1 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health in view of the escalating Wuhan pneumonia situation in the China (a) how susceptible is Singapore; (b) whether there are suspected cases in Singapore; and (c) what are the measures put in place or are being considered in the event the situation worsens.
2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Wuhan virus (a) what is the condition of the suspected patients in Singapore so far; (b) whether the Ministry will be issuing an advisory on travel restrictions for Singaporeans travelling to affected cities; and (c) whether a multi-agency taskforce will be formed to look into the containment and management of the virus spread in Singapore.
3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is Singapore’s response to the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak; and (b) what actions are taken to contain the spread to, and among, Singaporeans.
4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health how prepared are the authorities to deal with the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan and what can citizens do to help support the Ministry’s efforts.
5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the measures in place to prevent the entry and spread of the Wuhan virus in Singapore, aside from the temperature screening at the airport; and (b) whether there is an emergency response plan to handle the possible emergence of a Wuhan virus outbreak in Singapore.
6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide the latest update on the Wuhan virus situation; (b) what are the stepped-up precautionary measures taken; and (c) how are our contingency preparations and readiness for the possible scenarios ahead.
\t
\tMr Speaker: I understand Question Nos 1 to 6 will be answered via the Ministerial Statement?
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, yes, Question Nos 1 to 6 will be answered in the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: All right. Let us proceed to Question No 7.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upgrading Accident and Emergency Departments in All Private and Public Hospitals to Enable Them to Handle Severe and Multiple Trauma Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all private and public hospitals to be equipped and manned to handle severe and multiple trauma cases in their accident and emergency departments as part of our nation’s emergency preparedness plan; and (b) whether we have sufficient emergency specialists and how many more will be trained in the next five years.
8 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health in light of the Lucky Plaza accident, whether private hospitals’ emergency departments should be upgraded for a tiered national accident and emergency system involving both public and private hospitals to make better use of medical resources.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, with your leave, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, all public hospital Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments are equipped and capable of providing resuscitation, stabilisation and initial treatment for all life threatening emergencies, including trauma cases, for both adults and children. Public hospitals must also fulfill MOH's standards of trauma care. Overall, the eight public hospital A&E departments, spread out across Singapore, provide adequate coverage to cater to emergency services in Singapore.
MOH has had on-going discussions with private hospitals about their capabilities in handling emergency care. Currently, private hospitals are not configured to provide the full range of emergency and trauma services required to manage all life-threatening emergencies or situations, involving patients with multiple or serious injuries. Over the last four years, MOH has been collaborating with Raffles Hospital for the management of non-life threatening and urgent SCDF ambulance cases.
MOH carefully manages the training pipelines for emergency medicine and surgical specialists to ensure that there are sufficient capabilities to meet national needs. Currently, there are about 180 Emergency Medicine specialists and 240 general surgeons in Singapore.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have one supplementary question. My concern, really, is whether all our urban areas and housing estates in Singapore will be able to have swift access to emergency services based on the existing locations of emergency departments across Singapore.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As I had mentioned earlier, the public hospitals which are capable of handling all forms of emergencies and life-threatening services to both adults and children are spread out geographically across the island. There will be sufficiently swift access to these services should the need arise. In addition, the number of specialists who are in the pipeline and whom we are training currently, will increase by about 43% over the next five years. These specialists will add to the availability of services and will also add to the pool of emergency specialists who will be able to deal with such situations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tougher Stance on Drug Traffickers and Syndicates","subTitle":"Response to “Costs of Drug Crime: Literature Review and Methodology” research paper","sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Christopher de Souza \t–
9 To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is an upward trend of drug syndicates exploiting minors in the drug trade and how can our enforcement actions and statutory framework deter the syndicates from doing so.
10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry’s position on the research paper entitled “Costs of Drug Crime: Literature Review and Methodology” which calculated the detriment drugs cause to Singapore society; (b) whether the findings provide further impetus for Singapore to advance its war on drugs; and (c) what will be done to ensure that a tough and deterrent stance is taken against drug traffickers who push drugs into and within Singapore.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Can someone ask the Question on his behalf?
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Question No 9.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 9 and 10 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Ms Sun Xueling: Drugs destroy lives and impose immense costs on individuals and society. Besides tangible costs such as physical injuries, lost productivity and cost of incarceration, there are also very significant intangible costs, in terms of lost lives, pain and suffering, and untold misery to families.
The research paper attempted to quantify the costs to Singapore of drug crime, both tangible and intangible costs. The researchers estimated costs of S$1.23 billion in 2015. This is almost certainly an underestimation, as there are other costs which were not included in the study, such as the number of workdays lost for victims of drug crimes. The report did not include this data because it has not been quantified.
The high costs drugs impose on society is one reason why we must maintain our firm stance against drugs. We have put in place tough laws, and maintain intensive enforcement. In 2019, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), together with other Home Team agencies, conducted close to 1,500 drug operations across Singapore. The estimated market value of the drugs seized was about S$6.3 million.
The CNB has not yet detected any trend of drug syndicates deliberately targeting young persons, be it selling drugs to children and young persons, or recruiting them into the trade.
Nevertheless, we take this risk very seriously. We have strengthened our legislative framework and enhanced our enforcement powers to better protect young persons from being exploited and becoming victims of drugs.
In 2012, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was amended to provide for an offence for any adult who causes or procures any young person to traffic or import drugs. The minimum punishment for such an offender is 10 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane. In addition, adult traffickers who are found to be trafficking to young persons would face tougher penalties. If the trafficker was found to be trafficking a Class A controlled drug to a young person, the minimum punishment would be 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes, double the normal rates.
In 2019, the MDA was further amended to provide more protection to children below 16 years of age and young persons from the harms of drugs. It is now an offence for an adult who possesses illicit drugs, knowing that a child is likely to be present in a place, to knowingly or recklessly leave the drugs or drug utensils within easy access of the child. It is also now an offence for an adult to permit or not take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming illicit drugs in the adult’s possession. We will continue to tighten our legislation as needed.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. The question is, in light of the statistic that the highest number of new drug abusers are below 35 and in light of the growing calls, at least around the world – not in Singapore but around the world – to legalise recreational drug use, and in addition to that, this cost of drug crime study, how can we use these statistics and facts to bolster our position against drug trafficking into Singapore? And in addition to that, to assist drug consumers to rehabilitate and not be recalcitrant? So, deterring both the supply and the demand, in light of these facts and statistics.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. Indeed, the push for drug legalisation around the world is a cause for concern. As he may already know, in October 2018, Canada became the second country in the world, after Uruguay, to legalise the use of cannabis for recreational purposes. In January 2019, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence also made six recommendations on the international scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances.
We have now undertaken this study. We hope to add to the literature so that more are aware about what are the drug-involved crimes as well as drug-attributable crimes, and what the cost to society are. In time, the researchers are preparing for this paper for publication in international journals.
At the same time, we are also stepping up our education outreach. We understand that preventive drug education is definitely the first line of defence when it comes to drug control. The Member had mentioned some trends whereby young people are increasingly prone towards certain messages they may receive over social media about drugs. So, social media is a key platform for us to reach out to youths. The CNB has been developing content messages of strong deterrence, as well as evidence-based narratives on Singapore's drug policies through its social media accounts.
At the end of the day, what we are going to do is going to be guided by research. At the same time, we are also pushing out our education outreach efforts to make sure that for high-risk youths and persons of certain segments, we reach out to them actively with the anti-drug message.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disclosure of Personal Data when Government Addresses Public Complaints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Prime Minister when individuals publicise complaints or petitions to Government agencies which may contain inaccuracies (a) what are the considerations behind whether Government agencies may publicly disclose identifying information and personal details of these individuals; (b) what safeguards exist to ensure that only the minimum personal information is disclosed to establish the facts of the case; and (c) what can be done to ensure that individuals with genuine grievances or unmet needs are not deterred from seeking help publicly
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Government agencies sometimes need to disclose personal data in the public interest, to counter inaccuracies about the Government’s processes or policies contained in publicised complaints or petitions, in particular, where it is the complainant who has called public attention to the case. Government agencies have to do so to correct inaccuracies and provide an accurate picture of what occurred so as to maintain public trust and to serve all citizens effectively. Otherwise, if citizens are misled about the Government’s processes or policies, they may become unnecessarily anxious or may make decisions that are detrimental to themselves based on the incorrect information, for example deciding not to seek medical treatment.
Such disclosure of personal data by Government agencies is limited in scope. First, personal data is disclosed only if the agency's clarifications would be disputable or insufficiently clear, without the disclosure of such personal data. Secondly, the personal data to be disclosed is specific enough to provide a full picture of the issue, to enable the relevant individual to challenge the Government’s account of the case, based on the facts provided, if need be. Third, care is taken not to disclose personal data that is irrelevant to the case. These considerations serve to safeguard personal data from unnecessary public disclosure.
However, on occasion it will be necessary to disclose the identity of the person involved in the case, even when the publicised complaint itself has been anonymised. This is to remove any ambiguity in the Government’s statement of the facts and settle any doubts over the matter conclusively in the minds of the public.
The Government is committed to putting citizens at the heart of all we do. Citizens have many channels to request for help from the Government and to give feedback. These include physical touchpoints such as service centres, and online channels such as the OneService app and emails of Quality Service Managers. The Government treats all feedback seriously, whether that feedback is conveyed publicly or via one of these channels. We will take the necessary action to address the issue and close the loop with the member of the public.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Just one supplementary question. I am quite concerned we will discourage persons who are trying to get help because these cases can be publicised for reasons beyond the complainant's control. Someone may put up a private Facebook post and finds that it gets shared, and they do not know why it got shared. Will the Government consider a protocol where agencies first try to get the person concerned to agree to a statement put out by the agency that clarifies matters? And only if that does not happen, then as a last resort, the agency could clarify matters without that person's consent.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The issue at hand is, of course, that these types of public declarations, whether anonymised or not, are going to be unusual in nature. There is something about the case or the complainant or the interaction, which does not quite fall into Standard Operating Procedure, nor lend itself to a protocol; otherwise, we would not be in this situation.
The second thing is that, as a result of this, it would be inappropriate for us to constrain the agencies' response to an inaccurate or outright false public statement. Thirdly, in a way, which as the Member had pointed out, may open itself to manipulation and further downstream ambiguity, disinformation, whether inadvertently or deliberately.
So, I think I have articulated in my answer the principles under which public sector agencies are expected to operate; the principles which citizens can expect of Government in dealing with this matter. The bottom line is that should a complaint of this nature occur in public, associated with disinformation and which impacts the way in which Government processes Government policies that serve citizens are being misrepresented, we should expect agencies to reply in public and disclose information so that we can set the record straight; and make sure that Singapore and Singaporeans are well informed.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if the Government has channels and measures for citizens who want to seek redress against Government for what they deem as unfair public disclosure since the Government is not bound by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Certainly, there are many numbers of channels and feedback routes, which I have described in my previous answer. Citizens can approach their Member of Parliament, they can approach anybody and they can use any of these means, including a public discourse, should they wish to pursue the matter. PDPA notwithstanding and my answer notwithstanding, none of this prevents or is meant to discourage a citizen from seeking redress from a complaint. It is merely that, should a complaint occur in the public space and as a result of that complaint, the public has been misinformed, inaccuracies have been stated, then those inaccuracies need to be stated in the public in a way that is unambiguous and the facts robustly explained to everybody.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Carbon Tax and Release of Information for Carbon Tax Collections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) by what date will the Ministry collect carbon tax payments for 2019 emissions; (b) by what date does the Ministry plan to publish the total amount of carbon tax payments collected for 2019 emissions; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider releasing a breakdown of revenue collected from each taxable facility when the data is available.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): The Carbon Pricing Act (CPA) came into force on 1 January 2019. The CPA gives effect to the carbon tax of $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent (tCO2e), to be paid using carbon credits purchased from the National Environment Agency (NEA). The carbon tax applies to facilities in the manufacturing, power generation, waste and water management sectors which emit 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or more annually. These companies have been monitoring their emissions for the year 2019 and must submit verified emissions reports to NEA by 30 June 2020. Companies must pay their 2019 carbon tax liability by 30 September 2020.
The carbon tax revenues will be published annually in the Government's Budget Book, which is released in the first quarter of each year. The Government is unable to disclose company- or facility-specific data due to data confidentiality requirements as provided for in the CPA.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for his reply. I am just hoping we can publish that data of what each company is paying. I think the public scrutiny on that, if you compare year by year, then I think the company's policy with regards on climate change will move much faster, if there is public scrutiny on that this.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The intention behind the carbon tax is to provide an economy-wide price signal. It is not meant to put scrutiny on facilities or companies. Therefore, what we do, by publishing the data on an economy-wide basis, I think would be more useful for the Government and the public to know which sectors we should be concentrating on and how we are going to move from there. So, we do not find it productive or correct to actually put any company under scrutiny because they pay their carbon tax or because they are compelled by the Act to do so.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank Minister for the reply but maybe as a step back, could we at least publish data based on facility type and size then, without naming the company. So, we know at least which industry is contributing more to carbon emissions in Singapore.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of companies that are affected by this Act is very small, around 40. But, they account for about 80% of the carbon emissions in our economy. So, even if you publish by facilities, you can actually do your Maths and make inferences on who is doing what; and I do not think that is what we want to get to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rates for Recommended Adult Vaccinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, what have been the take-up rates of adult vaccinations recommended by the Ministry; and (b) how is the Ministry helping to raise awareness of adult vaccination, especially for those in the high-risk groups, such as the elderly and those with medical conditions.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Health): MOH established the National Adult Immunisation Schedule (NAIS) in November 2017 to provide guidance on important vaccinations for adults. These vaccinations include catch-up vaccinations and vaccinations that high-risk adults should receive. MediSave may be used to pay for NAIS vaccinations.
To encourage take-up, some public healthcare institutions held vaccination awareness campaigns and conducted road shows and talks during the annual World Immunisation Week. Information on the NAIS is available on the Health Promotion Board's (HPB) HealthHub Portal.
The NAIS also serves as a guide for doctors on the vaccinations they should recommend their patients. MOH periodically reminds doctors to do so.
We have been observing a steady increase in the take-up of NAIS vaccinations since its introduction, with more using MediSave to pay for them. Around 24% of adults between 65 and 79 take up the vaccination according to the National Health population survey 2019. In 2017, 39,000 adults use MediSave for flu vaccination. The number increased to 74,000 in 2018.
In July 2019, the HealthySG Taskforce recommended that to further boost adult vaccination rates, subsidies should be provided to help Singaporeans pay for NAIS recommended vaccinations. The subsidies are targeted to be rolled out before the end of 2020 and details will be announced at a later date. MOH is also planning a series of population-level vaccination awareness campaigns to increase the public's awareness on the importance of vaccination.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I am very glad that the Ministry is doing all it can to encourage the take-up rate for vaccinations. But, may I know if the vaccination rates are lower, among our lower income group?
\tMr Amrin Amin: Vaccination uptake is influenced by a number of factors. It includes awareness, importance of vaccinations, accessibility and affordability. MOH does not track data on vaccination rates across the different income groups, but we recognise that cost may pose a difficulty for those in a lower income groups. And hence, we hope to reduce the barriers for vaccinations and increase its uptake by extending subsidies for NAIS vaccinations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Duration of Medical leave for Specific Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the latest findings in the Ministry’s study on creating guidelines to help doctors determine the disability duration for specific injuries when issuing medical leave and light duties to injured workers; and (b) by what date does the Ministry expect to publish the results of this study.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): The Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) requires the doctor to place the patient's welfare above all. Regarding medical leave, the doctor has to ensure that the duration and type of leave granted is based on medical grounds arrived at through proper clinical assessment by doctors.
The duration of medical leave is determined by a variety of factors including the type and severity of the injury, the period required for the treatment, rehabilitation and recovery, and the specific work requirements and workplace conditions.
Recent changes in the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) to require employers to report any instance of employees on medical leave or light duties due to a work injury, when effected, should reduce the risk of inadequate medical leave.
Therefore, for now, we do not think that guidelines for medical leave on work-related injuries are necessary. My Ministry will continue to monitor the situation.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think last year, MOH said that it would consult stakeholders on whether these guidelines were needed. Could I ask Senior Minister of State, which stakeholders were consulted and what their views are?
Second, I think that, while WICA amendments will close some of these loopholes, I think we can further strengthen it. So, I understand that under the MOM Return to Work Coordination Programme, all the public hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists are required to complete and obtain certification before they are qualified to facilitate a worker's return to work. But this is not for the private hospital. So, can I ask whether MOH will work with MOM to ensure that this is made compulsory also for private hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, I would like to say that we are as concerned as the Member for the welfare of the workers. Indeed, we have done some preliminary consultations as well as done a survey of the landscape of such issues in various countries, like New Zealand, Australia, UK. As I have noted earlier, I think the general view is that, because the duration and the type of medical leave or even light injury duties that are to be given, really varies widely depending on different persons, the different circumstances, whether it is the type and severity of the injury, the type of treatment required, rehabilitation, even the comorbidity and the fitness of the worker as well as the work requirements and work conditions. All these vary very greatly and it is actually difficult to have a set of prescriptive guidelines for prescribing medical leave and even light duties.
So, that is the reason why the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), in 2017, did issue some general guidelines on what doctors should take into account, as I have enumerated earlier, as well as the fact that they should not take into account extraneous factors like who is going to benefit, who is going to pay, impact on insurance claims and so on, as well as to consult their peers where they may not be sure.
We think that with the new WICA coming into effect from September of this year, where even light duties given – even if it is one day – will have to be reported, that will actually minimise this issue of under prescribing medical leave or light duties. And in fact, one of the benefits of WICA is to enhance protection for the employees. We will continue to consult with various relevant stakeholders as well as to monitor the situation.
With regard to the second question about the therapists, I think this is not quite related to the issue of issuance of medical leave or light duties by the doctors, but nonetheless, we will check and we will work with MOM where if it is needed, to work out the procedures and the process for this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rehabilitation Measures for Young Sex Offenders to Prevent Recidivism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what rehabilitation measures are young sex offenders subject to in their time in prison or probation to prevent recidivism; (b) whether studies are being done on the mindset of local sex offenders, be they for crimes with or without physical contact with victims, to improve the necessary corrective actions; and (c) whether there are plans to work with universities and schools to conduct outreach and introduce relevant material into the curriculum.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Regardless of age, sex offenders in prison or on probation will be assessed on their criminogenic risks and needs and undergo suitable programmes to reduce their risk of re-offending.
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) runs a psychology-based programme to help sex offenders better manage their interpersonal relationships and emotions, and address their negative sexual attitudes. At the end of the programme, offenders are guided to develop individualised relapse prevention plans. Sex offenders in prison also attend other programmes, such as those to build better relations with their families, which will help their overall rehabilitation and reintegration.
Where the Courts have ordered probation, MSF will work with probationers and their families to develop intervention plans, including treatment programmes. The family and community play a key role in providing support for and monitoring the progress of the probationer. Examples of interventions include the Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment Programme and the Positive Psychotherapy Group. They equip the probationers with skills to improve their relationships, emotional coping and sexual regulation. MSF's research has found that for youths, who are at a developmental phase of sensation-seeking and impulsivity, their likelihood of re-offending is low when they receive appropriate treatment.
\tSPS and MSF will continue to strengthen their programmes based on research and evidence. For example, SPS has applied findings from a needs analysis of local sex offenders to enhance psychological interventions for them.
There are also on-going efforts by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to engage schools and Universities to prevent sexual offences. SPF conducts crime prevention talks on sexual offences in schools and advises Universities on security measures and conducts joint patrols with campus security. SPF will continue to work with schools and universities to raise awareness of sexual crimes.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. There is public perception that University students tend to get away with their crime easily. For example, a 31-year-old man caught taking an upskirt video of a woman at Woodlands Checkpoint, was jailed four weeks in December 2019, whereas a 25-year-old NUS student was suspended for photographing two female students in the shower – no jail term.
Why is there such a discrepancy? Are we sending the wrong signal? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain?
\tMr Amrin Amin: The position is very clear. Regardless of income levels or backgrounds, we take every crime seriously. The differences in sentencing could be a result of individual cases and there may be specific circumstances in a case that merit a different punishment or treatment. So, I think it is not wise to draw conclusions based on one or two cases. It is important that we send a very strong message that the rich do not get away easily or lightly for any type of crimes, including sexual offences.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir. The perception is not just the rich who get away. It is, if you are in a University, you got bright future, we do not want ruin your future, so you get away easily. That is the public perception. So, how do we deal with this?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I understand. I think as a society, we need to look at this issue frankly, but my answer still stands. We should not draw certain conclusions based on one or two cases. But it is an important issue that we need to address together – whether you are rich or you are educated, you do not get away easily. The law applies regardless of our background or income levels. And it is important that we continue to dispel such misperceptions. And if there are specific instances or cases that the Member would like answers, perhaps the Member could file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) and we could give it the proper treatment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I would like to go back to the part about rehabilitation. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that during the probation, we do get the family involved in the rehabilitation process. But what about those who are incarcerated? Do we get the family involved in the rehabilitation process while they are in prison, as well? I think that is the important part. So, the question is, whether we have family functional therapy for inmates currently incarcerated for sex offences.
\tMr Amrin Amin: The intervention programmes are based on research. And in certain cases, it involves families but in most, it involves the offender having to address his or her own criminogenic needs or risks. I think the short answer to the Member's question is yes, there are family programmes, but not all interventions would involve the family. There are different modules and different individuals require different types of treatment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Renewal of Re-Entry Permits for Retired Singapore PRs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last five years, how many retired Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs) applied for renewal of re-entry permits; (b) what proportion of these had their applications rejected; (c) how does this proportion compare with that of the previous five years; and (d) what are the considerations in deciding whether to approve such an application.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): A re-entry permit (REP) may be renewed if the Permanent Resident or PR meets the prevailing criteria for renewal, including whether he or she is gainfully employed and still contributing to Singapore, and has his or her family roots here. For PRs who have retired, we will generally renew their REPs, in recognition of their past contributions to Singapore.
In the last five years, approximately 52,400 retired Singapore PRs applied to renew their REPs. Only about 2% were rejected, largely because they were absent from Singapore for a prolonged period and furthermore had no family roots here. This rejection rate is similar to that from 2010 to 2014.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarifying question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I thank her for the answer. Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether retired REP applicants need to show that they can support themselves financially? I am asking because based on ICA's list of documents for REP application, current employment and income is needed for those who obtain their PR originally for work-related reasons, and some retired PRs may find themselves in a difficult position financially as retirees. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged, they have been here for many years and have contributed to Singapore.
Ms Sun Xueling: We generally renew REPs if they are able to show family roots in Singapore. That is a very important criteria. The second is that they have not been away from Singapore for prolonged periods of time. So, like the Member had mentioned, if they are retired PRs, I would understand that they are not able to do a declaration of employment because they are already retired. But if they are able to meet the criteria that I just mentioned – that they have family roots or they have not been away for prolonged periods – then, they are very likely to have their REPs renewed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of SCDF Audits on Functionality of Fire Hose Points in Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the frequency of SCDF audits on the functionality of fire hose points in condominiums; and (b) in respect of inspection and testing conducted by a third party for the condominium, what liabilities do the condominium’s MCST and managing agent bear should the points be found non-functional during emergencies.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Under the Fire Safety Act, the MCST is responsible for ensuring that all fire safety measures in a condominium, including fire hose reels, are functional. For condominiums with higher fire safety risks, such as those with a habitable height of more than 24 metres and require certain fire protection systems, their MCSTs are required to appoint professional engineers to conduct an audit of the fire safety measures as part of the annual renewal of the building’s Fire Certificate. In addition, SCDF also carries out inspections in response to feedback they receive.
If any fire safety measure is found to be non-functional, the MCST is responsible. Simply hiring a third party to inspect the fire safety measures does not absolve the MCST from liabilities.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, I have a follow-up question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The issue is that MCST are basically made up of volunteers who live within the condominium or estate. They are not professionals by any nature to be able to have a sense whether what has been checked or what was outsourced as an audit review being accurate. Therein lies the challenge. If there is anything that might have gone wrong, and it was certified and they managed to get their annual certificate renewed, there will be a possibility that the fire hoses are not performing when there is an emergency.
\tMs Sun Xueling: As I had mentioned, the MSCTs are responsible for the management of the common areas and the maintenance of the fire safety measures in the condominiums. If the MCSTs are found to not have done what they should have done, the SCDF may issue a fire hazard abatement notice. Most people, when they get this notice, will rectify the fire hazard. In the event that they are not rectified in accordance with the notice, then the SCDF may make out an offence and issue a notice of composition to the MCST. The SCDF checks and gives them a fire hazard abatement notice, so that they are able to rectify the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for New Pre-court Action Protocol for Business-to-business Debt Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law what is the rationale for the new pre-court action protocol for business-to-business debt claims and whether the Government has consulted businesses prior to introducing the new court protocol.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Speaker, the new Pre-Court Action Protocol for Business-to-Business Debt Claims is an initiative by the State Courts. It was implemented in August 2019 by an amendment to the State Courts Practice Directions. These Practice Directions (PDs) are issued by the Court to regulate its practice and procedure, and are updated from time to time. The new Protocol applies to all business-to-business debt claims that are commenced in the State Courts from 1 October 2019 onwards.
The new Protocol seeks to encourage businesses to resolve their debt claims early, before the commencement of proceedings. The State Courts see about 1,000 business-to-business debt claims each year. Approximately 75% of those claims, however, are eventually withdrawn, discontinued or have judgments entered in default. Based on the State Courts' experience, this is because such claims are frequently brought even though the debt is not disputed. Rather, the claims may be brought because there is poor documentation, wrong calculation of interest, or the debtor was simply seeking a breakdown of the debt or a repayment plan. As a result, costs incurred for the legal proceedings are very often disproportionate to the claimed sums and Court resources are also being utilised.
The new Protocol was therefore introduced with the objectives of:
(a) helping parties to identify the quantum of the claim, including interest, the relevant documents which may support the substantiation of the claim, and identifying the issues in dispute;
(b) encouraging early communications between parties, active exploration of Alternative Dispute Resolution options, and the upfront exchange of documents and information; and
(c) where legal proceedings cannot be avoided, the new Protocol will facilitate the drafting of proper pleadings and ensure that documentation is in order, as well as help to narrow the issues in dispute. This will focus the parties and also reduce the length of court proceedings.
Under the new Protocol, a Letter of Claim is sent prior to commencing legal proceedings. The Letter must contain details of the claim such as the amount of debt and applicable interest, as well as the underlying agreement giving rise to the claim. The debtor is then required to send a Response to the Letter of Claim within 28 days, or such shorter timeframe as may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of each case.
The Court has the discretion to impose cost sanctions on a party who does not comply with the new Protocol – whether the creditor or debtor – if the defaulting party is unable to show good reasons for the non-compliance.
The new Protocol does not bar any creditor from bringing legal proceedings on an outstanding debt claim at any point in time.
The State Courts hold regular engagements with Law Society and the members of the Bar on a variety of civil matters, including proposed changes to civil procedure. The State Courts previously discussed the new Protocol with the Law Society’s Civil Practice Committee, whose members represent both creditors and debtors – the business-to-business aspect to which the Protocol applies. Since implementation, the State Courts further engaged the Law Society earlier this year on 14 January 2020 and solicited their written feedback on the Protocol as well. The Law Society provided its feedback in writing to the State Courts on 28 January 2020. The State Courts will be studying this feedback with a view to fine-tuning the Protocol, as may be appropriate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Sir. Sir, if I may declare my interest as a practising lawyer on this matter. Sir, I want to say that I support the efforts of the Court to encourage parties to try to resolve disputes amicably before litigating the dispute. I am sure the Senior Minister of State is fully aware that most lawyers already issue demand letters with at least seven days' notice. In this case, the Protocol specifies a notice period of 28 days. May I ask the Senior Minister of State, how does the Court balance the interest of the creditors who themselves may be liquidity-strapped because they would need to give the debtors 28 days' notice? And how does the Court then balance the fact that some debtors do drag their feet and refuse to pay until they are sued in Court? So, how does the Court then consider the interest of creditors who are in that situation?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, the 28 days in the Protocol is not immutable. There are a variety of factors which come into play when the Court assess ultimately whether there should be cost sanctions against one or the other party, should there be non-compliance with the Protocol. So, if the creditor forms the assessment that this debtor has been dragging his feet, or is facing a series of claims which might cause the debtor to go into bankruptcy, thereby, triggering a series of other consequences, then, on those cases, the creditor may proceed, even without 28 days' notice.
The only question is, at the time of reckoning, which I think Mr Lim would be aware, is actually on different from the position today. Even as we assess the conduct of parties, it is to asses whether or not the action has been reasonable or otherwise. And in doing so, the Court will consider a series of circumstances, including those that I have outlined. That is how the Courts will then strike a balance between ensuring that the creditor has sufficient time to make known the nature of the claim, make known the details to support the claim so that the debtor can decide if he wants to enter into ADR, for instance, or maybe he decides to then seek upfront, the repayment plan from the creditor.
\tIn most cases, as Mr Lim would be aware, 28 days would probably be far shorter than if the matter had to be engaged in Court altogether. And bearing in mind that 75% of the thousand cases end up in some form or another resolved without having gone to Court, the State Court's Protocol seeks to try to address the vast majority of these cases with upfront information, with details to facilitate as far as possible the parties' resolution by themselves. But as I had mentioned and I would like to go back to it, the 28 days is not written in stone. And if the party is able to justify a departure from it, the Court will consider that and not impose sanctions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Citizen Unemployment Rate When Persons who are Employed Become New Citizens ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower to what extent do persons who are employed and become new citizens in each year affect the determination of the citizen unemployment rate.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the citizen unemployment rate is based on the Labour Force Survey, which asks for the citizenship of the respondent at the point of the survey, but does not require the respondent to indicate when he or she obtained citizenship. In any case, the addition of new citizens in Singapore does not change the citizen unemployment rate in any significant way. Let me illustrate.
Suppose the citizen unemployment rate is 3%. This means, if there were only 100 citizens in the labour force, three of them are unemployed. Suppose an employed person becomes a citizen, this translates to a 1% growth in the citizen labour force. There are now 101 citizens in the labour force, but still only three who are unemployed. As a result, the citizen unemployment rate falls by 0.03 percentage points to 2.97%. Compared to 3%, the effect is mathematically very small.
In fact, out of 3.5 million Singapore citizens, significantly less than 1% received their citizenship within the past year. Some are working adults, while others have yet to join the labour force or have retired. This means that the impact to the citizen labour force and unemployment rate is essentially negligible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Acceptance of Medical Certificates Issued by Ministry-approved TCM Physicians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can review the policy concerning medical certificates issued by Ministry-approved TCM physicians and mandate its acceptance for medical leave claims across the board.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, under the Employment Act, all employers are required to grant paid outpatient sick leave to employees with medical certificates (MCs) issued by any medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act (MRA). TCM practitioners can also be registered, if they fulfil the requirements of the MRA.
This is already a wider recognition of MCs. Before April 2019, employers were only required to recognise MCs if they were issued by a Government or company-appointed medical practitioner.
I should add that employers are free to go beyond the minimum provisions in the Employment Act and recognised TCM practitioners' MCs for the purposes of granting paid sick leave.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have one supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister how many TCM practitioners are registered with MRA? I have residents who told me that they go to TCM for treatment, but then because the MC is not recognised, so at the end, they just paid some money and got an MC from a clinic. They feel that they have to spend extra money and waste of time and waste of resources. So, I would like to ask how many of these TCM practitioners are registered with MRA, because Minister mentioned the MCs of only those registered with MRA are recognised.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From what she has asked, I gather her concern is really with regard to individuals, who are seeking to get the medical certificates because they feel unwell to work.
We have to take it in a broader context. There are more than 4,000 medical practitioners that are registered under the MRA. There should not be a concern that the individuals have no access to doctors who can issue valid MCs. People may consult TCM practitioners for any number of reasons, but the fact that the Employment Act requires MCs to be issued by an MRA-registered practitioner in order to be valid, has been known for quite a long time.
Employers are certainly free to do more than what the Employment Act requires, to recognise other medical certificates. But the practice adopted within the Employment Act is consistent with the Medical Registration Act. If I may quote to the Member, section 15 of the MRA states that \"no medical certificate or other document required by any written law to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner shall be valid unless signed by a person who is registered under the Act and has a valid practising certificate\".
But like I said, if employers would like to recognise TCM medical certificates, they are certainly free to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Total Workplace Safety and Health Approach","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong –
21 To ask the Minister for Manpower whether there has been a spike in workplace fatalities and injuries in the past year and whether the Total Workplace Safety and Health approach is failing.
\t
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Question No 21, please, Sir.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, contrary to the Member’s concern, the workplace fatal injury rate was maintained at the historic low level achieved in 2018. However, preliminary data shows that the non-fatal major injury rate crept up slightly in 2019 when compared to 2018. More details will be released in the 2019 National WSH Statistics Report by end February 2020.
But, Mr Speaker, if you would allow me, for perspective, it is also useful to note the steady improvements in the workplace fatal injury rate in the last two decades. Sir, if you look at the Workplace Fatal Injury rate per 100,000 employees, we were at 4.9 in 2004, then down to 2.2 in 2010, and then 1.8 in 2014. And 2018, we had all time low off; 1.2, if you bring it down by 75%.
And likewise, the major injury rate has also improved over last the five years at 20.0 in 2014 to 17.4 in 2018. So, we are seeing that overall, Singapore's workplace safety compares favourably with many developed countries. And our workplace fatality rate is the lowest in Asia, and is comparable to countries like Denmark and Finland. Improvements have also taken place against the backdrop of heavy reliance on foreign workers in sectors most prone to workplace fatalities such as the construction, marine and process industries. Much attention is put on helping newly arrived foreign workers to practise good Workplace, Safety and Health (WSH) habits.
As outlined in our WSH 2028 roadmap, Singapore aims to achieve and sustain a workplace fatal injury rate of less than 1.0 per 100,000 workers by 2028. This is an ambitious goal reflecting our commitment to workers' safety. Amongst OECD member countries, only four have achieved this level of performance on a sustained basis.
One key challenge in realising this aspiration is the risk of increasing ill-health among the workforce, including chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. If these are not well-managed, these conditions can contribute to work accidents. To reduce accidents in a sustainable manner, we will need more attention on supporting health, not just improving safety.
Total WSH is part of our comprehensive approach to prevent and reduce accidents over longer term. Prevention of workplace injuries goes hand in hand with efforts to promote workforce health. This is so that fewer workers suffer from ill-health and even those with chronic diseases can continue to work safely and productively as long as they want.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Survey on Perceptions of Discriminatory Hiring and Other HR Practices to Include Employee Respondents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether a Government survey including employee respondents has been conducted on perceptions of discriminatory hiring and other HR practices, as a follow-up to past surveys focusing on employer respondents; and (b) if so, when will the findings be made public.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, let me begin by saying this: the Government does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination. In a 2018 survey commissioned by MOM, over 80% of job seekers did not feel that their gender, marital status, number of children, race, religion or nationality was an impediment in finding work. The majority of employees also felt that they were fairly treated in their organisation, in terms of their employment terms and benefits, training, career development and performance evaluation.
MOM and the Tripartite Alliance on Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) follow up on feedback and complaints about workplace discrimination. This is complemented by TAFEP's efforts to promote and advise employers on fair employment practices.
Rather than depend on perception surveys alone, MOM relies on other indicators too, for evidence of workplace discrimination. A good indicator is the number of complaints, which decreased from about 580 in 2015 to about 200 in 2018 and constitutes less than 1% of all complaints received. Discriminatory job advertisements have become rare and employment outcomes of groups such as women and older workers have also improved in the past decade. The employment rate of older residents aged 55 to 64 increased from 57% in 2009 to 68% in 2019, and that of female residents aged 25 to 64 increased from 64% to 73% over the same period. We have also seen that the adjusted gender pay gap has also narrowed over time, down from 8.8% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2018.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. I believe the Minister of State mentioned that 80% of job seekers do not perceive any kind of discrimination. Just to clarify, was this a survey of both job seekers and those already in jobs? Did the survey cover both job seekers and those who are already in jobs about the perception of discriminatory HR practices? Or was it only job seekers? And if it covered both, was there any difference in the findings between those who are job seekers and those who are already in jobs about their perception of HR practices in their company?
Secondly, of the 20% who did perceive some form of discriminatory practice, can the Minister of State share what was the breakdown by the type of discrimination perceived – be it by gender or nationality or other type for that 20%? Thirdly, what was the sample size of this survey and fourthly has it already been made public or and if not, will it also be published in full?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his questions. MOM's survey or Fair Employment Practices are nationally representative and because they provide credible gauge of ground sentiment. So, we do this regularly, just to get ground-sensing. And the 2018 survey cover approximately 3,100 individuals and 3,400 establishments. As our surveys have shown, the majority of employers adopt Fair Employment Practices, but nonetheless, we recognise too that there will be minority of employers who deliberately circumvent employment principles and requirements.
\tFor actual details, the Member may want to file a separate Parliamentary Question because this was really just about whether we have a survey or not. But just to answer the Member's question on whether this will be made public, we will publish an occasional paper on fair employment in the later part of this year, so do stay tuned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Adequacy of Parking Lots for Delivery Trucks in Multi-storey Carparks in Public Housing Estates or Town Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development for areas within public housing estates or town centres where carparks are exclusively or predominantly in the form of multi-storey carparks (MSCPs), whether HDB can conduct a review to assess the adequacy of parking lots for delivery trucks which cannot access MSCPs due to height limitations, with the view to increasing the number of parking lots for such trucks so that their drivers can park their trucks legally while doing their deliveries.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, HDB provides all blocks served by multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) with loading and unloading bays. To facilitate loading and unloading activities, the bays are located near HDB blocks and do not have height limits. Delivery drivers can make use of these bays for loading and unloading activities. The number of loading and unloading bays may be adjusted at the local level based on feedback from commercial tenants and users of these bays.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have one supplementary question. Could the Ministry consider addressing the needs of those drivers – the delivery trucks where there is only one driver or that they may have two staff but they cannot afford anyone staying behind in the vehicle while making the delivery to the nearby shops?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Sir, I thank the Member for his concern. HDB exercises flexibility allowing delivery drivers whether they are alone or even with some accompanying colleagues, time to do their deliveries. That is why they have bays. Understandably, deliveries will take some time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Design of Laundry Pole-holders in HDB Blocks to Make Them Safer for Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the measures taken to make it safer for HDB residents to dry their laundry in view of our ageing population and strong winds and to protect passers-by from falling laundry poles; and (b) whether there are progressive changes to the design of these laundry pole holders to make them safer.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, HDB has made improvements to the clothes drying systems in flats over the years. Since 2002, new flats have been fitted with an external three-bar clothes drying rack parallel to the kitchen wall. This eliminates the need for laundry poles to be extended from the window. In addition, new flats are also provided with an internal ceiling mounted clothes drying rack that is sheltered from the rain.
Through the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), HDB has been progressively replacing these pipe sockets that you find in older flats with T-shaped clothes drying racks. These T-shaped racks are designed to support both ends of the laundry poles, so that this reduces the effort required to place the laundry poles onto the racks and minimises the risk of the poles falling even under strong wind conditions.
HDB will continue to review the design of clothes drying racks to make them safer and easier for residents to use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Drivers of Foreign Registered Cars Pay Outstanding HDB and URA Parking Fines before Entry into or Exit from Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for National Development whether there are measures to ensure that foreign registered cars pay their outstanding HDB and URA parking fines before entry into, or exit out of, Singapore.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, when foreign-registered vehicles with outstanding fines are spotted at HDB and URA car parks, HDB and URA will clamp or tow away these vehicles so that their owners will step forward to settle the outstanding fines.
With effect from 1 April 2019, foreign-registered vehicles with a number of outstanding fines for traffic, parking or vehicular emissions offences may be denied entry into Singapore. As of 26 January 2020, 535 foreign-registered vehicles had been turned away at our checkpoints for failing to settle their outstanding fines before entering Singapore.
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for reply because when we follow some of the Facebook groups, they always put screenshots of foreign vehicles with outstanding traffic and parking fines, both URA and HDB. So, I think it gives a wrong impression that the Malaysian vehicles, they do not have to pay their fine and there is no enforcement. So, I really hope for stricter enforcement to deter these vehicles from flagrantly not paying the fines.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Sir, if HDB or URA identify these vehicles in the carparks, as I have said, they will clamp or tow them away, so that the owners have to step forward and settle these outstanding fines. And now with this rule where they can be prevented from entering Singapore, I think they will take it very seriously indeed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Ageing Private Estates and Commercial Buildings are Properly Maintained","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Ministry ensure that ageing private estates and commercial buildings are properly maintained as to their structure, fire safety, electricity and water supplies, refuse disposal and pest control, for the well-being of occupants and visitors; (b) what are the measures to deal with recalcitrant owners or managing agents; and (c) whether the Ministry will implement a rating framework for private estates similar to that for Town Councils to ensure that the quality of private estate management matches that of public estates.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, building owners have a duty to ensure that their buildings are well maintained. There are legislative or regulatory requirements currently in place. For example, BCA requires building owners to appoint a professional engineer to inspect the building on a regular basis, and to rectify any structural defects that are found. SCDF requires owners of buildings with higher safety risks, such as publicly accessible buildings with higher occupancy, to appoint a professional engineer to audit a building’s fire safety measures annually. EMA requires building owners to appoint a licensed electrical worker to conduct regular inspections to ensure that electrical installations are fit for operation.
PUB requires building owners to engage a licensed plumber to inspect their potable water tanks annually to ensure that the water is fit and safe for use. NEA requires building owners to dispose of their refuse properly, such as by maintaining refuse chutes and also to prohibit any person from creating conditions favourable to the propagation of vectors.
I know the Member is concerned about building maintenance but if buildings are not properly maintained, the respective agencies can direct building owners or management corporations (MCs) to make rectifications where necessary. For example, BCA can issue a Notice to Maintain to building owners or MCs to compel them to repair defects.
Failure to comply with regulatory requirements or directions is an offence under the respective Acts and Regulations, and the relevant public agencies can take enforcement actions against the building owners, MCs, or building occupants accordingly. Penalties for non-compliance include fines or imprisonment or both.
Public agencies maintain the infrastructure on public land under their respective purviews across Singapore, including public infrastructure within private residential estates. Members of the public can provide feedback on maintenance issues directly to the agencies or via the Municipal Services Office, using the OneService app.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have one question for the Minister of State. There are quite a number of condominium in my constituency. The frequent feedback that I got from the Managing Council is that they are all laymen, not familiar, so they appoint the managing agent. So, they are asking whether will MND rank the managing agents because many of them also run into problems with their managing agents. Will MND rank the managing agents, that means categorise them?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Currently, a Management Corporation or MC can appoint an MA for up to a term of three years. So, the MAs' performance can be reviewed by the residents themselves and they can change the MA if they do not perform. So, technically, the measures are there. If the MAs are not performing, the residents can certainly take action. Because, ultimately, as the Member knows as well, you can rank an MA by company, but it is still down to the persons that they appoint, the persons that they hire to run every condo. You can rank an agency but it really depends on the team that they put in place. To ensure quality, we have got an Accredited Managing Agent scheme (AMA), which is administered by both the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV), and the Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM). So, the accreditation scheme exists, it is just that the details are important, that we pick the right managing agent and appoint them. For many MAs, you also have termination clauses if they are not performing too.
So, it is not fair or feasible to rank every MA out there because by firm, some may qualify. But again, it is down to the person that they appoint in the condo. So, it is down to the MCs or managing councils to decide.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Yes, Sir. Three years is a long time if your MA is not performing and then the MC will have to fight with the MA almost every other day. So, what MC is asking if MND can come up with certain qualifications, so that they can rank the MA accordingly, then at least it is a table of approved or accredited MAs for them to choose. The feedback is that a lot of the MCs told me that they are very disappointed with a lot of the MAs in the market. It is just, if I may put it in their language, in Hokkien \"tan jiak, tan jiak\", but then who suffer? Residents suffer, MC suffer.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier, we have the AMA scheme which accredits MAs. Do refer to the scheme and maybe the MCs can work closer with the organisations – SISV as well as APFM who manage the scheme – to see how we can improve the accreditation scheme. But to get into ranking, the tricky part is, as I said, that it depends on the performance of the MA on the ground and, ultimately, it is down to procurement.
In terms of procurement, you have the option of terminating if they do not meet certain KPIs. It is important to set the expectations upfront before you procure the services, and set what are the requirements, what are the specifications, that the MAs need to fulfil. The challenge is, again, ranking may work at firm level but it does not necessarily work on the ground. That is always a challenge but, really, if the condos would like to have some sense of which ones are accredited, perhaps if the AMA scheme is not well-known, then we can certainly work to keep condos more aware of what are the accredited MAs out there.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Grant and Subsidies Given to PAP Community Foundation for Set-up and Operation of Childcare Centres and Kindergartens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"27 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for the past five years, what is the amount of grant and subsidies given to PAP Community Foundation for the set-up and operation of its childcare centres and kindergartens.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the Government is committed to enhancing access to affordable and quality pre-schools. To achieve this, the Government funds operators through the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator schemes and runs MOE Kindergartens. There are currently five Anchor Operators, including PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkletots pre-school.
Government grants are provided to Anchor Operators in return for them adhering to fee caps for the pre-school places they provide, plus significant demands on efforts to improve quality and invest in teacher development. In addition, Anchor Operators offer Chinese, Malay and Tamil language instruction, and support enrolment of children from low-income families.
The amount of Government grants provided to each Anchor Operator generally depends on the number of places and types of services provided by the Operator. As the size of Anchor Operators varies substantially, it is more meaningful to look at the amount of grants provided to each Singapore Citizen (SC) child enrolled in each Anchor Operator.
From 2014 to 2018, the average amount of grants provided for each SC child enrolled in PCF Sparkletots translated to about $3,500 per year. For comparison, the corresponding average figure across all Anchor Operators during the same period was about $4,300.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Does the Ministry have the actual amount that was given to PAP Community Foundation kindergarten? The subsidy that was given to them for the last five years, as listed in the question?
My second question is what is the Government's view on allowing these state-subsidised facility to be used for political activities like Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) and all that?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, as I mentioned in my answer earlier, the grant amount per enrolled Singapore Citizen child, where I think that it is more meaningful, as the amount of Government grants provided to each AOP, as I said, generally depends on the number of places and types of services provided by the operator. As the Member can see, the size of AOPs as well as the size of centres vary substantially. If the Member is aware and he goes on the ground, he would understand what I am trying to say, whereby behind the scenes. there are many differences. So, it is more meaningful for us to look at what I have shared earlier.
\tFor his second question, Sir, I think a lot have been discussed in this House on the question that he has asked, so I would like to urge him to refer to those answers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discoloured Tap Water on Pulau Tekong on 20 November 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the reasons for the discoloured tap water in the Basic Military Training Camp (BMTC) on Pulau Tekong on 20 November 2019; and (b) what measures are being taken to reduce the risk of such incidents in future.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): PUB was alerted to discoloured tap water at some parts of the Basic Military Training Centre, or BMTC, at Pulau Tekong at 7.30 am on 20 November 2019. PUB officers were activated immediately to investigate the cause of the incident and deployed water wagons to provide temporary water supply to the servicemen on Pulau Tekong.
PUB also worked with BMTC to flush the water supply network on Pulau Tekong and carried out water sampling tests in the network to ensure that the water is safe for consumption and within the drinking water quality standards under the Environmental Public Health Regulations 2019 and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines. The water supply was fully restored at 9.30 pm on 21 November 2019.
Naturally occurring minerals in the water will settle and accumulate in the water supply network over time. PUB investigated and found that these minerals in the pipes serving BMTC were churned up, thus affecting the appearance of the water. The tap water turned clear after flushing of the water supply network.
As a preventive measure, PUB is working with BMTC to carry out cleaning of the water mains in Pulau Tekong during the first half of 2020, when there is a break in BMTC's training schedule.
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Sir. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Just to confirm, on an on-going basis, going forward, does the Government ensure that the potability or drinkability of the water supply in Tekong is same and equal to the standard on the main land? Is testing regularly done to ensure that?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Yes, we do. In fact, all drinking water is tested whether they are on – Tekong or the main land – to ensure that they are potable and up to the WHO standards and the regulations that I have mentioned just now.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Fires in Australia on Singapore’s Environment and Food Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
29 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how have the recent fires in Australia affected Singapore’s environment and food security.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, Singapore’s air quality was not affected by the recent fires in Australia as winds over Singapore were not blown from the Australian region. From November 2019 to January 2020, when the fires took place, air quality in Singapore was mostly in the \"Good\" and \"Moderate\" range. This level of air quality is comparable to the same period in previous years.
Similarly, Singapore’s food security has not been affected by the fires in Australia. Australia is an important source of commonly consumed food items for Singapore, such as meat, milk and sugar. While many parts of Australia experienced the fires, our food supply from Australia remained steady between November 2019 and January 2020.
Nevertheless, we are mindful that disruptions in food imports, including those linked to the climate, remain a possibility. Hence, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been working with food importers to diversify sources across different countries and to adopt plans to mitigate against supply disruptions. Apart from this, we are encouraging Singapore companies to build food production linkages with other countries under our \"Grow Overseas\" strategy. We are also intensifying efforts to boost domestic food production under our \"30 by 30\" vision, to locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for his answer. Just two short supplementary questions. First, we hope that it does not happen in Australia, the bushfires, but if it continues to occur in future, is it conceivable that this could come to Singapore\t– meaning that the winds change direction\t– and is it conceivable for fires in Australia to reach Singapore, and in such an instance, what preparations do we need to make?
My second supplementary question concerns food security. Again, I hear our vision of \"30 by 30\". My question is: given what is happening around the world, how are we on track to achieve it, and is there a need for this \"30 by 30\" vision to be, in fact, accelerated?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We have never had a situation where the fires in Australia would actually affect Singapore. We know where the fires, when they burn, affect us almost annually. So, thankfully, I do not think we have to worry yet unless something in the weather patterns change or the intensity of the fire goes beyond this year and last year.
On food security: indeed, this is going to be one of the main topics of our Ministry's Committee of Supply (COS). To get Singaporeans to understand that beyond diversifying our food supplies, we really have to be serious about looking at growing the food ourselves. Because when we have a situation 20, 30, 40 years down the line, when everywhere in the world, food growing will be a challenge, we probably have to be prepared to know how to grow food now, to grow in ways that we do not normally or conventionally do. Because in Singapore, we are very constrained by water, by land, even by energy. So, these are the constraints that Singapore has to overcome but I am very confident that with technology and perseverance, we will get to the target of \"30 by 30\" that we set ourselves to achieve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recorded Offences in Last Three Years for Smoking in Common Corridors and Void Decks of HDB Blocks and of High-rise Littering of Cigarette Butts and Ash","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the past three years, what has been the number of recorded offences for (i) smoking in the common corridors and void decks of HDB flats and (ii) high-rise littering from HDB flats related to cigarette butts and cigarette ash respectively.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Over the past three years, the National Environment Agency (NEA) issued more than 11,000 tickets for smoking along common corridors and void decks of HDB estates. This makes up about 15% of the total number of tickets issued for smoking in prohibited places during that period. I urge smokers to be mindful of the health of others and not light up in smoking-prohibited places. Families and friends, and even members of the public, can help remind smokers to reinforce the right social norms.
Over the same period, NEA took more than 2,200 enforcement actions against high-rise littering from HDB flats involving cigarette litter. This makes up about 76% of the total enforcement actions taken for high-rise littering during that period. High-rise littering is an anti-social act which affects safety as well as environmental hygiene. I urge everyone to play his or her part to keep our common spaces clean and ensure that Singapore remains a clean, green and sustainable home for all of us.
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her replies. I just have two short supplementary questions. The first is regarding enforcement of smoking in common corridors and also in stairwells. I note the efforts of the NEA, but I still receive a lot of feedback from residents about recalcitrant smoking in stairwells and common corridors, which is probably a bit difficult to enforce, particularly at odd hours of the day or even at night. I was wondering whether there were any efforts to improve enforcement in these areas, perhaps use cameras that are already in some of the corridors put in by the Singapore Police Force.
The second supplementary question, I know is a common question. We still have much feedback about second-hand smoke coming from the smokers' own residences. And I know that the Senior Minister of State has replied on this but I was wondering if there was any update on any measures that we can take to mitigate this problem as well.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I am pleased to say that for the first question, at least I have an update. As the Member knows, we cannot constantly monitor all the 32,000-odd smoking-prohibited places or respond immediately to every feedback, especially given the fleeting nature of the act. So, to reinforce the no-smoking regulations, NEA has started deploying thermal cameras in public residential areas, particularly the common corridors, the lift lobbies, the stairwells, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues. This is to enhance surveillance to curb unlawful smoking. The cameras are able to capture images of the smoking infringement as well as the date and time, and this allows NEA to follow up with investigations.
Let me share that so far, more than 20 offenders have been caught through these thermal cameras and have been issued with composition fines.
As regard the second question, I am afraid I do not have any updates on this. But let me say that smoking is already prohibited in many, many places. I said 32,000-odd places, and actually, there are very few areas where our smokers can smoke now. And we are mindful about enacting laws that are too intrusive. And, in fact, while as many have given us feedback – why do you not enact laws to prohibit smoking within their own homes, there are also many who tell us that they do not believe that the Government should intrude into one's private space.
So, we continue to encourage our smokers to be civic-minded and in the spirit of building a socially gracious and civic-minded society, I think we should all try to resolve this amicably, as far as possible.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the thermal cameras. How many are there and is there any in Nee Soon South?
In fact, I have just given feedback to NEA over the last few weeks. It looks like smoking in staircase is very, very common, and I received a lot of complaints. Lately, there is this resident who keeps saying that the smoke goes into her flat and she has young children. So, I have been talking to NEA, in fact, just last week. What is the solution? Are we going to have a national campaign about smoking at the staircase affecting the health of residents?
Now I hear about these thermal cameras. How many do we have? Are there any installed in Nee Soon South?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Well, first, I would highly recommend that the Member start this social, civic-mindedness and gracious campaign among the residents, as far as smoking in residential homes are concerned. With regard to thermal cameras, we outsource it to a third party to provide this service. So, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues in common corridors, lift lobbies and stairwells, we can look into the feasibility of providing such thermal cameras. I have no idea whether Nee Soon has any of these.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 31, 33-34, 36-38, 40-44 and 47-58 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 32, 35, 39, 45-46 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 Feb 2020.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Whole-of-Government Response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Health and Minister for National Development","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker and Members, many Members of this House and our fellow Singaporeans are concerned about the 2019 novel coronavirus. This virus has affected not only China but many countries worldwide and cases are still growing daily with no signs of abating yet.
The Singapore Government has set up a Multi-Ministry Taskforce to coordinate the whole-of-Government efforts to combat this outbreak even before the first confirmed imported case occurred here. On 30 January, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, raising the global alert levels.
We have therefore put in place pre-emptive measures to protect the public health. Some other countries have also done so. It is heartening to know that China is doing all they can to contain the spread of the virus, and we have witnessed their decisive actions to put in place strong measures such as travel restrictions for their own residents, cancellation of outbound tour groups, and bringing back residents from overseas. We wish China well in their efforts to combat this virus and we have every confidence that China and other countries, including us here in Singapore, will work together and complement each other to win this battle internationally.
It is not just a problem for China but for the world. We have to work together and collaborate with each other. For this reason, Singapore will be putting together an assistance package to help the communities in China severely affected by the novel coronavirus. More details about the package will be provided later.
I can understand why Singaporeans are concerned as there are many unknowns about the virus: how it will develop and how long this will last. Beyond health, businesses would also have concerns as many have been affected by our prevention and containment measures.
Let me take this opportunity to provide some background on the virus, give an update on the current situation and touch on the healthcare-related measures that we have put in place. Minister Wong, my co-chair of the Taskforce, will provide more details on the efforts of the various Government agencies and how we are working together with all the stakeholders.
As the situation unfolds, we will share as much information as possible and as soon as possible. While we cannot be complacent, I am confident we will overcome this challenge as we have in the past if we work together. We have been preparing for this, we are anticipating scenarios ahead, taking decisive actions as the situation evolves and we will do our best to keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe.
First, let me start with an update. The situation in China and globally is still developing rapidly even as we speak and we still have very limited knowledge of the virus as scientists all over the world are racing against time to understand this virus better.
The virus was first detected in Wuhan in December 2019, although it may well have existed earlier while remaining undetected. On 31 December, the WHO was first informed of a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause detected in Wuhan. Soon after, on 2 January, MOH alerted our medical professionals and effected temperature screening for all flights arriving from Wuhan at our airport.
The infection continued to spread in China. By 22 January 2020, over 500 confirmed cases were reported in China with a death toll of 17, when we decided to set up the Multi-Ministry Taskforce. We anticipated that we would need a whole-of-Government effort to respond swiftly to this threat when it arrives in Singapore. We had to take precautions and coordinate plans across Government agencies to fight this.
In fact, the following day, after we had set up the Taskforce, we saw the first local imported case. Wuhan and additional cities in Hubei were then locked down by the Chinese government. By this time, we had already issued travel advisories for Wuhan, and extended our temperature screening at the airport to all incoming flights from China.
The infection continued to spread at a rapid pace, reaching several foreign countries and all provinces of China by 29 January 2020. The latest WHO report showed that there were more than 14,000 reported cases in China and 304 deaths. Twenty-three countries have also reported a total of 146 confirmed cases and one death. The number is changing every day.
Locally, we have 18 confirmed cases. Forty-three recently admitted suspect cases are pending test results while 240 suspect cases were tested and cleared. All of the confirmed cases are being treated in isolation rooms. Overall, the conditions of most of our confirmed cases are improving.
To date, there is no evidence of local community transmission. However, we should not be complacent and we must be prepared for this scenario.
Let me now share about what we know about this novel coronavirus. This virus comes from the family of coronavirus, which includes other viruses such as MERS and SARS, as well as the milder variants causing the common cold. The medical consensus at this moment is that the novel coronavirus is more transmissible, but appears less deadly than SARS.
Available evidence suggests that the rate of human-to-human transmission of this virus appears to be higher than that of SARS. For now, the evidence also suggests that transmission is mostly via droplets. What this means is that the virus is carried within droplets emitted from an infected person over a short distance, such as when the person coughs or sneezes. If these droplets come into contact with the eyes, nose or mouth of an individual, directly or indirectly through hands that have come into contact with these droplets, the individual may become infected.
To clarify, there is no evidence currently to suggest that the virus is airborne. There are other viruses, such as chickenpox, which can easily be transported via air currents and do not require droplets to contact the eyes, nose or mouth. The novel coronavirus is not in this category of viruses.
The novel coronavirus could also transmit through surface contact. Let me explain. When a person sneezes or coughs, the droplets fall onto the surfaces of tables and chairs, for example, and the virus may remain alive for up to a few days. When someone else touches the surfaces of these tables and chairs, the virus can be transferred to his hand and if he then rubs his eyes or nose without washing his hands, he may become infected. So, we should wash our hands. This is also why we only quarantine the close contacts of confirmed cases. For more transient contacts, such as individuals that the confirmed cases may have walked past in malls or hotels, the risk of transmission is low.
For coronaviruses generally, the person is most infectious when he is displaying symptoms or what you call symptomatic, and this is likely to be the case for the novel coronavirus as well. There is evidence of limited spread from a person without symptoms during the incubation period. However, this form of transmission may be uncommon and has so far involved isolated cases only. At this point, the evidence still points towards higher transmissibility when the person is displaying symptoms.
As such, medical professionals both overseas and in Singapore have advised that the most effective way that we can protect ourselves is to practise good personal hygiene. We should regularly wash our hands with soap and water, and avoid touching our face with our hands.
These may sound simple, but are actually very difficult to do because all of us touch our face all the time. Even in a meeting that we had with the Multi-Ministry Taskforce while I was speaking I was touching my face until Minister Lawrence Wong nudged me with his elbow and said, \"Stop touching your face\". So, it is simple but effective in preventing all kinds of infection. Potential infection from asymptomatic persons in fact is less likely to be from coughing or sneezing directly because they do not have symptoms such as sneezing or coughing, but more likely by touching contaminated surfaces, for which masks offer no protection. Wearing a mask when we are well often give us a false sense of security instead and we are more likely to touch our faces when we constantly adjust our masks, which is one way the disease spreads.
At the same time, we need to protect others – our loved ones, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans that we come into contact with. If we are sick, we should rest and recover at home as far as possible. If we do need to go out to see a doctor, for example, we should wear a surgical mask to protect others. So, this is when a mask is needed – when we are unwell and have to go out.
Persons exposed to the virus may be well for a few days before developing symptoms such as fever or cough. Some may develop pneumonia eventually. There is currently no known curative treatment for the novel coronavirus. Development of a successful cure may take time, maybe months or years. The current approach is to provide good supportive care for the patients to reduce complications and to allow time for the patient to recover.
The current case fatality rate stands at about 2% to 3%. Majority of the deaths are among those with underlying medical conditions. The fatality rate seems lower than SARS, which was around 10%. But we are still at the initial stages of the outbreak and the actual severity can only be assessed properly in time to come.
Regardless, the Government’s response has been, and will continue to be swift and decisive, to contain the spread of the virus here. Let me elaborate on the preparation we have made and measures that we have taken.
We have been preparing for the possibility of an infectious disease outbreak like this one, since SARS. We have been building capacity and capability in addressing infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, H1N1, and more recently Zika and Monkey Pox.
We had strengthened our epidemiological surveillance and containment capabilities and our agencies hold regular emergency preparedness exercises to keep themselves operationally ready. In addition, we have set up the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), a purpose-built facility to strengthen our ability to manage the outbreak of infectious diseases. It is benchmarked to international standards and best practices for treatment and safety. In April 2018, a Joint External Evaluation by the WHO experts stated that Singapore had demonstrated strong leadership and high capacity to detect and respond to potential public health emergencies.
We had followed the situation in Wuhan closely since December 2019 and we had responded rapidly, putting in place a series of measures to reduce the risk of import and spread of the virus since early January 2020. These include the implementation of temperature screening at the airport and we also alerted all our medical practitioners to be vigilant.
Once we saw a significant increase in confirmed cases in Wuhan, I decided that it was necessary to set up a Multi-Ministry Taskforce. I asked Minister Lawrence Wong to co-chair this, and invited the Deputy Prime Minister as our advisor. The Taskforce is to plan and coordinate whole-of-Government efforts so that we can mount a national response quickly and effectively. Representatives from Ministries of Home Affairs, Social and Family, Transport, Education, Manpower, Trade and Industry, Communications and Information, the Environment and Water Resources and the Labour Movement are all involved. The list is very long, but it is a reflection of the multi-agency coordination that is required.
As the global and local situation evolves, the Taskforce has stepped up our measures accordingly, taking into careful consideration relevant factors, including the impact on our society.
We had set up multiple lines of defence to reduce the risk of imported cases and local community transmission. We have been stepping up our posture and efforts at each line of defence.
First, we have measures that serve to prevent further importation of the virus into our shores. These include temperature and health screening at all checkpoints, land, sea and air, as well as international travel controls. Second, we have measures that help us to detect and contain the virus and prevent it from spreading further. We have good surveillance systems to identify cases. Our healthcare providers, especially our polyclinics and general practitioners are right at the front line. They are on heightened alert and stand ready to deal with cases as they emerge. Third, and perhaps most importantly, all of us must play our part and exercise social responsibility, to prevent or stem any possible spread of the coronavirus in the community. We should also be considerate for others around us and lend a hand as a community to support each other and stay united.
None of these measures on their own are fool-proof. But when taken together, they will improve our resilience and ability to respond to this disease.
Let me elaborate on the key role that the healthcare system plays in the defence of this novel coronavirus. Minister Wong will touch on the other measures.
Our healthcare providers play a key role in the detection and isolation of suspected and confirmed cases. Our frontline doctors, polyclinics, GPs and Emergency Department doctors are on high alert for persons with travel history and respiratory symptoms such as fever and cough. Such persons will be assessed, isolated and tested for the novel coronavirus. We will also test samples from our influenza surveillance systems and hospitalised pneumonia cases for novel coronavirus to pick up unlinked cases, if any.
Let me take the opportunity to provide an update on the confirmed and suspected cases.
All of our confirmed cases are Wuhan residents or persons who had recently travelled to Wuhan. There is no evidence of community spread in Singapore. Many of them stayed mostly at their hotels or with their family in their family's homes, and did not move around extensively. However, some of them did visit our tourism sites, such as Gardens by the Bay and Orchard Road, where any interactions would have been transient. The confirmed cases are being treated at various hospitals and their conditions are stable and most of them are improving.
With each confirmed case, we will conduct contact tracing. We will check on the health of these contacts and if they are unwell with fever, cough or other respiratory symptoms, they will be classified as suspected cases. We will arrange for them to go to hospitals via a dedicated ambulance for isolation and testing. For contacts that are well, we adopt a risk-based approach. For close contacts, they will be put under quarantine for 14 days since their last contact with the confirmed case. For other contacts, they will be put on active surveillance with daily health checks by MOH, as the risk of infection is lower for them.
The detection and management of suspect cases and proper care and isolation of these confirmed cases would not have been possible without our healthcare providers and professionals. They are our key partners in this war against the novel coronavirus.
Our polyclinics and GP partners play an important role in identifying and notifying MOH of any cases that meet the case definition so that they can be followed up. Dr Lam Pin Min and I recently met a group of GPs, including representatives from the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) and the College of Family Physicians Singapore (CFPS), to hear their feedback and see how we can support them.
Our hospitals will similarly isolate any individuals that present themselves at the emergency department who meet the case definition and test them to determine whether they are infected with the novel coronavirus.
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all our healthcare workers and their families. They have worked tirelessly over the last few weeks, missing their holidays or reunion dinners. They work very hard to keep Singaporeans and Singapore safe. Their families may also need to take over care-giving duties at home or make alternative arrangements as these healthcare workers work overtime to manage the cases.
Let me give you an example. Dr Margaret Soon, the Director of Nursing at NCID. She is an exemplary leader. She was a veteran from SARS, and an Infection Control Nurse. Dr Soon immediately rose to the occasion when we activated NCID. She led her team to prepare the isolation rooms, held townhalls to update the NCID nurses and ensured that her nurses had adequate essential supplies, such as protective gowns and masks. Throughout this period, she was out of the house before sunrise and mostly back only after her family had gone to asleep. She had to cancel a family trip during the Chinese New Year period, but her family understood and was supportive. This included her daughter, whom she was pregnant with during SARS. Stories of such dedication like Dr Soon's abound in our healthcare community.
I would also like to emphasise that there is no need to avoid our healthcare workers during this time. We have instituted strict safety policies and procedures in our hospitals and other healthcare providers. For example, healthcare workers managing cases are required to don personal protective equipment and this ensures that they are protected from the virus.
Instead, let us stand together, stand behind them and support them in this period. They may be our friends and family, or even strangers that we meet on the streets or public transport. A smile, a kind word or an encouraging message goes a long way to helping them keep their spirits up and know that we are behind them.
I am also very encouraged by our various community-led efforts. For example, Akram Hanif and his youth volunteers have been engaging a group of about 45 young adolescents and youths at Marsiling CC to instill in them good values and character. Akram had organised the kids to draw a banner to thank our frontline medical staff from Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) and encourage them to press on.
There could be a long road ahead. SARS took about eight months from the first detected case in November 2002 till the WHO declared the SARS outbreak contained in July 2003. We are not sure how long this virus will turn out. Therefore, we must stand ready to respond to new developments as the situation evolves.
There remain risks ahead and we are preparing for the various contingencies. Let me share some of these scenarios.
First, there could be community spread in more Chinese cities beyond Wuhan or in other countries. We may need to roll out additional measures to prevent the importation and to contain the virus. The decision to do so would again not be an easy one. We have to do what is necessary to protect the health and safety of our people and those who travel to Singapore.
Secondly, there could be community spread locally. Despite our best efforts, this is a possibility that we must be ready for. The key to managing this is quick detection and limiting further spread, which calls on social responsibility from all of us. If the infected Singaporean wears a mask to protect others, and promptly sees a doctor and gets triaged for testing, the risk of further spread can be greatly reduced. Even if there is spread, quick action will help to limit its extent. Once tested positive, the Government will contact trace quickly, helping to reduce further spread to their close contacts. If the community spread becomes very extensive, we will need to consider measures to reduce human-to-human interactions, such as cancelling mass gatherings, suspending schools, paring down non-essential care services and introducing further infection control and monitoring measures, to slow the spread.
Third, the virus could mutate to become more infectious and spread widely, resulting in a pandemic. This is the known unknowns. And we have to assess what best to do, depending on how the virus mutates. It may also become less infectious on the other hand and less severe, but it is a scenario that we worry about when it comes.
On the healthcare front, we are stepping up preparations for these potential scenarios. For example, we have increased our capacity of isolation beds by around 100 in the past two weeks. We have also been increasing our testing capacity, to enable us to more quickly confirm suspect cases.
Overall, we must stay calm, but cautious. Our early intervention efforts have helped to contain the spread so far, but while we hope for the best, we must plan for the worst.
Let me conclude by once again appealing to Singaporeans to work together with us in this fight. I am very heartened by the many examples of volunteers stepping forward to support our efforts. Indeed, this effort requires a whole-of-Singapore response.
I have elaborated on the public health measures that we have put in place. Minister Wong will elaborate on the other measures. We seek Singaporeans' understanding and cooperation.
I would also like to acknowledge once again our healthcare workers on the frontlines and commend them for their bravery and selflessness. Let us stand together and show our support for them.
We understand that Singaporeans may feel anxious, given the many unknowns about the novel coronavirus. Here, I want to reiterate the Government's firm commitment that we will spare no efforts in protecting our people. We will act swiftly and share information on the novel coronavirus openly and as soon as possible.
We have overcome several challenges as a nation in the past – SARS, H1N1 and Zika. In the face of this novel coronavirus, we have built up our defences, our capabilities, and we are stronger and more prepared. While we cannot be complacent, we must remain calm and confident. This is a fight that calls on every individual to do our part. We are confident that we can manage and overcome this challenge as a nation and emerge stronger together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Minister for National Development will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on both Statements after this Statement. Minister Wong.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health has spoken about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus situation and explained how we have prepared for this since SARS, as well as the public health measures that we have taken so far. I will now elaborate on the other aspects of the work of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce.
The Taskforce was formed just about two weeks ago, and we have been meeting almost daily since then to deal with a very fast moving and constantly changing situation. The novel coronavirus is a new virus, and medical experts everywhere are rushing to understand more about how it spreads, how severe it is and how it can be treated.
So, we constantly update our risk assessments based on the latest information and expert advice. We also look ahead to anticipate as best as we can how the situation will evolve and prepare for the possibility that things can worsen. That is why over the past week alone, we have had to adjust and update our measures several times. We owe it to every Singaporean to do our very best to protect all of us from the virus. So, in all that we do, the overall health and well-being of Singaporeans has been and will be our top priority.
As Minister Gan highlighted earlier, the measures we put in place are part of a broader system with multiple lines of defence. Our first line of defence against an infectious disease that occurs outside of Singapore is to put in place controls at the border to limit the spread of the virus and the number of imported cases here.
Infectious diseases do not respect borders. The world is more connected than before, with more people flying around and travelling than ever. And we have to be extra vigilant on this front because Singapore is an international travel hub, with more than 68 million people using our airport last year. So, a virus that comes through our airport will not only impact Singapore, but it can also easily spread through us to other countries in the region. That is why we have to be extra vigilant.
To protect against such an infectious disease outbreak when it happens outside of Singapore, we have a series of drawer plans and measures at the border. They range from the screening of in-bound travellers, to placing high-risk travellers into quarantine, as well as restricting travel for those who have recently been at high risk countries. And then, depending on the nature of the outbreak, we will assess the risks and put in place the appropriate measures.
This is the approach the Taskforce has taken in dealing with this virus. We first implemented temperature screening at Changi Airport for flights from Wuhan. And then, we expanded the screening to all flights from China, and also to our land and sea checkpoints. As an additional precaution, and because not all who are infected will show symptoms, we deployed healthcare teams at the aerobridge for all incoming flights from China to identify and pull aside passengers who look unwell.
At the same time, it helped that China had moved swiftly to impose restrictions on its own outbound travellers. It cancelled outbound tour groups. All of these measures helped to reduce the flow of people from China to Singapore. Typically, there will be about 14,000 PRC travellers flying in from China to Singapore every day. After the Chinese imposed outbound restrictions on 23 January, this number came down sharply by more than 80%, just through the Chinese measures alone.
Despite these measures, we recognised that there was still a flow of travellers coming in from China on a regular basis. We monitored this flow carefully and considered what additional actions were needed based on the evidence and risks. Early last week, when we saw the sharply accelerating trend of infection among the population of Chinese nationals from Hubei province, we knew we had to move. And that is why on 28 January, we decided to disallow all new visitors with recent travel history in Hubei.
But shortly after that, the situation changed again. While the majority of confirmed cases in China were still linked to Hubei province, it was evident that the virus had spread to every region of mainland China and there was a high risk of widespread community transmission in other parts of China. And so, on 31 January, last Friday, we decided to take the additional precaution of disallowing all new visitors with recent travel history in the rest of mainland China.
As part of these travel restrictions, ICA is no longer issuing new visas to those with PRC passports and suspending all such visas. That is because the vast majority of such travellers coming in for short visits would have been in China recently. But if there are PRC passport holders who have not been in China in the past 14 days, then ICA will be prepared to issue them a short-term visitor pass or to extend their short-term pass.
And that is why I had emphasised earlier that the travel restrictions are not tied to nationality, but are meant to restrict all travellers with recent travel history in China. This is necessary to reduce the flow of people coming from the source of the virus outbreak and to limit the number of imported cases coming into Singapore. That is our first line of defence at the border.
Beyond border controls, our second line of defence is to identify and isolate the people with the virus, as well as all of the close contacts of the infected persons. We have a well-established contact tracing procedure, which we put in place during SARS, and have continued to fine-tune through emergency exercises and through experiences dealing with previous outbreaks like MERS and H1N1.
As of 8.00 am today, we have 18 confirmed cases of the virus, all with recent travel history in Hubei, as Minister Gan mentioned earlier. Sixteen are PRC nationals, mostly here on short-term passes and the other two are Singaporeans, who were among the 92 who came back recently from Wuhan after the city was locked down. Beyond the confirmed cases, we have tested a broader group of 240 suspect cases, all of whom are negative; and then there are another 43 suspect cases, for which test results are pending.
All of the outstanding suspect cases have been isolated. The close contacts of the confirmed cases are also now on quarantine. In addition, we have been contacting the recent travellers from Hubei who are presently in Singapore and putting those of higher risk on quarantine.
As of last night, there are 524 persons under quarantine. Two hundred and twenty-two are in Government Quarantine Facilities (GQF), and 302 are serving quarantine at home. Persons under Quarantine are required to stay in their designated location at all times during the quarantine period. They cannot physically interact with others living in the same premise.
For each case, we will assess whether to quarantine the person at the GQF or to do so at the person’s home. In cases where the home is found to be suitable by MOH, then home quarantine would apply and we would use video calls, phone calls and regular spot checks to ensure that they remain in their assigned quarantined location. These are protocols that we have all worked out through SARs and fine-tuned over the years, as I mentioned. Persons who do not have a suitable residence for quarantine would then be housed in GQF and there are severe penalties for non-compliance of the Quarantine Order, including fines or jail.
Besides quarantine for close contacts and high-risk groups, we have also taken precautionary measures for recent travellers from other parts of mainland China, outside of Hubei, as I mentioned just now. Our assessment is that they are of lower risk compared to those who were recently in Hubei. So, for all such returning residents and long-term pass holders, we ask them to take a 14-day Leave of Absence (LOA) from the date of their return. This is one way to reduce their exposure when they are back and thus reduce the risk of community spread in Singapore.
Those on LOA are expected to remain in their residence as much as possible, minimise visitors and maintain a record of persons they come into close contact with. They also need to minimise time spent in public places and contact with others, monitor their health and temperature daily, and avoid crowded places or social gatherings. We have put out guidelines on what an LOA means just to ensure that anyone who is on LOA knows what they are expected to do. They may resume normal duties or activities only after they have served their LOA, if they remain well.
We have put in place measures like the Quarantine Orders and LOA to protect Singaporeans from the spread of the virus. Singaporeans must also do their part to cooperate. Some residents, upon learning that there is a person under home quarantine or LOA in the same apartment block, have asked that this person be moved elsewhere. We have also heard feedback of landlords stigmatising tenants based on their nationality, or worse, evicting PRC tenants who are taking their LOA.
I can appreciate that Singaporeans are very concerned about the well-being of themselves and their family members. But if landlords start turning tenants away, then our overall containment efforts will be much harder and we end up in endangering ourselves and others. The outcome would be completely counter-productive. So, we should not condone such irresponsible actions that will end up putting Singapore and Singaporeans at greater risk.
In such difficult times, we should not let our fears overwhelm us and cause us to overreact. Instead let us support each other and look out for one another, so that we can all get through this together.
This brings me to the third line of defence on community and individual responsibility.
The Government will do everything we can in this fight against the virus. Many of our officials are going beyond their usual duties to focus on this challenge. They include our healthcare and medical personnel at the frontline; ICA officers manning the checkpoints; Police and SCDF officers and auxiliary police screening incoming travellers and safeguarding persons under quarantine as well as the CAAS and MPA officers at airport and cruise terminals; and many, many more. The whole-of-Government officials are going all out to tackle this.
But all that is not enough. We need every Singaporean to play their part – to take all necessary precautions and to exercise individual and collective responsibility. For example, employers can help by ensuring their employees who have just returned from China stay at home under LOA. If anyone in the office is sick, employers should immediately ask them to see a doctor and stay at home to recover.
We also have a responsibility, in this time of heightened alert, not to spread unverified information or false news which can cause needless panic and fear. Unfortunately, in recent times, there have been various online posts and articles containing various falsehoods, for example, that we have run out of masks, that someone in Singapore has died from the virus, that Woodlands MRT station was shut for disinfection. These are all false – fake news – and fortunately, we now have POFMA to deal with these fake news. The Government has used POFMA to correct them and clarify the facts swiftly and we will continue to do so to avoid unnecessary panic and anxiety.
Even as we address false information, we have stepped up our efforts to provide everyone with timely and accurate information. We try to reach all segments of society through various platforms including broadcast media, display panels in HDB estates, Government websites and social media. We have been using Gov.sg WhatsApp to provide timely updates to Singaporeans in all our official languages. To-date, more than 300,000 have signed up for the service and I encourage anyone who has done so to subscribe and to get the latest verified information and advisories.
As the situation continues to evolve, we ask Singaporeans to continue turning to official or credible sources for accurate and up-to-date information. We ask Singaporeans to be discerning and share only verified information. Together, we can help prevent misinformation and falsehoods from sowing fear and causing panic in our society.
At the individual level, it is also essential that all of us continue to uphold good personal hygiene, as emphasised by Minister Gan just now. Wash our hands regularly with soap, do not touch our face with our hands; cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze. If you have flu-like symptoms, avoid public places and wear a mask on your way to the clinic, so that you do not risk infecting others. We have said these repeatedly but I think we should all continue to emphasise these points to get the message across.
This now brings me to the topic of masks – face masks. To prepare for any emergency, stockpiles of essential items are critical. Over the years, and learning from the experience of SARS and other crises, we have built up a stockpile of surgical and N95 masks.
But no stockpile is sufficient if we do not use the supplies judiciously. In the nine days leading up to end of 29 January, the Government released more than five million masks from our stockpile to the retailers. All were snapped up in a matter of hours. But still there were people who were not able to get access to a mask.
At the same time, with the virus spreading to countries all over the world, there is now a global scramble for masks. Producers around the world are struggling to keep pace with the demand. And some places like Taiwan have even banned the export of masks. We have existing contracts from various producers to replenish our stockpile. But in light of the current situation, we have to seriously consider the risks of our supply lines being disrupted.
Because of the rapid consumption rate that we had seen earlier and the potential threat to our supply lines, we decided to change the method of distribution of masks from our national stockpile. And that is why firstly, we slowed the supply of masks to retailers and prioritised the masks for essential services, namely our frontline healthcare workers. Secondly, for the general public, we decided to release masks directly from the stockpile to households, so that every family will have access to a mask should someone in the family fall sick and need to use one to see a doctor.
The nationwide distribution of masks was a major exercise in its own right. We mobilised the SAF and People's Association for this task and they all did a sterling job. Within a very short turnaround time, the SAF had completed the packing of over five million masks and delivered them to our collection points. Our PA staff and grassroots organisations then took over to set up collection centres at CCs and RC centres, and to man the collection counters. Even GovTech chipped in and came up with a \"maskgowhere\" website, where you can just key in your postal code to get information on where and when to collect the masks. The collection of masks started on 1 of February, on Saturday, and to-date more than 200,000 packs, or 15% of the total, have been collected. I would like to record my thanks to the SAF, to the People's Association and all who have been involved in the smooth and speedy execution of this on-going exercise.
Let me reiterate once again that there are sufficient supplies of masks in Singapore, as long as they are used responsibly. So let us all do our part to ensure the sustainability of our mask stockpile, so that our frontline healthcare workers will have the necessary supplies to carry out their work.
It has been slightly over a month since the virus outbreak in China and businesses are already feeling the impact – businesses here in Singapore. Depending on how the situation evolves, the impact to the economy can further broaden and intensify. The Government will therefore extend support and help for our companies and workers.
We already provide a quarantine allowance to Singapore-based businesses to cover their employees who are quarantined, and to self-employed Singaporeans and PRs who are in quarantine. MOM and NTUC will also work closely with employers to support any affected workers and to protect their livelihoods. In addition, MSF is working with the community and grassroots organisations to reach out to Singaporeans and PRs under quarantine. We will provide ComCare financial assistance and social support to those in need to tide through this difficult period.
Finally, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng said on Saturday, the Government will provide targeted support to the sectors that have been more directly impacted – including tourism and transport, and related industries and firms. In fact, the Singapore Tourism Board has already announced the first set of measures for this sector, including the waiver of licensed fees for hotels, travel agents and tour guides. Besides these specific sectors, we recognise that there will be knock-on impacts on related industries in the event of a broad-based slowdown. So, we are working out a package of measures to help viable companies stay afloat and to help workers stay in their jobs. This package of measures will be announced during the Budget.
As I have said at the start, we need all Singaporeans to stand united in this fight against the coronavirus. In a situation like this, fear is sometimes as great a threat to us as the disease itself. We must not allow such fears to paralyse our society. We must never allow our prejudices and fears to pull apart our society or foster greater division and suspicions. As we did in SARS and other previous challenges over the years, let us find strength and confidence in one another – the strength to carry on with our lives and to support each other and defeat this virus together.
I cited some examples of irresponsible behaviours earlier by landlords chasing out tenants on LOAs. Unfortunately, there are other examples, too – people hoarding and profiteering from the sale of masks; people spreading falsehoods online. Recently, a WhatsApp message has been going around with a list of places to avoid, completely ignoring the fact that any place exposed to a confirmed case will be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected, under supervision by NEA. But, still, a list of places to avoid is spread and that creates fear and a perception that people should avoid these places. Anti-PRC sentiment has also emerged amongst some groups. Online, you can see posts directed against PRC nationals. On the ground, you hear reports of discrimination against PRC nationals, whether it is landlords denying them their tenancy or service providers denying them service. Such actions are not helpful and they have no place in our society. We are bigger than this in Singapore and I hope all of us here in this House, regardless of political party, and every Singaporean will stand together and we will all do our part to confront and condemn such prejudice and discrimination wherever they exist.
But I am glad that these behaviours are still in the minority. They are not representative of the vast majority of Singaporeans. There are many more out there who have been showing us the best of Singapore at work. They are quietly helping their fellow citizens in their own ways. For example, at a recent house visit, I met a resident and asked if he had collected his masks and he replied that he did not need them and asked for his package of masks to be given to others who are in greater need of them. I am sure many Members here would have encountered similar residents giving such feedback. Over the weekend, too, we have seen residents who have spontaneously stepped forward, volunteering either by themselves or even with their children alongside them, to man the mask collection points as well as to distribute the masks to the homes of their more vulnerable neighbours, especially those with mobility issues.
Many Singaporeans are also doing their part through many selfless acts to support those who are affected. In NUS and NTU, the students are helping their friends on leave of absence by delivering food three times a day to them. On top of the food, they are helping to pack and deliver welfare packs, including items like snacks and hot drinks. At NUS, I understand that students are even organising a 24-hour e-gaming tournament to keep the students on LOA occupied.
We see shining examples of selfless acts by Singaporeans in the Scoot pilots and crew of TR121 who volunteered to fly the 92 Singaporeans from Wuhan despite the risks to themselves. Two MFA officials volunteered for this assignment despite the risks and are being quarantined when they came back. Most of all, we see Singaporeans from all walks of life carrying on with their lives with courage and calmness. In every sector, our friends from the media are busy covering the news. I am seeing them almost every day these days and you see them busy on the ground, correspondents still in China covering the news, providing us with with up-to-date information so that we are familiar with the facts and the latest developments. Our frontline workers, those in our healthcare institutions, our healthcare workers, workers at our checkpoints and our airports, our transport workers, all carrying on with their lives quietly, doing whatever they can to fight this virus. So, I want to thank everyone for showing that Singaporeans can rise to this occasion and overcoming this challenging situation together.
This is the Singapore Spirit which will enable us to prevail against the virus. At this point, no one can tell for sure how the situation will develop or how long this will last. But I am confident that we will succeed in this fight, if we stand united as an effective Government, a cohesive people and a resolute nation.
Mr Speaker, we can and will overcome this challenge together.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I thank the two Ministers for their very comprehensive updates. I have two supplementary questions.
First, could the Task Force update us on how many Singaporeans remain in China? And if there are any confirmed cases of Singaporeans remaining in China but outside of Hubei who may have contracted novel coronavirus, are there any plans for further evacuations from China?
My second question relates to the state of the economy. While Mr Lawrence Wong has indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister will announce a slew of measures in the Budget Statement, however, can the Government provide an update at the moment of the scale of the impact on our economy so far and also the possible total impact for the coming financial year? And if the situation worsens, what can SMEs do, especially businesses which are affected at the moment by supply from China as well as their workers still being in China? What can they do in the short term?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we have been in touch with the Chinese authorities and also with all the Singaporeans who are in Wuhan. Our Beijing Mission is in touch with them. So, in the last exercise, there were about 90-plus Singaporeans and four of them were unable to come back because they had already shown symptoms: one was hospitalised and three of them had shown symptoms and they were deemed not fit to fly. So, 92 came back. That was in the last exercise. The vast majority of this group had come back.
We believe that there are still about 140 Singaporeans in Wuhan now. Most of them have spouses who may not be Singaporeans. So, they have either chosen to remain in China for the time being or they would like to come back but we have to work out arrangements because it is not so straightforward, being married to non-Singaporeans. So, we are still in touch with the Chinese authorities to see what else can be done for the group of people who wish to come back and we are also in touch with the Singaporeans directly.
On whether there are any Singaporeans outside of Hubei who have been infected with the virus, we do not know of anyone at this point in time.
On the scale of the impact on the economy, we are monitoring this very carefully. I think we are only seeing the initial brunt of it now because, with the viral situation continuing to grow, with the travel restrictions and the situation continuing to escalate, I am sure the impact will not only be for the sectors that are directly impacted, like trade, transport and tourism, but there will be knock-on impacts. China's own economy will slow down and the global economy will slow down. So, there will be an overall impact on the economy. That is why I said we are studying this very carefully to develop a series of measures and a strong package in the Budget to help companies and workers. In the interim, wherever we can, we will develop and quickly roll out initiatives to help firms without having to wait for the Budget. STB has already put up one set of initiatives and we are in the midst of studying if more can be done.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I would like to pose two questions to the Minister for Health. First: what would his comments be for those employees who seek certification on being free from the novel coronavirus in order to go back to work? Second: is there a shortage of ambulance services right now because, lately, GPs have had to wait many hours for such services for emergency and novel corona suspected cases?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her two very useful questions. I can expect her to raise very important questions like these.
First, on the certificate for coronavirus-free individuals. Actually, there is no such thing as a coronavirus-free certification. The reason is because we test the patient based on his viral load and there is an incubation period during which the patient may have very low or zero viral load. But at the same time, because it is the incubation period, the virus may emerge later on. Therefore, at any point in time, when we test a person, when it is negative, it does not mean that he is virus-free. He may be virus-free at that moment, but he may already have been infected but is within the incubation period. So, it is not possible for our hospital or for any screening centre to give a certificate that this person is virus-free. We can only say that, for this moment in time, the test shows no virus detectable in his bloodstream. But the virus can emerge the following hour or the following day. Therefore, it is not possible to give a free-from-disease certificate, as what Dr Lily Neo was alluding to.
I would also like to take this opportunity to urge employers not to send their workers to our hospitals for testing in order to certify their workers as virus-free. As I have explained, first, it is not possible for such certification to be issued; second, you are simply loading our hospitals unnecessarily. So, the best way to do it is to monitor yourself if you have been exposed to contacts, or, if you have come back from China, monitor your own health for 14 days. This is the incubation period. If there are any symptoms, wear a mask as you go to see a doctor and tell the doctor your travel history, that you have been to Wuhan or you have been to China, so that all these factors can be taken into account when we assess the patient. But please do not go to the hospital to ask for blood tests in order to get a certificate that you are free from coronavirus. It is just not possible for such certificates to be issued and you will just load the hospital unnecessarily.
Secondly, Dr Neo asked about ambulance services. We have ramped up our ambulance services in order to respond to this outbreak situation. And these ambulances are used to convey those who are suspected cases because we want to make sure that they are protected and isolated while we are transporting them to hospital for testing. In the initial first few days, there were some organisational difficulties among the service operators. We have sat down and discussed with them and the logistics are managed better now. Sometimes, when there is a peak, it may take a while, few minutes, an hour, but we try to respond as soon as possible. We have also set up a hotline for the doctors to call. This is operated by our College of Family Physicians that we help to answer queries, whether it is ambulance or any other thing. So, we do recognise that, in the initial days, we do have some logistics difficulties in organising our ambulance responses. And every time we change our case definition, it is also quite natural that it will suddenly have a larger number of suspected cases because, when you change the definition, the definition will include a bigger catchment and, therefore, we will need to adjust our logistics support accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first question I have is for Minister for Health. Do we have enough healthcare workers and professionals to help manage patient cases in NCID and the hospitals in this period of heightened healthcare alert seeing to the increased demand and work stresses on them?
And for our own healthcare workers and professionals, do they have sufficient rest and enough social and emotional support for their own well-being? The third question is are we able to activate volunteer healthcare workers to pitch in if and when the need arises.
Mr Speaker, I have another two questions meant for Minister for Education but I am not sure whether it should be addressed to Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Speaker: If it is related to the topic, please feel free to surface.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: It is related to schools. Are there any specific or additional measures in schools, particularly for pre-schoolers and Primary school children who may not always be aware or practise proper personal hygiene as we try to educate Singaporeans in this? And will there be a postponement or review of overseas school tours or trips seeing that there are other similar virus outbreaks beyond the 2019 novel coronavirus, for example, the avian flu or H5N1 virus outbreak in Hunan, China as well as in Chhattisgarh, India?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Let me address the first question and maybe Minister Ong, with the permission of the Mr Speaker, can address the second question. On the manpower requirements, yes, in fact there is a heightened need for manpower because of the intensity that we are going through – testing of the cases, quarantining them and managing them; and the management is quite intensive as you can imagine. We also need to look after the suspect cases to detect signs of infection when they occur. We require a lot of manpower and the rest of healthcare needs need to continue to be met.
Therefore, we have been working with our clusters to ensure that there is sufficient manpower and to make sure that their schedules are also properly looked at. I reminded the group CEOs just recently that we need to plan for the long term. It is not dash to the end point because we need to be prepared that this may take months. Therefore, whatever duty schedules, rosters and so on have to be planned on a sustainable basis to ensure there is sufficient turnaround and sufficient rest given to our doctors, healthcare workers so that they are able to sustain in the long term. So, these are part of our plans. We do have contingency plans in place to ensure that we have sufficient manpower to cater to situations like these.
In terms of volunteer manpower, yes, this is also part of the plan for our clusters, our hospitals to call back some of the volunteers. Some of those who are on leave also volunteered to come back and have said, \"Why not I come back and help to supplement the manpower\". So, I think, all these are in place and as we go along we will continue to augment our manpower resources.
But at the same time, part of the plan is to see how we can re-organise ourselves into an emergency crisis mode, an outbreak mode, so that we can operate differently. Some of the medical care that is non-urgent, some of the elective procedures, for example, may need to be postponed. We may manage them in a different way so as to lighten the load on our core medical manpower.
All this is part and parcel of our contingency plans. We have the plans in place.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong.
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, may I answer Dr Intan's question, please.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On pre-schools and schools, over the weekend, educators have worked really hard. They have developed a package, a syllabus, to teach students about what the viruses are, how they are transmitted and what we can do about it to prevent transmission. The lessons covered are what both Minister Gan and Minister Wong have described just now, on how it transmits. Therefore, two things you need to do, which is that you need to wash your hands with soap and not touch your face. You just touch your face, Dr Intan. [Laughter.]
When you think about it, it becomes very hard to do. When you do not think about it, I think it is easier. Stop thinking about \"I should not touch my face\" or you will keep touching it.
We want to tell students that in this fight with the nCoV virus, we are going to fight it with our hands – by washing them regularly and keeping them away from our face. The intention is also to give the students some homework to bring home and tell their parents. Likewise, we want to do it in pre-schools as well.
As for overseas trips, all overseas trips to China have now been postponed, from Primary schools to all the way to tertiary. Yes, there are cases sprouting out in other parts of the world. We will monitor them. So far the cases are not many. But we will watch the situation carefully.
Last week alone, we made three major decisions because the Taskforce met every day to monitor the situation. Every day is different. We have to look at the facts and make the decisions decisively. So, likewise these are things that we will continue to monitor.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Ministers and the Taskforce for their comprehensive responses. Indeed, fear is a greater threat to us in such a time as this. There are residents currently living near the Government quarantine facilities. And they have expressed concerns about being near the folks who are asked to stay in these centres. If things should get worse, there could be more quarantine facilities. Can I seek Minister's views and assurance that the residents need not be fearful of any spread from these centres, even as we all believe that we are all in this together? That is my first question.
My second question is this: for Minister for Education, we know the mask is not effective for everything and hygiene is most effective. Currently, most of the masks found in the marketplace and distributed are adult sized. There are parents and staff in schools who are concerned that should there be a need, is there a supply of masks of smaller sizes. Because some of the masks are so big, they cover the whole face of the children. I would like to seek Minister's views on that.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I will ask Minister Lawrence Wong to answer the question on the quarantine facilities. On the masks, it is a more general question for children's masks. As we mentioned or explained multiple times, the mask is to protect the person not wearing the mask. So, the mask is prevent the cough and sneezes from the person who is sick. So, for that purpose, for younger children the mask can be used because it is just preventing them from spitting out their sputums or their sneezes, to prevent the droplets from going out. With some adjustments, the masks can be used for younger children. And if they really cannot be used, then what you should do is to use a handkerchief or whatever to cover the mouth to prevent it from spitting out and to observe hygiene: if you do that, please wash your hands.
If you have to go to the hospital or clinic to see a doctor, you can use a mask. If the child is sick and if there is no need to go out, please do not take him out. Keep him at home so that he can rest and recover as soon as possible.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan asked me to read this. He said while I was giving my speech, he had observed out 13 out of 41 Members of Parliament sitting opposite us, touching your faces within the 25 minutes. Therefore, touching face is not easy to avoid, but please wash your hands. So, it was not just Dr Intan, I just wanted to clarify. Between then and now, another 13 would have done it. So, please just observe personal hygiene, wash your hands regularly. That will protect yourself and protect many people.
Mr Speaker: I will only take Questions from those who do not touch their face. Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I can confirm to Ms Denise Phua's question that there is no need to fear having a Government quarantine facility nearby or even having somebody within the same apartment block subject to home quarantine. Firstly, we have to be mindful that anyone who is in quarantine is not an infected person. They are not. They have been exposed so they are of some risk. Yes, they have been subject to some exposure perhaps through close contacts, perhaps they have been back home from China recently, particularly in Hubei, so we want them to be quarantined just to be safe. But we should not assume automatically that anyone in quarantine is infected. They are not.
Number two, when they are in quarantine, there are strict protocols and procedures to ensure that they stick and they remain within the place of quarantine. I mentioned a few things that we do – phone calls, video calls, spot checks, a whole range of things for home quarantine. In the quarantine facilities, there are also strict parameters. These people will be within the location where they are quarantined. They will not be able to wonder about so easily.
Thirdly, there are also some fear that let us say there is a person nearby under quarantine, yes, quarantine is safe, but if there is some chance that this person later on is found to be infected then he may have moved around; then this is fear somehow that I mentioned on WhatsApp avoid coming to this place. I do not know if I have touched objects or places around me or contaminated, and if I touch them I might get sick. So, thirdly, whenever there is a confirmed case, there is a thorough cleaning and disinfection process to make sure the place is entirely cleaned and disinfected; and NEA supervises that.
With all these measures in place, we should continue to assure Singaporeans there is no need to be fearful or to overreact due to fear or panic. In fact, this is critical because if the situation were to escalate, as Minister Gan said, we have to be prepared for things to get worse. We have to be prepared for more cases in Singapore even for community spread. If that to happen, we do need quarantine facilities and Singaporeans all have to cooperate and we seek their understanding that this is an essential part of ensuring that we can get through situation together.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My clarification is for Minister Lawrence Wong, on whether he can elaborate on what Singaporeans who are returning from China through Changi Airport can expect. The reason I am asking this is I have a resident who came back from Wuhan but through another airport and he is currently under home quarantine with his family. He told me that it was a very stressful experience for him and his family at the airport because he and his family with young children were basically kept in a locked room for about four hours waiting for vehicles to arrive to bring them back and so on. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate about what Singaporeans coming back through the airport, through the Chinese routes can expect, whether the processing time of four hours for example is normal or has it been more streamlined? And whether passengers coming from Hubei and other airports are treated differently?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, anyone coming back from Hubei, Wuhan, basically Hubei province would be deemed to be of higher risk. And therefore anyone coming back, we would want them to be isolated and quarantined. There are these processes in place. Can we improve them, can we make the waiting time shorter? I am sure the agencies are going all out to see how it can be streamlined and improved, but we hope Singaporeans and travellers in this category would understand. First of all, for new arrivals we have already stopped the flow. But Singaporeans, PRs and long-term pass holders can still come back. And if you are coming back from Hubei, you are of a higher risk and we will want you to be isolated and quarantined. There will be some inconvenience but please bear with us while we work through the process and see if these processes can be continued to be improved.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, on the quarantine allowance, over the week, we have spoken to some taxi drivers and private hire drivers, they are very assured that if anyone of them is quarantined there is a $100 daily allowance given by the Government. For employees who have Leave of Absence in which employers pay for them when they are on leave but for the self-employed there is this element whereby if I am at home for 14 days I do not have the income. That may be some concern to the self-employed. So, perhaps we can consider some calibrated support for this group of self-employed individuals who may be on leave of absence. They will self-quarantine themselves at home but let us see how we can help them tide through this period.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we are aware of this feedback from the groups that under Leave of Absence because they are doing this on advisory with their employers, or if they are self-employed, then they are doing it themselves. There is quarantine allowance and they are seeking some help. So, we are mindful of the feedback. We are studying if there are some immediate measures that can be put in place to support and help them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. The first death outside of China was reported in Philippines. I just want to ask for an update from the Minister on the 18 patients who are currently under observation, what is their health situation? Have they improved? What is happening to them?
And in Thailand, the doctors have apparently come up with a cure, an antidote for the virus. Can this news be verified? What hopes can we have on such a cure being found? Some are saying that there are no cure virus and so on. So, perhaps the Minister can share on that.
And the next supplementary question, xenophobic tendency and sentiments have surfaced around the world. In Singapore's context, we are a small country, how can we safeguard ourselves from having such tendency in the public?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I will deal with the first two questions and I will leave it to Minister Lawrence Wong to deal with the last question.
First, on the status of the 18 confirmed cases, I gave an update in my speech earlier. All of them are isolated and being supported in our hospitals. Most of them are improving and we hope to be able to see a discharge soon. But that is something that we are working towards. We will continue to provide them with support.
Currently, there is no known curative treatment. That means, we are not able to definitively cure a person. There will be news of possible discoveries because scientists are working overtime to make sure to put in efforts to discover ways to contain the virus and treat the virus and also to prevent the virus through vaccines. So, I think vaccines and curative treatment are being looked into. But I think it will take time to develop the method and to also test the treatment to make sure that they are effective and safe for patients. So, I think it is not going to happen overnight. It may take quite a while before we see a curative treatment being determined. During this period, I think it is better for us to focus on how we can manage, contain the spread and put in the necessary measures to protect our population.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Member said anti-PRC sentiments are showing up everywhere in the world, arising from this virus outbreak. And as I mentioned in my speech just now, we see this in Singapore too. How can we deal with this? As I mentioned just now, all of us should take a united stand to condemn such prejudices or discriminatory behaviours or actions whenever we see them.
For specific cases, let us say it is a landlord that is taking a very irresponsible action to evict a tenant without any basis, then we will see if some actions can be taken against the landlord because again, doing something like this, is not just an individual action. It can have repercussions on our whole containment efforts and can be ultimately harmful to all of us. So, for specific actions, we will look at them and we will engage the landlord and we will see if tougher action needs to be taken. But for the overall tone of society, I think we need everyone to speak up, to voice up and we need every Singaporean to do their part to condemn such behaviour.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Minister. I just have one question. I would like to ask how are the countries including China responding to the ban on all travellers with recent travel history to China.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, given the way the virus is spreading and the way the situation is unravelling, I think I believe China understands why some of these restrictions are needed. China itself has restricted its own people from travelling outside of China precisely because they do not want to spread this virus to other countries. So, they too, see the need and recognise the need for travel restrictions on its own people and to contain the virus in China. So, what we and many other countries that have put in place similar restrictions are doing, are really complementary to China's own actions. It is in all of our interest, be it China, Singapore or any other country. It is in our collective interest to tackle this situation together as a global community in order to limit the spread of the virus and contain it as much as possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, in addition to the needed domestic effort to minimise the risks of community spread, how is the Government working with our Singapore health force to find solutions to the global emergency, in terms of vaccines and the collation of medical discoveries and best practices to contain the virus? Such solutions aid Singaporeans, the region and the wider community of nations.
Secondly, while we are putting in measures to minimise the risks of a community spread of the Wuhan coronavirus, what are the protocols in place should the situation translate into serious community spread?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I could not quite get the first question. Could the Member repeat that?
Mr Christopher de Souza: Essentially, how is Singapore also being part of the solution to find solutions to the global emergency in terms of vaccines, medical discoveries and best practices to contain the virus so that Singaporeans benefit; the region and the wider global community of nations, benefit.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. There are collaborative efforts between our research institutions to look for a solution both in terms of treatment as well as vaccines. The first step is to better understand the virus and how it evolves and how it behaves so that we can then develop appropriate vaccines.
There is already on-going collaboration and we continue to explore opportunities. These collaborations are between our research institutions as well as companies who are involved in some of these development of vaccines. There are on-going platforms for this collaboration.
WHO and the various international organisations also provide platforms for sharing of knowledge and information. China, for example, has, very early on, already sequenced the virus and it was posted on the WHO website so that all the research institutions globally can have access to the sequencing, so that they are able to carry out their own research and enhance the knowledge and understanding of the virus.
This area is quite vibrant and we have quite a few entities that are involved. Some of them, of course, involves commercial undertaking and therefore, there will be some commercial sensitivity as well. There are avenues for this to continue and we want to also encourage more collaboration globally.
The second question is: what are the protocols involved in a community spread. It depends on the different types of community spread. The first possibility is a very limited community spread, meaning it could spread from person A to person B, and then person B passes it on to person C. So, person C has no direct relationship to person A. And therefore, it is a secondary transmission. It is also a form of community transmission but this transmission is likely to then be quite limited to one or two generations. If we are able to react quickly, able to contain patient C and patient B, then we will be able to contain the spread. For example, if patient C is a contact of patient B, and we are able to trace patient C once we identified patient B, even it has been transmitted to patient C, then we are still able to say that patient C is probably contained. And therefore, the likelihood of a wide spread community transmission is less likely.
But there is a also a scenario which I mentioned in my speech, where there is widespread community transmission, meaning there will be multiple clusters of infection where there is no clear links to any source of infection. And therefore, you would then assess that it may be transmitting from one person to another quite directly and there is no way for us to have contact tracing for them because they have many, many contacts.
In such a situation, you may then need to assess what is the landscape at that time, what are the risks that are involved. As I mentioned in my speech, we may have to begin to look at how we can reduce or restrict human-to-human interaction. One example is to cancel or terminate all the major gatherings where you have thousands and thousands of people, as well as to minimise the risks of transmission. There is also the possibility that we may suspend some schools or all schools, depending on the situation so as to minimise the interaction of children at schools as well as the parent interaction. These are all possibilities. But exactly which steps we are going to introduce will depend on the exact nature of the community spread.
We have a framework of various options that are available and each of them will be deployed depending on the situation prevailing at that point in time. One of the roles or duties of the Taskforce is to make an assessment as the situation evolves and decide what are the appropriate measures to introduce when the time comes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to thank the two Ministers for their Statements. Just two supplementary questions, I believe, for Minister Wong.
The first one is, there is, of course, a Price Control Act (PCA) and there were reports of traders of masks who were profiteering, charging very high prices. I understand that the Price Controller has written to some of them. And, of course, as economists all know, using price controls has its downside and its risks. You can create \"black markets\" and so on. But for exceptional and crisis situations like this, is deploying the PCA to actually put price controls in place, using this legislation, something that the Government will consider, in future, just for limited periods of time?
My second supplementary question is with regard to the method of distribution of masks, I would like to ask the Government to share its considerations behind why the masks were not mailed out rather than collection being made at different collection points. There has been some discussion around around this. There could be some advantages to mailing out masks in terms of not encouraging people to cluster together and so on. I believe that there was an exercise in 2014 when some organisations mailed out N95 masks during the haze period. So, there is a precedent there. I just wanted to understand the thinking a bit more and whether mailing out of masks is something that might be done in future, if such cases arise.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as the Member would have read from the media reports, the Price Controller has indeed already a letter of demand (LOD) to one platform provider requesting for more information in order to assess the need for further action under the Price Control Act. Letters of demand (LODs) have also been sent to other e-commerce platforms like Lazada and Carousell to request information on any potential profiteers on their platform. So, we will not rule out any option at this stage.
The Price Controller is pursuing, investigating, getting more information and, if need be, more actions can be taken.
But, as of now, I would say, looking at the prices, some of these platform providers have cooperated. I heard recently that some of them have even removed some of these listings with very exorbitant prices. So, anyway, the Price Controller is on top of this. It is following up on the matter and it will consider actions that need to be taken against profiteering.
On the second supplementary question, we had deliberated over this and we felt that if you were to distribute masks via post, there may well be wastage because some households will not need the masks. Like I have mentioned earlier, even in the collection exercise, when we go around and residents come to us, they say, \"Actually, please, I do not need the masks. I am not going to collect it. You save it, either for your stockplile or you give it to someone else.\" So, in that sense, a collection exercise would be a more prudent way of distributing masks.
And to address the concern of people gathering together, we had decentralised the distribution points to void decks, RC centres. It is proceeding in a very orderly fashion. If you go to any of these collection centres now, there are no queues. There are designated times to pick up the masks so there is no large crowds at all in any of them. People are just picking up as and when they are free during the designated times. So, based on the exercise that we have done so far, I would say this distribution method is more effective.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, my question is for Minister Gan Kim Yong. He mentioned that if there is widespread community spread, we may have to close the schools and I suppose even the pre-schools. But there are actually families where both parents are working and it is very difficult for them to take time-off to look after the kids and we do not know how long this will last. So, when we announce any school closure, will we also announce what are the alternatives that will be available to these parents?
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I think Minister Gan is doing the right thing to paint future scenarios that are possible that we should be prepared for, so it is not as if we are going to do it straightaway, but I think it is something we have to consider, to prepare plans taking into account the considerations that Mr Yee Chia Hsing has mentioned.
Bear in mind that when SARS was at its height, we did suspend schools for a couple of weeks. If it comes to that, if we have do it, we have to do it. But I think we have to look at the data, look at the evidence, look at the situation and take into account all considerations before making any decisions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, maybe I can just supplement what Minister Ong just said. I think the question from Mr Yee highlights an important point, that for every measure that we contemplate about introducing, there will always be an impact on the society. And therefore, we have to evaluate and assess every measure very carefully, taking into account the impact on society, as I have mentioned in my speech. None of the decisions or measures are easy. We are always weighing the pros and cons, and eventually, we have to decide what makes sense for us.
So, I would assure Mr Yee that when we make a decision, whether it is school suspension or any other decision, we will always take into account the impact on individuals, on the society, on different groups of people. We want to make sure that for those who are affected, we do our best to help them address their concerns and their problems.
Mr Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): I thank the Ministers. My question is: in the event if we need to step up to using N95 masks because there is wide community spread or for future viral outbreaks, how do you ensure that the public are fitted with the right model of N95 masks? Because what is being done in the healthcare institutions is we actually go for mask fitting test to ensure that there is optimal protection, because different models fit different face shapes and the public may not be aware of this.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member. I think it is an important question. Maybe I should explain that in the event of widespread community transmission, wearing N95 masks is probably not the solution. N95 masks are generally used by the healthcare professionals. We have used it for the haze. In fact, we have kept telling people that you do not need the mask for the haze. Anyway, people still wear them for the haze. Therefore, as Ms Irene Quay has mentioned, if you do not fit it properly, the mask really does not protect you. In fact, we are most likely going to introduce social distancing, as I mentioned, manage the crowd gathering, minimising human-to-human interaction, rather than to introduce the N95 mask for general use.
If need be, we will carry out the necessary education, to reach out to Singaporeans to explain to them how to protect themselves. I think to teach each of them how to wear the N95 mask to be as effective as in the healthcare environment is going to be quite difficult and you may end up giving them a false sense of security. And as a result, you may end up with more infections, which is counter-productive. I would say that the N95 mask is not going to be the main focus for outbreak control, if there is extensive community transmission.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I have a question for Minister Gan. I read with concern the reports of infection of healthcare workers in China today. During SARS, we too had doctors and nurses working with infected patients, getting infected themselves. So, I think in today's context, can the Minister share: what measures are taken today to better protect our healthcare workers, especially those in the frontline taking care of the patients who are infected?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Healthcare workers are one of our most important resources in a disease outbreak like this, and they are right at the frontline, they are facing the disease and the patients every day, every hour, and therefore we need to make sure that they have adequate protection.
Despite the best protection, in some cases, healthcare workers are infected. In cases like in China, for example, and very often, this happens at the initial stage of the outbreak because healthcare workers are unfamiliar with the virus, they may not understand that it is infectious or it is as infectious as we are seeing, so therefore the precautions may not be adequate. As time progresses, when we get to know the virus better, I think the protection measures will be enhanced.
For us in Singapore, we have stepped up our protective measures and I think, particularly because we have gone through the experience of SARS and several other disease outbreaks. These are very painful lessons in our memory, and therefore our healthcare institutions have exercised extra caution when they deal with these infected patients.
In our National Centre for Infectious Diseases, for example, there are well-established protocols, including monitoring of how you put on your Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or how you take it off. There is also a second person monitoring how you do it to make sure that you follow every step carefully. Once you miss a step and are exposed, you will have to be quarantined to make sure that you are not infected.
Our healthcare workers and our healthcare institutions are very mindful of the risks that are involved. Our frontline workers, those who are in the Emergency Department, our General Practitioners (GPs), they are also very alert to the potential risks. As soon as patients arrive at their clinic, they will be triaged. If they have potential risk of contamination, they will put them aside, give them a mask to wear so that they do not contaminate others.
These are the practices that have been put in place, but whatever precautionary measures we have put in place, we must be very mindful and be very cautious. If we are careless, none of these measures will help us. Therefore, we constantly remind our healthcare workers to remember to be cautious, to protect themselves, and, at the same time, protect the patients.
Mr Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was involved in managing patients during SARS. Seventeen years later, I am still involved in managing patients at the frontline with this coronavirus outbreak. I have to say that we have been working with MOH over the years and I would like to applaud MOH on its communications, coordination and also performance now, 17 years down the line. I have to say that we are performing at top-notch. So, thank you to all the MOH staff and also all the people who are working long hours behind the scenes.
One of the things that has been very, very useful for us is the MOH surveillance hotline, which operates 24 hours. I am able to call them 24 hours, anytime, to check on locations as well as quarantine orders and any other information. I hope that MOH can continue with this as long as we need it, even beyond that. That is the first point.
The second point is essentially about publicity and also perhaps education for people who are coming forward. We have got employers who are saying that these two air-con repairmen have gone to the room where there was a suspected case. They are asymptomatic but the employers have asked them to come to the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital to be assessed. Of course, we will assess and send them away to the GPs because we do not want to overload the hospital.
Perhaps we can do more education for people like these. We understand the concerns and the worry that the public may have and people who may have been so called spin-offs or been associated in some indirect way with people who may have been suspected of having the infection. But perhaps more publicity and education, and perhaps working with the media as well, will help.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member. In fact, the Minister for Communications and Information is part of the task force. One of his main jobs is to look at public education, to share with Singaporeans more information and timely information so that they are better prepared. Things like fake news or wrong information ought to be clarified so that they know exactly what to do, rather than to be misled.
As I have mentioned earlier on, there is actually no way to certify a person fit for work and free of the virus. It has to go through incubation period to make sure that he does not have symptoms, then he can go back to work. So, if you are in doubt, you have been exposed, the best is to exercise precaution, exercise self-discipline, be socially responsible and make sure you wash your hands very regularly. That is the best way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
Whenever in doubt, whenever there is a suspected case or a confirmed case, we will advise the premises on how to clean it. Especially for the confirmed case, NEA officers will be on the ground to provide supervision and they will also have nominated contractors that are trained to follow a certain protocol to clean and disinfect the premises to prevent further spread of the disease.
Practices are in place, protocols are in place, but you are right that we need to educate the general public so that they understand that these places are rendered safe and secure, and there is no need to stay away from these places. You can see the list getting longer and longer, because we do expect to see suspected cases emerging from time to time, going forward. Even though we have travel controls, we will continue to see suspected cases. For each suspected case, we will need to ensure that our medical staff wear all the protective gear, because they are by nature suspected cases. Many of the suspected cases turn out to be negative and therefore if you see some of our healthcare colleagues donning PPE at your shopping centre and so on, do not assume that this is going to be a confirmed case, because it may just be precautions that they have taken to inspect and pick up the suspected cases. Eventually, it may turn out to be a negative case.
The best is to exercise self-discipline, be socially responsible, make sure that you observe basic hygiene practices. I think that is the best way to protect yourself.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions, more perhaps related to MOM and MSF. The first one is: what are we doing to encourage employers to be generous with respect to paid medical leave, paid family leave for workers who are sick, who may need to self-isolate, who may need to take care of a close family member who is sick? I am asking this because I will stand corrected but I am not sure right now that paid leave is actually mandated for self-isolation. I know it is for quarantine cases. We would not want employers to ask employees to take their own annual leave or no pay leave in such cases. That would be counter-productive.
The second question is: Mr Ang has already spoken about the financial constraints faced by self-employed persons who have to go on Leave of Absence, but I think the problem goes beyond that. Because even when self-employed persons have to go see the doctor or just take a day off work because they are not feeling well, they do not earn any income. I think this is another area where we can look into providing wage support, maybe medical cost support, because again, we do not want to be counter-productive here. We do not want people to have to choose between taking care of their health and earning a livelihood. That is an important area to look into.
The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the treatment for persons who are on Leave of Absence is quite clear. We have sent out an advisory to employers that because this Leave of Absence is a requirement, they will have to find ways of supporting it. Whether the person who is on Leave of Absence is provided with additional leave or that duration of Leave of Absence is treated as paid vacation leave or sick leave, there are certain suggestions on how the employers may treat it.
I think the Member's question also extends to persons who are not required to be on leave of absence, but either as their own unilateral sense that they should stay away, because they are not feeling well, or they have to look after someone who is on Leave of Absence. In those instances, I think we have to allow the employer to exercise some flexibility. If it is a situation where the employer has come into agreement with this individual, well and good. I think the employers know what to do. But there is really no requirement for a person to stay away from work if they themselves are not being asked to fulfill a Leave of Absence requirement. It is only something that they are doing on top of, so I just wanted to be clear on that.
The Member has also asked the question about self-employed persons. We are very mindful of how they could be impacted and as Minister Lawrence Wong has said earlier, we are looking at ways in which we can be helpful.
Mr Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, I just want to echo and express my thanks to Minister Gan for his statement of thanks and support for healthcare workers. Two short but slightly technical questions, I apologise. The first, Minister touched about it earlier. I think many Singaporeans are looking forward to the day when the first of the novel coronavirus patients are discharged from hospital. Could I just ask what are the criteria for discharge? Because there does not seem to be an international consensus on it, as far as I know.
The second was concerning transmissibility. One of the key hallmarks of the SARS virus was that there existed these subset of patients known as \"super spreaders\". So, if you look at this novel coronavirus, the ratio of transmission as we reported, about 2.2, which is, on the average, one will pass to about 2.2 persons. SARS was much lower, but then there are these \"super spreaders\" which caused a havoc in our healthcare sector. I was just wondering whether there is any information coming up from anywhere whether there exists such \"super spreaders\".
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank Dr Chia for the questions. Dr Chia knows I am not a doctor, so I can only do what I can as a Minister for Health.
First, the way I understand from my professional colleagues, that for patients, they will do two tests and both tests have to show negative, and they are usually one day apart to make sure that they are free of virus before they are considered for discharge.
But on top of that, at the end, doctors usually will make an assessment at the end of the day despite all the tests that we do, to assess and be confident that the person is well, does not look sick, does not have symptoms and generally are quite well, and maybe he will keep him for a while longer to make sure that there is no further deterioration before his discharge. Generally, our doctors are very careful. We can leave it in their hands to make a professional judgement when is the appropriate time to discharge patient.
And, Ministers, I must assure you, do not interfere in their discharge proceedings because it is purely professional judgement.
The second question on \"super spreader\". Dr Chia is right that we are all looking out for the risk of a \"super spreader\" emerging. This is where one particular patient may infect tens or hundreds of patients that come into contact with him and so on. These are potential multipliers that will cause a major outbreak in the premises, in the locality. We are all looking out for such an incidence. So far we have not received any report of such an incidence. It may happen but it is not yet being detected. But we are all looking out for them. Sometimes, the \"super spreaders\", the patient themselves may be quite well. And therefore he is able to go around many places and spread a lot of potential contamination in the environment. Therefore, it is something that we are looking out for.
Dr Chia is right that this would be a problem if this occurs in Singapore, in China or anywhere else, so it is something that we will continue to monitor.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, I have three supplementary questions.
First, the news on 30,000 work pass holders returning to Singapore has caused some anxiety to our residents because as the main bulk of this 30,000 work pass holders are living in our HDB flats. So, I would like to ask the Minister is there any way to monitor, to ensure that they comply to the 14 days of LOA strictly?
The second question is, for those who are returning and due to whatever reason they have no place to go back to, is there any help that is given or will be given to them? Just give an example. I receive one email from my resident. She is due to return on Wednesday but her husband does not want her to return to their home because the employer of the husband has imposed this rule that if any of your family member comes back from China, you have to stay at home as well. That is the reason, the husband does not want the wife. So, she is asking for help.
The third question, will we impose or is there any plan to impose travel restrictions for those who come from Hong Kong? Because Hong Kong is very near China and there is some concern among residents as well.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, maybe the last question first. The travel restrictions that we have put in place apply to Mainland China. Hong Kong has fewer confirmed cases than Singapore. Maybe people might want to apply travel restrictions on Singapore then. I think our approach is to be looking at evidence, at the source of where the virus is, how widely it is spreading and which are the at-risk sources. Yes, I think we will not rule out more actions on travel restrictions, as we have said, but it has to be based not just on geographical proximity or distance but based on evidence on the nature of the virus, how widely it is spreading, at the risk. And if there are risks posed to Singapore and Singaporeans, we will not rule out other measures on travel restrictions.
On the 30,000 work permit holders, I should clarify they are still in China now, they have not come back. Not all of them live in our housing estates. So, we are doing a tabulation, working directly with the employers to identify who they are, which sectors, where are their places of residence today. That exercise is underway now, so that we can be ready when these workers return, be ready to engage the employers, to be ready to engage the landlords; if some of them are living in dorms, be ready to ensure that our dorms are properly fitted out to have these workers living in more isolated areas without interaction and contamination with their fellow workers. That is the work that is happening, already been happening and we are continuing with this process.
The question is what happens if employers need help because they say they are impacted by their workers who are coming back and unable to work, what happens if family members need help because somebody is in LOA within their home and then they too are impacted. I think these are all questions that we are anticipating. It is all part of the package of measures we are looking at to help companies, employers and households as well. So, we will, as I said earlier, put in place a series of measures to help those who are impacted and we will take all this into consideration in our package.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with Minister Wong that fear inflicts more damage sometimes than the virus itself. F-E-A-R is also false evidence appearing real so I am going to ask Minister Gan if I can go straight to the source of fear, which is the fear of death. Could he explain to us how death occurs from this virus? Because there is this panic and hysteria that the moment we \"kena\", we are just going to drop dead. So, it would be really useful if we can explain how death occurs from one who actually gets infected. What I understand is that most of the death cases right now from China have occurred in people who are elderly and who are at risk. It would be really helpful for us to know how the virus impacts us physically and that could lead to death.
The second question I have is looking at the Fear Factor that impacts the economy and employment. There have been a lot of companies that are cancelling commercial activities and projects and events. Let me declare my interest, I am a founder of Hush which is a social enterprise, the Hush TeaBar, and even for us as a social enterprise, next three months, all the projects are cancelled and we are not the only one. I am wondering if the Government or MTI perhaps think that there may be merit to issue clear guidelines to companies in terms of cancellation or postponement of commercial activities and business events, because there is definitely a knock-on effect to SMEs and social enterprises.
And also, now that I know from Minister Gan that the virus is not airborne, I really would encourage all of us to take three deep breaths every time, every day, as we calm our minds and heart.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I am not a doctor. So, it is very difficult for me to describe the process of death in medical terms, but I would try to explain how it causes death. Basically, when the virus attacks your body, your body will try to mount a response, a defence. And very often, you find that when your body is unable to respond adequately to eliminate the virus, your body will go into a shock, your organs go into overdrive and, therefore, you may begin to see organ failures and eventually, death will occur as a result. Therefore, because of this, chances are, if you already have underlying medical conditions, your body is already weak, your defences are weak and your organs may already be impaired, therefore, the risk of death is higher.
It is important for us to ensure that we continue to stay healthy. At the same time, what the hospitals will do is to provide supportive care to ensure that you have time for your body to recover, for your body to be able to fight the virus on its own until we are able to develop a definitive curative treatment. I think that is how the process will happen.
The Member is right, generally, coronavirus affect patients who have underlying conditions more, and, generally, the older people tend to have more underlying conditions and, therefore, they tend to affect the older people more. But there are also exceptions and even in this novel coronavirus situation, we see that there were some in the 30s and 40s, they are also infected, and some may not have underlying conditions.
At the end, it is also an issue of statistics. When you have large enough number of people who died, at the end of the day, there will be some who are not so typical, who not necessarily have conditions, but they have more severe reactions for a variety of reasons. So, it varies but, generally, coronavirus affects people with underlying conditions mainly because your organs tend to fail progressively as the disease progresses.
The second question is on the impact on our economy and can we provide clear guidelines on major events.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Clear guidelines for events today?
Ms Anthea Ong: Yes, cancellations of events are rampant right now; and these are even business and commercial activities.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I think we have already put out the advisories based on today's situation, based on where we are today where there is no community outbreak within Singapore, community transmission. Events can continue but organisers take extra precautions. So, there is no need for cancellations; continue with the events. But if it is a large scale event, then you might want to take precautions like having having temperature screenings, which I think many event organisers are doing, and then putting out advisories to remind the participants that if they are sick, do not show up. If they have been to China recently, then make sure that they stay at home. Those sorts of precautions are useful and we continue to remind companies and event organisations of these precautions.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, my question is for Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that, \"Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS\". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I mentioned in my speech that the fatality rates of SARS is about 10% and the fatality rate of this novel coronavirus is about 2% to 3% today. So, numerically, statistically, it is less fatal than SARS. But as I have said, it is still at the early stage of the development of the disease, the numbers will change over time.
In fact, as more and more milder cases are detected, the denominator may tend to go up and, therefore, the number may come down. At the same time, those who are confirmed cases today and, progressively, they may die because of the progression of the disease. So, therefore, both number will change over time. But as of today, based on our statistics, it appears to be less fatal, because fatality rate for SARS was 10% whereas the coronavirus is 2% to 3%.
Mr Speaker: Last question. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our hearts and our prayers go to those Singaporeans who are still in Wuhan. When we heard that the 92 Singaporeans are brought back to Singapore, we were very happy to hear that. But also sad to hear that the four of them who had symptoms could not be brought back.
I was just wondering what kind of medical help would they receive in Wuhan, if we leave them there. The plane capacity is big enough. Could we have brought the four of them back as well, in the first place, to receive treatment over here, even if there are symptoms, if their symptoms are not that severe? That is my first question.
The second part is that it is in times like that, we see the best of humans and we see the worst of humans. In the last two days when we go around doing the mask distribution, we see a lot of encouraging signs. We see volunteers coming down to help at the mask distribution point. We see residents coming down to give drinks, give food to the volunteers. I have a lot of new volunteers suddenly joining in, to say that they want to do their part. I also have an ex-grassroots leader whose both legs were amputated – as a result he cannot serve as a grassroots leader anymore – because of diabetes. He came in a wheelchair and he said that, \"I can't walk but I can man the counter; can you let me man the mask distribution point?\"
I would say that this is an opportunity, really for all Singaporeans to come together to rally. We also want to bring all our Singaporeans abroad now, who are now in Wuhan, Hubei, if they can come back, please bring them back. I hope that the Government and MFA would work harder now to see how we can bring them back.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, with your permission.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: First of all, let me say that China has been very responsible and very responsive, and is taking all necessary measures to look after our Singaporeans who are still there. I have spoken personally to the Chinese Foreign Minister and I can assure you, based on our conversation.
My next point is, I want to make an appeal to all Singaporeans who are in China to e-register with MFA. This enables us to stay in close touch with them to monitor their condition, to give them appropriate advice, recommendations and, obviously, if there is a possibility or a need, to mount further operations, this ability to communicate quickly and effectively is absolutely necessary.
The third point I want to make is, with respect to the Member's specific query about whether those with fever should have been on-board the aircraft. I think, first of all, if you look – the Member is a doctor – and we all know from a medical point of view, in the context of an epidemic and, particularly, when you are dealing with a global or a potentially global epidemic, it is most unwise to put people on commercial aircraft when they are potentially actively shedding virus. So, there was good medical rationale and that is why the Chinese authorities make, in my opinion, the right decision that these persons should not fly. If they did, it would have been contravening not only their own regulations but also WHO recommendations. So, we understand that.
I was monitoring the operation and I knew exactly how many were caught in that situation, quite apart from the others who could not evacuate for family reasons because at that point in time, the decision was that their own citizens were locked down and Singaporeans, PRs and others were considered local citizens. So, there are other considerations. But, specifically, now for the remaining Singaporeans because we will remain in touch with them, we will do our best to ensure that they have all the necessary treatment in Wuhan or in other places in China.
If additional support is needed, obviously, we will look at that. And that also brings to mind what Minister Gan said just now that this problem is not just a Chinese problem, it is not just China's problem. This is a common threat confronting all of us. This virus does not respect passports or nationalities, race or language. That is why we must all cooperate and collaborate and to resolve this problem together. I commit that we will continue to work closely with the Chinese authorities and in any way in which we can help them, it is also helping all of us collectively.
The Member has cited an example of volunteers. This is the time when you will see the best, and sometimes, you will see the worst in humanity. But I am confident that because of what we have been through 17 years ago – I recall that personally – I am confident Singaporeans will demonstrate the best of humanity and we will get through this and we will get through this together. So, rest assured, all the Singaporeans who are overseas – MFA – we will not leave anyone behind, we will look out for you.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.
[(proc text) \"to amend the Hindu Endowments Act (Chapter 364 of the 1994 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann) on behalf of the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Geographical Indications (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Geographical Indications, or GIs, are terms which identify products as originating from a particular geographical location. They signal to consumers that a product has a special quality, reputation or other characteristics by virtue of its geographical location and origin. Many such products are food or drink. The Geographical Indications Act, or the GI Act, was enacted in 2014 and established the GI Registry, which had been agreed to under the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, or the EUSFTA.
The GI Registry is run by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, or IPOS. It commenced operations on 1 April 2019, after the EU Parliament ratified the EUSFTA. As of 31 January 2020, 140 GIs have been registered. In this time, IPOS has become more familiar with the operations of a GI Registry.
GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI evidently if this misleads the public as to the true geographical origin of those products. This is applicable for all GIs, whether they are registered or not. In addition, for wines and spirits, such GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI, even if consumers are not misled as to the true geographical origin of the goods in question.
A registered GI enjoys enhanced protection. Registered GIs which are not for wines and spirits would enjoy the same level of protection for GIs which are for wines and spirits mentioned earlier. Producers and traders in respect of registered GIs also have access to border enforcement measures such as being able to request that our Customs authorities detain suspected infringing goods which are to be imported or exported from Singapore.
The Bill makes technical amendments to the GI Act to address issues that have arisen in the course of running the GI Registry. The amendments will ensure the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry, and also provide greater clarity for traders and producers.
I will now take Members through the main features of the Bill.
The first set of amendments in the Bill clarifies how variants of a GI are to be treated during the application process. A variant of a GI can be a translation, or a transliteration, or any other variation of the indication constituting the GI. Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate. Say, for example, that oranges grown on Pulau Ubin are known to bear a unique and highly-prized sweet and sour quality attributable to the natural environment of Pulau Ubin, and such oranges are known by the Chinese characters 乌敏橙 – in Chinese – oranges. Such oranges might be referred to in slightly different ways. So let me give you the different ways in which it could be referred to. For example, they may be referred or identified in Hanyu Pinyin as \"Wu Min Cheng\", which is a transliteration. Or they may be also known as \"Ubin Orange\", which is a translation of the words in Chinese. They could also be called \"Pulau Ubin Orange\", which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. All of these can be variants of a GI and they can be registered.
The GI Registry has received a number of applications where, in a single application, multiple variants of the nature that I have described, constituting the same GI were included. This, no doubt, saved application fees for the applicant. These applications were accepted as-is and most of them have in fact been registered.
It is proposed in this Act that we amend and clearly state how such applications and registrations with multiple variants should be treated. So, for example, in a situation where multiple variants of a GI have been registered, a party may want to apply to cancel the registration because he finds one of the variants objectionable. If he is successful, it is not clear whether the entire GI registration should be cancelled, or whether there should only be a partial cancellation – that is, only of the particular variant that he finds objectionable.
Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Bill therefore amend the GI Act to clarify the following.
First, an application for registration can contain more than one variant constituting the same GI.
Second, after an application for registration is accepted and published for public inspection, third parties who oppose the application can choose to oppose the registration of one or more of the variants in the application, instead of all of the variants.
Third, where there is a refusal of registration of a variant, the other variants in the application for registration can nevertheless be registered if they satisfy the requirements of the Act.
Finally, similarly, other processes such as an application for cancellation of registration or a request for Qualification of Rights to be entered in the Register need not be in respect of all the variants.
The second set of amendments makes changes to the process for the entry of a Qualification of Rights in the Register.
A request for a Qualification of Rights, or more commonly known as a QoR, to be entered in the Register, is a request usually taken up by a third party, in order to clarify the scope of protection that the GI Act confers on a registered GI, in relation to whether a name or a term contained in the GI or a term which may be a translation of the GI is available for use by the third party.
To take up the example that I outlined earlier, let us say the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges applied for the registration of that GI for oranges, including all the variants which I have mentioned previously. Now, a Mr Wu Min Cheng, an individual who is a seller of oranges, he could request a QoR to be entered in the GI Register to state that he can rely on the exception in section 13 of the Act for the use of his personal name. If he is successful, he can continue to use the personal name, his personal name in relation to the oranges that he sells, even if these oranges are not of the Wu Min Cheng variety or originating from Pulau Ubin.
However, the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges can prevent Mr Wu from using the other registered variants, such as \"Ubin Oranges\", for example, for selling his oranges. Such a QoR also does not affect the ability of the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges from bringing an action against other producers for labelling their products as Wu Min Cheng oranges, in other words, producers other than Mr Wu.
This is different from opposing the application for registration or applying to cancel the registration of a GI, whether in respect of one or all the variants, because the reason for opposition or cancellation is that the GI or variant should not be protected as a registered GI at all. The end result of a successful opposition or cancellation of the registration of a particular variant is that the variant is not allowed to be registered or is removed from the GI Register. If the opposition or cancellation was against the entire set of variants, the end result is that the entire set of variants is not registered or is removed from the GI Register.
After the GI Registry commenced its operations, we found that certain types of QoR requests could achieve the same result as a successful opposition or cancellation. To illustrate the point, for instance, a QoR request could possibly be so broad as to result in a situation where the interested parties of a GI are effectively left with no rights in respect of a registered GI that they can enforce. This would render the GI registration nugatory. The QoR process was intended to enable an applicant to clarify the scope of protection conferred by the registration, and not to negate the GI registration altogether by wholly removing the rights conferred by registration.
Clause 5 of the Bill therefore clarifies that a QoR may not be requested, if the QoR request seeks a qualification of all the rights to be conferred in respect of a registered GI. For example, a qualification of all the rights conferred in respect of a registered GI may not be requested on the basis that the GI or variant is identical with the common name of the goods concerned in Singapore, as such a QoR would result in there being no rights conferred on a registered GI that can be enforced in respect of the registered GI or variant. This therefore makes it very clear that the QoR regime and the opposition or cancellation regime remains separate and distinct. They are meant as two different sets of parameters and protocols meant to apply to obtain two different sets of remedies. Applicants seeking to negate the rights conferred under the Act in respect of a registered GI or variant will not be able to use a QoR request as a substitute for opposition or cancellation proceedings.
Let me now touch on the third broad set of amendments which proposes further changes to the post-registration QoR process. Currently, QoR requests can be filed any time after the GI application is published. The requests are dealt with by the Registrar of GIs.
However, in the course of operating the GI Registry, IPOS has found the need to treat pre-registration and post-registration QoR requests differently. Pre-registration QoR requests relate to GI applications which are still pending before the Registrar. It would be more efficient for the Registrar to handle all pre-registration processes together, whether oppositions or QoR requests. In this way, the application for registration can be handled as expediently as possible. This also ensures that the applicant as well as third parties can have clarity about the protected rights as soon as possible.
On the other hand, once a GI has been registered – and this is the post-registration – there is no specified time frame for post-registration processes to be initiated. Each post-registration process can be independently managed. Further, GI disputes are often global in nature, with disputes around the world based on similar facts and issues. Given the desirability of taking into account the arguments and outcomes of disputes in other countries as well, when determining a post-registration QoR request, we therefore feel that the Registrar might not be the best forum for the determination of such disputes, especially when there is no longer an efficiency gain in doing so; in the same way as I have explained the pre-registration process.
The Bill therefore removes the post-registration QoR process. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be disputes as to the scope of the protection conferred upon a registered GI post-registration. The Bill therefore provides that any post-registration applications for a limitation as to the scope of rights conferred in respect of a registered GI, will now be filed in and heard by the High Court, under a new judicial procedure called an application for a Limitation of Scope of rights in respect of a registered GI to be entered onto the Register.
The scope of such applications, and the grounds on which such applications can be granted, are set out in the new section 48(a), inserted by clause 7 of the Bill. Having these issues dealt with by the Courts would also give the opportunity for Singapore decisions to be cited by courts in other jurisdictions. The changes I mentioned previously providing that a QoR request cannot be used to negate the registration of a GI or a variant, will also apply in the context of this new procedure for application for a Limitation of Scope of rights.
The changes sought under the Bill, as they are technical in nature and generally straightforward, are targeted to be implemented by the first half of this year.
Sir, in conclusion, these amendments will contribute to the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry, and provide also at the same time, greater clarity for traders and producers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the regime protecting geographical indications in Singapore has been developing robustly in the past year. In April 2019, the Geographical Indications Act 2014 came into effect, and, along with it, the registry of geographical indications started operations.
This was in line with our international obligations under the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Under the Schedule of the Geographical Indications Act 2014, the categories of goods that a geographical indication may be registered under relate to foodstuff or agricultural products. For countries where there are a lot of exports of such items that qualify for geographical indication, geographical indications help build up the reputation and quality associated with the produce in a different country. Although Singapore is not an agricultural exporting country, geographical indications are still relevant to us. Why? Singaporeans enjoy and consume foods from all over the world. Therefore, geographical indications add assurance relating to the unique flavour and authenticity of the product.
This Bill makes the geographical indications framework clearer through two key avenues – the qualification and limitation of rights, and variants of geographical indicators. At this juncture, I declare for the Hansard record that I am a lawyer and some of my work relates to intellectual property rights.
On qualification of rights before registration, clause 5 amends the law so that qualification of rights can only be made after publication but before registration. After registration, clause 7 inserts a new section to provide for a very similar process post-registration, albeit the term \"limitation of scope\" instead of \"qualification\" is used. Would the Minister elaborate on why the process, which in substance appears the same, has been bifurcated into pre and post registration?
The process is important as it sets out more clearly what is protected and what is not protected. This clarity facilitates better usage and protection of geographical indications by providing a better indicator for those who may be concerned over a potential infringement. Further, clause 5(d) and the new section 48(4) in clause 7 delineate when a qualification or limitation is appropriate and when a notice of opposition is appropriate. This provides needed guidance and ensures that the more appropriate process is used in any given circumstance.
The other main group of amendments relate to variants in a geographical indication. Variants play an important role in the intellectual property right of geographical indications. When a product's reputation and market expands across the globe, it and its geographical indication would probably have to be translated or transliterated in order to be represented in a different language. By protecting other forms such as translations and transliterations, we protect the essence of the geographical indication such that merchants are unable to circumvent the protection of geographical indications by simply changing the form in which it is presented.
This affords a more complete protection and assists in establishing a global market. It not only helps preserve authenticity and quality of products related to the geographical indication but also makes them more accessible to people who speak a different language.
In relation to this, the illustration in the Explanatory Statement for clause 2 refers to \"Lion City Apples\" as a variant for \"Apples of Singapore.\" I must say a much less exciting example than \"Pulau Ubin Oranges\". I do like the ring of \"Pulau Ubin Oranges\". Would the Minister explain under what circumstances would a nickname for a place be recognised as a variant under the Geographical Indication? For official nicknames used widely and even at national celebrations such as a National Day Parade, it is clear that it is quite well known and accepted. However, there are times when the nickname may not be as widely known or accepted. Under those circumstances, would such \"unofficial\" nicknames be accepted?
Clause 3 allows an application for a variant to be separate from the main application or together with it. This flexibility is welcomed and allows for the accommodation of market forces – for instance, where the demand for goods change such that the geographical indication should be translated into a different language in order to have the full benefit of the intellectual property right in question.
Clause 4 of the Bill clarifies that variants need to fulfil the criteria of geographical indication in order to be registered. This ensures that variants are not a back door option for registering what was otherwise not registrable.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, geographical indications help guarantee the origin of a produce or food product, implying a certain standard or quality to it. In short, this Bill makes the regime clearer. Therefore, I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the geographical indications or GI (Amendment) Bill seeks to clarify a number of technical points relating to the GI Act of 2014 which came into force in 2019. In particular, it prescribes how the act should be interpreted in respect of variance of a GI as well as clarifying the legal procedure by which an appellant can seek to qualify or limit the scope of the rights conferred by the registration of the GI. Through bringing about these certifications, the Bill is a significant step in the right direction.
I have a few questions and suggestions for the Minister and respect of this Bill. Before I raise these, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in the agri-food and processed food and beverage space among other product categories.
GIs are terms which are used to inform consumers that a product, mostly food and drink comes from a particular place. The GI Act of 2014 established a new system of registration in Singapore to improve, the certainty of protection given to GIS with effect from 1 April 2019. This had been part of Singapore's compliance with the Singapore European Union Free Trade Agreement where some 100 applications have been protected under the GI Act. Perhaps the most famous example of a GI is champagne. Other examples are Tennessee whiskey, Pinggu peaches, Darjeeling tea and Parmesan cheese. Essentially, GI's must identify goods where the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially due to the place of origin.
GIs help consumers gain assurance that the product they are buying and body the geographically grounded characteristics and bar reflected in the product name.
My first question would be, as a Singaporean consumer purchasing a product where a GI has been registered in Singapore, how can they obtain some degree of assurance that the product they are purchasing is a genuine GI product, as it were, rather than a product from a different region that has usurped the name protected under the registered GI? No doubt, once the GIs are registered, producers and traders of the GI products will be able to request customs, authorities to \"detain, suspect infringing goods which are imported into or exported from Singapore\", as IPOS declared in the media report.
But the ability of producers and traders of GI products to in force their rights may be uneven on the ground. Can IPOS consider working with GI rights holders, industry associations and other stakeholders to create an easy-to-use directory entirely funded by GI rights holders which will list legitimate products bearing the GI by brand, product type and retailer? Industry stakeholders will be strongly incentivised to fund such a directory.
Next, GIs represent an opportunity for local farming and food processing entrepreneurs to brand Singaporean products for enhanced competitiveness in export markets while also potentially contributing to the tourist experience for inbound tourists into Singapore who may seek good quality local food. In fact, it is not uncommon for tourist authorities to promote local foodstuffs and where they can be obtained. The Food and Agricultural Organisation, Asia Office said, as quoted in a media report by Food Navigator Asia, and I quote, \"As the industry moves towards globalisation and bringing local products to the world, local or ethnic products are increasingly becoming a target for GIs as these are often the most popularly searched by tourists. It is becoming increasingly important to differentiate your products from the pack. The time for uniformity in F&B is gone and GIs are going to be a big contributor to this.\"
In this context, I have two other questions. Firstly, how many applications have been made for local geographic indications (GIs) to date? According to the same media report I cited earlier, and is confirmed by the Senior Minister of State, 140 GI applications have been made to IPOS since the GI Registry has been opened in April last year but it is unclear how many are for local GIs.
Secondly, will the Government consider working with local farming and food processing entrepreneurs to support their efforts to register GIs? Developing Singaporean GIs could be an avenue to boost the economic and job creation potential of the local food industry.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank the two Members who have spoken, supporting the amendments and also speaking up in favour of using the geographical indicators.
The GI system that is being set up – and you have seen it operate in the last year or so – is obviously designed to achieve the purposes for which Mr Perera has outlined: to give a platform to recognise local producers, to give a basis on which to differentiate and to distinguish food products in particular and to operate a system on which you can say that something is domain to the location and that, is itself, is a distinguishing feature. And so, the purpose of this regime is really to set up an environment that promotes all of these and allows protection to be given to producers so that they can then leverage on the GI, or rather, the name of a product linked to the geographical location, in the context of Mr Perera's point in Singapore as well.
Let me just address the queries that have been raised.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the process is being bifurcated into a pre- and a post registration. This is something that I outlined earlier, but let me just reiterate the concept and also the paradigm by which this is to be operating.
In handling these pending applications, it is in the interest of parties that the Registrar moves as quickly as possible to reach a registration decision, so that all parties are clear about the protection that is accorded. In this context, the Registrar that handles the pre-registration QoR request together with the GI application will enable an efficient and expedient processing of the matters.
On the other hand, after the GI is registered, post-registration matters can be independently handled. We have therefore removed post-registration QoRs for registered GIs.
The new Limitation of Scope process is dealt with by the Courts and not by the Registrar. And as Mr de Souza knows, it is common for the GIs around the world to be based on similar facts and issues. There may be competing interests; there may be disputes on the factual circumstances and matrix which give rise to the GI and they often involve similar, if not, identical parties, as Mr de Souza will know. Therefore, there may be decisions by foreign courts which would provide guidance and indeed, it would also guide the nature of the decision in Singapore and vice versa. And in this context, it will be an opportunity for Singapore jurisprudence to be used in other countries as well. Given the above, the Courts, we feel, will be better placed to adjudicate on these matters.
Mr de Souza also asked about \"Lion City Apples\" and the use of the nickname, and I think circumstances under which the nickname for a place would be recognised as a variant of a GI, and under what circumstances that nickname could then be accepted.
For a variant to be registered in Singapore, just as it is with any application for registration of a GI in Singapore, the applicant seeking to register a variant must show that the variant has obtained recognition or registration as a GI in its country of origin. This would be done as part of the application for registration process before the Registrar of GIs.
As for Mr Perera's queries, the Singapore consumer obviously would also rely on the similar processes to ensure that there is no improper usurpation of the name. And that each time a GI is registered, there will be a thorough, exhaustive review of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for that particular geographical indication.
The suggestion that there may be a set-up that is used, funded by GI rights holders so that there can be a proper categorisation by brands and so on, is something we can consider. I think that is a useful suggestion insofar as it takes the debate further on how branding can be better organised, how there can be searches and ultimately, leading to better enforcement and policing of those rights.
The second point Mr Perera raised which I think I agreed with earlier is that this entire platform that the GI Act has created is indeed useful for Singapore producers because Singapore producers can then leverage on our own geographical location and indeed, there are several special places within Singapore whose names are very well associated with certain types of foods. And, to that extent, that can be used.
Mr Perera asked what is the breakdown for local applications. I do not have the number at hand but I will check and I will revert to Mr Perera.
Will the Government consider working with these producers? Certainly. I think what we do see is that the reforms that we make, not just in this Bill itself but generally in the context of the IP space, we see this as an opportunity for local producers, local companies to take advantage of the laws that we set up. As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I believe, we ensure that the laws that we set up have, in other words, to be very much pro-business and centred on the needs of the user. And so, if we are able to have a platform where producers, manufacturers can take advantage of and protect the GIs, then certainly, we will encourage them to do so and to see what further assistance can be offered so that there will be even more Singapore producers beyond the examples that Mr de Souza and myself have outlined which are illustrative only, I might add.
Sir, I will agree with the Members that the general point is that GIs continue to be relevant and maybe even increasingly relevant to Singaporean businesses as they add assurance to the unique flavour and identity and, of course, also authenticity of the product. And the system that we have set up, put in place about a year ago and now enhanced with these amendments, is designed to further all of these.
The changes that are being introduced reflect our continual effort to look at, update and enhance the IP regime and provide a fair and transparent GI regime. This, we believe, will further enhance our reputation as the IP hub of the region. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.41 pm until 5.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Bill seeks to amend the National Environment Agency, or NEA, Act to expand NEA's borrowing powers.
The current provisions in the NEA Act limit NEA's borrowing sources to either the Government, or, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, banks or other financial institutions. Hence, NEA is currently not able to, for example, borrow directly from the capital markets.
This amendment will provide NEA with greater flexibility in borrowing by widening the options of funding sources, thereby optimising financing costs. This is in line with the borrowing powers of other Statutory Boards such as the PUB, the Singapore Food Agency, JTC Corporation, and the Housing and Development Board.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now like to highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
Section 23 of the NEA Act sets out the power for NEA to borrow. Clause 2 of the Bill will repeal and re-enact section 23 of the NEA Act to allow NEA to (a)\traise loans from the Government; (b)\traise loans from another source within or outside Singapore, with the approval of the Minister for Finance; and (c)\tmake financial agreements under which credit facilities are granted to the agency for the purchase of goods, materials, or things.
To conclude, Sir, this Bill will align the borrowing powers of NEA with those of other Statutory Boards in Singapore, to widen the options of funding sources and provide greater flexibility in borrowing. This will ensure that NEA is able to optimise the financing costs of any future borrowing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Singapore is a party to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The Basel Convention is an international treaty governing the classification and transboundary movement of hazardous and other waste to protect human health and the environment.
The Basel Convention does not prohibit the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Instead, it controls the movement of hazardous waste via the Prior Informed Consent or PIC procedure. This is in recognition of the legitimate transboundary movements of hazardous waste as defined under the Convention, such as for proper recycling or disposal. Besides controlling hazardous waste, the Convention also imposes the PIC procedure on some non-hazardous waste streams, namely household wastes and residues arising from the incineration of household wastes. These waste streams are defined as \"other waste\" under the Basel Convention.
Under the PIC procedure, exporting states that wish to export any waste stream that is covered by the Convention have to obtain prior consent from the countries receiving the waste, or the states of import, as well as the countries through which the waste transits, or the states of transit.
Amidst global concerns about the environmental impact of unregulated trade in plastic waste, parties to the Basel Convention agreed last year to expand the scope of the Convention to cover certain categories of plastic waste. This extends the PIC procedure to the export of certain non-hazardous plastic waste as well as plastic waste with hazardous characteristics. However, most clean and homogeneous plastic waste which has been sorted prior to export and is destined for recycling will not be subjected to the PIC procedure. These amendments to the Basel Convention will take effect on 1 January 2021.
Improper disposal of plastic waste has caused severe environmental pollution, adverse health effects and contributed to climate change. As a responsible global citizen, Singapore joins the international community in supporting the amendments to the Basel Convention which will strengthen control of the transboundary movement of plastic waste.
As a party to the Basel Convention, Singapore is required to implement domestic controls to regulate the transboundary movement of the covered categories of plastic waste. Singapore fulfils our obligations to the Basel Convention through the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act, or HWA for short. The HWA provides the legislative framework for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to ensure that Singapore complies with our obligations under the Basel Convention.
The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill seeks to expand the scope of the HWA to cover the transboundary movement of certain categories of plastic waste. This will enable us to meet our obligations arising from the amendments to the Basel Convention. It also seeks to update NEA’s regulatory powers for more effective administration and enforcement of the HWA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now like to highlight the key provisions of the Bill. I will start with the proposed amendments to include plastic waste within the scope of the Act.
Section 4 of the HWA defines \"hazardous waste\" and \"other waste\" in accordance with the Basel Convention. The definition of \"other waste\" is currently based on the categories of waste listed under Annex II of the Basel Convention. These are non-hazardous wastes that have to undergo the PIC procedure. The amendments to the Basel Convention will now expand Annex II to include certain categories of plastic waste which could impact the environment if not managed properly, such as mixed plastic waste. Clause 3 accordingly amends section 4 to define \"other waste\" as meaning waste belonging to any category under Annex II to the Basel Convention.
The Schedule of the HWA reproduces the texts and annexes of the Basel Convention. Clause 7 amends the Schedule to include the categories of plastic waste covered by the amendments to Basel Convention.
I will now highlight the amendments to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the HWA. The HWA is currently administered by the Director of Hazardous Waste, as appointed by the Minister. Clauses 2, 5 and 8 make various amendments to the HWA to make the Director-General of Environmental Protection, appointed under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA), responsible for the administration of the HWA instead. This is to align with the power of administration of other Acts under NEA, such as the EPMA. Consequential amendments will be made to the Second Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.
The Basel Convention allows parties to lodge with its Secretariat, the parties’ national definitions of \"hazardous waste\" and \"other waste\" beyond the scope of the Convention. These national definitions are published on the official Basel Convention website. Section 5 of the HWA allows the Minister, through notification in the Gazette, to extend the definition of “hazardous waste” or “other waste” in the Act to include these national definitions.
Clause 4 adds a new subsection (1A) to section 5 of the HWA to extend these definitions to include all the latest national definitions lodged by Parties and published on the Basel Convention website.
Section 30 of the HWA currently provides NEA with the power to control the movement of vessels or aircraft if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a vessel or aircraft is carrying hazardous or other waste that is to be exported from, imported into or transited through Singapore. Clause 6 amends section 30 to expand NEA's enforcement powers to cover vehicles suspected to be carrying hazardous or other waste into or out of Singapore via our land checkpoints.
In conclusion, Singapore is committed to uphold our obligations under the Convention, and work with the international community to ensure that the global trade in plastic waste is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill will allow us to enhance our domestic controls and enforcement powers to comply with the new obligations under the Convention.
At the same time, we recognise that the flow of clean and valuable recyclables can be legitimate, and help to support the adoption of a circular economy at the regional and global level. We will continue to work with the international and regional community to strike a balance between facilitating the legitimate flow of such resources, and safeguarding against the unregulated or illegal transboundary movement of waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, researchers have discovered plastic debris at the deepest point on earth, the Marina Trench. On seemingly pristine ice floes near the Northwest Passage, scientists too have discovered plastic filaments and beads. In fact, in May 2019, United Nations estimated that 100 million tonnes of plastic have been dumped in the oceans thus far. Vivid and graphic pictures have become iconic symbols of the impact plastic has had on marine life and have rallied nations around the world to strengthen regulations relating to the global trade in plastic waste.
This Bill is based on the amendments made to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal in 2019 to target plastic waste. This treaty was acceded to by Singapore in 1996 and was implemented in 1998 by the enactment of the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act. The amendment to the Convention classified plastic waste more clearly. Certain annexes of the convention require prior informed consent before importing such waste can be initiated. Annex IV does not require prior consent and previously classified only non-harmful plastic without specifying whether they were immediately recyclable. Following the changes to the Convention in 2019, two kinds of plastic waste are subject to prior informed consent: plastic waste mixed with hazardous materials, such as PET bottles containing pesticides, and plastic waste that can be recycled only after undergoing the cleaning process due to contamination of foreign materials. This is reflected in clause 7.
Additionally, clause 4 of the Bill allows our law to directly reference the prescribed website of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention as to what is considered hazardous waste. Previously, the Minister had to declare it so via notification on the Gazette.
Would the Minister explain how Singapore handles our plastic waste? Do we have the capacity and capabilities to deal with our plastic waste?
Besides tackling the way plastic waste is handled, we can also reduce the amount of plastic pollutants released into the environment. Although it has been said that \"only a miniscule amount of microplastics is discharged into the sea,\" would the Ministry elaborate on what are the likely sources for the microplastics found on the Singapore beaches and what will be done to reduce it?
One commonly discussed source for microplastics is microbeads. Microbeads do not disappear even though they get flushed down the sink and out of sight. Plastic microbeads have been banned in personal care products and cosmetics in United States and United Kingdom. While plastic straws are needed by some for medical conditions, some personal care products and cosmetics have been able to substitute plastic microbeads with biodegradable microbeads or even natural alternatives. In 2016, it was reported in the Straits Times that National Parks was \"currently looking into assessing the status and impact of marine debris and microplastics on Singapore's marine environment” and that \"the National Environment Agency [was] monitoring international developments in legislation and domestic research on microplastics.\" Would the Minister kindly provide an update on the findings and whether any updated studies have been done since then to understand the impact of microplastic on Singapore’s marine environment?
Even though Singapore treats our used water such that a substantial portion of microbeads and microplastics are dealt with, would it not be better if there were less plastic to deal with by reducing the use and/or release of such plastics into the water? Instead of merely removing plastics, we should work towards reducing them. Firstly, this conserves resources used to make plastics. Secondly, this reduces the energy needed to process its waste. Thirdly, with less plastic in our used water, there would be less incinerated ash to be disposed of. Fourthly, there will be less microplastics potentially released into the environment. Fifthly, we would be encouraging responsible use of plastics and would also deter the thinking that someone else will clean up the consequences of our actions.
Taking into account these issues, what is the Minister's view on the question of whether we should ban the use of microplastics or microbeads in personal care products and cosmetics?
This Bill addresses one part of the problem related to plastic waste but the bigger question is how are we tackling this pollutant holistically? The effect of plastic contamination is felt across national borders. Plastics and toxic-contaminated plastic in the water can enter the food chain when marine life ingest it. Another possible way is via larvae of insects such as mosquitoes and then their being eaten by other creatures in the food chain and so on.
Research combining the results of more than 50 studies globally have estimated that an individual ingests about one credit card worth of plastic each week. As much of our food is imported from overseas, how does the Ministry monitor the level of plastic pollutant in our food and its impact? Is there a level beyond which the plastic pollution in the food is unacceptable? In other words, how is Singapore working towards food security and less dependency on other countries specifically in relation to seafood and other food products from the marine environment and ensuring the plastic contaminants in such food remains low or negligible?
Additionally, as the economic impact of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems is estimated by the UN Environment Program to be at least US$8 billion a year, it would make sense for nations including Singapore to work towards reducing plastic pollution, not just by reducing new entrants, but also looking into innovative possibilities to remove what has already entered the marine environment. How has Singapore contributed to innovative solutions to clean up the ocean? What is Singapore doing to encourage a global push to adopt a good plastic waste management system that reduces plastic pollution? This indirectly contributes to Singapore's food security if our food sources are threatened by other countries’ plastic pollution.
Looking at the facts, plastic pollution is a problem that we need to address. Even though half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years, there are already around 100 million tonnes of plastic in the oceans, 80% to 90% from land. In 2019, it was reported in National Geographic that plastic production has increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tonnes in 1950 to 450 million tonnes or estimate by 2015 and that is expecting to double by 2050.
These facts bring to bear the importance of the Bill we are debating today. This Bill, when enacted, will help Singapore fulfil its obligations under the Basel Convention. It will bolster our commitment towards tackling the problem of plastic pollution and reducing the ill-effects of hazardous waste. Therefore, I stand in support of the Bill.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill which will ensure Singapore’s compliance with the Basel amendments which will come into effect next January. The Basel amendments are part of the global efforts to combat pollution from plastic waste, one of the biggest environmental problems our world faces due to its sheer quantity as well as durability of plastics. The vast amounts of plastic waste polluting water and land ecosystems are not only threatening to us and other life forms on our planet, but also to future generations.
Singapore recycled a paltry 4% of about 950,000 tonnes of plastic waste in 2018, down from the recycling rate of 6% in 2017, and less than half the rate from five years ago. Most of this waste was exported for recycling. With these amendments, we hope to contribute to the efforts to regulate the international trade in contaminated plastic waste.
Hence, only limited types of plastics, such as resin products and specified fluorinated polymers that have been sorted and cleaned, will be exported without restrictions. Other categories of plastic waste will have to be approved by the destination countries before we can export them. I full-heartedly support this responsible practice.
Nonetheless, it is still very disturbing to note that 96% of the plastic waste we generated has not been recycled; and plastics form the largest category of waste by weight, way ahead of other categories such as food, paper and cardboard. Even worse, our plastic waste per capita has been increasing, by about 20% over the last 15 years. So, even as we today sharpen our policies regarding the import and export plastic waste, I would like to ask the Minister for more details of how we ourselves are disposing of our own plastic wastes.
First, for those plastics which are not recycled, how much is burned and how much is buried?
Second, is the capacity of our landfills sufficient to meet the growing amounts of plastic waste that is generated?
Third, for recycled plastics, how much is processed here and how much are we actually exporting?
Fourth, are we looking to step up our capability and capacity for recycling our own plastic waste?
Fifth, how developed is the plastic waste recycling infrastructure in Singapore?
Sixth, will there be resources to support the research and development of plastic waste treatment here?
Seventh, as the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza has just asked, what is the treatment for special categories, such as micro plastics?
Ultimately, we must reduce the use of \"short-term\" plastics to cut down on plastic waste, such as minimising the use of single-use plastics, particularly in non-critical areas, perhaps versus critical niches, such as in healthcare settings where it may be more difficult to replace.
Take our F&B sector, for example. I am surprised that in some hawker centres and food courts, even for customers dining on site, disposable ware is still being used. The reasons, of course, include costs, convenience and, perhaps, hygiene. What is often not factored in is the cost we all pay for the long-term damage on our environment. I appeal to the Ministry to work more closely with F&B providers to come up with a viable and sustainable, nation-wide solution. Due to higher costs and manpower constraints, if left to the free forces of the market, food and drinks sellers and establishments will actually have very little incentive to opt for durable, washable utensils or participate in the use and collection of reusable ware for customers who do takeaways. I also hope the Ministry would take firmer, which may perhaps be unpopular, steps to ban or severely restrict the use of certain types of single-use plastics and the most common example would be straws.
As a small nation which imports most goods, our ability to negotiate with global manufacturers for more sustainable packaging may be limited. Nevertheless, we should still make brave attempts, persevere and work with neighbouring countries to exert pressure on big multinationals to repackage their products in environment-friendly materials.
The question at the top of most people's minds would also be what would this impact be on our economy and our business competitiveness? I would imagine that, in general, costs for some sectors would increase but I am sure that other sectors could benefit from this shift towards more environmentally-responsible practices. Could the Minister share with us his assessment of the economic impact from these amendments? Which sectors will be affected and could there be assistance schemes to help affected companies during the transition phase? How about the impact on our economy from the Ministry’s other initiatives to nudge companies to adopt environmentally-responsible practices as well as various measures towards a \"zero waste\" nation?
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just realised that my laptop is not charged. So, I am going to use my phone to read the speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill signals Singapore's intention and resolve to join the global community in ending the flows of plastic waste, and unsustainable consumption and disposal of plastic waste more generally. This is in line with Singapore’s commitment to being a responsible global citizen, especially in environmental sustainability.
However, in light of recent events, there are four issues relating to the transport of hazardous waste, including plastic waste, which I would like to address.
First, I would like to ask the Minister on our compliance with our obligations under the Basel Convention so that we can evaluate our progress with the handling of hazardous waste. What is the current status of Singapore’s Basel Convention obligations? How many permits are issued for import, export and transit respectively? What are the destination countries where our waste goes to? According to NEA, only 7% of the 40,700 tonnes of plastic trash that was recycled last year was processed locally and the rest was shipped overseas. It appears difficult to know what happens to the trash afterwards. How do we know they are recycled or dumped properly? A 2018 Business Times news article reported that \"much of the plastic that is logged as recycled is shipped overseas – to China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia – where, if it cannot eventually be properly sorted and processed, it is incinerated or tipped into the sea.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Minister please enlighten the House on the measures that Singapore implements to ensure that hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, which leaves Singapore are treated to internationally-recognised standards at their destination?
Second, I urge the Minister to consider implementing more stringent measures to stop the illegal traffic of waste from Singapore to other countries in the region. Treating other countries as a dumping ground without consideration for the necessary health and safety measures would be doing a great disservice to our neighbours. There have been reported cases of illegal traffic of waste linked to Singapore.
Virogreen, a Singapore-registered company, was reported by Eco-Business in March 2019 as being implicated in an \"e-waste smuggling ring\" in Thailand. It reportedly exported goods labelled as \"second-hand electronic appliances\" from Singapore to Thailand. In Thailand, however, it was disposed of as waste. The waste management plants which received the e-waste salvaged the precious metals and disposed of the rest. It is not known how they salvaged the metal, or how the rest of the e-waste was disposed. However, the fact that Virogreen was able to get away with declaring e-waste as functional second-hand goods is deeply concerning.
This is not the only case. In October 2019, Reuters reported that two Singaporeans imported 87 containers of plastic scrap without the correct permits. They are said to be a director and a commissioner of an Indonesian company respectively. To make matters worse, the plastic scrap was reportedly contaminated with \"hazardous items, such as printed circuit boards, used remote controls and used batteries\", all of which could pose health hazards.
These two cases have placed a black mark on Singapore's reputation as a responsible global citizen. The Government has been regarding adherence to international environmental standards as a focus of Singapore's much-lauded environmental governance, and rightly so. We must ensure that Singaporean directors and Singapore-registered companies are not infringing waste regulations in the region and globally. Increasing profit margins or reducing costs cannot be at the expense of our shared environment.
Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as ambassadors for Singapore, should uphold the same standards wherever they go. This is the same reason why Singapore prosecutes cases of corruption involving Singapore-registered companies under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of where they happen.
As such, I would like to ask the Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that hazardous wastes are not exported under the guise of \"second-hand\" goods? What are the enforcement measures that can be used against Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities who facilitate the contravention of the Basel Convention overseas? Are there any plans to create extraterritorial offences, such as those found in the Prevention of Corruption Act, to allow the prosecution of Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities? If not, I would strongly urge the Minister to consider doing so.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention.
On 5 December 2019, the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, a global prohibition on dumping hazardous waste, enters into force almost 25 years after its adoption and officially becomes international law. The Ban Amendment prohibits the world's wealthiest countries – OECD, EU member states, Liechtenstein – from exporting hazardous waste to non-OECD countries and forces them to internalise the costs of their own pollution. The ban addresses the challenges faced by developing countries in controlling the flood of hazardous waste imports, which strain their infrastructure and harm the environment and local communities. The countries that have ratified include our three closest neighbours Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. China has also adopted the Basel Ban.
Can the Minister please clarify on the following:
(a) Are there reasons why Singapore has not ratified the Basel Ban Amendment?
(b) Are there any entities in Singapore which import hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, for treatment here?
Last but not least, is there a regional role that Singapore can play in waste recycling, given that our neighbours, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are sending back plastic waste to their places of origin?
Just last week, NEA clarified that three containers of plastic waste were sent back to Singapore as the Malaysian importer failed to get permits.
Could implementing a circular economy mitigate our and the region’s needs with the benefits of economies of scale? This could be both a regional responsibility and opportunity for Singapore, given the need for innovative waste management solutions. I ask this noting that the Zero Waste Master Plan issued by MEWR last year stated that the Ministry \"hope[s] to promote innovative circular business models and position our companies to seize opportunities in the region for specialised waste treatment, recycling or re-manufacturing.\"
As I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to quote former US Secretary of State John Kerry, at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali on 29 October 2018.
\"In the 1950s and 1960s, what brought me into public life was the nuclear freeze and arms control, the issues of peace… But now, folks, we need to face up to the fact that we've got to treat the issue of the oceans, protection of the oceans, protection of the planet, with the same urgency that we treated arms control and nuclear weapons… we need a non-proliferation treaty for pollution in the oceans.\"
As a state party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we should take note of Article 207(4) of the Convention, which specifically requires states to “endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources”.
I would like to boldly suggest that just as we had the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty of 1995, we should take the lead in proposing a non-proliferation treaty for plastic pollution which originates on land and ends up in the sea. This would require manufacturers to transition from manufacturing virgin plastics to harvesting and reusing recycled plastics. A study published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, in May 2019, has estimated that by just converting all plastic manufacturing to fully recycled plastic, we can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 1.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent by 2050. That would be the equivalent of Japan’s estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions today.
We should not miss the opportunity to propose this at the next UN Environment Assembly in 2021.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Plastic pollution is a pressing global concern. Countries that bulk-import such waste bear much of the environmental and social costs, especially if they cannot manage the waste. Many of these countries are our close neighbours in Southeast Asia.
Aligning our laws to the changes in the Basel Convention is one of the ways that Singapore can help alleviate plastic pollution. I am encouraged by the amendments, which not only fulfill our international obligations but show our commitment to work with the international community to address pertinent global problems. Sir, I have three clarifications to raise.
First, the changes to the Basel Convention that will take effect on 1 January 2021 will make it harder for Singapore to export our plastic waste for recycling. Under the new rules, countries will have to consent to importing plastic waste from exporters that are contaminated or that are difficult to recycle. Many countries have already announced plans to ban or limit their import of plastic waste. Such countries include China, which will ban all plastic waste imports by 2020 and other countries that take in our plastic waste, such as Malaysia and Indonesia.
This situation creates a problem. With more plastic waste on our hands, the Semakau landfill could be filled even earlier than 2035, which is the projected end of its lifespan. Already, Singapore incinerates some of our recyclable waste because of our limited recycling capacity. Can the Minister share if the Ministry has reviewed its projection of the Semakau landfill's lifespan? If so, can the Minister share its updated figure on the lifespan of the Semakau landfill? If it has not done so, would the Ministry consider undertaking such a review? Can the Minister also clarify what percentage of plastic waste sent for recycling in 2019 ends up being recycled versus that which is incinerated?
Second, the amendment means that Singapore would need to boost its local plastic recycling capacity even more urgently. In 2018, only 7% of the plastic waste that Singapore recycled was processed locally. The rest was recycled overseas. Encouragingly, NEA said last year that it is planning to build up the country’s mechanical recycling capability for used plastics and explore options for chemical recycling. How much does the Ministry plan to invest into building up Singapore's plastic recycling capabilities? Furthermore, with Singapore's current recycling capacity, up to what percentage of our plastic waste and our overall waste, can be recycled locally respectively? Can the Minister clarify what percentage of plastic waste we plan to recycle locally by 2035 and include a breakdown of that timeline?
Third, under the amended Convention, plastic that is clean, sorted and uncontaminated can be freely traded. In Singapore, contamination is a key reason why we recycle only 4% of our plastic waste. In recent years, MEWR and NEA have attempted to address the problem by fitting houses with a separate recycling chute and improving the information labels on blue recycling bins. Can the Ministry share data on the effectiveness of these efforts to combat plastic waste contamination? If the data is not yet available, when will it be and will the Ministry publish it once it is available? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill which will contribute to greater accountability and more responsible plastic waste disposal globally.
We have all seen reports from neighbouring countries that have discovered toxic wastes illegally exported to their countries. Our compliance with the Basel Amendments aims to put a stop to such irresponsible practices. Going forward, only approved categories of plastic waste can be traded without restriction, while particular categories can only be exported with the permission of the importing countries.
For Singapore and most countries, plastic waste is the biggest category of waste. Unfortunately, the amount we generate is increasing year by year. NEA's latest statistics showed that we only managed to recycle 4% of our plastic waste, compared to 99% for metals, 56% for paper and cardboard. Four percent is really pathetic and we should make much more effort to reduce the amount of plastic we use, particularly in consumable products.
Many Singaporeans are supportive of the Government's efforts to be environmentally responsible but the reality is that so many of our items are packaged in plastics. Consumers are in a bind because we do not have much of a choice. What can we do if your shampoo or beverage comes in a plastic bottle? I think it is important that we go upstream for solutions. The responsibility is on the manufacturers to pack their products in sustainable materials. How should we encourage the manufacturers to improve on their products so that potential issues and concerns are addressed from the production stage to ensure that they are environmentally-friendly? Perhaps, the Ministry can consider using both the carrot and the stick to bring about improvements. For example, we could impose environmental levies on products packaged in plastics and providing incentives for other materials better for our environment.
In addition, I think we should also introduce stronger measures to make sure that our people do their part to cut down on wastage, be responsible in recycling correctly and avoid polluting our environment. Reducing, recycling and caring for our environment should be a mind-set inculcated through our education system as well as consistent public education and outreach. These efforts should be on-going even when it becomes part of our Singapore culture so that our younger generations will continue to uphold this value. For higher effectiveness, I would like to request that the Ministry consider deploying more resources to its enforcement units.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and support of the Bill. I will now address the four broad areas brought up. First, the measures Singapore undertakes to meet our obligations under the Basel Convention. Second, the effects of the amendments on the industry. Third, our plans to develop our local recycling industry, particularly relating to plastics. Fourth, our plans to reduce excessive consumption of plastics and to close the plastic loop.
Ms Anthea Ong asked about our progress in implementing the Basel Convention. Since 1996, when we became a Party to the Convention, we have issued an average of 150 Basel permits a year for the transboundary movement of wastes. In 2018, NEA issued 36 import permits, 50 export permits and 70 transit permits. The main destinations for Basel exports were Korea, Japan, France and Thailand, with most of these shipments containing e-waste intended for recycling.
Ms Anthea Ong also asked how we ensure hazardous waste exported under the Basel Convention is properly treated. This is covered under the Prior Informed Consent or PIC procedure, which is well established under the Basel Convention.
When companies apply to NEA for a Basel export permit, they are required to provide information on the treatment facility which the shipment is destined for. This information is forwarded to the relevant authorities in the State of Import. NEA will not issue a Basel export permit to the company until the State of Import evaluates the proposal and consents to accept the shipment.
We take our obligations under the Basel Convention seriously and have taken action against companies for violations. Under the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act (HWA), companies that falsely declare such wastes, or export such wastes without a valid Basel export permit, can be fined up to $300,000. Individuals who commit such offences can be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned for up to two years, or both.
NEA works closely with Singapore Customs and the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority to enforce these regulations at our checkpoints. We also enjoy a close working relationship with international counterparts and cooperate with them to investigate any suspected illegal export of waste from Singapore.
NEA had, in fact, investigated the case of Virogreen, which Ms Anthea Ong raised. In this instance, the company had correctly declared the contents of the shipment as e-waste for recycling. The PIC procedure had been followed and NEA had received consent from the relevant authority in Thailand for the import. These clarifications were carried in the same Eco-Business article.
Similarly, in the case reported by Reuters, which Ms Anthea Ong cited, none of the containers had been exported from or transited through Singapore. No Singapore companies had contravened the Basel Convention in any way and the two Singaporeans had not violated the HWA. The case is currently under investigation by the Indonesian authorities.
There are currently no plans to introduce extraterritorial offences in the HWA. The Basel Convention has nearly universal membership with 187 Parties and all our neighbouring countries are members. Singaporeans or Singapore-registered entities who contravene the Basel Convention can be prosecuted in their country of offence.
Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the impact of the amendments on our companies. NEA had consulted the industry prior to the introduction of these amendments. Our companies understood the need for the new measures and for Singapore to comply with our international obligations.
We do not expect these amendments to disrupt the operations of our plastic recyclers and traders. There will not be additional regulations on the movement of most clean and homogenous plastic recyclables as these are not subjected to PIC under the Basel Convention. Mixed plastic recyclables can also continue to be exported, as long as PIC is obtained from the State of Import. To help companies comply with the requirements, NEA will guide companies through the Basel permit application procedures, particularly in the initial period after the new regulations come into effect.
In fact, we hope that the local recycling industry will benefit from economic opportunities as clearer regulations on the flow of recyclables develop. This will facilitate the legitimate flow of recyclables and open up new markets for our local companies. As Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Anthea Ong have pointed out, there are opportunities to promote a regional circular economy, in line with the vision of our Zero Waste Masterplan.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak on the local plastic waste management landscape and our plans to develop local recycling capability and capacity, which Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng asked about.
Plastic waste in Singapore is either recycled or incinerated. Such wastes are not landfilled. All general waste and recyclables must be collected by licensed collectors. Plastic recyclables that are segregated at source is sorted and sent for recycling either locally or overseas. On the other hand, plastic waste which is not source-segregated for recycling is incinerated with other general waste at our Waste-to-Energy plants.
In 2018, approximately 949,000 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in Singapore, which was about 12% of the total waste generated. Four percent of the plastic waste generated was recycled. Of this, 7% was recycled locally, while the rest was sorted and exported for recycling. The plastics that are recycled are mainly post-industrial plastics that are clean and homogenous, or recyclables from households that have been sorted and baled at our Material Recovery Facilities. As we can see, packaging waste, including plastics, is generated in large quantities with a low recycling rate. As such, we have made packaging waste a priority waste stream in both the Zero Waste Masterplan and the Resource Sustainability Act.
As Mr Louis Ng has highlighted, we hope to further build up our local recycling capabilities to better extract resources from plastic waste. However, I would like to clarify that we are doing this not because we contribute to the global ocean plastics problem but because we want to reduce the amount of plastics that we incinerate. Singapore does not contribute in any significant way to the ocean plastics problem. We do not landfill our plastic waste but incinerate them at our Waste-to-Energy plants. Most of Singapore is a water catchment, meaning that our waterways are dammed up and plastics are removed from the waterways before they reach our reservoirs. We have been building up our waste management resilience, which is in line with the global movement towards proper treatment and management of waste.
As a small country, in the face of carbon and resource constraints, we also want to enhance Singapore's resource resilience by re-using resources for as long as possible. Hence, our vision is to close the plastic waste loop locally where feasible and allow our plastic wastes to be recovered and converted into useful resources again.
At the same time, investing in new recycling technology and developing the industry will create economic opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. For example, McKinsey estimates a potential fourfold increase in plastics reuse and recycling by 2030, worth an estimated US$60 billion.
We are studying both mechanical and chemical recycling options. Mechanical recycling uses well established technology to turn waste plastics into plastic pellets. We already have mechanical recycling plants in Singapore which treat our industrial plastic waste. These are operated by companies such as A~Star Plastics, Plaspulp Union and Ravago. Chemical recycling can potentially complement mechanical recycling. Waste plastics that are not suitable for mechanical recycling, such as used plastic bags, can be recycled into chemical feedstock through chemical recycling. We will share more on our plans to close the plastics loop at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.
Based on our consultations with industry players, the main impediments to greater recycling locally are the lack of economies of scale and low global demand. We will require further consultations with the local industry and economic agencies, to determine the appropriate industry size and structure to suit the Singapore market.
Our intent to build up local recycling capability is also a key reason why Singapore has not ratified the Ban Amendment, which Ms Anthea Ong asked about. The Amendment was first introduced in 1995 to protect developing countries from the ill-effects of hazardous waste exported by developed countries. The Amendment bans all exports from developed to developing countries, hence its name.
We believe that the legitimate movement of useful waste material does not just present economic opportunities for our companies, but allows Singapore to play our part in the safe handling of hazardous material in the region. For example, e-waste recycling companies in Singapore import e-waste from countries such as Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and treat them at our licensed facilities in an environmentally-sound manner. This would be curtailed if we ratified the Ban Amendment. In fact, many OECD countries have not ratified the Ban Amendment yet, including countries with strong recycling industries such as Japan and South Korea.
We are also investing in research and development to develop local recycling solutions, as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng spoke about.
The S$45 million Closing the Waste Loop R&D Initiative supports research into new circular economy solutions. For example, it has funded a research project that is studying how plastic-embedded multi-layer films, such as potato chip packaging, can be recycled. This involves developing a chemical recycling method that can separate and individually recycle the different layers from the multi-layer film.
As Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have highlighted, it is key to reduce the generation of plastic waste in the first place. Last year, we introduced the Resource Sustainability Act, a landmark legislation to give effect to a regulatory framework to promote resource sustainability and support the management of our priority waste streams. This year, new regulations on the mandatory reporting of packaging data and 3R plans for packaging will take effect. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted, such regulations will force companies to be more conscious of the amount of packaging used in their products, and encourage them to identify ways to optimise packaging.
The mandatory reporting framework will also lay the foundation for an EPR framework for packaging waste management. The EPR framework ensures that producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of the materials they use to package their products.
This will send economic signals to companies to take into account the cost of environmental externalities of their products. It will also encourage the redesigning of products so that less materials are used or the products can be more easily recycled.
However, tackling the consumption of plastics cannot be done by the Government alone. We are working closely with various stakeholders to reduce our consumption of disposables, including plastics. For example, NEA's \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign has partnered 1,600 premises to encourage consumers to reduce the use of disposables.
We also want to partner Singaporeans to co-create other solutions to reduce the excessive consumption of plastics. A Citizens' Workgroup for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds will be formed to work on measures to tackle the issue of excessive consumption of disposables in Singapore. We will announce further details on this later this year.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Christopher de Souza raised the issue of micro-plastics and micro-beads. We have in place comprehensive measures to address micro-plastics. For example, the Singapore Food Agency routinely takes samples of locally available food, including seafood, for testing to ensure compliance with our food safety standards. These standards are aligned with international standards.
At the same time, we recognise that the World Health Organisation, European Food Safety Authority and Food Agriculture Organisation have assessed that micro-plastics either posed a low risk to human health, or that more scientific evidence was required to assess the impact of ingesting plastic in food.
PUB also treats all used water at our water reclamation plants to internationally recognised discharge standards using the latest technology. This includes the removal of most micro-plastics. NEA has therefore assessed that no further measures are needed at this point to manage the entry of micro-beads into our waste water and into our environment, until further scientific evidence emerges.
While we have no plans to ban micro-beads in cosmetics, we encourage businesses to reduce the use of micro-beads in their products. I am heartened that multinational corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson and Unilever, as well as own local retailers, like Guardian Singapore and Watsons, have phased out micro-beads in their products. We will continue to monitor international developments on micro-plastics, including micro-beads in cosmetics.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Plastic waste is a waste stream of concern for us, and we are tackling it through regulations under the Resource Sustainability Act, as well as other plans to reduce plastic consumption and promote plastics recycling under the Zero Waste Masterplan.
In addition, as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore remains committed to upholding our obligations under the Basel Convention. The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill will enable Singapore to comply with the new controls on the transboundary movement of certain categories of plastic waste under the Basel Convention. The Bill will also allow for a more effective administration and enforcement of the Convention.
The amendments to the Basel Convention will provide greater clarity on plastic waste standards and better regulate its transboundary movement. In doing so, we hope that new economic opportunities will be created that the local recycling industry will seize, which will create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, this Bill implements the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation.
One of Singapore’s strengths lies in our being a vibrant international business and commercial hub that is open and connected to the world. We must continue to be so, to ensure that our economy remains vibrant and growing, amidst global uncertainties and disruptions.
Against this backdrop, one key area of focus in my Ministry's work has been to strengthen Singapore's legal and dispute resolution framework, to better serve the needs of international businesses that use Singapore as a base for their international commercial transactions. Singapore is one of the leading cross-border dispute resolution centres in the world and undergirding this is our trusted legal system and a strong rule of law. We also provide a comprehensive suite of international dispute resolution services to meet the varying needs of businesses. These include litigation, arbitration and increasingly mediation.
As part of efforts to strengthen our dispute resolution ecosystem, Singapore has invested in the development of international commercial mediation, including through building up institutions, developing capabilities and also updating our laws. For instance, the Mediation Act was enacted in 2017 to establish a framework for mediation, and to provide a more conducive environment in Singapore for international commercial mediation.
In the same vein, the Singapore Convention Signing Ceremony and Conference held in August last year was an important milestone for Singapore’s efforts in developing the dispute resolution landscape, on at least two levels. First, on a broader level, the Convention demonstrated Singapore’s thought leadership in international rule of law efforts and helped raise our position as an international dispute resolution hub to a new level.
Let me bring Members briefly through the steps which gave rise to the Convention. In February 2018, the UN Commission on International Trade Law or UNCITRAL Working Group on Dispute Settlement finalised the text of the Convention and the corresponding Model Law. Singapore contributed significantly to the development of the Convention at UNCITRAL. The Working Group was chaired by a Singaporean, and the Singapore delegation participated actively in the negotiations. Local industry experts were involved in shaping Singapore’s positions on the Convention, and also played an active role in contributing to the final outcome.
It took only three years – between 2015 and 2018 – to conclude an instrument dealing with enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, when several past attempts failed. This exhibited the Working Group’s dedication to constructive and open dialogue in the face of numerous delegations coming from different backgrounds and having different perspectives. This is really, the same spirit of mediation that the Convention itself seeks to encourage.
On 20 December 2018, the UN General Assembly, in a momentous decision, adopted the Convention. It also authorised the signing of the Convention to be held in Singapore and authorised the Convention to be known henceforth as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation”. This is the first treaty named after Singapore among those concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, and bears testament to our extensive contributions to the development of international commercial mediation globally.
On 7 August 2019, the Singapore Convention Signing Ceremony and Conference was held in Singapore. Singapore hosted more than 1,500 delegates from 70 countries at the event. Forty-six countries signed the Convention on the day it opened for signature, while another 24 countries attended the signing ceremony to show their support for the Convention. The signatories included the world's two largest economies – the US and China; three of Asia's four largest economies – China, India and South Korea; and five of 10 ASEAN countries – Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore.
The overwhelming response and turnout at the event was a powerful statement in support of multilateralism and a rules-based international order.
Subsequently, six other countries signed onto the Convention at the UN headquarters in New York, bringing the total number of signatories to the Convention today to 52.
Second, on a more specific level, the Convention is the missing third piece in the international dispute resolution enforcement framework, as many businesses today rely either on arbitration, enforced via the New York Convention, or on litigation, for cross-border disputes.
Mediation is rising in popularity due to a growing recognition of its benefits. It is cost-effective, flexible, efficient and also confidential. It allows parties to retain control over the outcome of their disputes. They control and in fact, design the architecture of the terms on which they come and reach a settlement on their dispute. It is attractive for businesses who wish to resolve their commercial disputes with an outcome that is mutually acceptable to both sides whilst preserving their long-term relationships and leaving open the possibility of working together in future. The conciliatory nature of mediation reduces the instances where a dispute leads ultimately to a complete termination of commercial relationships. Mediation therefore complements other modes of dispute resolution, as it can be used in conjunction with litigation or arbitration, and increasingly, it often is embedded into the system and it appears in both types of dispute resolution mechanisms.
Mediation has grown in popularity and use. A survey of participants at the 2016 Global Pound Conference found that a majority believed a greater emphasis on collaborative over adversarial process is a trend that will have the most significant influence on the future of commercial dispute resolution.
However, with all of that, the one key challenge that has been hindering the growth and adoption of mediation is the oft-cited difficulty faced by a party in ensuring that its counter-party – the party with whom it enters a settlement agreement – complies with the terms of the agreement.
While a mediated settlement agreement is contractually binding, it is not itself directly enforceable in the courts, unlike a court judgment or an arbitral award. This difficulty was also highlighted by the 2016 Global Pound Conference survey, where 51% of respondents indicated that legislation or conventions that promote the recognition and enforcement of settlements, including those reached in mediation, would most improve commercial dispute resolution. There is therefore a need for an effective, efficient and harmonised framework to enforce cross-border commercial mediated settlement agreements.
In response to this, the Convention puts in place a process for a party to enforce or invoke its settlement agreement in court. It is simple to use and allows businesses to maximise the benefits of mediation. Businesses can have greater assurance and certainty that mediation can be relied on to settle cross-border commercial disputes. This, in turn, promotes investor and business confidence. The Convention therefore facilitates the administration of international transactions by commercial parties, and we are hopeful that the establishment of a framework for the enforcement of such agreements will contribute to the development of harmonious international economic relations.
The Convention attained one of the highest number of first-day signatories for any UN trade convention, reflecting a recognition by the international community of the benefits that the Convention will bring.
The signing of the Convention marks the start of a long-term commitment by Singapore to promote the Convention and its adoption. In order for the Convention and therefore this Bill to enter into force, at least three states must deposit their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. The Convention will enter into force six months after the third state deposits its instrument.
On Singapore’s part, we aim to be amongst the first countries to ratify the Convention, and will take steps to do so once this Bill is passed and Presidential Assent is obtained.
Let me now take Members through the key features of this Bill, which seeks to implement Singapore's obligations under the Convention. In putting together these provisions, the mechanism and also the framework, we consulted various industry stakeholders, including international dispute resolution institutions and experts and received their feedback both in terms of the philosophy behind the enforcement and also the practical aspects of enforcement.
The Bill is intended to operate in parallel with the Mediation Act 2017. That is the Act which Members will be familiar with, that deals with enforcement of mediated agreements domestically. It also preserves contractual remedies, with a view to giving commercial parties a broad suite of choices to enforce or choose to invoke their international mediated settlement agreements.
The key features of the Bill include the following.
The Bill relates to the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and the invocation of such agreements as a defence. In other words, if a party chooses to act and bring a claim in breach of a prior mediated settlement agreement to which the claim applies, then the agreement can also be invoked as a defence.
It covers international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, concluded by parties to resolve a commercial dispute.
Agreements that are excluded from the Bill are those that (a) have been approved by a court or concluded in the course of court proceedings and are enforceable as judgments; (b) are enforceable as arbitral awards; and (c) relate to certain subject matters such as family, inheritance and employment law.
As mentioned, the Bill provides a range of options for parties seeking to enforce or invoke their settlement agreements in Singapore under the Convention. These are set out in clause 4 of the Bill. With these options, parties have the flexibility to decide on the most appropriate mode for their own particular situation and circumstance. This will help them to assess the options better and also save time and costs.
The Bill provides a \"court order mechanism\" for parties seeking to enforce or invoke their settlement agreement. So, a party can apply to the High Court to record its settlement agreement as an order of court, which can thereafter be used for the purposes of enforcement, or as I mentioned earlier as a defence, as the case may be. The procedure and the framework is similar to the enforcement of awards under the International Arbitration Act, which the legal and business communities would already be familiar with. It also provides greater certainty if future reliance on the settlement agreement is necessary.
For the avoidance of doubt, the process of obtaining a court order under the Bill does not extinguish the underlying mediated settlement agreement. It preserves the status of the underlying mediated agreement. So, it is still an agreement after all, even if one chooses to invoke the court process for the purposes of enforcement or to raise it as a defence. Either party to the mediated settlement agreement is at liberty to use the underlying settlement agreement for enforcement or invocation in another country, which is a party to the Convention, which is precisely why there is such a Convention – for cross-border enforcement of the mediated settlement agreement. This, of course, will be subject to that country's own procedures for enforcement and/or invocation.
Next, where there are existing proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, a party can apply to court to invoke the settlement agreement as a defence, to prove that the matter in those proceedings had already been resolved by the settlement agreement, without the need to take out separate proceedings to rely on the agreement. This also helps save time and costs for parties.
Lastly, parties’ legal rights and remedies existing outside of the Convention will be preserved. This means that parties can, for instance, continue to rely on contractual principles to enforce or invoke their settlement agreement, should they prefer this route.
Next, clause 6 requires the applicant to provide certain documents and evidence to the Court with its application. The Court may also take into account an exhaustive list of grounds to refuse an application under clause 7. Where a settlement agreement has been recorded as an order of court, clause 8 enables a party to apply to set aside the court order under stipulated grounds. In Clause 9, if there are parallel proceedings in another court, tribunal or other competent authority, the Court hearing an application under the Bill may adjourn the hearing and order the other party to give suitable security for costs.
This Bill does not currently implement either of the two reservations allowed under the Convention. The effect of this non-implementation of the reservation is that firstly, the Convention and the Bill will apply to settlement agreements that the Government is a party to; and two, the Convention and the Bill will apply automatically to parties to a settlement agreement who may wish to enforce or invoke their agreement in a Singapore court under the Convention. Parties may however agree, through the terms of their settlement agreement, to opt out of the Convention. That is a choice given to the parties – you might decide that you wish to opt out of the modalities set out in the Convention.
Finally, the Bill makes related amendments to the Mediation Act 2017, which I mentioned earlier, and also to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA).
The related amendments to the Mediation Act 2017 provide that a settlement agreement within the scope of the Bill is not precluded from the Mediation Act 2017, if that settlement agreement also qualifies under that Act. In other words, it preserves a party's rights to go under the Mediation Act 2017 if you also qualify under the framework of that legislation.
The amendments to the SCJA provide the High Court with the jurisdiction to grant applications under the Bill.
Sir, in conclusion, let me reiterate that in developing our dispute resolution regime, we have sought to provide businesses with a full suite of user-centric options to resolve their cross-border disputes, whether through litigation, arbitration or mediation. With the introduction of the Convention, it is anticipated that more businesses will seek to avail themselves of the benefits that the mediation process provides, as adoption of the Convention becomes more prevalent globally. This Bill is an essential instrument that will enable parties to benefit from the framework that is already set out in the Convention, and it is a significant step in our overall efforts to strengthen Singapore’s dispute resolution framework. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, first and foremost, let me declare my role as the advisor to the International Institute of Mediators (IIM).
This is a landmark Bill. It represents a significant major step for cross-border resolution of commercial disputes. This is with the hope that businesses will benefit with more certainty and assurance.
Sir, it is also about our Singapore branding, our badge as a global arbitration and mediation hub. Singapore had a major role in drafting the document. And what more, the Singapore Convention on Mediation was opened for signature on 7 August 2019, our Bicentennial year, and also named after us. It is an honour indeed.
Mediation is now getting more popular and thus more frequently used at both domestic and international platforms. Reading through the Bill, there are some unique pointers unlike other multilateral enforcement regimes, such as that it does not operate based on reciprocity between member states.
I have, Sir, several clarifications and queries.
Firstly, under section 6, subsection 4, pertaining to the certified translation into English of the settlement agreement if it is in other languages. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the service will be provided by a list of approved vendors globally or the parties involved will have to source for this themselves?
Next, can the Senior Minister of State please outline if the courts of signatory countries will handle applications to enforce or clear parties involved?
Some major nations have not ratified the Convention. Are there specific reasons or considerations for this? With a Bill as this under the umbrella of the United Nations, it would be excellent to have as many nations come on board and if not so, the reasons, perhaps could be addressed adequately. I believe there are also some inconsistencies with the fundamentals of commercial mediation in the Western jurisdiction. Perhaps the Senior Minister of State is probably more well-versed with this, and if it is possible, perhaps he can enlighten us on some of the possible reasons for this.
Can I also clarify with the Senior Minister of State that as long as a settlement is intended and will result from mediation, then that commercial case will qualify for enforcement under the Convention, regardless of its place of origin or the nation of origin?
Sir, mediation is an art, with the science part of it as well. The mediation industry is variable across different countries and jurisdictions. Its recognition is also variable. For example, in the UK, it has a well-known reputation and history of being strong in arbitration.
What is important in considering this Bill is the fact that mediation will be driven very much by the local framework, culture and emphasis. Mediator recognition, training and qualifications also vary across the globe. Cultural diversity will exist and we know that \"culture can, indeed, trump strategy\". In view of all these factors, how do we ensure some degree of consistency and standardisation?
Another concern is on the requirement of having \"the mediator signing the document\". A mediator's document is quite different from a witness' statement in Court, for example. In some places, the mediator may not be comfortable to have his or her name and documents appear and be utilised in a Court of law. Mediators may disagree to sign the Settlement Agreement and, if they are not comfortable with this, to be also subpoenaed as witnesses. How then should these cases be handled?
Some cases or disputes put up for mediation may span a period of time, maybe even years, and agreement may not have been reached at the first sitting. If an agreement is then eventually reached, how can we prove that it is actually settled through mediation and not due to other platforms, alternatives and various permutations of interventions, during the course of the matter in question?
Another query I have on this is: will an agreement arising from mediation now be enforceable with the passing of this Bill? Can the Minister please clarify as well?
Finally, will two parties in dispute seeking enforcement apply to the Courts of the State or country whereby the majority of the assets are located or can this be otherwise? Who can decide on this? And what if both parties are at loggerheads pertaining to this?
So, these are some of the clarifications I have. Pending these, I support the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as an accredited mediator with the Singapore Mediation Centre as well as a Fellow in the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to enhance the dispute resolution landscape within Singapore, by giving greater recognition towards mediation and international commercial settlement agreements.
The benefits of mediation are four-fold. First, mediation accords parties greater control over the outcome and resolution of the matter, which contrasts with long-drawn Court trials, where the outcome of a case rests in the Judge’s hands. Second, the contents of parties' disputes are kept confidential, unlike litigation where parties' dirty linen and affairs are often aired in Court. Third, legal costs are reduced, as parties no longer have to pay for their lawyers' fees and Court fees once a settlement has been reached. Lastly and most importantly, parties' relationships are preserved and this is essential where parties wish to continue business relations with each other.
As Singapore recognises the benefits of mediation and continues to develop its position as a leading global dispute resolution hub, mediation institutions and schemes will take on an increasingly important role. At present, we have the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), which has mediated over 4,000 matters to-date. The settlement rate is approximately 70%, with more than 90% of the settled disputes resolved within a day. To-date, the SMC has received positive feedback. Many individuals have saved time and costs and would likewise recommend the SMC to others involved in disputes.
Apart from the SMC, we also have the International Institute of Mediators (Singapore) Limited (iiM), which was established as a result of its founding members’ commitment to develop and promote the mediation profession on a global basis. Aside from the regular mediation sessions conducted by its members, the iiM additionally provides education and training for those who aspire to become trained mediators.
I am also pleased to share that NTUC’s Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit (UFSE) and iiM have inked a collaboration agreement in December 2019 to better serve the needs of the freelancer community in Singapore. This is one of the many initiatives illustrating the Labour Movement's commitment towards its freelancer members, ensuring that they have an appropriate avenue for amicable dispute resolution. With this collaboration, NTUC UFSE members will be able to enjoy discounted rates for mediation services provided by iiM.
Turning now to the international commercial sphere, with the increasing prevalence of global and international trade between countries, coupled with Singapore’s open and highly developed free-market economy, the need for cross-border mediation resources and enforceable international settlement agreements becomes particularly crucial. It is against this commercial backdrop that this Bill is commendable.
Under the new Bill, international commercial settlement agreements may be recorded as an order of Court which can then be more readily enforced in the same manner as a judgment by the High Court. This is an improvement from the long-standing position where mediated settlement agreements are typically only binding contractually between parties and not directly enforceable as a Court Order. By the same token, the settlement agreement may also be invoked by a party as a defence against a claim that has already been settled. This prevents settled disputes from being re-litigated, which saves parties’ time and costs as well as judicial resources.
While the Bill is no doubt commendable, I have the following questions and clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. The Bill only applies to international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation and does not extend to settlement agreements concluded for family, inheritance and/or employment disputes.
First, is there a reason why the Bill is not extended to these other areas of dispute? If so, would the Minister be willing to share the reasons? Also, does the Minister foresee that there should be a similar Bill covering these other areas, given today's globally interconnected world, where many individuals opt to work around the globe, having assets typically situated in different parts of the world and where transactions cut across borders?
Second, given the growing freelancer community and, especially for those who look to venture overseas, whether digitally or in person, would the Bill also cover intellectual property rights?
Third, I understand that the Court retains the discretion to refuse the application to record the agreement as a Court Order if there was a serious breach by the mediator of the applicable standards. What are some examples of serious breaches by the mediator which would warrant the Court’s refusal of the application? And is it necessary to refuse enforcement, especially if commercial entities have been properly advised and have the freedom to enter into such settlement agreements?
Fourth, we do see a greater trend towards mediation over the years, especially with the implementation of the Mediation Act in 2017 and the various mediation institutions in Singapore. I have also seen some choosing mediation over litigation, while others opt to use mediation in conjunction with litigation. Would the Minister foresee a further increase in disputes resolved as a result of the new Bill and, if so, to what extent? Would the Minister also be able to share some of the views and concerns of the legal fraternity as well as the business community, in response to this new Bill? Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as the Chairman of Sakae Holdings Limited, President of Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF), Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and Vice-President of the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF). I rise in support of the Bill.
As a representative of the business community, I strongly believe in the benefits of mediation. I constantly advocate mediation as the initial avenue for dispute resolution as the flexibility and advantages that mediation offers are wide-ranging. The benefits of mediation vis-à-vis arbitration and litigation are frequently cited to be time and cost efficiency, confidentiality, non-confrontational character and, many times, the business relationship may continue after a mediation settlement is reached.
I believe I can say that, lawyers apart, one of the most stressful things in life for the everyday man on the street would be to be hit with legal matters, especially a full-blown litigious trial. The stress, worry and uncertainty are exacerbated by a largely adversarial process that takes much time and, indeed, resources away from the real business of doing business.
Hence, the business community will benefit if mediation becomes a widely-accepted and recognised avenue for dispute resolution. With mediation, the options for settlement are wider in scope than the monetary compensation available through arbitration or litigation and parties have a chance to negotiate settlement options without prejudice to their legal rights and in a non-pressure cooker atmosphere.
The confidential nature of mediation also protects companies from unwanted public scrutiny. Most business relationships are complex and forged over time and, as such, I believe most would seek to preserve the relationship where possible. As the awareness for mediation grows, I see this as a cost- and time-efficient option for companies to resolve disputes.
As the President of SMF, I have personally facilitated dialogue between SMC and SMF. The hope of both parties is to bring greater awareness of the options and advantages of mediation to the manufacturing community and thus fostering greater acceptance of this avenue of dispute resolution.
The team at the SMC has shared that 90% of mediation cases are concluded within one day. This is really amazing, as compared to the significantly longer processes of arbitration and litigation with the corresponding higher professional service fees that one would have to pay.
It is my hope that more trade associations and chambers will take the lead in spreading what mediation is and help our society to be one that is less litigious. It is in this context that I firmly place my support behind this Bill.
Perhaps the main reason why companies hesitate to consider mediation as an avenue of dispute resolution was the lack of an enforcement mechanism, especially in the event of cross-border interests. As there was a lack of a cross-border framework for mediated settlement agreements, parties are only able to seek enforcement of the settlement agreement under contract law. By passing this Bill as a step towards ratifying the Singapore Convention, mediation will now be further seen as one that does not waste time and one that can produce desired outcomes.
The Singapore Convention on Mediation, formally the UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation which was adopted on 20 December 2018 and opened for signature on 7 August 2019, is an international agreement governing the recognition of mediated settlements across different countries.
The UN General Assembly adopted this agreement on 18 December 2018 and it is very heartening that the agreement has since been signed by 52 states since it was opened for signature since then.
With a global framework in place, businesses should have greater confidence to settle international disputes through mediation. As noted by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the signing ceremony, \"This will help advance international trade, commerce and investment.\"
The ratifying of the Convention in the near future will be a step forward for the international business community as signatory states move to standardise enforcement of mediation settlements in their respective jurisdictions. Once again, businesses will not see benefits overnight as legislation takes time to be enacted. However, we hope to be able to lay the groundwork and build awareness in the immediate future.
This Bill is timely, especially with the recent coming into force of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the European Union–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA). As a trade federation, SMF has increasingly encouraged our local companies to look beyond our shores and seek out business partners in new markets for growth.
In the Singapore Business Federation National Business Survey 2019/2020, 76% of firms which indicated that they intended to expand were keen to venture into the ASEAN region, similar to 2018/2019 levels. The top three destinations in the survey were Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia.
In 2019, SMF welcomed 21 international business delegations and hosted eight business matching sessions for the local and international business representatives. The Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) Singapore Chapter is managed by SMF and, in the lead up to the ratification of the EUSFTA, saw an increase in interest from local business owners during the visits and business-matching sessions for the European delegations.
Of course, finding a viable business partner does not happen over one business-matching session. The process usually requires a long period of discussion and gestation before an agreement is finalised. Forging business relationships in new markets is a challenging endeavour, especially in markets with very different cultures and regulatory requirements. With increased cross-border commercial transactions, it is expected that differences will arise. As such, a mediation framework that is internationally recognised is much needed for a fair and efficient way to resolve disputes in a timely manner.
In Singapore, the business community is fortunate to operate in a stable environment built on the trust and respect of Government, employers and employees. Within this tripartite partnership, mediation has long been the preferred tool to resolve disputes, especially since the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) was established in April 2017.
In reply to a written question in Parliament in August last year by my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Anthea Ong, Minister Josephine Teo provided statistics, which in my humble opinion, has shown TADM's commendable rates on successful settlements and enforcement. Mediation actually embodies the key tenets of open communication and trust that lie in the foundation of our Tripartite Partnership. My hope is for mediation to continue to be seen as a viable first approach to not only resolve employer and employees disputes but as an avenue to resolve business disputes as well.
As Trade Association Chambers, we need to be committed to advocate and educate the business community with the on-going changes to business legislation and the subsequent benefits of mediation to companies. Once this Bill is passed, I believe our work begins. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Desmond Lee: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Why Fear the Fear of Failure? – Imperatives for Refining our Education System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hon Members of the House, as we approach the end of a long sitting in Parliament, you must be running through your minds the many tasks you need to complete to tomorrow, as you tick off those that you have accomplished today. You may cheer in the thought that you have achieved several goals, but nevertheless berate yourself for not attaining others. And you probably feel frustrated and annoyed at your lack of efficacy in that regard. Because ultimately as human beings, we are often our own toughest critics. We set lofty targets for ourselves, and feel like losers when we do not meet them. We take our own shortcomings and inflate them, diminish our best efforts and magnify our failures.
Alas, failure is very much on the minds of students in Singapore, as revealed by the PISA Rankings announced in December. While our 15-year-old students came in second worldwide in reading, math and science, we came in first for a fresh indicator. The PISA test introduced a new measure to assess students’ fear of failure where compared to students from other countries, we have the highest percentage of students, 78%, agreeing or strongly agreeing with the phrase, \"When I am failing, this makes me doubt my plans for the future\". Tellingly, 72% of Singapore students also worry about what others would think of them if they fail, reflecting the resounding weight of failure on their sense of self-worth.
While we may despair that these statistics indicate our failure as a society to nurture tougher and more resilient youths, we should also take them as helpful cues for what we can do to further refine our education system, so that we can make it even more robust and forward-looking than it already is. This involves taking a hard look at the achievement orientation that underlies our education system, with its strong focus on examinations and grades that contributes to this fear of failure.
Achievement orientation is by no means undesirable as it propels our students to take their studies seriously, work hard and strive for excellence. However, an over-emphasis on achievement can also extinguish the love for learning, induce an obsession with grades and transform our students into examination-taking machines.
I therefore commend MOE for having made concrete steps towards de-emphasising examinations at Primary and Secondary levels. Mid-year examinations for Primary 3 and 5 and Secondary 1 and 3 students are being progressively scrapped, and all graded assessments and examinations at Primary 1 and 2 have also been removed to give young pupils two test-free years. Report books no longer state the class and level rankings of Primary and Secondary school students, and marks for each subject are rounded off and presented as whole numbers, without decimal points, to minimise the intense focus on marks. Instead, teachers now provide qualitative descriptors on their pupils' learning. While some may denigrate these as mere symbolic efforts, we cannot underestimate the power of symbolism.
Indeed, there is yet more that we can do to lessen the achievement orientation and downplay the fear of failure, both symbolically and practically, particularly at the operational level.
First, let us cast our eye on our students’ everyday learning environments. I am assured that most of our teachers work hard at their jobs and do their best to instil excellence and industry in their students. However, a small minority engage in microaggressions in the classroom where they use questionable tactics and harsh measures to motivate under-performing students. As distressed students and parents have shared with me, these include reading out the names and test scores of every student in class in order of highest to lowest scorers, thereby prolonging the ordeal for those at the bottom of the pile. Another often mentioned practice is the flashing of the work of poor performers on the screen and using these as examples of what not to do, with the identity of the \"incompetent\" student being made clearly known to everyone.
Teachers have also been known to taunt students with disparaging comments such as \"you’re too stupid to take this course\" or \"why can’t you do something so simple?\" In more extreme situations, some teachers promise the entire class a fast food treat if everyone in the class scores above a certain threshold. When some pupils fail to attain that magic score, the teacher then denies everyone the treat and the disappointed class then chastises and ostracises the under-performers. Such tactics not only shame the poor performers but also create a toxic environment that promotes dog-eat-dog hostility rather than peer-to-peer support.
I believe that these teachers are fundamentally well-intentioned and seek only to spur on their students. And their actions are really symptomatic of the broader pressures that teachers themselves face in delivering results. Be that as it may, such teachers must be made to realise that these destructive methods of highlighting failure and under-performance can demotivate students and lead them to lose interest in the subject. They can also demoralise the students and at worst, inflict long-term damage on their self-esteem. As worries about the mental health of young people are on the ascent, we must not dismiss such microaggressions in the classroom and do our utmost to educate our teachers on their harms. I therefore propose that we better prepare and empower our teachers to be proactive and sensitive in helping students manage failure and deal with setbacks. Our schools must feel like safe spaces in which to fail, and to try again.
Second, even as we have de-emphasised class rankings in report books, teachers are communicating actively with parents about their children via a range of mobile apps and digital platforms including Parents Gateway, ClassDojo, Remind and even WhatsApp. In research for my book \"Transcendent Parenting: Raising Children in the Digital Age\", we captured screenshots from parents’ phones where teachers would message parents of their children's performance in individual tests and assignments. Some would also include the highest, lowest and median scores for the assignments, thereby allowing pupils to place where they stood relative to everyone else. Yet another teacher messaged the parents that 30 pupils had scored full marks for a spelling test. If our average class size is 33-34, how would the three or four kids who missed out on a perfect score feel? I reckon that those kids and their parents must have felt like failures.
Furthermore, apps like ClassDojo also allow teachers to assign a score to children's in-class performance and this is also communicated to the parents, thereby allowing parents to \"track\" how their children are faring in class. My research also showed that some parents obsess over these scores and interrogate their children about what went on in school, even though these scores are disguised as gamified rewards.
Some may argue that it is parents and indeed students themselves who are keen to know how well they are doing. However, we can collectively reshape the culture of achievement orientation if there is an overall shift in emphasis from relative performance towards individual performance, and where qualitative feedback is prioritised over quantitative metrics. Fundamentally, if we want to reduce the excessive focus on grades in our education system, we must ensure that this is practised consistently and across the board, not just in report books but also in everyday teacher-parent communication.
Third, another setting in which our students feel the fear of failure most acutely is in the collection of PSLE, \"O\" and \"A\" level results. Many students and families are on tenterhooks in the days leading up to these fateful moments. Those who have performed beyond or up to expectations will be relieved but those who have not will find the entire exercise excruciating. Besides the seemingly interminable wait for the results, there is also the awkward trudge out of school where friends will demand to know how well you have performed. Some students have been known to call the walk out from the school hall to the school gate the walk of shame. Others hide in the toilet until the coast is clear!
Mind you, many students will feel like they have failed, even if they have done well by objective measures. In one JC where students with 6As and above were invited on stage, some students with 5As cried buckets. In another school where the average IB score was 43, one student who scored an admirable 41 points was seen bawling his eyes out.
Ultimately, the atmosphere around the collection of results for these high stakes examinations is stressful and intense. Must we pile on the pressure by requiring that students collect them personally? An already difficult experience exacerbated by the prevalence of smartphones to capture and broadcast everything via social media? Let us not forget that our young lead very public lives where they have an online image to maintain and live up to, thereby adding to their social anxiety around such watershed events. I reiterate that the PISA measure found that a sizeable majority of our students worry about what others would think of them if they fail.
By removing the public spectacle with which these results are released, we can lessen the perception that these exams are as high stakes as currently viewed. We will also send the clear message that they are not the be all and end all of each student’s educational journey. As it stands, our Universities and Polytechnics already successfully release their exam results online.
I am confident that with our Smart Nation infrastructure that we can well handle the online release of PSLE, \"O\", \"A\" level and IB results that allow students and their families to receive and process the information in the privacy of their own homes. For students who wish to seek support after the results, schools can be open for the day to welcome whoever wishes to consult, commiserate or even celebrate with teachers. But give all students the option of receiving their results privately.
As for students who have excelled, we can still mark their successes in other ways, such as through the Edusave Award ceremonies that showcase achievements by students across all levels. By turning off the glaring spotlight on the collection of results for high stakes examinations, we also send the important signal that ours is a culture of lifelong learning that does not end with attaining these certificates. After all, in the wake of Industry 4.0 and beyond, we must all recognise that learning extends well beyond our formal school years.
I believe that through these measures big and small, that we can help to further reduce achievement orientation in our education system and in the process, mitigate the fear of failure. As they say, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Failure can be instructive and rewarding, providing us with feedback and valuable experience for future undertakings. But it is the fear of failure that holds us back. When we fear failure, we tend to be more conservative, stick to the tried and tested, and hesitate to venture into new territory.
The fear of failure can therefore impede personal growth, creativity and innovation, all of which are critical assets for our young people as they mature in a future that is promising, but also challenging.
As the on-going coronavirus crisis sharply demonstrates, ours is a decidedly unpredictable world where curve balls abound. If our young people are crippled by the fear of failure, and do not nurture a growth mindset that is open to constant adaptation, they will find it difficult to manage change and uncertainty.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our young Singaporeans are smart, capable and passionate. Let us do our best to make sure that they are fearless too.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Muhammad Faishal.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education and Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Prof Lim Sun Sun for sharing her views. Failure teaches us valuable lessons and learning to bounce back from setbacks is one of the most critical life skills that our students can learn. My response will elaborate on three points: first, the value of failure and what our teachers are doing to inculcate a growth mind-set in our students; second, the systems changes that MOE is making so that students can develop to their fullest potential; third, our collective effort in re-shaping societal attitudes, helping students to learn from setbacks and grow in confidence. Parents, alongside educators, also have an important role to play.
First, on the value of failure. MOE has looked into the PISA findings that Prof Lim mentioned earlier. In MOE's studies, students report that they are stressed by high expectations from themselves and others. At the same time, the PISA findings also indicated that our students have higher levels of self-efficacy, which reflects confidence in one's ability to get things done, compared to peers in other top-performing education systems.
Hence, the fear of failure may actually be a reflection of the strong achievement motivation and expectations of our students. Just like stress, a healthy level of concern about failure is not a bad thing – in other words, we do not always have to fear the \"fear of failure\". Nonetheless, we agree that excessive fear of failure is undesirable. It can lead to risk-aversion, anxiety and a reluctance to try new challenges.
As everybody can attest to, experiencing failure is an unavoidable part of life. In fact, some successful entrepreneurs will tell you that it is actually an essential stepping-stone on the way to success. Hence, we must teach our students how to get up when they fall and to manage the challenges and stressors that they may face, whether in school or in life.
Today, our schools and teachers provide opportunities for students to face challenges and openly discuss success and failure. Schools promote a supportive learning culture, whereby positive teacher-student relationship and peer support are emphasised. Our teachers are trained to use different means to motivate their charges. They use role models and positive peer examples to encourage the class to excel. Teachers also help students to see that there is no need to be overly anxious over \"failures\". Instead, they are just setbacks that provide useful learning points and feedback in their lifelong journey, and the \"try-fail-try-again\" approach can provide a richer learning experience. There may be instances where these can be done better and we note the feedback given by Prof Lim.
Developing resilience in the face of failure is also proactively inculcated as part of Character and Citizenship Education, or CCE, that all students experience. Through CCE, students learn about a growth mindset, and understand that their abilities can be developed through dedication and a never-say-die attitude. Beyond classroom lessons, our students reinforce these skills through CCA interactions, inter-school competitions and even student-body elections. These experiences enable them to overcome challenges, taste success and learn from setbacks.
At this point, let me share the thinking behind the collection of national examination results. First, it is important that when students receive their results, regardless of whether it meets their expectations or beyond, that they have the support of their closest friends, teachers and school counsellors at hand. So, it is important that they are present. Second, we have seen that this is the juncture where many students look to their teachers for timely and relevant advice regarding their next phase of education. To avoid undue pressure, we had stopped announcing the top PSLE scorer and the academic banding of Secondary schools. Some schools also give out results at the classroom level, rather than in the school hall. We will continue to review how schools release results, in the best interests of students.
Moving on to my second point, indeed, I fully agree with Prof Lim that we should nurture a culture of lifelong learning and thank her for her support in the changes we are making at MOE. New pathways, increased porosity between them, and a greater diversity of programmes cater to the diverse strengths and aspirations of our students, and give them the chance to chart a different path, or to try again. As a result, experiencing temporary setbacks certainly does not curtail future opportunities in their educational journey, nor does it equate to being a failure in life. Let me share a few examples.
We have introduced Direct School Admission (DSA) to our Secondary schools and Junior Colleges, and different forms of aptitude-based admissions for our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). These pathways recognise our student's achievements beyond examinations, and supports them to develop and pursue their strengths and interests. It mitigates the high stakes of examinations and reduces an overemphasis on academic results.
We have also increased porosity between pathways. In Secondary schools, the pilot for Full Subject-Based Banding, or Full SBB, has started. This marks our move away from stream labels, so that students are less likely to impose a self-limiting mindset on themselves. Instead, they can discover and develop their potential, and take a combination of subjects across different levels that cater to their strengths.
In our Institutes of Higher Learning, students have continuous opportunities to upgrade so that they can always try again, or further their education subsequently. By 2030, all Nitec students will have the opportunity to upgrade to a Higher Nitec over the course of their careers, and can progress further through work-study diplomas or full-time programmes. Working adults can return to full-time studies at the Polytechnics via the Early Admissions Exercise. Among Polytechnic graduates, many go on to pursue a University degree. University graduates may further their education through a specialist diploma in a Polytechnic. Everyone can continue to acquire new skills or deepen their skills throughout life, through a wide range of continuing education and training opportunities that are supported by SkillsFuture Singapore.
We are also encouraging students to go beyond their comfort zone through diverse educational programmes that provide opportunities for students to chart their own path. One of the students I have met, over the years, is Alif Adam, a Ngee Ann Polytechnic graduate who now runs an e-commerce business in fitness wear. Alif dropped out of Junior College twice, before he found his footing in Polytechnic where he discovered his natural talent as an entrepreneur. While pursuing his Diploma in Advertising and Public Relations, he took advantage of the school's work-study entrepreneurship programme in Jakarta, a $5,000 Kickstarter grant, and with his parents' blessings, eventually launched his company three years ago, which now boasts an international client base. Today, he still goes back to Ngee Ann Polytechnic to inspire and mentor students.
This leads me to my third and final point – how we, as a society, can also shift our mind-sets. Our education system is increasingly one where our students can customise their goals based on their own definition of success. They can take advantage of many \"bridges\" and \"ladders\" in their lifelong journey of learning. Our schools and our teachers also create a supportive environment where our students feel safe to challenge themselves, rather than hold back due to a fear of failure. All of these will help students to be more resilient, self-reliant and innovative.
At the same time, parents and families also have a part to play. We, as a society, should also start to redefine how we measure success and react to failure. By showing timely support and seizing teachable moments, we can provide a nurturing environment for our children to be comfortable with confronting failures. For example, as parents, when our children do not perform as well as expected, we could emphasise that what matters more is how they pick themselves up. Recognise effort, and not just the outcome. Encourage reflection and a growth mind-set. Guide our children to turn their disappointment into a source of motivation to do better the next time and to never lose belief in themselves.
Through actions, big and small, we can become a society of opportunities for everybody by doing our part to provide that \"trampoline\" for our children to bounce back from setbacks and set their eyes on greater heights. Together with parents and teachers, MOE will nurture the next generation of resilient Singaporeans who are ready for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim, you have no right of reply. Unless you want to ask for clarifications? Just clarifications.
Prof Lim Sun Sun: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I just wanted to ask if the Ministry was opened to even exploring the option of giving all students the choice of checking their results online. It may well be that there are some students who prefer the comforts of their teachers but there are also very many students who would much prefer to check the results in the privacy and comfort of their home away from the public glare. So, I think that this is something that is worthy of being investigated.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank Prof Lim for the clarification required. As I mentioned in my answer earlier, it is something that we continuously review.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned, there are a few things to note when it comes to the release of the results, as we also want to build a support system whereby there are teachers and friends who are available to also support the child. And, at the same time, we want to make sure that there are opportunities for the kids to get guidance during that process. I have seen and I have heard, because I have my own children, even after the results are out, the kids do get together and support one another. And, to me, that part is critical because that is where you continue to build the bond, the support and go through that educational journey with your friends. It is not only about pressure or about the fear of failure. It is also about how we look at the educational journey as not only about my own journey – it is my journey with my friends, with my teachers and the community at large.
That is the reason why in my answer, I shared that while the teachers will do one thing, and we are trying to improve ourselves and continue to refine the system, it is also the bigger society, the bigger support system and the people around the kid that will actually enrich and make the whole process holistic for the child in his or her educational journey.
As I said earlier, it is something that we will continue to refine and we thank Prof Lim for her suggestions and what she had shared with us today.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.14 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":"Action against Singaporeans Involved in Dumping Toxic, Plastics or Other Wastes in Neighbouring Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what action can be taken against Singaporeans involved in dumping toxic, plastics or other wastes in neighbouring countries.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The transboundary movement of hazardous and other controlled waste is governed by the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, or the Basel Convention, which Singapore is a Party to. The Basel Convention does not prohibit the export of hazardous waste, but requires the Prior Informed Consent of the countries of import and transit. This is in recognition of the legitimate transboundary movement of waste as defined under the Convention, such as those for proper recycling or disposal.
The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act, or the HWA, provides the domestic legislative framework for Singapore to meet our obligations under the Basel Convention. The HWA requires companies to obtain a Basel export permit for the export of controlled waste, and empowers the National Environment Agency (NEA) to take regulatory action against companies and individuals who illegally export such waste. Companies convicted under the HWA may be fined up to $300,000, while individuals may be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Singapore is committed to uphold our obligations under the Basel Convention. NEA has been actively engaging our local companies to increase awareness on Singapore’s obligations under the Basel Convention, and works closely with the relevant authorities of the importing countries to investigate any allegations of illegal export of waste by our companies. Beyond the Basel Convention, we also remind our companies to adhere to the domestic legislation of countries that they are exporting to.
The Basel Convention, which currently does not cover the transboundary movement of plastic waste, will be expanded in scope to cover certain categories of plastic waste from January 2021. We are amending the HWA in line with these recent amendments to the Basel Convention. I will share more details on this at the Second Reading of the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Amendment Bill scheduled for this sitting.
We take a serious view of any illegal transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes as defined under the Basel Convention, and will not hesitate to investigate and enforce against violations. At the same time, we recognise that the legitimate flow of clean and valuable recyclables can help support the adoption of a circular economy at the regional and global level. We will continue to work closely with the international community to strike a balance between facilitating the legitimate flow of such resources, and safeguarding against the illegal export of waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Singaporeans Travelling Overseas and Number of Tourist Arrivals into Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in the last three years (a) what is the annual number of Singaporeans travelling overseas and whether the trend is likely to increase; (b) what is the average number of days spent overseas by Singaporeans; and (c) what is the annual number of tourist arrivals to Singapore and what is their average stay.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In 2019, Singaporeans made about 24.9 million overseas trips. Over the last five years, the number of overseas trips has shown a gradual increase of about 0.2% per annum. We do not have data on the average number of days Singaporeans spent overseas.
Over the last five years, tourist arrivals grew at an average rate of almost 5% per annum, to more than 19 million tourists in 2019. Their average length of stay is 3.4 nights.
34 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of China's economic growth at its lowest in 30 years (a) what is the near-term impact on Singapore's economy and jobs situation; (b) how will it alter Singapore's investment in China and Singapore's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative; and (c) what are the future measures to diversify our economic exposure.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Chinese economy grew by 6.1% last year. Even though this is its lowest rate of growth in the past 30 years, it is still higher than the average growth rate of 1.7% among advanced economies, and 5.6% among emerging and developing economies in Asia.1 China's slowing rate of growth is not surprising as its economy matures, and shifts towards a more sustainable, consumption-led model of growth. Looking ahead, China's GDP growth is projected to moderate slightly to 6.0% in 20202, although there remain downside risks such as the potential economic impact of the novel coronavirus.
China's slower growth is not expected to have a large impact on the Singapore economy. While China is our largest trading partner and top destination for our outbound investments, it does not account for a disproportionately large share of our well diversified economy. For instance, China accounts for 13.4% of our total trade, compared to other major trading partners like Malaysia (11.1%) and the US (10.3%). We will continue to ensure that our economic relations with foreign partners are balanced and diversified, and that we are not over-exposed to any one foreign country.
We will continue to strengthen our economic relations with China, as well as our other trading partners. Bilaterally, we have been working closely with China to deepen our economic linkages. For example, the China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (CSFTA) Upgrade Protocol that entered into force on 16 October 2019 keeps the agreement up to date by improving trading rules and investment regimes for our companies.3 We are also cooperating with China on international initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Singapore is an early supporter of the BRI. This year marks the 5th anniversary of the China-Singapore (Chongqing) Connectivity Initiative, which is a priority demonstration project under the BRI that brings Southeast Asia and China closer together. In addition, Singapore can also leverage our position as a trusted financial hub, to enhance the sustainability of BRI projects by intermediating financial needs in Asia to tap on opportunities in third country markets.
Even as we continue to deepen our engagement with China, as a small and open economy, we must remain open and connected to the rest of the world. We currently have an extensive network of 25 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with 64 trading partners which collectively account for more than 85% of global GDP and more than 90% of Singapore's trade. We will continue to expand and diversify our trade linkages through new FTAs with economies such as the Eurasian Economic Union, the Pacific Alliance, and the Southern Common Market in South America (Mercosur). We will also pursue new forms of partnership to facilitate digital economy activities and digital trade. We have recently concluded negotiations on our first Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) with New Zealand and Chile, and have also embarked on bilateral DEA negotiations with Australia.
To help Singapore companies venture into overseas markets and take advantage of these FTAs, we will continue to support companies in going overseas and conquering new markets. We will enhance our support for companies and grow our network of overseas centres to provide Singapore companies assistance in business advisory services, business matching and market set-up overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Source: IMF World Economic Outlook (January 2020).","2 : Source: IMF World Economic Outlook (January 2020).","3 : The articles relating to Rules of Origin (ROO) took effect on 1 January 2020 as an additional step was required by China to implement the updated ROO."],"footNoteQuestions":["34"],"questionNo":"34"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Barriers along Kranji Expressway Adjacent to Residential Units along Segar Estate and Blossom Residences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider installing noise barriers along the stretch of Kranji Expressway (KJE) running adjacent to the residential units along Segar Estate and Blossom Residences; and (b) what is the estimated cost of installing such noise barriers on a per metre basis.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: To reduce traffic noise along this stretch of the Kranji Expressway (KJE), the Land Transport Authority will implement a low-noise pavement mix for the at-grade section by 1Q2022. Trials have shown that this low-noise pavement mix, is more effective in reducing noise for residents than vertical noise barriers.
Noise barriers which cost about $4,000 to $5,000 per metre, are not suitable for this stretch as it will hinder the visibility of on-coming traffic.
LTA will continue to explore new and cost effective ways to mitigate the impact of traffic noise and improve the quality of living for residents living near expressways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into Piracy Incidents in Singapore Strait in and after December 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether any investigation has been carried out in respect of the piracy incidents in the Singapore Strait in and after December 2019; (b) whether the Government has identified the persons or groups responsible for the reported incidents and where they originate from; (c) what action has been taken by any of our government agencies to date; and (d) what are the Government's plans to prevent similar acts of piracy.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In December 2019 and January 2020, there were 12 incidents involving piracy and armed robbery against ships in the Singapore Strait. As none of these incidents occurred within Singapore territorial waters, no investigations were required of our agency. If an incident happens within Singapore territorial waters, the Singapore Police Coast Guard (PCG) will investigate where necessary.
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) works with the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) and the PCG to closely monitor vessels around and within Singapore territorial waters. Should any suspicious vessel enter Singapore territorial waters, our maritime agencies will respond robustly to safeguard Singapore's security. MPA regularly broadcasts alerts to vessels to be vigilant when travelling along the Singapore Strait, and issues shipping circulars to advise them on measures to prevent and counter piracy and armed robbery. Such measures include surveillance and detection systems, access control measures, and radio and alarm procedures in the event of an attack.
As the Singapore Strait does not only include Singapore territorial waters, the fight against piracy and armed robbery requires strong collaboration among all regional partners. The RSN conducts joint coordinated patrols with Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand through the Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP), to ensure the safety and security of the Strait of Singapore as well as the Strait of Malacca. The MSP holds regular meetings to enhance coordination, review the conduct of operations, and share intelligence and information.
Singapore is also part of a region-wide initiative, the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia, or ReCAAP, which serves to be the information hub in Asia. We encourage the shipping community to provide timely and accurate reporting of incidents to ReCAAP focal points and the nearest coastal state or authority, so that remedial actions can be taken promptly by the respective littoral States.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Third Party Contractors in Government Projects Adopt High Cybersecurity Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister in light of the recent personal data breach involving the Ministry of Defence, how is the Ministry working with Government agencies to ensure that their third party contractors adopt high standards of cybersecurity and that cybersecurity competency is an essential criterion for awarding of Government contracts.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Third party contractors of Government agencies handling personal data are required to implement cybersecurity and data protection measures. Penalties may be imposed where there are contractual breaches or acts contravening the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC). These include measures to strengthen the management of third party contractors that handle data on behalf of the Government, such as incorporating data security and governance requirements into the contract with the third party, and regular audits to ensure compliance. These could have helped to prevent or mitigate similar data incidents. The high standards of data protection that the Government places on itself must also extend to these third parties.
Investigations regarding the recent personal data incidents involving third-party vendors contracted by MINDEF are still underway. GovTech will work with MINDEF to identify any gaps and address them across the public service and its third party vendors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Counter New Tactics in Actual and Attempted Piracy and Robbery Cases in Singapore Strait and Surrounding Waters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence (a) what new tactics have been designed by those responsible for the rise in actual and attempted piracy and robbery cases in the Singapore Strait and its surrounding waters; (b) what measures can be deployed to deter and eliminate such threats; and (c) how will the revised Standard Operating Procedures signed at the 14th Malacca Straits Patrol Joint Coordinating Committee Meeting address the rise in the number of piracy and robbery cases in the straits of Malacca and Singapore.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The number of piracy and sea robbery incidents occuring in the Singapore Strait fluctuates considerably from year to year. For example, in years, 2014, 2015 and 2019, there were 48, 104 and 31 such incidents. But in the remaining years over the last decade, the average was around 12. It is therefore difficult to conclude if there will be a persistent increase from the 2019 figures alone, although our maritime agencies are monitoring this closely. What we have determined is that the tactics and modus operandi of the perpetrators remain the same, consisting of petty crime involving the theft of crew belongings, engine parts, or scrap metal. All perpetrators are based and operate outside Singapore's territorial waters, and therefore we are working with our neighbours to share information and collect intelligence, so that Singapore can be better prepared to meet such threats.
Against specific incidents, our national maritime agencies can only act in our territorial waters, which we did in two of these incidents, where the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) and Police Coast Guard (PCG) boarded these ships to rule out any residual security risks, prior to their entry into Singapore's ports.
For incidents outside our waters, Singapore has longstanding cooperation with navies and coast guards of Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand to deal with transnational maritime piracy, robbery and other security threats. Most recently, at the 14th Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP) Joint Coordination Committee meeting, the navies of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand revised the MSP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to enhance the region's ability to tackle sea robbery in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This included a commitment to quarterly exercises to sharpen information exchange processes, as well as an updated set of suspicious contact indicators to assist investigation efforts of sea robbery incidents. Beyond regular conduct of sea and air patrols under the MSP, joint training and exercises as well as information sharing strengthen understanding and collaboration to deal with maritime incidents together.
The RSN's Information Fusion Centre (IFC) shares information with our neighbours on a regular basis to aid them in deterring possible perpetrators and successfully responding to sea robbery attempts. For instance, on 18 January this year, the IFC was alerted of a sea robbery incident involving a tugboat towing a barge. The information was shared via the IFC with the Indonesian authorities as the incident had occurred in their waters, which led to the successful arrest of the criminals involved.
On a day-to-day basis, the RSN also works alongside other local maritime agencies such as the PCG and Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) through the Singapore Maritime Crisis Centre (SMCC). The SMCC is a whole-of-Government set-up that maintains our maritime situation picture, drives sense-making efforts, and coordinates responses to potential maritime security threats.
Nevertheless, we agree with Members that additional measures are useful to prevent the further rise in incidence of sea robbery and piracy. We want to step up deeper sharing in information and intelligence with maritime and enforcement agencies within Malaysia and Indonesia. The Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) is also making plans to restructure itself, including beefing up its assets to deal with such incidents at sea. That review is expected to be complete in the next few months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Safety of Students as They Travel Overseas for Regional Exposure Given Conflicts and Economic Instability Globally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education given rising conflicts and economic instability around the world (a) how does this impact the Global Education Programme; and (b) what is being done to ensure students' safety and continued access to regional exposure as well as work and study opportunities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Student safety is paramount for all our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). In planning for overseas programmes, including those under the Global Education Programme, the IHLs take into account MFA's and other international travel advisories, and feedback from their industry and other partners.
Should IHLs assess that the planned overseas destination is unsafe or no longer suitable for other reasons, they will make alternative plans, such as changing the destination or postponing the programme until the situation in the host country stabilises. Where necessary, the IHL will cancel the programme. For example, ITE recently cancelled programmes to Hong Kong due to on-going street protests which turned violent.
All IHL students bound for overseas programmes are also required to attend pre-trip briefings on safety precautions and what to expect during their visits. The briefing covers important aspects such as mandatory e-registration with MFA, travel insurance coverage, and various emergency assistance hotlines.
Should an overseas emergency occur, all IHLs have crisis management plans that will kick into place to protect students as much as possible and keep parents updated of the situation. If necessary, IHLs also engage international service providers to provide emergency medical assistance and evacuation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken by Schools when Students Fail to Report at Their Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Education with regard to school absenteeism (a) what are the standard operating procedures when students fail to report at their secondary schools; (b) what is the minimum period of absenteeism before these procedures are activated; (c) what is the number of absenteeism dealt with by secondary schools over the last 10 years; and (d) how successful are the schools in reducing absenteeism and whether further intervention is necessary.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: When Secondary one students fail to report at their new schools, their respective primary schools will be informed and asked to contact the students and their parents. If they had been absent without good reason, the Primary school will counsel and urge the students to report for school, or the parents to send them to schools. Should the students have any difficulties or are caught in special circumstances, the schools will work with relevant Government agencies and community groups to resolve the issues they are facing.
For Secondary school students who are absent on any given day, all schools have in place a system to contact their parents to find out the reasons for their absence. Students who suffer from irregular school attendance will be counselled, and receive home visits and after-school engagement. School counsellors and Student Welfare Officers may also work with the family and other community partners to encourage them to return to school.
In addition, we have organised after-school programmes and activities that engage these students by building friendships and relationships with mentors and trusted adults, and generate healthy peer support. Last year, more than 70 Secondary schools have set up after-school centres offering such programmes, and these have benefited more than 3,000 students. This has been scaled up to 120 Secondary schools this year. As a result of coordinated whole-school efforts, the number of Secondary school students who were absent without valid reason for 60 days or more has stabilised at around seven per 1,000 students for the past three years.
Nonetheless, there are still some students who are absent from school. The underlying reasons for their long-term absenteeism are often complex. To support these students and their families, MOE taps on the expertise and networks of partner agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), community or self-help groups, family service centres and social service agencies.
Furthermore, UPLIFT (Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce) will collaborate with MSF to tackle long-term absenteeism upstream through a pilot community-based support network for disadvantaged students in the estates of Woodlands, Kreta Ayer and Boon Lay. Schools will identify students who show early signs of absenteeism and refer them to a designated UPLIFT Town-Level Coordinator (TLC) in the Social Service Office. The TLC will then connect the students and their families to suitable local programmes and resources, to build protective safeguards around the student and family earlier, so as to encourage the student to attend school regularly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN's Support to Myanmar in Resolving Situation in Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the Rohingya crisis as discussed at the recent ASEAN and UN meetings; and (b) whether ASEAN (i) intends to support Myanmar in implementing the recommendations of the Rakhine Advisory Commission and, if yes, what is the target timeline (ii) is confident that there will be continued support of Bangladesh and necessary funding for the refugees at Cox's Bazar whilst repatriation options are being negotiated and (iii) has considered and agreed on a \"Plan B\" for the Rohingya people should the repatriation negotiations not work out.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The situation in Rakhine State is a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots. It remains a common concern to all ASEAN Member States. ASEAN has actively engaged the Myanmar Government on the situation, and has extended humanitarian support to the affected communities, through the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management, or AHA Centre.
At the 35th ASEAN Summit in Bangkok in November last year, ASEAN Leaders agreed to establish an Ad-Hoc Support Team of the ASEAN Secretariat to focus on implementing the recommendations of the preliminary needs assessment. You may recall that ASEAN despatched an Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ERAT) to Rakhine State in March 2019 to conduct this preliminary needs assessment. Following the ERAT's visit in March 2019, it tabled a report identifying possible areas where ASEAN could lend its assistance to the Myanmar Government, to aid in the repatriation process.
Recommendations from the preliminary needs assessment were further distilled into priority activities, which the ASEAN Leaders welcomed at the 35th ASEAN Summit. The activities cover areas, such as providing equipment for the reception and transit centres in Rakhine State, building infrastructure, and strengthening communication between officials and displaced persons to facilitate repatriation. More recently, at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' (FMs) Retreat in January this year, the ASEAN FMs tasked the Support Team to identify further concrete projects through which ASEAN could help to improve the ground conditions in Rakhine State. ASEAN is committed to sustaining efforts to address this problem. We have also encouraged Myanmar to continue implementing the remaining recommendations of the final report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State.
Both Myanmar and Bangladesh have reaffirmed their commitment to repatriate the refugees. ASEAN continues to encourage continued and effective dialogue between the two parties; Myanmar officials, supported by the ASEAN Secretariat and the AHA Centre, made two trips to Cox's Bazar in 2019 to follow up on the recommendations of the preliminary needs assessment report and to speak to Bangladesh officials. Myanmar and Bangladesh should continue to work with the relevant stakeholders including the UN agencies to ensure the repatriation of refugees is conducted in a voluntary, safe, secure and dignified way.
The security situation in Rakhine State remains a grave concern, due to the ongoing armed conflict between the Arakan Army, a Rakhine nationalist armed group, and the Myanmar armed forces (Tatmadaw), including in the territory previously occupied by many of the refugees. This is an internal issue for Myanmar. On its part, ASEAN has urged all Parties to avoid further violence so that humanitarian assistance can reach all those who are in need.
We noted that the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) established by the Myanmar Government submitted its Final Report on 20 January 2020. The Myanmar authorities said it will investigate the crimes alleged in the report and to prosecute where the evidence indicates so. Separately, on 23 January 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered provisional measures in the case brought against Myanmar by Gambia under the Application on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
As a small state, Singapore is a strong proponent of international law, of which the ICJ is an important pillar. We urge all parties to respect the ICJ's decision on provisional measures. We continue to encourage and welcome all efforts to seek transparency and accountability in respect of the situation in Rakhine State. These are important steps to a long-term, sustainable solution that takes into account the concerns and interests of all the different ethnic communities in Rakhine State.
ASEAN hopes to see peace and stability return to Rakhine State. ASEAN will continue to support the efforts to create conducive conditions for repatriation to begin. But it is ultimately the responsibility of the Myanmar Government and relevant stakeholders to work towards a viable and durable political solution that addresses the underlying causes of this longstanding and complex problem. This is the only way to resolve this problem definitively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardising Charges for Consultations, Procedures and Medications across Polyclinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health considering that most Singaporeans who seek treatment at polyclinics choose those nearest their homes, whether the Ministry will consider standardising or minimising the differences in charges for consultations, procedures and medications to ensure pricing equality for all patients living in different regions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: While polyclinics offer similar services and medications, each cluster may have a different operating model to suit the needs of its patients based on their profile. Therefore, their cost structures can vary from one another, and this may result in some fee variation across polyclinic clusters.
Nevertheless, there should not be wide variation in charges for similar services and medications. Today, consultation fees are already very similar across the three clusters, and MOH has been working with the polyclinics to review the charges of their services and medications to reduce unwarranted variations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution of Social Media Impersonation Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) out of the 672 social media impersonation scam cases reported to have occurred in the first 11 months of 2019, how many of the impersonators have been prosecuted so far; (b) what is the average time taken to solve each case; (c) what are the measures that the Anti-Scam Centre has put in place to address the rise in cases; and (d) whether the Anti-Scam Centre will be looking to coordinate anti-scam measures with social media companies.
Mr K Shanmugam: The bulk of the social media impersonation scams reported in 2019 involved victims revealing their credit card details to a scammer masquerading as a friend or relative. The scammers subsequently used the details to make purchases on various online shopping platforms. In other cases, the scammers impersonated friends or relatives of the victims to ask for loans, which were paid into the scammers' bank accounts.
These scams mostly originated from foreign jurisdictions. It is difficult to identify the scammers, as they operate on the internet using false identities. Hence, convictions are very difficult. Where available, the Police will share information with foreign counterparts to aid their investigations and to trace the stolen funds.
Of the cases of social media impersonation scams reported between January and November 2019, the Police have concluded investigations for 17, all of which originated overseas. In some of these cases, investigations surfaced local parties involved in the movement of the stolen monies, but these local parties did not have knowledge of the actual scams. There have been no prosecutions so far, due to the reasons I shared earlier.
The average time taken to solve a case depends on many factors, some of which are case-specific, such as the availability of evidence or witnesses, and the complexity of the case.
The Anti-Scam Centre, or ASC, plays two roles in the fight against scams. First, the freezing of suspicious bank accounts that are detected to be involved in scams, typically within a day of notification. Second, obtaining banking information on those accounts, usually within a few days. The quick freezing of bank accounts has increased the recovery rate of victims' funds, from around 4% to 8% prior to the ASC's formation, to approximately 35% today. So far, three local banks and seven foreign banks have started working with the ASC on this. The ASC would like to bring more banks on board.
The Police are also working with social media companies, such as Facebook, to explore initiatives to combat online harms that are being perpetrated on their platforms, such as scams.
But public education remains the key. A discerning public is our best defence. In response to the rise in social media impersonation scams, Police have issued media advisories to raise the public's awareness of the scammers' modus operandi, and provide crime prevention advice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standard Clause in Public Sector Contracts to Appoint Singapore Mediation Centre as Sole Mediation Agency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Law whether there will be a review of the standard clause in all public sector and public service contracts to appoint the Singapore Mediation Centre as the sole mediation agency, to align with the evolution of more mediation agencies providing mediation services in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government standard form contracts provide various dispute resolution options for the resolution of disputes, including mediation. The standard forms for procurement tenders provide for both the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) as mediation agencies. The latter is included specifically for procurement tenders involving an international element.
However, public sector agencies are not constrained from choosing other mediation institutions where appropriate. Public sector agencies have the flexibility to amend the standard forms accordingly to meet the specific operational needs of the intended contract, including taking into consideration the mediation centres with the relevant expertise on the subject matter of the contract and the locality and bargaining power of the parties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Funeral Services Industry Practices and Standards Following Case of Cremation Mix-up","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the case of a cremation mix up (a) whether it is timely for the Ministry to conduct a review of the industry’s practices and standard operating procedures; (b) what are the preventive measures put in place by NEA following the incident; (c) whether NEA intends to play a bigger role in regulating funeral companies, in particular working with the Association of Funeral Directors Singapore; and (d) how often does NEA inspect and conduct checks on Government after-death facilities to ensure compliance to regulation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) licenses funeral parlours with embalming facilities. Regarding the wrongful cremation incident on 30 December 2019, NEA's investigation found that the licensed funeral parlour involved had not complied with the regulatory requirement to keep proper records of the deceased received into and moved from the premises.
NEA takes a very serious view of this incident. Funeral directors and funeral parlour operators have the professional and ethical responsibility to ensure that the deceased under their charge are properly accounted for, and handled in a dignified and respectful manner.
Immediately following its investigation, NEA suspended the licence of the funeral parlour on 6 January 2020 and stopped the funeral director from using Government after-death facilities. NEA is undertaking enforcement action against the funeral parlour for not keeping proper records of the deceased received into or moved from the premises. The funeral parlour and funeral director are required to rectify the lapses and improve their processes to prevent such an incident from happening. NEA will only lift the suspension when we are satisfied that all necessary measures have been put in place.
NEA issued a circular on 10 January to remind all licensed funeral parlours of the licensees' regulatory responsibilities to safeguard environmental hygiene; NEA has also prescribed additional measures, such as the requirement to strengthen the system of identification of the deceased and tightening of access control into and out of the premises. While many licensees already have systems and processes in place, NEA has emphasised to all of them the need to strengthen their systems and uphold high service standards. NEA's follow-up inspections showed that all licensees are complying with these new requirements. NEA will take firm action against any licensee for non-compliance, including suspension or cancellation of the funeral parlour licence in the case of egregious offences.
NEA is also working with the Association of Funeral Directors (AFD) to uplift the professionalism and standards of the funerary services industry. The AFD already has a Code of Conduct to guide funerary industry professionals on the conduct of their business. NEA is identifying further areas for improvement in training standards and process workflow. We will make these plans known when ready.
NEA operates Government-owned after-death facilities, such as the Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium Complex and the Choa Chu Kang Cemetery Complex. A quality management system based on ISO standards is in place at these facilities and processes comply with regulatory requirements. NEA officers adhere to comprehensive standard operating procedures that include stringent checks of particulars and documents at each step of the cremation or burial process.
My Ministry and NEA are working with the funerary services industry, in consultation with religious leaders, to review how we can further improve controls and uplift the standards of the industry. I urge all funerary services industry professionals to step up and continuously improve their operations to achieve higher service standards and better accountability. If required, we are prepared to consider further regulations on the funerary services industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions from Oil Refining Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Government has any plans to reduce greenhouse emissions from our oil refining industry and, if so, what are these plans.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Paris Agreement, Singapore has pledged to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. To achieve this, we have to make our economy more carbon efficient.
The industry sector, in particular the energy and chemicals (E&C) sector, is an important pillar of Singapore's economy. The E&C sector contributes to about 3% of our GDP and employed about 26,000 workers in 2018. However, the industry sector is also a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing about 60% of Singapore’s total emissions in 2017. Around three-quarters of the industry sector's emissions are from the refining and petrochemicals sector.
Improving industrial energy efficiency is thus a key pillar of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we have put in place a set of comprehensive measures to achieve this. From 2019, facilities in the manufacturing, power generation, waste and water management sectors which emit 25,000 tCO2e or more annually must pay the carbon tax. The current tax rate is set at $5 per tCO2e for the first five years. We will review this by 2023, with the intention of raising the carbon tax rate to $10 to $15 per tCO2e by 2030, taking into account international climate change developments, the progress of our emissions mitigation efforts, and our economic competitiveness.
In addition, since 2013, large emitters are required under the Energy Conservation Act (ECA) to submit annual energy efficiency improvement plans. From 2021, these emitters must also establish facility-wide energy management systems and conduct energy efficiency opportunities assessments, which must be submitted to the NEA. To incentivise companies to adopt more energy efficient technologies, the Government also provides funding support which has been increased from the previous cap of 30% to 50% of the qualifying costs since January 2019.
For the oil refineries in particular, the Government works closely with the sector to ensure that they achieve high standards of energy efficiency and adopt sustainable practices. Currently, all three oil refineries in Singapore have set up co-generation plants in their facilities. These are major investments that significantly improve the energy efficiency of the refineries.
Beyond particular sectors or industries, all of us have a responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. Saving electricity, using public transport and reducing waste are good ways to cut carbon emissions. All of us can do our part to help address global warming.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Literacy of Adults in Singapore and Trend in Past Decade","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current financial literacy of adults in Singapore and what has been the trend in the past decade; (b) what has been done to increase financial literacy; and (c) whether a national framework is in place to measure the impact of digital finance on businesses and individuals.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singaporeans' understanding of basic financial concepts is good, has been improving, and can certainly improve further to help them better plan for their future.
A Financial Planning Attitudes Survey commissioned by MoneySense in 2017 showed that about 9 in 10 Singapore residents understood that an investment with a higher return often comes with higher risk. This is significantly higher than the six in 10 in a similar survey conducted in 2013.
However, only about one in five feel that they are knowledgeable about investing. Some Singaporeans also have misconceptions about when to start planning for their finances. One in five feel that they would only need to do financial planning when they are looking to retire; and half of young working adults aged between 17 and 29 have not started thinking about financial planning because they think it is still too early to do so.
That is why we must continue our work through MoneySense, to raise the level of financial literacy amongst Singaporeans, to help them make prudent decisions relating to their savings, investments, insurance, house purchase, retirement planning, and not to fall for scams. MoneySense takes a multi-pronged approach, reaching out to Singaporeans at different stages of their lives.
As for the impact of digital finance on businesses and individuals, it is generally positive, because it brings about greater convenience, more accessibility, and in some instances, lower pricing, to banking and financial services. However, it can also mean that consumers are more exposed to products with higher risk, and which requires them to have a higher level of financial literacy.
MAS has been closely monitoring these trends and continually updating its regulatory policies to promote digital financial services, while guarding against risks. Let me cite a few specific areas where our policies have been evolving.
First, e-payments. We have been driving e-payments because it enhances consumer convenience and business efficiency. Today, more than three out of four Singaporeans between 20 and 75 years old have registered for PayNow, and an estimated 60% of active businesses have registered with PayNow Corporate. The total monthly transaction value is S$1.6 billion compared to S$1 billion six months ago, so adoption and growth is strong.
But cybersecurity is a concern in e-payment. MAS has issued guidelines for e-payments user protection and technology risk management by financial institutions. Financial institutions have to ensure that they implement robust cybersecurity measures. Parliament also enacted the Payment Services Act, so that we have fit-for-purpose regulations that set cyber hygiene standards for different payment services licensees. For consumers, MoneySense is also stepping up education to users, to practise good cyber hygiene, such as setting strong passwords and keeping them secure, and being vigilant against phishing and other scams.
Second, we are also promoting other digital financial services, such as investment advisory and insurance offerings. Consumers can benefit from a wider choice of more customised products that match their risk profiles, investment goals and life needs. At the same time, MAS has provided more clarity to the industry on the areas that warrant greater oversight, to provide better safeguard for consumers.
Third, MAS will be issuing up to five digital bank licenses by the middle of this year. They can potentially provide greater funding access for underserved smaller enterprises, as well as low-cost investment solutions and convenient new banking experiences for consumers.
Standards in managing and using data are critical in all of this. Digital banks and other digital financial services are likely to use far more data in their operations than traditional financial services. MAS therefore worked with the financial industry to develop principles to guide the responsible use of artificial intelligence and data analytics in financial services, in a way that promotes fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency in the use of data by financial institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment for Medications by Civil Service Pensioners for Prescriptions Issued by Community Hospitals but not for Prescriptions Issued by General Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Prime Minister (a) why elderly pensioners utilising their Civil Service Cards to fulfil prescriptions issued by community hospitals have to pay for these medications whereas general hospitals' prescriptions can be filled for free; (b) whether patients are informed of this discrepancy when they are transferred from general hospitals to community hospitals; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider extending this medication benefit for pensioners discharged from community hospitals.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Since 2017, we have extended the Civil Service inpatient medical benefits to cover hospitalisation expenses, including medication up to the point of discharge, incurred by pensioners at Community Hospitals. Our coverage rules for medication apply equally across Restructured Hospitals and Community Hospitals, including those run by Volunteer Welfare Organisations.
If a pensioner requires continuous medical management at a primary care provider, Civil Service medical benefits also provide for outpatient care expenses at polyclinics and GP clinics, on top of existing government subsidies.
The Civil Service will continue to review its medical benefits in consultation with the Ministry of Health (MOH), as the healthcare landscape and model of care evolves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Influenza Vaccination Rate for Children under 16 and Proposal for Free Flu Vaccines for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the influenza vaccination rate for children under the age of 16; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing free flu vaccines to all Singaporean children.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health, in consultation with the Expert Committee on Immunisation, makes recommendations on vaccinations which the population should receive. Influenza vaccination is recommended specifically for children six months to below five years of age at high-risk for influenza complications, and older children with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma and heart disease. Since 2014, MediSave can be used to pay for influenza vaccination among these groups to encourage take-up.
Although more children are receiving influenza vaccination, more can be done to improve the take-up. Based on voluntary notification to the National Immunisation Registry, about 14,000 children below five years of age received influenza vaccination in 2019, while the number was around 4,600 in 2014. My Ministry is looking into how to strengthen awareness on the need for influenza vaccination in the recommended groups, and to facilitate access to vaccination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Protection against Discrimination from Employers for Patients who Receive Mental Health Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can offer patients who receive mental health treatment more protection against discrimination by their employers by giving patients the option not to disclose the treatment received and the medicine prescribed in their medical bills that are used for reimbursement purposes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Currently, under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Regulations (PHMCR), all medical clinic licensees are required to provide itemised bills for medical treatment provided. This provides greater price transparency and enables the public to make informed choices.
An employer is required under the Employment Act to pay for medical consultations of an employee who has worked for at least three months and received at least one day of paid sick leave as certified by a medical practitioner from an approved public medical institution or appointed by the company. While Human Resource (HR) practices for medical reimbursement may vary across companies, no further details on a patient's condition or medical treatment would be released to an employer by the medical institution without the employee's explicit consent, due to patient confidentiality.
It is important to continue our efforts to reduce the social stigma of mental health conditions such that persons with mental health conditions will face less risk of discrimination. To this end, efforts have been made to increase awareness of and de-stigmatise mental health conditions. For example, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), in partnership with the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), has launched an anti-stigma campaign called \"Beyond the Label\", which seeks to facilitate conversation about mental health, positively influence the public's perception of individuals with mental health conditions, and to educate and equip the public to support them in their recovery. MOH also works with partners such as the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to educate specific target groups regarding mental well-being, such as through workplaces and schools. MOH has also implemented initiatives under the Community Mental Health Masterplan in 2012 to better identify individuals at risk of mental health conditions and support them with appropriate referrals to access care. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) recently revised their guidelines for job application forms to state that declarations on mental health conditions on job applications forms are discriminatory and should be removed unless there is a good reason to require that information. This was a positive step in de-stigmatising mental health conditions in society. For individuals who feel they have faced unfair discrimination in the workplace, they can also approach TAFEP for advice and help.
We continue to work towards a more inclusive society which supports those with mental health conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drivers Penalised for Not Securing Loads Properly on Trucks in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past three years, how many drivers have been caught and penalised for not securing loads properly on lorries and trucks; (b) how many accidents have there been involving loads falling off such vehicles and injuring road users; and (c) whether there is a need for stronger measures to ensure that drivers secure loads properly to their vehicles.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2017 to 2019, there were 234 violations of drivers failing to properly secure the loads on their lorries and trucks. Fourteen of these violations resulted in accidents with injuries; there were no fatalities.
Traffic Police (TP) regularly conducts engagement sessions with heavy vehicle drivers to share information on road safety. This includes the importance of properly securing loads on their vehicles. The Workplace Safety and Health Council's advisory on \"Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines on Safe Loading of Vehicles\" includes guidance on proper loading and securing techniques for different types of cargo.
Under the Road Traffic Act, it is an offence for motorists not to secure their loads properly. The composition sums for this offence were raised on 1 April 2019 – up to $200 for light vehicles and up to $250 for heavy vehicles. Offenders will also be penalised with up to six demerit points.
As the number of violations detected by TP has generally been low and the composition sums were only recently increased, we will monitor the situation, and consider further action where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Impact on Price of Treated Water for Local Consumption after 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of Malaysia's plan to reduce Johor's dependency on treated water supply from Singapore by 2022, what will be the projected impact on the price of treated water for local consumption after 2022.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The future price of water in Singapore will need to consider all factors relevant at that time. We have not been formally notified by Malaysia that they require less treated water from Singapore. As such, it is premature for us to answer the question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Admission of Foreign Students to Public Education Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he can outline the criteria for admission of foreign students to our public education institutions (primary, secondary, polytechnics, junior colleges and tertiary institutions); (b) whether there are specific caps on the numbers of foreign students in these institutions; and (c) how are the fees charged for foreign students vis-á-vis that for local students.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our public education system is designed and developed to cater to the needs of Singaporeans. Singaporean students are admitted first, before we consider taking in a small number of foreign students. Hence, no Singaporean student will be displaced by a foreign student.
For example, foreign students seeking admission to our Primary schools can only register in Phase 3 of the Primary 1 Registration Exercise, after all Singaporean children have been allocated a place under earlier phases.
Likewise, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) first admit Singaporean students who are able to meet their admission standards. Thereafter, they will raise the admission criteria, and then admit a small proportion of foreign students.
In our Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges, less than 5% are foreign students. In Polytechnics and Autonomous Universities, the proportion is less than 10%.
Fees are differentiated by nationality to reflect the privileges of citizenship, and so foreign students pay significantly higher fees than local students. In primary school, a Singaporean student pays $156 in fees every year while a foreign student pays up to $8,556. For Secondary school, the annual fees for Singaporeans and foreign students are $300 and $15,240 respectively. For pre-university, the corresponding figures are $396 versus $19,524 per year.
Foreign students at our Polytechnics and AUs may apply for the Tuition Grant in return for a service obligation. Those who receive the Tuition Grant will pay at least double the amount of fees that a Singaporean student pays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students Attempted Suicide, Died by Suicide or Suffered from Self-harm in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Education in the last three years (a) how many students (i) attempted suicide (ii) died by suicide or (iii) suffered from self-harm; (b) how many of these students were (i) seeing school counsellors (ii) referred to mental healthcare professionals, broken down into the types of services and institutions and (iii) from the elite schools versus neighbourhood schools; (c) what is the protocol given to (i) students (ii) teachers (iii) school administrators and (iv) counsellors when they learn from a student who shares his suicidal ideations or self-harm behaviour; (d) how does the Ministry balance between safeguarding confidentiality and involving the student’s family; and (e) what is the protocol for post-suicide intervention, including for family.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We know how Ms Anthea Ong feels strongly about this issue. MOE is deeply concerned about the mental well-being of students too. Parents, teachers, counsellors and peers need to work together to look out for students in distress and reach out to support them.
But I am not sure if it is useful to cite all the data that Ms Anthea Ong asked for. If the purpose of the data is to persuade MOE to treat the issue seriously, I want to assure Ms Ong that MOE does not need persuasion, because schools are at the frontline in confronting this issue. On the other hand, tabulating and publicising such data can have other implications, such as heightening suicide risk in vulnerable youths. I may be paranoid, but I do not want to treat this lightly.
But if I may just cite one data, which is the incidence rate of suicides from ICA.
Their data for young persons aged 10 to 19 shows that over the past three years, from 2016 to 2018, incidents per 100,000 persons were 4.2, 2.7 and 4.4. The 2019 numbers are not yet available. In general, our suicide numbers are not high by international standards.
On the protocol of handling cases, our trained teachers and school personnel will try to build a bridge to the child while ensuring his/her safety and well-being. They also work closely with parents and care-givers, and engage professional or emergency assistance, when necessary. Schools are also supported by specialist teams from MOE HQ and other agencies when needed.
We treat the information related to the counselling of our students with confidentiality. However, in the managing of suicide related cases, we will share pertinent information with relevant individuals, including parents and mental health professionals, when necessary. This is aligned to the professional practices of counsellors, psychologists, medical personnel, in handling cases involving the possibility of harm to self and others.
When there is a suicide, our school personnel will need to identify those who may be emotionally affected, and render the appropriate support according to their needs. We need to watch out for possible suicide contagion and intervene when necessary. As for the bereaved families, it is most difficult. We can only do our best to be supportive, to listen and do whatever that is within our means to help. We also partner community agencies, such as SOS, which specialises in rendering such support to the bereaved. Grieving involves many stages. There may be a stage where the bereaved needs someone to blame, and if it is the school, so be it.
Ultimately, our schools is a major line of defence against youth suicides. For most, schools are where they find friends, learn, enjoy growing up, and find support and a listening ear in teachers. This is one of many quiet missions of our schools, and we will welcome partners to work with us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Data Breaches in Government Agencies Involving Suppliers and Subcontractors Engaged by Third Party Vendors and Efforts to Safeguard Our Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister whether there have been cases of data breach in Government agencies where suppliers and subcontractors engaged by third party vendors are involved and, if so, how does the Government ensure that such parties are vetted and accredited to ensure that they are qualified to provide the required services and put in place the needed cybersecurity safeguards for our systems.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): In 2019, there were 15 data incidents that involved a lapse by the third party vendors of Government agencies. None of these incidents involved the supplier to or subcontractor of these direct vendors to Government agencies.
In managing the subcontractors of Government's third party vendors, the key principle is that the Government's direct vendor remains fully responsible for upholding the cybersecurity and data protection measures to the standards defined by the Government's Instruction Manual and other internal regulations. Failure to do so will result in penalties for contractual breaches by the direct vendor.
In other words, the rules are not circumvented just because the third party vendor has outsourced some of the work. For example, third party vendors are required to install updated anti-virus software on the endpoint devices used to process Government data. The same requirement extends to subcontractors that perform such work on their behalf.
In addition, as private sector companies, both the direct vendor and sub-contractors that handle Government data are subject to the Personal Data Protection Act and may face penalties when they breach the data protection requirements stipulated in the Act.
As follow up to the recommendations of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC), we will implement, by 30 April 2020, improved and more consistent standards of cybersecurity and data protection to govern the Government's direct vendors and their subcontractors. Government agencies will clearly specify the cybersecurity and data protection requirements in the contracts with their direct vendors. Government agencies will also conduct regular audits, and any non-compliance to these requirements by vendors or subcontractors will be flagged out and corrected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Vehicle Fires Occurring in Housing Estates and Efforts to Educate Vehicle Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past year, how many vehicle fires have occurred in housing estates; and (b) how can vehicle owners be better prepared to spot danger signs from their vehicles so that they can take quick remedial action.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: According to the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF) records, there were 64 vehicle fires in housing estates in 2019. This includes fires that occurred in open air carparks, multi-storey carparks and minor roads within residential estates, and within landed residential units.
To prevent vehicle fires, vehicle owners should check for fluid leakage, as this could lead to overheated engines. They should also service their vehicles regularly, and avoid modifying their vehicles illegally. For additional tips, they can access SCDF's advisories on social media, and at motorist touchpoints such as petrol kiosks, LTA-Authorised Inspection Centres and customer service centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Piracy Cases Along Singapore Strait in Last Three Years and Measures to Protect Merchant Ships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the last three years, what is the number of piracy cases along the Singapore Strait; and (b) what are the measures taken to protect merchant ships using the Singapore Strait.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the last three years, piracy and armed robbery against ships incidents in the Singapore Strait numbered 8 in 2017, 7 in 2018 and 31 in 2019.
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) works with the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) and the Singapore Police Coast Guard to closely monitor vessels around and within Singapore territorial waters. Should any suspicious vessel enter Singapore territorial waters, our maritime agencies will respond robustly to safeguard Singapore's security. MPA regularly broadcasts alerts to vessels to be vigilant when travelling along the Singapore Strait, and issues shipping circulars to advise them on measures to prevent and counter piracy and armed robbery. Such measures include surveillance and detection systems, access control measures, and radio and alarm procedures in the event of an attack.
As the Singapore Strait does not only include Singapore territorial waters, the fight against piracy and armed robbery is a shared responsibility that requires strong collaboration among all regional partners. The RSN conducts joint coordinated patrols with Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand through the Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP), to ensure the safety and security of the Strait of Singapore as well as the Strait of Malacca. The MSP holds regular meetings to enhance coordination, review the conduct of operations, and share intelligence and information.
Singapore is also part of a region-wide initiative, the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia, or ReCAAP, which serves to be the information hub for combating piracy and armed robbery against ships in Asia. We encourage the shipping community to provide timely and accurate reporting of incidents to ReCAAP focal points and the nearest coastal state or authority, so that remedial actions can be taken promptly by the respective littoral States.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Piracy Incidents in Singapore Strait between 2015 and 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what is the annual number of piracy incidents in the Singapore Strait between 2015-2019.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The number of piracy and armed robbery incidents in the Singapore Strait between 2015 and 2019 is tabulated below.
5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport what are the respective numbers of train and bus trips that Singaporean senior citizens between the ages of 60-65, 65-70, 70-75, 75-80 and 80-90 undertake on a yearly basis from 2015.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The table below shows the daily number of bus and train trips taken by Singapore residents on senior citizen concession cards from 2015 to 2019. We do not track the number of trips by the requested age groups as all residents above the age of 60 enjoy the same concessionary fares (of up to 55% off normal adult fares).
6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Defence (a) how does the Ministry manage the demand and supply of meals for active and reservist servicemen in military camps; (b) how does the Ministry keep track of the amount of food waste in military camps across Singapore; (c) what is the amount of food waste across military camps per year and the plans to recycle food waste; and (d) how is the Ministry working with the camp food caterer to manage and reduce the amount of food waste in military camps.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has instituted a number of measures to keep food waste to a minimum. Meals at cookhouses in SAF camps are provided based on weekly forecasts of consumption depending on the particular unit's training schedules, nutritional and caloric requirements. However, to improve forecasting accuracy and reduce wastage, an electronic meal accounting system is used to track actual consumption patterns over time so that adjustments can be made to meals provided. These measures have reduced food wastage to, on average, about one percent of meals catered from SAF cookhouses.
The SAF is also studying further measures to reduce food wastage. For example, ready-to-eat meals at selected cookhouses. Such meals are prepared only when required and reduce food waste that arise due to unforeseen changes in consumption.
As another example, SAF has been working with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to generate electricity from treated food waste in several SAF camps. The SAF will continue to explore ways to reduce food waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Mandate Regular Interviews for NSF Officers with Their Commanding Officers to Identify and Support Officers Requiring Mental Health Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Defence whether the Ministry can mandate (i) regular interviews for NSF officers with their commanding officers to identify and support those who require assistance including mental health concerns and (ii) the setting up of channels where NSF officers can give feedback about suspected mental health concerns or unusual behaviour of their peers.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: MINDEF had already replied to Mr Ong's Oral Question on some of these aspects recently and they are on the record. We will therefore only address new queries specifically.
The SAF stands guided by the professional input from its panel of psychologists and psychiatrists that a more flexible and responsive monitoring system is required rather than a single item of mandatory interviews to identify those with mental health issues. Commanders at all levels are expected to engage those under their charge, including the NSF officers, through different ways including interviews. As part of their training, all officers are also taught to identify signs and symptoms of mental and emotional distress.
Soldiers are also encouraged to flag such persons for further assistance. The SAF has para-counsellors in every unit and psychologists in the divisions to provide frontline support. In addition, there is also a 24-hour counselling hotline for all servicemen. These channels apply to all NSFs, including NSF officers, so that those facing mental health issues can be identified through multiple avenues for a more comprehensive mental health support and monitoring system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Discussion on Situation in Rakhine State during ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat with regard to recent developments in the Rakhine State, in particular where repatriation efforts are concerned and whether from ASEAN's viewpoint, enough has been done to ensure that those who return will not face the same threats to their safety as when they first left; and (b) whether there is a long-term solution for the situation.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: At the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Nha Trang from 15 to 17 January, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Rakhine State, and how ASEAN could further support efforts to encourage the safe and voluntary repatriation of refugees and improve the conditions in Rakhine. The situation in Rakhine State is a complex inter-communal issue with deep historical roots, and remains a common concern to all ASEAN Member States. ASEAN has actively engaged the Myanmar government on the situation, and has extended humanitarian support to the affected communities, through the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management, or AHA Centre.
At the recent Foreign Ministers' Retreat, the ASEAN Secretariat provided an update on the establishment of the Ad-Hoc Support Team of the ASEAN Secretariat, in accordance with the decision of the ASEAN Leaders at the 35th ASEAN Summit in Bangkok in November last year. The Ad-Hoc Support Team would focus on implementing the recommendations of the preliminary needs assessment that was conducted in March 2019. As a first step, the Ad-Hoc Support Team will focus on seven priority activities, which will help provide equipment for the reception and transit centres in Rakhine State, build infrastructure in the area, and strengthen communication between officials and displaced persons to facilitate repatriation.
The ASEAN Foreign Ministers also recognise that more can be done to address the situation. At the Retreat, we also tasked the Ad-Hoc Support Team to identify further concrete projects through which ASEAN could support the improvement of the ground conditions in Rakhine State. We look forward to studying these proposals, and further discussing how ASEAN can play an enhanced role in supporting Myanmar through providing humanitarian assistance, facilitating the repatriation process, and promoting sustainable development in Rakhine State. ASEAN's involvement can help to enhance confidence and trust, and we should explore ways to create a conducive environment for sustainable repatriation and resettlement of displaced persons. We also look forward to the conduct of subsequent needs assessments once repatriation takes place. ASEAN is committed to sustaining efforts to address this problem.
Unfortunately, the security situation in Rakhine State remains a grave concern, due to the ongoing armed conflict between the Arakan Army, a Rakhine nationalist armed group, and the Myanmar armed forces (Tatmadaw), including in the territory previously occupied by many of the refugees. This is an internal issue for Myanmar. On its part, ASEAN has urged all Parties to avoid further violence so that humanitarian assistance can reach all those who are in need. ASEAN will also continue to support the efforts to create conducive ground conditions for repatriation to begin.
We note that the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) established by the Myanmar Government submitted its Final Report on 20 January 2020. The Myanmar authorities said they would investigate the crimes alleged in the report and to prosecute where the evidence indicates so. Separately, on 23 January 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered provisional measures in the case brought against Myanmar by Gambia under the Application on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. As a small state, Singapore is a strong proponent of international law, of which the ICJ is an important pillar. We urge all parties to respect the ICJ's decision on provisional measures. We continue to encourage and welcome all efforts to seek transparency and accountability in respect of the situation in Rakhine State. These are important steps to a long-term, sustainable solution that takes into account the concerns and interests of all the different ethnic communities in Rakhine State.
ASEAN hopes to see peace and stability return to Rakhine State, and that repatriation can begin soon. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Myanmar Government and relevant stakeholders to work towards a viable and durable political solution that addresses the underlying causes of this longstanding and complex problem. This is the only way to attain a sustainable solution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Drivers Caught for Not Securing Passengers below 1.35m in Height and Plans to Raise Awareness on Legal Requirement and Safety Benefits of Using Child Car Seats and Booster Seats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past five years, how many drivers have been caught for not properly securing passengers who are below 1.35 metres in height with an approved child restraint; (b) how does the Ministry plan to raise awareness about the legal requirement and safety benefits of using child car seats and booster seats; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to strengthen legislation on the requirement to use such seats.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of violations where passengers below 1.35 metres in height were not properly secured with an approved child restraint or body-restraining seat belt are appended at Table 1.
In its talks and engagements with the community, Traffic Police (TP) regularly emphasises the need for drivers and passengers to be properly secured. TP also conducts regular enforcement actions. Under the Road Traffic Act, drivers will be guilty of an offence if they fail to ensure that passengers below the height of 1.35 metres wear an approved child restraint or body-restraining seat belt. The composition sums for this offence were raised on 1 April 2019 from $120 to $150 for light vehicles, and from $150 to $200 for heavy vehicles. Offenders will also receive three demerit points.
As the composition sums for the offence were recently increased, MHA will monitor the situation and consider further action where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Traffic Accidents Caused by Lane Splitting in Last Five Years and Plans to Raise Road Safety Awareness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last five years, what is the number of traffic accidents caused by lane splitting; (b) what is the ratio of foreign and local motorcyclists involved in such accidents; (c) what is the total number of injuries and fatalities respectively; and (d) whether Traffic Police has any plan to raise road safety awareness pertaining to the dangers of lane splitting.
Mr K Shanmugam: Traffic Police does not track the number of accidents caused by lane-splitting.
Safety on our roads is a shared responsibility amongst all road users. TP raises awareness of safe riding practices through the Use Your RoadSense initiative and Singapore Ride Safe campaign. Motorcylists are encouraged to practise defensive riding, and avoid weaving in and out of traffic. All motorists have to be alert for the unexpected and be ready to take evasive action. They are advised to check their blindspots from time to time and when they intend to make a lane change, and when necessary or appropriate, be gracious to give way to other road users even if they have the right of way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Proportion of Singaporeans Charged with Offences under Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many persons have been charged in court with offences under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act; (b) of the persons so charged, how many and what proportion are Singaporeans; and (c) what is the range of the amounts allegedly collected or provided by the accused persons in support of terrorism-related activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: To date, 11 individuals have been charged under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, of whom two are Singaporeans.
The amounts involved ranged from $60 to $1,200. Police treat every case seriously. Any support for terrorism-related activities, no matter the amount, threatens our national security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Traffic Accidents in Past Five Years Involving Bicycles and Electric Bicycles and Efforts to Educate Cyclists on Safe Riding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, what is the number of traffic accidents involving bicycles and electric bicycles respectively; (b) what enforcement efforts have been carried out so far and what actions have been taken against errant cyclists; and (c) how can Traffic Police better educate cyclists on safe riding.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2015 to 2019, there were an average of 520 and 39 road accidents annually involving cyclists riding bicycles and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) respectively.
To deter against disorderly or unsafe cycling behaviours, Traffic Police (TP) conducts enforcement at hotspots as well as locations reported by members of the public where unsafe road behaviour by cyclists is observed. Over the past five years, TP issued an average of 1,377 summonses per year to cyclists for various offences such as riding in a disorderly manner and riding in the hours of darkness without a front light.
TP raises awareness of safe riding practices for cyclists through regular road safety talks at schools, companies and various community events. TP will continue to work with the Land Transport Authority, and other community partners, such as the Singapore Road Safety Council, to educate the public on the importance of safe riding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cyclists Booked for Riding on Roads without Helmets since New Regulation Took Effect","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many cyclists have been booked for riding on roads without helmets since new regulations requiring cyclists to use helmets when riding on roads took effect from 1 February 2019.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since 1 February 2019, pedal cyclists are required to use helmets when riding on roads. Cyclists using power-assisted bicycles (PABs) have been required to do so since 1 January 2005.
Between 1 February 2019 and 31 December 2019, Traffic Police (TP) enforced against 109 cases of pedal cyclists and 25 cases of PAB cyclists who failed to wear helmets when riding on the roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Mediations Conducted under Auspices of Singapore Mediation Centre and Rate of Successful Settlements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the annual number of mediations conducted under the auspices of the Singapore Mediation Centre from 2017 to 2019; (b) of these, what is the recorded rate of successful settlements; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to encourage more commercial legal disputes to be resolved through mediation.
Mr K Shanmugam: 465, 466 and 490 mediations were conducted under the aupices of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) in 2017, 2018, and 2019, with a recorded settlement rate of 65%, 69% and 66% respectively.
The Ministry has over the years strengthened the framework for commercial mediation. In 2014, we established (i) the Singapore International Mediation Centre as the flagship organisation to provide international commercial mediation services; and (ii) the Singapore International Mediation Institute to establish accreditation schemes and raise professional standards for mediation. In 2017, we introduced the Mediation Act to strengthen the framework for enforcement of mediated settlement agreements.
In August 2019, Singapore was among the first to sign the Singapore Convention on Mediation. We plan to be among the first countries to ratify the convention. To this end, the Ministry of Law has introduced the Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill in January, and the second reading of the Bill will take place at this sitting of Parliament. When the convention comes into force, it will provide for the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, give businesses greater certainty and assurance, and encourage the greater use of mediation to resolve international commercial disputes.
The Ministry of Law will continue to work with countries, businesses and practitioners to promote the benefits of mediation and the convention. We will provide technical assistance where needed to assist countries to work towards signing and ratifying the Convention. We will also continue to work with mediation institutions to strengthen the quality of our mediation services and build a strong pool of qualified mediators and practitioners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prohibiting Dissemination of Photos and Videos of Victims of Accidents and Crimes Through Electronic Means","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry can consider prohibiting the dissemination of photos and videos of victims of accidents and crimes through electronic means.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are existing laws that prohibit the dissemination of photos and videos of accidents and crimes through electronic means in certain instances.
First, in egregious cases where such conduct is accompanied by an underlying ill-intent or poses a law and order issue, offences under the Penal Code may be disclosed. If the dissemination is carried out with the intent to harass, Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) offences may be disclosed. Whether or not a criminal offence is disclosed depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Second, under POHA, victims of harassing photographs or videos can also bring civil proceedings to require the publisher or social media platforms to take down the harassing material.
We would like to remind everyone to behave compassionately and be mindful of the consequences when sharing photos and videos of victims of accidents and crimes. These photos and videos may cause distress to and inflict further trauma on the victims and their families.
Beyond legal prohibition, society's norms and etiquette have to mature in tandem with the proliferation of online communication. That is why the Government and the Media Literacy Council have been promoting responsible online behaviour to create a safer and kinder internet. For example, the 2019 Better Internet Campaign, themed \"1 Click Away\", encouraged online users to think and exercise sound judgement about the effects of a simple act of clicking to share their posts or photos online. We will continue to build on such efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Claims under MediShield Life and MediSave Withdrawals for Psychiatric Treatment in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health in the last three years (a) what is the breakdown of claims under MediShield Life for psychiatric treatment in terms of (i) claims lodged and (ii) amount disbursed; (b) how many patients maxed out the claim cap, broken down by (i) cap per day ($100) and (ii) cap per year (35 days); and (c) how many patients are unable to tap on MediShield Life due to the exclusion criteria of \"treatment of injuries resulting from attempted suicide\".
17 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health in the last three years (a) what is the breakdown of MediSave withdrawals for inpatient psychiatric treatment and outpatient care respectively, in terms of (i) applications made and (ii) amounts withdrawn; (b) how many patients have reached the withdrawal limits, broken down by (i) cap of $150 per day (ii) cap of $5,000 per year for inpatient care and (iii) cap of $500 per year for outpatient care under the MediSave500 scheme; and (c) how are the mental health conditions included in the Chronic Disease Management Programme determined.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singaporeans who require psychiatric treatments can receive subsidies of up to 80% of their bills at public healthcare institutions. MediShield Life provides additional coverage should they require an inpatient stay, and MediSave withdrawals can be made to offset the remaining cost of their bills.
From 2016 to 2018, an average of 4,400 MediShield Life claims were approved and about $4 million paid out each year for inpatient psychiatric treatments. As MediShield Life is meant to cover medically necessary treatments for subsidised patients, the claim limit does not take into account patients with longer period of stays that may generally be due to social reasons. Among subsidised patients, around two in 10 exceeded the 35-day cap, and another four in 10 were within the 35-day cap but exceeded the $100 per day limit. About 300 claims each year are excluded from coverage as they are for treatment of injuries resulting from attempted suicide.
Over the same period, an average of 4,800 patients withdrew about $6 million from MediSave for inpatient psychiatric stays each year. Based on the latest available data, less than one in 10 subsidised patients exceeded the yearly withdrawal limit of $5,000, while less than three in 10 subsidised bills exceeded the daily withdrawal limit of $150 per day.
For outpatient care, an average of 14,000 patients a year utilised Medisave for psychiatric conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) from 2016 to 2018. These conditions are selected in consultation with a Clinical Advisory Committee comprising clinical experts. The factors considered include level of disease burden, effectiveness of early intervention, and availability of clear clinical guidelines. The MediSave limit for CDMP was raised to $500 in 2018, and about two in 10 patients who withdrew MediSave for psychiatric conditions reached the yearly withdrawal limit.
MediShield Life and MediSave limits are reviewed regularly to ensure that they cover the majority of subsidised patients’ bills. The on-going review of MediShield Life, including the claim limits, by the MediShield Life Council is expected to complete by end 2020.
Those who cannot afford their treatment even after subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave can approach the medical social workers for MediFund and other financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"2","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Government Expenditure on Long-Term Care Services in FY2017 and FY2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Yip Pin Xiu asked the Minister for Health in FY2017 and FY2018 (a) what is the Government expenditure on formal long-term care services, broken down by (i) nursing homes including inpatient hospices (ii) day care centres and (iii) formal homecare services; (b) how many people used (i) nursing home services (ii) day centre services and (iii) formal homecare services during these years; and (c) of these, how many were aged 60 and above.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on latest available data in FY2017, the Government's operating expenditure for long-term care services was about $580 million. About 60% of the expenditure was for residential long-term care. The remainder was for home and centre-based care, as well as other support schemes, such as active ageing programmes and the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund. This is on top of the Government's development expenditure on new long term care capacity.
In the same period, approximately 14,100 Singaporeans used nursing home services; 1,300 used inpatient hospice services; and 29,700 used home and centre-based care services.1 About 90% of them were aged 60 and above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Data covers mainstream care services including home and centre-based palliative care services, and may be incomplete for non-subsidised clients. Data excludes pilot care services. "],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Retail Establishments Charged with Selling Cigarettes to Customers below Legal Age in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health for the past three years, what has the been the number of retail establishments that have been charged with selling cigarettes to customers below the legal age and what are the grounds for successful appeals against such offences.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Minimum Legal Age for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products (MLA) was raised from 18 to 19 on 1 January 2019, and 19 to 20 years old on 1 January 2020. The MLA will subsequently be raised to 21 years old on 1 January 2021.
Under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, anyone caught selling tobacco products to persons below the minimum legal age is liable, on conviction in Court, to a maximum fine of up to $5,000 for the first offence and up to $10,000 for the second or subsequent offence. In addition, the tobacco retail licence will be suspended for six months for the first offence and revoked for the second offence. However, if any outlet is found selling tobacco products to under-aged persons in school uniform or those below 12 years of age, the tobacco retail licence will be revoked, even at the first offence.
From 2017 to 2019, 74 retailers were caught for selling cigarettes to under-aged persons. HSA takes a strong view against such errant retailers and will not hesitate to take prosecution actions against them. For appeals to be considered, the retailer would need to demonstrate that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom he sold the tobacco product was not an under-aged person, and that he had done his due diligence to ascertain that the buyer was not an under-aged person.
We want to remind tobacco retail licensees that they are responsible for all transactions of tobacco products taking place at their outlets, as well as the actions of their employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Smoking Rate amongst Young Singaporeans in Last 10 Years and Measures Planned to Further Curb Smoking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last 10 years, what is the smoking rate amongst young Singaporeans; (b) what are the factors causing Singaporeans to pick up smoking; (c) what is the average age in picking up smoking; and (d) what are the measures planned to further curb smoking amongst young Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Smoking prevalence among students in secondary schools, ITE and polytechnics decreased from 8% in the period from 2011-2013 to 4% in the period from 2014-20161. Similarly, smoking prevalence among Singapore residents aged 18-29 years has declined from 17.2% in 20072 to 9.9% in 2017.3 The average age of smokers who started smoking daily was 18 years in 2017.4 According to research conducted by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), the key reasons behind why the youth start smoking are social influence from friends and the perception that smoking is \"cool\".
The Ministry of Health adopts a multi-pronged approach to curb smoking amongst Singaporeans young and old, which includes a comprehensive mix of strategies such as public education, provision of smoking cessation services, legislation controlling tobacco advertising, sales of cigarettes to minors and taxation.
One key measure that addresses the role of social influence in smoking initiation is the Minimum Legal Age (MLA) for tobacco use. This was raised to 20 years on 1 January 2020, and will be raised to 21 years on 1 January 2021. This aims to denormalise tobacco use among youth below the age of 21, restrict their access to tobacco in their social circles, and hence reduce the likelihood of smoking initiation.
To reduce the influence of positive communication around tobacco product brands, which may contribute to its perceived \"cool\" factor, the standardised packaging of tobacco products with enhanced graphic health warnings will come into force from 1 July 2020.
In the community and schools, HPB works with educators and community organisations to promote smoke-free living among our youth. HPB conducts smoking cessation training for educators and youth workers. In addition, Student Health Advisors are deployed in schools to support students on health issues, including tailored counselling to quit smoking. HPB also complements anti-tobacco messages in the school curricula with interactive programmes, such as assembly skits and workshops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Student Health Surveys 2011-2013 and 2014-2016.","2 : National Health Surveillance Survey 2007.","3 : National Population Health Survey 2017.","4 : National Population Health Survey 2017. Based on data for smokers aged 18 – 39 years, as this would be more reflective of recent trends among the youth in Singapore. \n\n"],"footNoteQuestions":["20"],"questionNo":"20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Work of Advisory Council Set Up in 2019 to Promote Ethical Collection and Use of Data Obtained from Persons without Their Knowledge or Consent for Commercial Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether he can provide an update on the work of the advisory council set up in 2018 to promote the ethical collection and use of data obtained from persons without their specific knowledge or consent for commercial use.
Mr S Iswaran: The Advisory Council on the Ethical Use of AI and Data was formed in 2018 to provide guidance to the Government on the responsible development and deployment of AI.
It has made a good start in helping organisations improve their AI governance practices. It obtained industry views and advised the Government in developing and updating Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework (Model Framework), which translates ethical principles including human-centricity and safety into pragmatic measures that organisations can adopt voluntarily. This is important to engender public trust and acceptance of AI. A wide range of organisations is now using the Model Framework for their AI deployments.
The Advisory Council also provided valuable input to the Implementation and Self-Assessment Guide for Organisations and Compendium of Use Cases, which help organisations apply the Model Framework. These two documents were released together with the second edition of the Model Framework in January 2020 at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos. Collectively, they have helped to shape norms and advance Singapore's thought leadership in AI governance.
The Advisory Council actively engages the community and industry on AI and data developments, including encouraging their adoption of the Model Framework. It also provides guidance to the Research Programme on Governance of AI and Data Use, hosted by the Singapore Management University, in advancing research and thought leadership in AI and data governance.
The Government will continue to work closely with the Advisory Council to help organisations use AI and data responsibly, including supporting more organisations to adopt the Model Framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Drawdown of $200 Million Bicentennial Community Fund Set Up Last Year to Match Donations to Institutions of a Public Character","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether an update can be provided on the drawdown of the $200 million Bicentennial Community Fund set up last year to match donations to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs).
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The $200 million Bicentennial Community Fund (BCF) aims to encourage giving in the bicentennial year. It provides dollar-for-dollar matching of donations of up to $400,000 for an Institution of a Public Character (IPC), for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. IPCs are still raising donations and will only complete their submissions after 1 April 2020. IPCs can use these donations to bring their causes forward. The National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) is the appointed administrator for the Fund.
Based on applications received thus far, about 63% of IPCs have applied, with an estimated 70% utilisation of the Fund. The window of application for BCF matching is still open until 31 March 2020, and we encourage the remaining IPCs to consider applying for the Fund, and givers to continue supporting the causes and IPCs they are passionate about, to help the IPCs make a greater impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Value of Customer Prepayments for Services or Products Lost Due to Business Failure or Inability to Discharge Contractual Obligations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) for each of the last three years, what is the total value of consumer prepayments for services or products that have been lost due to business failure or inability to discharge contractual obligations, broken down by (i) the motor car industry (ii) the beauty industry (iii) contractors and (iv) any other industries with significant consumer prepayment losses; and (b) whether mandatory escrow can be implemented for higher-risk consumer prepayments to protect consumers against such losses.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Based on reports filed by consumers with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) from 2017 to 2019, the value of reported prepayment loss can be attributed mainly to motor cars, renovation services, and beauty services. The breakdown of the reported loss in these three areas can be found in Table 1.
Escrow arrangements have been implemented for some services like conveyancing services and major payment services. However, such arrangements may not be suitable for all businesses. Some use prepayments to facilitate the cashflow of their business operations to allow them to offer more competitive pricing to their customers.
To help consumers identify businesses with good trading practices and shop with peace of mind, CASE has worked with industry associations to develop CaseTrust accreditation schemes for specific industries. In particular, the CaseTrust schemes for motor cars, renovation services, and beauty services require accredited businesses to safeguard consumers' prepayment through the purchase of insurance or insurance bonds.
The Government will continue to monitor developments and consider additional sector-specific prepayment protection requirements as necessary, taking into consideration the cost impact on businesses and consumers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Developing Different Measures of Inflation for Different Key Demographic Segments of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what has been the result of the Ministry's review of developing different measures of inflation for different key demographic segments of Singaporeans beyond only segments by household income.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Department of Statistics (DOS) already compiles Consumer Price Indices for different household income groups, as well as retiree households. DOS is currently assessing the feasibility of developing Consumer Price Indices for other key demographic segments in Singapore. This process takes time as relevant data needs to be gathered, compiled and analysed. MTI and DOS will provide an update when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fraudulent Divorce Cases in Past Five Years by Existing Lessees of HDB Flats to Circumvent Minimum Occupation Period or Avoid Buyers' Stamp Duties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development for the past five years, whether there have been cases of fraudulent divorces committed by existing lessees of HDB flats to circumvent the Minimum Occupation Period or to avoid buyers' stamp duties.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Courts have to be satisfied that there are valid and proven statutory grounds before granting a divorce. We are not aware of any divorces undertaken by HDB flat owners purely to circumvent the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) or to avoid buyers' stamp duties.
Following a divorce, the treatment of the matrimonial HDB flat, as stated in the Court Order, is still subject to HDB's rules. Regardless of whether the flat is to be retained by one party or sold on the open market, the parties must satisfy the prevailing eligibility conditions. For example, if the parties wish to sell the flat on the open market, they must have fulfilled the MOP by the divorce date. If the MOP has not been fulfilled and neither party is eligible to retain the flat, the parties would need to surrender the flat to HDB. Depending on the circumstances of the case, HDB may consider granting a special exemption for the divorced couple to sell their flat within their MOP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of HDB's Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme Projects in Past 10 Years and Dwelling Units Affected","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past 10 years, what is the number of HDB's Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) projects and the number of dwelling units affected, broken down on an annual basis; and (b) what are the challenges involving SERS projects.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 2010, eight public housing sites involving about 6,900 sold flats (or an average of 690 sold flats per year) have been announced for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).
SERS involves compulsory acquisition and is done only on a limited basis, after taking into consideration various factors such as the redevelopment potential of the site, and the availability of suitable replacement sites nearby to rehouse the home-owners involved. Given these restrictions, we do not expect many more sites to be eligible for SERS. This is why the Government has announced a new Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) to more systematically redevelop and renew our older HDB towns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of NUS Business School Researchers' Findings on Property Developers Exchanging Information on Government Land Sales Resulting in Imputed Losses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry and SLA will look into findings by NUS Business School researchers that property developers could be exchanging information about Government land sales which had led to imputed losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars due to lower winning tender bids.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government adopts an open, transparent and competitive tender process in the sale of sites under the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme. The tender process is transparent to all potential tenderers, with land sale requirements specified clearly in tender documents.
With regard to the NUS study, the researchers themselves have withdrawn any claims of insider trading amongst developers, and said that they could not find any evidence that such activity had indeed taken place. In any case, MND has looked at the 103 GLS tenders awarded during the period referenced by the NUS study. For all of these tenders, multiple bids were received, ranging from three to as high as 23 bids for each site. More than 80 per cent of the tenders had five bids or more. All tenders were awarded to the tenderers with the highest acceptable bids, and these were broadly in line with or higher than independent estimates of the market value of the sites.
In the event there is reason to suspect any collusion or freak result, the Government will take the necessary actions, including closing the tender without award, or take enforcement action should there be any infringement of the law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for HDB Issuing Temporary Occupational Licences over State Land to People's Association","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for HDB, as managing agent for SLA, to issue Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) over state land to entities such as the People's Association Citizens Consultative Committees for durations of several years at a time; and (b) what is the rate of fees charged to the People's Association for such TOLs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Vacant State land can be put to interim use until the land is required for development. Typical uses include recreational, community, commercial, and other uses.
HDB, as an agent of SLA, issues TOLs for the use of State land under its charge. Pursuant to the State Lands Rules, such TOLs are issued for a period not exceeding three years. TOL holders can apply to renew their license upon expiry. The duration of the TOL depends on the type of use, the duration requested by the applicant, and when the land is required for development.
The TOL fee chargeable varies depending on the specific use. The rates for a list of common uses can be found on SLA's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cases of Water Seepage from External Walls of HDB Flats Reported and Addressed in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many cases of water seepage from the external walls of HDB flats have been reported; (b) of those cases, how many are repeat complaints; and (c) whether HDB works with the town council to help address the water seepage issues.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The external walls of HDB flats are common property under the Town Councils' management and maintenance. Town Councils are responsible for keeping common property, including external walls, in good condition by carrying out regular and cyclical maintenance.
Residents who encounter water seepage from external walls in their flat typically report it to the Town Council managing their estate. As such, HDB does not have the number of cases reported for water seepage from external walls. Where residents report such cases to HDB, HDB will help to refer these cases to the respective Town Council for follow-up.
If Town Councils face difficulties in resolving water seepage from external walls, HDB also works with them to resolve the seepage issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Cases of Moulding on Ceilings or Walls of HDB Flats in Past Three Years and Action Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the past three years, how many cases of moulding on ceilings or walls of HDB flats have been reported; and (b) what action does HDB take to address these complaints.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mould formation is usually caused by insufficient ventilation, as high humidity encourages mould growth. Over the past three years, HDB has received an annual average of about 1.4 reported cases of mould per 1,000 dwelling units.
Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of the interior of their flats, including the ceilings and walls within their flats. Nevertheless, should HDB receive complaints about mould on the ceilings or walls of HDB flats, HDB will assist flat owners by providing advice on remedial repairs, and refer them to suitable repair contractors. If flat owners require financial assistance to pay for repair works, HDB will also refer them to the relevant community or grassroots organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on \"Reverse\" Vending Machines Launched under Recycle N Save Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what has been the popularity and usage of the 10 \"reverse\" vending machines launched under the Recycle N Save Programme on 31 October 2019; and (b) whether NEA has further plans to expand the Programme beyond the planned 50 machines across Singapore by March 2020.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Reverse Vending Machine (RVM) pilot, introduced under the \"Recycle N Save\" initiative by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and F&N Foods, seeks to encourage Singaporeans to care for the environment and practise sustainability in their lives, by incentivising them to recycle their used plastic drink bottles and aluminium drink cans. The pilot has received positive response from the public since its launch on 31 October 2019. As of 12 January 2020, over 1.6 million drink containers in total have been deposited.
Eleven RVMs have been rolled out and NEA and F&N Foods will work towards deploying the remaining 39 RVMs by end March 2020. The remaining RVMs will be deployed in a variety of locations to reach out to more users and residents in different parts of Singapore.
My Ministry and the NEA will continue to work with stakeholders to monitor and review the results of the pilot. We will use the findings to assess how the \"Recycle N Save\" initiative supports our packaging including plastic waste management roadmap, including how we can accelerate plans to establish an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework no later than 2025.
We will continue to work with our partners and stakeholders to encourage the public to recycle more, and to recycle right.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Hawkers and Stalls Providing Only Disposable Utensils for Dine-in Customers and Plans to Introduce Reusable Utensils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with regard to the Zero Waste Masterplan (a) whether the Ministry is aware of the number of hawkers and stalls that are providing only disposable utensils for dine-in customers; and (b) whether there are measures or plans to encourage and ensure that these hawkers and stalls introduce reusable utensils for dine-in customers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has been working with stakeholders to reduce the use of disposables at hawker centres managed by NEA. NEA has disallowed their usage for dine-in meals at all seven new hawker centres, and at five existing hawker centres which have adopted the use of common crockery and centralised dishwashing services under the Productive Hawker Centres programme. In addition, from September 2018, NEA does not allow new cooked food stallholders who commence their tenancies at existing hawker centres to provide disposables to patrons for dine-in meals. NEA works closely with the Hawkers' Associations and our appointed operators to ensure that these stallholders do not use disposables for dine-in meals. NEA does not collect statistics on the number of stalls that provide disposable utensils for dine-in customers.
NEA is actively engaging the remaining stallholders to phase out the use of disposables for dine-in meals. Some concerns that stallholders commonly cite are the cost of reusable crockery and the cost of manpower required to wash crockery. On this front, we are working to introduce centralised dishwashing services at more hawker centres, and we have a grant scheme in place to defray some of the costs. We will continue to engage stallholders through the Hawkers' Associations to encourage them to switch to reusables.
At the national level, NEA launched the \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign in June 2019 to raise awareness of the impact of excessive consumption of disposables and the need for reduction. We are heartened that over 59 partners, covering more than 1,600 premises ranging from retailers, food and beverage establishments to supermarkets and hotels, have come forward to partner NEA in this endeavour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cleaning Requirements and Contracts in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry ensure that the gross floor area (GFA) for every school is accurately reflected in the cleaning tender specifications; (b) whether the Ministry consults every school on their cleaning requirements such as the number of classrooms and student population; and (c) whether the Ministry allows for contract variations in their cleaning contracts when there is a discrepancy in the GFA stated in the tender or there is an increase in GFA during the contract period.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: When calling for school cleaning tenders, key information like the GFA and toilet details, for example, number of cubicles, shower facilities, staff toilets, and so on of each school are provided to assist tenderers to price their bids. The GFA is taken from \"as-built\" information submitted to the building authority when the schools were developed or upgraded, and is further verified by MOE's Managing Agents prior to tender calling. Tenderers also visit a typical Primary school, Secondary school and Junior College to familiarise themselves with the nature and scope of services expected of them.
Before a tender is called, schools will also provide input into the specifications so that their requirements are incorporated.
The existing cleaning contract generally does not allow for price adjustments due to temporary changes or marginal discrepancies in GFA. Tenderers know that the numbers in the specifications serve as a guide, and it is in the interest of all parties not to have a tendering system that is too exact and detailed, as that will add administrative burden to everyone and can end up creating more disputes. However, if a new category of school infrastructure is added to an existing school site, such as adding a MOE Kindergarten, the price would be adjusted to include the new areas to be cleaned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Address Attitudes of Students and Educators towards Sexual Objectification, Harassment and Abuse of Women","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education what new efforts is the Ministry launching to address attitudes of students and educators towards the sexual objectification, harassment and abuse of women in light of serious concerns over voyeurism cases at the institutes of higher learning.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are strongly against all forms of sexual misconduct, including voyeurism.
Over the past year, the IHLs have reviewed and stepped up their efforts to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct holistically. They have implemented enhancements in four key areas.
First, they have enhanced their education efforts for students and staff, emphasising what constitutes harm and violation, and the importance of respect for each other. These include briefings for students during orientation, online modules, face-to-face workshops, and regular outreach and awareness-building campaigns.
Second, they have strengthened their disciplinary frameworks to impose tougher penalties for sexual misconduct, including expulsion where warranted.
Third, they have enhanced campus infrastructure, including by expanding CCTV camera coverage and installing full-height partitions in restrooms.
Fourth, they have strengthened support for victims by enhancing training for first responders and front-line staff, to equip them with the skills to support victims sensitively. They have also established 24-hour helplines for student care and dedicated victim care units at some IHLs, and enhanced counselling services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Taken For Graduates To Secure Employment In Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) over the past five years, what has been the trend in terms of time taken for graduates of Universities, Polytechnics and ITE to secure full-time employment; (b) what has been the trend in the proportion of such graduates taking up intern, contract or part-time positions as their first job after graduation; and (c) what are the causal factors underlying such trends.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Education does not track the time taken by graduates to secure full-time employment. But the ability of graduates to secure employment six months after graduation has been tracked through the annual Graduate Employment Surveys, and published over the years.
The survey results show that overall employment rate for Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) were 89%, 89%, 90%, 88% and 89% between 2014 and 2018, within six months of graduation.
Among university graduates in the labour force, about 80% were in full-time permanent employment. Less than 10% were in part-time or temporary employment, mostly by choice. This trend has held stable over the past five years.
However, Polytechnic and ITE graduates are much more likely to take up part-time or temporary work by choice, as they plan to go on to further studies. This has increased over the years with the expansion of upgrading pathways.
Because of these reasons, the percentage of Polytechnic and ITE graduates in the labour force who take up part-time, temporary or freelance work six months after graduation has risen from 24% in 2014 to 31% in 2018. Almost all of this is by choice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Placement Quotas for Employment Agencies of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry sets quotas for employment agencies of foreign domestic workers to meet in terms of the number of domestic workers placed; (b) if so, whether this quota is applicable to all employment agencies or only those under Advance Placement Scheme; (c) what is the purpose of this quota; (d) how is the quota determined; and (e) what are the consequences of failure to meet the quota.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not set a quota on the number of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to be placed by employment agencies (EAs). EAs which apply for and are approved by MOM to participate in the Advance Placement Scheme (APS) are however, encouraged to commit to bringing in 20 or more FDWs each month. This is to ensure a meaningful pool of FDWs whom employers with urgent caregiving needs can select from.
The Ministry regularly monitors the placement volume of APS EAs. To date, no EA has been penalised for not keeping to its commitment. An EA, which makes the effort but is not able to bring in a steady and regular pool of APS FDWs, may still stay in the scheme. Only EAs that consistently fail to place any APS FDWs are dropped from the scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Exceptions to Concessions for Levies on Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider expanding exceptions to concessions for levies on foreign domestic workers to help care-givers cope with situations where a disabled family member requires at least two persons to carry out any activities of daily living.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises that there could be instances where families with care-giving duties would require two foreign domestic workers (FDW) to help care for persons with disabilities. Hence, on a case-by-case basis, the Ministry approves the work permit applications of up to two FDWs for one care recipient. However, each care recipient is eligible for the concessionary levy of $60 per month for only one FDW. This is to be fair to all employers whose care-giving needs vary.
The Government provides further support for households who may need help to defray care-giving costs. For example, the Ministry of Health provides a Home Caregiving Grant (HCG), which is a monthly cash payout of $200 to defray the cost of care-giving for individuals with permanent moderate disability. The HCG payout can be used flexibly for different care-giving expenses, including the cost of hiring an FDW. FDW employers who wish to train their FDWs in care-giving can also tap the Care-givers Training Grant which is an annual training subsidy of $200 for each care recipient.
The Government will continue to review and improve the range of home-based support measures to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and their care-givers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Impact of Unmitigated Workplace Mental Health Issues on Local Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are any ongoing studies by the Ministry to examine how workplace mental health issues, if left unmitigated, can affect our local workforce; and (b) if so, when will the results of such studies be made public.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM is examining the impact of workplace mental health issues on our local workforce by tapping on completed studies by the Institute of Mental Health and National Council of Social Services. We also refer to global studies by the World Health Organization and International Labour Organization.
MOM agrees that mental well-being at the workplace is important. To encourage more companies to put in place measures to support employees' mental well-being, the Total Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) programme initiated by the WSH Council and supported by the Health Promotion Board will assess employees' physical and mental well-being. The Total WSH consultants can also assist employers with stress management workshops and mental well-being talks, to support the mental well-being of their employees.
We are initiating a pilot of iWorkHealth, a web-based psychosocial assessment tool to help employers and their employees to identify workplace stressors. The tool serves to raise awareness of workplace stressors and provide recommendations on areas where employers can work on to improve the mental well-being of their employees. The tool is targeted to be launched later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Salary of Foreign Domestic Workers by Nationality and Experience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower what is the median salary of foreign domestic workers disaggregated by (i) nationality (ii) whether they are hired through the Eldercarer Foreign Domestic Worker Scheme and (iii) prior work experience in Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Based on salaries declared by employers at the point of initial employment of their foreign domestic workers (FDWs), the median basic monthly salary over the past three years is $560. FDWs who had prior work experience in Singapore receive about $20 more per month. We do not provide nationality-based data to avoid invidious comparisons. The data also does not capture the impact of salary adjustments for longer-serving FDWs.
The basic monthly salaries of FDWs who were hired via the Eldercarer FDW Scheme vary from $400 to $1,000, with the median of about $570. The difference in median salaries should not be attributed solely to their Eldercarer training. It can also be a result of other factors, such as the type and length of training courses they have undergone, whether they had prior nursing training and experience, and the level of caregiving needs of the care recipients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of Childcare Centres Located at Workplaces, Transport Hubs and Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the breakdown of the current number of childcare centres located at workplaces, transport hubs and residential areas respectively; (b) what is the number of childcare places available for each group; and (c) what kind of locations are anchor operators and partner operators offering their centres at.
Mr Desmond Lee: One of Government's key priorities is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable pre-schools for their children. This is to provide a good start for every child. To this end, the Early Childhood and Development Agency (ECDA) facilitates the development of child care centres (CCCs) in and near residential estates, community premises and at workplaces where there is demand.
Around two thirds (or 980) of all CCCs are located in HDB and private residential estates, with a total capacity of 107,000 places. One third (or 510) are located at or near workplaces – including commercial premises, Government buildings, and industrial estates – with a total capacity of 64,000. A small number are located in community premises, such as community centres. Of all these CCCs, 15% (or 210) are located in or near transportation hubs, that is, bus and MRT interchanges, with a total capacity of 26,000.
The large majority (or about 95%) of Anchor Operator (AOP) childcare centres are located in residential estates, as families have generally expressed a preference for childcare services close to their homes. The remaining 5% of AOP centres are located at or near workplaces. The Partner Operator (POP) scheme extends the range of affordable, quality options for families, with 60% of POP centres located in residential estates, and 40% located at or near workplaces. A small number of AOP and POP centres are also located in community premises. Of all these AOP and POP centres, 15% to 20% are located in or near transportation hubs.
ECDA will continue to expand the provision of quality and affordable Government-supported pre-school places to cater to parents' needs and preferences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply and Demand for After-school Care Facilities and Quality Yardstick to Assess Student Care Centre Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the current capacity of after-school care facilities is able to meet the demand; (b) what are the common reasons for appeal cases and feedback received from parents; (c) what is the breakdown in numbers regarding parents' feedback on affordability, capacity and services offered by Student Care Centres (SCCs); (d) whether the Ministry prescribes skill sets required of SCC personnel; and (e) whether there is a quality yardstick used to assess SCC operators.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are more than 400 Student Care Centres (SCCs) registered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to administer the Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme under ComCare. These registered SCCs provide around 42,000 student care places, with some 32,000 children enrolled in them. While actual demand varies across areas, enrolment is below capacity in all towns. Besides these registered SCCs, there are also other centres providing student care services that are not registered as SCFA administrators.
Of the appeals and feedback received from parents relating to SCC, about half (43%) concern particular SCC specific issues, such as hygiene and child management. About 5% of feedback relates to affordability and 6% relates to capacity. The remaining feedback covers a range of issues from the enrolment process to the requirements imposed on registered SCCs.
MSF provides guidelines to registered SCCs on recommended educational qualifications and training for their supervisors and staff. For example, MSF recommends the Workforce Skills Qualifications Introductory Student Care Centre Course, conducted by Ngee Ann Polytechnic, for new SCC staff. This course trains SCC staff to provide a safe, challenging, positive and developmentally appropriate physical environment for SCC students.
All registered SCCs are required to meet stipulated standards in the areas of supervision, physical environment, operating hours, safety, health and hygiene, and provide a structured daily programme. MSF conducts audits on registered SCCs, which may include surprise checks, at least once every two years to ensure compliance. More frequent checks may be conducted as needed, for example, to look into feedback and complaints received, and where the SCC has weaknesses identified in previous audits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}