1 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to provide adult Singaporeans access to affordable health planning programmes; and (b) whether the Ministry will support the growth and development of professional health and well-being coaches to cater for such health planning needs.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, we have made health planning affordable for Healthier SG (HSG) enrollees by fully subsidising their first Health Plan consultations with their enrolled family doctor. During these consultations, residents discuss follow-up actions to improve their health with their family doctors, such as health screening, and exercise and diet adjustments. More than half of HSG enrollees have consulted their chosen doctors to develop a personal Health Plan.
On top of this, there are other types of planning and support available from community partners and healthcare clusters. For example, Sport Singapore’s Active Health Labs offer residents opportunities to have a guided fitness and health assessment, and recommendations on how to achieve fitness and health goals. Healthcare providers can prescribe Active Health's targeted programmes to residents who are medically at risk of lifestyle-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, obesity or hypertension.
Some Community Health Posts provided by healthcare clusters at accessible locations, such as Active Ageing Centres, also provide support for individuals to make diet and lifestyle changes. Resources, such as informative articles recommended programmes, are also available on HealthHub and Healthy 365, to support residents in embracing a healthier lifestyle.
Health planning and support covers a wide scope of activities involving different groups, including Government agencies like the Ministry of Health (MOH), People's Association (PA) and SportSG as well as the groups in the community like professional associations. All agencies and organisations across the healthcare and sporting ecosystems have a role to play in upskilling staff, volunteers and partners, including health and well-being coaches, to support the delivery of better health.
\tMr Speaker: Ms See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just wanted to find out whether there would be intention to have single touch points, where those who are not within the first phase – for example, if I am in my 30s or 40s, but I recognise that I would like to take a more active action towards health planning, including diet, fitness as well as lifestyle changes – would there be a single touch point who we could approach so that we can integrate all these various facilities and help available?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for her question. In the work that we do, what we have realised that people come across our portals through very different situations; they are all at different phases of their lives. So, while it may be useful to have one touch point, but in terms of reaching out, it is meaningful to have many different people doing it in different manners. That is why we work with various partners. There are the key sources of information which we want citizens and residents to refer to, like Healthy 365 and HealthHub. These are the key touch points.
In terms of outreach, it is more meaningful to have different permutations, different platforms, at workplaces especially for working adults, at the community for those who are a bit more elderly, and maybe in schools for children. While we do note that there needs to be a single resource, it might be helpful to have different touch points.
If you are looking at it, though, from the perspective of partners who want to work with us, perhaps, I would suggest the Health Promotion Board (HPB) would be the one agency that maybe useful for you to start off with. But, as I said earlier, PA, SportSG also do different dimensions of the work. If you do want to try and tie up for certain efforts, you may refer it to me and perhaps we can connect you to HPB.
\tMr Speaker: Ms See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I think the perspective would be the professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). The PMEs that we come across, given people are now more aware of chronic illness and all that, they do recognise that it does take a holistic approach to health – not just physical activity, but what types of physical activity, what types of diet.
People are also wondering if, for example from Healthy 365 or HealthHub, would there be a way in which they can take a more involved approach, but seeking professional advice to construct a health plan which would allow them to be personalised and addressing their aliments.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: As I mentioned earlier in my answer, there are different touch points for these PMEs to reach out to. At the moment, we are also building those up. If the Member has any other suggestions as to how we can build on these further, we are happy to hear from you and we can see how we can make this more meaningful for the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Telemedicine Service Providers and Take-up Rate for Their Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many telemedicine service providers are operating in Singapore; (b) what has been the take-up rate of these services, including the number of consultations conducted or patients served; (c) whether telemedicine services have contributed to a drop in non-emergency cases at the emergency departments; and (d) whether there are plans to increase public awareness and promote the use of telemedicine services for non-emergency conditions.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, many outpatient medical service providers are approved to provide telemedicine services under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA), of which 19 are standalone telemedicine providers without physical premises.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the take-up rate of telemedicine services. There is also no definitive data on whether telemedicine has reduced non-emergency attendances at Emergency Departments, especially given an ageing population with rising demand for healthcare.
Telemedicine services have been facilitated by MOH in primary care for chronic disease management and in specialist outpatient settings for specific conditions. MOH will continue to facilitate the application of telemedicine service in appropriate settings.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. From a systems perspective, integrating telemedicine into existing care protocols rather than offering them as an optional add-on, is critical for optimising patient care delivery. This balanced approach empowers healthcare professionals to assess the most suitable modality for each patient's needs, avoiding unnecessary telemedicine use. With this in mind, I have two questions.
First, for new hospitals opened to piloting telemedicine, can it be incorporated as a standard part of routine clinical practice? Second, beyond public awareness campaigns, are there plans to incentivise primary care physicians to utilise telemedicine for appropriate consultations? This could potentially reduce strain on emergency services and generate cost savings.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his questions. Telemedicine is a tool. The technology and the platform are potentially quite useful – and he has illustrated and described some of the ways in which it can change patterns of behaviour. It is a tool that needs to be chosen by two parties: the clinical provider and the potential patient.
Our approach to say it is an option. And where it is a suitable option for the clinical providers because is safe, efficacious, it provides better quality of care; or for the patient because it is convenient and provides better access, then, we want to remove the obstacles for the clinician or the patient from choosing this. So, we are working on standardising the regulatory approach across, as well as reducing some of the barriers in terms of cost and financials associated in terms of the choice that a patient might make.
So, the short answer to both questions is that we would like to see progress for hospitals as well as primary care using telemedicine services appropriately, where it makes a difference to the clinical care, where it becomes more convenient and more acceptable to the patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Targets for and Tracking of Adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the new requirement for flights departing Singapore to use Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) from 2026 (a) what are the metrics to monitor for global developments and the wider availability and adoption of SAF that the Ministry will use to determine whether to raise the SAF targets; and (b) whether the Ministry has any projected targets for the use of SAF from 2026 to 2050.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, our approach to build a Sustainable Aviation Fuel ecosystem strikes a balance between economic competitiveness and environmental sustainability.
As explained in our announcement during the Changi Aviation Summit in February 2024, we will take into account developments such as the approaches of other air hubs towards Sustainable Aviation Fuel adoption, the scale of Sustainable Aviation Fuel production and availability of supply around the world, before deciding on our Sustainable Aviation Fuel target beyond 2026.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Minister for the answer. I have three supplementary questions. Number one, will the Government consider mandating for airlines arriving and departing Singapore to publish their percentage use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel and the emissions reduced as a result to promote greater consumer demand for greener flights?
Number two, when determining the reduction of emissions from the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel, will the Government take into account the type of fuel used, as certain types of fuel, such as crop-based fuel, may lead to greater conversion of forests or grassland and release stock carbon, resulting in greater production emissions?
And number three, will the Government study plans by other countries with higher Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets, such as Britain, Japan and the European Union, to raise our projected targets even further?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the flights that are departing Singapore, I think that is where the Sustainable Aviation Fuel requirement will be imposed. So, if the flights are coming in from another country, then it will be for the authorities in that airport that the flights are departing from, to impose this on the departing flights.
Types of fuel, certainly, there are standards, including by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), looking at the fuels that will qualify as Sustainable Aviation Fuel, Singapore will take reference from these international standards.
Lastly, I have also mentioned in the announcement during the Changi Aviation Summit, that the 1% target that we are starting with in 2026 is a first step. We will continue to monitor international developments and look at what we want to do for the subsequent steps. I think it is important to strike a balance between achieving reductions in carbon emissions on the one hand, and protecting the competitiveness of our air hub on the other hand. Both are important. And one very key factor, Mr Speaker, would be the production and supply capacity globally.
We hope that with Singapore and also other authorities around the world, sending a signal to producers that we want them to invest in new production capacity, this will help to raise the level of production globally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Job, Business and Income Information Required by HDB for Housing Loan Applications","subTitle":"Difference in requirements for employed and self-employed persons","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the information on job, business or income which HDB will require from a person who is making a housing loan application and what is the time period required for such information; and (b) whether there is any distinction between the information required for (i) employed persons and (ii) self-employed persons.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) conducts credit assessments to gauge the financial ability of loan applicants to service monthly mortgage instalments, based on the applicant’s income. The assessment is carried out when the applicant applies for an HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter and is based on the applicant’s average monthly income over a period of 12 months.
All applicants, regardless of the nature of their employment, are required to provide their CPF contribution history and latest Notice of Assessment for income tax, through Myinfo. HDB will reach out to applicants if further supporting documents are needed.
Unlike employed persons who generally receive monthly CPF contributions from work that can be used to pay mortgage instalments, self-employed persons typically pay their mortgage instalments fully in cash. Hence, they are required to provide their Credit Bureau Report and bank statements for an assessment of their financial position and their ability to pay their mortgage instalments every month.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Does and will the HDB give different considerations in their assessment of the income of the self-employed to take into account that the business owner or the self-employed may not pay themselves regularly? For example, would the HDB take into account the annual income as declared to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS)?
Number two, where the business income may vary. For example, even in a short period of time where a self-employed's business income trajectory increases considerably, can the HDB exercise some flexibility to look at the uptrend of the income at the time of the application?
\t
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the short answer to the Member's question is, that HDB will review on case-by-case basis if the applicant has some specific circumstances. The underlying principle is to make sure that whoever is buying a flat, applying for HDB flat, can service the monthly mortgage payments.
That is why, there is an income assessment criteria, looking at eligibility of the different incomes – the details are on HDB's website – what form of income will be considered, the IRAS statements and the CPF contributions. These are all taken in totality. So, if the Member comes across cases where the applicant requires certain flexibility or case-by-case review, please flag them to HDB and we will take a look.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Prospective Tertiary Students to Pursue Careers in Special Needs Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education given the growing demand for special needs education, whether the Ministry will be considering initiatives to encourage and train more prospective tertiary students to pursue careers in special needs education and rehabilitation.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) works closely with the social service agencies to attract and retain Special Education (SPED) educators to meet the growing demand for SPED teachers, teacher aides, allied professionals and vocational educators in SPED schools. There are ongoing recruitment efforts to attract university graduates and diploma holders from diverse backgrounds with the relevant skills, competencies and dispositions, including efforts in partnering Institutes of Higher Learning.
Beyond recruitment, MOE is also committed to strengthening the SPED sector as a system.
First, we launched the Journeys of Excellence Package in 2020, to strengthen the professionalism of SPED teachers. This package comprised the SPED teacher career and competency frameworks and training roadmap to provide clarity on career progression, as well as roles and expectations. In 2022, we enhanced the Diploma in Special Education (DISE) to better equip SPED teachers with the necessary skills and competencies. Participation in DISE is a requirement for all SPED teachers and is sponsored by MOE.
MOE will increase funding to SPED schools between 2024 and 2026 to raise the average salaries for teachers and teacher aides to maintain market competitiveness and strengthen the professionalism of the SPED sector.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I just have a very short supplementary question. Will the Ministry consider exploring alternative pathways into special needs education, such as attracting professionals with relevant experience from other fields through conversion programmes?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, the short answer is yes. We welcome anyone who is keen to join the SPED sector. We know this SPED sector is a very challenging sector to be in. It requires determination. It requires passion. It is a calling.
So, we welcome Mr Yip's suggestion and we will look into various ways and work with the social service agencies who are operating the SPED schools, to encourage a lot more people, even through conversion, if there are interested individuals to do so and they are keen to participate in the training programme. As mentioned earlier, we have developed a framework for them to go through professional development, including the starting course, which is a Diploma in Special Education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Transition Framework for Carbon Tax","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an update on the transition framework for carbon tax that was first introduced on 12 January 2022; (b) how does the transition framework for existing facilities in the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors ease the transition without eroding the price signal for such companies to invest in decarbonisation; and (c) whether an update can be provided on how much SMEs have drawn down on the Energy Efficiency Fund to build capabilities.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, in January 2022, the Government announced the introduction of the carbon tax transition framework to provide time for Singapore companies in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) sectors to adjust to a low-carbon economy and to make the necessary investments for their transformation. Since the announcement, the Economic Development Board (EDB) has been engaging affected companies, such as those in the chemicals and semiconductor sectors, on the details and the implementation of the framework.
The transition framework will be calibrated to spur companies to invest in decarbonisation. Transitory allowances will be provided only for a proportion – only for a proportion – of the companies' emissions and are based on internationally recognised efficiency benchmarks, where available, or the companies' decarbonisation plans.
The remaining emissions will be subject to the prevailing headline carbon tax. The Government will review and adjust the allowances based on how companies have fared in lowering their emissions, as well as international developments and advancements in decarbonisation technologies.
For the Energy Efficiency Fund, 90 projects amounting to $3.4 million have been approved to date. The Energy Efficiency Fund has been subsumed under the enhanced Energy Efficiency Grant – just two days ago – from 1 April 2024, which will be available to more companies.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.
The first is, the Minister said earlier that EDB has been engaging affected companies. I was just wondering how many companies have been reached by EDB and does he have an estimate about how many companies have not yet been engaged by EDB; and how many more to go, basically?
The second question is, is there any significant projected impact from the transition framework on Singapore's climate targets that arise from this, from the framework?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. For the first one, under this transition framework, EDB has been engaging the types of facilities in the EITE sectors. They are sectorally determined, so we have them in the chemicals, electronics and biomedical manufacturing sectors. These will receive transitory allowances.
As to the number of companies, you can imagine, these are large sector companies – today, there are more than 20 companies and the list will continue to be populated. But thus far, more than 20 companies. The level of allowances, with EDB's involvement, will factor in the company's decarbonisation plans as well as benchmarking to internationally-recognised efficiency benchmarks, wherever it is applicable.
In time, when appropriate, the Government will release aggregated information on the amount of allowances provided. But this is where I want to also sound a caution. We will need to bear in mind considerations, such as whether these disclosures will inadvertently divulge commercially-sensitive information. I think you can imagine that, in the energy and chemical sector, there are that number of players within Jurong Island and within the entire space.
What was the second question?
\tMs He Ting Ru: The second question is if there is a significant projected impact on the transition framework on Singapore's climate targets.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, just to answer the second supplementary question. We want to spur and continue to nudge companies to decarbonise ahead of time. We are mindful and we are very focused on achieving that target by 2050. Because this is a developing framework and the companies that we are engaging with are also looking at international benchmarks, in time to come, in about a year from now, I think, we will be able to give you a better, a clearer indication. I seek the Member's patience on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monetary Authority of Singapore's Regulatory Oversight of Central Depository and its Obligations towards Individual Customers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the extent of MAS’ regulatory oversight of the Central Depository Pte Ltd (CDP) and its relationships and obligations towards individual customers; (b) what avenues for assistance are available for CDP customers who are not digitally literate or savvy, including persons whose accounts have been suspended; and (c) whether MAS considers these avenues adequate in light of some CDP customers being of elderly age and not digitally literate.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Central Depository Pte Ltd (CDP) is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (SFA), as an Approved Clearing House and a Central Depository System to provide securities clearing, settlement and depository services.
MAS expects all MAS-licensed financial institutions to treat their customers fairly, including availing effective support and feedback channels.
At least 99% of all CDP's customers access its services digitally or over calls. Since September 2022, less digitally-savvy customers can access self-help booths at CDP's SGX Vista premises to submit physical documents or seek in-person assistance. They also have the option to book an in-person appointment with CDP via its customer hotline. CDP service representatives also take additional care by offering priority assistance or in-person meetings to customers who have previously indicated difficulties accessing its digital services.
MAS expects CDP to address feedback about the adequacy of its non-digital customer support and closely monitor the performance of its customer service.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions on behalf of my Clementi residents. Firstly, when MAS sets the service standards for the CDP, are these service standards also benchmarked against what a retail bank might provide to its customers?
We have Clementi residents, such as those from Faber Hills in Clementi, who are elderly and prefer face-to-face interactions and are still quite worried about access to counter service when transacting with the CDP. So, the first question is, whether the standard of service prescribed is different compared to a retail bank which, like CDP, would have many legacy customers who are older and not so digitally-savvy?
My second question, pertains to whether or not the customers who are sent digital notices to provide information to keep their accounts open – do these customers also receive telephone calls or paper, physical letters if they do not respond?
I ask this because I have a Clementi resident, a retired stockbroker, his CDP trading account was suspended because he did not use the online system to update his particulars. My resident says he is not computer literate, does not own a personal computer. So, can the Minister of State confirm whether CDP's practices include telephone and paper physical letter outreach before someone's trading account is suspended, due to potential implications if they need to access that account urgently at a future date?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary questions. Dr Tan Wu Meng has been speaking very passionately about CDP and he has raised many of these discrete cases with me, such as the ones on CDP account openings and suspensions, as well as access to CDP digital services. Both Dr Tan and I have been working on these cases on behalf of his Clementi residents.
On the specific case in point, from what I understand, the particular senior had provided an email address and therefore CDP had reminded the senior to update his particulars; and there was prior warning before account suspension. We have been dealing with that case and the senior's customer account has been restored. So, that is for that.
On his first point, I had mentioned in my earlier reply that MAS expects all MAS-licensed financial institutions to treat customers fairly – including all of the effective support and feedback channels. That includes CDP.
I also want to commend the Member on many of his suggestions over the years. Just to update him on a few aspects, in which there have been enhancements to CDP as a result of MAS engagements with CDP to avail more in-person channels to those that are less digitally-literate.
One point to note is that at least 99% of all CDP customers access its services digitally or over calls. So, that means that a vast majority are digitally-savvy. But as the Member knows, the Government's position is that we are not going to be digital-only but, we want to adopt a digital-first approach. Therefore, CDP has made a couple of different enhancements over the years.
First, CDP now grants in-person appointments via the SGX Vista premises. Second, CDP now provides instant video conferencing services with CDP service representatives. CDP has also published user guides and instructional videos on the Internet and social media. There is also a new chatbot on SGX's website. That said, there are always scope for improvements to CDP's customer journey, including and particularly, for those that are less digitally-savvy.
I want to assure Dr Tan that MAS continues to engage CDP, to address many of the customers' pain points across the user journey, particularly relating to those in in-person appointments and customer statements.
So, finally, if any particular customer wants a physical notice by post, he or she can also make that request and CDP will accede to it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Human Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry performs horizon scanning of the potential impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health and, if so, how; and (b) whether Singapore's sustainability efforts can incorporate reducing the use of items which may contribute to microplastics and nanoplastics being introduced into the environment, food chain and daily life.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations have indicated in their respective reports in 2022 that there is insufficient data to fully understand the impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health. Nonetheless, we are closely monitoring international discussions and scientific studies on this topic.
Microplastics and nanoplastics can be produced from the breakdown of larger plastic debris. We have implemented measures to reduce plastic waste, as well as minimise the potential contribution of plastic debris into the environment and marine waters from land-based sources. These include robust waste management systems, a strict anti-littering enforcement regime and measures to encourage businesses and individuals to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics.
Sir, 2024 is designated as the Year of Public Hygiene. We are increasing efforts to work with stakeholders to enhance cleanliness and address littering, including that of plastic waste. We urge everyone to do your part, to keep plastic litter from entering our environment.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. I have two supplementary questions. The first question is on whether or not our agencies are actively doing horizon scans of the medical and scientific literature, and further to that, may I draw the Minister's attention to an article published in the international peer-reviewed journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, on 7 March 2024? It is entitled \"Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events\", in summary, the research article looks at whether microplastics and nanoplastics can be found in the blood vessels of persons who are unwell and if they correlate with future risk of cardiovascular illness.
So, can I ask secondly to the Minister, although it is still in its early days and although this is just one study published in an international peer-reviewed journal, will the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and other health agencies, to get a sense of what the evolving evidence is on this, so that Singapore can move and make decisions in a timely way, as our understanding evolves regarding the science?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions, as well as comments. Let me say that, indeed, there is growing momentum on this issue. This issue has been the subject of various international studies and research, and as the Member has cited, this is one of the research that has been undertaken.
But as I have noted, currently, based on the 2022 WHO report that I had cited earlier, the report has stated that the current global evidence on the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on health risk is still inconclusive and more data is needed to better understand the human exposure as well as then to characterise and quantify human health risks.
Even studies, like what the Member has cited, also conclude that further research has to be done.
So, indeed, MSE and MOH and various relevant agencies are working closely together, to better understand and monitor the impact of such environmental pollutants – microplastics and nanoplastics – on human health, and we will continue, as I have said, to track international studies and research in this area and we are open to considering support for relevant and useful research on this topic.
But having said that, in the meantime, we will continue to look at how we can reduce plastic waste, as well as the amount of plastic debris that gets into the environment and marine waters, through our waste management systems, anti-littering enforcement regime, and getting businesses and individuals to also reduce plastic waste created.
And as an assurance, let me also say that the Public Utilities Board, for instance, has been undertaking biennial surveillance of the presence of microplastics in water from our four National Taps since 2017. As of the latest test results in 2023, we have not detected any microplastics in the treated water and we will continue to monitor developments in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rates at School-based and Community-based Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks the take-up rate of school-based and community-based Student Care Centres (SCC); (b) if so, what are the take-up rates respectively; and (c) whether programmes under these SCCs can be further enhanced to include additional enrichment activities.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) track the enrolment of students in school-based and community-based Student Care Centres, or SCCs. All 182 primary schools have SCCs, with a total enrolment of about 33,000 students. There are about 190 community-based SCCs that are registered with MSF, with a total enrolment of about 8,300 students.
MOE regularly engages school-based SCCs on their programmes. School-based SCCs are required to provide weekly outdoor programmes and enrichment activities, including reading, speech and drama, creative writing, music and art, to develop values, socio-emotional competencies and 21st century competencies in our students. All registered community-based SCCs are required to meet standards stipulated by MSF, which includes providing a structured daily programme for their students. These SCCs have the flexibility to offer programmes and additional enrichment activities to meet the needs of their students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Wah.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. It has been quite a number of years since we introduced the SCCs. I believe they still serve a good purpose, especially for latch-key kids whose parents are working.
Now that this has been implemented for a number of years, can I ask the Minister of State if MOE would do a fresh review, to see if the programmes can be updated further or can be enhanced, especially, given the emphasis now to embrace learning beyond grades, so, whether the SCCs can be aligned to that as well?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The short answer is yes, we will continue to review the programmes offered at our school-based SCCs. MOE recognises the importance of holistic development of our students and, as mentioned, our school-based SCCs provide outdoor programmes, enrichment activities to develop values and 21st century competencies in our students. And this is in line with our direction to go beyond grades.
Schools also work with SCCs and community partners to support Learning and Development of our students in different ways. For example, the National Library Board conducts reading programmes to cultivate the love for reading in our students. RSVP Singapore organises interest-based activities to engage our SCC students, so that they are imparted with life skills and values.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, can I just follow up with another question about whether the demands continue to be there? The Minister of State mentioned 33,000 for school-based SCCs and 8,000 for the community-based SCCs. So, whether we have seen more or higher demand and whether there will be more SCCs to be provided, if so.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Both MOE and MSF together monitor very closely the enrolment of students in both the school-based SCCs, as well as the community-based SCCs. As of now, most SCCs do not have a wait list, or they have a very short wait list.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disability Sector Representatives in Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry plans to include representatives from the disability sector or SG Enable in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness; and (b) if not, what will be done to ensure that the voices of persons with disabilities are adequately represented in ensuring workplace fairness.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has completed its work and issued its final recommendations in August 2023. I want to assure the Member that the Committee had consulted widely, including with SG Enable and various community groups representing persons with disabilities.
The Committee took into account the feedback and recommended prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of disability and supporting employers who wish to hire persons with disabilities. The Committee also recommended issuing a Tripartite Advisory on providing reasonable accommodations, which are adjustments to the job or the work environment that make it possible for employees with disabilities to perform their jobs. The tripartite partners will continue to engage the various community groups and SG Enable when developing this advisory.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Appeal Rates for All HDB Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the last five years (a) what is the number of appeals that HDB has received under all its schemes; (b) how many appeals have been successful; and (c) whether HDB reviews its schemes and policies periodically to reduce the appeal case load.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, from 2019 to 2023, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received an annual average of around 854,000 pieces of correspondence, which include appeals, feedback and enquiries from members of the public. Appeals comprise a subset of these, averaging around 177,000 appeals per year. These appeals spanned a wide range of issues, such as eligibility for purchase of HDB flats, HDB housing loans and housing grants, housing maintenance issues, public rental housing and parking offences.
HDB takes into consideration the unique circumstances of each case when assessing appeals, and the outcome of each appeal will depend on their individual merits. The Ministry of National Development (MND) and HDB regularly review our housing policies and schemes to ensure that we cater to the evolving needs and aspirations of Singaporean households, and to meet national objectives.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, as Members of Parliament, we do send a large number of appeals to HDB, on behalf of residents. For me, in particular, I think they account for up to half the total appeals that I send. So, the question is whether, on one side for the HDB as an organisation, given the case load, are HDB staff spending a disproportionate amount of time handling appeals, which could have otherwise been spent, maybe on the ground, to solve other problems.
While on the other side, the residents are having to wait for weeks or months for HDB to respond. For someone who wants to buy a flat, to withdraw his or her name from a parent's flat, may take weeks or months, just to appeal.
So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State, is this a case where the schemes are structured just too tightly and are less flexible, resulting in high numbers of appeals, and whether should HDB review the schemes to reduce their appeals. For the newer schemes, whether it is possible to design these with the aim to reduce the likelihood of appeals.
\tMs Sim Ann: I thank the Member for his concern about the workload in HDB and, indeed, we are constantly looking for ways to streamline our officers' workload, so that their time can be spent more productively in serving Singaporeans.
I believe the Member's interests will be in housing-related appeals, so I should add that in the numbers that I have shared with him just now, it includes appeals for parking related offences, which constitute approximately about 40% of the appeal load. Housing-related appeals would be the bulk of the remainder. And we will be reviewing our schemes quite regularly, to make sure that they meet the evolving needs of Singaporeans.
\t That said, sometimes we do receive appeals where actually there is already a very clear framework. I will give an example of residents or members of the public appealing to ask for priority allocation of a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat. I think this is quite familiar to Members of this House. We have a very clear framework for the application of BTO; there is a ballot.
Nonetheless, there will be members of the public who feel that they should get priority allocation of a flat or even direct allocation of a flat. And much as we already have a framework in place, if such an appeal comes, we will duly look at it and also reply. So, that constitutes some of the volume. There are also cases where, there are changing circumstances of the individual appellant, for instance, their financial circumstances. In fact, I believe, the question just now posed by Mr Dennis Tan relates to this. For deserving cases, we will look at these appeals and provide an answer accordingly.
So, I think outside of these cases where either, there is already a framework and the members of the public know it but they want to appeal nonetheless; or cases where because of changing circumstances, we do need the appeals process in order to ensure that the outcome is fair for the member of the public; we will, nonetheless, continue to review and streamline our schemes wherever possible.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Public Access to Golfing Facilities Given Closure of All Public Golf Courses by 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the closure of all three public golf courses by 2024 (a) whether there are plans to convert any of the 14 private golf courses for public use; and (b) whether there are plans to ensure that the sport remains accessible to the general public, especially schools and students.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Sir, golfing is a land-intensive sport and there is a need to balance the allocation of land to the sport vis-à-vis the competing demands for land in Singapore, such as for public housing.
We recognise that it is important for the public to have continued access to the sport. The Government is looking at how we can ensure continued access to golf courses. In the near term, we have made available options to provide for public access to golfing.
First, the operator of the Mandai Executive Golf Course has been granted a two-year tenancy extension until December 2026.
Second, taking into consideration the impending closure of the 18-hole public course at Marina Bay Golf Course, the Government had earlier worked with Keppel Club to set aside slots at the Sime Golf Course for public use at an affordable price range, comparable to other public courses. Currently, the majority of slots at the Keppel Sime Course – on both weekdays as well as weekends – are set aside for members of the public. The Government will also look into the feasibility of public golfing facilities for the longer term, bearing in mind other needs of Singaporeans, at the same time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua for the update. I certainly concur with the view that, especially in Singapore where land-size constraints is an issue, it is not an efficient use of space. But I certainly also agree with the view that accessibility and affordability to all sports is important. I just wonder if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share if, in the next couple of years, when it comes to lease extension agreements for the private golf clubs, whether a view to public accessibility can be a feature in these agreements?
Mr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I think the short answer to Mr Chua's question is yes and we do take that into account, both for the near term as well as for the longer term. In the near term, we are working with Keppel Club to see if more slots could be made available. So, for instance, we are exploring the possibility of introducing night golfing at the Keppel Sime Course, for instance, and in the longer term, we will explore all other various options and make sure that public accessibility is one of our key considerations in doing this.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend in Number of Artificial Intelligence Voice-cloning Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of artificial intelligence voice cloning scams in Singapore; (b) how many of such scams have occurred this year to date; and (c) how is the Government dealing with these types of scams, including in the areas of enforcement, public education and implementation of technological solutions to prevent their occurrence.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Singapore Police Force (SPF), has not been tracking the number of such cases. While we have received some reports, where the complainants had alleged that voice-cloning techniques were used by the scammers, the number is not high.
Regardless of scam typology, the SPF works closely with stakeholders, such as local telecommunication companies and messaging application companies, to prevent criminals from using our communication channels as conduits for scams. In 2023, more than 9,200 mobile lines and more than 29,200 WhatsApp lines, which were believed to be used in scams, were submitted for termination.
In addition, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) will soon be imposing limits on the number of post-paid SIM cards per subscriber.
As we have mentioned several times in the House, the fight against scams requires a whole-of-society effort. The industry needs to play its part. For example, social media platforms and messaging apps should introduce enhanced user verification measures to weed out inauthentic accounts and prevent scammers from abusing them to perpetrate scams. On its part, the public has to remain vigilant and take the necessary steps to Add, Check, Tell (ACT) against scams.
First, Add. Everyone should make a proactive effort to add security features to their devices to protect themselves against scams. For example, add anti-virus software and update our mobile devices with the latest security patches.
Second, Check. When receiving a phone call or message asking for your personal information, banking credentials or for money transfers, always check and verify separately, even if the other party sounds like someone you know.
Third, Tell. Tell the authorities about your scam encounters. If you suspect that you have fallen prey to a scam, call and tell your bank immediately and ask the bank to activate the \"kill-switch\" to protect your banking account. If each of us play our part, we can collectively have a better chance of reducing our losses to scammers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Can I clarify how many voice-cloning scam reports were actually received by the Police in the past year? Secondly, there are now AI systems that can clone a person's voice after listening to them speak for as little as three seconds. Scammers can use this cloned voice to trick friends and family members of these persons into transferring money to them. I recently checked the ScamAlert telegram channel and website, but do not see any mention of voice-cloning scams.
Do the National Crime Prevention Council and other agencies plan to educate Singaporeans about this new scam and how to protect themselves? For example, not assuming that the familiar voice on the other end of the line is the person they know and by establishing a common passcode among family members. Lastly, does the Ministry for Home Affairs scan the horizon for new scam technologies and start to take crime prevention measures before the first police reports start coming in?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As I have said, the number is small. With regard to the education efforts and scam technologies, yes, we continue to update and also look at how we work with the different stakeholders in the community, including the public.
At the same time, we are also developing our capabilities. For example, we are developing technical measures in collaboration with the industry. For example, the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) has been developing detection methods for both video and audio deepfakes using artificial intelligence, including the capability to detect voice-cloning.
In addition, the Ministry of Communications and Information and Agency for Science, Technology and Research will officially launch the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety in the first half of this year. The centre will be a platform to bring together our community of research partners, companies and practitioners in Singapore to build capabilities for a safer Internet.
Such capabilities may include tools and measures to detect harmful content, such as deepfakes and non-factual claims, inject watermarks or trace the origin of digital content and empower vulnerable groups with resources to verify information they encounter online. So, essentially, we will do our part to enhance our capabilities as the scammers themselves do so.
However, as I shared have earlier, it is important for us to continue to engage the ground. I am pleased to share that even at the different Neighbourhood Police Centres, I can see the Police officers engaging the ground – from common layperson to people with knowledge of it – so that the whole society is being protected. Because I think for the scammers, this is an opportunity for them to commit crimes or to steal money from people. But on our part, we have to protect our people. So, we will continue to work hard to engage the whole society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Differences in Employment and Salary Outcomes for Graduates from Different University Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education in light of the 2023 Joint Autonomous Universities Graduate Employment Survey, whether the Ministry plans to (i) discover why, when compared with their university peers, the arts, design and media graduates have poorer employment and salary outcomes and the health sciences graduates have poorer salary outcomes (ii) engage graduates of such courses on how to improve their employment outcomes and (iii) engage the relevant sector agencies and stakeholders to take steps to narrow the employment and salary outcome gap.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, arts, design and media (ADM) graduates have seen stable employment outcomes and wage increases over the years. In the last 10 years, the average employment rate for ADM graduates was around 88% and the starting salary increased about 3.4% every year. The employment rate and salary level for fresh graduates in this sector are typically lower compared to their peers who join other sectors, such as engineering, built environment and business.
This is reflective of the economic demand and the labour market conditions of each sector. The nature of work and business structures in the ADM sector also mean that there is a higher proportion of freelancers and self-employed persons (SEPs) compared to other sectors.
Under Our SG Arts Plan (2023-2027), the National Arts Council (NAC) is taking active steps to grow capabilities and excellence in the arts sector and support the training and development of SEPs. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and DesignSingapore Council (Dsg) have also been working closely with the universities and key industry partners to provide our graduates with a good education and relevant, in-demand skill sets to take on good jobs and thrive in the workplace. Dsg also facilitates partnerships between universities and companies, such as through the Design Education Advisory Committee, to enhance industry exposure and internship opportunities for our students.
As for health sciences graduates, while the growth in median salaries over the past ten years has been lower than the other graduates from the universities, it increased by 6% in 2023, which was higher than the average increase for university graduates in general. The Ministry of Health (MOH) continues to work with healthcare clusters to review the starting salary and salary package of healthcare workers on a regular basis, to ensure that the salaries remain competitive. MOH also provided funding support to the community care sector over the last 10 years to uplift salaries and most recently, put out salary guidelines for the sector.
To support all students and graduates as they enter the workforce, our universities organise career fairs and have career coaches to provide mentoring and workshops. Graduates can also approach Workforce Singapore's Careers Connect or NTUC's e2i career centres, if they require support in their job search. At the same time, we encourage our students to consider longer-term factors, such as career progression, salary and growth opportunities in the sector, as they pursue their passion and decide on the course of study in the universities.
\tMr Speaker: Ms See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is relating to arts and design. I do understand that if we look at arts and design as a vertical skill, then in terms of opportunities, it is quite confined. But I just would like to follow up on some of the mentions in my previous Budget speech. Looking at the growth of various sectors, such as tourism, entertainment and so forth; in Singapore, where, in terms of growth potential and economic opportunities are much more, what would be the steps taken to integrate these creative arts professionals in these fields, with these growth industries? So, that is one.
Second, for health sciences, I also do understand that there is a big push for Healthier SG. What are the opportunity spaces in which the schools are looking at to bridge these graduates with the opportunities on-stream?\t
\t
Ms Gan Siow Huang: I certainly agree with both points. For the arts and design graduates, just for Member's information, they do not just go to arts and design jobs. From the data that we have collected, many of them actually go into public relations, product design, advertising, sales, marketing, graphic design, tourism and many more. So, indeed, in our education, we hope to equip our students with both broad-based as well as vertical skill sets, so that they have more opportunities and career choices when they graduate.
For health sciences, yes, Healthier SG is an exciting development. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will work very closely with MOH to make sure that the curriculum and the skills frameworks are updated so that our students will have maximal opportunities when they graduate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stockpiling Uranium to Secure Energy Sources for Shift Towards Nuclear Energy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Singapore has plans to stockpile uranium to secure energy sources ahead of other countries shifting towards nuclear energy; and (b) what preparations are being made to prepare a core of local talent to enter this industry.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Government has not made any decisions regarding the deployment of nuclear energy in Singapore. As such, we have no plans for uranium stockpiling. Any deployment decision will require detailed studies of the safety, the reliability, the affordability and also the environmental sustainability of nuclear energy in our local context.
So, what we are doing is steadily building capabilities to better understand and assess global developments on advanced nuclear energy technologies.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his reply. Can I ask how many scientists are currently at the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiative and how many scholarships are awarded each year to help build the pipeline of nuclear scientists and expertise? Beyond technical capabilities, is the Government building up the necessary regulatory policy frameworks that will be needed to oversee potential nuclear energy programmes for both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion? And lastly, is there any timeline in which the Government is going to take a position on this?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I think he has asked about three of them.
We did our last nuclear energy pre-feasibility study in 2012. And since that pre-feasibility study, the National University of Singapore has set up the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiative (SNRSI) in 2014, and SNRSI focuses on research and capability development in nuclear safety, science and engineering.
The Government has also set up the Nuclear Safety Research and Education Programme under the Research Innovation and Enterprise 2025 plan to prepare Singapore to understand the implications of the evolution of nuclear energy technologies and regional nuclear energy developments for Singapore, and also to enhance our operational preparedness.
To his first point in terms of the numbers, Sir, the Government supports efforts to train scientists and experts in local and overseas universities. Over the last decade, SNRSI has awarded 30 scholarships for postgraduate studies in areas related to nuclear science and engineering. Thus far, SNRSI has also developed a pipeline of around 40 researchers specialising in radiobiology, radiochemistry and nuclear safety. We aim to build a pool of about 100 experts in the medium to long run.
As for his last point on looking at nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, maybe I can address nuclear fusion first. There is a lot of excitement in the fusion space but to date, on the sustainable basis, the net energy input needed to create that nuclear fusion reaction far exceeds the output of the energy that we can harness. So, the closest system that many of the countries all over the world have developed still is premised on the tokamak technology.
There is a promising new area, which is done in Devon, Massachusetts in the United States by Commonwealth Fusion Systems. They are developing this as a sort of a co-development with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Science and Fusion Center, and it is called SPARC. It is a smaller-scale tokamak reactor, uses high temperatures super magnets to create the high temperature that is needed.
To date, it is still a developmental project. The actual project has not come to fruition yet. So, we are watching that space very closely and in the process, we have also sent members of the local Singapore team to go there and study how that technology is going to evolve. So, for nuclear fusion, to answer the question, I think it is still quite nascent and we are probably at least a decade away.
For nuclear fusion, there are small modular reactors, there are also Generation 4 thermal reactors which potentially could suit our needs. So, again, we have teams studying those technologies very closely, very intently. But today, there is not a commercialised small modular nuclear reactor or a Generation 4 thermal reactor for us to be able to learn from.
So, we watch the space very closely. In our broad approach, as I have said before, nothing is off the table. We continue to keep our options open to all kinds of low carbon energy, including of course nuclear energy, both fission and fusion. I hope that addresses the Member's question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for addressing my questions. Just that last question – when is the Government going to take a position on whether to use nuclear energy in our energy mix in the future? Does the Minister agree that it is important to provide some certainty or more certainty to both aspiring scientists and our people with regard to the use of nuclear energy?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I think the Member presupposes that we have made a decision on nuclear energy. And as I have earlier on, when I addressed the Parliamentary Question, I have said that we have not made a decision. The Member has to appreciate that very conventional nuclear reactors, the older versions, the Generation 1, Generation 2, the safety buffer zone is actually beyond even our radius or any part where you can talk about in Singapore. So, we have to wait to a small modular reactor, or the newer Generation 4 type of thermal reactors to be deployed commercially and for us to understand the safety profile before we make a decision.
However, we recognise the fact that radiological safety, the understanding of the operational capabilities, the engineering science behind it, continues to be something that is important and relevant to us. Hence, we have not stopped training our local pipeline of talent, sending them overseas, attaching them to institutions all over, collaborating with them to learn and to adapt that expertise and invite the knowledge, so that at some point in time when we have finally made the decision, we will then bring them back here.
I think this is a very clear enough roadmap given the nascency of the commercialisation of some of these newer generations type of small modular reactors.
For fusion, as I have said earlier on, today, the net energy input put in to develop that fusion reaction is far more than what we are able to extract from it. So, net-net, it does not make economic sense in any way for us to go into it. But having said that, we are still nonetheless studying that, monitoring that space very closely.
I think this is as far as we can tell you. We will not be able to commit to a particular timeline, but that does not mean that we stop looking at it. As I have said today, our pipeline in the medium to long term is 100 researchers at least.
And for our own energy security, we also do not rest on one or two technologies. I said nothing is off the table. We have improved the diversification of our sources of procurement for natural gas. I think I have spent a lot of hours in this House explaining, expounding why we need to diversify our gas sources. We have also gone into Requests for Proposal (RFPs). We have given conditional approvals for up to four gigawatts of low carbon energy imports from around the region. We are also exploring potentially geothermal energy sources within our country itself. We are also piloting a new pathfinder project for ammonia – end-to-end – from bunkering to the generation of electricity using ammonia, with a view that ultimately, once technologies for a more economical means of transportation of low carbon or green hydrogen can be established, we will also go and use that as one of the sources for us to generate power as well.
So, those are the different alternatives that we are now exploring, on top of also keeping our eyes on nuclear energy. I hope that gives the Member the reassurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Vehicular Flow following New Registration and Security Measures at Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the Singapore Food Agency intend to mitigate vehicular congestion that may arise from the new registration and security measures at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre (PPWC); and (b) whether aspects of this system will be reviewed to take into account the feedback from PPWC vendors and consumers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is implementing the new Visitor Management System (VMS) at Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre (PPWC) in phases. As the PPWC is an important node in our food supply chain, the VMS aims to enhance safety and security on the premises and facilitate contact tracing and site management in the event of emergencies and future pandemics.
This is one of the very important lessons that we learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic and we have to do this in order to protect the interests of the tenants, the public as well as our food security.
The system is being implemented in phases, beginning with PPWC-based operators and tenants from sometime this month onwards to allow them time to adapt to the new system. Any other external visitors visiting the site will only be required to register under the VMS in a much later phase.
So, this will be done in progressive stages. We want to make sure that the tenants are comfortable. To facilitate a smooth transition, SFA has been engaging the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre Association and the stallholders, made trial VMS kiosks available at PPWC and conducted user demonstration practice sessions.
I personally tried registering myself through the onsite kiosk. It is very simple. It takes less than about maybe 10 or 20 seconds if you scan your Singpass on the kiosk. Most of the information will be populated. All you need to do is key in your contact number, like your phone number and then you are done.
Once a user is registered, the registration details will be valid for a whole year. Any future visits to the place within the year will not require new registration. So, the process will be quite hassle-free. The user then just needs to scan your Singpass or your ID on the gantry and you can very quickly enter the premises. I think that is something which I hope would reassure the tenants and users that it would not be a system that will be too cumbersome.
As the various phases are implemented, SFA will review the operation of the system, take into account feedback and any adjustments that are needed to make changes so that any kinks or any inconveniences can be minimised as much as possible. Our aim is to make sure we work with our stakeholders to strike a balance between security and operational interests of PPWC, stallholders and the public.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and also his assurances that he is working closely with the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre Association. I think while the intent is clear and the objectives are understandable, I think he has also said that we should strive to strike a balance between security and also the daily operations. The wholesale centre has a whole range of users, from the staff working there which is quite a number, and also the logistics personnel that delivers as well as fetches and distributes the goods there, as well as retail consumers that goes there to buy.
I understand that even without the system, during the peak hours of operations, the traffic conditions are already quite a problem. So, we really hope that the SFA will work very closely to monitor, so that the traffic does not become worse because of the system.
\t
I saw that the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority recently rolled out a QR code system for immigration clearance at our land checkpoints. The feedback so far seems to have been positive. So, would the SFA consider a similar system for the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, Jurong Fishery Port and others, and that you are planning to do, to expedite the access clearance?
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for raising this suggestion to consider a QR code. I think we are all mindful that it is a very busy place with many different stakeholders going in and out – high human traffic and also high vehicle traffic. So, the approach we take is going to be a gradual one. We start with the tenants who have to be there regularly, on a daily basis, as well as the workers who are permanently working there. We will track how many of them have already pre-registered. The registration need not be done at the kiosk on-site.
In fact, you can do it online. You do not need to be congested in the guardroom trying to register. You can do it online in the comfort of your home or your office. Once that is done, that registration will be valid for a whole year. Then, there will be no further queues needed at the point of entry, except to produce your NRIC or your Singpass on your mobile phone – something which most of us will carry anyway.
When it comes to vehicles, I think it will be the same approach. Delivery personnel who are regularly coming to the place, most tenants will know who their upstream suppliers are and who are their downstream customers. We will give time for the tenants to engage their upstream and downstream stakeholders, to make sure that they are given time to pre-register themselves online; so that when these personnel who are not physically working there on a regular basis, but do come frequently enough to pick up or to deliver items, they can then be processed quite quickly by just scanning their NRIC and a tap, a couple of seconds, the gantry opens and they can enter.
For drivers who are entering the premises, they need not even get off their vehicle. Because at the normal gantry, the ERP gantry where you go to the gantry and you get the fees charged on the ERP device in your vehicle, we have mounted a similar tapping sensor on the gantry.
So, a driver just needs to reach the gantry where the fees are deducted for the per-entry charge or the exit charge. You wind down your window, you tap your IC on the sensor that is mounted at the height of the windows and you can just then drive through without having to disembark the vehicle.
This is the way in which we facilitate traffic flow without increasing congestion. But as I said, we will do this in phases. We want to settle the human traffic first and then we will implement the vehicle part, when we are quite certain that the tenants have already tried to engage most of the upstream and downstream stakeholders so that they will not come there and be surprised by it.
The final phase will then involve the rest of the public. By which time, we hope to have sent out enough information and make the public aware that should they want to turn up, they should pre-register online or must be prepared to bring their IDs for registration with the kiosk at the guardroom.
I hope that reassures the Member that we are considering this very carefully. We will continue to engage the stakeholders there and if there is a way to use other convenient technology like perhaps a QR code, we can consider that. But as I said, because we are using IDs that all of us physically have, there may not really be a need to duplicate another new step by generating a QR code.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adding Outdoor and Indoor Sports Halls of Institutes of Technical Education and Institutes of Higher Learning to Dual-Use Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider making available (i) the outdoor fields and indoor sports halls of the Institutes of Technical Education and the Institutes of Higher Learning for the Dual-Use Scheme (DUS) and (ii) other spaces for non-sport DUS purposes including classrooms to be used for continual education programmes; and (b) if not, why not.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, some sports facilities in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are available for public use today. For example, tennis and badminton courts in the National University of Singapore are part of the Dual-Use Scheme (DUS), while several stadium-based running tracks in our other IHLs are open to public during operating hours. Outside of regular teaching hours, some IHLs do rent out their facilities. For example, lecture theatres and classrooms for continuing and education training, programmes that are run by external training providers or events.
\tMr Speaker: Ms See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State. I do understand that there is an increase in demand for various facilities because of the resumption of activities post-COVID-19, as well as also Healthier SG and various initiatives at the community level. Would there be intention to look at, on a broad base, for both sports as well as non-sport use, whether there could be a more systematic way in which these facilities can be made available for different users?
I do understand that there is a certain workflow for sports activities. But for non-sports activities, would there be, perhaps, a more systematic way in which these facilities can be made available to different groups for booking?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, as mentioned in my reply, selected sports facilities in our IHLs are available to public today. Other sports facilities in our IHLs could be heavily utilised by students, staff, alumni and their community partners after school hours and even on weekends, for co-curricular activities and campus events.
An important consideration for whether these facilities are suitable to be placed under the DUS for public use, would be whether there are physical boundaries that allow separate access points to the sports facilities. This is for the sake of operational safety and security.
As for non-sports facilities, Temasek Polytechnic and the Nanyang Technological University lease their facilities to external training providers to run private programmes. Nevertheless, members of public or other organisations may approach our IHLs directly to request to lease lecture theatres, classroom facilities for activities – Healthier SG included – if they wish to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Minimum Annual Leave Entitlement of Seven Days under Employment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) when will the Ministry review the minimum annual leave entitlement of seven days provided for eligible workers under the Employment Act 1968; and (b) what factors will the Ministry consider in determining whether the minimum number of annual leave days should be increased.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, I thank the Member for raising this Parliamentary Question because he is quite passionate about this topic and has asked this several times before.
While the Employment Act stipulates a minimum entitlement of seven days of annual leave, this increases by one day per year of service with the same employer. In 2022, over 90% of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 had more than seven days of annual leave. In addition, 64.6% of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 had 15 days or more of annual leave, higher than the 61.1% in 2018.
Annual leave entitlements must be seen alongside other entitlements that similarly support employees in balancing their work and personal needs. These include paid public holidays, sick leave and parental leave, which we have just recently enhanced. Besides employees' needs, reviews of leave entitlements must also take into account the impact on business costs. There are no plans to review the annual leave entitlements for now, but we encourage more employers to review their employment benefits holistically to better attract and retain talent in our currently tight labour market.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank Senior Minister of State for the reply. First, could I just check whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is concerned that by increasing the minimum annual leave entitlement, it will result in lower productivity in the company? Because I think it might be the other way, that a more well-rested workforce will be a more productive workforce.
Second, I think three years ago, the Senior Minister of State shared in this House that the worry is that increasing annual leave entitlement would entail business costs. It has been three years, so I did give the Senior Minister of State a good break. Could he just share an update on what exactly are these business costs? And also, whether – taking into account my first point – where a more well-rested workforce will be a more productive workforce and that might actually negate some of these business costs that MOM is concerned about?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The issue of giving more entitled leave and raising business costs is not something straightforward. But I think if you look at it from a very simplistic way: if more people do go on more leave, then the company's operations will require some backfilling, which may then require them to hire more extra people to backfill the persons who are on leave. So, in that more direct way, you can look at it as raising some form of business cost.
But I think when we talk about being more productive, having more leave itself is not the only way to have people getting more rest and therefore becoming more productive. Productivity can come from many ways: through better training; better redesign of the job; and better equipment, for example, for those that need to perform manual tasks.
We are looking at this from a more holistic way, by ensuring that there are avenues for other forms of work arrangements, including flexible work arrangements, and also equipping our workers with better skills and leveraging technology to be a multiplier of productivity.
So, all this will work in concert to make sure that the person or the workers themselves are able to be more productive, while also ensuring that there is a flexible arrangement to allow them to have more balance of their work needs as well as personal needs. So, we are looking at it more from multiple angles, rather than just fixing the problem with more entitled annual leave.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. Just one follow-up. I think that the concern is that while some have the luxury of flexible work arrangements – and I fought hard to legislate this right to work from home – I think the concern now is that, it is probably the lower-income workers who have this minimum of seven days of annual leave and who do not have, again, have the luxury of working from home. So, I hope MOM can look into this from that perspective as well. By increasing the minimum entitlement, it really would help our lower-income workers.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I want to assure the Member that we will continue to look at how to best support our lower-earning workers, including how we can make sure that they have a proper work-rest cycle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Cat-breeding Locations for Rent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the availability of cat breeding locations for rent from the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS); and (b) how does AVS deal with the cats seized from illegal breeders.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the National Parks Board (NParks) has rented out three units for the commercial breeding of cats at the Animal Lodge. NParks will continue to monitor the demand for commercial cat breeding and prioritise newly available units for cat breeding, where appropriate.
Under the Animals and Birds (Licensing of Farms) Rules, a valid licence is required to breed animals for commercial purposes. This is to safeguard animal health and welfare. NParks investigates reports of the illegal commercial breeding of animals, including cats, and takes enforcement action against offenders. Cats seized during such investigations will be under the care of NParks and its veterinarians.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. One, will the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) allow the breeder to visit the cats, even after they are seized by the AVS? Second question, from now on, will the AVS put in a more detailed regulatory framework to allow for small breeders to continue their business? And three, is the Animal Lodge the only place currently available for potential breeders to run their business? I think the Animal Lodge is in Tengah; that is what I have been told. And that is the only place that breeders are allowed to breed the animals, I heard. Can the Minister of State confirm that?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As the animals are seized as part of investigations, owners will not be able to visit them while investigations are ongoing. However, the cats will remain under the care of NParks and are regularly assessed by NParks, until investigations are concluded.
The other supplementary question is about the regulatory framework. It is something that we continue to look at. If Members have any feedback, they can share them with me and email us. Currently, The Animal Lodge is the only one available. We are also assessing demand. We will keep track and work with the industry to see how we can expand it if there is high demand. At this moment, we feel that it is adequate.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Cybersecurity Act 2018\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) on behalf of the Minister for Communications and Information; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the next available Sitting on or after 7 May 2024, 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":"Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Bus Services Industry Act 2015, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act 1996 and the Rapid Transit Systems Act 1995\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [2 April 2024], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Culture, Community and Youth]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hong Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's co-operative movement boasts a rich heritage, flourishing since the establishment of the first credit co-operative in the 1920s. Today, about 80 co-operatives serve approximately one million members across diverse sectors.
NTUC FairPrice, Singapore's largest supermarket retailer and a member-owned co-operative, stands as a prime example. FairPrice continues to play a critical role in keeping Singapore's cost of living in check, by ensuring affordable prices for all.
The appeal of the co-operative mode can be attributed to several factors. First, it emphasises self-help, mutual assistance and economic empowerment – principles that resonate with many Singaporeans. Secondly, the Government has played a critical role in supporting the co-operative movement. The Co-operative Societies Act provides a legal framework for co-operatives to operate, and the establishment of the Singapore National Co-operative Federation (SNCF) fosters their development. Given the importance of our co-operatives, it is essential that we regularly review the policies and ensure that co-operatives remain relevant in Singapore. I would like to raise several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the intent behind allowing co-operative societies to pay dividends and honoraria from their reserves, subject to the Registrar's approval. This approach empowers them to reward members and incentivise good governance. This can potentially lead to better benefits and services for members of organisations like NTUC FairPrice. As such, this is a welcomed amendment – payouts to members are likely to be more stable. Payouts will also be useful given the rising cost of living. Nevertheless, beyond this, will the Government also consider providing more flexibility and options to co-operatives on how they manage their finances? This is important as they face the challenge of relevance amid competition. For instance, besides a one-size-fits-all approach, will the Government consider having a differentiated approach to allow for more flexibility for co-operatives with better fiduciary governance? Also, will the Government allow credit co-operatives to advertise their loans to create greater awareness of the services that are available to their Members?
Next, transparent, and accountable implementation is critical. Can the Minister clarify on the specific criteria and process the Registrar will use for evaluation and approval. Clear guidelines and robust approval processes are essential to prevent misuse or conflicts of interest.
Concerns regarding administrative burden exist. The proposed legislative amendments would require the Registrar’s approval for dividends and honoraria that are paid from reserves. We must ensure that the Registry of Co-operative Societies has sufficient resources to handle the anticipated workload and expedite approvals for all current 80 co-operatives and future ones, preventing unnecessary delays.
The proposed reduction in signatories for by-law amendment applications, from three to one, requires careful consideration. While streamlining processes is valuable, will this weaken the system of checks and balances? Can a single chairperson, with ill intentions, exploit this change to amend by-laws unilaterally for his own benefit? If so, what are the safeguards to prevent this?
To further strengthen the co-operative movement, I propose enhancing reporting and disclosure requirements. Members and stakeholders deserve clear information on reserve allocation and distribution. Robust reporting mechanisms will foster trust and confidence in the co-operative system as a whole.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the impact on small and medium-sized societies deserves careful consideration. These organisations may face challenges complying with the new requirements due to limited resources or a lack of familiarity with the processes. To ensure inclusive growth within the co-operative movement, I urge the Minister to explore the provision of advisory support and clear guidance to assist these societies in navigating the amendments effectively. Can the Ministry elaborate on the available support measures for them? At a small scale compared to other entities, co-operatives struggle to attract and retain talent. How can the Government help more in this area? Also, how can Government help smaller co-operatives to digitalise to keep up with changing consumer demands, as well as deal with challenges associated with digitalisation such as cybersecurity?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose implementing periodic review and monitoring mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of these changes. As with any new policy, there may be unintended consequences or areas for improvement that emerge over time. By actively seeking feedback and monitoring the practical impact, we can make necessary adjustments to ensure that the amendments achieve their intended goals.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the essence of Singapore's co-operative movement – built on self-help, mutual assistance and economic empowerment – remains as relevant today as it did in its inception. The proposed amendments encapsulate our commitment to nurturing this important sector, empowering co-operatives to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing landscape.
Through transparent governance, support for smaller societies, and a commitment to ongoing evaluation, we pave the way for a stronger, more resilient co-operative ecosystem. By embracing these changes, we not only ensure the continued success of stalwarts like NTUC FairPrice but also foster an environment where all co-operatives can flourish, contributing meaningfully to our society and economy.
I support this Bill, recognising the immense potential of co-operatives to shape a more inclusive and prosperous future for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.
Co-operative societies play a significant role in Singapore's economic landscape. This has been evident in recent years, especially during the pandemic, when the co-operatives did much to help those displaced at the workplace or struggling with reduced take-home pay. Our co-operative societies also help cushion price rises and an increased cost of living caused by the volatile global economic and political environment.
The Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2024 is a significant legislative reform that impacts broader operations and provides flexibility to the co-operative movement. This Act marks a new chapter with enhanced governance for co-operative societies in Singapore by streamlining regulatory processes, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and simplifying compliance. By allowing dividends and honoraria to be paid from reserves with the Registrar's approval, the Act acknowledges our need for greater operational flexibility.
In the current volatile and uncertain economic landscape, it may not be practical for the finances of an organisation to be considered purely on a 12-month block. While this remains the case for corporate entities, there is merit in introducing some form of flexibility, accompanied by the appropriate governance controls for co-operatives, as they play an essential and unique role in strengthening Singapore's ecosystem.
These welcome changes empower leadership and ensure co-operative societies can respond more rapidly to changing member needs and market conditions while maintaining the movement's core democratic principles.
This amendment represents a pragmatic shift towards a more efficient and responsive co-operative governance. The introduction of the new section 72A, specifying the allocation, distribution, and payment of reserves, is particularly noteworthy. This addition allows societies to allocate reserves to various funds, subject to the Registrar's approval, ensuring flexibility in financial management and maintaining adherence to strong regulatory and member interests.
These funds could act as financial buffers, allowing societies to navigate economic uncertainty. Funds for social and environmental efforts can also strengthen the co-operative's reputation and member loyalty. The introduction of section 72A ensures transparency and accountability in financial decisions and can further align the societies' financial practices with their long-term sustainability and members' collective welfare.
I would like to take this opportunity to seek some clarifications on this Bill.
How will obtaining the Registrar's approval for distributing dividends or paying from reserves work in practice? Has the Ministry made an assessment on the impact of these new amendments on members' rights and benefits? Also, what impact if any is expected on member engagement and investment in co-operative societies? Also, with the increased responsibilities and decision-making powers regarding financial distributions from reserves, what additional guidelines or best practices should the Committee of Management or COM follow to ensure transparency and accountability? Lastly, has an assessment been made on how quickly will co-operatives be able to respond to changing economic cycles to help their members under the new approval process?
Mr Speaker, Sir, co-operative societies have historically been bastions of financial stability and community support for their members. By offering a wide range of financial services, including savings and loan options tailored to their members' needs, co-ops play a crucial role in ensuring the financial well-being of individuals within the community.
As we look ahead, we must leverage these legislative changes to foster innovation, enhance member engagement and drive sustainable growth. We must also empower various social institutions, such as co-operatives, to play a greater role in strengthening our social compact in a relevant and meaningful way.
This dual focus on financial and community support is at the heart of the co-operative movement, illustrating the significant role co-ops play in strengthening the social fabric of Singapore. The Bill's focus on transparency, accountability and member-centric governance benefits co-operative societies significantly. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill. It offers greater operational and corporate flexibility to co-operatives in Singapore. Co-operatives play an important role in promoting mutual assistance and self-help, aligning with principles of economic and social benefit to members.
The first co-operative was set up close to a century ago. Co-operatives are also important institutions for nation-building, such as the FairPrice Group, which seeks to moderate the cost of living for Singaporeans, amongst other objectives. They have become an important institution in Singapore, contributing to nation-building. They also represent an important ethos of mutual help. And for larger co-operatives, such as the FairPrice Group, they serve important national imperatives.
The proposed amendments, allowing co-operatives to pay dividends and honoraria from the reserves with the Registrar's approval, and issue bonds and debentures, will facilitate their growth and enhance benefits for their members. While welcoming these changes, I suggest some measures for further consideration by the Ministry.
First, there is a diverse range of co-operatives with different levels of resources and governance capabilities. We can consider enabling the well-governed and better-performing co-operatives to take slightly more investment risk or distribute more surpluses to members that will level the playing field and enhance their effectiveness. This is compared to the options offered by other corporate governance structures, which might offer more flexibility in investing accumulated resources.
Regarding investment risk, I propose revisiting the default 10% limit on credit co-ops' total assets for investing in restricted investments approved by the Registrar. Increasing this limit, especially for co-ops with robust governance structures, will enable them to hedge against inflation and the higher cost of funds and running businesses more effectively. This is especially needed when there are newer asset classes and instruments that may require more capital outlay.
Second, I hope that the Ministry can explore how co-ops can modernise and access productivity grants available currently to SMEs. Utilising Government's support for capacity building and technical assistance would enhance governance, management and operational efficiency, optimising resources and activities for membership self-help.
Next, on the Central Co-operative Fund or CCF grants. The CCF grants serve as an important tool in promoting the progress of co-ops. For example, the recently unveiled Sustainability Grant provides funding support to enable co-ops to kick-start their sustainability journey in line with Singapore's Green Plan 2030. Can the Ministry share on the uptake of the Sustainability Grant to date?
The Progressive Workplace Grant, which provided a one-off grant for adopting the Tripartite Standards in 2023, has been given out to 25 co-operatives. This translates into 25 more co-operatives with more progressive workplace standards. In considering the changing needs of the workforce, progressive workplace standards must now be the norm, as opposed to the exception. This is especially so whereby co-ops are established for the purpose of doing good for members. Can the Ministry consider extending or enhancing the Progressive Workplace Grant to encourage greater adoption of tripartite standards? Promoting progressive workplace standards aligns with the ethos of co-ops, aiming to benefit their members.
In conclusion, co-ops play a crucial role in promoting the public good and these amendments will empower them to better serve their members and their community and ultimately, Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Co-operative Societies or co-ops are an interesting commercial vehicle. The principles of co-ops referred to in the Act have been elaborated by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to include, amongst other things, democratic control as well as members' economic participation and compensation. In this regard, co-ops allow a large number of people to participate in commercial activities. Indeed, the widespread involvement in co-ops is indicated by the fact that although there are only 80 co-ops, they have between them, over one million members.
Sir, the proposed amendments will enable co-ops to have more flexibility in the use of their reserves. Importantly, Committee of Management or COM members can now receive honoraria as well as allowances. I think this is fair. While sitting on the COM may be a form of service to members, co-ops are, after all, economic-driven vehicles and COM members should be compensated fairly for the contributions to their co-op.
In order for co-ops to avail of the new provisions under the Act, they must first seek approval from the Registrar and then the AGM of their members. The AGMs and members' involvement and scrutiny therefore becomes more critical. These members will range from those who are more savvy about their rights and some that may not be so. Some of the provisions in the Act can be quite technical. The present amendments also expand the scope of matters that may be brought to the AGM.
In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts MCCY makes and will be making to educate co-op members of their rights under the Act, what they will be doing to educate COM members on their duties, including efforts taken in cooperation with the Singapore National Co-operative Federation. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act, which aim to enable co-ops to better utilise their reserves, provide legal clarity and make the necessary technical updates.
The proposed amendments seek to address several key areas, including the broadening of the use of reserves by co-ops. Currently, co-ops face limitations in declaring dividends solely from the preceding year's surplus, which may not always align with their members' needs, especially in volatile environments. I have no objections to the amendments which would permit co-ops to use their reserves to distribute dividends to members or pay honoraria to members of the COM, subject to the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
While these amendments represent progress towards enhancing the regulatory framework for co-ops, there are certain aspects that warrant further scrutiny and deliberation. As we navigate through the clauses of the Bill, I would like to pose the following questions for consideration.
Clause 2 defines the term \"reserves\" and makes consequential amendments to the definitions of \"dividend\" and \"honorarium\". Would the Minister elaborate on the criteria and considerations for the Registrar's approval of the distribution of dividends or payment of honoraria from reserves?
Clause 5 reduces the number of signatories required for the registration of amendments to by-laws from three to one person. What measures will be in place to ensure accountability and transparency in the decision-making process regarding such amendments? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Clause 8 specifies that any distribution of dividends or payment of honoraria from reserves must be approved by the members of the society in the Annual General Meeting. How will the Registrar ensure that members are adequately informed and empowered to make informed decisions during these meetings?
Clause 11 removes the requirement for the Registrar's approval for the issuance of bonds or debentures by co-ops. What safeguards will be put in place to prevent misuse or mismanagement of funds raised through such instruments?
(In English): Sir, co-ops are different from other business entities in that they are based on members working towards common economic and social objectives. Hence, it is imperative that legislative changes enhance transparency, accountability and good governance. I look forward to the Ministry's response and clarifications on how the amendments will serve the best interests of our co-operative societies and their members.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, co-operative societies play an important role in fostering community-driven economic development by empowering individuals to collectively address mutual needs and achieve social progress. Today, there are 79 co-ops in Singapore, comprising consumer and service co-ops that provide goods and services to their members and credit co-ops that provide financial services, such as taking in deposits and granting loans to members.
The current proposed amendment seeks to allow co-ops to use their reserves to pay dividends to members or pay honorarium to the Committee of Management. This is subject to the Registrar's approval as a prudential safeguard, as it means that co-ops may declare dividends even if no surplus is achieved in the preceding year.
This provision appears to deviate from the strict corporate practice of paying out dividends only from retained profits, prompting concern, especially for credit co-ops that are subject to prudential ratios. Currently, credit co-ops that do not meet the minimum Capital Adequacy Ratio, or CAR, of 10% are bound by strict loan limits on unsecured general loans and must seek the Registrar's written approval to distribute dividends from that year's surplus. The intent behind these rules is to ensure that credit co-ops build up sufficient institutional capital that absorb operational losses.
By allowing the use of reserves to pay out dividends may put credit co-ops at risk of reducing institutional capital and potential CAR impairment. Given the increasing volatility of our operational and financial environment, I would like to confirm if there are other advisory and fiduciary safeguards in place, in addition to the Registrar's approval, to help credit co-ops to better assess dividend-related decisions in a prudent and objective manner.
With the broadening of the use of reserves, consistent policies, procedures and processes are even more critical to good governance in co-ops. The Registry of Co-operative Societies (RCS) and Singapore National Co-operative Federation (SNCF) have done a good job in producing various governance guides in internal controls, loan management and investment management and training the co-op sector in the use of these joint reserves.
Looking ahead, I propose two recommendations for the RCS and SNCF. First, to investigate the feasibility of creating a shared secretariat service, modelled after the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, to assist smaller trade associations (TAs) with limited resources. This would help in administrative and operational tasks, aiding their members more effectively. Second, to develop a shared service offering that could address collective concerns of co-operatives, such as cybersecurity threats and the adoption of new technologies like artificial intelligence, thereby enhancing overall efficiency and growth.
Some of this work can be done through a centralised pool of technology providers or audit firms that can build up their understanding of and customisation of solutions and services for the co-op sector over time. This will enable co-ops to better manage costs to minimise the need for them to dip into their reserves on a sustained basis.
Finally, co-ops are lean outfits that often struggle to attract and retain talent. In addition to ongoing efforts to build capabilities through the sector Competency Framework and youth outreach and engagement, the co-op sector can consider putting in place a formal secondment programme for mutual exposure opportunities between co-ops and public and private sector organisations. For high potential co-op officers, this will enable them with policy and/or commercial exposure and enable them to enhance their skillsets to foster innovation within co-ops.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act are designed to empower co-ops to serve their members' interests more effectively. However, these changes must be implemented alongside robust safeguards to ensure prudent risk management.
It is also imperative that co-ops persist in seeking efficiencies and enhancing their effectiveness to maintain sustainability over the long term. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my questions and recommendations presented, I express my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer Members' questions, I would like to take the opportunity to thank, recognise and also acknowledge the contributions that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have made to the co-operative sector over many decades, including as Chair of the SNCF. The Members have very robustly and thoughtfully acknowledged the contributions of the co-op sector to Singapore's social development. So, thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your years of developing the co-op sector.
Turning now to the specificities of the Bill, I would also like to thank Members, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for speaking on the Bill. There are also many other Members who have come up to me and also expressed their views about the Bill, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his Parliamentary Question about the role of co-ops in strengthening this social compact that I mentioned earlier on.
First, let me address the need for the safeguards for use of reserves. Mr Mark Lee commented that allowing co-ops to pay dividends from their reserves contrasts with the corporate practice of paying out dividends only from retained profits. He made a comparison. Mr Mark Lee also noted that this may be of concern for credit co-ops particularly given that the drawdown of reserves would reduce their institutional capital and therefore their CAR. Mr Mark Lee also asked about the safeguards to help credit co-ops make prudent decisions as they pay dividends from their reserves.
Currently, a co-op may only pay dividends from the preceding year's surplus. We propose to allow them to tap their reserves to pay dividends and honoraria, subject to the Registrar's approval. This will allow co-ops to tap only on their general, unallocated reserves, such as the \"Accumulated Surplus\" and reserves allocated specifically to the payment of dividends or honoraria as the case may be. This will be made clear to co-ops through issued guidelines.
I also agree with Mr Mark Lee that credit co-ops must maintain adequate capital buffers and ensure adequate safeguards to protect members' interests. There are two layers of safeguards over using reserves to pay dividends or honoraria.
First, co-ops must seek the Registrar's approval. The Registrar will also consider factors, like reasonableness of proposed rates compared to previous years, past compliance track records of the co-op's, strength of governance and particularly for credit co-ops, if these credit co-ops have met prudential requirements. Credit co-ops must also demonstrate that they can meet the prevailing minimum CAR after their proposed dividend or honoraria payment. Second, of course, co-ops must obtain members' approval.
Moving on to the second category of questions on the process for Registrar's approval, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked questions regarding the obtaining of Registrar's approval for payment from reserves and the impact that this approval may have.
The Registrar will issue guidelines to co-ops on the information and documents that co-ops need to submit or provide to the Registrar. These will set clear expectations for co-ops on the pre-requisites for the application and allow the Registry to focus on co-ops which satisfy the pre-requisites.
Upon receiving Registrar’s approval, the co-op must seek members’ approval with a specific resolution at their AGM. This will ensure adequate disclosure on the proposed use of reserves. Members will also be able to refer to the co-op’s audited financial statements, which will also be tabled for members’ approval. This enables members to understand the financial impact of such payments on the reserves, if any, before making an informed decision. Co-ops must hold their AGMs within six months from the financial year-end, so there is enough time for them to obtain Registrar’s approval before conducting their AGM.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also proposed a review and monitoring mechanism to ensure that this and other legislative changes are meeting their intended objectives. We will monitor implementation of the new changes and will refine the administrative processes over time, if and where necessary, and this is to facilitate co-ops' operations and to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place.
The third category refers to Members' questions on the review of the dividend cap. Under the current legislative framework, a co-op must not pay a dividend on paid-up share capital or subscription capital exceeding 10% per annum. Mr Choo asked if MCCY can allow better governed co-ops to distribute more to their members. Mr Yip asked if we can apply a differentiated approach to allow for more flexibility for co-ops with better fiduciary governance.
I thought it was important for me to make two points to these suggestions. First, as Members already know, co-ops are uniquely different from other corporates due to their membership-based structure and social mission. Co-ops’ reserves are built up slowly over years through collective efforts by past and present co-op officers and members. These reserves are therefore very critical for them to meet any losses or operational needs due to unforeseen events. Co-ops must therefore very be prudent when using their reserves.
The current 10% dividend seeks to help co-ops to prioritise their long-term financial health and sustainability, while fulfilling their social mission and objectives, and also their members’ specific needs. While some may compare dividend payments to that of other corporates, the dividend yields for most larger public listed companies typically do not exceed 10%. The dividend cap for co-ops also reflects a balance between providing decent returns to their members and retaining funds for co-ops’ operations and growth. As such, the current cap would generally be adequate for co-ops.
Second, we recognise the broad diversity of our co-op sector. Some are large-scale and professionally run, while others are smaller and mainly volunteer-run. Naturally, governance capabilities and the size of reserves across this whole spectrum vary. MCCY will study this further to assess how to meet the needs of different types of co-ops across this spectrum, while ensuring adequate safeguards to protect members’ interests as well as co-ops’ long-term financial health and sustainability.
The fourth category of questions relate to amendments to facilitate co-ops’ operations. I will now address queries on the safeguards for two amendments aimed at facilitating co-ops’ operations. Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the proposed reduction of signatories required for an application to register by-law amendments would impact accountability and also to prevent abuse.
Sir, the legislation will continue to require amendments to by-laws to first be approved by members at a general meeting or a referendum. In the case of a general meeting, the resolution to make amendments must be passed by at least three-quarters of the members present and voting. The co-op must thereafter submit an extract of the resolution of the general meeting to the Registrar together with the application form. This will help ensure that the co-op had followed due process in calling for the general meeting and that members have duly approved the amendments. Most co-ops would also have sought Registry’s comments on the proposed by-law amendments prior to tabling them at the general meeting. We will continue with this general practice.
Mr Don Wee also touched on removing the requirement for Registrar’s approval for the issuance of bonds and debentures by co-ops. He asked what safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse or mismanagement of funds raised through such instruments.
Sir, I would like to assure Mr Don Wee that MCCY is mindful that co-ops need more flexibility in their operations. Since co-ops are already subjected to relevant laws on issuance of bonds and debentures, there is no need for an additional layer of Registrar’s approval. When making such issuances, the co-op’s management must explain to potential investors the structure of the bonds and debentures, and how these proceeds will be used. As a membership-based organisation, the co-op’s COM is ultimately accountable to its members for the management of the co-op’s funds. Should any co-op be found to have mismanaged its funds, the Registrar will take action under the Act.
Fifth, Members asked questions about support for and development of the sector. To this end, I thank Members for recognising the important role that co-ops play in our society as well as the support that both MCCY and SNCF provides in the development of our co-op sector.
Mr Desmond Choo suggested studying how to help co-ops modernise and use productivity grants that are available for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As I mentioned, co-ops can access grants from the CCF. MCCY also works closely with SNCF to ensure the grants remain relevant. Over the last five years, CCF disbursed about $2.7 million in grants to co-ops. In addition to grants to assist eligible new co-ops with start-up costs, co-ops can also apply for development grants, training grants, basic support grants and special grants, that address emerging risks and needs.
MCCY has also supported conferences and events organised by SNCF to raise awareness of topics such as data protection, sustainability and cybersecurity.
Mr Mark Lee suggested exploring the feasibility of a shared secretariat service to assist co-ops with limited resources. He also suggested a shared service that could address concerns such as cybersecurity threats and the adoption of new technologies. Mr Yip Hong Weng also asked if Government could help smaller co-ops digitalise.
Members will know that it is challenging to standardise the scope of works for shared services given the diverse needs of co-ops across the co-op sector and spectrum. Our general approach is to provide the CCF Development Grant, which gives co-ops flexibility to engage suitable service providers to meet their own unique operational needs and to tailor these programmes to their specific requirements. Nevertheless, I think it is a very good suggestion and so, we are open to exploring with SNCF and the sector on centralised services where it is appropriate and where co-ops find it useful.
We also work with SNCF to raise awareness of emerging issues such as cybersecurity, as well as offer a CCF Cybersecurity Grant which co-funds a recommended subscription-based solution to manage cybersecurity risks that Mr Lee and Mr Yip mentioned earlier.
Mr Lee and Mr Yip highlighted co-ops’ struggle to attract and retain talent. Mr Yip asked how Government could help in this area and Mr Lee suggested a secondment programme between co-ops and public and private sector organisations. We will explore Mr Lee’s idea further with SNCF and the co-ops.
Mr Lee also mentioned ongoing initiatives to build the capabilities of co-ops’ COM and staff. These include customised courses unique for the sector. MCCY for example is working with SNCF to introduce a new customised Audit Committee course for credit co-ops in May 2024. This course aims to enhance Audit Committee members’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and to sharpen their knowledge of relevant topics like risk management, internal controls, audit and financial reporting.
SNCF has also established the Emerging Leaders Programme in 2022, which aims to groom 100 leaders in five years. SNCF also organises conferences, networking events and sharing sessions to expose co-op officers to best practices and practical solutions adopted by their peers.
On members' rights, which Mr Raj Joshua Thomas raised relating to efforts to educate co-op members on their rights under the Act, I would like to respond that as member-owned organisations, co-ops are governed by their own by-laws as well as requirements under the Act. But we aim to foster an environment of both accountability and transparency, by ensuring co-ops make sufficient disclosures to members.
One of our proposed amendments is a case in point. While co-ops must already obtain members’ approval for payment of allowance, honoraria and other benefits to the COM, we proposed amending the Act to make this an explicit function of the AGM. This will help ensure that members’ approval is obtained for such benefits. In 2019, the Registrar also notified co-ops about the minimum information they need to disclose in an annual report to inform members about activities of the co-op and make informed decisions. These include, for example, adequate disclosure of its activities and financial performance. Co-ops are also encouraged to disclose more information as they deem fit.
Mr Desmond Choo also asked about the sustainability grant. I seek his indulgence because we just set up the grant on 1 January 2024. We will provide more statistics as the take-up rate becomes steady.
Next, I will move on to Mr Yip's questions about whether the Government would allow credit co-ops to advertise their loans to create greater awareness of their services. Credit co-ops are generally set up to serve their members who share a pre-existing common bond, such as the same industry, organisation or the same community. Credit risks are mitigated as many credit co-ops have arrangements with their members’ employers for salary deductions for loan repayments to co-ops. As a membership-based organisation, credit co-ops are not regulated to the same degree as other financial institutions. Hence, they are not open to the general public and should not advertise in mass media.
Nonetheless, credit co-ops are not precluded from advertising directly to their members. In the course of the Registry’s engagement with the co-ops and public consultation for the current Bill, we received feedback to review the advertising restriction for credit co-ops. So, we are studying this matter further.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by addressing Mr Liang’s related Parliamentary Question on co-ops. Mr Liang asked if Singapore needs new co-ops to meet the evolving socio-economic landscape and if the roles and social missions of co-ops can be strengthened under Forward Singapore.
In view of our refreshed social compact and renewed sense of social solidarity, co-ops indeed offer an additional platform for Singaporeans to come together and address societal evolving needs. To remain relevant and increase co-ops’ impact, they must continue to build their capabilities and competencies – the point that Members have been raising in this debate. This would strengthen confidence in and enhance recruitment into the sector. Co-op leaders themselves should also ensure they can lead their co-ops in a rapidly evolving environment. They should adopt a growth mindset, participate in professional development and continuous learning courses, and put in place succession planning to ensure their co-ops’ longevity and continued relevance. MCCY will continue to work with our partners, the CCF Committee and SNCF, to support co-ops and co-operators along their journey. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Do Members have clarifications for Minister of State Alvin Tan? Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister of State. According to the 2023 annual report published by the Registry of Co-operative Societies, co-ops in Singapore currently hold a staggering $19.4 billion worth of total assets. However, as we all know, the co-ops vary in sizes and correspondingly, also vary in standards of governance.
In 2018, I had proposed to the Ministry to consider implementing an annual ranking or annual grading system for credit co-ops. Such a system would promote better governance and better accountability. With the proposed changes in this Bill, I would like to ask if the Ministry would implement an annual ranking or grading system to be applied to all co-ops?
Through such a system, we can recognise co-ops that are better governed while maintaining the necessary checks on co-ops with weaker financial positions.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary question and also his contributions to the co-op sector. I have addressed Mr Yong's first query regarding the Rule 13, which is the review of the 10% cap, just earlier on. Just to reiterate – we think the 10% cap is generally sufficient for co-ops as it reflects the balance in providing decent returns to members and also safeguarding reserves for co-ops operations and growth.
On Mr Yong's suggestion for an annual ranking to identify co-ops that are better governed, as well as those that are weaker and which require more checks, earlier I mentioned that there is a spectrum of different strengths, sizes and capabilities and governance for co-ops. There is currently no public ranking of co-ops, given that co-ops are membership-based organisations and these members are also privy to the co-op's financial positions and other matters which are surfaced in the audited financial statements, which I mentioned earlier on.
They are also surfaced in annual reports as well as their general meetings. But when in doubt, members can and should also reach out to the co-ops' COM to seek clarification. The RCS does, in fact, have monitoring mechanisms in place to monitor co-ops and adopts a differentiated regulatory approach for co-ops. To give you an example, the Registry conducts periodic special audits on credit co-ops and reviews the co-op's financial statements and annual reports to assess their financial health and their governance.
For those, if RCS identifies weaker co-ops, for example, the Registry will engage these co-ops to provide assistance to improve their financial health and governance. I mentioned earlier on, yesterday and today as well, that governance as well as improving the ability of the co-ops to manage these are critically important. So, I would like to assure Mr Melvin Yong that the Registry, SNCF and others, and MCCY will continue to raise governance standards of co-ops.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank Minister of State Tan and express that I am especially encouraged by the Emerging Leaders Programme that is jointly organised by SNCF.
I would like to ask, given that the co-op community holds so much assets and that it can play a pretty transformative role in terms of helping Singapore to cater to some of the more complex social needs: does MCCY have any plans to provide opportunities, for example, under the Emerging Leaders Programme for youths and young people interested in the social enterprise and co-op operations, to gain experience and learning from other regional economies – who may have a more matured development or who are at a more advanced stage of their development in their social economy – including co-operatives and the way that they have advanced and developed in their own countries?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her supplementary question. The short answer is yes.
In addition to the Emerging Leaders Programme, there are many young youths who are involved with our co-operative sector. I have met many of co-op through my interactions with SNCF and through the many co-operatives get-together. In addition to the Emerging Leaders Programme, there are many other programmes that co-ops can use through the grants that are provided to them, to increase leadership; to increase governance standards; to increase capabilities about things like audit, finance; and also to help look at emerging areas, such as cybersecurity, sustainability and the likes.
In fact, when I speak to youths in the co-operative sector, one of the main attractiveness of the co-operative sector is to allow them to explore some of these emerging issues as well as emerging opportunities. So, the short answer is yes, there is interaction between the youths within this co-operative sector in Singapore and then also, if we do not already have, to explore learning from others outside of Singapore as well.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Minister of State Tan? I do not see any.
[(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 Alvin Tan]. (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":"Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): On behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 was last extended in 2018 for five years, till 20 October 2024. The Act is a critical piece of legislation for us to deal with egregious criminal activities which threaten the sense of safety and security in Singapore, in particular the activities of gangs and secret societies. This Bill seeks to extend the Act for another five years.
Secret societies have been in Singapore for a long time. In the 1950s, gang activity in Singapore was rampant. Secret societies were involved in illicit activities and used violence to impose fear on the community. Victims and witnesses feared reprisal against themselves and their family members, if they testified against the secret societies. This made prosecution in court extremely difficult.
It was against this backdrop that the Act was introduced. The Act gave the Government levers to deal effectively with the problem. Under the Act, the Minister for Home Affairs may detain, or place under Police supervision, persons associated with activities of a criminal nature. These activities are set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Act and include involvement in a secret society or as a gangster.
These powers are exercised carefully and sparingly. The Minister must be satisfied that detaining a person under the Act is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The power to detain someone under the Act is used only when prosecution is not viable. For example, because victims and witnesses refuse to testify for fear of reprisal.
We have put in place safeguards in the exercise of these powers. First, the consent of the Public Prosecutor must be obtained for a detention order or supervision order. He must be satisfied that prosecution is not viable, before allowing executive action under the Act.
Second, we have three committees that are independent of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to ensure that detentions are necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order.
The first committee scrutinises every detention and supervision order issued by the Minister. It is chaired by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court and comprises senior and experienced lawyers. It examines the evidence that was considered by the Minister in issuing the order and submits its report to the President to recommend the confirmation, variation or cancellation of the order.
A second committee considers every confirmed detention order at least once annually. It will consider whether the detainee continues to pose a threat to public safety, peace and good order; and whether the detainee should continue to be detained or released.
A third committee reviews detention cases which are being considered for extension beyond 10 years, to determine if continued detention is indeed necessary.
The Act requires the committees to have regard to public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information, in their deliberation. They are required to submit a report to the President, who may, on the advice of the Cabinet, confirm, vary or cancel the order made by the Minister.
Third, detainees are required to attend in person before the first committee, when the committee considers the order made by the Minister. Detainees can be represented by lawyers and may make representations to the various committees.
Fourth, every decision made under the Act can be subject to judicial review. This was made clear by the Minister for Home Affairs when the Act was amended in 2018. Sir, I want to emphasise this point as I know that some Members have raised their concerns as to whether the Act ousts judicial review. It does not.
Over the years, the number of detention and supervision orders issued under the Act has declined. From 21 October 2019 to 31 December 2023, 123 persons were dealt with under the Act – 86 Detention Orders (DOs) and 37 Police Supervision Orders (PSOs) were issued. This was fewer than the number of cases in the same period of the previous term of the Act. Even so, the number of orders issued is significant and the Act continues to be necessary and relevant – not only against secret societies, but also other criminal activities, such as unlicensed moneylending.
Gangs and organised crime groups continue to be a big threat to societies globally. These groups are involved in a wide spectrum of criminal conduct, including illegal drugs, scams, money laundering, human trafficking, firearms and vehicle-related crimes.
In the United States (US), gangs and gang-related criminal activities remain prevalent. Gangs there actively recruit new members, have carved out drug distribution territories and collaborate with other criminal groups for power and financial gains. They are well-organised and have significant reach and influence even across the US borders.
In August 2023, the United Nations reported that hundreds of thousands of people are being trafficked by criminal gangs and coerced into working in scam centres and other illegal operations across Southeast Asia. Billions of dollars are made annually by such gangs, who force the victims into crime and subject them to threats, torture and even sexual violence. This is happening at our doorstep.
There is a strong nexus between gang membership and violent crimes. Studies have found that gangs reinforce violent behaviour by routinely exposing gang members to high-risk situations and rewarding them for their violence. Moreover, gang members often see violence as a way to earn respect, status and reputation.
Because of the way gangs operate, witness intimidation in gang trials is a serious concern for many jurisdictions and an obstacle to justice. The true extent of this is impossible to measure, because witness intimidation is often not reported. Gangs have also used technology and social networking sites, such as X formerly known as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, to intimidate witnesses.
In a recent incident in Virginia, US, a member of a street gang intimidated witnesses by posting their names on Instagram and calling for gang members to gather in the court room to “watch the snitches snitching”. As a result, some witnesses pulled out of testifying and the trial had to be postponed.
When criminals, such as gangs and secret societies, cannot be brought to justice for their crimes, then the criminal justice system has failed. Instead of the people feeling protected, a climate of fear envelopes the society. The people lose confidence in the criminal justice system and, ultimately, the state.
As I explained earlier, the Act is used where prosecution is not viable, because witnesses are unwilling to testify in court for fear of reprisal. Witness intimidation is a problem in Singapore too. Some countries have witness relocation and protection programmes. However, because Singapore is so small, witness relocation would not be feasible or effective. Even in big countries, these measures are not always foolproof. Moreover, witness protection programmes take a very heavy toll on the protected witnesses.
They have to change their identity, change their job and cut off contact with families and friends. We should ask ourselves: why should witnesses and victims have to bear heavy personal costs, in bringing secret society members to justice?
In Singapore, there are still active secret societies, although not in the numbers and scale in some other countries. Nevertheless, they are still a menace to law and order, public safety and security. They recruit young Singaporeans, and engage in illicit activities and violent conduct. That is why we must continue to clamp down on them.
I will give you a few recent examples of when we had to use the powers under the Act.
One incident took place on 9 November 2021 at about 4.00 am. Ten gang members gathered at a rival gang member’s flat. They were armed with deadly weapons including a machete, a knuckle duster and a karambit knife. They were there to seek revenge as they believed that a rival gang member had assaulted their \"Headman\". When they found out that the rival gang member was not at home, they attacked his family members instead. They punched and kicked the person’s parents, brother and sister. The father suffered a facial bone fracture while the mother sustained a forearm fracture. Seven of the gang members were dealt with under the Act.
Another incident took place on 8 January 2022 at about 10.30 pm. There was a gang clash between rival secret societies at Circular Road. During the riot, gang members of one of the secret societies chased and assaulted the rival gang members. The rival gang members were kicked and punched in full view of the public. One gang member used a knife to stab a rival gang member’s leg. Four of the gang members were dealt with under the Act.
In addition to gang-related incidents, the Act is also used against organised crimes such as unlicensed moneylending. In 2019, we used the Act to detain a number of leaders and financiers of an unlicensed moneylending syndicate, which was linked to more than 1,800 cases of harassment of debtors in Singapore.
Without the Act, we would not have been able to do much against them. The victims and witnesses feared reprisal and were not willing to testify. The perpetrators would have been able to carry on with their violence and intimidation with impunity.
Sir, to conclude, we continue to have to use the Act. We cannot be complacent about the safety and security that Singaporeans enjoy today, that we do not live in fear of gangs and secret societies and are not intimidated by them, unlike in many other countries. The Act is an essential tool for the Government to ensure this. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I wish to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice who has dealt with detention cases under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955. I shall call it \"Act\".
This Bill represents the 15th time that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act. Given the longevity of this Act, which was enacted almost 70 years ago, the skeptical amongst us may be tempted to say that there is nothing \"temporary\" about this Act.
I would respectfully suggest, however, that that would be a case of missing the wood for the trees. This Act vests with the Minister for Home Affairs with extraordinary powers to order the detention without trial of a person accused of having association with specified activities of a criminal nature, DO, or subjecting him to a supervision order, or SO. These powers are meant to be used as a matter of last resort because of the difficulty in securing evidence against such persons, as explained by the hon Minister of State; primarily by reason of their association with secret societies.
By design, these powers constitute a derogation from the usual due process accorded to persons accused of crime which will involve the court independently adjudicating on the case after reviewing the evidence. The exception has been justified on the basis of the pernicious nature of secret society operations and the need to preserve public order in Singapore.
As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, several safeguards have also been worked into the framework as well. So, I would not traverse the same ground save to add that in respect of the Advisory Committees the hon Minister of State mentioned are headed by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court. So, all of them are occupying a high constitutional office.
Notwithstanding the safeguards, given the exceptional nature of the power, however, it is apt that there is a further mechanism built into the Act to allow Parliament to satisfy itself of the continued need to confer on the Minister these powers before deciding to extend the Act.
Hence, the reference to \"temporary\" in the Act is really a recognition of the fact that these are extraordinary powers requiring the Minister to periodically make a case in Parliament on the reasons for extending the Act to enable him to use the powers. This constitutes responsible politics.
I now turn to the hon Minister of State’s case for extending the Act. As was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, the numbers of detentions have come down. I looked at it: in 2019 it was 97 detention orders issued; 2022, 80 detention orders. For context, these detention numbers were much higher in the 1980s and up to the early 1990s, they were in the four digits and they were in the three digits up to the first decade of the new millennium.
So, it is therefore good news that the numbers have reduced appreciably over the past four decades. The bad news, however, as I note from the hon Minister of State’s speech, is that there continues to be a number of serious secret society clashes that affect the peace and good order of Singapore. What is noteworthy is that prosecution in these cases, as was mentioned by the hon Minister of State, was not viable because witnesses refused to give evidence in court, for fear of reprisal. Such violent acts, should they have gone unpunished, would threaten the peace and security we are accustomed to, and some even take for granted. This, we cannot afford.
In addition, the hon Minister of State refers to a significant number organised criminal activities such as unlicensed moneylending and drug trafficking by secret societies again where witnesses are unwilling to come forward to testify incident in court. Without the decisive action taken under this Act to cripple the syndicates, many more Singaporeans may have fallen victim. So, hence, this Act had the effect of preventing the proliferation of such crime.
Apart from what the hon Minister of State highlighted in this House, I note with concern that it is stated in the Global Organised Crime Index Report on Singapore for 2023 that foreign criminal actors continue to operate in Singapore with and, I quote, \"moderate influence\", and almost all of them are involved in immigration-related crimes, money laundering and scams, amongst others. I would imagine them to be fairly sophisticated in their criminal activities and it would likely not be easy to get witnesses to spill the beans on them. This brings to my mind what the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng said in this House in 1994, about the threat of organised crime, particularly Asian triads and gangs, which continues to be real across much of the world today too. Mr Wong stated that the Act served as a deterrence against these overseas triads and gangs from shifting operations into Singapore. To deal with these hardened criminals with sophisticated international networks, we need laws with teeth and muscle. This Act has that those prerequisites.
On balance, I am convinced, based on the hard facts that have been laid out in this House by the hon Minister of State, that it is in the better interest of Singapore that the Act be extended. I therefore support the Bill.
Sir, I would however like to make a case for the Police to do more to prevent youths from being recruited by secret societies. Through my pro bono criminal law practice as well as a two-year involvement in a study of youths at risk for a self-help group, I have noted the tendency for secret societies to recruit youths from a relatively young age: young people are the \"oxygen\" or life blood for secret societies. Once recruited, the youths become the secret societies' fighters who protect and advance their criminal objectives. As I will be alluding to shortly, if we can starve the secret societies of this \"oxygen\", we will be able to significantly curb the societies' influence and activities.
In the study that I was involved in, it was noted that the entry age for secret society members ranged from as young as 11 to 18. Once these youths join the secret societies, a number of them would be introduced to alcohol and controlled drugs. They in turn develop violent streaks which the headmen would then use to unleash against rival gangs.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in October 2020, the hon Minister for Home Affairs revealed that the median age of persons subject to DOs and SOs between 2017 and 2019 was only 22. He also stated that the youngest persons subject to these orders were 17. In fact, I was personally involved in a pro bono case where a 17-year-old boy was issued with a DO which was subsequently extended as well.
On the face of it, I would imagine that for some of us, this may be seen as a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, the reality is that, depending on the facts of the case, young people, as part of a gang, can cause serious harm; even death. They pose a danger to themselves too as violence begets violence. Depending on the facts, it may be necessary to invoke the Act to issue either a DO or SO to preserve public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something we cannot take for granted.
I am aware that the Police does good work to help youths to keep away from the clutches of secret societies. The hon Minister, in his answer to my PQ in 2020 highlighted some of these steps. He said that the Police works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Ministry of Education (MOE) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to develop and implement preventive and rehabilitative initiatives. These initiatives include the Streetwise and Enhanced Streetwise Programmes aimed at providing youths associated with secret societies with counselling.
The Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department also regularly runs Camps ACE, which means \"All Can Escape\" to educate youths on the perils of joining a secret society and educational talks for parents on tell-tale signs.
However, the secret societies are not keeping still. Through my work in the study, I learnt that secret societies have evolved methods to specifically target and recruit youths in communities and school settings as well. These societies may well double their efforts in an environment where, generally, enrolment in secret societies is falling. The activities usually start off as being rather innocuous social gatherings but lead to initiation ceremonies after which the youths would start being at the beck and call of their respective headmen. I see such recruitment activities as \"capacity building\" to undertake activities of a criminal nature that are contemplated under the Act. Such acts should equally be viewed as affecting the peace and good order of Singapore too.
I am aware that recruiting persons to join unlawful societies constitute an offence under the Societies Act 1966. Where the Police has secured evidence of recruitment activities, such persons should be prosecuted.
In cases where the evidence on record is not forthcoming, perhaps because of intimidation, I wonder if the powers under the Act can also be invoked against these recruiters. In paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, which the hon Minister of State quoted, the Minister may use his power to detain a person or subject him to supervision if the person is generally involved in a secret society or as a gangster. This should extend to recruitment activities on behalf of a secret society or gang.
From my research, though, I have not been able to unearth any case where the power of the Minister was invoked to impose a DO or SO against a person for conducting recruitment activities for a secret society per se. So, I seek the hon Minister of State’s clarification and views on this matter.
The final point I wish to make concerns the provisions in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Act. It is not well known that the Act does not just deal with detention and supervision powers which are set out in Part 5 of the Act. This is not surprising. This is because at almost every Second Reading debate of the Bill to extend the Act, the Government made its case by reference to its report card of the use of powers provided for in Part 5 of the Act; not Parts 2, 3 and 4.
Respectfully, I think the time has come for the Government to consider porting over Parts 2, 3 and 4 to other pieces of legislation and then repealing these Parts in this Act. Such a move would be more in accord with Parliament’s intent when passing this Bill to extend the Act for a further five years.
Going down to some specifics, Part 3 of the Act deals with placing prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of workers to strike and employers to lock-out workmen when they are engaged in \"essential services\" which is defined in the Act. Such restrictions should not be controversial. The International Labour Organization, of which Singapore is a member of, expressly acknowledged that there may be a prohibition or restriction to the right to strike in essential services. I therefore suggest that the Government consider taking steps to port Part 3 of the Act over to another statute, perhaps the Industrial Relations Act 1960.
Parts 2 and 4 of the Act deal with public safety and public order issues. For instance, in section 4 under Part 2 of the Act, it is provided that any person who has a \"subversive document\", as defined in the Act, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 13 under Part 4 of the Act provides the power to the Minister and the Police to disperse assemblies which pose an immediate threat to public peace.
I suggest that the Government reviewing these Parts with a view to repeal provisions that may be seen as obsolete or otiose. In the alternative, there may also be a case to port over relevant provisions to the Public Order Act 2009 which is the primary piece of legislation that the Government relies on to regulate and control assemblies to maintain public order.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to reiterate the point I make about making it difficult for secret societies to recruit young people.
Young people are not just the life blood of secret societies but of our country too. It is sad that there continues to be cases of youths falling victim to the machinations of secret societies. Each case is a case too many. We should call out the acts of recruiters and bring to bear the full force of the law against them either by prosecution under the Societies Act or through the exercise of the powers under this Act. It is these recruiters who seduce vulnerable and immature young people by making false promises of charmed and privileged lifestyles.
Once our young get snared into the gangs, their future prospects will naturally suffer. Needless to say, their families suffer together with them. Through more resolute action against the recruiters, I believe we will have a far better chance of turning our young people away from dark alleys of crime and violence and instead focus on the flourishing of their own bright futures, for their sake, that of their families as well for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, this is the 15th time this so-called temporary Act, in its various forms, has come before Parliament or its predecessor for the renewal of another five years from 21 October 2024. This law puts people behind bars or restricts their movement at the order of the Home Affairs Minister.
Like the Internal Security Act, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system, which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he is imprisoned or fined for his wrongdoing.
Under this Act, the Minister can, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, order the detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months, if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to the supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years, if he is satisfied that it is so necessary. Every order shall be referred to an advisory committee, which shall submit its recommendation on the order to the President, who has the power to confirm, cancel or vary the order given.
Taking away someone's liberty either by detention or by restriction of movements and activities should not be taken lightly as they impact on liberty and freedom. Time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be reviewed annually with the agreement of the President and that the recommendation of an advisory committee and on the advice of the Cabinet.
Mr Speaker, in past renewals of the Act, there were Members who have spoken up about their concerns about the undesirable aspects of the Act and have asked the Government when we can finally do away with this Act. I am glad that we are here today to debate the extension of the Act for another five years and not more than that. In the past, some Members have even suggested that the Bill should not be a temporary one but should be converted to a permanent one. I certainly cannot agree with that.
Many Members have, over the years, also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes or criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and Members' speeches in the Hansard that this ranged from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection records to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan-shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts, as well as communist domination.
The Minister of State has also highlighted some of the recent serious cases in the past five years which required enforcement under CLTPA. I would like to ask the Minister of State of the types of cases highlighted, what is the number of detention and supervision orders granted for such type of crimes over the total number of all CLTPA orders in the last five years?
I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the last five years, since October 2019, what is the total number of people who, one, have been detained under the CLTPA and two, have been subject to Police supervision under the CLTPA? Can the Minister of State give a breakdown of the number of persons subject to CLTPA orders, organised according to the different category of criminal activities? Can the Minister of State tell this House of the persons who have been detained in the course of the last five years, what is the proportion of detainees who have served more than two years and how many of the current detainees have been in detention for more than five and 10 years respectively?
I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the past five years, whether there were instances when the public prosecutor actually withheld consent or raised concerns when the Minister sought to make an order.
Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party objected to some of the amendments which the Government sought to introduce in 2018, together with a five-year extension from 2019 to 2024. Among other things, in 2018, the Workers' Party had expressed concern with the finality clause in the amended section 30 of the present Act under the then clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, which made the decisions of the Minister on detention and supervision to be final, the insertion of the Fourth Schedule which may allow Minister to bypass answering questions, such as whether a case is serious enough to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court and also expanding the Minister's powers to police criminal activities overseas.
In today's Second Reading, the Government is asking for a five-year extension of the Act and no amendment of the current Act is being proposed. I confirm that the Workers' Party objections and reservations to some of the amendments raised in 2018 remain. However, we are in cautious support for the proposed five-year extension today, subject to the Government's explanation for the Authority's use of the CLTPA in the past five years and justifications for an extension of a further five years.
Mr Speaker, as the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim had articulated in the 2018 debate about the Workers' Party's support for renewals of the Act prior to 2018, she said that the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the constitutional rights to freedom and that we did not delight in taking such a position but did so with a heavy heart.
Mr Speaker, in 2018, the Minister, in justifying for an extension of the Act in the Second Reading speech, raised examples of CLTPA being used against gangs, unlicensed moneylenders, drug syndicates and global match-fixing syndicates in the years before that. He mentioned of victims being unwilling or unable to identify attackers. He also mentioned of victims or drug couriers unwilling to testify in Court for fear of reprisals.
The Minister also mentioned that while the drug situation was under control, the challenges had remained significant. In the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release dated 7 March 2024, in respect of the First Reading of today's Bill, it was stated that the Act is, I quote, \"an essential legal instrument for the Police so that they can act effectively against secret societies and criminal syndicates, such as moneylending and drug-trafficking syndicates, where prosecution is not viable because witnesses are unwilling to testify in open Court for fear of reprisal.\"
MHA stated that since 2019, the Act has been used to detain or place under supervision persons heavily involved in secret society activities and leaders of organised crime syndicates, such as an overseas licensed moneylending syndicate. The same release also provided four recent cases of CLTPA recent enforcement, all involving gangs and witnesses refusing to give evidence for fear of reprisal. The Minister of State has also briefly touched on this in his speech. Indeed, the scenario shared by the Minister then and the Minister of State today are not new and CLTPA has been used in such cases relating to crime and drug syndicates and gangs for a long time and they would often involve fear of witnesses testifying in Court for fear of reprisals.
Looking at the explanations given and the cases mentioned by the Minister in the recent Second Reading speeches, I do wonder whether the Government will require further extensions of the Act as long as criminal activities, such as gangs, drug and crime syndicates, unlicensed moneylending and so on, continue to persist, especially coupled with possible intimidation of witnesses.
I would like to ask whether MHA has also looked at other crime control or enforcement methods or models to deal with the specified criminal activities of gangs, drugs and crime syndicates and unlicensed moneylending and to work around witness intimidation issues. How has Singapore Police Force (SPF) utilised the technological advances and deployment of technology in the Police Force, for example, use of cameras at an unprecedented scale these days to keep these crimes problems under control? Indeed, with the increased use of technology by our SPF and also the development of SPF over the years, will advances in our policing methods as well as technological advances help to control the age-old problems of gangs and crime syndicates and mitigate against the age-old problem of witnesses not coming forth to testify?
Mr Speaker, even as the crime situation in Singapore may have been evolving and still does, it is difficult to deny that we have come very far in our crime situation since almost 70 years ago when this temporary Act was first introduced. In recent years, we have also received assurances from Minister that the number of detainees under the CLTPA have been declining. As we review the need for a renewal of the CLTPA today, for the next five years, I would therefore like to ask the Minister of State what would be the conditions or goals, the attainment of which may grant confidence to our Government to consider not seeking further extensions in future.
Over time, other Members have also asked the question essentially of when we will be ready to do away with the Act. The current Minister of Home Affairs has asked a similar question even back in 1989. The then Home Affairs Minister answered as follows, and I quote, \"Mr Shanmugam asked: when can we do away with it? My answer to that would be, we can do away with it when we are satisfied that both the secret society component of our objective and the drug traffic component of our objective are reduced to such small proportions that we can safely say that we do not need this to control both aspects.\" The Minister then went on to elaborate on his views.
Almost 35 years on, I look forward to the current Minister's answer and update. Mr Speaker, subject to the replies to the questions and clarifications to my queries and concerns, the Workers' Party supports the extension of the Act.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, or CLPTA, for another five years, starting from 21 October 2024. This extension is not to be taken lightly because it continues to empower the Government to detain individuals without trial.
The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill was first introduced in Parliament back in 1955, as one of the measures to counter the communist threat in Singapore. However, the most concerning part of the Act, namely the section empowering the Minister to direct a person to be detained without trial, was introduced in 1958 to deal with gangsterism.
During the Second Reading of that amendment Bill, the Chief Secretary then, Mr EB David said, “It is only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness, which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use. No democratic government will lightly curtail the liberty of any individual by executive action, nor would it wish to curtail that liberty for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. With the slowly increasing mutual confidence between the police and the public, I sincerely hope that it would not be very long before the conditions in which these gangsters can flourish will no longer obtain. The normal processes of law will, once more, be adequate to detect and punish crimes and these special powers can be thankfully surrendered.”
This Act was enacted in 1955 and if it is renewed this time, it would be its 15th renewal. Sixty-six years have passed since the introduction of the provision empowering the Executive to detain criminals without trial. While gangsterism still exists today in Singapore, the extent of lawlessness is, we believe, not as rampant as it was back in 1958 when the executive power to detain without trial was introduced. The most important question which we face today in this House is whether the Act is still relevant, and more importantly, necessary in light of our present circumstances.
This consideration must include other pieces of criminal legislation in force and the sufficiency and efficacy of our judicial system. A balance has to be struck between personal liberty and public peace and order. Have we struck the right balance with this proposed extension?
As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister.
One, does the Ministry intend to continually renew this piece of legislation for as long as crime in Singapore is not completely eradicated? Otherwise, can the Ministry share with this House under what circumstances it is prepared to do away with this piece of legislation, which was intended to be temporary when it was first enacted in 1955?
Two, can the Ministry update this House regarding the steps it has taken over the years to review if our current judicial system can be strengthened to better deal with crimes of the nature that this Act is currently invoked for, without having to detain persons without trial?
Three, can the Minister clarify whether the Public Defender's Office is authorised to represent detainees under the Act to guarantee their access to counsel?
Mr Speaker, PSP recognises that the CLTPA does play a part in bringing greater safety and security to law-abiding citizens. However, as the powers given to the Government under the CLTPA is so draconian, PSP is of the view that equally strong safeguards must be put in place to protect innocent Singaporeans against any potential abuse of these powers. We, therefore, propose to enhance the protections against possible abuse with three recommendations.
The PSP's first proposed safeguard is to legislatively require that sitting Supreme Court Judges sit on the Advisory Committees. While we note that Minister Shanmugam said in 2018 that Advisory Committees will be chaired by sitting judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Government stopped short of codifying this change. The PSP is of the view that we must codify this requirement to uphold the separation of powers, provide greater clarity for all and strengthen the perception that the Advisory Committees are independent. We believe that there is no downside to this.
The PSP's second proposed safeguard relates to the making of DOs and PSO. Besides the Public Prosecutor's consent, the Minister must also seek either: one, the Advisory Committee’s concurrence; or two, the concurrence of the President, acting in his discretion, before the DO or PSO is made.
The PSP's third proposed safeguard relates to the extension of DOs or PSOs. If an Advisory Committee objects to the extension of the DO or PSO and the Government disagrees, any extension should only be granted with the President's concurrence, acting in his discretion.
The reason why we are proposing the second and third safeguards is because the ultimate decision-maker, currently, is still Cabinet. While the Minister must hear the Advisory Committee's views and recommendations via its written report to the President, the Minister does not need to follow those recommendations before making or renewing the DO or PSO, since the President does not have discretionary powers under the CLTPA and must follow Cabinet's recommendations.
The PSP believes that these three proposals will strike the appropriate balance between personal liberty and public peace and order.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we would like to stress that the PSP does not for any moment take for granted the benefits that Singaporeans enjoy from our peace and order. We also recognise the CLTPA's role in keeping Singapore safe.
However, we also recognise that our circumstances have changed substantially since the enactment of the CLTPA in the 1950s and that detention without trial must always be considered with utmost caution and reluctance. We should also clarify our laws and codify the current practices that are already in place.
In light of these considerations, the PSP will oppose the extension of the CLTPA, unless the safeguards are enhanced. Thank you. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting. I will take the Chair at 3.30 pm. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.10 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill will renew the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for the 15th time. When I last spoke on the Bill to renew the CLTPA, I said that the title of the Bill belies the fact that the Act is far from temporary.
The debate that we are having today on extending the CLPTA is an important safeguard. This ensures that there is Parliamentary scrutiny on the continuing need for the Executive’s exceptional powers under the CLPTA. While I understand the continuing public order and security pressures that justify the exercise of these powers, we should never forget the extraordinary nature of the CLTPA. The grounds for the Act and the powers under the CLPTA should be closely examined every time the Act comes up for renewal.
I have four points for clarification. My first point is on the obligations imposed on persons subject to Police Supervision Orders under section 33. In the previous amendment, the obligations on a person subject to a Police Supervision Order were moved into subsidiary legislation. The obligations are now set out under rules that the Minister can make under section 49. Minister shared that the rationale for doing so was to allow the obligations, which are operational in nature, to be amended based on evolving needs. Can the Minister of State share the nature of these obligations that have been introduced in the rules? How frequently are the obligations reviewed and how have they evolved since the previous amendment to the Act?
My second point is on the composition and processes of the Advisory Committees. The Advisory Committees are an important check on the broad powers under the Act. There are three types of Advisory Committees: the first to review every Detention Order (DO) and Police Supervision Order (PSO); the second to review every detainee’s case at least once annually; and the third to review detention cases for extension beyond 10 years. The Advisory Committee, which reviews DOs and PSOs, is chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Its members are senior lawyers and respected members of society, such as Justices of the Peace. The Advisory Committee will consider all materials that the Minister relied on in issuing the DO or PSO.
The compositions of the other two types of Advisory Committees are not as clear. Can the Minister of State share the composition of the other two Advisory Committees which review existing detainees’ cases at least once annually and for extension beyond 10 years?
As these two Advisory Committees must consider the detainee’s suitability and readiness for release, can Minister share whether there are professionals on the Advisory Committees who have the relevant expertise? For instance, the Advisory Committee may have to take a view on the detainee’s psychological state or receptiveness to rehabilitation. Additionally, section 40(3) also requires the Advisory Committees to consider the requirements of public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information. Can the Minister of State share what materials are provided to the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases to enable them to consider all these factors? Can the Minister of State also share whether the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases regularly exercise their powers under section 40 to summon and examine witnesses, and to compel the production of documents?
My third point is on the support of individuals subjected to DOs and PSOs. The Ministry has stated that DOs and PSOs are intended to “break the vicious cycle of gang lawlessness and the climate of terror they instilled”. In order to break this vicious cycle, can the Minister of State share what programmes are in place for individuals subject to DOs and PSOs to reduce the need for the DOs or PSOs to be extended? Can the Minister of State also share the recidivism rate of individuals subject to DOs and PSOs?
My fourth and final point is on witness protection. I suggested in my speech on the previous amendments to the Act that the Ministry should study other solutions for securing witness testimony to reduce the need for the CLTPA powers. The Minister of State shared that the suggestions considered were not workable because it is difficult to have secret testimony from one witness who cannot be cross-examined in the trial process. However, the Minister of State also said that the Ministry will review other options for securing witness testimonies. Can the Minister of State provide an update on its review and options that were considered?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for another five years. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which I will now refer to simply as \"the Act\", has been in place since 1955, and contains several provisions relating to public safety and security in Singapore.
Specifically, the Act allows the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the detention without trial of someone suspected of being involved in, or with, certain crimes, including drug trafficking, homicide, gang rape, armed robbery, syndicated crime organisations, illegal money lending and people trafficking.
The Act also gives police the authority to arrest and detain a person without a warrant, restricts the manufacture and possession of documents considered to be subversive and restricts strikes and lock-outs that might disrupt or prevent the delivery of essential services.
Mr Deputy Speaker, several of these provisions raise concerns related to due process, the separation of powers, and the role and authority of the Executive. These issues are important, and need to be acknowledged and seriously considered prior to approval of this Bill; and I will now make some additional comments intended to assist these considerations.
Before I do so, I would like to note that I am currently Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we first need to ask ourselves whether there remains a need for the Act. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 was initially intended to combat crimes, notably violent conflicts, between gangs and secret societies, and to ensure the uninterrupted provision of essential services. The criminal landscape in Singapore has, however, changed and Singapore now ranks as one of the safest countries in the world. We also now have an independent and impartial judiciary, highly trained and respected police and security forces, and a population that is known around the world as being law abiding and civic minded.
Why then, do we need such powers as contained in the Act? Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer is quite simple and is related in the comment that is frequently made about Singapore: low crime does not mean no crime. While crime rates across Singapore remain admirably low by international standards, we continue to face the threat of national and transnational crime that is increasingly sophisticated, complex and elusive, and can have far reaching consequences on the personal and economic safety and wellbeing of individual citizens and the nation as a whole.
Additionally, our low crimes rates do not just spontaneously happen. They are the result of the coordinated and continual efforts of many hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans who work often invisibly every day to keep us safe, and who are backed up by legislation that gives them the authority and confidence to do what they need to do.
As Thomas Jefferson famously said, \"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance\", and while this Act may curtail or impede certain individual rights and freedoms, it does assist to guarantee the collective freedom and well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans – something many of us take for granted every day and would complain loudly about if it was to vanish.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we also need to look at the unique geographical and socio-cultural nature of Singapore. In comparison to almost all other countries, Singapore is tiny, with a population density that is third highest in the world.
The impact of crime in Singapore is not the same as that in other countries. If our crime rates increase, they cannot be hidden or distributed across large geographical areas, or within dispersed population groups. An escalation in crime in Singapore will literally, be in our face, and the impact of that crime on the efficiency, cooperation, and trust that drives Singapore could be catastrophic on our society, our economy, and our reputation as a uniquely safe place to live, work and invest.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is easy to say that we do not need the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955. However the price we may pay if we remove it may not be a price Singaporeans or Singapore is prepared to pay. Mr Deputy Speaker, we do, however, have to do more to educate the public about this Act.
There is considerable and understandable concern among some Singaporeans about an Act that allows the Executive to authorise the detention of a person for up to 12 months without trial, with some people potentially thinking that we are arbitrarily detaining people for no good reason. To counter these misconceptions, it might be helpful for the Government to run a public education campaign about how and when the provisions in the Act are applied, and the checks and balances that exist within our systems to ensure that the provisions are applied transparently and appropriately and only ever as a last resort.
It may also be helpful to remind the public that those who are detained are able to seek legal advice and appeal to the relevant Advisory Committee or Courts. Other information that should routinely be made available to the public includes the number of people detained per year, and the reason for their detention; the age and sex of the detainees; the number of detention orders confirmed, cancelled, or extended by the President every year; the number of people on day release to attend employment; and, the number of successful and unsuccessful appeals.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if we are to confidently extend this Act for another five years, we all need to be in a position to openly describe and defend the Act, and the circumstances surrounding its use.
Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the primary justifications for detention under the Act is the unavailability of witnesses willing or able to testify, thereby making successful prosecution in the courts unlikely. I appreciate the challenges explained by the hon Minister of State earlier. However, if more could be done to reassure witnesses that their identity and safety is guaranteed, then perhaps more of these cases could be successfully prosecuted through our regular court system.
Likewise, if another justification for detention under the Act is the difficulty in obtaining reliable evidence, I would also welcome clarification about the existence and use of confidential disclosure or whistleblowing schemes. If more people were able to easily and confidentially provide evidence to the authorities, then perhaps they would be more willing and able to submit, or even leak relevant information. These suggestions may be of particular relevance in those matters involving organised crime syndicates or gangs, or where witnesses or evidence may not be based in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now make some comments about rehabilitation and reintegration.
Detention serves two purposes. First, it removes the opportunity for offenders to commit further crimes, and, of equal, if not more, importance, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate offenders so as to facilitate successful reintegration into society.
In light of the above, I would welcome clarification that those detained under this Act are housed in the same prison facilities as those sentenced through the regular court system, and have access to the same rehabilitation and reintegration services and programmes. I would also welcome clarification about the number of people who have been detained under the Act who have subsequently reoffended post release, and how these recidivism rates compare to the general prison population. That is, as well as initially removing these alleged offenders from society, are they also being successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated back into the community.
Related to this issue is the gang membership. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the majority of people detained under the Act are detained for gang-related activity. If this is the case, and gang related activity remains a primary reason for detention, I would welcome clarification about whether those detained under the Act have access to programmes specifically targeting issues surrounding gang membership.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while not all gangs, or gang members, are involved in criminal activity, in Singapore there remains a high corelation between gangs and crime. In fact, according to Singapore Prison Services, close to one quarter of the inmates who entered prison in 2021 had gang affiliations. This is a major issue of concern, and we need to examine and address why so many people in Singapore, including young people, still feel the need to join or be affiliated with a gang.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would welcome clarification about programmes that specifically target issues surrounding gang membership among young people in the community. If we can intervene early in the lives of young people and provide them with access to more constructive and positive social networking options, we could perhaps start to break the ongoing cycle of gang related crime.
Mr Deputy Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill. In an ideal world, there would be no need for this Act, however while national and international crime continues to pose an identifiable threat to one of the defining characteristics of Singapore, our safety and security, the need for this Act remains. It is, however, beholden on us, as Members of Parliament, to ensure that this Act continues to be used in a responsible and accountable manner and only as a last resort.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, allow me to declare my interest as a practising lawyer who sometimes practices criminal law, and I have previously represented a detainee who was detained under this law and I appeared before an Advisory Committee.
Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted on 21 October 1955. It is a unique sunset clause, which states that the law continues in force for period of five years. This means that the law will lapse at the end of five years, unless it is renewed by Parliament at today's Second Reading.
The Act has been extended 14 times, the last being in 2018. The arguments for retaining this Bill in our statutes have been put forth and debated on many, many occasions in this House.
The essence of this law is that allows the Minister to detain a person who has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, without having to charge that person or bring him to trial, if the Minister is satisfied that the detention is an interest of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister also has similar powers to order a person to be subject to a supervision of the Police. And in this Act, activities of a criminal nature means any activity specified in the fourth schedule.
In previous debates, the Minister for Home Affairs had listed the situations when the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was applied, firstly, against gang-related criminal activities; second, against drug traffickers; third, against unlicensed money lenders; and fourth, against members of syndicates, for example, global match-fixing syndicates.
A more comprehensive list of the activities of a criminal nature are listed in the fourth schedule of the Act. Sir, as a practising lawyer, I am reluctant to deviate from this legal principle that every accused person is entitled to confront his accuser, and to defend himself in a fair and public trial.
It is an important principle, as it prevents the abuse of process by an incompetent or corrupt Government. However, I accept that the argument that this law is needed in unique circumstances, where witnesses are unwilling to testify because of the fear of harm to themselves or to their loved ones.
Indeed, when this Bill was up for renewal in 2009, I had supported the renewal of the Bill and at that session, I had given an account of a criminal case that I did in 1990, when I was asked to interview a secret society member who was charged in Court for murder.
However, 15 years later, the question before Members of this House is whether the current state of criminal activities in Singapore would still warrant renewal of the Act, after almost 70 years since the Act was first introduced. Is this law still relevant to Singapore, in this day and age? Is it still necessary in maintaining law and order?
For most Members of this House, we have limited knowledge of the state of criminal activities, save for what was reported in the media or by the Police.
For example, in February 2021, Minister for Home Affairs Mr Shanmugam, in reply to a PQ, said that the secret society situation in Singapore is under control. Minister further said that an average of 112 rioting and serious hurt cases have been linked to secret societies in Singapore each year, for the past five years, and cases involving the use of weapons, such as parangs and knuckle dusters have declined over that same period. He said there was one case involving weapons last year, down from 12 in 2016.
On 5 July 2021, the Minister said in a reply to another PQ, that notwithstanding that the secret society situation remains under control, the participation of youths in secret societies remain a concern. That is why we invest significant resources to educate and engage youths, to deter them from joining secret societies.
For illegal loan shark activities, in an October 2020 reply to a PQ, Minister Shanmugam said that between April and August 2020, there were 1,587 cases of unlicensed moneylending and unlicensed moneylending-related harassment reported. And this was a 40% decrease, from the 2,642 cases reported during the same period in 2019.
Next, for drug related offences, in a 2022 Committee of Supply debate, the Minister informed this House that in the 1990s, the Central Narcotics Bureau arrested about 6,000 abusers per year. Now, they arrest about 3,000 to 3,500 per year. Furthermore, the death penalty is a key part of our system and approach to deal with drug traffickers.
Thus the question is, if the secret society situation in Singapore is under control, if the cases involving unlicensed moneylending has come down by 40%, if the number of drugs abusers have also come down drastically since the 1990s, is there still justification for this law to be extended?
Sir, I listened carefully to the cases of secret society attacks by Minister of State, Mr Faishal Ibrahim. However, in every criminal case, there will always be a risk of retribution, whether by secret society members or by simple criminals.
The question is, how can we balance the interests of an individual, to the right of due process, versus the right of members of public, to a peaceful and safe living environment in Singapore?
Sir, I have always been proud of the fact that Singapore is ranked one of the safest places in Asia to visit. According to the Global Peace Index, the safest Asian country to visit is Singapore, followed by Japan and Malaysia. It was reported that this countries have low levels of violence, crime and conflict, and high levels of stability and security.
The country that tops the list of safest countries in the world, not just in Asia. So, the country that tops the list of safest countries in the world in 2024, is Iceland, followed by Denmark, Austria and New Zealand.
So, my question to the Minister of State is whether these countries also have similar legislation that allows them to detain criminals without trial? How did they maintain their record of being safe countries to visit? And how did they deal with the criminal activities that Singapore is so concerned with?
Sir, I submit that is incumbent of the Government to explain to Parliament, what is the rationale for keeping this law, so that Members can make a considered decision, whether to extend the same for another five years, and that is the purpose of the sunset clause.
If the Minister is able to make out a compelling case, then I will be happy to support the extension. To me, and I reiterate, that this is all about striking the right balance between having the right to due process versus the need to maintain law and order in Singapore.
Sir, allow me to also state for the record that I am quite satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is no abuse of power by the Police. I perused the Hansard in respect of the 2018 debate on extension of this law and having read about our six safeguards listed by the Minister for Home Affairs, I am sufficiently convinced that we do have a robust process, to ensure that any decision made by the Minister to detain a person without trial, is carefully scrutinised and assessed.
In particular, I am of the view that having the consent of the public prosecutor before the making of a detention order is an important requirement. The Public Prosecutor, who is also the Attorney-General, enjoys security of tenure under the Constitution, and the public prosecutor is free to disagree with the Police, or even a Minister, and still enjoys the security of tenure.
The next safeguard is having sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore chair the advisory committee, and that is another key factor that persuaded me, that any person detained under this law, where the sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is a strong basis for the detention order. We are having the best judicial minds, reviewing the Minister's basis for the detention or supervision order, and challenging the decision of the Police in requesting for such detention or supervision order.
And these orders will be reviewed annually, by different advisory committees, which will be chaired by different Supreme Court Judges. And the final safeguard that I am satisfied with is the fact that Parliament has to review the necessity of this law every five years, due to the expiry date or the sunset clause of this law.
Sir, I await to hear the justifications to be given by the Minister for Home Affairs for the extension of this law for the 15th occasion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the enactment of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1955, it has proven itself essential and effective in empowering the Police to act against crime syndicates and secret societies. The prosecution of their cases is challenging, due to reasons, such as reluctant witnesses.
In fact, I believe a lot of my Parliamentary colleagues in this House would have similar experiences with their residents, who are willing to provide information, but request to not disclose their identity, out of fear and for their safety.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
In the interests of good public order, safety and security, this legal instrument must be availed to our Police force. The extension has become even more necessary in view of recent developments. The INTERPOL has been warning all its member countries about the urgent need to combat the scourge of organised crime, which is \"at risk of spreading at an epidemic level\". Crime syndicates are forming alliances across borders and developing into international groups. The offences spelled out in the Act – drug trafficking, kidnapping, organised crime, unlicensed moneylending and secret society activities – in fact, are among the most common crimes committed by such syndicates.
Our zero tolerance of such criminal activities, and our commitment to eradicating them, have made us one of the safest countries in the world. In fact, as shared by my colleague, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, he had mentioned that we are one of the safest countries in Asia. Last year, the GPI ranked Singapore the sixth safest country globally. Our dedication to public safety has allowed Singaporeans and residents to live in a secure environment and enabled us to attract investors, tourists and event organisers. In fact, some of my residents and friends who visit Singapore, have told me that they feel secure, even when their children wake up early in the morning and wait for the school bus at the bus stop by themselves. This is something that we feel very proud of.
A survey by YouGov, reported in January last year, found that our Government's performance in the category of law and order was the most highly rated, with 77% giving the assessment of \"good\" or \"excellent\". It is a delicate balance, I agree, to strike between upholding individual rights and enhancing societal safety and security. Our criminal justice system seeks to balance the interests and protection of the individual, with the welfare of the general community.
I am satisfied that the safeguards put in place are sufficient, as mentioned by my fellow Parliamentary colleagues, including the requirement of the public prosecutor's consent before any DO or PSO is introduced. Detainees are informed of the grounds of their detention and have access to legal counsel. Furthermore, the DO and PSO must also be reviewed by an independent committee. The present system of periodic review by an advisory committee with assessments by professionals has, in fact, been working well.
Sir, as an open economy and an international hub, Singapore must maintain the highest levels of law and order, not just for the protection of our people and our guests, but also as a basic requirement for our nation to survive and thrive in this competitive and increasingly perilous and volatile world. I wholeheartedly support the extension of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for another five more years.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments, suggestions and strong support for the Bill. Please allow me to address some points they have raised.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if we still require the Act for the maintenance of law and order in today's Singapore, given that crimes involving drugs, unlicensed moneylending and secret societies are now under control. I have explained this in my opening speech. The Act has been an integral part of our arsenal and complements our existing laws. We must not be complacent, even if the secret society situation in Singapore is under control.
Mr Lim also asked about other countries in the world which have topped the Global Peace Index and wondered if they have similar legislation as ours. I must emphasise that our laws are unique to our background and our circumstances. I have explained how the powers under the Act came about, and how the Act has served us well in maintaining public safety, peace and good order. We have studied the gang situation in other countries that do not have a similar legislation.
For instance, New Zealand continues to be plagued by gangs and gang-related crimes. The Economist reported that New Zealand had one of the world's highest gang membership rates in 2018. New Zealand has also seen a 75% increase in the number of youths aged from 18 to 25 years old, joining gangs between 2017 and 2022.
Without the Act, we face a real risk of an uncontrolled gang situation and a rise in violent and other serious crimes. We cannot afford to have this in Singapore.
Mr Dennis Tan has asked for various statistics on how the Act has been used in the past. MHA does not generally release information about the use of the Act as we need to balance the call for transparency against the need to prevent prejudice to investigations and to keep witnesses safe. That said, the Singapore Prisons Service (SPS) publishes statistics on detainees annually and I would refer Mr Tan to those annual statistics.
I have also stated, in my opening speech, that 123 persons were dealt with under the Act from 21 October 2019 to 31 December 2023. This comprised 86 DOs and 37 PSOs. There are currently no detainees who have been detained for more than 10 years.
Mr Tan also asked about the use of technology in Police enforcement methods. In this regard, the use of Police cameras has greatly assisted the Police's enforcement efforts, especially in unlicensed moneylending cases. The Police will continue to leverage technology as a key strategy in its enforcement approach. However, as we have emphasised, the Act is an instrument of last resort.
Mr Murali Pillai and Assoc Prof Razwana raised concerns on the involvement of youths in secret societies and asked if the Police could take more preventive measures. Mr Murali also asked if powers of detention could be used on recruiters of secret society members, who are not personally involved in violent activities.
I will first say that we share the same concerns about youths' involvement in gangs and agree that their recruitment into secret societies must be taken seriously. The Police adopts a two-pronged strategy of enforcement and prevention to address the problem of street gangs, particularly among youths. Besides taking firm enforcement actions, Police routinely conduct community outreach programmes and work with key partners to implement a range of diversionary and rehabilitative initiatives to educate the public on the dangers of joining gangs; and to discourage, deter and detect youth involvement in gangs. Some of these partners include other Government agencies, such as MSF, MOE and Social Service Agencies such as Family Service Centres. The Police's educational efforts include organising talks at schools, arranging prison visits for wayward youths, their parents and guardians and promoting programmes, like the Streetwise Programme. We hope that these programmes will raise awareness and prevent youths from becoming involved in gang activities.
When it comes to enforcement, the Ministry views recruitment of youths into gangs as particularly aggravating as this perpetuates the gangland lawlessness, while corrupting our youths. DOs have been and will continue to be issued against recruiters.
I will now address questions raised by Members relating to the operational aspects of the Act.
Mr Ng asked about the nature of obligations imposed on a supervisee, who is under a PSO. The obligations that Minister may impose can be found in Rule 3 of the Criminal Law (Obligations on Person Subject to Supervision) Rules 2018. These obligations include requiring the supervisee to reside at a specified place, curfews; restrictions on where a supervisee may enter, restrictions on who the supervisee may communicate with, amongst others. The Rules were made in December 2018. We review the Rules and obligations from time to time, to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.
Mr Ng also raised a few queries concerning the second and third types of Advisory Committees that review detention cases at least annually. These two Advisory Committees comprise senior lawyers and prominent private citizens with extensive relevant experience and knowledge in areas, such as the criminal justice system and rehabilitation of ex-convicts.
As to Mr Ng's question on what support is provided to these two Advisory Committees to aid them in reviewing existing DOs, they have access to all relevant information including: first, the nature and gravity of offences committed; second, the detainee’s criminal antecedents; third, the detainee's conduct and response towards Prisons' rehabilitation programme; fourth, the detainee’s likelihood of re-offending and continuing to pose a threat to safety and security; and last, the detainee's re-integration plans.
As Mr Gan Thiam Poh has rightly pointed out, this system of Advisory Committees being supported by professionals has worked well.
Mr Ng also asked whether these two Advisory Committees have exercised their powers under section 40 of the Act to summon and examine a witness, or to compel the production of documents. The Advisory Committees assess each case on its own merits, and exercise their powers under section 40 of the Act to summon and examine a witness, if they deem it necessary.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested additional safeguards to the Act. We note all that he said. The current safeguards are carefully considered and we have explained several times why this structure works for us. We have explained why MHA, acting with the Minister and with the advisory structures, is the best structure and has kept law and order. It seems that they are not able to point to any abuse of the system – Singapore is ranked number one in law and order.
I think what is key, is let us stop pursuing theory and just ask whether it has worked or has not worked for us. If it has worked and there are no obvious flaws then we must ask, what we are trying to change.
On the issue of the President: the responsibility for law and order lies with the Government, not the President. The President is there in specific respects, as identified in the Constitution. Beyond that, the President has no executive power, and if something goes wrong with law and order, it is the Government that is accountable to the people. We have an Executive that answers to Parliament. In specific circumstances, the President has powers to veto, but law and order is an Executive responsibility, not the President's responsibility. Therefore, we did not agree with this suggestion.
As for Mr Leong's question, as to whether the Public Defender's Office will extend aid to detainees, detainees are currently not assigned counsel by the state. However, they may choose to be represented by any lawyer of their choice or seek pro bono representation under schemes that may be available to them.
I now turn to Mr Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana's queries regarding the rehabilitative aspects of the detention regime, in particular, the programmes that are in place for detainees while in Prison. Detainees are housed in the various institutions in Changi Prison Complex, based on their security risks and rehabilitative needs.
Prison works closely with every detainee to understand each detainee's rehabilitative needs, before placing them on programmes to target specific behavioural and offending needs. Prison engages different agencies to provide a range of programmes to detainees. For instance, Prison collaborates with Yellow Ribbon Singapore to provide detainees with work opportunities. Detainees are also given access to vocational training, religious counselling and education. Where required, detainees undergo the gang renunciation programme or psychological-based correctional programmes to increase their self-awareness and equip them with pro-social skills to change their offending ways.
Family support is also important in a detainee's rehabilitation journey. As such, detainees are encouraged to maintain a close relationship with their family members through letters and visits. Prison also engages specialised family services agencies to deliver structured family programmes that seek to address transitional issues for detainees and their families, with the view of helping detainees build skills and confidence to maintain ties and build stronger relationships with their family members.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked about the recidivism rate of detainees, as compared to that of the general prison population. With respect, it is not meaningful to make such a comparison, as the two regimes are complementary to each other. For instance, an individual may be detained on one occasion and be prosecuted in Court for other offences. The point I want to make is that Prison takes the rehabilitation of every detainee seriously – each detainee undergoes programmes customised to his profile and needs.
I now turn to the final issue, as raised by Mr Murali. He also asked about the relevance of Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Act; and whether these provisions should be ported over to other legislation. MHA is certainly cognisant that the Act consists of these provisions and had, in the course of preparing for this Bill, satisfied ourselves that they remain relevant and necessary. We will continue to review these provisions and propose changes, if necessary.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, for the reasons encompassed in both my speeches, the renewal of the Act is necessary and the Act remains relevant today.
And I want to also mention about a quote, where Mr Dennis Tan has quoted the Minister for Home Affairs in 1989, and has asked when the Government would be ready to do away with the Act. Mr Leong Mun Wai also touched on this. We have to recognise that each time the Act comes up for renewal, we must allow the Government of the day to consider the circumstances and current conditions; and come to the assessment of what is in the best interest of Singapore. We should not bind future governments in its assessment.
The powers under the Act will ensure the continued safeguard of the public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. Once again, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there clarifications? Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister of State for his answers to my questions. I think the Minister of State actually mentioned that some of these information that I have sought, he said that it is not available. This Act puts the Members of the House in a very special position to come together every five years to debate and decide on the extension. So, can I humbly request that the Ministry consider providing such information on a confidential basis, just to the Members of the House, for the purpose of the debate?
Number two, just one more clarification. I believe I did ask for the Minister of State to clarify, whether in the past five years, whether there have been instances where the Public Prosecutor withheld consent or raised concerns when the Ministry sought to make an order. Is the Minister of State able to address this question?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Like what I shared earlier, on why we are not able to share the details, I am not sure whether Member is aware, but the issue of gangs, secret societies, transnational crime is something that is very complex and deep. So, we need to be very careful about what we share. But I want to assure the Member that we have Singapore's interest at heart. So, it is something that I want to assure Members about.
And we have shared information. We have shared information with the public, as I shared during the SPS Annual Reports. So, that is one.
The other aspect is about whether the Public Prosecutor has had reservation or some differences of opinion. Like what I shared earlier, it is a process where we put up to the different Advisory Committee as well as the Prosecutor, and it is a process; upon which the Prosecutor may ask us for further details and clarification, which we have done so in the past.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his replies to my questions. I have a few further clarifications to make. In principle, PSP would like to support the Bill if our recommended safeguards are adopted.
Can I ask the Minister of State whether our safeguards are really out of the ordinary? Because, for example, when we asked for the condition, or the requirement, that a sitting judge be part of the Advisory Committee and this condition to be codified in the Act, this is something that the Government is currently already practicing, as what the Minister of State has said and what I have read about the Bill recently. It is already something being practised, so what is the problem of codifying it in the Act itself?
My second question is, putting in another requirement for this Bill that the President can act in his discretion is something that is also under the ISA, which carries the same draconian power to detain an individual without trial. So, since the ISA also has this condition, that the President can act in his discretion, why can this condition not be also put into this CLTPA Bill?
Those are the clarifications I am seeking.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I maintain my stand and the reply that I have given to Mr Leong. And I want to share with Mr Leong, when I say that the system has worked, actually the system has really worked. I work very closely with the inmates and some of them are also under the CLTPA. I could see that not only when they were detained but also the processes that they went through. Some of them, their family members wrote to me, and I met the family members and I assured the family members that they would have the reviews done annually. Some of them I met when they were released and the family members also shared with me, that some have transformed their lives. They shared that the whole process actually helped them.
While no one likes our loved ones to be detained, nevertheless, Singapore's safety and security is of utmost importance. Some of them even said that without this intervention, they would not be what they are today.
So, as I shared earlier in my reply, it has worked well. We would welcome any suggestions that you have given. We will look at them, but I think what is key is that we want to look not only after Singaporeans. We want to look after our country and we want to help those who are affected to get the right rehabilitation and reintegration journey. We want to help them. We do not want to just change for something that is very theoretical. If we do not have something that has worked well, I think it is fine. But based on my ground experience, my engagement inside the prison, even outside when they are released, I feel it has worked well, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I have two questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, if you look at the CLTPA, there is an annual review process. Is it true that these detainees, especially for the first detention, they are only released three to four years after the first detention? Whether this is true based on past practice?
Second question, if you look at the CLTPA, there are five big parts. One big chunk of Part 3 involves industrial actions by essential service workers. I just want to check in with the Minister of State whether MHA had reviewed this and see whether it is relevant in today's context, especially Part 1 of the Schedule.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. One is about the detention. As I shared earlier, there will be annual reviews, there is no minimum period. There will be opportunities for the Committees to assess these detainees based on the criminal activities in question, the detainees' antecedents, the detainees' conduct and response to the programmes.
We not only look from the outward response. We have a system where we really observe. For gang-related cases, some of the symptoms you cannot see physically, you need to sense, when you talk to them and when you see how they relate to the others, and you will have to monitor some of these things. So, it is very case specific, detainee specific. However, we feel that we will not detain anyone beyond what is not necessary.
With regard to your second question, as I replied to Mr Murali earlier, we will continue to review these provisions and propose changes, if necessary. These are things that we will continue to look at.
Mr Speaker: Are there any further clarifications for Minister of State Faishal? I do not see any.
[(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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim]. (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":"Visit of Mr Gérald Darmanin, Minister of the Interior of France","subTitle":"Presence in Gallery","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House, I want to acknowledge the presence of the French Minister of the Interior and his delegation, who are sitting in the gallery. Welcome to our Parliament. [Applause.]
Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 4.24 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Public Consultation on Singapore's Updated Nationally Determined Contributions for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry intends to conduct a public consultation on Singapore's new or updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) which outlines Singapore's efforts in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, that will be due under the Paris Agreement in 2025; and (b) whether this will be done in time for the submission of the updated NDC at least 9 to 12 months in advance of the relevant Conference of Parties.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore is committed to fulfilling our international obligations under the Paris Agreement to contribute to global climate action.
After submitting our initial 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), in 2019, we recently raised our climate ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in October 2022. We also pledged to reduce emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier. Agencies are working towards these targets.
The Government is concurrently developing Singapore's 2035 NDC, including plans to consult stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Cost of Hosting 2026 Commonwealth Games by Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the projected cost of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games by Singapore; (b) whether Singapore will consider hosting the 2030 Commonwealth Games if it does not host the 2026 edition; and (c) whether the results of the feasibility study to host the 2026 Games will be made public.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: At last November's Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) General Assembly, the CGF invited all Commonwealth Games Associations, including Singapore, to express interest in hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games.
We have since studied the feasibility of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games and have decided not to make any bid to host the Games. Should we receive future invitations to express interest in hosting the Commonwealth Games, we can consider doing so based on the circumstances at that point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of More Private Sector Clinics in Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) given the long waiting time for subsidised intervention for special needs children, whether the Ministry will consider engaging more private sector clinics to participate in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC); (b) whether the application process for EIPIC can begin at polyclinics before a paediatrician's formal diagnosis; (c) what means testing will be carried out to determine eligibility; and (d) whether placements will be based on severity of condition or on a first-come, first-served basis.\n\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children with developmental needs are assessed by a paediatrician, to determine the level of Early Intervention (EI) support each child requires. Only children assessed to require medium to high levels of EI support are referred to Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) or EIPIC-P.
Currently, there are 29 EIPIC-P centres providing a total of 1,600 places, up from 16 centres providing 400 places in 2021. As announced at MSF's Committee of Supply debate, ECDA will be adding 1,500 new spaces in EIPIC and EIPIC-P in 2024. Once a referral is made, placement is generally on a first-come-first-serve basis. However, EI centres will prioritise placement for older children aged five to six years old to allow at least one year of intervention before the child transits to mainstream or special education (SPED) schools.
Means-testing is not used to assess eligibility, but to determine the out-of-pocket fees payable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Racial Groups of Families in Public Rental Flats who Became HDB Flat Owners from 2014 to 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the breakdown by race of the 8,300 families in public rental flats who became HDB flat owners from 2014 to 2023; and (b) what is the number of Malay households living in one-bedroom and two-bedroom rental flats in 2023, and how does this number compare with the number in 2020.\n
Mr Desmond Lee: As at December 2023, there were about 18,300 Malay households living in one- and two-room public rental flats. Compared to 2020, the proportion of Malay households in public rental remains similar at about 35%.
About 8,300 public rental households progressed to home ownership in the last 10 years. 44% of them were Chinese households, 39% were Malay households, 15% were Indian households and the remaining 2% were households of other races.
We will continue to work closely with MSF, other social agencies and community partners, to uplift public rental households. By pairing rental housing with holistic social support, we aim to support each family to achieve stability, self-reliance and ultimately social mobility as they journey towards home ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Ban on Remote Electric Shock Collars for Animals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether a ban of remote electric shock collars is being considered in the guidelines to be released by NParks on the risks of using aversive animal training devices.
Mr Desmond Lee: The guidelines that the National Parks Board (NParks) will be releasing on aversive animal training devices, including electric shock collars, are meant to highlight the risks of using such devices and recommend good training practices to be adopted by the community. As such, the guidelines will not impose any restrictions on the use of such devices.
Following the release of the guidelines, NParks will continue to monitor the situation before deciding if further measures are needed. Notwithstanding this, NParks will continue to investigate and take enforcement action in cases where animal training devices cause unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and to raise awareness on the least intrusive, minimally aversive approach to animal training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB's Considerations for Housing Loan Applications and Loan Quantums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are HDB's main considerations when approving housing loan applications and loan quantum; (b) whether the applicant’s eligibility for a housing loan and the credit assessment to determine the maximum loan amount is based on the financial position of the applicants at the time of the application for a HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter; and (c) whether HDB will take into consideration updated information provided after the date of the HFE application such as information showing an increase in earnings.
Mr Desmond Lee: In assessing the Housing & Development Board (HDB) housing loan applications, HDB considers various factors, such as job stability, Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions and monthly cash savings. In computing the eligible loan amount, HDB applies a set of mortgage financing guidelines, such as a maximum loan tenure of 25 years, loan-to-value limit of 80%, maximum Mortgage Servicing Ratio (MSR) of 30% and interest rate floor of 3.0% per annum to ensure prudent borrowing.
Since May 2023, flat buyers are required to apply for an HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter, which provides a holistic understanding and assessment of their housing and financing options before they commence their home-buying journey. The HFE letter informs flat buyers upfront of their eligibility for a new or resale flat purchase, CPF housing grants and HDB housing loan, including the respective grant and loan amounts. Previously, some applicants may have applied for a BTO flat during HDB's sales exercise, only to find out later that they were not eligible for a loan to buy an HDB flat. In addition, as housing grant eligibility was previously assessed after flat booking, some applicants may also have had to abort their applications, after finding out that they would not have sufficient grants to support their purchase. The HFE letter thus offers upfront clarity to flat applicants on the amount of loan and grants that they are eligible for, so that they can work out their housing budget and plan their flat purchase accordingly. It also makes it more convenient for them by not requiring the submission of documents at multiple stages of the flat application process.
For flat buyers taking up an HDB housing loan, the maximum loan amount is based on their average monthly incomes over an assessment period of 12 months, at the time of their HFE letter application. This allows for a more consistent assessment of applicants' income levels, especially for those whose incomes fluctuate from month to month.
If a larger loan is required due to subsequent changes in applicants' circumstances, any reassessment will affect the other application parameters as well. For example, both the housing loan and grant amounts may change as the household income of the applicants changes. This is why income and grant assessments need to be done at the same point of time, so that the assessment is done objectively and fairly. Couples who fulfil the eligibility conditions for deferred income assessment may have their income assessed nearer to their key collection appointment for both the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and HDB housing loan. They may also benefit from the Staggered Downpayment Scheme where the initial downpayment payable when they sign the Agreement for Lease is reduced to 2.5% of the flat price.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age-appropriate Financial Literacy Programmes in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) amongst the schools that currently have financial literacy programmes, how many are (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools, respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider developing age-appropriate content for financial literacy to be taught in all schools starting from upper primary levels.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students in all primary and secondary schools learn financial literacy through age-appropriate and relevant concepts and content which are infused into various subjects. For example, primary school students are taught basic concepts, such as differentiating between needs and wants, spending within their means, as well as the value of thrift and accumulating savings, through Character and Citizenship Education lessons. In secondary schools, students learn about simple financial planning and responsible use of credit.
To complement the Ministry of Education's financial literacy curriculum, students also take part in programmes and outreach activities organised by MoneySense, our national financial education programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for When to Press Charges for Ill-treatment of Young Persons by Causing Emotional Harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the factors taken into consideration when deciding on whether or not to press charges for ill-treatment of a child or young person by causing emotional harm as defined under sections 6(3)(b)(ii) and 6(3)(c)(ii) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993; and (b) whether the Ministry is able to share any past case studies to illustrate the above.
Mr K Shanmugam: The responsibility and discretion for deciding whether to charge a person and, if so, which offence provision to use, lies with the Public Prosecutor. In making such decisions, the Public Prosecutor may consider several factors, in particular whether there is evidence of emotional harm as defined by the Children and Young Persons Act 1993. Whether the evidence is sufficient depends in turn on a variety of other factors, including the child or young person's ability and willingness to be interviewed, the availability of medical and psychological evidence and the availability of corroborative evidence, for example, from the school at which the child was studying or other observers.
The Ministry does not have any past case to share.
28 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what were the circumstances that led to the omission of a sentence in the electronic Lasting Power of Attorney document which was discovered in October 2023; (b) how did the Ministry discover the omission; (c) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential loss or harm suffered by donees and donors as a result of this omission; and (d) what steps are being taken to ensure that such an omission does not take place again.
29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) why was the omission of the sentence as required by law in the electronic Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) document not discovered prior to October 2023; (b) what are the legal implications for such LPA documents without the required sentence; (c) whether there are process checks such as proofreading, vetting or end-user experience validation when such key documentary processes are digitalised; and (d) if so, whether such process checks are conducted by legally trained or laypersons.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document which confers powers enabling a Donee to decide on the Donor's personal welfare, property and other affairs, if the Donor loses mental capacity. In the vast majority of cases, the property, such as a Housing & Development Board flat, a private condominium apartment or a landed property, is registered under Land Titles Act. To transfer ownership of such a property, there is no need for a deed. However, for property not registered under the Land Titles Act, transfer of ownership must be made by way of a deed. Hence, an LPA is executed as a deed, so that irrespective of the type of property, the Donee has the power to make the necessary transactions for the benefit of the Donor.
Prior to the roll out of the electronic LPA system in 2022, LPAs were made through hardcopy forms. In the hardcopy form, the signature box where the Donor physically signs contains the statement \"signed (or marked) and delivered as a deed by Donor\". Section 12A(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act is intended to replicate this for electronic LPAs and specifies that the electronic record must clearly state on its face that it is intended to be a deed.
Unfortunately, the electronic LPA, unlike the hardcopy form, did not contain this required statement. MSF apologises for this omission and for any inconvenience that this may have caused. We have revised the electronic form so that electronic LPAs made on or after 5 Jan 2024 include the required statement and have initiated the necessary legislative procedures to retroactively validate the affected LPAs.
MSF has an internal proofreading and vetting process. The forms were prepared by the staff of the Office of the Public Guardian and was vetted by the Public Guardian, as well as by a separate Legal Unit. Unfortunately, no system of process checks can be 100% accurate, as this case shows. In fact, the electronic LPA forms go through various parties, including certificate issuers who are people familiar with the hardcopy forms, such as lawyers or doctors. Despite this, it took nearly a year before a member of public noticed the difference and wrote in to enquire.
For the approximately 87,000 electronic LPAs made between 14 November 2022 and 4 January 2024, there is some uncertainty as to whether the LPAs were validly made. Hardcopy LPAs are not affected by this omission. MSF is not aware of any actual harm suffered by Donees or Donors. We are also not aware of any challenge to the exercise of those powers by third parties. The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill that was passed in Parliament on 2 Apr 2024 will remove any future potential complications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Joint Site Inspections before Handover of Duties for Maintenance of HDB Blocks' Parking and Common Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether an agreement for the maintenance of parking spaces and common property of HDB residential blocks mandate joint site inspections to be conducted by both HDB and the relevant Town Council prior to a handover; and (b) whether there are instances where the maintenance of a HDB parking space or residential block by a Town Council had commenced without a joint inspection first being conducted.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Town Councils Act, Town Councils (TCs) are responsible for managing and maintaining the Housing & Development Board (HDB) common property. Prior to the completion of HDB residential blocks, HDB will brief the TC on key handover details, before conducting a joint inspection of the common property. This joint inspection by HDB and the TC is done prior to the commencement date upon which the TC will take over the maintenance of the common property. The purpose of the joint inspection is to identify defects and address issues raised by the TC.
HDB car parks are not common property. TCs maintain HDB car parks on behalf of HDB under Maintenance Agreements between HDB and the TCs. Under these agreements, TCs carry out routine maintenance work, keep HDB car parks in a state of good and serviceable repair and maintain them in a clean and proper condition. HDB will initiate a joint inspection with the relevant TC when a car park is completed and opened for public use. The purpose of the joint inspection is primarily to identify any defects for rectification by the building contractor. After the joint inspection, the inspection form will be endorsed by both HDB and the TC.
There are instances where car parks were opened in phases, to allow residents who have started moving in to use the car parks as soon as possible. These car parks were progressively handed over to the TCs in phases and joint inspections were held prior to the final phase of opening. We have stated in a previous reply in October 2023 that in such instances, it may not be practical to carry out joint inspections for every phase of opening. This is because contractors' workers would still be going in and out of the car park due to ongoing works in other parts of the car park, and it would be more practical to carry out the final inspection at the end so that contractors' defect liability is clearly laid out. The TCs are also informed upfront to note any defects that they discover after they take over and to provide the details of the defects to HDB.
HDB will continue to work closely with the TCs to ensure smooth handovers for HDB developments and refine the handover process where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revival of Annual Competitions or Festivals for Urban and Built Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there have been any recent similar initiatives to the Urban Planning Festival held annually by the Urban Redevelopment Authority between 2016 and 2019; and (b) whether there are any plans to revive the annual Challenge for the Urban and Built Environment workshop and competition.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) organises a slate of initiatives to engage youths on urban planning, including experiential learning workshops, career forums, as well as youth-specific engagements on the Long-Term Plan and Draft Master Plan. These initiatives have replaced the Urban Planning Festival, which was cancelled in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The annual Challenge for the Urban and Built Environment (CUBE) is held around November each year. The 2023 edition of CUBE brought together 140 participants from 18 schools to re-imagine the future of the former Jurong Bird Park site.
More information on URA's youth programmes can be found on URA's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Lifts at Pedestrian Overhead Bridge along Sengkang East Drive and Installing Lifts at More Bridges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether site feasibility studies conducted on the installation of lifts at the Pedestrian Overhead Bridge (POB 60020) along Sengkang East Drive suggest that it is technically feasible to install such lifts; (b) which other Government agencies are required to approve such an installation and what are the deadlines given for such approvals; and (c) what is the estimated timeline for the tender and completion of the construction of the lifts.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the current phase of the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) lift retrofitting programme, LTA will be prioritising the retrofitting of \tPedestrian Overhead Bridges (POBs) with lifts at locations that will benefit a larger number of seniors, including this POB at Sengkang East Drive.
It takes up to 22 months to retrofit a POB to include lifts. LTA will need to seek approvals from agencies, such as the Building and Construction Authority, the National Environment Agency, The National Parks Board, the Public Utilities Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority, before commencing works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maximum Allowable Interest Rates and Late Payment Fees for Bank and Non-bank Financial Institution Loans in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there are maximum (i) interest rates for secured and unsecured loans and (ii) late payment fees, that banks and non-bank financial institutions can charge individuals in Singapore; (b) if so, what are such rates and fees respectively; and (c) if not, whether MAS will consider introducing such maximum limits.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Interest rates and fees charged by financial institutions (FIs) on consumer loans are commercial decisions by FIs, which are influenced by market competition, prevailing market interest rates, and the risks and costs of lending.
Borrowers should carefully assess loan terms and conditions, including the pricing of the loans to ensure that they can afford the loans. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects FIs to deal fairly with and disclose key information to their customers about the costs and fees associated with their loans.
For credit cards and other unsecured credit facilities, late payment fees and interest charges are the most significant potential charges. MAS requires FIs to disclose these charges clearly and conspicuously in customers' statements, including how they are computed. Where a customer has not paid the prior month's bill in full, the bank is required to provide in the current month's statement a projection of the total amount he would incur, including principal, interest, fees and charges; and the length of time that the customer will take to fully pay off the entire outstanding balance if he only makes the minimum payment and where no new transactions are made.
For property loans, FIs must provide borrowers with a fact sheet highlighting the key features of the loan, including possible fees and penalties. FIs must also provide details on the interest rates charged and explain, where applicable, how a borrower’s monthly mortgage instalments would change where reference rates vary.
More generally, the Association of Banks in Singapore's Code of Consumer Banking Practice specifies when and how banks should communicate to customers relevant information on a broader range of principal terms and conditions, including annual fees, repayment grace periods and interest rates.
Our national financial education programme, MoneySense, has been reminding consumers through its website and social media posts on the responsible use of credit. The main messages are for consumers to spend within their means and to pay down any high interest-bearing debt. MoneySense also regularly educates the public on assessing the affordability of a property as well as how mortgage loans work.
With transparent fees and charges, coupled with financial literacy, consumers will be better equipped to make decisions that align with their financial goals and select products that best suit their needs. These measures complement other MAS requirements on FIs to mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness, which we have highlighted in previous Parliamentary Queries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing CDC Voucher Impact and Potential Reforms Based on Equity and Individual Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view that Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers are currently issued on a per household basis (a) whether the Ministry has studied the effect of this policy affecting those who live with extended family members or sublet from main tenants; (b) whether there has been any evidence that citizens who may have greater need for such vouchers are excluded from them; and (c) whether the Ministry has explored issuing CDC vouchers on an individual basis.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of Finance responded to a similar question from Member of Parliament Mr Yip Hon Weng on 7 February 2024. As mentioned in that reply, we have other schemes that provide help on an individual basis and would therefore ensure more support for larger households. [Please refer to \"Reviewing CDC Vouchers Scheme to Support Larger Households Based on Household Size\", Official Report, 7 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 122, Written Answers to Questions section.]
In addition, Singaporean households residing in co-tenanted arrangements are not disadvantaged. Such households who have not claimed their CDC Vouchers can approach their closest Community Centre for assistance and provide documents, such as a tenancy agreement, to show that they are from separate households.
The Government will continue to regularly review how our measures can better support Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Rehabilitation Efforts for Self-Radicalised Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on rehabilitation efforts for those who are self-radicalised.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Internal Security Department (ISD) dealt with the first case of self-radicalisation under the Internal Security Act in 2007. To date, 60 self-radicalised individuals – including 48 Singaporeans – have been detained or issued with Restriction Orders (ROs).
ISD adopts a comprehensive approach in the rehabilitation of these detainees and RO supervisees.
a.\tVolunteers from the Religious Rehabilitation Group provide them with proper religious teachings and interpretations, to counter the radical ideology to which they had been exposed.
b.\tISD psychologists engage them to address other factors that contributed to their radicalisation, such as their propensity for hatred and violence.
c.\tThey are also given social support to aid their eventual reintegration into society. For example, their families are provided support through the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group's network of community welfare organisations.
These efforts have led to a high rehabilitation success rate. Of the 30 self-radicalised Singaporean detainees, 23 have been released to-date. Of the 18 self-radicalised Singaporeans who were issued with ROs, the ROs of 14 of them had been allowed to lapse.
ISD has been refining its rehabilitation approach in view of the increase in number of self-radicalised youths in recent years. Apart from correcting the radical ideology they had imbibed, ISD also looks into other factors, such as their lack of critical thinking skills and mental resilience to cope with life stressors. A mentoring programme has also been introduced for them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Measures to Curb Recreational Drug Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the measures to curb recreational drug abuse.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may wish to refer to the update provided at the recent Committee of Supply debate. [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)\", Official Report, 29 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 127, Budget section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigation into Falsely Inflated Circulation Numbers at Singapore Press Holdings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether an update can be provided on the investigation into the individuals involved in falsely inflating circulation numbers at Singapore Press Holdings.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police's investigations are ongoing and they are unable to comment at this point of time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Human Trafficking Situation in Singapore and Measures to Deter Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the human trafficking situation in Singapore including labour trafficking and sex trafficking; and (b) what further steps are being taken to deter such offences.
7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the measures that have been taken to identify and apprehend the masterminds behind human trafficking in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have put in place measures at the border to try to detect human trafficking activity.
The various agencies also work with community partners, such as non-governmental organisations, to raise awareness of human trafficking and the available reporting channels.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) regularly conduct enforcement checks in areas where victims of human trafficking may be operating. Frontline officers undergo training on anti-trafficking laws and human trafficking indicators, so that they can effectively detect and respond to human trafficking cases.
The human trafficking situation in Singapore is under control. In the past five years, MOM and SPF have investigated 129 cases where signs of human trafficking were detected. Two cases were found to be substantiated and prosecuted under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act (PHTA). One case was eventually convicted under the PHTA and the other case under the Women's Charter. The investigations did not find evidence of organised crime in these cases.
8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year in the past five years, how many babies are born to mothers who are (i) below 14 years old (ii) above 14 years old but below 16 years old and (iii) above 16 years old but below 20 years old.
Mr K Shanmugam: The data requested by the Member for 2018 to 2022 is in Table 1 below. Figures for 2023 are not available yet.
9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he has any information on the reasons for the increase in suicides among persons aged 60 and above; and (b) how many of these suicides are linked to debt from gambling, medical fees or living expenses.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs does not track the reasons for suicides.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Overpayment Instances to Ministry Staff via VITAL's Payroll and Claims Services Over Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last three years, how many instances of overpayment to the Ministry's staff made through VITAL’s payroll and claims services have been detected; (b) how many individuals have been affected; (c) what has been the total amount of overpayments made; (d) what have been the smallest and largest amounts of overpayments detected; and (e) how much has been recovered to date.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the public sector, staff are paid a full month's salary and allowances in advance (pay day is 12th of every month). Overpayment occurs when the staff did not work for the full month. Overpayment can also happen when exited staff have not repaid liquidated damages due to not fulfilling their training or scholarship bonds, or if they have incurred medical expenses at public hospitals or polyclinics that are billed to the Government first and to be offset from the staff's salary later.
Any overpayment to staff is recovered from their next or subsequent payroll via the HR & Payroll System (HRPS). For staff who have left us or are on no-pay leave, the Ministry of Home Affairs engages VITAL to recover the overpayments. The number of overpayment cases for which VITAL was engaged in the last three years is in Table 1 below.
The total number of staff affected is 1,985 and some staff have more than one case of overpayment. The total amount of overpayment is $3,466,544.43, ranging from $0.01 (lowest) to $238,522.41 (highest) for each case. The highest overpayment amount is due to liquidated damages for not fulfilling the overseas scholarship bond. About 70% of the cases were overpayment involving less than $500. As of 25 March 2024, $1,120,907.48 have been recovered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Continued Availability of Plea Bargains After Published Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) whether plea bargains continue to be offered following the publishing of the Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas; (b) if so, under what circumstances; and (c) whether the Guidelines will recommend a further reduction in sentences where a plea bargain has been offered and agreed upon in exchange for a guilty plea.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas (PG Guidelines) issued by the Sentencing Advisory Panel are intended to encourage accused persons, who wish to plead guilty, to do so early.
The PG Guidelines set out the ranges of reduction in sentence that a Court may consider granting, based on the stage of proceedings at which an accused person pleads guilty. The recommended ranges of reduction set out in the PG Guidelines are set out in broad terms to provide the Court with flexibility and discretion, to calibrate the sentence according to the facts of the case. The Court also retains the discretion to not apply the PG Guidelines in specific cases, if there are good reasons not to do so.
The PG Guidelines are distinct from, and do not affect, the plea bargaining process, which is the process of negotiation that may take place between the Prosecution and the Defence before the accused decides whether to plead guilty.
The Prosecution may extend a plea offer to the Defence as a matter of prosecutorial discretion based on various factors, including the resources which would be saved through a guilty plea, the accused person's co-operation with the investigation and other personal mitigating circumstances.
If the accused person accepts the plea offer and elects to plead guilty, then the Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, may apply the PG Guidelines and grant an appropriate reduction in sentence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Tourism Development Fund on Worker Training and Job Placement and Projected Number of Jobs Created","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each year from 2022 to 2023 (a) what is the number and occupation breakdown of workers trained via the Tourism Development Fund (TDF); (b) what is (i) the number and (ii) proportion of vacancies filled by workers trained under TDF with a breakdown by tourism domains; and (c) what is the projected (i) number and nature of jobs created and (ii) increase in training availability with the recently announced top-up to the Fund.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since 2020, the Training Industry Professionals in Tourism (TIP-iT) fund under the Tourism Development Fund (TDF) has supported the training of over 900 workers in total. These workers were from the Hotels, MICE, Attractions, Travel Agencies and Cruise sectors; and received training in areas, such as sustainability, events management and service delivery. All locals employed by tourism companies are eligible for training support under TIP-iT.
The Singapore Tourism Board will continue to encourage companies to prioritise employee training even as they ramp up operations to keep pace with tourism recovery. The recent TDF top-up will provide more opportunities for tourism firms to support employees for training in areas, such as leadership development, technology, sustainability and partnership building. Other initiatives that support training for the tourism sectors include the Career Conversion Programmes funded by Workforce Singapore (WSG) that train new hires and reskill existing workers, as well as funding support provided by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) for approved courses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Cross-country Collaboration to Construct Pipelines for Transporting Hydrogen Based on Singapore's National Hydrogen Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government is working with neighbouring countries to construct a pipeline for the transportation of hydrogen; (b) whether the pipelines needed for the transportation of such hydrogen can be blended with existing natural gas pipelines; and (c) whether there are plans to construct associated hydrogen storage facilities in Singapore; and (d) if so, what are the target operational dates for such infrastructure to support Singapore's National Hydrogen Strategy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government is studying several potential pathways for Singapore to adopt low-carbon hydrogen. There are no immediate plans to construct hydrogen pipelines or storage facilities at scale in Singapore. Given the technological and commercial uncertainties surrounding the development of a global hydrogen supply chain, we are taking a cautious approach towards hydrogen adoption and will pace our infrastructural investments accordingly. Our current priority is to gain experience in the import, storage, distribution and handling of hydrogen and its carriers, through our ammonia pathfinder project. We expect the pathfinder project to be implemented in 2028.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Capacity and Performance of NEA ePortal Based on E-Appointment Booking for Columbarium Visitors During Qing Ming Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the maximum number of concurrent users that the NEA ePortal can accommodate; (b) whether the number of users has frequently exceeded this maximum capacity when the e-appointment booking for visitors parking at Choa Chu Kang Columbarium and Mandai Columbarium is opened during the Qing Ming period; and (c) whether there are plans to upgrade the NEA ePortal to improve the e-appointment booking process.\n\n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) e-appointment booking system for parking during Qing Ming was upgraded this year to concurrently handle up to 800 applications, double that of last year. Additional applicants would be placed on a queue to await their turn.
The e-appointment booking system experienced some technical issues when it was opened for booking on 4 March 2024. This led to intermittency and longer than expected queue time for some users in the first two hours after booking opened. Thereafter, most users were able to complete their bookings within five minutes. NEA will further improve on the e-appointment system for Qing Ming next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Food Waste Reduction Efforts and Efficiency of Food Waste Treatment and Recycling Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether more can be done to further reduce the amount of food waste generated; and (b) whether the infrastructure and ecosystem to treat and recycle food waste have been efficient so far.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Food waste is one of the three priority waste streams under the Zero Waste Masterplan. We have implemented a range of efforts to holistically reduce the amount of food waste generated and improve the recycling rate for food waste.
First, we have passed regulations under the Resource Sustainability Act to progressively require, from 2024, large commercial and industrial food waste generators, including hotels, shopping malls and food manufacturers, to segregate their food waste for treatment or conversion into useful products and to submit annual food waste reports. The reporting will help raise awareness on the amount of food waste generated and encourage building managers to work with their occupants to reduce food waste.
Second, we are building up our food waste treatment capacity. A Food Waste Treatment Facility (FWTF) is being constructed as part of the upcoming Integrated Waste Management Facility at Tuas Nexus and will serve as an off-site treatment option for owners and operators of premises who segregate their food waste. When the FWTF is operational, the additional biogas produced will boost electricity generation.
Third, in collaboration with industry stakeholders, the National Environment Agency has supported the development of the Singapore Standards on food waste management, as well as published food waste minimisation guidebooks to help the industry reduce food waste across the supply chain. Where there is unsold or excess food that is still suitable for consumption, consumers and food establishments can donate them to food distribution organisations, such as The Food Bank Singapore, Food from the Heart and Willing Hearts.
As some of these measures have only been implemented recently, it is too soon to evaluate their overall efficiency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Psychological Impact and Stress of Instituting Single SEC Examination Sitting for Mother Tongue Language Subjects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has assessed if instituting one written Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) examination sitting for Mother Tongue Language (MTL) subjects will result in additional psychological stress and pressure on students arising from (i) having only one chance to pass MTL examinations instead of two previously and (ii) sitting for the MTL examination together with other subject examinations when they could previously focus on the latter after clearing the former in the middle of the year.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In the last five years, more than 95% of students have met the minimum MTL requirement – that is, at least D7 for O-Level Mother Tongue Language (MTL) – for admission to Junior Colleges (JC) or Millennia Institute (MI) with the mid-year sitting. Any grade improvement for those who took the second sitting only changed the post-Secondary posting outcomes for less than 2% of the cohort who took the O-Level MTL examinations.
Under Full Subject-based Banding, students have greater flexibility to learn MTL at different subject-levels. They can meet the minimum MTL requirement for entry into JC or MI based on their results in G1 or G2 MTL, beyond just G3 or Higher MTL. Students who do not meet the MTL requirement can continue to be granted provisional admission to JC or MI.
With the MTL sitting in September under the SEC examination, schools have given feedback that students will benefit from more curriculum time for MTL learning. Students, in particular, appreciated the spacing out of their examination load with the written papers for MTL and EL scheduled approximately one month ahead of other subjects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Direct School Admission Applications and Success Rates for Gifted Education Programme Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education in the past five years (a) how many students in the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) have applied for Direct School Admission (DSA) into secondary schools; and (b) how many students in GEP have been successful in at least one DSA application.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years, around 200 students on the GEP were admitted to Secondary 1 via the Direct School Admission Exercise for Secondary Schools (DSA-Sec) each year. This is a small proportion of the total student cohort of 3,800 which are admitted via DSA-Sec every year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans for Training of Educators for Children with Special Needs in Pre-schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are any plans to progressively train educators who are able to care for and teach children with special needs and place such educators in all pre-schools.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) is committed to ensuring that children with developmental needs enrolled in preschools are meaningfully engaged and supported. ECDA has therefore embarked on initiatives to enhance the skills and competencies of educators in preschools.
ECDA works with the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) and other training providers to incorporate inclusive practice into the curriculum of early childhood pre-service training courses and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses for in-service EC educators.
Within preschools, children requiring low to medium levels of early intervention (EI) support are also supported via the Development Support – Learning Support (DS-LS) programmes and Inclusive Support Programme (InSP). ECDA has plans to expand the DS-LS to cover 80% of preschoolers aged five to six and scale up the InSP to more preschools. These programmes are delivered at these preschools by a multi-disciplinary team of EI professionals, such as the Learning Support (LS) educators and EI educators as well as Allied Health Professionals.
To enhance capabilities of LS and EI educators, NIEC offers Specialist Diploma programmes to train the educators in administering screening tools and methods of support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for First Assisted Reproductive Treatment Appointment at Public Hospitals in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years, what is the mean and median number of days that couples wait before getting their first appointment for assisted reproductive treatments at public hospitals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The wait time to the first appointment to consult a specialist for assisted reproductive treatment at public hospitals has come down over the last five years. In 2023, the median and mean wait times across the public hospitals were no more than seven and 12 days respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Development of Informed Consent Procedure Guidelines and its Proper Implementation in Treating Mental Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the Ministry ensure that informed consent procedures for the treatment of mental health conditions including whether institutionalisation is needed, are ethical, adaptable and respect patient autonomy while prioritising their well-being; (b) how do informed consent procedures apply in situations where patients are minors or where parents or guardians lack understanding or are the cause of the mental health issues; and (c) whether specific guidelines will be developed for informed consent in mental health care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Consent in medical practice is a shared decision-making process by both the patient and clinician. The clinician provides medical information and the patient exercises his autonomy to make decisions about his treatment. These principles apply to mental health treatment and services.
The Government received feedback that the need for parental consent for children and youths below 21 years old may hinder their access to mental health support. MOH is studying this feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Improve Coverage and to Explore Alternative or Subsidy Models for Affordable Mental Healthcare Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the Government work with the insurance industry to improve coverage for mental healthcare services to ensure patients can access affordable and timely intervention; and (b) whether there are plans to explore alternative financing or subsidy models for mental health care in collaboration with the private sector.\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The answer to part (a) of the question has been addressed in the Circular for Written Answers published on 6 November 2023. [Please refer to \"Mental Health Insurance Coverage\", Official Report, 6 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Government does not fund private hospitals to deliver subsidised care for mental health, as Singaporeans can receive subsidies of up to 80% for mental health services at public hospitals and polyclinics. We will continue to expand the capacity of mental health services in the public hospitals and polyclinics.
In the primary care setting, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation cardholders are eligible for subsidies for mental health conditions – including depression, anxiety, bipolar and schizophrenia – at selected private CHAS General Practitioner (GP) clinics, under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). Individuals may also tap on MediSave to pay for their CDMP treatments at these GP clinics. Today, over 450 GPs in GP clinics are trained to support persons with mental health needs under the Mental Health GP Partnership Programme. We target to make mental health services available at 1,350 Healthier SG GP clinics by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Monthly Payout Claims under CareShield Life and Possible Improvements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the range of monthly payout of claims made under CareShield Life since it was first implemented; and (b) whether the premium-to-claim economics can be further improved.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: CareShield Life (CSHL) payouts started at $600 per month in 2020 and increase by 2% annually until 2025. An individual who makes a successful claim in 2024 will receive monthly payouts of $649 and will not need to make further premium payments for as long as he remains in severe disability.
CSHL is administered by the Government on a not-for-profit basis, with premiums sized based on actuarial principles. An important characteristic to take note of is that the scheme is designed on a lifetime basis, where premiums are frontloaded when someone is young and unlikely to become disabled and claims will most likely happen when the person is old, after which payment of premiums will be suspended. As most of the policyholders are relatively young and many have yet to make claims, it is not appropriate to use the premium-to-claim ratio to assess the pricing and economics of the insurance scheme. An independent CSHL Council will regularly review and recommend changes to premiums and payouts, in accordance with an actuarially sound adjustment framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Costs of HDB Green Towns Programme and its Effects on Service and Conservancy Charges for Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the fixed and recurring costs of each major component of the HDB Green Towns Programme including rooftop solar panels and electric vehicle chargers; and (b) whether residents of these towns bear the costs through higher service and conservancy charges.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing & Development Board (HDB) Green Towns Programme (GTP) is a 10-year plan to make HDB towns more sustainable and liveable by 2030. GTP aims to reduce the energy consumption of HDB towns by 15% from 2020’s level by 2030.
For Solar Photovoltaics (PV) on HDB rooftops, the vendor will finance, install, operate and maintain the solar PV system, at no cost to the Town Councils (TCs). Solar energy generated is first used to power common services in HDB estates, such as lifts and lights. Any excess solar energy will be channeled to the grid. Under this operating model, TCs may be able to reduce their electricity bills as the common services will be partially powered by solar energy.
HDB is also working with the TCs to progressively install Smart LED Lighting in existing estates, which can further reduce energy used by up to 60% compared to conventional LED lighting. TCs will bear the fixed and maintenance costs and the repair or replacement costs for the lighting.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging points are progressively deployed at HDB car parks. EV charging operators bear the installation and maintenance costs of EV chargers, of which these costs are recovered directly from users of the EV chargers and not the TCs.
The GTP initiatives, such as rooftop solar panels and the switch to Smart LED Lighting, not only make our towns more sustainable, but also help to reduce the TCs' electricity bills. The respective TCs are responsible for managing their overall income and expenses and review their service and conservancy charges from time to time to meet long-term financial sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on HDB Blocks with Flats without Same Floor Lift Access and Projected Number of HDB Blocks to be Offered Lift Upgrading Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) since the last update on 4 July 2023, whether the number of HDB blocks with flats which still do not have same floor lift access have decreased; and (b) in each of the next three years, what is the projected number of HDB blocks which will be offered the Lift Upgrading Programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001. Since then, HDB has successfully implemented LUP in more than 5,000 blocks which were originally built without direct lift access. Today, around 99% of all HDB blocks were either built with direct lift access or have benefitted from the LUP.
Amongst the blocks that qualify for LUP, two of them have completed LUP works since 4 July 2023. Works are currently in progress for another 31 blocks and are scheduled for completion progressively over the next three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Censorship Review Committee’s Activities Since 2009 vis-à-vis Changes in Singapore’s Media and Social Landscape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) why has the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) that is to be formed once every decade not been convened since 2009; (b) whether the Government intends to reconvene the CRC in view of rapid changes in Singapore’s media and social landscape; and (c) if so, when.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There is no set time frame to convene a content review committee. The Government takes into consideration Singapore's prevailing media and social landscape in deciding when to convene content regulatory reviews and the appropriate format for such reviews. For example, in the lead up to the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill of 2022, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) conducted extensive engagements, including a public consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, to gather their feedback and suggestions on the proposed measures to enhance online safety.
More recently, to develop the Code of Practice for Online Safety which applies to designated Social Media Services (SMSes), the Infocomm Media Development Authority also consulted various stakeholders, including the designated SMSes, to gather feedback before finalising the Code.
On specific content, policies and standards, we also continue to consult a range of advisory committees. These varied approaches provide more flexibility in responding to shifts in the media landscape, community sentiments and societal norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Source and Quantity of Non-Government Funding for SPH Media Trust","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether SPH Media Trust has raised funding from sources other than the Government and, if so, how much.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Government funding provided to SPH Media Trust (SMT) is intended to support its talent, technology and vernacular capabilities. Outside of this, SMT may independently raise funding from other sources, based on its business decisions and operating needs. Information on SMT's finances can be obtained from ACRA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision for Deletion of Personal Data Upon Request under Personal Data Protection Act 2012 and Recourse Available to Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Communications and Information given the absence of a 'right to erasure' clause, whether the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 provides for (i) individuals who have not given consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data and requiring an organisation to delete their personal data upon request and (ii) the recourse for such individuals if the organisation does not do so.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) requires an organisation to cease retention of personal data or dispose of it in a proper manner when it is no longer needed for the purposes it was collected for, or other legitimate business or legal purpose.
This requirement applies regardless of whether consent had or had not been given for the organisation's collection, use or disclosure of personal data. Retention limits under the PDPA sufficiently safeguard the further use of an individual's personal data. If the organisation does not adhere to these requirements, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has the power to direct the organisation to destroy, or stop collecting, using or disclosing, the personal data concerned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Sports Facilities Master Plan Initiatives to Provide More Sport Facilities in Community Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry can provide an update on the initiatives under the Sports Facilities Master Plan to provide more sport facilities in community areas, such as the redevelopment of the Farrer Park Swimming Complex.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Sport Facilities Master Plan (SFMP) by Sport Singapore, is a key initiative of Vision 2030, the national sports blueprint. SFMP aims to provide Singaporeans with innovative, accessible, affordable and relevant sport facilities, with a majority having such access within a 10-minute walk from their homes by around 2030. These include a variety of facilities from comprehensive sport centres with gyms and swimming pools, to the many Ministry of Education (MOE) school facilities, and free-to-play sport spaces located conveniently in our housing estates.
Today, SportSG has built 10 Sport-in-Precinct (SIP) facilities with another 24 more in various development stages. SIPs provide free-to-play sport facilities such as sheltered multipurpose courts, jogging tracks as well as multi-generational outdoor fitness equipment. These SIPs are located conveniently within Housing & Development Board estates for residents to use.
SportSG has also worked with MOE to make available more than 370 Dual Use Scheme (DUS) facilities including indoor sport halls and free-to-play fields which Singaporeans can use on weekends to play football or frisbee with their friends and family.
Just last year, we saw the reopening of Chua Chu Kang Sport Centre and Delta Sport Centre. This year, we can look forward to the opening of four more new facilities: the Kallang Tennis Hub, the Kallang Football Hub, new basketball courts at the former Bedok Swimming Complex and a facility for softball and baseball at Jurong East.
Residents in Punggol and Clementi can also look forward to new sport facilities in the coming years. At Clementi, there will be a new sport facility which includes a jogging track and sport courts that are open to the public. At Punggol, the Regional Sport Centre will have a 5,000-seater stadium, a swimming complex, an indoor sport hall with 20 badminton courts, a team sport hall, a gym, fitness studios, sheltered tennis and futsal courts, a water sport centre and an archery field.
In addition, we are exploring a sport centre in the new Farrer Park Town Play Field with facilities, such as a multi-purpose play field, a swimming complex, multi-purpose sport halls, community sporting spaces and a park zone. These were also designed in consultation with residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Roles and Missions of Co-operatives to Meet Evolving Needs of Singapore’s Society and Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the roles of co-operatives (co-ops) in Singapore's society and economy; (b) whether Singapore needs new co-ops to meet the evolving social-economic landscape; and (c) whether the roles and social missions of co-ops can be strengthened as a stronger social compact is built under the Forward Singapore vision.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We thank Mr Liang for his queries on the roles of co-operative societies in Singapore and how they can play a part to strengthen Singapore’s social compact. Mr Liang’s queries are addressed by Mr Alvin Tan, Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth, in his second reading and closing speeches for the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill on 2 April and 3 April 2024 respectively. [Please refer to \"Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 2 April 2024, Vol 95, Issue 133, Second Reading Bills section; and \"Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 3 April 2024, Vol 95, Issue 134, Second Reading Bills section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Successful New Employment Pass Applicants since 1 September 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower since 1 September 2023, what is the percentage of successful new Employment Pass applicants who received (i) an exemption from the COMPASS eligibility criteria (ii) zero points for having over 25% of the candidate's nationality among the organisation's PMETs (iii) zero points for having no degree-equivalent qualifications and (iv) 10 points automatically because the company has less than 25 employees, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: Candidates are exempted from COMPASS if they have a fixed monthly salary of at least $22,500, are applying as an intra-corporate transferee or are filling the role for one month or less. The salary threshold for exemption from COMPASS is similar to that for the Fair Consideration Framework job advertising requirement and is benchmarked to the top 10% of Employment Pass (EP) holders. Since 1 September 2023, about 10% of successful EP applications were exempted from COMPASS.
Less than 10% of approved applications scored zero points on the Diversity Criterion (C3) for having over 25% of the candidate's nationality among the organisation's professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs). About 20% of approved applications scored zero points on the Qualifications Criterion (C2) for not declaring any degree-equivalent qualifications. However, the actual proportion of approved applications without any degree-qualifications is lower. This is because any qualification declared would need to be accompanied by verification proof. Candidates who have obtained sufficient points across other criteria to pass COMPASS may thus choose not to declare their qualifications.
About 30% of all approved applications scored 10 points by default for the Diversity Criterion (C3) and Support for Local Employment Criterion (C4) because the company was a small firm with less than 25 PMETs. Smaller firms are given default points on C3 and C4 as their workforce ratios are easily skewed by small changes in their personnel. These applications will still need to score at least 20 points on the other criteria to meet the minimum 40 points required to pass COMPASS.
The Member should not judge the quality of EP candidates on the basis of how they perform on any single criterion. COMPASS recognises that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining the quality of candidates. Instead, it looks across six criteria, taking into account individual and firm-level attributes, as well as whether the candidate fills a shortage occupation or contributes to a strategic economic priority. The various criteria are updated on a regular basis, with inputs from economic agencies and tripartite partners, the National Trades Union Congress and Singapore National Employers Federation, to ensure that it remains relevant and tightly scoped.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Complaints Received of and Investigations on Job Listings and Companies on MyCareersFuture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower since the inception of MyCareersFuture (a) how many complaints have been received regarding discrepancies between job listings on MyCareersFuture and the perception arising in the hiring process that the roles have already been earmarked for designated candidates; (b) how many companies have been investigated for such job listings; (c) how many investigations have been substantiated; and (d) how many companies have been penalised.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) do not specifically track complaints based on the complainant's perception of discrepancy between a job listing on MyCareersFuture compared to their hiring experience. However, MOM looks into every discrimination complaint and takes appropriate enforcement action against errant employers. In the past three years, MOM and TAFEP received a total of 446 complaints involving discrimination based on nationality. After investigation, MOM took enforcement action against a total of 34 companies for selecting a foreign candidate without considering candidates who applied via MyCareersFuture. Such enforcement action includes issuing a warning, mandatory corrective courses and debarment from hiring foreign workers.
32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore's Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, what are the projected 2030 and 2050 business-as-usual (BAU) levels of carbon emissions from Singapore-based airlines in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E).
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The data is not available as it is commercially sensitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6054,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240403/vernacular-Don Wee Cooperative 3April2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Cooperative 3April2024_Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}