efforts, NParks also partners Town Councils, MSO, PA and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to engage feeders. This enables NParks to find out feeders’ motivations and discourage them from continuing to feed birds.
NParks also works closely with stakeholders to ensure that its population control methods for pigeons are conducted in a sustainable and humane manner. For example, NParks works with Town Councils and the industry to equip workers with the necessary skills and methods to handle and remove pigeons properly during their operations and to maintain general cleanliness afterwards.
NParks will continue to work with agencies and regularly review its measures to manage the pigeon population to safeguard public safety and health. All of us can also play our part by not feeding these pest birds and keeping our environment clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Divorce Cases where Shared Care and Control is Awarded","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is observing an increase in the number of divorce cases where shared care and control is awarded; and (b) whether the Ministry has looked into the studies that show that shared care and control is a better option for the benefit of the children as compared to sole care and control.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Over the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of civil divorce cases where shared care and control was awarded, from 161 cases in 2016 to 256 cases in 2020. This translates to an increase in the proportion of civil divorces with shared care and control orders made, from 5.6% in 2016 to 9.5% in 2020.
Regarding studies on shared care and control, an overseas scan of Western jurisdictions that have considered or legislated shared care and control, also referred to as \"shared parenting time\", found that there is no consensus on whether such an arrangement benefits the child. For example, in 2018, a study by Elizabeth Keogh, Bruce Smythe and Alexander Masardo found that in Australia, which legislated default \"shared parenting time\" since 2006, shared-time arrangements may work well for children where separated parents are able to cooperate and communicate in ways that avoid or contain conflict. This increases the longevity and quality of the relationship between the child and both parents, encouraging parents to maintain or establish a meaningful relationship in all aspects of the child’s life1.
However, the same study found there are also risks arising from shared-time arrangements, especially where (i) there are high levels of entrenched interparental conflict; (ii) where a parent has safety concerns; or (iii) where the child is an infant or very young. Where there are high levels of ongoing conflict, shared-time arrangements may be more damaging because children are likely to be “caught and used” in conflicts. Where there are safety concerns arising from issues, such as family violence, mental health, alcohol or substance abuse, child well-being could also be negatively affected in a shared-time arrangement.
Lastly, the appropriateness of shared-time arrangements for infants and young children remains highly contested2. An earlier study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2009 showed that children in shared-time arrangements fared slightly better than those who were mainly in the care of one parent and spent some time with the non-resident parent on some measures, but the differences were small and largely disappeared after controlling for demographics and other characteristics3.
In terms of local studies, MSF’s 2020 Study on Co-Parenting Styles (\"Co-Parenting Study\") found that the cooperative co-parenting style is associated with positive child outcomes, such as less child behavioural and emotional problems and better school learning behaviour, compared to parallel co-parenting and single parenting. Cooperative co-parenting is characterised by parents who communicate frequently and collaborate with each other regarding their children’s matters and make major decisions about their children together. Parallel co-parenting is characterised by parents who tend not to communicate with each other and seldom make major decisions about their children together, but both continue to be involved in their children’s lives.
Lastly, single parenting is characterised by parents who do not communicate with each other and only one parent is heavily involved in their children’s lives.
Our finding corroborates those from overseas which show that children who experienced cooperative co-parenting exhibit fewer behavioural problems. The cooperative co-parenting style was, however, independent of whether there was sole or shared care and control.
Hence, there are no conclusive findings on the benefits of shared care and control both locally and overseas. Instead, research shows that cooperative co-parenting is associated with better outcomes for children and MSF will continue to support and encourage divorced parents to practise cooperative co-parenting to serve the best interests of their children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Elizabeth Keogh, Bruce Smyth and Alexander Masardo, \"Law Reform for Shared-Time Parenting after Separation\", [2018] 30 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 518, at p 537.","2 : Keogh (2018), at p 538 – 542.","3 : Rae Kaspiew, Matthew Gray, Ruth Weston, Lawrie Moloney, Kelly Hand and Lixia Qu, \"Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms\", December 2009, Australian Institute of Family Studies, p 259 – 273."],"footNoteQuestions":["67"],"questionNo":"67"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Public Consultation Exercises for Proposed Revisions to Carbon Tax","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether it will be publishing on REACH’s platforms any public consultation exercise specifically on revisions to the carbon tax and whether sufficient time will be given to the public to incorporate suggestions before Budget 2022; (b) whether any revision to the carbon tax will also include revisions to the carbon tax target by 2030; and (c) whether a summary of the resulting feedback and responses to the exercise will be provided to the public before Budget 2022.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As the Minister for Finance has indicated at Budget 2021, the Government is currently reviewing our carbon tax and will announce at Budget 2022 the revised post-2023 carbon tax level and indicate what we can expect up to 2030.
Public consultation on the carbon tax has been ongoing as part of engagements under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which include conversations on the need for a revised carbon tax and the trade-offs involved in our transition to a greener and more sustainable future. NCCS, MTI and agencies will also leverage other platforms, which may include REACH, to engage the public in the lead up to Budget 2022. The Government will also engage businesses on the potential impact of a higher carbon tax and how we can support them in pursuing green growth opportunities.
Feedback received from the consultations will be taken into consideration in the review. The Government will provide a summary of relevant feedback at the appropriate time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of and Possible Waiver of Fee Charged for Seeking Doctor's Memo for Medical Test Results at Restructured Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average cost of seeking a doctor's memo or copies of a medical test result at a restructured hospital; (b) what are the grounds for waivers for these charges; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide a fee waiver for first-time requests for such medical documents.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Formal requests for a doctor’s memo or medical test result through hospital administration cost $8 on average. However, results from routine laboratory tests performed in restructured hospitals are available in HealthHub and can be accessed freely by patients. Patients may also request for their doctor to review these test results with them during their regular consultations.
Medical reports containing more details of the patient’s medical condition, such as reports required for insurance underwriting, could range from about $90 to $535, depending on the complexity of the medical report.
Restructured hospitals charge for these reports on a cost recovery basis for manpower and other administrative costs incurred. For more complex reports, a doctor may need to review the patient’s medical records in order to produce the report. Charges are, therefore, levied for the service of generating these reports.
Patients with financial difficulty can request for these charges to be waived. Other reasons, such as whether the report is an official requirement, may be submitted to the hospital, for consideration for fee waivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classifying Contraventions in Endangered Species (Import and Export) and Wildlife Acts as Serious Offences in Schedule of Organised Crime Act 2015","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to sections 4, 5 and 19 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act, whether the Ministry will consider classifying contraventions of these sections as serious offences in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act 2015.
Mr K Shanmugam: For an offence to be considered a serious offence listed in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act (OCA), the offence must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore. The offence must also be one that is associated with organised crime in Singapore. Examples of crimes in the Schedule to the OCA include murder, drug-trafficking and unlicensed moneylending.
The offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act relate to the international and domestic trade of wildlife without the requisite permits, and the offence under section 19 of the ESA is for the abetment of offences under the ESA. We take these offences seriously. However, the question is whether they will qualify under the OCA – do they pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore and are they related to organised crime? Over the years, NParks has investigated and made a number of prosecutions for illegal wildlife trade. These cases have so far not been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore. That said, MHA and MND will monitor the developments. We do not rule out including these offences under OCA if the specific criteria set out are met. We will emphasise: even if they are not within the ambit of the OCA, nevertheless, they are considered serious offences.
MND and NParks will continue to maintain Singapore’s vigilance against illegal wildlife trade. Where illegal wildlife trade seizures involve entities outside of Singapore, our enforcement agencies work closely with the source and destination countries and share information with international organisations, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and INTERPOL, to assist in investigation and enforcement efforts. Where other countries have uncovered links to organised crime in their jurisdictions, NParks has extended assistance to them in their investigations.
The illegal wildlife trade offences mentioned by Mr Louis Ng are listed as Serious Offences under the Second Schedule to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. This allows Singapore to provide mutual legal assistance for the aforementioned offences, whether or not they involve organised criminal groups, and, consequently, to cooperate with other countries in combatting wildlife trafficking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Increase Period that Offender is Disqualified from Owning Any Animal or Class of Animals under Animals and Birds Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the period a person is disqualified from owning any animal or any class of animals from the current maximum of 12 months under section 43B of the Animals and Birds Act; (b) if not, why not; and (c) if so, whether the Ministry will consult with stakeholders and the general public in considering the extent of the increase.
Mr Desmond Lee: We take a serious view of all acts of animal cruelty and abuse. Individuals who are found guilty of such acts, or of failing to care for their animals, can be charged under the Animals and Birds Act.
For animal cruelty cases, first-time offenders can face a maximum fine of $15,000, or a jail term of up to 18 months, or both. Repeat offenders can face a maximum fine of $30,000, or a jail term of up to three years, or both. In addition to these penalties, offenders may be disqualified from owning any animal for up to 12 months. This serves as an added deterrent against acts of animal cruelty and safeguards animal welfare.
We are reviewing the penalties under the Animals and Birds Act to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse. The review will take into account feedback from consultations with the relevant stakeholders and the public. Beyond regulation and enforcement, NParks will continue to work closely with stakeholders, such as animal welfare groups and veterinarians, to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership and animal care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of and Summonses for Speeding Vehicles along Woodlands Avenue 5","subTitle":"Installation of cameras along roads where speeding complaints are received ","sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to speeding vehicles and illegally modified vehicles along Woodlands Avenue 5 over the last year (a) how many (i) complaints have been received and (ii) summonses have been issued; and (b) whether the Traffic Police will consider installing a speed camera along the stretches of roads where speeding complaints are received.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between October 2020 and September 2021, the Traffic Police, or TP, received 16 complaints concerning speeding vehicles along Woodlands Avenue 5. Over the same period, TP issued 160 summonses against speeding vehicles, arising from speed enforcement operations conducted in the area. LTA, which enforces against illegal vehicle modifications, received 17 pieces of feedback regarding illegally modified vehicles in the location. Over this period, LTA issued 20 summonses, arising from enforcement operations in the area.
TP conducts regular patrols on our roads and mounts targeted enforcement operations at areas that are prone to accidents and speeding. Where necessary, TP will conduct additional enforcement operations and study the feasibility of installing speed cameras at these locations. For the installation of a speed camera, TP will assess, among others, if the terrain is suitable for the camera to be installed and effectively detect violations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Cultural Associations to Document and Preserve Artefacts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the Ministry's plans to support cultural associations to document and preserve their artefacts during relocation or closure; (b) whether the Ministry conducts outreach to cultural associations on donations of artefacts to NHB-managed museums; and (c) whether clearer criteria can be provided on what determines an artefact’s accession to, or rejection from, NHB-managed museum collections.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: NHB has a close working relationship with many community stakeholders who own their own collections of artefacts. These include individuals, community groups, religious organisations and cultural associations.
NHB provides professional advice and support to these stakeholders to help them better maintain their collections, such as through public workshops, seminars and conferences to share best practices in collections care and management. If there are requests for specific types of support, such as help with the conservation or restoration of artefacts, NHB will study these on a case-by-case basis and advise their stakeholders accordingly.
NHB also provides grant support for projects that document, safeguard and showcase private collections and which foster greater public appreciation of our shared heritage.
For example, NHB supported the Eurasian Association with its Heritage Project Grant1 to refurbish its Eurasian Heritage Centre in May 2016.
Several projects by the Singapore Heritage Society have been supported by NHB’s Digital Project Grant, to digitally document manuscripts in Seng Wong Beo Temple and to create 3D scans of underground artefacts from Bukit Brown Cemetery.
NHB museums and heritage institutions regularly receive offers of donations from private collections and many of them have been accepted over the years. For instance, the Indian Heritage Centre received a donation of a kavadi from the Chettiar’s Temple Society in 2014 and a group of ritual objects/articles of faith from the Marthoma Syrian Church in Singapore in 2017.
However, NHB would not be able to accept all offered donations and has certain guidelines concerning the receipt of collections which help determine whether an artefact donation is accepted or not.
Broadly speaking, potential artefact donations are assessed by NHB’s in-house professional curators who examine each artefact’s significance and value, with an emphasis on how it would help tell our Singapore Story and its potential in enhancing public understanding of our heritage.
In addition, the donations must meet broader considerations, such as the extent to which they suit or complement the collecting strategy and curatorial direction of our museum or heritage institution. The artefacts must also be authentic and appropriate for future public display.
This approach is benchmarked against international museum best practices, such as those of The British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of New York.
MCCY appreciates the generosity of many donors who have contributed to our National Collection and, in turn, to the telling of our Singapore Story. More information on the donation criteria for the National Museum Singapore and the Asian Civilisations Museum can be found on their respective websites.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Heritage Project Grant was renamed as the Major Project Grant in January 2021."],"footNoteQuestions":["74"],"questionNo":"74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for Exit of Electricity Retailers from Singapore Consumer Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the causes for three electricity retailers to close operations within a short period of time; (b) what is the current financial viability of the existing retailers; and (c) whether there is a need to review the financial criteria for future licensing purposes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question Nos 11 to 30 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Support for Industry and Consumers Given Higher Electricity Prices and Recent Exit of Electricity Retailers\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facility for Individuals to Prevent Outbound Funds Transfer from Bank Accounts of Close Family Members Suspected to be Victims of Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is currently a facility for an individual to prevent close family members whom they suspect are victims of scams from making outbound funds transfers from their bank accounts; and (b) what recourse do such families have to prevent unwitting loved ones from draining their savings due to such scams.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): There is no facility to enable an individual to stop outbound fund transfers from the bank accounts of family members whom they suspect may become victims of scams. Banks, generally, act only upon the instructions of the account holder unless he has provided written consent and mandated another person to operate the account on his behalf. This is to protect the rights of the account holder.
But Mr Gerald Giam also asks how family members can help one another avoid becoming victims of scams. Anyone who suspects that a family member has been a victim of a scam, or is being targeted by scammers, should advise the family member to contact his or her bank and make a Police report.
In the event that the suspected victim does not agree to do so, the concerned family member can contact the Singapore Police Anti-Scam Hotline, where trained staff are available to provide independent advice to the suspected victim.
We can help our family members to take pre-emptive measures to better protect themselves. We can share with them information and other resources on scam prevention. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) has a dedicated website – scamsalert.sg – which provides useful tips on how to identify and avoid falling prey to scams, as well as a mobile application – ScamShield – which will block scam calls based on a list of numbers maintained by the Police. We can also discuss with family members the banking facilities they require for daily use and advise them to protect their accounts by setting appropriate transaction limits and lowering transaction alert thresholds. These are basic measures that can help them stay alert to unauthorised transfers and limit their financial losses in the event of an unauthorised transaction.
MAS, together with the Singapore Police Force and the financial industry, will continue to look into measures to help consumers defend themselves against scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Police Raids on Massage Establishments, Public Entertainment and Nightlife Outlets since July 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of enforcement raids conducted by the Police against massage establishments and public entertainment and nightlife outlets since the detection of the KTV COVID-19 cluster in July 2021; (b) how many persons have been arrested as a result of these raids; and (c) of those arrested, how many are repeat offenders.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 11 July and 20 October 2021, the Police conducted enforcement checks against 495 licensed and unlicensed massage establishments, as well as 293 licensed and unlicensed public entertainment outlets.
In total, 196 persons were arrested for offences under laws, such as the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Women’s Charter, the Public Entertainments Act, and the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act. Of those arrested, 14 were repeat offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Suspected and Actual Instances of Foreign Interference in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the last 10 years, how many cases of suspected foreign interference came to the attention of the Ministry; (b) how many resulted in further investigations and action being taken; and (c) how many were found to have been actual instances of foreign interference.
Mr K Shanmugam: For national security reasons, the Government does not disclose operational details or publicise statistics of suspected or actual foreign interference in Singapore. We also do not publicise some cases due to bilateral considerations.
MHA has disclosed some of the foreign interference incidents to which we had been subject, as well as international case studies, in Parliament when we were moving the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill. The Workers’ Party agreed that the threat of foreign interference was ubiquitous and the Government must have powers to intervene where appropriate.
For cases which we had been subject to, some we had dealt with under the Internal Security Act and existing laws, whereas, for others, we did not have the levers, such as those proposed in the Bill to deal with them. For future cases, necessary notice will be given should we take steps under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amendments to Limitation Act to Address Deficiencies Identified by Law Reform Committee of Singapore Academy of Law","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Limitation Act will be amended to address several deficiencies identified by the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law, particularly with respect to providing a limitation period for actions in unjust enrichment, which is not covered by the Act.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry had previously considered this matter and taken the view that there were some issues in amending the Limitation Act. However, the matter is being reviewed again. Given the need to prioritise resources, this review might take time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Import and Use of Helium in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much helium is imported into Singapore every year; (b) what are the main uses of helium in Singapore; and (c) how the unnecessary use of helium is discouraged in Singapore given that helium is a rare resource with medical uses that will be exhausted in less than 200 years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Data on helium imports is aggregated with “other rare gases”. As such, the Government is unable to track the specific amount of helium that is imported into Singapore each year.
Helium is used to cool semiconductor components and the superconducting magnet in magnetic resonant imaging machines due to its high thermal conductivity. Helium is also used in some healthcare settings, such as to inflate intra-aortic balloon pumps. Firms have a natural incentive to not waste helium to minimise costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redemption Rate of SingapoRediscover Vouchers and Plans to Extend Their Utilisation and Validity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) to date, what has been the redemption rate of SingapoRediscovers vouchers; (b) whether allowing Singaporeans to use their NRICs to redeem their vouchers at community centres and residents committees since 30 August 2021 has resulted in higher redemption rates; (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing utilisation of the vouchers for other uses, such as dining, to support the food and beverage industry; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider further extending the expiry date of the vouchers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of 21 October 2021, over 1.25 million Singaporeans have used their SingaporeRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) at least once. Collectively, about $256 million in vouchers and additional expenditure have been spent under the scheme.
The ability to use NRIC or other identification documents at selected Community Clubs/Centres and Residents’ Committee Centres in Singapore has made it easier for some groups, such as seniors, to redeem their vouchers. Alongside other efforts to enhance the redemption process, such as setting up SRV counters at attractions, more citizens have been able to redeem their vouchers and enjoy the tourism offerings in Singapore.
The SRV was designed to give Singaporeans an opportunity to rediscover the charms of Singapore and to support the core tourism sectors, such as hotels, attractions and tours. The SRV programme also benefits the F&B sector as many F&B establishments have collaborated with tourism businesses to curate packages that attract and draw local consumers to their outlets as well.
We will continue to monitor the situation before considering if an extension of the SRV redemption deadline is needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Labour Productivity Growth during COVID-19 Pandemic and Steps to Promote Entrenchment of Productivity Gains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the labour productivity growth during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) if the productivity growth indicates an upward tick, what steps are being taken to promote the entrenchment of the productivity gains.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore economy contracted by 5.4% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, labour productivity, as measured by real value-added per actual hour worked, rose by 1.3%, as the total number of actual hours worked fell by a larger extent. This was due to the physical workplace closures implemented during the circuit breaker, as well as the subsequent phased resumption of activities last year. In the first half of 2021, labour productivity grew by 4.6% on a year-on-year basis, supported by the recovery in the Singapore economy.
To sustain Singapore’s productivity growth, it is important that we continue to transform our sectors and enterprises and upgrade our workforce.
Our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) chart the direction for our efforts to transform our sectors. We are currently refreshing the ITMs to meet the accelerated changes brought about by COVID-19. For each of the 23 ITM sectors, we will update our sectoral strategies to create and seize opportunities and improve the productivity and wages of workers through digitalisation, innovation, internationalisation, the upskilling of workers and job redesign.
The Government will continue to support efforts by our enterprises to uplift productivity through automation and training. For example, we have worked with trade associations and chambers to set up a network of SME Centres that provide advisory services to our small- and medium-sized enterprises. We also have a comprehensive range of support to help businesses transform, including the Productivity Solutions Grant and SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit.
With COVID-19, the National Jobs Council was also formed to spearhead efforts to create jobs and training opportunities for local jobseekers. As at end-August 2021, over 140,000 local jobseekers have been placed into jobs and skills opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, which allow them to pick up job-related skills and capabilities. Workforce training and upgrading will remain our top priority to enable our workers to seize the opportunities as the economy transforms.
Collectively, these initiatives will help to promote productivity improvements and we encourage companies and workers to take advantage of them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tips on Conserving Energy Usage among Residential and Commercial Users Given Rising Electricity Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the anticipated rise in electricity prices, what are the plans to raise awareness and education on tips to save energy for both residential and commercial users.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member for his question. It has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 11 to 30 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Support for Industry and Consumers Given Higher Electricity Prices and Recent Exit of Electricity Retailers\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement against Cyclists Not Wearing Helmets or Involved in Accidents on Expressways and in Tunnels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) from 2018 to 2021, how many cyclists have been caught without wearing a helmet while cycling on roads; and (b) what are the Ministry's further measures to ensure road cyclists’ compliance with road safety rules.
10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past three years, how many cyclists have been caught, injured or were involved in an accident with another road user while riding in expressways and tunnels; (b) how many have been subsequently charged with an offence; and (c) what safety measures are in place to prevent such incidents.
Mr S Iswaran: Cyclists are expected to follow various regulations when cycling on roads. This includes wearing a helmet and riding as near as practicable to the far-left edge of the road except when overtaking. These rules apply for all roads, including bus lanes. Between January 2018 and September 2021, 545 helmet-related offences were detected. The number of violations detected by the Traffic Police (TP) of cyclists riding on the right side of a motor vehicle, whether in a bus lane or otherwise, when not overtaking or preparing to make a right turn and for not riding at the far-left edge of the road was eight, 12, three and two for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 respectively, and two for the first nine months of this year.
Cycling is prohibited on expressways and in tunnels for safety reasons. From January 2018 to September 2021, LTA detected more than 300 cyclists riding on expressways and in tunnels; all were issued with notices of traffic offence and composition fines.
The vast majority of on-road cyclists comply with traffic rules and the Government will partner stakeholders to raise public awareness of safe and gracious road use practices. For example, LTA is working with TP, Singapore Road Safety Council, Singapore Cycling Federation and the Safe Cycling Taskforce to develop a checklist of safe riding practices, including the benefits of third-party liability insurance, that bicycle retailers can use to educate their customers. There are also signages indicating no entry to bicycles installed at more than 50 expressway and tunnel entry points islandwide and LTA has recently placed more prominent signages at hotspot locations.
Public education goes hand in hand with enforcement. TP and LTA have stepped up enforcement against errant cyclists. With effect from 1 January 2022, the composition fines for egregious cycling offences, for example, failing to stop at red lights, riding on expressways and tunnels, not riding as near as practicable to the far-left edge of the road, will be increased to $150 to strengthen the deterrent effect. For serious cases where injury or harm is caused in an accident, the offending parties, whether cyclists or motorists, could be charged in Court and face higher fines and jail sentences if convicted.
Road safety is a collective responsibility and we urge all road users to play their part to drive or ride in a responsible manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Cases of Odometer Tampering in Past Five Years and Plans to Educate Consumers against Such Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, what is the annual number of cases of odometer tampering; and (b) whether there are any plans to better educate consumers to guard against such unscrupulous cases.
Mr S Iswaran: Between 2016 and 2020, an average of 14 reported cases of odometer tampering were reported annually.
Odometer tampering is an unfair trade practice. Doing so with the intent to deceive potential buyers is also an offence under the Penal Code. Affected buyers may approach the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE) for assistance. CASE has published a Standard and Functional Evaluation (SAFE) Checklist to guide prospective buyers to understand the quality and condition of the pre-owned car.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Electric Motorcycles Registered and Projected for Next Five Years and Plans for More Charging Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many electric motorcycles are currently registered to run on our roads; (b) whether the Ministry has any projections on the popularity of electric motorcycles for the next five years; and (c) whether there are any plans to spur the industry to install more electric motorcycle charging points to support the growth in this industry.
Mr S Iswaran: There are five electric motorcycles, or e-motorcycles, currently registered in Singapore. We expect this number to grow over time, as more e-motorcycle models are made available globally.
Unlike cars and light goods vehicles, the charging landscape for e-motorcycles remains nascent with a diverse variety of charging modes available. These include standardised charging connectors, proprietary charging connectors, or swappable batteries designed to be replaced upon being depleted. LTA has been engaging global and local e-motorcycle manufacturers to better understand these developing trends. Insights from these engagements, together with projected adoption trends and usage patterns, will guide us to develop a deployment strategy that balances safety with accessibility and affordability of e-motorcycle charging.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Condominium By-laws Prohibiting Smoking at Balconies, Patios or Windows and Their Effectiveness in Curbing Problem of Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many condominiums currently have by-laws prohibiting smoking at balconies, patios or windows; (b) what are the names of these condominiums; and (c) whether the Government has studied whether these by-laws have been effective at curbing the problem of second-hand smoke.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Management Corporations of strata-titled condominiums (MCSTs) have the autonomy to enact by-laws to manage and administer use and enjoyment of their developments by residents, subject to relevant provisions under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. We do not track by-laws enacted by MCSTs that prohibit smoking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effective Threshold before a Nuisance is Considered an Offence of Public Nature under Penal Code and Environmental Public Health Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there is any threshold on the number of persons who must be affected before a nuisance can be considered to be an offence of a public nature under the (i) Penal Code and (ii) Environmental Public Health Act; (b) if so, what is the threshold; and (c) whether persons who are affected in their own homes are considered part of the threshold number.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) addresses public nuisances that affect the public or community at large, regardless of whether they are affected in their homes. As there are differing situations that can constitute a public nuisance, there is no specified threshold or criterion and each situation would be assessed based on its facts and circumstances.
Similarly, the Penal Code does not specify any threshold on the number of persons that must be affected for the offence of public nuisance to be made out. Whether or not an offence is made out will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Adjust Amounts of Imported Food and Support Local Producers to Meet 30% of Singapore's Nutritional Needs by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how does SFA plan to adjust the amounts of different types of food that are imported into Singapore to ensure that surplus food is kept to a minimum whilst local food producers scale up to produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore is a small and open economy which imports more than 90% of our food supply. In a free market, food importers balance supply with demand and make commercial decisions that optimise outcomes and, therefore, minimise surplus food.
The \"30 by 30\" goal aims to grow the capabilities and capacity of the local agri-food sector to sustainably produce a variety of food types to meet 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030, up from less than 10% today. Farms are best placed to make business-driven decisions on ways to differentiate their produce on the market and capture market share. Producing good quality and safe products, giving good value to consumers and keeping production cost to a competitive level are strategies that will ensure the commercial sustainability of our agri-food sector. SFA will continue to support the growth of local agri-food ecosystem through initiatives, such as the $60 million Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund, Singapore Food Story R&D Programme, and campaigns to improve branding and awareness of local produce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Increase in Water Demand and Usage to Support \"30 by 30\" Goal to Raise Local Food Production","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the \"30 by 30\" goal to raise local food production (a) what is the projected increase in water demand and usage to support this goal; and (b) what will be the expected impact on the supply and cost of water.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the \"30 by 30\" goal, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will work closely with the agri-food industry to grow the capabilities and capacity of the local agri-food sector to sustainably produce a variety of food types to meet 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030. Through initiatives, such as the Lim Chu Kang Master Plan and $60 million Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund, SFA supports the growth of the sector to become highly productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient.
Given our limited natural resources, our agri-food sector will need to be productive and sustainable by tapping on technologies that use less water and energy. For example, Sustenir Agriculture, an indoor vegetable farm, adopts technology that re-circulates water for reuse, thereby allowing it to use 95% less water than a traditional farm. As agri-technologies mature, SFA will regularly review resource estimates, including water demand.
PUB works closely with agencies to understand industries’ demands for water and ensure that our water infrastructure remains ahead of demand to meet Singapore’s water needs. PUB will continue to improve cost efficiency and ensure that water remains affordable by leveraging more energy-efficient technology and enhancing productivity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigations into Foul Odour in Woodlands","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can provide an update on the investigations of the foul odour in the air in Woodlands.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In response to feedback on foul odour received from residents in Woodlands, NEA has carried out site inspections at industrial premises, construction sites and agricultural land in the nearby Woodlands and Lim Chu Kang. While there was no major plant upset or pollution incident at industrial premises and construction sites, NEA and relevant agencies identified some farms and composting sites in Lim Chu Kang with localised foul odour.
When a spike in feedback on foul odour was received in September and October 2021, the prevailing winds blew from the south or west. The westerly winds could have carried the foul odour from the farms and composting sites in Lim Chu Kang to the residential area in Woodlands, while light wind conditions overnight and in the early morning restricted the odour from dispersing, resulting in smell nuisance to residents.
Relevant agencies have been actively engaging the owners and occupiers of the identified premises to implement odour mitigation measures where feasible. Several agencies have also been piloting an initiative to work with members of the community to collect detailed smell feedback data. This would enable the agencies to better identify the sources of smell nuisance and work with the source premises to address the odour issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Minimise Home-based Learning to Facilitate Interactions among Students and Provide Holistic Development beyond Academic Excellence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education in view of Singapore dealing with COVID-19 as an endemic and considering the significant disruption home-based learning (HBL) can cause, whether HBL can be minimised to facilitate interaction between students, CCA groups and other student groupings.
19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education in view of the greater risk of depression and anxiety among students during this period, whether home-based learning can be minimised so as to provide students with holistic development beyond purely academic excellence.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE’s approach has always been to keep schools safe so that they can remain open as far as possible. We recognise that home-based learning (HBL) cannot be a full substitute for the school-based learning experience. During HBL, students are also less able to tap on their peers for support or take part in other activities, such as in-person Co-curricular Activities (CCAs), which are important for their holistic development.
Schools mitigate the impact of HBL by leveraging technology to maintain social connections and minimise disruption to curriculum coverage. Teachers used online platforms and resources to conduct regular check-ins with students to monitor their well-being and to ensure continuity in their learning. Schools also remained open for high needs students and those without alternative care-giving arrangements during HBL.
As we transit to living with COVID-19, our aim is to minimise HBL while safely resuming as many aspects of normal school life as we can. We will do so for students from Secondary schools and above first, given their high vaccination rates. Throughout the Stabilisation Phase, school-based learning continued for these older students under strict safe management measures (SMMs). After the national situation stabilises, a gradual return to normalcy may include resuming CCAs and larger school events first, with a view to allowing students to participate in important inter-school events next year, such as the National School Games.
Since most of our Primary school students are not age-eligible for vaccination, we had placed all Primary schools on HBL from 27 September to 7 October 20211 as an additional precautionary measure. Nonetheless, physical schooling for Primary school students resumed in phases from 11 October (Monday) to better support their socio-emotional well-being.
In addition, to further support the well-being of younger students who may not learn as effectively during HBL and allow more time for curriculum recovery due to disruptions brought about by COVID-19, the 2021 year-end examinations for Primary 3 and 4 students were cancelled.
We will continue to calibrate the pace we resume activities in schools based on the prevailing COVID-19 situation and national posture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : 8 October 2021 (Friday) being Children’s Day was a school holiday."],"footNoteQuestions":["18","19"],"questionNo":"18-19"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Extend Tuition Fee Loan Scheme to More Educational Institutions under CPF Education loan Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry’s Tuition Fee Loan (TFL) scheme can be extended to Approved Educational Institutions (AEIs) covered under the CPF Education Loan Scheme but not currently under the TFL scheme; and (b) if not, why.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All Approved Education Institutions under the CPF Education Loan Scheme are covered by MOE’s Tuition Fee Loan Scheme, with the exception of our publicly-funded arts institutions, the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) and LASALLE College of the Arts.
MOE has been considering the extension of the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme to the two arts institutions. In the meantime, Singaporean students from these institutions who need financial assistance can continue to access Government bursaries as well as financial aid offered by these institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Prevent Back Flow of Salary Payment from Employee to Employer under Jobs Support Scheme and Mechanism for Employees to Report Such Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Finance what are the steps undertaken to (i) prevent back flow of salary payment from the employee to the employer under the Jobs Support Scheme and (ii) provide a safe and whistle-blowing mechanism for employees to report such cases.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Payouts under the Jobs Support Scheme are based on data on CPF contributions and wages. The CPF Board audits employers to check the accuracy of CPF contributions paid and wages declared.
The CPF Board is also piloting the CPF Contribution Alert which allows employees to receive personalised notifications when their monthly CPF contributions are credited. Employees can conveniently verify the wages declared by their employers and CPF contributions paid by their employers against their payslip. Employees and whistle blowers can lodge reports to the CPF Board for any non-compliance of CPF contributions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Divorce Cases Filed since End of Circuit Breaker Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what has been the number of divorce cases filed in the past 15 months since the end of the circuit breaker period when the Family Justice Courts started accepting cases again.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of divorces filed since the end of the circuit breaker has remained relatively stable, averaging 542 cases per month. Please see Table 1 below. We would like to clarify that parties were able to file for divorce during the circuit breaker period.
23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the past five years, what is the 20th percentile household income for resident households with children; and (b) what are the mean and median numbers of children in the bottom 20th percentile category of households with children, including those without working members.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Department of Statistics (DOS) has provided the following estimates based on the Comprehensive Labour Force Surveys 2016 to 2019 and the Census of Population 2020.
The mean and median numbers of children in the bottom 20th percentile category of households with children, including those without working members, are 1.7 and 1 respectively for the last five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Muslim lawyers Advising Attorney-General’s Chambers on Islamic matters Guided by Administration of Muslim Law Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how many Muslim lawyers in the MUIS legal panel are trained in Syariah/Islamic law and who advise the Attorney-General’s Chambers on Islamic matters as guided by the Administration of Muslim Law Act.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Any Government agency or organ of state that wishes to seek MUIS’ opinion on matters with implications on how the Muslim community practises Islam in Singapore may approach MUIS to issue a ruling on any point of Muslim law.
Such requests are addressed by the Legal (Fatwa) Committee, which is chaired by the Mufti, and consists of four other members who are religious scholars and trained in the Syariah and Islamic sciences. The Fatwa Committee is further assisted by a total of 19 asatizah, including the two deputy Muftis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts in Addressing Mental Health Issues and Suicide cases within Muslim Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what are the efforts made in addressing mental health issues and suicide cases, both attempted and committed, within the Muslim community.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: National programmes on mental health are available to all Singaporeans. The Government adopts a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach towards mental health promotion and suicide prevention. The key strategies are: (a) building mental resilience; (b) encouraging help seeking and early identification; (c) supporting at-risk groups; and (d) providing crisis support.
For our children and youths, MOE has enhanced mental health education through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools, and mental resilience and well-being programmes in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Within madrasahs, community partners like Club HEAL, which offers professional counselling support, partner national programmes to support the well-being of madrasah students.
Teachers and academic staff are trained to identify students experiencing distress, provide timely support and refer students to counsellors or mental health professionals for further interventions when necessary. In addition, all schools, including madrasahs, will have a peer support structure in place by 2022.
In the community, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has been working with Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to provide persons at risk of mental health conditions with related information and basic emotional support, and link them to community resources and social assistance, where required. Persons with mental health needs can access mental health services at the polyclinics and partner General Practitioner (GP) clinics or seek support from 24-hour hotlines by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS). SOS has a text-based service to provide an alternative help-seeking platform for youths in crisis.
The Health Promotion Board holds mental well-being roadshows and workshops to provide stress management tips and techniques to employees. The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has also been working with partners to address the issue of stigma and promote help-seeking behaviours through the \"Beyond the Label\" campaign.
Community organisations play an important role in bolstering mental health support for the community. For example, the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association (PPIS) set up the SYM Academy to provide mental health support to Muslim women in Singapore. Many Malay/Muslim organisations also joined hands in 2020 to form the SGTeguhBersatu (\"Resilient in Unity\") Taskforce, to provide a psycho-social resilience framework and an e-info toolkit to help individuals and families cope with stress and challenges during this pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Likelihood of Resumption of Dining Out in Groups of More Than Five Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what is the likelihood of resumption of dining out in groups of more than five persons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The current stabilisation measures will not remain static throughout this coming month. We will monitor the situation and relax restrictions wherever we can, as we transit to living with COVID-19. A key indicator which we are monitoring closely is the weekly infection growth rate, that is, the ratio of community cases in the past week over the week before. If the ratio goes below 1.0 and hospital/ICU situation remains stable, it will give us scope to relax restrictions. This will include resuming sports, school activities and allowing members from the same households to dine together at food and beverage (F&B) establishments without having to spread across multiple tables.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Home Recovery Programme to Lessen Impact upon Hospitals and Community Care Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the Home Recovery Programme; (b) whether it can be expanded to include a greater number of cases so as to lessen the impact upon hospitals and community care facilities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question Nos 77 to 85 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Updated Protocols for COVID-19 Patients, Vaccination for Children and Delays in Response Time by Government COVID-19 Teams\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Elderly with Minimal Underlying Medical Conditions to be Involved in Social Activities and Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health given how the COVID-19 endemic has affected mental health among the elderly, whether those with minimal underlying medical conditions can be encouraged to leave the house more often in a safe manner so as to be involved in social activities and community.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As the number of COVID-19 cases in the community remains high, seniors are advised to stay home as much as possible, except for essential activities, during the extended stabilisation phase. This is to protect them and to minimise their risks of exposure to the virus.
MOH recognises that reduced social interactions can negatively impact our seniors’ socio-emotional and mental well-being. As such, centre-based services, including exercise and cognitive activities, remain available, albeit with reduced capacities and safe management measures. We are working to augment these in light of the extended stabilisation phase. The People’s Association (PA) will also be piloting the resumption of selected activities for fully vaccinated seniors aged 60 and above. This will cover selected recreational activities ranging from sports and fitness, health and wellness to lifestyle and leisure, with safe management and infection control measures set in place. As the COVID-19 situation stabilises, we aim to have more partners gradually resume their activities.
Our partners have also made available digital offerings to keep seniors meaningfully engaged from home. For example, the Council for Third Age (C3A), Health Promotion Board (HPB), Sport Singapore (SportSG) and PA have pivoted their activities and talks onto various social media platforms to allow seniors to remain connected during this challenging time. Nonetheless, we recognise that not all seniors may be familiar with accessing services online and may face barriers. To complement this, the SG Digital Office under the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) actively trains seniors in basic digital skills. More than 100,000 seniors have benefited from this initiative to date.
We are also actively reaching out to vulnerable seniors at risk of social isolation, such as those with limited social support. The Silver Generation Office (SGO) has introduced tele-engagements since April 2020 to supplement in-person visits, to ensure that those who require care and support continue to receive assistance.
Lastly, even as the Government and our community partners expand our efforts to engage our seniors in a safe and meaningful manner, this ought not to diminish or replace the role of family support. As a key pillar of our Social Compact, families are the core of our society and our first line of support. Family members have shared responsibility in providing care and support for each other, including our seniors, alongside Government and community support. Together, as a society, we can play our respective roles in protecting, engaging and caring for our seniors during the pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Encourage and Normalise Mental Health Screening through Schools, Institutes of Higher Learning, Workplaces, Hospitals and Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether there are efforts to encourage and normalise mental health screening for all Singaporeans through key touchpoints like schools and institutes of higher learning, workplaces, hospitals, general practitioner clinics, paediatrics clinics, and gynaecological clinics.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government adopts a risk-based approach for health assessments for at-risk individuals. This enables resources to be better directed towards the early identification and intervention for persons with health needs. This approach also applies to mental health.
To this end, we have increased community touchpoints to enable the early identification and targeted assessment of persons at risk of mental health needs and link them to relevant services for further intervention. As at end 2020, 50 community outreach teams have been set up and they have reached out to over 350,000 persons and then provided assistance to more than 26,000 persons who were at risk of developing mental health conditions and/or dementia. In addition, over 220 General Practitioner (GP) partners are trained to identify, diagnose and treat persons with mental health conditions in the community.
Hospitals and specialist clinics screen high-risk patients for mental health conditions during their inpatient stay or clinic appointments to deliver early intervention, where indicated. For example, the National University Hospital (NUH) Women’s Emotional Health Service (WEHS) and KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) Postnatal Depression Intervention Programme (PNDIP) have been screening and providing early intervention for perinatal mental health conditions. KKH also conducts psychosocial assessments at its paediatric outpatient clinics and provides mental health screening for adolescents at the inpatient wards and the Children’s Emergency department.
In the workplace setting, HPB conducts training for managers, human resource (HR) personnel and employees interested to be peer supporters, on recognising the signs and symptoms of common mental health conditions. As of September 2021, about 5,800 personnel have participated in the training.
Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have systems of support in place to detect early signs of distress in students. Schools have trained teachers and staff to identify signs of distress in their students, monitor their well-being and provide guidance and support. In-house counsellors also provide additional support to students who need it. For students who require further assessment and intervention, counsellors will refer students to mental health professionals in the community and hospitals. Students are also taught how to recognise common mental health issues and symptoms through mental health lessons in the enhanced Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum in schools, and mental wellness programmes in IHLs. Through established peer support structures, students help look out for one another and encourage peers in distress to seek help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline to Expand Mental Health Infrastructure by Appropriately Equipping Polyclinics, General Practitioners and Social Service Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is looking at a specific timeline to expand our mental health infrastructure by equipping all polyclinics, general practitioners and social service agencies with the necessary expertise and resources.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH has been working with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to increase the accessibility of mental health services in the primary and community care settings, in order to strengthen community support for people with mental health needs. In this regard, mental health shared care teams have been set up in the public hospitals to support our primary and community care providers in mental health management through training and capability building. This includes training of community mental health teams, polyclinics and general practitioners in assessment and intervention.
Thus far, we have met our targets of having one in two polyclinics provide mental health services, trained over 220 general practitioners in mental health management, 50 community outreach teams to engage and provide basic emotional support to individuals at risk of or with mental health conditions, and 18 community intervention teams to provide therapy, by end of 2021. MOH will continue to review mental health service provision in the community so that we can meet the needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infection of Household Members Following Policy Change for COVID-19 Persons to Recover at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health following the Government’s change of policy from September 2021 to require most of those infected with COVID-19 to serve their isolation or to recover at home (a) how many households have more than one infection at any one time in the period of September to October 2021; and (b) what is the number of people who have been subsequently infected with COVID-19 by another member of their household in September and October 2021.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question Nos 77 to 85 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Updated Protocols for COVID-19 Patients, Vaccination for Children and Delays in Response Time by Government COVID-19 Teams\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for SMSes on Quarantine Orders, Health Risk Warnings and Health Risk Alerts to be in Vernacular Languages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health whether SMSes informing people of quarantine orders, health risk warnings (HRWs), health risk alerts can be sent in both English and vernacular languages, to ensure the instructions are clearly understood by all recipients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: With the revised protocols which started from 11 October 2021, we are now only issuing HRWs to close contacts of COVID-19 cases. SMS notifications sent to HRWs include links for translations of the message in Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Resignations of Healthcare Workers Each Month Since COVID-19 Pandemic Compared with Pre-Pandemic Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, how many healthcare workers have left their jobs each month, broken down into (i) consultants (ii) junior doctors (iii) nursing staff and (iv) allied healthcare workers; (b) what are the main reasons for them resigning; and (c) how do these compare with pre-pandemic levels.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question for written answer has been addressed in the Ministerial Statement delivered by the Senior Minister of State for Health on behalf of the Minister for Health on 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Ministerial Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of COVID-19 Deaths by Underlying Medical Conditions, Age, Duration in ICU and Vaccination Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health what is the breakdown of COVID-19 deaths by (i) their underlying medical conditions, (ii) their respective ages, (iii) the duration spent in the ICU and (iv) their vaccination status.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question for written answer has been addressed in the Ministerial Statement delivered by the Senior Minister of State for Health on behalf of the Minister for Health on 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Update on ICU and Hospital Capacity\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Ministerial Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Serious Side Effects from COVID-19 Vaccines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has been collecting data on all serious side effects from each type of COVID-19 vaccine to have a better understanding on the best or possible treatments when such side effects are experienced.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question Nos 29 to 34 for written answer on the Order Paper for 1 November 2021. [Please refer to \"Data on Severity of Illness Experienced by COVID-19 Vaccinated Patients and Evaluation of Effectiveness of Different Vaccines for Booster Jabs\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Develop Artificial Intelligence Ecosystem and Its Deployment in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information what are the initiatives undertaken by the Ministry to develop the artificial intelligence ecosystem and its deployment in Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy outlines our plans for Singapore to be a leader in developing and deploying scalable, impactful AI solutions, in key sectors of high value and relevance to our citizens and businesses, by 2030.
Under the Strategy, five National AI Projects in logistics, smart estates, education, healthcare and border security, are now underway. These projects aim to harness the benefits of AI to increase productivity, raise the quality of public goods and bring about greater convenience, safety and security for Singaporeans. More National AI Projects in other domains are currently being explored.
The intent is for these projects to catalyse AI adoption and innovation throughout the public and private sectors. To this end, we are working closely with industry stakeholders to build local AI capabilities. The Open Innovation Platform, which aggregates demand and scales solutions by connecting businesses with technology solution providers, regularly hosts AI-related challenges with problem statements from both the public and private sectors. Through the SMEs Go Digital programme, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) can easily adopt pre-approved, sector-specific AI-enabled solutions.
We want to do more to deepen our capabilities in both cutting-edge AI and the application of AI to real-life problems. Over the past five years, we have invested over $500 million in AI R&D. AI Singapore’s (AISG) “100 Experiments” programme brings together our Research Institutes and Institutes of Higher Learning with industry players to co-create and deploy AI solutions in commercial settings. AISG’s PhD Fellowship Programme supports top research talents to advance fundamental AI research here. More broadly, the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) helps Singaporeans to upgrade and acquire new tech skills. Since 2016, TeSA has placed more than 10,000 Singaporeans in good tech roles, including in AI, and will place another 5,500 over the next three years.
A trusted and progressive environment is critical as we grow our capability and use of AI. The Government has developed practical guidance for organisations to deploy AI responsibly using the Model AI Governance Framework. We are developing the AI Governance Testing Framework to increase the transparency around AI systems and assure users about the integrity of the AI.
Internationally, we work with our partners to establish best practices on the development and deployment of AI, including through Digital Economy Agreements. Singapore is a founding member of the Global Partnership on AI and takes part in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Expert Group on AI.
We will continue to develop Singapore’s AI ecosystem, so that Singapore and Singaporeans can benefit even more from this promising technology, as active users, technology developers, business managers and solution providers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current and Projected Levels of Carbon Emission by Built Environment Sector and Plans to Enhance Green Financing for Construction Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the current levels of carbon emission by the built environment sector; (b) what is the projected trend of increase as construction steps up post-pandemic; (c) whether there are concrete plans on reducing embodied carbon in buildings, such as sourcing of green building materials; and (d) whether the Government is working with banks to enhance green financing for construction companies.
Mr Desmond Lee: Buildings accounted for about 11 CO2-equivalent (MtCO2e) of carbon emissions in 2018, the most recent year for which verified data are available. Emissions from buildings are projected to increase with the recovery in the construction of new buildings following the pandemic.
To reduce embodied carbon in buildings, BCA will require building projects to implement a minimum number of sustainable construction practices, such as the use of low-carbon concrete and resource-efficient design, from 1 December 2021. On top of this, BCA’s voluntary Green Mark scheme promotes the reduction of a building’s carbon footprint over its entire lifecycle. The scheme encourages developers to assess the embodied and operational carbon of their building projects, use sustainable construction practices and materials and establish environmentally-friendly specifications in the fit out of their buildings.
To facilitate companies’ access to green financing, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched the Green and Sustainability-Linked Loans Grant Scheme (GSLS) in January this year. The scheme helps companies defray the cost of conducting independent assessments to validate the sustainability credentials of a loan. The GSLS also supports banks in the development of green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks. Such frameworks provide standardised criteria and processes for the assessment and issuance of loans to finance activities that contribute to sustainable development, such as the construction of green buildings.
BCA and MAS are also working with the Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC) and the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore (REDAS) to build green financing capabilities in banks and built environment firms. This includes engaging banks on the Green Mark scheme and recognition of green building certification standards for meeting green financing requirements and conducting workshops to raise awareness on green financing schemes for built environment firms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of HDB Flats Eligible for Resale and Sold within One, Five and 10 years after Minimum Occupation Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each year over the last 10 years, (a) what is the number of HDB flats eligible for resale within one year, five years and 10 years after the five-year minimum occupation period (MOP) respectively; and (b) what is the number of direct-purchase HDB flats sold within one year, five years and 10 years of meeting MOP respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Direct-purchase HDB flats are generally eligible for resale in the open market after the five-year minimum occupation period (MOP). The number of direct-purchase HDB flats that are eligible for resale after the MOP, and those that are sold within one year, five years and 10 years of meeting the MOP respectively, for each year over the last 10 years, is appended in Table 1.
39 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development what are the plans and measures taken to experiment, certify and deploy new construction materials, building capabilities or techniques to reduce construction costs and time to keep housing prices affordable.
Mr Desmond Lee: Innovation and technology are key enablers to support the transformation of the construction industry. BCA works closely with other agencies and the industry to facilitate the development and deployment of new solutions that can enhance construction productivity. Such solutions can potentially reduce time and costs for construction projects, including residential developments.
For example, BCA is part of the multi-agency Built Environment Accelerate-to-Market Programme (BEAMP) for solution providers to work with the industry and public agencies to deploy their solutions. For the recently concluded cycle of the BEAMP in July 2021, eight innovators were awarded funding to develop solutions under themes, such as robotics and automation, advanced design and fabrication, and digital asset delivery and management. In addition, the multi-agency Building Innovation Panel (BIP) led by BCA acts as a one-stop platform to facilitate the regulatory clearances required for the deployment of new solutions to enhance construction productivity and sustainability.
Changes in construction costs will not affect the prices of flats sold by HDB, as HDB does not price flats with reference to construction costs. Instead, HDB prices new flats with reference to the market value of flats. To ensure that new flats are affordable, especially for first-time buyers, HDB applies a significant subsidy to the assessed market values of new flats, so that new flats are priced below market. That said, BCA will continue to work closely with HDB to facilitate the deployment of new solutions in their projects through initiatives, such as the BEAMP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cleanliness and Hygiene Standards in Hotels Deployed as COVID-19 Quarantine Facilities and Feedback Avenues and Support Available to Persons under Quarantine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what cleanliness and hygiene standards apply to hotels deployed as COVID-19 quarantine facilities; and (b) what avenues of feedback and support are available to persons staying at such facilities who are concerned about cleanliness and hygiene.
Mr Desmond Lee: Hotels deployed as COVID-19 quarantine facilities are required to regularly clean their premises and guestrooms in line with standards set by MOH to safeguard the health of its staff and the Persons Under Quarantine. The standards specify the regularity and type of cleaning for each setting and situation to minimise transmission risk of COVID-19 within these facilities and into the community.
MND conducts regular audits to ensure hotels comply with these standards and highlight specific areas for improvement. In addition, MND shares good practices and measures with its stakeholders to ensure that a high cleanliness and hygiene standard is observed across all quarantine facilities. Persons staying at quarantine facilities may provide feedback on cleanliness and hygiene matters directly to the hotel front desk or MOH’s Quarantine Order Agent hotline. All feedback will be assessed by MOH and MND thoroughly and the appropriate follow-up actions will be taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation for Existing TAFEP Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the forthcoming legislation of existing TAFEP guidelines (a) whether there are adequate professionals and resources to implement enforcement and remedial action of claims in a timely manner; (b) how will the legislation address anxieties that may arise from the issue of unfairness which may be subjective or are driven by perception; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that all claims are thoroughly investigated to avoid unnecessary compliance costs and Court processes.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness’ deliberations involve defining the scope of future legislation and designing a legal framework that is balanced and in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. This includes a claims process where mediation is the first and necessary step and appearance before the tribunal is a last resort to avoid the unintended consequence of fostering a litigious workplace culture. This has worked well for the handling of salary-related and wrongful dismissal cases.
We agree with the Member that anxieties about workplace discrimination can also be driven by perceptions. Not every complaint means that the employer has done something wrong. That is why the mediation process, in itself, is an opportunity for employers and employees to close gaps in their understanding of requirements. Legislation must also go hand in hand with education efforts to change mindsets and attitudes towards inclusive and fair work practices.
The reality is that trade-offs will need to be made as we develop an approach that aims to strike a balance between objectives that are in tension with each other. For example, while we want to ensure that claims are thoroughly investigated, which is time-consuming, we also want to make sure that the claims management process is efficient and not over-burdensome on workers and employers. This illustrates the difficult task being undertaken by the Tripartite Committee, which will have to manage such trade-offs.
The Tripartite Committee aims to complete its work in the first half of 2022. The Government will then consider its recommendations and, if accepted, start work to prepare legislation and commit the necessary resources for the legislation to be implemented effectively. In the meantime, TAFEP and MOM will ensure the Tripartite Guidelines continue to be practised and upheld.
We thank the Member for his interest in the topic of workplace fairness and ask that Members continue to support the Tripartite Committee’s work and eventual recommendations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Reports Filed by Workers Working More Hours than Allowed Under Employment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for the past three years, what is the number of reports filed by workers that they are made to work longer than that allowed under the Employment Act; (b) what have been the actions taken; and (c) how can the tripartite partners work together to protect workers from being overworked.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2018 and 2020, MOM received about 180 complaints each year on excessive working hours in breach of Part IV of the Employment Act.
Enforcement action was taken against 65% of the cases, ranging from the issuance of warnings to fines, and prosecution for more serious cases. The rest of the complaints were either issued with an advisory for minor contraventions or were unsubstantiated.
Enforcement is also complemented with education to raise awareness of both employers and employees. This is done through the Workright initiative which conducts annual education campaigns through various media platforms and on-the-ground roadshows in the heartlands.
The tripartite partners come together to address deep-seated practices which may need to be changed. For example, the security industry used to routinely rely on overtime exemptions. The Security Tripartite Cluster studied this issue and took progressive steps to change industry practices and norms. This resulted in the industry being able to do away with overtime exemptions from January 2021.
MOM will continue to undertake both enforcement and educational efforts to ensure compliance with the law and to better the well-being of our workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Reports on Employers Not Providing Properly Itemised Payslips and Penalties Imposed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year from 2018 to 2020, how many work pass holders reported their employers for not providing properly itemised payslips; (b) how many employers were found liable, with the percentage breakdown; (c) how many employers were repeat offenders; (d) whether, and, if so, what harsher penalties were imposed on these repeat offenders; and (e) whether the Ministry actively monitors employers’ compliance with the itemised payslip requirement and, if so, by what means.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2018 and 2020, MOM looked into an average of 100 complaints per year from work pass holders on the non-issuance of itemised payslips. Some complaints were lodged directly with MOM while others arose from salary disputes between employer and employee. A further 280 cases involving both foreign and local employees were detected from proactive inspections under the Workright initiative each year. In about 80% of the cases, including complaints, employers were formally notified to make the necessary rectifications. For the others, inquiries revealed that itemised payslips were available digitally or were issued late due to a lapse. No further action was taken for these cases. There were no repeat offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4727,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211102/vernacular-2 Nov 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - R and R (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"2 Nov 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - R and R (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4728,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211102/vernacular-Joan Pereira Retirement 2Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Retirement 2Nov2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4729,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211102/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan Monument 2Nov2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan Monument 2Nov2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4730,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211102/vernacular-2 Nov 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - GST (A) Bill.pdf","fileName":"2 Nov 2021 - Mr Sharael Taha - GST (A) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4731,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20211102/vernacular-Don Wee GST 2Novl2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee GST 2Novl2021-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}