1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the proposed establishment of a Johor-Singapore special economic zone, what opportunities relating to business, jobs, tourism and leisure are expected to be realised from this collaboration.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): The proposed Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone has the potential to strengthen the excellent economic relationship between Singapore and Johor. A special task force has been set up to study the broad areas of collaboration. We will provide an update on its progress at the 10th Singapore-Malaysia Leaders’ Retreat scheduled for later this year.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. This is not the first time that Singapore has been involved in special economic zone development with other countries, having been involved in developing industrial spaces in Asia as early as the 1990s in China, Vietnam and Indonesia.
So, I would like to ask the Minister of State two questions. One, what lessons can be drawn from our previous experience to ensure positive outcomes for Singapore under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone? Two, the success of special economic zones depends heavily on incentives, policy innovations and experimentation to attract businesses; so, I think it is important to know how we can ensure that the set-up of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will not impact the competitiveness of Singapore’s own export sector.
\t
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Foo Mee Har for her two supplementary questions.
The second one is about our export competitiveness. Let me tackle that first. Ms Foo would agree that Singapore and Malaysia enjoy very strong bilateral ties. And when it comes to Singapore and Johor, this Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ), the comparative advantages of both sides of the Causeway have attracted companies to set up complementary functions in Singapore and Johor to serve their regional and global operations as well as customers. I want to share with her and Members of the House that, in fact, the Singapore Economic Development Board, alongside our Malaysian counterparts, helped land some of these significant projects in Johor last year, after the COVID-19 measures were lifted. Allow me to quote one example, in the interest of time.
For example, we worked with SPC Group to have a cold chain, halal-certified factory in Nusajaya Tech Park (NTP) to allow them to produce 100 items, such as bread, cakes and desserts, to supply to Paris Baguette outlets in Southeast Asian countries. I think we are quite familiar with this brand. This particular company hires more than 300 staff in Singapore. This is a good example to show how, by leveraging the comparative advantage on both sides of the Causeway, we are able to complement our collective value proposition. So, on the second supplementary question, we look forward to the prospects to strengthen the nexus with Johor to foster closer economic cooperation and the chance to explore areas of synergies to benefit both our countries and peoples.
As to Ms Foo's first supplementary question, I want to assure her that the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone sits under the auspices of what we call the Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia (JMCIM). JMCIM was set up 16 years ago in 2007. It was set up by both our Prime Ministers and it has been meeting every year. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry\", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]
The JMCIM held its 16th meeting recently, slightly more than two weeks ago, on 14 July in Singapore. This meeting was co-chaired by Singapore's Minister for National Development Desmond Lee and Malaysia's Minister of Economy Mohd Rafizi Ramli. It was agreed during the meeting between the two Ministers that Singapore and Malaysia would set up a task force to study the establishment of JS-SEZ to do a few things: one, to drive economic growth; two, to strengthen economic connectivity between Singapore and Johor; and three, to promote collaboration for the mutual benefit of both countries and our peoples.
I would like to add that the JS-SEZ, if it comes about and is established, will build on the good growth of Johor and Singapore's significant investments in the region.
Ms Foo asked about what lessons can be drawn. I have explained that the JS-SEZ will sit under the auspices of the JMCIM. And if I could use the data-points since the COVID-19 measures were lifted, from January to June 2022, Singapore was Johor's second largest foreign investor after Japan. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry\", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]
During this period, Singapore contributed to around 70% of Johor's total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the manufacturing sector, with about 3.97 billion ringgit in investments, most of which come from investments in the electric and electronics and medical equipment sectors.
As I shared earlier, it is complementary so that we can anchor regional headquarters activities here, we can also anchor research and development (R&D) activities and supply chain management here, so that our Singaporean workers are well-placed to perform these functions, to help the companies manage, integrate, orchestrate their Pan-Asian operations.
I want to assure the Member that the JS-SEZ will build on the foundation set by the various JMCIM workgroups to drive sustainable growth, develop human capital and improve infrastructure and connectivity. The meeting just took place two weeks ago. We will certainly provide the House with an update on the JS-SEZ during the 10th Singapore-Malaysia Leaders' Retreat scheduled for later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of POFMA Correction Direction on Main Page of Asia Sentinel Website and Page Hosting Article with False Statement of Fact","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to online news site Asia Sentinel, why does the Government require the inclusion of a POFMA correction direction on both the main page of its website and on the page which hosts the article that contains false statements of fact.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), a Minister is empowered to issue a Correction Direction to a recipient who has communicated a false statement of fact. The Correction Direction will specify the form and manner in which the Correction Notice is to be published. The intent is to try to have the Correction Notice reach at least as large a readership as the original falsehood, though often this may be difficult to achieve.
In the case of Asia Sentinel, the Minister for Home Affairs had instructed the POFMA Office to issue a Correction Direction to Asia Sentinel in respect of one of its articles and specified that the recipient publish a Correction Notice at: one, the top of the page which hosts the article that contained false statements of fact; and two, the top of the main page of its website. The inclusion of the POFMA Correction Notice on more than one location on Asia Sentinel’s website is to try and achieve the objective that I stated above. The Act also allows other orders to be made to get the Correction Notice brought to the attention of the readers who may have read the original falsehoods.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I filed this question because it was a point I raised last month in the course of a speech I made on a Bill and the Minister for Communications and Information invited me to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on it.
Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, at what point is a threshold crossed by which the Government then decides that the Correction Direction not only must be included at the article where the false statement of fact was transmitted, but also the main webpage? Can there not be a question of overreach when you expect the Correction Direction to be on the main webpage as well? Having it on the article itself would be sufficient because then the reader would know that this particular article is the one that has been flagged out, not every article on the Asia Sentinel website.
The second question I have is how many Correction Directions have been issued to online sites, which include this particular rendition of the Correction Direction – not just for the article, but for the entire website as well?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, as far as the first question is concerned, the idea that we have to put the Correction Notice only next to the original article, Mr Singh has asked if this may be overreach. I think you would characterise this as overreach only if you felt that the inclusion of the Correction Notice, in other words, the correction of the falsity, was, in itself, not necessary or was itself false, or that it was inappropriate to have this viewed by as many people as possible. Mr Singh, who was part of the Select Committee that produced the White Paper that led towards the legislation that turned out to be POFMA, would agree that it is easier for the false statement of fact – a lie travels faster than the truth – and so, you do need to make sure that you have as much coverage as possible when you want to correct the falsity.
The behaviour of people reading online material is not all homogeneous; people access material in different ways. And it is not often that someone will necessarily go back to the original article after having read it. And so, you do need to put the correction in place so that as many readers of the original falsehood as possible will have that corrected. And so, we need a variety of tools and, depending on how the site is laid out and how the publisher manages its material, propagates its material, there needs to be some assessment of that done to make sure then that the correction is visible. And even with the tools, such as placing the correction on the main webpage, I am sure the Member would agree, it is unlikely that all the readers of the original falsehood would have that Correction Notice brought to their attention. We do try and so, we do need this type of tool.
I do not have the details about the specific Correction Directions and which used this tool versus the other types of Correction Notices. I can get the information to Mr Singh. The reality is that each Correction Notice needs to take into account the design of the feed and the website. But I will get the information to him separately, Sir.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a follow-up for the Senior Minister of State. Can I confirm whether a Correction Notice had been given to Asia Sentinel for other articles in the past and their conduct had been egregious in that they ignored it and, hence, a more heightened approach was taken with them for the subsequent article which contained false statements of fact?
Because I think the question here is the threshold. Does the Government treat each site differently or will it treat each site the same? And in this particular case, I think we need to delve deeper into why that particular Correction Direction required not just the clarification from the POFMA Office to be placed on the article itself, but on the main webpage. Can we expect to see the Government pursuing this approach, given his preamble about how important it is to make sure that lies do not get multiplied much more quickly?
Is the Government changing its approach to be stricter vis-à-vis Correction Directions? Because the consequence of that Correction Direction is Singaporeans are denied the opportunity to read other articles on Asia Sentinel which contain no false statements of fact. And I think this is a fine line that the POFMA Office needs to consider because I think you have a case when there are false statements of fact, to put out what ought to be the right facts and expect the site to carry them. But it does sound like overreach when you potentially are almost forcing the site to shut down because you force them to actually put the clarification on the first page, which has nothing to do with the article at hand.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, can I just seek a clarification from Mr Singh? He said that the action denied Singaporeans the opportunity to read other articles on the Asia Sentinel site. I do not quite understand why the publication of a Correction Notice on its main webpage should in any way impede readers from accessing other articles. Surely, he would agree that if that Correction Notice is necessary to correct a falsehood, it should be seen by as many readers as possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Sir, I think the point here is what is the effect of that Correction Direction. I have no objection with the Correction Direction being on the article itself. But when you have it on the main webpage, which does not contain the article, but may contain a link to the article, I would grant the Senior Minister of State that. Has there been a situation where Asia Sentinel in the past did not adhere to Correction Directions which led the Government to turn the screw and say, \"Look, I think you are pursuing a certain course of conduct which requires us to do this\"? That is why my earlier question was about thresholds.
The second question I asked was about the approach of the Government: is this the way it is going to move forward – for Correction Directions for any site, you can expect, not just a Correction Direction on the offending article, but on the main webpage as well?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, Mr Singh did not quite address my clarification. So, I am going to assume that he agrees with me that the publication of the Correction Notice on the main webpage does not, in any way, impede a reader from accessing all the other articles on Asia Sentinel's website. And what that Correction Notice does is add further information and transparency for people to make up their own mind about the facts at hand. So, I hope that is my understanding of his position. And I hope he will agree that then, there is no overreach or damage done to Asia Sentinel by requiring them to add a notice which essentially carries a correction, in other words, the correct understanding of the facts.
If I take the analogy from what happens in the print publication, I am sure if Mr Singh was concerned about a piece of article in a magazine or a newspaper which he disagreed with, which he required a correction, he would not be satisfied if the only thing that was done was the newspaper went out and published a Correction Notice next to the original article because nobody is going to read the same newspaper again from three or four days ago. And he would require a notice carried in the same publication in a prominent place that people could read and, especially to do so in a way that as many of the readers of the original false statement will then be better informed.
The analogy breaks down a little, clearly; this is an online digital publication and not something in print. But the intent is the same – to make sure as many of the original readers of that false statement see the Correction Notice, understand the correct facts – and I hope Mr Singh agrees that there is no harm caused by that.
So, as I said, I did not quite get an understanding from him that he agreed that we did not, in any way, intend to deny the readers of Asia Sentinel access to the other articles by the publication of the Correction Notice on its main website. It was a tool to make sure the facts are well-read and well-understood.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: I think on the first point about whether I agree, I do not agree. I do not agree with that approach.
On the analogy, of course, the analogy break downs, like the Senior Minister of State shared, because you do not expect a print publication to publish an apology on its first page. So, that is the nub of the issue here. I can accept actually an argument which goes along the line of repeated egregious conduct. Then, we have to take this approach. I think that is fair. But how many times has Asia Sentinel or any other publication – I do not have a particular interest in Asia Sentinel, it is more the approach of the Government. And that is my concern.
So, perhaps, I will look forward to some information from the Senior Minister of State about how many other Correction Notices have included this requirement, not just the article but the main website as well. Then, we can analyse and see what the Government's approach is. But I hope I have clarified every question that the Senior Minister of State asked in his reply to me.
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Singh for that explanation. The use of this type of tool, a Correction Notice on the main website, I think, should not be predicated on a certain number of strikes. This is not a fixed threshold. It needs to take into account, for example, the design of the website, the way in which links are made to other feeds because, otherwise, the process can be gamed. There is a significant amount of leeway and freedom in how online sites are designed and published.
So, we take into account the design of the website, the feed, the way in which user behaviour is guided by that, but also the kind of content and the kind of notice that is required.
I would point out that if Mr Singh is concerned about past track records, Asia Sentinel did not comply with the Correction Direction on 26 May, so, then an access blocking order was issued. And so, we do give an opportunity for the sites to comply, to provide information to the readers. We take into account the fact that the design of the site and the design of the particular article are important and we give an opportunity for people to put things right.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: A last follow-up. I am not sure whether that was an accurate characterisation by the Senior Minister of State. My understanding was that they followed the Correction Direction, but they only partially followed the Correction Direction. There was a clarification on the article itself as required by the POFMA Office but not on the main website. And I think this is my understanding and the Senior Minister of State can correct me if it is wrong. I just want to confirm that.
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the compliance with the Correction Direction is not for the site to decide which parts of the Correction Direction they comply with or they do not comply with. They are required to comply with the entirety of the Correction Direction and Asia Sentinel did not comply with the entire Correction Direction in the time required. So, they complied late.
They also did not comply with the requirement to have the Correction Notice at the top of the main webpage and they had changed the design by including another article. And so, you have partial compliance, which means they have not complied with the Correction Direction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation of Grab's Proposed Acquisition of Trans-Cab for Anti-Competitive Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will be evaluating Grab's proposed acquisition of Trans-Cab for anti-competitive practices; (b) what safeguards will CCCS take to ensure that Grab does not disadvantage taxi drivers from other companies on its platform following the acquisition; and (c) whether CCCS will provide an assessment of the impact of the recent consolidation in the taxi industry on consumers.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has received Grab's notification of the proposed acquisition. CCCS will assess the impact of the proposed acquisition on competition and consult relevant stakeholders before reaching a decision on the matter.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\t
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, thank you. Can I ask the Minister of State what will be the further actions taken with regard to this acquisition? For example, we all know that this acquisition is likely to have a great impact on the livelihood of about 100,000 taxi drivers and driver hirers.
So, did the Ministry conduct any study on what has been the impact of Grab's acquisition of Uber on fares, waiting time for commuters and the income of driver hirers and taxi drivers? That is the first question. Did the Ministry do any survey on all these things and what has been the impact? So, that will become a consideration in assessing this acquisition.
The second question is: given that Grab already controls 75% of the current private ride hailing market and we know that the taxi and PHP markets are actually like part and parcel of one another already as the development of the market continues. So, since Grab is already holding 75% of the market – of course, I may be jumping the gun a little bit – but does the Minister of State think that that will be taken into consideration very seriously by CCCS?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Let me just share again and reiterate the point that CCCS is still assessing this and, so, we cannot comment on a specific case under consideration at this stage. What we can do is to share about the processes and that is what I will be doing shortly.
CCCS, for the Member's understanding, adopts a two-phase approach in evaluating merger applications that are made through the Competition Commission. And upon receipt of this complete application, CCCS' will carry out a phase one review which involves a quick assessment. This phase one is expected to be completed within 30 working days. The timeline is subject to suspension for a variety of reasons, for example, if the merger parties do not respond to CCCS' requests for information or provide documents which are needed to complete its assessment.
For merger situations that do not raise competition concerns, CCCS will issue a favourable decision at the end of the phase one review and, therefore, the merger can proceed without undue delay.
If during the phase one review CCCS is unable to conclude that the merger situation does not raise competition questions or concerns, it will provide the merger parties with a summary of its key concerns and then proceed to carry out a more detailed phase two review, which is expected to take 120 working days.
To the Member's questions about consultation and concerns, I want to assure him that information provided by third parties play an important role in CCCS' assessment of mergers. CCCS obtains relevant information from third parties, such as competitors and customers, via public consultation and by contacting them directly. CCCS, in this case, will be consulting on the proposed acquisition and the public will be able to provide feedback through this public consultation.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, on the ground, we have received a lot of feedback or complaints by drivers or hirers and also from commuters about the condition of the point-to-point transport in Singapore. So, I would like to ask, based on the understanding of the Minister of State, what has been the trend of fares, waiting times and the drivers' or hirers' income over the last three to five years?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, there are several Parliamentary Questions on this matter that have been filed and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) will be addressing them at a subsequent Sitting. Can I ask that the Member refer to those replies instead on the Point-to-Point Act?
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have two sets of supplementary questions on this. I have Clementi residents who have also been following the news. Some are consumers, some are drivers, and they are understandably wondering what it means moving forward.
Firstly, Mr Speaker, without prejudging the outcome, can I ask, based on previous CCCS assessments, whether CCCS may look at whether there will be substantial lessening of competition in just a single aggregate market or at the individual markets of taxis, private hire as well as the total aggregate point-to-point markets? That is my first question.
The second question would be – again without prejudging the outcome – has there been any situation where CCCS, as part of assessing potential economic benefits, even if there are substantial lessening of competition, is the tripartite lens applied so that if there are tripartite outcomes which are overall beneficial to workers and the functioning of the labour market and bargaining power between workers and firms, would that be a consideration as well, as part of the economic outcomes in the analysis?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary questions. It is worth saying that not all mergers, as I mentioned in my original answer, give rise to competition issues. Many, in fact, are pro-competitive or are competitively neutral.
To determine if a merger is anti-competitive, CCCS will assess whether the merger leads, as the Member alluded to, to a substantial lessening of competition.
With regard to this specific case, as I mentioned to the Member earlier on, we will be conducting a public consultation and I invite Members, as well as members of the public, to give their views on this particular merger.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High-Speed Rail Project Given MyHSR Corp's Recent Request for Information Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the Request for Information exercise launched by Malaysia's MyHSR Corp Sdn Bhd on 12 July 2023, whether the Ministry can provide an update on the discussions with the Malaysian government to revive the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project.
5 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide an update on the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High-Speed Rail project.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together? My reply will also address a question by Mr Louis Chua on the same topic.
Mr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you. Sir, Singapore is willing to discuss any new proposal for a Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) from Malaysia in good faith, starting from a clean slate. We have not yet received any new proposal from Malaysia.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the short answer to the question. I have one supplementary question. In regard to, maybe I am jumping the gun here, potentially going forward, the original proposed line was supposed to have a stop at Iskandar-Puteri on the Malaysia side, linking the Nusajaya region within Iskandar, Malaysia, to Singapore, Melaka, Seremban and Kuala Lumpur. But going forward, on the Singapore side, are there any changes to plans of the HSR potentially, within Singapore's borders? Is it still going to go through Jurong? If the Senior Minister of State can share some thoughts on that.
The second supplementary question is in relation to the request for information (RFI), whether the Senior Minister of State can share if we have any inkling of the concept proposals that the Malaysia side has received through the RFI?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the RFI exercise is conducted by the Malaysians, MyHSR Corp. As to what are the plans, I think we have to receive the proposal and then we can study the proposal. We will keep an open mind on what are the possibilities, to have a win-win arrangement between Singapore and Malaysia.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, just two supplementary questions on that. Firstly, in terms of the RFI by MyHSR Corp, whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or Land Transport Authority (LTA) is actually involved in the preparation of this request, just so that any plans that could involve Singapore potentially, could be factored into that request?
Secondly, in relation to that, were there any Singapore companies that were involved in the initial information gathering stage organised by MyHSR Corporation, in its earlier engagements with the private sector?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I feel like I am repeating myself, but the RFI exercise is conducted by MyHSR Corp. We are not involved in this RFI exercise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retrenchment among Employees Aged 63 and Older in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many workers over the age of 63 have lost their jobs in retrenchment exercises in the last five years; and (b) whether a higher proportion of workers in this age group have lost their jobs as compared to other age groups.
7 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices for workers who are losing their entitlement to retrenchment benefits to be entitled only to Employment Assistance Payments upon reaching the age of 63; and (b) whether the guidelines can be amended to reduce a \"cliff effect\" in the drop in retrenchment entitlement for long-serving workers upon turning 63.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, Mr Nair has filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to retrenchment of senior workers. With your permission, Sir, may I respond to both these related questions together?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Sir. First, the data shows that workers who are past the retirement age are not disproportionately affected by retrenchment, compared to other age groups. From 2018 to 2022, the average incidence of retrenchment among residents aged 63 and over was 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, lower than the overall figure of 6.1 for the entire resident workforce. Over the same period, the absolute number of retrenched residents aged 63 and over remained low, at an average of 450 per year.
The Retirement and Re-employment Act requires employers to offer re-employment to employees above the prevailing retirement age and below the prevailing re-employment age, or else employers will need to pay eligible employees the Employment Assistance Payment, or EAP. The recommended EAP amount in the Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees is carefully calibrated. The EAP should not be so low that it provides employers an easy alternative to offering their employees re-employment.
However, if the EAP is too high, it may deter employers from hiring or retaining senior workers nearing retirement age in the first place. The EAP quantum is tied to the legal obligation to offer re-employment and should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, which are not mandated by law.
The quantum of retrenchment benefit is usually stipulated in the employment contract or is negotiated in a collective agreement between unions and companies. It thus varies across companies, though the vast majority of employers do follow the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment in paying retrenchment benefits, generally paying between two weeks and one month of salary per year of service, to eligible employees.
In some cases, there is an agreement between the union and the employer to scale down the quantum of retrenchment benefits payable as the worker nears the statutory retirement age. Any real or perceived \"cliff effect\" between retrenchment benefits and EAP is dependent on the quantum of retrenchment benefits stipulated in the individual's employment contract or the collective agreement.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to review our retirement and re-employment policies, to ensure they remain relevant and foster progressive workplaces that enable our senior workers to continue working if they wish to.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State and these are based on feedback I had received in my capacity as advisor to the Advanced Manufacturing Employees' Union (AMEU), with which I think the Senior Minister of State is very familiar. So, what I was informed is that for many senior workers who are above the age of 63, their EAP benefits are no longer tied to their years in service.
So, what this means is, in substance, up to the age of 63, they are very expensive to lay off if they have been working for a long time. But after the age of 63, the EAP payments are no longer based on years in service. So, someone who was very expensive to lay off or retrench at the age of 63, suddenly becomes very cheap to lay off. And because senior workers also have the greatest difficulty getting re-employment, I think it is important for them to be protected.
My first clarification is: the figure that was given for workers over 63, that is, only 3.8 per 1,000 were retrenched, does this also take into account workers who may have been retired and not re-employed? Because I understand that is the mechanism that is sometimes used. So, the worker is not actually re-employed and given early retirement.
The second is, I think the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that the EAP is carefully calibrated and open to negotiation. I have two related clarifications on this: first, in relation to employees who have the benefit of collective agreements, how many of these collective agreements tie the EAP payments to years in service? And second, for employees without collective agreements, how many of them are eligible for retrenchment payments?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, on the Member's first clarification, on the 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, that refers to retrenchment and does not include those who voluntarily retired. We are talking about retrenchment.
On the second issue. I just want to correct the statement that was made. The EAP is mandated by law. Retrenchment benefits are open to negotiation. So, it is not the other way around. And the EAP should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, because it is meant to help those who are not re-employed, to tide them over a period of time until they find other re-employment opportunities.
Therefore, it is not something that is tied to years of service, but it is meant to be something that tides them over a couple of months, for example, till the person can find a new job.
The EAP quantum recommended in the tripartite guidelines on the re-employment of older employees, as I said, is carefully calibrated. Because if the EAP amount is too high, employers may then be concerned with excessive cost burden of the re-employment obligation. And then, they will be less willing to retain a senior worker up to the retirement age. In other words, they may choose to then retrench the worker before the retirement age.
If the cost of paying retrenchment benefits is cheaper than paying EAP, it may well be that it will become a perverse incentive to retrench a worker before retirement age instead. This would then be detrimental to senior workers who are close to retirement age.
We want to avoid disincentivising also senior workers from searching for alternative employment if they are not successfully re-employed. It really is about getting enough for them to tide them over a period, but not to be such a windfall that there is no more incentive to look for other employment opportunities that come along the way. And we also should not be creating a perverse incentive to employers to not retain workers close to the retirement age.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications. Then, perhaps the question that I should ask is: is the Senior Minister of State aware of whether retrenchment benefits are extended to workers beyond the age of 63, but before they reach the end of their re-employment retirement age?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, as I said, retrenchment benefits will be something more of a contractual agreement between the employer and the employee and it is something that would defer from case to case. I suppose for employers who really want to take care of their employees, there is no real reason why he or she cannot extend benefits to employees beyond the retirement age. But this is not mandated by law and this is something that companies and their employees will have to come to an agreement on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety of Seafood Imports Following Release of Treated Wastewater from Fukushima Nuclear Plant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Sea by Japan (a) what measures are in place to ensure the safety of our food products, especially seafood, imported from Japan; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact on Singapore's surrounding waters.
9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the impending release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the ocean (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will review the safety of seafood imports from Japan; and (b) what actions will SFA take when an imported food is found to have elevated levels of tritium or other radionuclide levels.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 together in the Order Paper today, because they relate to the same matter?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) adopt a science-based approach towards assessing food safety risks and environmental impacts respectively.
To ensure food safety, food imported into Singapore is subjected to SFA's surveillance and monitoring regime, which includes radiation surveillance. Food products that fail SFA's inspections and tests will not be allowed for sale. SFA has been closely monitoring food imports, including those from Japan, and our surveillance results have been satisfactory. SFA also keeps abreast of international developments and expert reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and foreign food safety authorities to augment our surveillance and monitoring regime.
NEA assesses that Japan's planned discharge of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea is unlikely to impact the seawater quality in or around Singapore waters. Since 2019, NEA has been closely monitoring Singapore's waters as part of NEA's environmental baseline radiation monitoring programme. The radioactivity measured continues to remain within our natural background levels. SFA and NEA will continue to monitor closely radiation levels in our food imports and our environment respectively.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. I note that NEA operates a network of about 40 ambient radiation monitoring stations in and around Singapore, which provide a daily update on radiation levels. First, may I ask if the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment (MSE) has any plans to increase the frequency of monitoring to more than once a day or to include more monitoring stations?
The second question is a request for the readings to be made known to the public; and third, does MSE have any processes presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, sorry, I could not catch hold of the Member's second and third points – made known to the public on what?
\tMs Joan Pereira: Make known to public on the radiation levels.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, okay. And the third?
\tMs Joan Pereira: Any process presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment.
\t
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the questions. I would like to assure Members here as well as members of the public that we do keep a close watch, as I have mentioned earlier, including the readings from the 40 monitors that Member Joan Pereira has mentioned. And we do include readings on radiation and, if necessary, we will make some of these known if we need the public to be aware. Because these monitors actually collect a lot of data, so, we do not think that it is necessary to highlight one of them, unless it is in the public interest to do so.
And we have in the past, for example, when it comes to haze, we do highlight certain readings when we think that it is necessary for the public to take action. Otherwise, there will be a lot of data that may inundate the public and actually may not have the desired impact.
Having said that, we will monitor closely. For some indicators, we do intend to increase the number of monitors, but I will just assure the Member that we will look into the overall requirements of environmental protection and assess our capability from time to time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Minister for her reply. My supplementary questions relate to food products. First, I would like to ask if SFA tests all imported food products coming from high-risk locations where there are potential nuclear contamination issues. Second, what would be the recourse for consumers who suspect that they have bought or consumed a product that contains high radionucleic levels?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much, Mr Melvin Yong, for the question. We take a risk-based approach when it comes to food safety and these risks could be many different types of risks. It can be from nuclear activities, nuclear active materials, it can be contamination from the environment. We are inundated actually with many, many different types of risks. So, I would not want Members to go away thinking that nuclear contamination is the only thing that we are concerned with or this is an issue that we are concerned about right now. As I have mentioned earlier in my reply, we have actually been monitoring a whole host of risks and you can see that SFA, from time to time, does take action against food items that do not meet our requirements.
So, this regime will continue and, of course, we will watch the situation with the discharge of Fukushima wastewater carefully. We will also rely on international assessments and we do exchange data and intelligence with other food safety authorities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for her replies. I note the Minister said that the discharge of wastewater is unlikely to impact the waters around Singapore. But can I ask the Minister if NEA or SFA is monitoring whether the water around the areas where our sources of seafood come from is being monitored to assess whether or not it will impact Singapore?
\t
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Of course, we will monitor reports coming from those areas. As you see, we do not have jurisdiction in those areas. So, it is really not very realistic for us to expect NEA to be monitoring the quality of waters several thousand miles away from Singapore. Having said that, we do assess the plan that has been put up by the Japanese authorities on how they intend to discharge the wastewater. We do watch what IAEA is doing because IAEA is obviously monitoring the discharge and also on the lab reports very closely.
More importantly is that we do take food samples to manage the risks. So, I can assure the Member as well members of the public that this item is on our agenda and we will be taking all necessary actions to keep food coming into Singapore safe.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Impact of Relocation and Redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what studies have been undertaken on the environmental impact of the relocation and redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase; (b) what are the findings from these studies; (c) what measures have been or will be taken to mitigate any negative environmental impact; and (d) if studies have not been undertaken, whether the Ministry will conduct these studies and, if not, why not.
11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in view of the impending redevelopment of the Paya Lebar Airbase (a) whether there are plans to retain sufficient green spaces in the north-eastern part of Singapore, including to allow continued connectivity for migratory birds to fly between the Northern Islands and other parts of Singapore; and (b) will the Government consider preserving or enhancing the current tracts of green spaces along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon Dam.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 10 and 11 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: The redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase will only commence from the 2030s. Prior to that, we will evaluate the potential impact on the environment and biodiversity in the area and conduct more detailed environmental studies if the impact is assessed to be significant. These studies will also inform mitigation measures for the redevelopment, including the integration of green spaces in and around Paya Lebar Airbase.
For Sungei Serangoon, a network of parks and park connectors has been safeguarded to enhance green spaces for biodiversity as well as provide recreational spaces for the community.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. Would the Government consider rezoning the stretch of land along the Sungei Serangoon or Serangoon River, currently under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) masterplan, to rezone in the coming masterplan review, especially bearing in mind the following factors?
One, there is a lack of significant green spaces in the northeast of Singapore specifically, as the stretch of green spaces along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam is the only significant green space of its size in northeast Singapore, besides Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. I have Hougang residents who told me that they are wary of the developments of the stretch of green spaces along the Serangoon Park Connector by Hougang Avenue 7 and Upper Serangoon View. But, in effect, this stretch of land actually stretches past four constituencies – Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC), Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Sengkang GRC and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, including the area around Buangkok forests.
Two, in addition to the biodiversity, the floral, fauna and even the wildlife that may dwell in these green spaces, many migratory birds actually use this stretch of land, this stretch of green spaces, in their annual migration journeys between the northern and southern hemispheres as they fly through Singapore twice a year.
Three, the redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase into a huge Housing and Development Board (HDB) estate – I believe it is about 800 hectares and 150,000 new homes – will have a significant environmental impact on the northeast area, including, I believe, heat impact in the surrounding northeast area. So, a significant retention of the green spaces on this stretch will mitigate against some of such impact.
I would also like to ask whether the Government can consider expanding on the planned area of the green spaces to be retained beyond the current areas which are marked on the current URA masterplan for the same reasons.
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, let me maybe set the context of the development plans for the area. The site will be developed progressively over several decades after the relocation of the airbase from the 2030s. And as shared by the Member earlier, it is an exciting development for the Paya Lebar site.
During the draft masterplan 2019 exhibition, URA shared the vision that the airbase and the surrounding industrial areas can be transformed into a liveable and sustainable new town, built on the unique identity as a former airport and airbase. And the new town will have a myriad of housing, employment and recreational opportunities. New nodes of employment to bring jobs nearer homes, more direct connections between adjacent towns, including Hougang, and the rich aviation heritage of its former use.
Importantly as well, a network of parks and open spaces and new ways for our residents to live, work and play. And URA has been engaging the public and seeking feedback on the PLAB redevelopment plans and engaging industry and professional bodies, like the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Singapore Institute of Planners, to develop a conceptual masterplan and precinct designs.
So, to the Member's question, this is something that we will build on and continue to refine and it takes years to do so. This is still a very early stage of the entire concept plan and we will develop a masterplan based on that. And after the masterplan has been developed, developing agencies will undergo an in-depth consultation process with the relevant technical agencies to discuss the scope of the works, including the expected impact on the environment as well as the mitigation measures and monitoring plans to be put in place to minimise the impact when studying the feasibility of the whole area's redevelopment. If the impact on the environment is substantial or could be significant, an environmental study will be required to assess in greater detail the full impact and develop more extensive mitigation measures.
And this will be done closer to redevelopment works, which will only take place from 2030 onwards. So, these are the processes and I assure the Member and members of the public that the various considerations that the Member has raised will be considered.
On the specific part of Sungei Serangoon, allow me just to provide some context. I am looking at the map of the Sungei Serangoon and the locations around it. Most of the vegetated areas along Sungei Serangoon are located on the eastern bank, which is currently zoned for B2 industrial use and there are no plans to launch the area for redevelopment in the near term, except for an industrial cluster in the vicinity of the upcoming Defu station on the Cross Island Line.
Actually, more importantly, most of the areas on the western bank of Sungei Serangoon have already been developed with an existing park connector running along the western bank from Tampines Road to Punggol Promenade. And to enhance the connector area, URA is working with the National Parks Board (NParks) to see how we can continue to build on that, potentially extending the park connector along the eastern bank from 2025.
So, to assure residents living in the area, actually, we have already put in place open spaces, park connectors and also looking at how we can continue to extend it to benefit not just the residents living there but people using the space for various activities as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answers. Not to belabour this, but in view of the next masterplan review that is coming up – I believe it is next year – I would like to urge the Government to look into realigning the green spaces currently marked on the current masterplan which is actually a very short stretch. And I am not just referring to the park connectors which our residents in the area really enjoy, but really, the green spaces on the eastern bank, as the Senior Minister of State has rightly put it. That is critical to retain the biodiversity as well as to facilitate wildlife, such as migratory birds which use the area as they hop along the green spaces through Singapore, up and down their annual journeys between the northern and southern hemispheres.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: I thank the Member for the supplementary question and reminder. I am very glad to hear that the residents enjoy the park connectors and green spaces that are available along Sungei Serangoon. These are considerations that we will factor into the planning and I just want to assure the Member by reiterating what I said just now that most of the vegetated areas around Sungei Serangoon on the eastern bank are currently rezoned for B2 industrial use and there are no plans to launch the area for development in the near term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Financial Product Marketing Tactics on Less Financially Literate Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the impact of undesirable marketing tactics for financial products, such as ambush style marketing, on less financially literate consumers; and (b) what recourse do consumers have after buying products as a result of such tactics.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects financial institutions or FIs and their representatives to conduct their prospecting and marketing activities responsibly and in conducive settings. MAS has set standards of conduct for such activities. For example, one, representatives of FIs must disclose their identities upfront and clearly to prospective clients; two, FIs should monitor the conduct of their representatives at roadshows through site visits and mystery shopping; three, FIs should conduct call-backs and surveys within the free-look period to check if clients understood the products that they purchased at roadshows.
\t
MAS has recently issued a public consultation to strengthen these safeguards by making them mandatory. MAS has also proposed additional new measures, such as requiring FIs to: one, offer consumers additional time of at least three to five days to consider their decisions; two, limit the use of gifts to influence consumers’ decision-making; and three, conduct roadshows and marketing events only in commercial premises instead of public spaces, such as streets and pedestrian areas.
A consumer who feels he has been sold a product through inappropriate means by a representative of an FI should immediately lodge a complaint with the FI. The FI is required, by regulation, to thoroughly investigate the matter. Where the representative has been found to have mis-sold a product, the FI will offer redress. Should the consumer remain dissatisfied with the FI’s response, he can approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for assistance. FIDReC’s mediation and adjudication services provide consumers with an accessible and affordable avenue to resolve disputes with FIs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is that we know lots of residents who might not be familiar with English and they tend to be older residents. So, what are the additional safeguards put in place to help these vulnerable residents? We do see some of these marketers doing ambush tactics in the heartlands, going after these residents. This is my key concern for them.
So, the second supplementary question is: has MAS monitored how many victims of such ambush marketing tactics have subsequently asked to withdraw their investments and, if they want to do so, are the remedial actions and recourse easily accessible to them?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to vulnerable clients, including seniors who may not be savvy with the English language, FIs must implement additional safeguards when recommending products to such clients. A supervisor from the FI must call the client to check back on his or her understanding of the product and risks before any sale to vulnerable clients is allowed to be completed. MAS has also publicly consulted on proposals to enhance pre- and post-transaction safeguards for these vulnerable clients.
I will just share a few examples. First is the strengthening of requirements to identify selected clients. Second is to require FIs to ask the selected clients to have a trusted individual to be present during the sale and advisory process. And third, to require FIs to audio record call-backs to the selected clients and to provide the recordings to them upon request.
MAS is reviewing the feedback from the public consultation and will produce the response when the review is completed.
With regard to the Member's second supplementary question, there are many different reasons why clients may wish to withdraw their investments. One, it may be due to the fact that they have their own preference or they may have a change of mind. MAS does not have this information, but the FIs will have that information.
On what recourse mechanisms customers or consumers might have, please allow me to just elaborate shortly.
Consumers who suspect any wrongdoing again should lodge a complaint with the FIs, which are required by MAS regulations to investigate and resolve these complaints promptly and also independently. The complaint must be handled by a separate unit comprising staff who are not involved in sales. FIs will then review the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with proper procedures, including interviewing the complainant and keeping the complainant apprised of the case status. They will offer redress to consumers where their representatives are found to have committed mis-selling or other wrongdoing.
If the FI's response is not to the customer's satisfaction, he or she can approach FIDReC, which I mentioned. The outcome of FIDReC's adjudication is binding on the FIs, but not on consumers, who retain the right to pursue their claims through other avenues, such as seeking legal advice on the merits of their case.
Finally, consumers may also file a report with MAS if they suspect that an FI or representative has committed a regulatory breach or misconduct. While MAS does not adjudicate individual cases of disagreement between consumers and FIs, MAS will review reports of breaches or misconduct and take appropriate regulatory actions against FIs or representatives found to have breached MAS regulations.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State a supplementary question. With regard to the recourse on products which are not specifically fronted by FIs, for example, commodities-related products, such as gold, can I ask the Minister of State for clarification? Is the appropriate recourse via FIDReC in those types of situations? Because if I am not mistaken, when it comes to commodities-related products, it is not. So, maybe the Minister of State can help me clarify that point.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I do not have the answer at this moment but will check and get back to the Member.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan, a clarification?
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State pertaining to this matter. I appreciate that MAS performs a regulatory check and balance on the FIs, but it does not sound to me like the individuals who fall prey to such marketing techniques have any form of recourse or compensation. So, my question is: should MAS find any particular FI in breach of a certain threshold of aggressive or inappropriate marketing, will there be retroactive forms of compensations required of them to be made to the consumer?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her question. As I mentioned earlier on, MAS will review reports of breaches of misconduct and take appropriate regulatory actions against FIs or representatives that are found to breach MAS regulations.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rejection of Applications of Spouses of Low-wage and Aged Singaporeans for Long-Term Visit Passes to Work and Fulfil Family Care Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the considerations when ICA rejects applications of the spouses of low-wage and aged Singaporeans for Long-Term Visit Passes to work and fulfil the care needs of their families in Singapore; (b) whether ICA will consider working with the Ministry of Manpower to create a special entry and work pass category for these foreign spouses to make it easier for them to stay and help with caregiving of our citizens.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications for foreign spouses are assessed individually and holistically. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will consider all relevant factors, including the length of marriage, whether there are children from the marriage, whether the sponsor is able to support the applicant and the family financially and if the sponsor or applicant has adverse records. ICA will also consider unique considerations, including caregiving needs. Foreign spouses are assessed on these criteria, taking into account their close relationship with Singapore Citizen families.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have come across several and actually quite many cases where residents who are on ComCare financial assistance, meaning they are not independently able to sponsor their foreign spouse, in a very catch-22 situation. On one hand, they need the caregiving support of their spouse to be here physically with them; on the other hand, they also can benefit from the spouse having some part-time employment or income, which actually helps the Government to potentially save on some of these financial support expenses.
So, my question is: would ICA consider working with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to create a special category of entry or stay pass for such persons, given that the Government has been expending a lot of efforts to try and encourage ageing-in-place?
There is a real caregiving need amongst the lowest income segment and I would like to seek the Ministry's and the Minister of State's view on how we can tackle this particular problem that is faced by the residents.
Also, to add, many of them have come and tried to extend their short-term visit pass, for which every application costs $40, which, no doubt, they are taking from the financial assistance amounts that they have been given by the Government. So, I do not see how this is a constructive process going forward.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, we assess such applications individually and holistically. Given that ICA also considers unique considerations, such as caregiving needs, we assess that there is no need for a separate facility for foreign spouses for now.
Just to share, marriage to a Singapore Citizen does not guarantee the non-resident spouse automatic right of entry into Singapore or approval for long-term stay in Singapore. So, we strongly encourage Singapore Citizen-non-resident couples who are interested in applying for an LTVP to submit the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass assessment (PMLA) together, before the marriage. And PMLA is a free online assessment tool for couples to find out more about each other and if the prospective non-resident spouse is likely to qualify for LTVP after the marriage.
And, in fact, the Government provides support for Singapore Citizen-foreigner couples in areas, such as financial assistance for lower-income households, employment support and access to housing.
So, we keep track of the ground situation and you have seen how things have moved over the last few years with regard to financial assistance, employment support and housing. In fact, looking at the facility that we provide and as well as the accessibility, we have to look at the very broad perspective and factors of not only looking at talents, caregiving needs but also at the security of Singapore. So, I hope the Member will understand that we have very broad considerations with regard to such an issue.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I note that the Minister of State stated that married spouses and foreign spouses may not have an automatic right to come in and to stay in Singapore. Assuming that the Singaporean spouse or the Permanent Resident spouse is able to look after financially his foreign spouse, would the Minister of State be able to share what are some of the grounds of consideration that may militate against the granting of an LTVP, assuming, of course, that financial consideration is not an issue?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: As I shared earlier, we look at various factors. We look at the individual considerations, the nature of the marriage and also, the circumstances as well as the identity of the people involved. But beyond that, we also look at it from the holistic perspective. So, each case is unique. I want to assure the Member that we will look at some of these cases. In fact, there are cases where we provide such a facility where the circumstances merit it. \t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ITE Students who Will Qualify for Entry into Polytechnics with New Grade Point Average Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) how many ITE students are estimated to be able to qualify per year under the new Grade Point Average requirements for entry into polytechnics; (b) what are the anticipated implications of these changes on polytechnic enrolment and respective programmes; and (c) how much flexibility is allowed for students to choose a polytechnic course which is not mapped to their current ITE course.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, from the 2027 polytechnic intake, the minimum entry requirements (MERs) for ITE Higher Nitec progressors to polytechnics will be raised from the net Grade Point Average (GPA) 2.0 to 2.5. We expect the number of ITE progressors to polytechnics to remain stable with the revised MERs, as most Higher Nitec students admitted to the polytechnics today have a net GPA of 2.5 and above already. About 4,000 ITE graduates are expected to qualify for and progress to polytechnic each year, similar to today.
ITE students who are interested to progress to a polytechnic diploma not mapped to their ITE course may apply through the Early Admissions Exercise (EAE). The EAE allows students to seek admission based on aptitude and interest in their course of choice.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\t
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I would like to first declare that I am an academic at a polytechnic. I thank the Minister for his response but, most importantly, I thank the Ministry for rolling out this much welcomed change. Many students that I have taught who came from ITE and on to the polytechnic, actually do quite well. They adapt quite well and, sometimes, they do better than GCE \"O\" level entrants themselves.
But there are others who struggle in their polytechnic studies. In all fairness, the subjects that they tend to falter or have trouble with are Math- or Science-related modules. These are things that prevent them from continuing the course mid-way.
So, my first supplementary question is: what measures are being taken to ensure that these students are adequately prepared for the academic rigour of polytechnic education? In that sense, would there be a review of how we want to introduce heavy, weighted, Math- or Science-related modules in a course that might find that unnecessary?
For my second supplementary question, Sir, I know many of my students who graduate from the polytechnics want to enter university. Most of them have good GPAs, but are not able to secure slots in universities. Thus, my supplementary question is: are there plans to expand this similar GPA concept to our polytechnic students who wish to join a university upon graduation? If not, what are the considerations behind this decision?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his questions. The first question is about students who are taking modules or courses in ITE and may not want to continue because they think they may not do well in the mapped courses in ITE. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when they go to ITE, yes, they take those courses. Today, we have already revised the curriculum structure for ITE to allow them to go to higher Nitec. We hope that in those two to three years that they are prepared in Higher Nitec, they are given the proper fundamentals and can strengthen their fundamentals so that they can continue to the mapped polytechnic courses. As I mentioned earlier, most of them are able to do so.
For those who have gone to the ITE courses and realised that those may not be the courses that they would want to pursue as their polytechnic courses, they can go through the EAE. That is really where they present their own credentials, look at their own strengths, tell the polytechnic, \"This is really who I am. I may not be good in certain subjects, but my overall GPA is good to be able to get into the polytechnic.\"
At the polytechnic, we are also making some structural changes to allow them to have a feel of what are the kinds of courses available. So, even if they are mapped onto the courses, there is the Common Entry Programme, meaning that they go through schools and they go through a semester of generic programmes in those schools before they decide to major in a particular area. So, in a sense, it allows them to have a feel of the aspects of the course, though mapped onto the schools that they were from in the ITE, but they can then decide, after one semester, where their strengths are.
But if they really feel that they want to go into a course that is a bit different, it is useful for them to go through the EAE.
We do have career guidance for our students at the ITE level, even at the polytechnic level, to allow them to make informed decisions in terms of where and how they can get into a better course in the polytechnic.
We have also been designing more flexibility at the polytechnic level to allow students some space, particularly those who are struggling in their earlier semesters, to allow them to take lighter loads so that they can cope with the demands of a polytechnic education.
As to the second question on plans for university admission, university admission today is flexible. The universities do take in students with different entry capabilities, including students with GCE \"A\" level, International Baccalaureate (IB) and polytechnic diploma qualifications. The universities have their own criteria to admit some of these students.
One of the most important things we want to also articulate is that while everyone aspires to have a university education, it need not be the first port of call following the completion of polytechnic education. There are many other pathways that we are creating today, including going out to work first and coming back and taking modules or credentials – they call it micro-credentialing, which universities are exploring today. This allows them to take modules that are relevant to the industry and the work they are in; and subsequently, aggregating those modules to perhaps be awarded a degree later on.
We are encouraging our students to be more flexible, open-minded in the kind of career path they are taking, without being fixated on just looking at a university education as the first port of call following their polytechnic education.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. It is heartening to know that at the higher levels, this is something that is being actively considered. I wonder if this will also be considered at the somewhat lower levels as well. Understandably, students at the lower levels feel more constrained in the kind of subjects they are forced to study and sometimes feel that taking on certain topics may be completely unrelated to their subsequent career aspirations.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Just to clarify, first, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, are you thinking of the lower levels as in the secondary level? Okay.
So, at the secondary level, yes, we do expose our students to polytechnic and ITE courses along the way. Some students are able to take modules in the polytechnic to give them a flavour of the kind of courses that they can take. Some students do take GCE \"O\" level subjects through polytechnic modules; for example, those who are interested in studying media and they take modules in Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Their GCE \"O\" level is based on these modules that they have taken. So, there is flexibility that is provided, but it really depends on the aptitude of the students at that point. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Second Minister for Education\", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]
Today, we allow the schools to have the flexibility to identify students' interest so that they know exactly what options are available.
At the same time, we do a lot of education and career guidance for students at the secondary level. We are also encouraging secondary schools to get their alumni to come back to serve on school boards so that the alumni can expose the students to various industries that are available out there.
While the foundation is necessary for us to make sure that we ready our students with the fundamentals – Math, Science, as articulated by Dr Wan Rizal earlier – from the perspective of getting exposure to the kind of careers that are available when they grow up, we do explore other opportunities for them.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Given that the GPA has been increased from 2.0 to 2.5, each year, how many ITE students with a GPA of between 2.0 and 2.5 enrol in the polytechnics? Was there a study done into how they fare in their polytechnic studies? For example, what percentage was able to successfully complete their polytechnic course?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: The group of students with a GPA of 2.0 to 2.5 is very small. As it is, they apply to get in and, based on the number of places available, most who get admitted would already have gotten a GPA of 2.5 and above. Those with a GPA of 2.0 to 2.5 do complete their polytechnic education, but we notice that their completion rates may not be as good as those with a GPA of 2.5 and above.
But I just want to say that those who have a GPA of 2.0 and above have access to other diploma courses. Today, ITE provides diploma courses in the form of a work-study diploma as well a technical diploma. These are diplomas provided by ITE and these are more hands-on.
We notice that for some of these students, they do better in hands-on-related courses that are offered at the diploma level for our students in ITE. The employment outcomes for the technical diploma as well as the work-study diploma are equivalent to the outcomes of students who receive a diploma from our polytechnics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Rise in Suicide Cases and Making Mental Healthcare Assistance Readily Accessible","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is (i) taking any steps to address the 25% rise in suicide cases in 2022 and (ii) making mental health assistance more readily accessible and affordable to the public.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, my response will also cover Written Question Nos 26 and 27 from yesterday's Order Paper and Written Question Nos 21 to 22 in today's Order Paper.
Sir, suicide is tragic, personal, complex and multifaceted. It is a sensitive topic and we need to bear in mind that the nature of public discourse may affect the actions of others, especially among the young.
To address the issue of potential suicide, the best interventions include building mental resilience, encouraging help-seeking, spotting early indicators for crisis intervention and supporting individuals who are in crisis. This approach requires help from many stakeholders.
There have been multiple initiatives introduced across agencies to raise awareness and build mental resilience.
At the national level, the Health Promotion Board (HPB)'s MindSG portal and the \"It's OKAY to Reach Out\" campaign promote self-help and provide guidance on maintaining good mental well-being, such as managing emotions and stress. In addition, the National Council of Social Service's \"Beyond the Label\" movement addresses mental health stigma and promotes social inclusion for persons with mental health conditions.
To enable children and youths to take active steps in building their mental wellness, mental resilience is taught in schools through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum. Peer support structures are also set up in all schools and Institutes of Higher Learning to help youth cope better with stress.
We also recognise the important role that parents play in their children's mental well-being. HPB rolled out a campaign in 2022 to help parents better understand their child's emotional health, identify early warning signs and provide support for their child.
Meanwhile, in the community, Well-being Circles have been set up to strengthen community and peer support by equipping citizens with the skills to care for their own mental well-being and that of others around them. We are making a major push to engage seniors who live alone, lack social support or are at-risk of social isolation through our Silver Generation Ambassadors and the network of Active Ageing Centres.
Assistance is also available in the community for individuals who are in psychological distress. Community mental health teams supported by the Government and set up by social service agencies provide mental health assessment and psychosocial intervention for such clients.
Those requiring crisis support can access various crisis helplines, such as the Samaritans of Singapore Hotline and Care Text service and the Institute of Mental Health's Mental Health Helpline. CareLine, a 24/7 social support hotline, also provides social support and emergency response services to seniors in distress and is operated by staff who can speak various dialects.
Many of the above-mentioned services in the community are provided at no cost.
The Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-Being continues to review existing interventions and is working together to enhance the quality and accessibility of mental health services.
At the same time, society plays a critical role in upholding a supportive social environment where there is little or no stigma against mental illness, where friends, family members and individuals feel safe to seek help, where parents work with schools to address their children's stress challenges and where everyone takes active steps to build up our mental well-being.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair. Keep it short.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Just two quick clarifications. The first is, in relation to the people who died from suicide, was any analysis done on whether any of these people had sought assistance before that?
The second supplementary question is whether or not access to mental health should be made as easily accessible as access to general practitioners (GPs), where some are allowed to use the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) card and so on for such consultations. It may be that access to regular counsellors or psychologists would be helpful to manage cases that are surfaced.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, indeed, when a suicide occurs, we do look at whether there were things that we could have done better, if that person had sought help before or interfaced with professional services. There are a significant number who had not sought assistance before the tragic events.
As to Mr Vikram Nair's suggestion about improving access to counsellors and psychologists as well as the capabilities to the people they do access, indeed, that is part of the work that the Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-Being is studying.
There are a number of ways to do this. One is to find ways to reduce the barriers for people seeking help – some of that is stigma, some of that has to do with information, some of that is where the services are provided.
Another approach is to provide increased personnel in the locations where people perhaps might seek help so that there is more capability.
The third is to provide capability to other types of professionals where people are seeking assistance of another nature but where now they can continue to go on to seek mental health support as well.
We are exploring all of these as part of the work of the Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-Being.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Motion for leave to bring in a Bill. Ms Joan Pereira.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Society of Saint Maur Incorporation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":"Introduction of Bill by Private Member","sectionType":"BI","content":"Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, \"That leave be given to introduce a Bill intituled 'An Act to amend the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance 1923'.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Murali Pillai. (proc text)]
The Bill seeks to amend the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance 1923 mainly to change the name of the corporation. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance 1923\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?
Ms Joan Pereira: I am, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Joan Pereira: Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to amend the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance 1923\".
[(proc text) Bill read for the First time. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?
Ms Joan Pereira: At the next available Sitting.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, since our Independence, water supply has always been an existential issue for Singapore.
As a small island nation, we needed a safe and reliable supply of water to ensure our survival and prosperity. Water demand has grown by more than six times since Independence to meet the needs of a growing population and the economy.
Through decades of long-term planning, innovation and investments, we have built up our Four National Taps. Behind each tap lies an integrated water system. This comprises 17 reservoirs and water catchment covering two-thirds of Singapore's total land area, 15 water treatment plants, four water reclamation plants and an island-wide network of water pipelines, drainage and sewerage systems, and the list goes on.
We have overcomed droughts and floods and cleaned up our rivers. And we now enjoy a world-class water system producing safe and reliable drinking water at the turn of the tap, anytime and anywhere. However, we cannot take this for granted.
It is increasingly challenging for Singapore to ensure water security and meet the water needs of our growing population and economy due to two factors: one, climate change; and two, increased water demand.
First, climate change. Some of us may recall that we experienced prolonged dry conditions from around 2014 to 2016, when we last experienced a major El Niño event. At that time, we saw water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor plunge to an historic low of 20%. This was a far cry from healthy reservoir levels of 80%-90% which we were used to. This was very worrying because the depletion of the Linggiu Reservoir would affect our supply of imported water from Malaysia. It took five years for the reservoir to reach healthy levels again.
Likewise, water levels in local waterbodies also fell during the prolonged dry conditions.
This demonstrates the importance of long-term planning and investment in weather-resilient water sources like NEWater and desalination. Since then, we have built new desalination plants in Tuas, Marina East and Jurong Island, bringing the total to five desalination plants today.
Unfortunately, we cannot prevent a recurrence of such extreme weather events. In fact, climate change is likely to cause such extreme weather events to occur more frequently and with more severe impact.
According to recent reports by the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation, global temperatures will likely surge to record levels over the next five years. This year, the naturally occurring El Niño is underway once again. This will further raise global temperatures and aggravate the risk of prolonged drought, adding additional stress to our water supply. The temperatures we have experienced here in Singapore for the past couple of weeks, also speak to this increasing trend.
The experience of the previous major El Niño event is a stark reminder that we must not be complacent about our water security.
Second, we also need to expect an increase in demand for resources like water, as our population and economy grow. Singapore currently consumes about 440 million gallons of water per day (mgd), which is equivalent to about 800 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Our consumption is expected to almost double by 2065, with the non-domestic sector being the major source of demand growth. This is especially so as we continue to draw in and grow high-value but water-intensive industries. This includes the wafer fabrication, biomedical and electronic industries, as engines of economic growth.
It is neither sustainable nor practical in land-scarce Singapore to rely only on building more and more water infrastructure to meet our ever-increasing water needs. Besides competing for land with other uses, construction costs have also risen significantly. This is especially so as we need to construct more of our water infrastructure underground. Each new drop of water costs more than the last. Our newer water sources like NEWater and desalinated water, are energy-intensive and costly to produce.
These factors will add pressure for the Government to increase the water price to fund and operate such infrastructure. Hence, it is crucial that we carefully manage the growth in our water demand.
Sustainable growth in water demand allows us to build additional water infrastructure at a more measured pace. This contributes to a more sustainable cost of producing and supplying water in the long run. By adopting the 3Rs concept – reduce, reuse and recycle – which we are all familiar with, we can conserve water and use it more efficiently, making every single drop of water count.
This Bill serves to update the Public Utilities Act 2001 (PUA) in two main areas: recycling requirements for large water users and to impose charges on large private water suppliers (PWS).
We will also introduce amendments related to the Public Utilities Board (PUB)'s operations, to better support their efforts in ensuring the security of our water supply. I will elaborate on each group of these amendments.
First, on mandatory water recycling requirements. Currently, water demand from the non-domestic sector accounts for about half of our total water consumption. This will increase to about two-thirds of our total water demand by 2065. We must, therefore, make greater efforts to achieve a more sustainable growth in non-domestic water demand.
An important strategy is to raise water efficiency, particularly for large water users.
During the Committee of Supply (COS) earlier this year, my Ministry announced that we will be introducing mandatory recycling requirements on new projects in the wafer fabrication, electronics and biomedical industries. Clause 12 of the Bill will insert a new section 40 in the PUA to reflect this.
I will now elaborate on how we arrived at the specific requirements.
We considered two key factors in determining which industries to introduce water efficiency requirements for. First, extent of water demand; and secondly, potential for water recycling.
The largest water consumers are companies in the wafer fabrication, biomedical and electronics industries. They require large amounts of water for their manufacturing processes, such as rinsing and cooling. Collectively, these companies take up almost one-fifth of the total non-domestic water demand today.
And given the strong investment interest which Singapore has attracted from semiconductor and biotechnological firms in recent years, the projected water demand from the non-domestic sector is expected to increase. We are keen to work with companies in these industries to conserve and improve water efficiency, and thus reduce the growth in water demand.
Apart from looking at industries with high water demand, we also shortlisted those with processes that have high potential for water recycling. This refers to processes that produce fairly clean used or reject water streams, and thus easier to recycle as minimal treatment is required. This allows for water recycling to be done cost effectively.
With business costs and competitiveness in mind, we want to ensure that any requirements imposed will be economically and technologically feasible and viable for the companies.
The wafer fabrication, electronics and biomedical industries fulfil both these criteria of having high water demand and producing water streams with high potential for recycling. However, we also recognise that they each use water differently, and processes can differ from one facility to another. So, we will apply targeted water efficiency requirements specific to the context of these industries.
For new wafer fabrication plants involved in front-end semiconductor manufacturing, we will require a minimum 50% recycling rate. We have observed that current technologies already allow companies to achieve such high recycling rates. For example, the majority of wafer fabrication plants in Taiwan have achieved a recycling rate of at least 75%.
In consultation with the industry and recognising Singapore's unique land constraints, we determined that, for a start, a 50% recycling rate will strike an appropriate balance between having a higher recycling rate, and the technological and economic viability of doing so from the companies' perspective.
We will review the effectiveness and the impact of the proposed requirements, alongside future changes in technology.
For the electronics and biomedical industries, processes are much more diverse. Their use cases for recycled water are more limited, compared to those involved in wafer fabrication. Hence, instead of requiring a minimum recycling rate, we will require the recycling of specified waste streams for these companies. This includes reject streams from processes, such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis.
Several companies are already doing so today. One successful example would be Hoya Electronics. They have implemented projects to recycle their reject streams and recover effluents from wastewater. This allowed them to achieve industry-leading recycling rates of over 75%.
We intend for the requirements to apply from January 2024 to new projects, including the expansion of existing plants that will consume at least 60,000 cubic metres of water annually. These requirements will not be applied to existing projects.
We are focusing on new projects as waste stream segregation for water recycling can be designed upfront. Beyond designing for recycling, occupiers of the new projects will also be responsible for ensuring that recycling is done while these projects are in operation.
Existing projects will not be subjected to the new requirements as they will likely face space limitations when recycling equipment had not been planned for previously.
Nonetheless, PUB will continue to work with companies which are keen to increase the recycling rates in existing plants through facilitative measures, such as funding and technical support for recycling projects.
PUB and Economic Development Board have engaged affected companies and industry associations in 2021 and 2022. They were generally supportive of the proposed requirements and agreed with the technical and economic viability of these requirements for new projects. This is also in line with the stated sustainability or environmental goals of many of these companies.
The payback period for the recycling infrastructure is assessed to be typically between two and four years for wafer fabrication companies and less than one year for the electronics and biomedical industries.
Companies can recover the cost of their investments over time and enjoy cost savings in the longer term through reduced water usage. Some companies have even expressed interest in raising their water recycling rates for new projects beyond the mandated 50% and asked if the Government would support their efforts in doing so. PUB has taken in the feedback. We will provide financial support for companies that are willing to invest in technologies to raise their water recycling rate.
PUB reviewed its funding framework for the Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) and the Industrial Water Solution Demonstration Fund (IWSDF), which provide financial support for companies with projects on water recycling and adoption of water-efficient equipment. Since July 2023, we have raised the funding caps for WEF and IWSDF from $1 million and $4 million respectively, to $5 million each for each project.
We understand that some companies may require additional time and support to adjust to the new requirements. As such, PUB will extend its support to companies by making WEF funding available to eligible companies until end-2025 to help raise their recycling rates to the mandatory levels. Thereafter, WEF funding will only be eligible for companies looking to raise their recycling rates above the mandatory requirements.
The enhanced funding incentives will make it more economically viable for the companies to introduce larger-scale water recycling projects, as it greatly reduces their payback period. This is especially so amongst those who recycle above the mandated 50%. Based on PUB’s projections, plants recycling at higher rates, which tap on the funds, can reduce their payback periods to about five years or less, compared to the current payback periods of up to 11 years.
Take GlobalFoundries, for example, a wafer fabrication manufacturing company. Its water recycling project will use innovative state-of-the-art technologies to treat and recycle wastewater from their manufacturing processes. With funding support from PUB’s IWSDF for their new project, GlobalFoundries will be able to raise their recycling rates by 10 percentage points, from 45% to 55%. The project results in water savings of 0.4 million gallons per day and reduces the company’s water bills by around $1.5 million annually. I am glad that companies, such as GlobalFoundries, are actively embracing water recycling as part of their sustainability goals.
Besides funding support, PUB provides technical advice on design plans for new facilities and operations. PUB stands ready to support the industries’ initiatives. This will improve the industries’ competitiveness and strengthen Singapore’s overall water resilience.
Besides managing water demand by introducing water efficiency requirements, ensuring a stable water supply is equally important for our water security.
The next group of amendments introduces charges to large private water suppliers (PWS) to ensure sustainable growth in Singapore’s private water supply. PWS refers to entities other than PUB that harvest rainwater or desalinate seawater following PUB’s approval.
Currently, we have a small private water supply sector that supplies about 1% of the total water demand in Singapore. The sector comprises private desalination plants and rainwater harvesters of various sizes. In recent years, PUB has received an increased number of proposals from PWS to collect rainwater or extract and treat seawater, to provide non-potable water for their own use or for sale. The number of large rainwater harvesters has tripled since 2013 and we expect interest to continue rising. We recognise that in the water supply landscape, PWS provides water that is fit-for-purpose, which allows for the more efficient use of water.
Nonetheless, to ensure overall water resilience, PUB is still expected to maintain sufficient reserve capacity and be ready to ramp up water production at short notice to make up for any disruptions that are faced by PWS. For instance, in a prolonged drought scenario, large rain harvesters will turn to PUB-supplied water sources.
Furthermore, PUB must develop and maintain sufficient capacity in our sewer network and water reclamation plants to collect and treat used water from PWS and their customers.
So, on this basis, the same principles of water conservation and the same contribution towards the national used water system should apply to PWS, just like how they apply to all other water users. We need to ensure that the growth of the private supply of water remains sustainable.
These two principles are reflected in the pricing of PUB-supplied water.
Besides water tariffs, PUB’s customers are subjected to the waterborne tax (WBT) and the water conservation tax (WCT). The WBT is a tax contribution to the national used water system paid by all water users, regardless of whether the premises are connected to PUB’s used water network. The WCT is a tax to encourage water conservation and to reflect the scarcity value of water. Today, PWS’ customers do not pay the WCT nor the WBT.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill introduce amendments to align the treatment of privately supplied water with the existing charging principles for PUB-supplied water.
Specifically, clause 4 of the Bill will amend section 20 to enable the WBT to be charged on water supplied by PWS.
Clause 5 of the Bill will insert a new section 20A to enable the WCT to be imposed under the PUA instead of the Statutory Board (Taxable Services) Act 1968.
The new section 20A will also allow for the scope of the WCT to be expanded to cover water supplied by PWS.
We will take a practical and calibrated approach and impose these charges only on large PWS. To be clear, smaller-scale rainwater harvesters, such as those in some housing estates or households, will not be affected.
The WBT will be imposed on private desalination plants and large rainwater harvesters, defined as those with tank sizes larger than 350 cubic metres. This is equivalent to around 26,000 typical water pails that are commonly used in households. This threshold was determined based on the average daily usage of water by larger rainwater harvesters who collectively harvest the majority of the volume of all privately harvested water. The WBT will be applied to the volume of water supplied for both their own use and for sale. This is in line with the principle of WBT as a tax contribution to the national used water system paid by all water users.
The WCT will only be imposed on water supplied for sale by private desalination plants. The WCT will not be applied to desalination plants supplying water for their own use. This is because we recognise that there is already a strong business motivation to conserve water due to the high cost of desalination. It will also not apply to rainwater harvesters since they are already helping to conserve treated water by using rainwater.
With this calibrated approach, the WBT and WCT are expected to mainly affect entities, such as country clubs, golf courses and industrial premises with tank sizes larger than 350 cubic metres. Small-scale rainwater harvesters with smaller tank sizes of 350 cubic metres and below will not be affected. And those not affected will include those in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, community clubs, schools and commercial entities with tank sizes that do not exceed the threshold I just mentioned.
PUB will be installing water meters at the PWS’ premises to measure the volume of water supplied for own use or for sale by these large PWS. This will allow PUB to obtain accurate readings of the volume of water used or supplied by the PWS.
Clause 6 of the Bill will amend section 24A to empower PUB to carry out the water meter installation.
The amendments to section 24A will also empower PUB to require the owner or occupier of the premises to carry out works at the premises that are necessary for the installation of the water meter.
We appreciate that the charges will add to PWS’ operating costs. PUB has engaged the affected PWS on the new pricing policy. The comments and queries received from the rainwater harvesters thus far had been clarificatory in nature, such as how water use would be metered. Owners of private desalination plants raised concerns on the increase in operating costs, especially given the poor business outlook. In response to the concerns of PWS, we intend to impose the charges in early 2025, giving the affected parties more than a year, to give time for transition and to adjust to the changes.
Furthermore, we will phase in the new charges in two steps, with 50% of the prevailing WBT and WCT rates in 2025 and the full prevailing rates to be imposed in 2026.
Finally, a third group of amendments is more technical and relate to PUB’s operations to safeguard our water security. These amendments serve to ensure that the Act remains relevant and effective in empowering PUB to carry out its work.
First, clause 7 relates to powers for PUB to recover the cost of removing the obstruction during emergencies where PUB must act immediately, such as removing obstruction to fix pipe bursts. Clause 10 introduces amendments to broaden PUB’s powers to require relevant persons to remove obstructions over all components of the water installation for repair and maintenance works.
Second, clause 8 introduces requirements for developers to submit diversion plans for PUB’s approval before they start relocating PUB’s water installations. This is to prevent disruptions to water supply and to ensure that the relocated water installations meet PUB’s standards and requirements. The relocation of such installations without PUB’s approval will be an offence.
Third, clauses 4 and 5 deal with matters related to the components of water price reflected in water bills. The WCT provisions will be moved from the Statutory Board Taxable Services Act 1968 to the PUA, as mentioned earlier. This will bring all water price-related provisions under the PUA. PUB will be empowered to grant, with the Minister’s approval, rebates or waivers on components of the water bill. This power may be exercised to grant \"leak concessions\", for instance, where water is lost through a leak that is beyond a customer’s control and the circumstances justify a reduction in the amount of the water bill to account for the leak.
Fourth, clause 15 introduces a five-year time-bar for monetary claims for overpayments or erroneous payments. This provision aligns with time-bars in other pieces of legislation, such as the Goods and Services Tax Act 1993 and the Customs Act 1960, which minimise agencies’ legal risks from very dated claims. We intend to commence the time-bar from 1 January 2025, about one-and-a-half years from now. This provides a transition period so that customers have sufficient time to seek redress before the time-bar comes into effect.
Finally, clauses 16 and 17 update the current requirements for the service of documents under the PUA. This brings us in line with the overall Government policy to promote digitalisation.
We will also introduce related amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act (SDA) under clause 20 to similarly update the service requirements for the purpose of SDA.
In summary, Sir, there is a strong impetus for us to manage growth in water demand and ensure a resilient water supply for Singapore, in order to meet the long-term needs of our economy and our population.
The proposed amendments to PUA will provide PUB with the legislative powers to do so and incentivise industries to do even more to conserve and recycle water through introducing water efficiency requirements to water-intensive industries, and charges on large PWS.
The proposed amendments related to PUB’s operations will allow PUB to more effectively and efficiently fulfil its mission of safeguarding our water security and continue to ensure a safe and reliable water supply for all. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will improve water efficiency requirements, increase PUB’s administrative effectiveness and ensure consistent application of taxes to private suppliers. I have three clarifications to raise.
My first point is on the WBT. Section 20(4)(g) allows the Minister to impose different amounts of WBT for persons \"differently situated\". It lists situations where a different WBT can be imposed. The explanatory statement states that this amendment is to allow finer calibration to the circumstances where WBT is imposed and the amount of WBT imposed.
Can the Senior Minister of State share specifically what changes to the imposition and calibration of WBT are envisaged? Can the Senior Minister of State also share if the list is intended to be exhaustive? If the list is not exhaustive, will PUB make clear the basis for imposing differentiated WBT?
My second point is on PUB's power on the relocation of any water installation. The new section 26 sets out PUB's powers on the water installations. In granting approval for a water installation, PUB is allowed to impose a condition requiring ownership of any water installation to be transferred to PUB. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if PUB will make payment to a person who transfers ownership of a water installation to PUB? If so, how will the quantum of payment be determined?
Next, section 26(10) allows an authorised officer to enter the premises and carry out works or take any measures if a person fails to comply with a notice. Given the intrusiveness of these powers, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that reasonable time will be given for a person to comply with the notice? Can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that force cannot be used to secure any entry? What are the types of other measures that an authorised officer may take if there is non-compliance?
My final point is on water efficiency requirements. Section 40 of the amendments introduces water efficiency requirements for new facilities built for business purposes that require water. I understand that there are presently existing best practice guidelines published for certain industries. Can the Senior Minister of State share if further changes will be made to the current best practices guidelines for these industries? Will guidelines be introduced for more industries as well? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether the water efficiency requirements take into account the present technology that is available to maintain water efficiency?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia have a long-standing history of water agreements due to Singapore's lack of natural water resources. The issue of water supply was a point of tension in bilateral relations between Singapore and Malaysia. There have been occasional disputes and disagreements over water pricing and other related matters. As water is a critical resource, any change or threat to water supply can have significant implications for Singapore's water security and Independence. It is timely that we discuss this Bill as we celebrate Singapore's 58th birthday next week.
I support this Bill but I have a few points for clarification.
Can I confirm that the WBT and WCT will not have any cost implications for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and individual consumers?
We are competing with many countries like South Korea to attract MNCs in the wafer fabrication, biomedical and electronics industries to set up plants in Singapore. Will the new water efficiency requirements result in additional cost burdens for these multinational corporations (MNCs)? This may impact Singapore's competitiveness in attracting companies in these sectors. What is the Government doing to support them?
Regarding companies that have genuine reasons for not being able to meet the water efficiency requirements, I hope PUB can take a balanced approach. While we encourage compliance with water efficiency standards, I hope PUB can also consider the challenges faced by individual companies. I hope there will be avenues for companies to seek waivers or apply for exemptions if they can demonstrate valid reasons for not meeting the requirements. PUB should assess each case on its merits and decide whether to grant leniency based on the company's circumstances.
Taiwan can achieve a water recycling rate of 75% in the wafer fabrication industry as manufacturers adopt advanced water recycling and treatment technologies. Can the Government support the development of this technology and upskill the local corporates which play a critical role in this space like advanced water treatment, chemical and particle removal and dilute chemical recovery?
Is the growth in water demand resulting in an increase in the average cost of water production which may be passed on to our Singaporeans? How is the Government addressing this impact in the long run? What role does PWS play in Singapore's water security strategy and what is the desired PWS landscape in the long term? Under what type of circumstances will PUB take immediate action to remove obstruction?
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, water remains an invaluable resource that sustains our very existence. Yet, the global challenges of climate change and increasing water demand continue to pose pressing concerns for nations worldwide. As a country known for our prudent water management in the face of resource constraints, we are particularly vulnerable to these challenges.
As we grapple with the anticipated repercussions of climate change on our water resources, it becomes imperative that we adopt a forward-thinking approach and proactively address these issues. I have several clarifications on this Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask about the mandatory recycling requirements outlined in the proposed amendments. While it is commendable that we are implementing recycling requirements in specific sectors like wafer fabrication, electronics and biomed, we must consider the broader picture. These sectors, though significant contributors to non-domestic water demand, represent only one-fifth of the entire sector. Are there plans to expand the mandatory recycling requirements to cover other sectors as well? Also, what constitutes high water recycling potential? Can this be stretched to either the financial and business sectors or other manufacturing sectors like pharmaceuticals?
The proposed target of achieving a 50% recycling rate for wafer fabrication is a commendable step. However, it is worth noting that Taiwan has already achieved a recycling rate of 75% in the same sector. I would like to inquire about Singapore's plan to move towards a higher recycling rate in the wafer fabrication sector. Additionally, it would be beneficial to understand how the Government intends to support these efforts, be it through the provision of infrastructure or subsidies.
I also wish to better understand the difference between the WEF and the IWSDF. Are the funding caps for these initiatives sufficient to make a substantial impact in achieving our water sustainability goals?
Whilst we seek to meet our water recycling goals, we must be mindful of the costs associated with meeting these requirements, in particular, whether having compulsory water recycling would drive up costs of production and make businesses in Singapore less competitive.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarifications on the introduced charges for PWS. Can PUB share on the overall numbers of PWS operating in Singapore? What is their impact on the country's overall water system, particularly in terms of capacity and supply? How does PUB plan to make sure that by allowing more PWS, we ensure that it does not go the way of the open electricity market, where a number of smaller companies could not sustain their operations and customers were affected?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the amendments related to operations. Regarding the provision of legal powers to PUB to conduct operations to safeguard water security, may I ask how often these powers of entry were exercised in the past? I understand that these powers are essential for maintaining water security, but some may view them as intrusive. Hence, I seek an explanation on whether the decision to exercise these powers is based on the severity of the issue at hand, ensuring that the entry is justified and proportionate to the situation, something which Member Louis Ng has also mentioned earlier.
In addition, I note the decision to give PUB's e-notices to accounts pre-designated by customers the same legal effect as PUB's hard copy documents. I welcome the move towards e-notices as more people are adopting them over paper notices. This is also a more efficient and eco-friendly approach. However, I would like to express a concern for some residents, especially seniors, who may have difficulties accessing and reading digital notices. They may have an online account or app, often created on their behalf, but that does not necessarily mean they will use it. I urge the authorities to ensure that appropriate provisions are in place to accommodate and support residents who may need alternative ways of communication to stay updated on water-related matters. This could include an opt-out option for those who prefer hard copy notices.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the introduction of these amendments. These changes align with the urgent need to enhance our water management practices and further enhance the foundation for a sustainable water future. It is reassuring to witness our commitment to the principles of reuse and recycle embedded within this Bill.
Nevertheless, it is critical to acknowledge that the journey towards water sustainability extends beyond the measures outlined in this Bill. While the focus on reuse and recycle is commendable, we must not overlook the importance of the \"reduce\" component in our water story. As a nation with limited natural resources, Singapore must continue to prioritise and persist in public education initiatives that promote water conservation. By instilling a culture of responsible water usage and emphasising the significance of reducing our overall water consumption, we can further safeguard and strengthen our precious water resources.
Furthermore, as we introduce these initiatives to conserve water, we must ensure that the consumers are not burdened by the costs. In particular, PWS should not be permitted to increase prices to offset the new charges as a result of these amendments. In this high inflationary environment, essential public goods, such as water, must continue to remain accessible to our residents. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I welcome this Bill which seeks to manage Singapore's water demand, projected to almost double in 40 years' time and safeguard supply.
I support the introduction of mandatory water recycling requirements for industries which use huge quantities of water, as well as giving more legal powers to PUB to ensure our water security.
As for the amendments to impose charges on PWS, I have some queries.
PWS' constructions to collect rainwater or get water from the sea to produce desalinated water need to be approved by PUB. They complement PUB in providing complementary water supplies. Would not the imposition of the WBT and WCT have an adverse impact on PWS, discouraging them from the provision of their services?
Would the Ministry share the profiles of these PWS? How many are there and have their numbers been increasing in recent years? How many of these are rainwater harvesters and desalination plants? To whom do they supply their processed waters?
I would also like to know if the Ministry had engaged with PWS regarding the proposed measures and discussed their concerns. What do both parties think would be the likely impact of the new taxes on this sector? Would the Ministry consider delaying their implementation?
Would the Ministry explain the reasons for the different tax treatments? For example, why are all PWS which produce water for their own use exempted from WCT, likewise for rainwater harvesters?
Are the private producers inter-company and intra-company, that is, so-called related company sales exempted from WBT and WCT respectively for those within the production compound or a related company at other locations? How does the agency manage?
All small rainwater harvesters, defined as below 350 cubic metres, will be exempted from both WBT and WCT. What were the considerations in deciding on this volume threshold?
Finally, what are the Ministry's long-term plans for the PWS sector?
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Let me run through the queries and concerns raised topically. I will begin by addressing the issues related to the mandatory water efficiency requirements.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether there are plans to mandate a higher recycling rate in the wafer fabrication industry, especially when Taiwan has already achieved a recycling rate of 75%. Mr Yip and Mr Don Wee also asked whether the costs associated with meeting the mandatory water recycling requirements will affect the competitiveness of businesses in Singapore.
I want to thank the Members for these questions, which reflect the importance of striking a balance between ensuring water sustainability and business competitiveness. As mentioned in my speech earlier, setting the mandatory recycling rate for the wafer fabrication industry requires careful calibration. We need to strike an appropriate balance between having a higher recycling rate and the technological and economic viability of doing so.
Too low a mandatory recycling rate means that we do not maximise the opportunity to achieve a more sustainable water demand growth. Too high a recycling rate may be economically prohibitive for several companies, which will end up eroding Singapore's competitiveness. We are mindful of potentially higher operational costs and land constraints that become especially salient when the recycling rate goes beyond 50%, as companies will have to adopt more advanced water treatment technologies.
Also, to address Mr Louis Ng's query on whether existing technology was taken into account when deciding the water efficiency requirements, the Government has taken into account not just technical viability, but also economic viability.
After consultations with companies, we found that a recycling rate of 50% would be reasonable and doable currently. Today, the median recycling rate for existing wafer fabrication plants in Singapore is 40%, although some facilities are already recycling beyond 50%. Companies we engaged with agreed that a minimum recycling rate of 50% was technically and economically viable for them.
This is corroborated by the high recycling rates that the companies have declared for their recently commissioned and upcoming wafer fabrication plants in Singapore. For example, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC)'s expansion plant, which is scheduled to be commissioned in 2024, is designed to achieve a recycling rate of above 60%.
In fact, some companies indicated that they aspired to recycle beyond the mandatory level as part of their corporate social responsibility to conserve resources. PUB certainly welcomes and supports the aspirations of these companies to achieve higher recycling rates beyond the mandated levels.
As climate action gains greater traction globally and resource sustainability becomes more pertinent, we see that consumers and investors are paying greater attention to corporate sustainability efforts. It is, therefore, in the companies' long-term interests to show their commitment towards water sustainability efforts.
Likewise, it is critical for Singapore to continue to show our commitment to water sustainability as a responsible steward of the environment. Introducing mandatory water recycling requirements is a key part of this effort. And as Mr Don Wee rightly pointed out, we must remain an attractive investment and business destination. He raised an important point on providing support to affected companies. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) and the Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund (IWSDF), and whether the funding support is sufficient to make a substantial impact on achieving our water sustainability goals.
Since 2007, PUB has been providing funding support, in addition to technical support, to companies that are looking to invest in technologies to raise their water recycling rates. PUB's funding support has greatly reduced companies' payback periods and incentivise them to adopt water-efficient practices.
Under the WEF, companies may apply for funding to perform water efficiency assessments, implement pilot and full-scale water recycling projects or adopt water-efficient equipment. The IWSDF is a sub-scheme under the WEF and supports the adoption of new technologies and innovative water recycling solutions. The projects should utilise emerging or recently developed technologies or innovative applications of existing technologies which have not been implemented in the industry.
Addressing Mr Don Wee's query on the Government's support for companies affected by the water recycling requirements, the IWSDF allows PUB to co-share with companies the risks of adopting novel water efficiency solutions and, through this, tip the cost-benefit balance in the favour of the companies. As of June 2023, 375 successful applicants have received grants under the WEF and IWSDF, with the grant amounts ranging from $10,000 to $4 million per project. When the projects are fully implemented, it would result in potential water savings of over 70 million litres a day.
Mr Don Wee asked about the Government's support to develop technologies for higher recycling rates and to upskill local businesses in this area. PUB, in fact, fosters industry growth through collaborations with local and overseas partners in the water and water-related industries. Areas of collaboration include research, technology development and knowledge management. For example, PUB offers industrial test-bedding sites to help develop new technologies in the water market. I strongly encourage companies to tap on PUB's support schemes to boost their water recycling efforts.
Raising the water recycling rate will contribute to sustainability in water demand growth and enhance Singapore's water security in the long term. Recycling beyond 50% will result in even greater water savings for the companies while placing Singapore in a better position to host more high-value water-intensive investments.
We will review the effectiveness of the proposed requirements, alongside future changes in technology, before considering whether to mandate higher recycling rates or to expand the requirements to other sectors, as Mr Yip has asked.
Importantly, we need to consider that other sectors may have a lower recycling potential due to the heterogenous nature of their processes. This is because they may have waste streams that are of a different nature in terms of quality, quantity and content, making it much more challenging and much costlier to recycle water. Hence, it may not be viable to apply a single mandatory requirement across all industrial sectors. Working with companies and individual sectors to identify relevant water conservation opportunities would be a much more effective approach.
Nonetheless, we may consider extending the requirements in future if it becomes economically and technologically feasible to do so. In the meantime, I encourage businesses in other sectors, such as refineries, petrochemicals and chemicals companies, to refer to PUB's guidelines on best practices to improve water efficiency, as Mr Louis Ng mentioned earlier. These guidelines are available on PUB's website.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether these guidelines would be updated for the wafer fabrication, electronics and biomedical industries in view of the new requirements. Mr Ng also asked if water efficiency guidelines will be introduced for more industries. I want to assure Members that the guidelines are reviewed regularly, along with updates to the best practices and case studies. A second version of the guidebook for wafer fabrication and semiconductor companies was, in fact, published in 2022. In the same year, PUB also introduced three new guidebooks for the commercial laundry, food and beverage manufacturing and biomedical manufacturing companies.
Mr Don Wee asked what will happen if companies have genuine reasons for not being able to meet the water efficiency requirements. He also asked if waivers can be granted based on valid reasons. We understand that some companies may face unique challenges in meeting the water efficiency requirements.
The proposed section 40(8), introduced by clause 12 of the Bill, is meant to address this. It empowers PUB to waive or modify any prescribed water efficiency requirement, if there are good reasons to do so. Such waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the companies, following PUB's technical assessment of the reasons for waivers.
So, I hope that Members have a better understanding of the importance of managing our water demand growth. Besides water security, it also ensures that the cost of producing and supplying water remains sustainable for Singapore in the long run. By carefully managing water demand growth, we can build our water infrastructure at a more sustainable pace, thereby controlling costs, which Mr Wee had asked about.
I will now move on to address issues related to private water suppliers, or the PWS.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the profiles and number of PWS in Singapore. Currently, there are around 300 PWS in total. The vast majority are rainwater harvesters, with a small number of private desalination plants. Most PWS collect rainwater or produce desalinated water for their own use.
Mr Gan and Mr Don Wee asked about our long-term plans for the private water supply sector and the role of PWS in our water supply landscape. To ensure the resilience of our overall water supply system, we envision a small private water supply sector comprising mostly small-scale PWS, with the bulk of water still supplied by PUB. The value proposition for PWS is to supply water of varying qualities on a fit-for-purpose basis. For example, instead of using potable water, commercial entities harvest rainwater for landscape irrigation. This enhances our overall water security because it encourages the conservation and efficient usage of potable water.
As Mr Yip Hon Weng accurately pointed out, PWS or their customers could face water supply disruptions if PWS' operations are affected, or if the PWS ceases supply as a business decision. These are, of course, valid concerns. As Singapore's national water agency, PUB must maintain a sufficient reserve capacity so that we can ramp up water production at short notice to supply to the PWS and/or their customers in the event of disruption in the PWS' operations.
Keeping private water supply small would be an important safeguard and manages the enterprise risk for our water system as a whole. If the PWS sector were to grow multi-fold, the PWS sector would place significantly more risk on our water system, and PUB would then need to provision for and invest in more capacity to ramp up production, in case of any disruptions faced by the PWS or cessation of supply.
An overly fragmented PWS sector with an excessive number of small operators would also not be able to fully reap economies of scale and be less economically viable and efficient.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh had several clarifications on the charges, including the intent of introducing the charges and how these charges would apply. As I have shared earlier with Members, we want to take a practical and calibrated approach in introducing the charges to PWS. When determining the applicable threshold for rainwater harvesters, we considered the overall landscape and profile of rainwater harvesters. We observed that most PWS are small-scale rainwater harvesters, such as those in HDB estates and schools, which collectively account for around 20% of privately harvested water.
As a practical and calibrated approach, we will impose the WBT only for large rainwater harvesters, whose tank sizes are greater than 350 cubic metres. This would capture harvesters who collectively harvest the majority, or around 80%, of the volume of all privately harvested rainwater. This will include entities, such as country clubs, golf courses and industrial premises with tank sizes larger than 350 cubic metres.
This will allow us to strike a balance between the ideal policy position that WBT should be applied to all rainwater harvesters while helping the industry manage the administrative costs of compliance. Hence, to Mr Don Wee's suggestion on whether the charges would affect SMEs and individual consumers, I would want to say that those with tank sizes of 350 cubic metres and below will not be affected.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the charges would apply to private desalination plants that supply water for their own use within the same premises or to different premises. We have taken a calibrated approach when it comes to the imposition of charges. So, the WBT will apply for private desalination plants for the volume of water supplied, for both their own use and for sale. This is consistent with our approach that all water users contribute to the national used water system.
The WCT is only applicable if the water is supplied to third parties, including subsidiary companies.
Mr Gan also asked why the WCT would not be imposed on PWS supplying water for their own use. The principle behind the WCT is to encourage water conservation. Private desalination plants already have a strong business motivation to conserve water due to the high cost of desalination, while rainwater harvesters are already conserving treated water by just using rainwater. So, imposing WCT on these two types of PWS would, therefore, increase business costs without actually improving water conservation.
Mr Gan asked if the charges would discourage PWS from supplying water. We acknowledge that the charges will add to the PWS' operating costs. To address Mr Gan's concerns and help PWS cope with the transition, PUB will only implement the charges in early 2025, instead of immediately, and adopt a phased approach to implement the charges, as I have said earlier in my opening speech.
PUB has engaged and will continue to engage the PWS and support them during this transition. We have assessed that, unlike small-scale rainwater harvesters, imposing WBT on large-scale rainwater harvesters is unlikely to discourage them from harvesting rainwater. This is because they benefit from economies of scale that make rainwater a financially viable alternative to PUB-supplied potable water.
I would like to emphasise again that the charges will only be imposed on rainwater harvesters with tank sizes greater than 350 cubic metres or private desalination plants.
Mr Louis Ng pointed out that clause 4 of the Bill allows for the imposition of the WBT to be more finely calibrated and asked what changes to the imposition and calibration of the WBT are envisaged. To clarify, section 20 currently enables WBT to be charged on water supplied by PUB only.
We are amending section 20 to enable WBT to be charged on water supplied by persons other than PUB, namely, the PWS. Current provisions in section 20 are being expanded to include “extracted water” and “water derived from extracted water”, so that WBT can be calculated with reference to rainwater and desalinated water.
The intention is to charge PWS the same WBT rates as PUB-supplied water for non-domestic premises, currently at 92 cents per cubic metre, and this will be specified in the subsidiary legislation. PUB will make clear the basis for imposing differentiated WBT when such cases arise.
To conclude the segment on PWS, I would like to reiterate that the introduction of charges is aimed at aligning the treatment of privately supplied water with the charging principles for PUB-supplied water. This is to encourage conservation and efficient usage, regardless of its source. These charges will also help to ensure the sustainable growth of the private water supply sector.
I will now cover the final segment on questions related to PUB’s operations.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how often the powers of entry were exercised by PUB in the past and highlighted that such powers should be exercised judiciously and be proportionate to the situation. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether reasonable advance notice would be provided for compliance with notices and whether force would be used to secure entry to premises.
I believe Mr Yip is referring to clause 6 of the Bill, which amends section 24A of the Act that deals with powers to enter premises for installation or maintenance of pipes, water installations and so on acquired by PUB. On average, PUB has to request and gain access to private premises eight times a month to carry out such works.
On the other hand, Mr Ng is referring to the proposed section 26(10) introduced under clause 8 of the Bill. The provision allows PUB to enter premises to carry out works or take measures if a person fails to comply with a notice to stop unauthorised relocation of water installations.
For both sections, PUB will seek the cooperation of the owners or occupiers and advance notice will be given. The entry must be at a reasonable hour or otherwise at a time agreed with the owner or occupier of these premises. Regardless of which section applies, PUB will assess the situation in each case and ensure that any entry into private premises is justified and proportionate.
The power under section 24A is different from the emergency situations in which PUB has to take immediate action, as Mr Don Wee has asked about. Under emergency situations, such as a burst in a pipeline running through private property or disruptions to public water supply, PUB must act immediately to remove obstruction or enter private premises without notice to address the urgent and emergency situation. The provision to act in such emergency situations is in section 24B of the Act.
Mr Louis Ng asked if PUB would make payment to a person who transfers the ownership of a water installation to PUB, as provided in clause 8 of the Bill, which amends section 26 of the Act. Section 26 will be amended to regularise the existing requirement for developers to submit diversion plans to PUB for approval before they start works to divert PUB’s pipes and water installation.
Such diversions are requested solely by the developers carrying out construction works at or in the vicinity of the existing water installation, for their own development projects. As such, after developers divert the water installation, PUB will take over the ownership of the water installation for long-term maintenance and operational flexibility without any payment or cost to the development.
Finally, Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested that appropriate provisions be put in place to accommodate residents, especially seniors, who may have difficulties accessing and reading digital notices. I thank Mr Yip for his suggestion.
Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 70 of the Act to update the various means by which service of documents may be effected by PUB. For example, it will enable PUB to send electronic notices, in place of hard copy documents, to alert customers on high water consumption. The amendment does not provide for e-notices to automatically replace hard copy notices. This is an opt-in system for customers who prefer to receive e-notices in lieu of hard copies. So, I hope this will give the assurance to the Member who raised the question.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said in my opening speech, we have come a long way since Independence to achieve water security. The proposed amendments under this Bill serve to ensure that the Act remains relevant and effective in safeguarding our water security through sustainable water demand management and reliable supply of water, especially in light of climate change and increasing water demand. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (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":"National Productivity Fund (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, this Bill seeks to expand the scope of the National Productivity Fund (NPF) Act to cover investment promotion. Specifically, clause 3(b) of the Bill amends the NPF Act to allow NPF funds to be used to anchor quality investments in Singapore. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the NPF Act to extend specific powers of the Productivity Fund Administration Board (PFAB), which administers the NPF, to also cover investment promotion activities.
Let me explain why we are making this change. Investment promotion has been a cornerstone of Singapore’s economic growth over the years. Pre-Independence, there was significant unemployment in Singapore. The Government quickly recognised that rapid industrialisation and investment from multinational enterprises (MNEs) were needed to provide jobs for large numbers of unemployed workers.
To accelerate the pace of industrialisation and inflow of investments, Dr Goh Keng Swee established the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1961 to attract MNEs to Singapore. The Government built on the initial momentum to establish Singapore as a credible location for higher-value and more advanced economic activities. We built up key infrastructure, we set aside industrial land and developed our utilities, transport and communications networks.
But hardware alone is not enough. We also invested in other intangible fundamentals – our operating software and the skills of our workers. We developed our workers, equipping them with skills for the new jobs that would come. We also fostered strong tripartite relations as a foundation for economic stability and growth. We put in place a strong governance and legal framework, so that investors would have the confidence that their business operations and assets would be protected, contracts would be honoured and there is strong rule of law.
With these conditions in place, we attracted MNEs, such as Texas Instruments, Philips and Panasonic, previously known as Matsushita, to set up in Singapore. They brought with them production capabilities and management know-how. Local companies that supplied to these MNEs benefited as they built up capabilities and gained access to the global market. Similarly, workers employed by these MNEs and their local suppliers benefited. They were able to earn a stable income and acquired valuable skills to progress in their careers.
Through these investments, we grew our economy and created employment opportunities for Singaporeans over the years.
Today, our economy is in a stronger position. Singapore is a regional and global hub for many MNEs and a leading international financial centre. We are a global trading hub, with strengths in transportation and logistics, anchored by our world-class air and sea ports. We also have a vibrant manufacturing sector with key segments like electronics, chemicals and biomedical science. These generate good jobs for our people and deepen the expertise and sophistication of our economy, which, in turn, enhance Singapore’s competitiveness against other cities.
But we cannot take this for granted, as nothing in our story of survival and success is pre-ordained or guaranteed to last forever. We know that the external environment has become more challenging and competition for investments is increasing.
With the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS 2.0) initiative, we have less scope to use tax incentives as a tool to attract new investments. At the same time, countries are intensifying their efforts to attract new investments, particularly in strategic sectors, such as semiconductors and biomedical manufacturing.
Several countries have already announced generous incentives to anchor manufacturing activities. The US CHIPS and Science Act sets aside S$69 billion to support semiconductor manufacturing, R&D and workforce development. India has similarly announced a S$13 billion package to attract investments in semiconductor manufacturing.
We will not be able to, nor should we try to, outbid these major economies in terms of spending. But we will certainly have to do more to ensure that Singapore remains competitive and relevant on the global stage.
We must, therefore, double down on our productivity efforts and ensure that our workforce remains highly skilled and competitive. Only then can we remain attractive to foreign investors, grow strong local companies that can do well in domestic and overseas markets and ensure that Singapore remains top-of-mind as a choice destination for investments and talent.
To demonstrate our commitment to attracting new investments, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance announced in the FY2023 Budget Statement that the Government will top up the National Productivity Fund (NPF) with $4 billion and expand the scope of the Fund to include investment promotion as a supportable activity.
We are setting aside funds when we can, to ensure that we have the resources ready to anchor new investments when there are opportunities to do so. This is crucial because MNEs make their investment decisions based on business and investment cycles, which may not align neatly with funding mechanisms bound by the terms of Government.
This Bill will amend the NPF Act to effect the changes announced at Budget this year. If Parliament approves this Bill, funds from the NPF can be used to support all three prongs of Singapore’s economic growth strategy.
We will continue to tap on the NPF to support local enterprises to improve productivity and generate greater value. One scheme that the NPF has supported is the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF). It offers incentives to help firms adopt productive technology and develop their workforce to raise productivity in the construction sector. To date, the CPCF has helped over 10,000 companies, with more than 90% being SMEs.
We also want to continue investing in CET and lifelong learning to further strengthen our human capital. The NPF supports initiatives, such as the SkillsFuture Work-Study Programme, which has helped more than 7,000 fresh ITE and polytechnic graduates deepen their skills through integrating on-the-job training with classroom learning.
With the proposed expansion, we will also be able to tap on the NPF to anchor quality investments from MNEs in Singapore. This includes the use of incentives to attract companies in advanced industries to make new manufacturing investments here. It can also support efforts by MNEs to train and upskill local workers.
Sir, as we compete for foreign investments, we will also continue with investments in our local enterprises, including our SMEs, to help more companies improve productivity and scale up their business.
As I explained earlier in my speech, attracting MNEs to Singapore will benefit our local companies as they can access opportunities to get more contracts, enhance their capabilities, including upskilling of workers and developing strong track records, to support their overseas expansion.
This is how we ensure that each new investment we bring in strengthens the vibrancy of our economy, enhances our competitiveness and, ultimately, benefits Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you on your recent election as Speaker of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s stable and trusted policy environment and access to global talent have attracted many MNEs in sectors like oil, finance, electronics and pharmaceuticals. However, geopolitical and economic rivalry between the United States and China – two of the world’s largest economies and Singapore’s top trading partners – may threaten this investment trend.
In Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s Budget speech earlier in February this year, he mentioned that \"The geopolitical context has shifted greatly. Great power contestation has intensified, most notably between the US and China.\" Due to this, MNEs are reconfiguring supply chains, at times, moving away from the most cost-efficient configurations to a more robust supply chain that takes these geopolitical risks into serious consideration.
There is a trend of MNEs relocating to safer locations to avoid geopolitical conflicts. He mentioned, \"All this is setting off a dangerous dynamic towards greater economic nationalism and protectionism around the world. Governments are stumping out more aggressive support, in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, to anchor strategic industries.\"
In addition to the increased economic nationalism and protectionism around the world, the higher inflation rates, higher interest rates, higher borrowing cost and cost-of-capital, the manpower crunch, our higher wages and even higher dormitory cost and rental market continue to increase the cost of doing business in Singapore. Our strong currency also means Singapore-based businesses are finding it harder to compete through cost in the global market. Furthermore, additional headwinds, such as the impending increase in carbon tax and the implementation of the BEPS 2.0 initiative, may add even more costs to doing business in Singapore, something which Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat mentioned earlier, too.
The US and other countries are rolling out aggressive tax breaks and subsidies to attract investments, such as the CHIPS and Science Act in the US, to build up their industries and revitalise their domestic manufacturing, competing with Singapore. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat mentions that other countries like India are also intensifying their investment promotion. BEPS2.0 tax equalisation reduces Singapore’s investment attraction capabilities.
However, the best way to deal with the geopolitical uncertainty, the increased competition and the cost pressures is for Singapore to continue to be a trusted investment destination, to remain open and to boost the long-term productivity and global competitiveness of our enterprises. In his 2023 Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s announcement of the $4 billion top up to our NPF and the expansion of the scope of NPF to include investment promotion was very much welcomed. Hence, I am in support of the amendments to the NPF Bill.
However, I have three points of clarification to make. Firstly, what are the types of investments that meet the criteria for NPF investment support? Secondly, how do we ensure that funds are effectively used to drive real productivity so that the improvements can help lower the cost of doing business in Singapore? And how do we prevent it from being abused? Thirdly, given that the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) is funded through NPF, what is the status and progress of ITM 2.0 or the ITM refresh?
Allow me to elaborate more on the first point. The NPF was established in 2010 to support a wide range of measures for businesses to improve productivity and continue to educate and train workers. Now, NPF’s scope is expanded to include investment promotion.
The amendment allows the fund to be used for grants to enterprises for Singapore investments and economic activities which are aimed to develop the economy. I would like to seek clarification on what are the types of investments that meet the criteria for NPF funding. Are there specific industries or critical or novel technology strands that we are targeting?
The reason for the question is because while $4 billion is a large sum of money, it pales in comparison with the resources other countries have and, hence, we must be selective and be very clear on the capabilities that we want to develop which leverage on our infrastructure, geopolitical positioning and, most importantly, the capabilities of our workforce and the added capabilities that we want to develop for our workforce.
If we were to compare with other state support abroad, Intel has sealed an agreement to build a new $33 billion semiconductor plant in Magdeburg, Germany, with US$11 billion in subsidies from Germany. That investment promotion alone is 2.5 times the size of our NPF top-up!
As NPF is also used to continue to educate and train our workers, how do we ensure the NPF is utilised and distributed fairly across educating and training workers to improving productivity and investment promotion? How do we find the right balance so that we do not overinvest in one at the expense of others?
On 2 March 2023, Minister of State Low Yen Ling mentioned that over the last five years, Singapore’s NPF has disbursed more than S$1 billion across 47 Government projects related to productivity improvements and continuing education and training (CET) and about half was spent on productivity projects and the other half on CET programmes. With the $4 billion top-up to the NPF, what is the expected duration that the fund will last for and what are the specific targets that we want to achieve for these funds?
Which brings me to my second point. The example on the funding support from Germany for Intel’s new factory shows that our NPF resource is quite limited when compared to others. As we expand the scope of the NPF to anchor more quality investments in Singapore, how do we ensure that the funds are effectively used by businesses to drive real productivity, productivity improvements that will lower the cost of doing business in Singapore? How do we ensure that the funds drive a real reduction in the operating cost of businesses so that we can remain globally competitive? How can we link funding support for businesses with tangible, proven improvement to business performance? With our limited funds, we must ensure that every single dollar is effectively used at driving transformation for our businesses.
While we ensure the NPF is effectively used, we must also ensure that it is not abused.
In March 2022, Lim Chit Foo was sentenced to nine years and four months' jail for cheating the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) into disbursing more than $11.8 million in productivity funds. Lim made 400 fraudulent claims involving fictitious purchases of software made by the applicant companies from a pool of six shell vendor companies. In 2020, Ng Cheow Chai, who runs two machinery companies, helped 83 businesses submit fraudulent claims to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme seeking payouts of $2.7 million between March 2013 and July 2016. He pleaded guilty to 57 income tax charges involving more than $1.4 million in cash payouts and bonuses. In 2018, S Chandran admitted to submitting $1 million in fake PIC claims.
These three cases are just some of the cases involving fraudulent claims drawing down from the NPF. While we want to make it easy for businesses to utilise NPF to improve their productivity and remain competitive, we must also ensure that the system is robust and cannot be abused by unscrupulous individuals. As we top up our NPF with an additional $4 billion dollars, how do we also ensure that we have a robust system that balances the pace required to fund innovation and not stifle it while ensuring good governance?
During the Committee of Supply debate in 2023, Minister Gan Kim Yong highlighted notable progress within the 23 ITM sectors, showcasing a 3.5% annual growth in value added (VA) from 2016 to 2019, surpassing the overall economy's 3.1% average. Moreover, these sectors demonstrated enhanced productivity, growing by 4% annually between 2016 and 2022, compared to the economy's 3.5%.
Minister Gan also discussed the impending ITM 2025 refresh, designed to incorporate pandemic-induced lessons and address emergent priorities like sustainability and economic resilience. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the ITM 2025 refresh and how the additional $4 billion top-up will assist in expediting the implementation of the ITM refresh.
Beyond the emerging priorities of learnings from the pandemic and greater economic resilience seen in 2023 during the Budget debates, are the ITM and Job transformation Map (JTM) considering the impact of generative AI? Can I also request that the JTM and ITM refresh consider strongly promoting job redesign for the soon-to-be seniors, so that future seniors who are now digitally literate and exposed to digital technologies will have the opportunity for other job roles in the future which are beyond the manual labour-intensive jobs, such as cleaning?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarification above, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to NPF are meant to allow an expansion of the scope of the Fund, following the Deputy Prime Minister's Budget Statement earlier this year. In that speech, Deputy Prime Minister Wong also proposed an expansion of the Fund, by $4 billion.
While I support the thrust of this expanded objective and, by extension, the Bill, I have some reservations about this wider coverage as to whether it may inadvertently lead to a dilution in the purposes of the Fund, which would, in turn, be detrimental to the ultimate goal of producing sustainable growth in the longer run.
Clause 3(b) allows grants to now be directed towards the general purpose of \"making investments in Singapore… or carrying out economic activities in Singapore, in order to develop the Singapore economy.\"
Similarly, clause 6 amends the Second Schedule to recognise investment promotion as a supportable activity. But the amendment likewise adds the qualifier that the Fund may be applied to the \"promotion of [not just] investment [but] economic activities in Singapore\".
In my view, this is relatively expansive language. Were this Bill to pass, investments by the NPF would no longer be limited to just financing for productivity enhancement or continuing education as they currently are, but investments in general, so long as they contribute towards economic development. But would this mean that the Fund could be directed towards crude capital accumulation, such as the purchasing of capital equipment or funding of factory construction? What about infrastructure projects, like a new Changi Terminal, which could otherwise be financed by other instruments, such as SINGA bonds?
By a similar token, what are allowable promotions for economic activities? Would it include, for instance, marketing sports events, such as the Singapore Rugby Sevens, although I would be happy if they were to do so, or the Grand Prix, Singapore Art Week or Singapore Food Festival? What about Taylor Swift and Jackie Cheung concerts? After all, having taken over the Sports Hub, these now certainly qualify as \"economic activities\" within the purview of the Government.
In my view, these investments fall well outside the scope of productivity-enhancing activities and, hence, should not qualify for NPF grants. Allowing them, as well-meaning as it might be, would subvert the original objectives of the NPF.
And while one may make a case for supporting growth at all costs, I believe that this is similarly wrong-headed. We already know how to rudely drive growth: crank up capital expenditure, unfortunately, to the detriment often of both labour income and productivity. Indeed, this has been a consistent criticism of Singapore's growth model during its rapid-growth phase from the 1960s through the 1990s and was the impetus for the menagerie of productivity campaigns and bodies that, alas, saw largely a continuation of our nation's relatively anaemic productivity gains, at least relative to our headline growth.
So, while it is tempting for us to look to bolstering growth from tried-and-tested tools, such as building up yet more of our already-intensive capital stock, we must surely resist, because it is clear that returns to ploughing further resources into investment are already hitting diminishing returns. Moreover, doing so would undermine the very purpose of the Fund, which is to elevate productivity and not investment per se.
Sir, perhaps unsurprisingly, the desire to foster productivity-enhancing investment is also the essence of other schemes that Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced during his speech, such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme for nurturing and sustaining R&D, which is the lynchpin of enduring productivity gains. I am on the record for supporting that initiative and continue to do so.
But just as important to productivity, especially economy-wide productivity, is the need to not just boost innovation but also the assimilation and deployment of said innovation throughout firms in the economy. And while automation and digitalisation were at the forefront of the previous wave of productivity increments, the next one is far more likely to be driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and robotisation.
This topic is not unfamiliar to this House. Members have asked about the rollout of AI in Singapore, including by my hon friend Ms He Ting Ru, on how our local workforce will meet demand for AI skills, by the hon Members Desmond Choo and Melvin Yong on incorporating AI into the school curriculum and Government services. And Ms He, along with Ms Tin Pei Ling, have also posed questions about Government oversight of AI, underscoring the common fear that, absent robust regulation, AI may run amok.
AI is but the latest example of a general-purpose technology, for which large-language models and generative AIs, such as ChatGPT, are the latest – albeit most impressive – iteration. General-purpose technologies are technologies that permeate every aspect of daily life, gradually improving over time, while holding the tantalising ability to spawn further innovation. Steam, electricity and information and communications technology (ICT) are earlier examples.
These earlier waves of general-purpose technologies found their way into the economy at a slower rate. But the pace of adoption has accelerated over time. The steam engine only became widely used in Britain after 100 years and needed another quarter-century before making it across Europe. Electrification required about a half-century to become ubiquitous, while computers and the Internet took at least a generation. Smartphones have spread much more rapidly, finding their way into the hands of even those in the remotest parts of Asia and Africa in a little more than a decade.
Yet, even when compared to companies at the forefront of Web 2.0, such as Facebook and Twitter – today Meta and X – both of which gathered a million users after only a year or two. ChatGPT has become pervasive at a rabid speed, having amassed that user base in a mere five days.
And unlike early general-purpose technologies, AI appears to be threatening the top, rather than the bottom of the distribution of human capabilities. Up till now, the spectre of technological progress had often come for the blue-collar job. In the late 18th century, textile workers displaced by the steam-powered looms followed the apocryphal example of the apprentice Ned Ludd, smashing the machines that replaced them and thereby earning the derisory moniker \"Luddite\", a term we still use today to refer to technophobes.
The accelerated adoption of automated-switching telephones after the Second World War made the services of manual switchboard operators redundant, while more recently, the personal computer and smart phone replaced the stenographer and secretary, white-collar functions requiring only modest skills and training.
Hence, while the computer scientists that design algorithms for AI and other machine learning models will still likely find themselves relevant in an AI-driven economy, a great many others will find themselves less lucky. Five years ago, we had already seen examples of how routine mental work, such as data entry, insurance underwriting, tax preparation and telemarketing, could be easily automated away. But AI can now outperform even white-collar workers engaged in creative, cognitively-demanding, non-routine tasks, such as designing websites, performing radiographic diagnoses and summarising legal briefs. Pair AI with advances in robotics that have become ever-better at fine modus and gross motor functions, from piecing together microchips to navigating military obstacle courses to driving cars and trucks and it becomes difficult to imagine what sort of jobs are not immune to the threat from this newest wave of general-purpose technology.
Taken together, our economy will need to transform itself as never before to adapt to these changes faster than ever before.
Sir, the fundamental tension that emerges with the introduction of any new general-purpose technology is the promise but also potential proffered by this technology, versus the risks and repercussions of this self-same technology for the economy and society at large.
On the benefits side, we might expect that the general-purpose technology could provide a boost to productivity and, more generally, welfare. But this can carry substantial costs. Workers whose jobs are destroyed – think horse-breeders and carriage-makers after the car became widespread or candle and lantern makers after the advent of the light bulb – will see a downward spiral in incomes, employability and, eventually, economic security. Companies will also undergo churn. There will be winners – think IBM and Microsoft after the invention of the personal computer, or Amazon and Google following the Internet revolution – as well as losers.
If history is any guide, the leaps made in the earlier stages after the introduction of a new technology will peter out over time. After the initial disruption, completely new applications, once inconceivable to contemporaries, would find their way into common use. The producers of \"Gone with the Wind\" and \"Wizard of Oz\" could scarcely have imagined that, one day, their industry would become one where actors would perform in front of a green screen, wired up, alongside computer-generated co-stars, all digitally delivered and enjoyed predominantly not in the cinemas but at home. Spreadsheets may have been expected to render accountants irrelevant. But what that meant was that tedious bookkeeping functions now came to occupy less time of our accounting professionals, allowing them to focus on higher-order, value-added tasks like balance-sheet analysis and forecasting, along with advisory functions. AI is likely to do the same, but supercharged.
Along with these novel uses, new jobs will be created. Horseshoe blacksmiths became old-school auto mechanics, who have now become diagnostic operators who predominantly replace circuit boards in cars. Close to three-fifths of jobs in 2018 did not exist in 1940. Therefore, almost by definition, we cannot conceive of the sort of labour needs that an AI-cum-robotics-driven future economy may demand. But it is likely to be in areas that are uniquely human. Jobs that require an interpersonal touch, such as counseling and care, are in less danger; as are manual, physical roles like welding, electrical wiring, haircuts, massages that robots perhaps can replicate, but, for now at least, are not quite able to do so as quickly and efficiently – or enjoyably.
Perhaps, more importantly, AI can augment our existing work, especially in the creative professions, so long as we are able to leverage AI to customise goods and service offerings, thereby expanding both the size and scope of the market. For example, a beauty advisor for cosmetics may be able to use AI to scan a customer's face, offer recommendations suited for the individual, cross-referenced to their historical purchases and preferences. At one level, this may reduce the work of any given advisor, but if it reduces the time required for the advisor to serve a customer, it could drum up additional business instead.
The corporate landscape will also be transformed. The AI rollout has already resulted in firms with greater AI exposure to run ahead of those with less. Eventually, companies that fail to deploy AI extensively in their business operations will be left behind, either by competitors who are better able to do so, or because AI will have rendered their entire industry obsolete. Many will fail. Mergers and takeovers will inevitably follow.
Once these transformations occur, we will likely be able to reap the net benefits of AI for our economy. The world has seen a dramatic slowing of productivity worldwide after the 2007 Global Financial Crisis. Indeed, as far back as the 1980s, Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow commented that one could see the IT revolution everywhere, except in the productivity statistics. That productivity boost eventually arrived around a decade or two later and bumped up productivity for a decade-and-a-half, at least until the crisis.
This then is the fundamental promise of the AI revolution – a revitalisation of our nation's productivity and growth. How soon we get there is unclear, as are the sorts of disruptions that will occur along the way, but it is now incumbent on the Government, working hand in hand with our private sector, to help our companies, both large and small, to utilise AI in their business and operations and to help our workers get comfortable working with AI as they go about their work day.
This should be a major imperative for our nation. The National AI Strategy document appears to recognise this but it is noteworthy that the term \"productivity\" only appears a dozen times in the 45-page document and twice in the foreword and twice in quotes, leaving the body of the document offering only three concrete examples for potential productivity gains from AI.
It is important that we remember that technology adoption is neither inevitable nor automatic. Rather, efforts must be directed specifically to domestic investments and technology adoption as well as R&D tailored towards that purpose.
This is why, in my view, the language of the Bill should, as far as possible, be clearly limited to productivity-enhancing investments because it will ensure that the dollars in NPF are channelled towards this specific purpose.
Of course, this is not, nor should it be, limited to companies. Thankfully, the original Act already allows for the funding of continuing education, training, research and scholarships, all of which may be directed towards human capital accumulation in support of raising productivity.
It is imperative, however, that such research and training opportunities be available to the typical worker and SME, rather than being limited to just highly-skilled, so-called \"knowledge workers\" or large multinationals. This is the only way to ensure that the AI revolution becomes infused into the broad fabric of our economy.
What may be even better is if the NPF will commit to providing an in-depth report to Parliament that details how precisely the $4 billion in funds are to be used – the sort of activities these funds support and the main beneficiaries of these programmes. This will provide greater clarity on how channelled funds, with Government bodies as an intermediary, ultimately get to our businesses and workers to upgrade their productivity. It will also clarify how, if at all, monies from the fund may overlap with those set aside for SkillsFuture.
Mr Speaker, how will the transition to our collective AI future occur is hard to tell, but I expect that an ecosystem of AI adoption startups will eventually emerge and that established consultancies will likewise expand their offerings to include AI support.
Over the next decade or so, the NFP, working through these Government intermediaries, should be applied as much as possible towards helping our local companies and people become fully AI-enabled. More generally, we need to allow AI to fully permeate our companies and workers to become an invention that fosters itself, new methods of invention and new ways of going about doing things.
When that eventually occurs, the productivity gains that have so far eluded us may perhaps finally find fruition.
Mr Speaker: It is now my pleasure to call on hon Member, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, to make her inaugural speech in Parliament. [Applause.]
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the National Productivity Fund (Amendment) Bill expands the purposes for which the monies in NFP may be withdrawn and utilised. I support the Bill.
The fund was set up in 2010 to provide a range of initiatives related to productivity enhancement and continuing education. These include supporting productivity improvements for specific sectors and industries as well as developing infrastructure and tools to raise productivity across the economy. Productivity growth reduces production costs and increases returns on investments, some of which provide greater income for business owners and investors or enable businesses to pay their staff higher wages.
In Budget 2023, a $4 billion top-up was provided and investment promotion was included as a supportable activity. The amendment to this Bill is necessary as it provides greater flexibility with the usage of funds to build capabilities and anchor quality investments.
As shared by Senior Minister of State Chee, I agree that investment is an important cornerstone of Singapore and I commend the Government's focus on developing the capability of our workforce.
Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as the head of the Programme in Public Safety and Security at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).
I believe skills development is central to improving productivity. In turn, productivity is an important source of improved living standards and growth. We also know that education, training and lifelong learning foster a cycle of higher productivity, more employment of better quality, income growth and development. I view skills development as crucial in improving productivity and fostering growth. This Bill aligns with SUSS' intention in developing capabilities to enhance workforce productivity and overall competitiveness.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits of this expansion, I have some minor concerns.
As reported by the Minister of State for the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) Low Yen Ling in Parliament on 2 March 2023, over the past five years, Singapore's NPF has disbursed more than $1 billion across 47 Government projects related to productivity improvements and continuing education and training (CET).
About half of the funds from the NPF are allocated to CET programmes. It is heartening to note from Senior Minister of State Chee the number of individuals who have benefited from CET. However, as we broaden the fund's usage, it is essential to ensure that the quantum allocated for CET is not reduced.
At this juncture, I would like to clarify the measures in place to safeguard the use of funds for CET. May I propose implementing a mandated minimum allocation of funds for CET-related activities and ringfencing funds dedicated solely to employee training and development? This will prevent the diversion of resources to other areas.
Additionally, I am interested in understanding the mechanisms in place to monitor the return on investment from CET initiatives.
As the nature of work evolves rapidly, we need to assess the effectiveness of CET programmes and their adaptability to the changing work landscape. A continuous and sustained approach is essential to support employees who may face job displacement due to technology and automation.
On that note, NPF supports the work of the 23 ITMs. Some of the larger projects funded by NPF include sector-specific schemes like the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund as well as schemes that support enterprise and workforce transformation like the Inclusive Growth Programme and the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit scheme. Projects supported by NPF complement our wider range of schemes and projects in driving productivity improvements.
As we evolve, to ensure that no one is left behind, I believe we should also consider expanding the outreach of NPF to include sectors that engage gig economy workers.
With the growth of digital platforms, the gig economy is booming, an ideal win-win situation for both the employers and jobseekers by providing a flexible workforce at a nominal cost to the employers. However, the sustainability and employment prospects of gig workers are questionable.
Is there any consideration given to how NPF could also extend and support the development and growth of gig workers?
I am concerned about equity in education for our workforce. Equity in education refers to ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances, have fair and equal access to educational opportunities, resources and support to develop their skills and reach their full potential. It aims to remove barriers and disparities that may hinder certain groups from accessing quality education and training, thereby promoting a level playing field for everyone in the workforce.
Inclusivity is vital in our approach to productivity enhancement. May I suggest we consider upskilling workers across the board, including people with disabilities, women re-entering the workforce and individuals in contact with the law?
Moreover, as we focus on innovation and with the expansion arising from this Bill, I would like to suggest that we direct specific sectors, as they tap on the funds, to engage in R&D, specifically, in supporting initiatives like the Singapore Green Plan.
Finally, I am pleased to see measures in place to ensure accountability and governance, with the revision granting the Productivity Fund Administration Board the authority to inquire into and verify the accuracy of statements or information provided in applications for financing or incentives.
I would like to seek clarification regarding any past instances of infringements and the steps taken to address them.
It is crucial to maintain transparency and uphold high standards when it comes to the usage of the fund. I trust that we have established guidelines to monitor the administrative aspects of fund allocation, particularly, in delivering CET programmes.
Considering the fund will be used to anchor more quality investments in Singapore, I propose placing a stronger emphasis on the content and quality of the CET programmes offered. To achieve this, it is vital to establish oversight mechanisms that can effectively assess the excellence of these programmes and their impact on Singaporeans.
Skills development should be an integral part of our broader employment and development strategies. Therefore, I believe there is a strong correlation between the quality of CET programmes and improved job prospects for Singaporeans.
I appreciate the efforts to enhance the NPF and its administration. I believe this revision is a positive step towards advancing productivity and continuous learning in our nation. By addressing the concerns raised, I believe we can ensure that the funds are effectively utilised to benefit both employers and employees. Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, I conclude in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Sharael Taha and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for their support and all three Members for their comments and suggestions.
Members raised questions around three themes: one, adequacy of the NPF funds for various purposes; two, ensuring proper accountability and governance for NPF-funded projects; and three, providing support for specific groups or programmes through the NPF. I will address them in turn.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked whether part of the funds in the NPF could be ringfenced for CET and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked how we will ensure that NPF does not dilute its focus on productivity. Mr Sharael Taha asked if the $4 billion top-up is adequate and how we can balance the use of NPF funding across the three purposes of productivity enhancement, CET and investment promotion.
Sir, as I explained in my opening speech, all three purposes are important and they are complementary pillars of our economic growth strategy.
Foreign MNEs which invest in Singapore, bring with them new technologies, market access and business models which are internationally competitive. The net injection of such companies raises the quality and productivity of our local economy.
Investments in CET build a skilled workforce, raising the overall productivity and competitiveness of our economy and enable our workers to earn higher wages over time. With a better skilled workforce, Singapore also becomes more attractive to foreign investments.
MNEs in Singapore benefit the wider ecosystem as they provide valuable training to our workers or form partnerships with our local enterprises, including SMEs.
The NPF is not the only source of funding for productivity enhancements, CET or investment promotion. The NPF is generally used to fund new initiatives on productivity and CET. Once these initiatives have proven to be effective, we will regularise them as mainstream programmes and they are then funded by the respective Ministries' annual budgets or other sources.
As for investment promotion, MTI will continue to tap on its annual budget for such activities. The reason we are expanding the NPF to cover investment promotion is to ensure that we have the additional firepower ready to attract key investments to Singapore in the event that the timing of these opportunities does not neatly match with existing funding mechanisms bound by the terms of Government.
So, even as we expand the scope of supportable activities under the NPF to cover investment promotion, please let me assure Members that the Government will continue to set aside sufficient funding, be it in the NPF, Ministries' annual budgets or other funding sources, to support meritorious productivity enhancements, CET and investment promotion.
Mr Sharael Taha asked about our ability to compete with other major jurisdictions for investments and what are the investments we are targeting. Our intention is not to try and outbid the major economies in terms of overall spending. With limited resources, we cannot afford to do that. In view of our constraints of land, labour and, increasingly carbon, we will have to play to our strengths and in areas where we have a competitive advantage. We cannot attract every project. Some are not compatible with Singapore's constraints and how we want to grow our economy. Our economic agencies have to carefully select the right projects that bring value and critical capabilities to Singapore.
We will use the NPF funds to anchor quality investments from best-in-class companies in high-growth and high value-added sectors, including advanced manufacturing, the green economy and digital economy. This includes attracting foreign MNEs to make new significant investments here, to create good jobs in Singapore, provide training to our workers and partner our local enterprises.
All these will be supplemented by a robust cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the value these MNEs bring to Singapore outweighs the incentives given to them.
Sir, I do not know whether I heard Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly earlier, but he seems to suggest that we may want to use the NPF to attract sports events, festivals and concerts. Maybe he meant that in jest, because certainly that is not the plan. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we want to target quality investments from MNEs to anchor those that can add value to Singapore, create good jobs for Singaporeans. The broad phrasing in the Bill is to give flexibility, to be able to meet future needs and requirements, which can change over time. But the intent is clear and I have said that clearly in my opening speech.
Sir, we will continue to ensure that there are sufficient resources available through the NPF and other funding sources to support investment promotion. At the same time, we will monitor the use of NPF funds across the three areas of productivity, CET and investment promotion. It may not be meaningful to ringfence the funds for any specific area, since all three are mutually reinforcing. Instead, we should preserve flexibility to accommodate fluctuations in spending from year to year, depending on factors, such as what the business needs are, what opportunities are available and what are the take-up rates of the various schemes.
Let me now move on to the second broad theme – the safeguards we will put in place to reduce the risk of abuse of NPF funds, to ensure that projects achieve their intended outcomes. Assoc Prof Razwana mentioned that she was pleased to see the Bill will grant the Productivity Fund Administration Board, or PFAB, with the authority to inquire into and verify the accuracy of statements or information provided in applications for financing or incentives.
I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for her support in ensuring strong governance of the Fund. The PFAB already has the authority to verify the accuracy of statements made by applicants for a grant from the PFAB. The intent of clause 4 is to clarify that the powers to obtain information under section 24 of the NPF Act apply not just to grants, but also to financing and incentives provided by the PFAB. So, this is an enhancement to an existing power of the PFAB.
Currently, NPF funds are channelled through Government agencies to support their productivity or CET schemes, and the individual agencies are responsible for the implementation of these schemes. As part of PFAB's governance process, implementing agencies must carry out regular internal audits and these audit reports will be submitted to the PFAB for review. Rectifications will be made if there are audit observations raised.
The cases of fraud cited by Mr Sharael Taha pertain to the Productivity and Innovation Credit, or PIC, scheme. Sir, I want to clarify that these were not funded by the NPF. The Police investigated these cases and appropriate actions were taken against the perpetrators. We will adopt the same stringent approach for all funding sources to deter fraud and abuse cases.
In terms of monitoring of outcomes, we will monitor the progress of schemes funded by the NPF to see if they are on track to meeting their targets. For a particular scheme, we also review its outcomes and assess whether it has met targets. We will then decide whether the scheme should be closed, extended or regularised as a steady state programme and funded from recurrent funding sources.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how we can ensure that NPF funds contribute to productivity improvements that could lower the cost of doing business in Singapore. The NPF will continue to fund existing and new schemes to support our businesses to do so. We will also continually review the effectiveness of these schemes to ensure that they remain relevant and can help our firms to drive real productivity gains.
One such example is the iSPRINT scheme, which supported SMEs to automate their business functions through information and communications technology (ICT). A study by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) found that the median firm saw an increase in revenue of 3.1% after adopting solutions under the iSPRINT scheme, compared to firms that had not adopted the solutions.
By and large, we have made good progress in driving productivity growth in Singapore. Since the NPF was set up in 2010, Singapore has met the labour productivity growth target set by the Economic Strategies Committee of 2% to 3% per annum over the next 10 years. At the aggregate level, our labour productivity growth rate over this period was 2.9%, which was higher than most advanced economies, such as the US, Germany, Switzerland and Japan, over the same period.
So, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's comment that our labour productivity growth has been \"anaemic\", if I heard him correctly, is actually factually incorrect and is not supported by evidence. Sir, we will continue to monitor our overall productivity improvement, taking into account the combined effect of NPF funding, other Government schemes and the broader macroeconomic environment.
Mr Sharael Taha also asked for an update on the ITMs. I understand that MTI will provide a fuller update on this.
Sir, let me now move to the third area. Third, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Sharael Taha and Assoc Prof Razwana gave several suggestions for NPF funds to be used to support specific programmes, like AI adoption as well as for specific worker segments, such as seniors and gig workers. I thank them for their suggestions.
We will consider their suggestions carefully. Such efforts need not be and are not funded through the NPF alone. Various Ministries and agencies contribute to these efforts through their budgets and other funding sources. For instance, Assoc Prof Razwana suggested allowing firms to tap on NPF funds to engage in R&D. I wish to inform Assoc Prof Razwana that firms can seek R&D funding through the $25 billion Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 budget.
Mr Sharael Taha and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested allowing firms to tap on NPF funds for AI adoption. In fact, the Government has already been investing in AI, we have developed a national AI strategy and made significant R&D investments to build up our strengths and capabilities in AI.
We have also rolled out programmes, like AI Singapore, to support enterprises to find suitable use cases and adopt AI. As AI will affect each industry differently, economic agencies will have to develop tailored AI strategies on a sectorial basis and make plans for how to upskill and reskill our workers as jobs are transformed. We are already funding these initiatives through the Ministries' annual budgets and other funds. If need be, we can also use NPF funds to supplement this funding.
In short, if there are meritorious projects that are suitable for funding from the NPF, the PFAB will always welcome such proposals and Government agencies can submit them for funding consideration.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to conclude. The proposed amendments in this Bill seek to expand the scope of the NPF Act to cover investment promotion. Through the expansion, we will continue to strengthen Singapore's proposition as a competitive and attractive place for business.
But even as we continue to compete for foreign investments, we will also keep our focus and continue investing in productivity and CET so that our local enterprises and workers can reap the full benefits from our investment promotion efforts. As I mentioned earlier, these areas are mutually reinforcing.
This is how we can build a virtuous cycle for our economy to thrive through investment promotion where foreign MNEs want to set up in Singapore because they know we have strong local companies and a capable workforce supported by strong tripartite partnerships. At the same time, our local enterprises and our workers benefit from the MNEs' presence here, through access to valuable partnership opportunities and good jobs. The three pillars of our strategy are complementary and will help to grow our economy in a sustainable manner, for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to clarify. First, let me start off by pointing out that while I understand the original intent of the Bill was along the lines, as Senior Minister of State Chee mentioned, which is, to promote both investment as well as productivity, my point when I gave those examples, which actually were not entirely in jest, was that the language leaves this door open for such alternative expenditures. So, I am sure Senior Minister of State Chee will agree that precision in the language of the Bill is important, even as we wish to retain flexibility as much as possible. This will prevent the potential sort of abuses that one could imagine, perhaps in my somewhat ludicrous examples.
On the issue of productivity, I do not want to get too much into the weeds, but there are two distinct measures of productivity. One is, as Senior Minister of State Chee mentioned, labour productivity. But, in fact, there is another measure which is more precise. It is called total factor productivity. It is productivity after you take into account all the observable factors of production, and here, unfortunately, I would take issue with the fact that the evidence is incorrect.
In fact, I mentioned that in the 1960s through to the 1990s, evidence is abundant in this regard. The first evidence came from Alwyn Young, an economist that was currently at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at the time at Chicago. It has been corroborated by other economists, Chang-Tai Hsieh in 2002, using a different methodology, came up with the continued finding that productivity in Singapore remains low.
More recently, MTI did have a publication in 2010 where they looked at the measure and MTI tends to have the highest numbers, but other authors, like Bhaskaran and Chiang in 2020, continued to find that Singapore has poor productivity performance, even as recently as the 2010s.
So, unfortunately, I am sure we can continue to disagree, but the point is that there is a slate of evidence, not just drawn from my own research but from other academics, that demonstrates that Singapore's total factor productivity, after you take into account observable factors of production, remains and I did use this word \"anaemic\".
Just one final point, Mr Speaker, I do, in fact, despite my reservations, support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, first, let me thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for supporting the Bill. I was not sure whether he supported the Bill, that was why I was careful in how I phrased it. But I thank him for that.
Sir, let me address the point about the language. I mentioned it earlier in my response speech. The drafting of the Bill to keep the language broad is to cater for future changes because we cannot predict what are the new industries that will emerge; what are the new activities that we will need to focus on; what are some of the new investments that we want to attract to Singapore. But the purpose of me in my Second Reading opening speech making it clear what is the focus and the intent is so that we provide clarity publicly and on record that this is what NPF wants to focus on. So, I hope that gives assurance to Assoc Prof Lim.
On the point about productivity, Sir, I know there is a range of different reports with different figures – maybe because they make different assumptions. Like Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I do not want to go into a lengthy debate here. But let me just say this, Sir. If it is true that over the years, Singapore's total factor productivity (TFP) or labour productivity has been very poor, I do not think it will be possible for Singapore, as a very open small economy, to be able to attract investments, to be able to provide good jobs for people, and for our workers to be able to see, over time, real wage increases.
So, I think these are proof points that matter most, I think, to Singapore, to our companies and to our workers.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Senior Minister of State Chee? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat.] (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":"Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, when the Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, or the Code, in short, was launched in March 2021, I reiterated the Government's support of the industry's recommendation to legislate compliance with this industry-developed Code. We recognise that the Code enables a fair and balanced lease negotiation process that will support the growth of retail businesses and strengthen the symbiotic relationship between tenants and landlords in the long run.
This Bill will make the principles of the Code mandatory for the leasing of all retail premises in Singapore.
This Code would not have been possible without the leadership, efforts and contributions of the trade associations and chambers (TACs) from the retail and property sectors. So, on behalf of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and on behalf of the Government, I want to say a big thank you to the various trade associations and industry groups that came together to develop this Code and chart a new and fair future for the leasing of retail premises. And these include the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS), SG Tenants United for Fairness (SGTUFF), Singapore Retail Association (SRA), Association of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (ASME), the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) and the REIT Association of Singapore (REITAS).
Sir, during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders from these associations, along with the industry experts, came together amidst rising tensions between tenant and landlord communities to form the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee. They sought to promote fair and balanced leasing negotiations by setting out a framework for industry norms on tenancy practices and terms, which are now spelt out in the Code. After the Code was launched, a Fair Tenancy Industry Committee was formed in May 2021 to act as custodian of the Code.
We commend the industry and the leaders for their courage and tenacity in charting the path forward towards fair leasing practices. Sir, this is an unprecedented achievement and a laudable demonstration of the Singapore spirit and the determination to work as one for the future of our retail sector. Sir, it took months of painstaking collaboration between the tenants and the landlords to develop this Code, which underpins their growing symbiotic relationship. In fact, around the table, the stakeholders have shown tremendous maturity and resilience in their discussions as well as admirable willingness to give and take, as they worked towards achieving the common goal for the retail sector.
This spirit of trust and strong partnership between tenants and landlords was forged in the early days of the pandemic. For example, when retailers had to pivot to e-commerce channels, if you remember, back in the circuit breaker days, to keep their businesses afloat, landlords, such as CapitaLand, stepped up by launching the eCapitaMall platform to help their tenants sell their products or services online. CapitaLand also provided marketing and promotional assistance to enhance the e-commerce capabilities of its traditional retailers on the e-mall. This innovative move and collaboration helped CapitaLand and their tenants to continue to generate revenue during the challenging circuit breaker period – generating revenue even as there were restrictions on dining in and other safe management measures.
It is with this spirit of partnership between the tenants and the landlords that the Code was established.
In the larger scheme of things, the Code not only benefits tenants and landlords but also supports a vibrant and healthy lifestyle sector and contributes to our tourism industry.
Sir, the retail sector alone makes up more than 4% of our total workforce, hiring 160,000 people in Singapore, while the food services and accommodation sectors employ about 7% of the total workforce, employing more than 260,000 workers in Singapore.
At this point, allow me to highlight how the Code is expected to benefit the industry.
The Code provides tenants and landlords with greater clarity on industry norms for key terms in retail lease agreements. This makes the negotiation process more transparent for both parties and addresses tenants' concerns over imbalances in bargaining power.
Since the Code's introduction on 1 June 2021, the Government has been a lead adopter, with all Government landlords voluntarily adopting the Code. In addition, nine major private sector landlords have also adopted the Code voluntarily since June 2021.
These early movers have found the Code helpful for their lease negotiations. In my various engagements with many tenants and landlords, their overall feedback has been positive and constructive. For example, in the last few weeks, there was one landlord representative who recently shared with us that adopting the Code has made negotiations with tenants simpler and swifter, simply because both parties signing the agreement were Code-compliant. And this, in fact, has helped the landlord to establish good relationships with tenants and vice versa. Tenant representatives also shared that the Code has helped to level the playing field somewhat and enabled parties to find more common ground in lease negotiations.
Sir, we are now ready to move forward with legislation for the Code. The Bill will: one, mandate compliance with the leasing principles in the Code; two, establish the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee and provide for its role, among other things, as custodian of the Code; and three establish an accessible and affordable dispute resolution process for parties to address matters of non-compliance.
Sir, for the sake of clarity, throughout this debate, I will refer to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee established under the Bill as the FTIC, and to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee that was formed in May 2021 as the \"current Committee.\"
I wish to assure the House that industry consultations will not stop after the Bill is passed. We expect the Code to be a \"living document\" that continues to evolve based on the feedback and suggestions from the industry. As custodian of the Code, the FTIC will update the Code as necessary to ensure its continued relevance.
Sir, I will now explain the key features of the Bill.
First, the Bill requires all tenants and all landlords of retail premises to comply with the leasing principles that are set out in the Code. Deviations from selected leasing principles are permitted with mutual consent by tenants and landlords. This keeps the Code from being overly restrictive and this will allow for the usual commercial negotiations and considerations. The Bill also requires tenants and landlords to make declarations of some of the deviations. The current Committee has made the process of submitting declarations an easy one via its website and this will continue to be the mode of submission after the Bill is passed.
The Bill also offers a dispute resolution process to address complaints of non-compliance with the Code's leasing principles. So, if a landlord or tenant files a complaint of non-compliance, the parties will, first, be required to undergo mediation to resolve the dispute. However, if the mediation does not lead to an agreed outcome, the Bill provides for an adjudicator to be empowered to decide on the dispute. The adjudicator will be able to order the parties to vary the lease agreement or pay compensation, where applicable, for their non-compliant conduct. The adjudicator's determination will be enforceable as an order of the Court once permission from the Court is granted. I wish to assure the House that both the mediation and the adjudication processes will be kept low-cost and expedient.
Lastly, the Bill formally establishes the FTIC as the body appointed by the Minister for Trade and Industry to, first, periodically review and, with the Minister's approval, modify the Code; second, to monitor and promote compliance by tenants and landlords with the Act and the Code; and third, to establish the process for submission of declarations of permitted deviations from the leasing principles that are set out in the Code.
The Government thanks the efforts of the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee and the current Committee and welcomes the FTIC in continuing the role of custodian of the Code under the Bill. We would also like to express our appreciation to the apex business chamber in Singapore, SBF, for agreeing to take on the role of secretariat to FTIC.
Sir, let me now turn to the scope of the Bill. The Bill will apply to all leases of retail premises, or extensions and renewals of such lease, with a tenure of one year or more. Under the Bill, retail premises are those that are used primarily for the retail sale of goods or the supply of services. This includes businesses, such as eateries, restaurants, supermarkets, clinics, pet shops, walk-in bank branches, tuition centres, cinemas and gyms. In general, businesses in the shopping malls are also covered under the Bill, unless the premises are mainly used for backend office functions.
On the other hand, premises used primarily for conducting administrative work in connection with the supply of services are not covered under the Bill. Likewise, industrial, office and residential spaces are excluded unless the space is tenanted to a shop supplying retail goods or services. For example, a mini-mart that operates in an office or industrial building will be covered under the Bill, while the rest of the building that is used as office spaces or for industrial activities will not be covered.
We are greatly heartened that many major landlords have already adopted the Code since it was established two years ago. Together, they make up a sizeable proportion of all retail premises in Singapore.
To provide additional time for other landlords to come on board, the Bill will take effect about six months from now, in early February 2024. All new lease agreements, extensions or renewals of lease agreements, signed on or after this commencement date, will be covered by the Bill.
Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us many valuable lessons. It has also shown that with unity, we can overcome adversity. This Bill was forged from the resilience and determination of tenants and landlords to turn their difficulties into opportunities for partnership and success. I trust that the industry will continue to uphold this exemplary spirit of cooperation between tenants and landlords in our journey ahead. As we strive to build on this firm foundation of partnership and trust, we seek to create a robust and thriving economy that continues to provide good jobs and a bright future for Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, with the trends and disruptions that businesses face, predictable and fair tenancy conditions and environment are key for businesses to better plan and manage. This is especially so for businesses in the retail sector, both large and small, as rental of premises forms a significant part of business cost.
This fact was acutely felt when retail businesses were heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic when the ability to operate from their retail premises had to be restricted or even halted. Likewise for landlords, both large and smaller landlords, as rent is the source of income.
While I do agree that the balance of power does tend to favour landlords, as we give due consideration for the needs of retail businesses, we have to take a win-win approach for both landlords and tenants. If this is achieved, retail businesses can have fair and predictable rents and terms and conditions to allow them to operate in a highly competitive market while landlords can benefit from the occupancy and continue to invest in the quality of their properties and marketing programmes.
As Minister of State Ms Low has outlined, the Bill seeks to mandate compliance with the key leasing principles in the Code, with permitted deviations that have to be jointly declared by landlord and tenant for all retail lease agreements with a tenure of one year or more. It also seeks to establish the dispute resolution process and officially establish the functions of FTIC.
I am supportive and agree that it is timely to move ahead with legislation and compliance with the Code.
Let me share why I think that it is timely to move ahead with legislation.
One, the Code enables a fair and balanced lease negotiation process benefiting both landlords and tenants. It sets out clear leasing guidelines and negotiation principles for landlords and tenants of Qualifying Retail Premises in Singapore. This is an effort by industry comprising landlord and tenants, who are the key stakeholders, and supported by the Government, industry experts and academia.
The Code was developed and released in 2021 by the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee which was formed in 2020 under the auspices of the SBF. The Code contains 11 leasing principles for key tenancy terms, confidentiality clauses and data transparency. This is important as it provides clarity on the terms in the lease agreement, easing the leasing negotiation process for landlords and, more importantly, for tenants, the Code addresses key concerns over an imbalance in bargaining power.
The second reason is that there has been positive voluntary adoption of the Code. After the release of the Code in 2021, it is positive that over the last two years, major industry landlords and all Government landlords have voluntarily adopted the Code. So, that is a positive sign because, clearly, the Code is fair and for both parties.
Third, support in place for ease of compliance. FTIC has taken several actions to ease compliance for landlords and tenants with the launch of a sample lease agreement template and a portal to facilitate joint reporting by landlord and tenants on deviations and FTIC has also developed a checklist for lease negotiations.
Fourth, there has also been very active engagement with industry stakeholders. Through outreach and briefing sessions with industry stakeholders, which included the TACs, the Law Society and real estate agencies, FTIC has received feedback and has updated the Code. The Government has conducted industry and public consultation on key provisions in 2022.
So, before I conclude, I would like to say that while we recognise the benefits and should go ahead with legislation, we should not expect legislation to be the panacea for all issues. Lease agreements are between two parties, landlord and tenants. Ultimately, as in every good relationship, we must adopt a win-win approach, one that is fair and predictable for the tenant so that he or she can focus on growing the business, while aligned to market conditions so that landlords can continue to make investments to maintain the property and promote vibrancy.
I am glad that the Minister of State has just reassured us that FTIC will continue to review and engage landlords and tenants to obtain feedback and, with the appropriate approvals, update the Code and this is important to ensure its relevance. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the relationship between landlord and tenant has always been a symbiotic one where both parties rely on each other to survive and thrive. Yet, it is often also a relationship which is hugely imbalanced, with landlords having a significant advantage over tenants when it comes to lease negotiations.
It is this power imbalance which we should strive to address and ensure a more level playing field for tenants, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), who are beholden to landlords, and with rents being a critical overhead cost for retailers. As what some retailers would say, \"We are merely working for the landlord”.
The power disparity and helplessness of tenants came to the fore in recent years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, where mandatory lockdowns and safe-distancing measures put the retail landscape under significant strain. However, the silver lining, of course, was the formation of self-help groups, such as the Singapore Tenants United for Fairness (SGTUFF), the formation of the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee and, eventually, the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises and the legislation we see today.
To this end, I am supportive of the Bill in its efforts to address certain pain points and unfair leasing terms and conditions that used to be prevalent in the retail landscape. At the same time, however, I will speak broadly on areas for improvements, particularly as they relate to data availability and transparency, which, in my view, are the core issues that need to be addressed in enabling a more diverse, inclusive and level playing field for the sustainability of our retail landscape.
One way that landlords could wield a disproportionate amount of power at the negotiating table is by exploiting the information disparity between them and the tenants. This enables them to command higher rents during lease negotiations.
While clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill codify the leasing principles set out in the Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, the current code and, hence, legislation, does not include data transparency guidelines as a requirement for all qualifying leases.
The Code’s data transparency leasing principle only applies to landlords who collect sales data from tenants as part of the GTO Rent formula. The guidelines call for landlords to share sales data metrics according to trade category with existing tenants on a bi-annual basis and on a one-on-one basis before the signing of the lease agreement.
However, there is much room for improvement here, especially when I believe the majority of rents today do not incorporate GTO rent arrangements and, hence, this leasing principle may not apply to many leases in practice. Can I confirm with the Minister that this is true, and what is the expected percentage of qualifying leases that would require the data transparency principle to be complied with?
Retailers which The Business Times spoke to for an article dated 19 July 2023 further mentioned that data, such as fine-grained footfall and rental data, would be useful for tenants during lease negotiations. Furthermore, they noted that the sales data provided by landlords should be broken down by floor and sub-category as well. In accounting, there is a concept called \"decision usefulness\" which comes to my mind; without granular data, the information provided by landlords would be neither useful nor relevant for tenants or potential tenants.
For example, if one is a small F&B kiosk operator on the highest floor of a shopping mall, of what use is the total F&B sales for the entire mall if the McDonald's outlet on the ground floor is doing brisk business and likely dominates the consolidated sales figures? Will the Minister consider providing for more fine-grained data to be presented and at a higher frequency versus the current bi-annual basis?
Additionally, lease agreements may contain confidentiality clauses within contracts, prohibiting tenants from sharing information regarding their lease agreements, including rental rates, with their counterparts.
Landlords, however, could have access to comprehensive data from their tenant’s Point-of-Sales (POS) systems, be it across multiple tenants from within the same mall, or the same tenant across different malls, thus enabling them to maximise potential rents and, hence, occupancy costs from the perspective of tenants, without causing them to vacate their space.
While the new Bill certainly helps to reduce the power differential between landlords and tenants, enhancing data transparency would certainly help to further reduce this gap.
I believe the data transparency guidelines set out in the Code should be mandated under the new legislation, rather than applying only to landlords who collect sales data from tenants as part of the GRO rent structure. May I ask the Minister what are the Government’s concerns should the data transparency principles be applied to all qualifying retail leases?
To take it one step further to truly enable fair and equal access to information for landlords and tenants alike, I hope that the Government would also consider launching a public rental information database, similar to that mooted by the Fair Tenancy Framework Industry Committee back in 2020.
Back then, the Committee shared that it recommends two levels of rental data be made available, namely, a public rental info database that is uploaded on a monthly basis, and mall-level productivity and performance data made available by landlords to tenants from whom they require data, such as monthly sales data.
Not only would such information benefit tenants, especially SME tenants, who may not have the ability to compare rents and key retail metrics across locations, smaller landlords would also benefit from the ability to better position their mall in a market dominated by key players.
To use an example which, arguably, is not related to a shopping mall, if you look at the recent concerns over the Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, for example, while many have expressed concerns over high rental costs, especially for certain food types, in my mind, it is the uncertainty in the ability to make enough revenue to cover rents and other costs that weighs heavily on tenants’ minds throughout the tenure of the bazaar. So, past sales information, footfall and other related metrics provided would then help in this decision-making.
Is the Government actively considering such a database and whether or not the Housing and Development Board (HDB), as one of the largest landlords of retail space, would be willing to lead by example and provide such information? While I understand that there are various retail indices being compiled by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the overall market index may not accurately reflect the nuances of the different geographical submarkets and, certainly, not the individual shopping malls.
Besides enhancing data and information transparency, I believe efforts should also be put into ensuring that tenants are better informed when negotiating their leases and signing the lease agreement.
Clause 4E of the Bill states that one of the functions of FTIC is \"to conduct outreach and education relating to this Act and the Code of Conduct and matters relating to the leasing of retail premises.\" I am supportive of this move.
Even while the code of conduct has already been introduced on a voluntary basis, smaller retailers today who lack the resources and awareness to vet through contracts could simply sign it without understanding its terms and conditions and any exceptional clauses to be wary of.
Therefore, I hope the Minister could provide further information, such as the amount of resources dedicated to outreach and education efforts, especially for our SME retailers.
An adjacent point worth considering is whether such a code of conduct can also be extended to non-retail leases, to other commercial leases, such as those for offices or even those for industrial and business park spaces.
SME tenants that are the beneficiaries of the retail code of conduct could also benefit from fairer and more balanced lease negotiations between landlords and tenants of workspaces. Given that significant effort had already been put in by various parties to refine the retail code of conduct, it would be worthwhile, in my view, to look into extending this to other commercial and industrial sectors. May I ask the Minister if this is in the works and, if not, what are the concerns or considerations in this regard?
Finally, there seems to be a sentiment among Singaporeans that our retail scene has gone stale, with comments made about how our shopping malls are essentially cookie cutter malls. A quick scroll through the tenant directories of the numerous malls that populate our island shows that the same chain stores and eateries repeatedly pop up.
As someone who frequently patronises McDonald's and Uniqlo, I can understand why these retailers are doing so well and why many malls would want these ubiquitous names as anchor tenants for their malls. Moreover, such brand-name tenants or other international F&B or fashion retailers could potentially also afford higher rents as opposed to the local SMEs, thus enabling landlords to command higher rentals at their malls and thereby uplifting the valuations of their properties.
This could, however, potentially have a stifling and crowding out impact on our local SME and retail scene.
The passing of this Bill is a step in the right direction, but by enhancing data transparency and information sharing and narrowing the gulf in information between SME tenants and retail landlords, I hope more can also be done to better effectively bridge the power differential between landlords and tenants, thus providing our smaller retailers with a better fighting chance to sustain their businesses.
After all, the shopping mall, of which many populate our island, forms a key backdrop to the everyday experiences and lives of Singaporeans. Fostering an environment that encourages our smaller retailers to flourish could bring greater vibrancy and character to these places and Singapore as a whole. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.18 pm until 3.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill being debated today will make it mandatory for retail lease contracts to comply with the code of conduct for leasing of retail premises in Singapore. It seeks to level the playing field between landlords and tenants of retail premises in Singapore.
The Bill is a step in the right direction and I commend the Government for this.
Among other things, under the code of conduct, retail landlords will no longer be allowed to include clauses in leases to force tenants to pay for unspecified costs. Landlords and tenants will both have the right to pre-terminate the lease, unlike previously, when only landlords typically had this right. Landlords can also no longer include exclusivity clauses that restrict tenants from opening another outlet within a certain radius unless there is mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord. An affordable dispute resolution process will also be set up to mediate disputes between tenants and landlords.
All these will strengthen SMEs in the retail and F&B sectors in Singapore, which, for too long, had been at the mercy of landlords.
Rent accounts for more than 25% of the cost of doing business in the retail and F&B sectors. For many years, SME tenants have borne the brunt of unfair leasing practices by landlords who have taken advantage of them.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, there were many cases of landlords refusing to reduce the rent while their tenants were in dire straits or failing to pass down savings from property tax rebates to their tenants.
This Bill is, therefore, an encouraging first step to create fairer and more equitable leasing practices in the retail sector.
My colleague Ms Hazel Poa and I have spoken in this House many times before about the need to curb excessive property speculation and rein in property prices and rental in Singapore.
For example, during the housing debate in February this year, I said, \"The more important property investment and speculation become in an economy, the more likely that economy will become less competitive because property speculation and rent seeking are easier and better alternatives to innovation and entrepreneurship.\"
This also means that the total factor productivity of Singapore will remain low – an issue which we have debated during the National Productivity Fund (Amendment) Bill just now.
While I was talking about residential property previously, the same thing applies to the commercial property market in Singapore, where we also see the emergence of a rentier economy. The power balance has always been tilted in favour of landlords because there is a limited pool of landlords that tenants in the retail sector can choose their rent from, given the many shopping malls that are now owned by commercial real estate investment trusts (REITs).
For many years, these big institutional landlords have had the market power to extract rent from tenants through unfair rent structures, such as charging tenants a base rent or a percentage of gross sales, whichever is higher. This rent computation structure means that landlords enjoy the good times as rent increases in tandem with sales and are still protected during bad times as tenants must continue to pay the base rent to the landlords. Even large retail and F&B chains must play by these rules, not to mention SMEs in the retail sector.
Such rental computation structures sap the vitality of the retail and F&B sectors in Singapore.
The House should note that even under the proposed legislation, landlords are still allowed to impose such rental computation structures provided there is mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant.
We call on the Government to consider asserting its influence and encourage FTIC to outlaw such rental computation structures altogether in the next iteration of the code of conduct.
The Bill gives teeth and enforcement power to the code of conduct by enshrining it in law and obliging all retail landlords in Singapore to come on board. However, more work needs to be done to reduce rent seeking in the retail sector in Singapore.
Singapore needs more innovation and entrepreneurial spirit to continue competing effectively with the rest of the world in the Information Age. Such innovation and entrepreneurship are unlikely to be forthcoming if the business environment in Singapore favours rent-seeking property owners.
High rents also limit wage growth for local workers and perpetuate the need to bring in cheaper foreign workers in order to maintain profit margins for entrepreneurs.
Small business owners in Singapore face a multitude of challenges, such as the rising costs of goods, utilities and labour, which have not abated since the pandemic ended. A reset of our current policies is needed to create an environment that is more favourable for small businesses to ensure that jobs are created and our economy remains vibrant for many years to come.
Singapore does not need an economy with high property prices and high rents but a dearth of innovation and creativity. Addressing the power imbalance between retail landlords and tenants is only a small step in that direction. Much needs to be done. Mr Speaker, the PSP supports the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the heart of this Bill is the support it offers to retail sector SMEs, addressing the imbalances they have faced in lease agreements. The Bill aims to create a fairer and more equitable industry overall and, as a result, fosters sustainable growth.
As we delve into the Bill's intricacies, some important concerns and suggestions come to light. I would like to share four concerns and suggestions, which would mostly centre on information transparency.
First, with regard to advertising and promotion (A&P) and service charges under leasing principle 3.2, which states that the landlord is entitled to adjust the service charge and advertising and promotion charges, provided that the overall rents payable by tenants do not increase, can I clarify whether A&P and service charges are based on cost recovery principles? If so, does the Bill mandate landlords to provide detailed breakdowns of service charges and A&P spending?
Transparency in these matters will ensure fair dealings and build trust among all parties. Additionally, landlords may face mounting cost pressures for third-party services like cleaning and lift maintenance, which may not align with tenancy terms. This situation might tempt landlords to price in a buffer or front load service charge costs, potentially affecting tenants' financial burdens.
Conversely, the Bill should also address the concern of landlords backloading an increase of service costs during lease renewals to recover the difference from the initial term. Such practices would contradict the principle of no overall gross rent increase. This requires careful consideration and clarification.
Furthermore, there is a risk of under-accounting or an under-declaration of rent revenue due to price-in buffers of the service charge component. This could lead to reduced stamp duty collections, impacting Government revenue.
Second, with regard to material adverse changes, this Bill compels parties to renegotiate the lease agreement when the tenant is prevented, obstructed or hindered from performing its typical business activity at the leased premises due to events beyond their control.
Does the Bill provide clear guidelines and principles for conducting these renegotiations, ensuring equitable outcomes for both parties involved?
During the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic, certain rent waivers provided by the Government were not efficiently passed through to tenants, requiring substantial efforts from relevant authorities to ensure proper implementation. In exigent situations like these, having agreed on guidelines and principles for renegotiations becomes even more critical.
Third, regarding deviations in leasing principles, the Bill allows for leasing principle deviations wherein landlords and tenants can mutually agree to deviate from the principles.
What recourse and remedy are available if landlords do not comply with the 14-day filing requirement, especially concerning deviations in the rental model?
To address non-compliance by errant landlords, what regulatory powers and levers are vested in the Government or the FTIC? Further, how will the FTIC be informed if a landlord has filed a deviation or not, ensuring proper oversight and compliance with the leasing principles?
Fourth, with regard to cost, this Bill includes essential prohibitions and norms. The Bill strictly prohibits profiteering from the sale of electricity. Landlords are mandated to pass through electricity costs without any mark-up or price discrimination. This move aims to shield SMEs from additional burdens and foster a more equitable business environment.
However, I have received feedback from SMEs which shared that they are being charged for additional miscellaneous costs, such as \"meter reading fees\", in addition to electricity charges. Tenants are now being charged monthly recurring charges, such as meter readings, tenant management charges and meter leasing fees. Due to advances in digital metering technologies, recurring charges for tenant management charges and meter readings are not justified.
In this regard, the following points need further clarification.
One, can the Bill explicitly specify the types of charges that can be reasonably passed through to tenants to prevent unwarranted additional costs?
Two, with regard to the meter leasing fees, can tenants have the option to purchase the meter instead of being bound by leasing arrangements?
Three, can the Bill specify specific technology adoption, such as digital meters, which do not require manual or physical on-site meter readings? This will not only increase overall productivity but also support Singapore's Green Plan 2030, empowering tenants with real-time data on power usage and insights to reduce energy consumption.
Four, do tenants have the option to enter into direct purchase agreements with electricity retailers? This provision would grant tenants more flexibility in managing their electricity costs.
As we continue to finetune the Lease Agreement Bill, addressing these crucial points regarding (a) A&P and Service charges; (b) clear guidelines and principles for conducting re-negotiations during adverse situations; (c) deviations of leasing principles, its remedies and oversight; and (d) clarifications on electricity charges will contribute to establishing a more transparent framework for both landlords and tenants.
This Bill's significance lies in its commitment to fostering win-win outcomes and promoting compromise, ensuring a conducive environment for sustainable growth for our SMEs. I would like to thank various stakeholders, including landlords, tenants and SBF, who have worked diligently to develop this comprehensive Code of Conduct. Let us continue to engage in constructive discussions to achieve win-win outcomes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill, which, in my opinion, is a mountain appearing as a molehill.
Its title is the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill. Its spirit, though, is a deep rethinking of the moral limits of markets.
Markets in Singapore, as in almost every country in the world, are created not only by supply and demand but by the laws that regulate them. Being one of the most competitive countries in the world, Singapore takes a light touch towards constraining the freedoms of markets. And most of the time, this has been the case, both because of the need for efficiency and the belief in the wise decisions of a relatively unfettered marketplace.
But let us make no bones that, in Singapore, a nation founded on the back of a socialist political philosophy, the market bends for the public good. And through this Bill, the Government has demonstrated that it is not shackled by the positions it took in the past and is willing to constantly review its policies to ensure that they address the needs of our people and enterprises.
Five years ago in this House, in my Adjournment Motion speech entitled “Power Imbalance in Contracts Involving Small Businesses”, I highlighted the onerous nature of contractual clauses which were, as a matter of course, imposed by the dominant players in the market against the small businesses. I specifically highlighted landlords of retail malls, particularly the REITs, as one category of dominant players.
In my speech, I recounted how a “demolition clause”, which is a clause that allows a landlord to pre-terminate a lease with a tenant on the basis that it has decided to undertake renovation work without any compensation to the tenant, works unfairly against many tenants. These tenants would have invariably incurred capital expenses to fit out the premises and they were left to bear the loss themselves. This does not appear to be a fair sharing of business risks.
I also highlighted other onerous clauses imposed by landlords in my speech. This asymmetry adds insult to injury when we remember that tenants are small businesses and landlords are owners of large assets. I advocated those small businesses to be provided with statutory protection in Singapore beyond the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I shared the examples of small business protection modes in the UK, Hong Kong, the US, Germany and Australia.
In response, the hon Senior Minister of State for Law, as she then was, Ms Indranee Rajah, stated that whilst the Government was, and I quote, “empathetic to the challenges faced by SMEs”, the Government’s underlying philosophy is that, quote again, “in general, free-market principles should apply and the Government should only intervene when necessary, for example, to address systemic market failures”. She also said: “enacting such legislation in Singapore can cause market distortion and, eventually, market inefficiency, to the detriment of all”.
She also said to the effect that an answer to what constitutes a fair dealing is not something that is always clear-cut because different parties may have different views. Finally, she recognised that, fundamentally, the issue is that of bargaining power and suggested that SMEs leverage the Government’s schemes to scale up their business capabilities and use business and trade networks, such as SBF.
The introduction of this Bill, five years since, represents, in my respectful view, a significant shift in the Government’s position which I welcome. I listened to the hon Minister of State and I noted that the pandemic posed to be a catalyst for this change. And this is a great example of how one turns crisis into opportunity. It recognises that free market principles are not the holy grail of public policy, that these principles must bend to larger principles of public life.
Let me point out what these are now.
First, equality. This Bill recognises that landlords and tenants stand shoulder to shoulder, both with legitimate interests. The hon Minister of State referred to the relationship as a symbiotic relationship. They share a mutual goal of collaboration to ensure that Singapore continues to have vibrant and competitive retail, F&B and lifestyle sectors. In this, the Bill gives teeth to a Code of Conduct in which it is expressly stated that one key objective is to provide guidance to landlords and tenants to enable a fair and balanced position in lease negotiations.
The beauty of this Code is that it is put up by a Committee representing both the interests of the landlords and tenants and consists also of neutral parties, too. The expectation is that the Committee can provide holistic guidance on what constitutes fair practices in the context of retail lease agreements.
Earlier, just before the break, the hon Member Mr Louis Chua had suggested that perhaps the Government should consider more data transparency guidelines in favour of tenants. On its own, it is not a controversial point, but my suggestion is this. We have this committee that is supposed to come to a consensus, a collective action plan. In that regard, one would have to not just look at specific issues, but really the net picture. And in that regard, we must always take a give-and-take approach. So, when we take issues or advocate issues pertaining to the tenants, we must also consider what are the landlords’ issues and then we can come to a consensus and, hopefully, we can move forward.
The hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai had advocated some form of low-rent control. I have been in legal practice long enough to remember the spectre of the Rent Control Act. In those days, because of the Rent Control Act, there was no real investment by the landlords on their premises, leading to dilapidated buildings. And in the end, Singapore suffers because small Singapore would require a high utility of our land.
So, what is fair in the circumstances would have to be determined by the market and now, we have this framework in terms of a committee and we need to take a consensual approach to deal with all these issues.
I come to the second point, fairness. A plain reading of the Code will show that the focus is really to protect the small tenant and not the big landlord. I welcome the Government’s decision to intervene for the small tenant in the retail sector. It is a matter of fairness. It also makes business sense in the long term, because otherwise, we would see a hollowing out of SMEs, which are representative of our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit, within the retail sector.
There is a third principle that this Bill makes provisions for, but, in my view, it has not gone far enough. This is the true freedom to contract. I would like to invite the hon Minister of State to state the Government’s position on power imbalances in contracts involving small businesses which fall outside the purview of this Bill. This is a point that the hon Member Mr Louis Chua also made.
I also wish to draw attention to contracts made by small businesses with other dominant players, such as telcos and utility services providers. Thankfully, where the dominant players are regulated, I see an ability on the part of the regulators to reign in unfair practices and ensure fair dealing outcomes through the exercise of their regulatory powers.
This is done, for example, by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) which issued Fair Dealing Guidelines in 2013. I suggested in my 2018 speech that other regulators follow suit. What would be useful, in particular, is to ensure that the contracts issued by dominant players, which are regulated, are reviewed for compliance with such guidelines, too. In other words, there should be no gap between regulation and contract.
I now turn to the Bill. Part 4 of the Bill provides the dispute resolution mechanism that may be invoked by a landlord or a tenant should there be a complaint that there has been a non-compliance with a leasing principle set out in the Code of Conduct. This dispute is to be resolved through mediation first. If mediation does not work, then it is proposed that it be dealt with by an adjudicator who will have the power to not just determine whether there is a non-compliance with a leasing principle but also to deal with the issue of compensation.
Under clause 10 of the Bill, the Minister may authorise any person to be an authorised dispute resolution body. In turn, the authorised dispute resolution body must maintain a panel of mediators and adjudicators.
My first question is what are the proposed qualifications of the mediators and adjudicators? Also, why is it felt that the appointments of the mediators and adjudicators should not be done directly by the hon Minister?
My next question concerns the power of the adjudicator. Under clause 25 (4) of the Bill, the adjudicator must make a determination whether there has been a non-compliance with a leasing principle. In such a case, the adjudicator may vary the lease agreement to correct the non-compliance or he may order compensation. May I clarify that, notwithstanding the use of the word “or” in the clause, the adjudicator may, in suitable cases, be able to order a variation of the lease and also order compensation for the period before the order to vary is made?
In addition, may I ask what are the principles upon which the adjudicator is to calculate compensation? Is it based on the law governing damages for breach of contract? Or can the adjudicator decide on compensation in accordance with his own views of what is just and equitable in the circumstances? How would he deal with clauses in the lease agreements that attempt to exclude or limit liability for compensation?
Moving on, it is proposed in clause 13 of the Bill that where there are any proceedings before a Court in respect of a matter that is subject of Part 4 of this Bill, the Court may order a stay of proceedings on terms that it sees fit. If the legislative intent is to ensure that the adjudicator, and not the Court, handles all complaints of non-compliance with leasing principles, would it not be better to provide that the Court must grant a stay, say for limited circumstances, instead of making it discretionary? I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s clarification on this matter.
If, indeed, it is intended that the Court be vested with a discretion, may I ask the hon Minister of State what factors must the Court weigh in determining whether or not to grant a stay, having regard to the legislative objective of this Bill?
I also seek a clarification on the ambit of clause 28 of the Bill. It allows a party to raise challenges to the lease agreement on the basis of whether or not it complies with the proposed Act in separate Court, arbitral tribunal or other dispute resolution proceeding. At first glance, it seems to be that clause 28 may not be congruent with the legislative intent to channel disputes arising from the Act to the adjudicator.
Finally, I deal with appeals from the decisions of the adjudicator. I note that there is no provision specifically providing for an appeal. However, under clause 27(4) of the Bill, it is proposed that a party may commence separate proceedings in the General Division of the High Court to set aside the adjudication determination subject to the provision of security. Under sub-clause (5), a non-exclusive list of grounds is provided for the purpose of setting aside the order. In essence, the grounds are illegality and palpable injustice.
I would like to seek clarification from the hon Minister of State whether the intent behind the provision is, generally, not to allow for appeals from the adjudicators’ determinations, save for narrow and extenuating circumstances. If that is the case, would the hon Minister of State please clarify the reason for doing so?
I ask this also bearing in mind that the adjudicator may have to apply the law governing contracts as determined by the Courts to issues at hand, for example, compensation and dealing with the enforceability of exclusion and indemnity clauses. Since what constitutes such law are matters within the province of the Courts, I would have thought that there should be recourse to the Court system as a matter of right. An alternative option is to allow for an appeal if it raises an issue of law.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude by offering my support for this significant piece of legislation which shows the Government's understanding of the moral limits of the market. It gives life to everything I had imagined in my Adjournment Motion five years ago. I thank the Minister for this important piece of legislation. I should also thank the Minister for Trade and Industry, who is here as well.
To my colleagues in this House, may I be allowed to share that in Parliamentary life, sometimes, time is the secret ingredient. In time, we have recognised that there are power imbalances which do not work, not only because they oppress small businesses, but because they do not respect the general public good. In promoting fairness, equity and true autonomy in contracting, we achieve the rare feat of a \"win-win\" solution. Surely, this is a very good deal in the marketplace of ideas.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, you have a clarification for Mr Murali?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Sir. Perhaps Member Murali is too happy with this Bill. If I hear correctly, he mentioned that I recommended rent control in my speech. Is that what you mean? I did not say that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: I thank the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong for seeking a clarification from me. I did not assert that the hon Member Mr Leong sought rent control.
What I said in my speech was that he sought lower rents on behalf of SMEs and, as a result of that, it triggered memories of the Rent Control Act. I was in legal practice long enough to remember the Rent Control Act, which was subsequently abolished.
And I recall that where Rent Control Act applies, buildings become dilapidated because landlords have no incentive to invest in these buildings and making it tenantable. And in the end, Singaporeans suffer, because there is no utility that arises from the use of land. I hope that clarifies.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, another clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Sir. Can I ask the Member again? What you have said is actually a very dangerous inference into what I say. I think I would ask you to retract what you have said.
Because I have actually agreed with this Bill. And the direction that the Government has taken in this Bill, I totally agree with. It is something that is quite rare, actually, that I agree with the direction of the Government. But for this Bill, I also agree. I am also very happy with you.
But I did not say that I am asking for lower rents. I am just saying that, in general, we should not encourage too much property speculation and we should not encourage a rent-seeking economy or society.
So, you should not bring what I said in my speech to that conclusion. It is very unfair for the inference that you have made. Can you clarify that?
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to be confrontational with the hon Member. The point I made, which does not really need me to repeat, is that, at the end of the day, we need to have a collaborative effort between the tenant and the landlords in the context of the Committee to come up with win-win situations.
So, in the context of that, it is always a give and take. And, to advocate for specific issues for one party may be good in Courts of law. But within the framework that is being proposed in this Bill, that is anathema – because the whole idea here is to have a collaborative, consensual approach; be it in relation to rent or even in relation to sharing of data.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, I think that explanation is still not enough. You must be very clear that I did not say that I am advocating rent control. Because what you are trying to say is actually, sorry, it is actually quite similar to what the Government has always been saying with regard to what I recommend in this House.
When I talk about we should not encourage too much property speculation; with this Bill, we can have more control over the big property landlord, you say I am advocating, you say what I am saying is going to lead to rent control. That is very dangerous.
Just like whenever I said about protecting the jobs of Singaporeans, the Government accused —
Mr Murali Pillai: Point of Order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Murali Pillai: I had just now already, in my first clarification, stated that I did not say that the hon Member Mr Leong advocated rent control. I already clarified that.
And against that clarification, why is the hon Member still maintaining that I said he advocated rent control?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, what I am trying to clarify and I insist that the Member clarifies that. From what I say, I do not like the inference that he has made, that I am trying to recommend pushing down the rent and towards the direction of rent control and, as a result, it will affect the desire, the motivation of the landlords in Singapore to make further investment in property and all that. I think this is too much of inference.
And I am trying to quote that what I say, for example, in jobs, the Government tried to label me as xenophobic. When I talk about lower housing prices, the Government said I am trying to raid the reserves. This is the same pattern of what the Member Mr Murali is trying to do here, in my opinion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali, would you like to respond to that again?
Mr Murali Pillai: Well, Sir, I mean, without getting into the emotion of things, let me just assure my hon friend, Mr Leong, that I was not making any specific insinuation about rent control to him. I was just picking up a point that he made in the course of his speech, where he advocated that in light of rent-seeking behaviours of landlords, there should be efforts to make sure that tenants get low rents – I was dealing with that point.
And in that context, I spoke about the mechanism in this Bill which advocates a consensual approach – the Committee itself has representatives from the landlords, tenants and also other neutral parties.
So, with great respect, I fail to see how I am accused of taking his speech out of tangent.
But in any event, the record would prove what I said and, therefore, apart from these comments, I do not wish to take this any further.
Mr Speaker: I think what both Mr Murali and Mr Leong have said will be recorded clearly in the Hansard. So, I would like to propose that we move on from here. Both Mr Leong and Mr Murali have clarified.
Okay, Mr Leong, I will allow one last clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, thank you for your indulgence. I want to clarify here, I never in my speech, mentioned I am asking for lower rent.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I think that point has been clarified. It will all be recorded – what you said and what Mr Murali said.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, so, can I confirm that if afterwards we have confirmed that I did not say that I am asking for lower rent, I am just talking of general approach, Member Murali will apologise to me and correct his statement? Member Murali, can I ask whether you will commit to that?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, you can sit down. Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am not making any commitment, Sir. Of course, Mr Leong is entitled to his views and I hope that he respects that I am entitled to my views as well. I have already offered that whatever we have said is recorded in Hansard and we stand by what we say.
And I think whatever that we do, our conduct in all these things, would have to be something that would flow from there. So, I am not going to make any commitment.
Mr Speaker: As I have said, Mr Murali Pillai has clarified, as well as Mr Leong, you have also clarified what you have said.
Let me now have the pleasure of inviting and calling on hon Member Ms Jean See to join the debate, as she makes her inaugural speech in Parliament. [Applause.]
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The introduction of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill is timely. Many small businesses were hard-hit during COVID-19. Schemes, such as the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, which the NTUC had assisted the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to administer, gave some respite to many self-employed business owners.
Post-pandemic, businesses are starting to find their footing. Some businesses have transitioned to online shopfronts. Others still choose to operate as retail tenants. They include enrichment centres, gyms and photography studios.
Some of these businesses belong to self-employed persons who are also members of NTUC's associations for coaches and instructors and creative professionals. These self-employed business owners support the Bill as the Bill sets out guidelines enabling fairer lease negotiations between retail landlords and tenants. The Bill also deters landlords from terminating lease agreements because of sales performance.
Shop rental is a significant operating cost to self-employed business owners. To move towards fairer rent structures and profit-sharing clauses in the lease agreements, business owners suggest guidance. This guidance could be from the Government and market leaders. Their suggestion stems from three concerns.
First, sudden and drastic increase in rental cost destabilises small businesses. Post-pandemic, some saw steep rental increase of 15% to 40%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels. This left many small businesses in the deep end. Landlords cited inflation, higher expenses and opportunity costs to justify rental hikes. Self-employed tenants struggled to cope. Many had depleted their savings during COVID-19 and were in a state of financial flux. Self-employed businesses located in non-retail commercial properties also shared this concern.
Second, a vibrant business ecosystem encourages a variety of business forms to co-exist.
We respect landlords' right to pursue profitability. Even so, what must change for small businesses to co-exist with big tenants with deep pockets? For example, landlords could calibrate rental adjustments over a longer period. This would allow small businesses time to adjust their business models. Landlords could also share how they derived various costs like base rent. This would help tenants to appreciate the extent economic factors impact retail rents and provide them with lead time to communicate fee increases with customers.
Third, labour is often the next most significant operating cost following rental. Thus, business owners might shift towards flexible labour to counter higher rental costs.
For instance, staffing might consist of short-term contracts and gig-based freelancing arrangements. While this increases business flexibility, it is at the expense of worker income security. If rent remains an uncertainty for business owners, \"flexibilisation\" of employment could become more appealing. This is an area of concern as worker precariousness cannot be an outcome of business survival.
Emerging from the pandemic, small businesses have been bracing themselves for various headwinds. The Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill is a step in the right direction. It helps to balance the bargaining power between landlords and retail tenants.
Self-employed business owners are aware of their vulnerabilities in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment. They thus look to the Government and market leaders to guide fair play and practices. This is important to the development of a sustainable and vibrant business ecosystem – one where self-employed business owners and their workforce can thrive and where consumers can benefit from the diversity and affordability of goods and services.
Notwithstanding the suggestion, the Bill gives assurance to small businesses. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: That is the difference between someone who can speak from a small device as compared to me with a big device.
Before I call the next Member, I would just like to remind all Members of what I said right at the start of the Sitting yesterday, which is, by all means, speak with passion, speak with conviction. Please do that. But there is no need, I again remind Members that there is no need to bang on the rostrum or things of that sort. So, I hope Members remember that. I would hate to give reminders every now and then.
Let me now call on Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will introduce a framework to facilitate fairer negotiations between landlords and tenants in retail.
The Bill will mandate compliance with a Code of Conduct for certain retail leases. The Code was first released by FTIC in 2021. This Bill takes the important step of codifying the Code.
I have three clarifications on the Bill.
My first point is on the effect of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Bill will require qualifying retail leases to comply with the Code and 13 leasing principles under the Code. Can the Minister of State clarify if non-compliance with the leasing principles that is not a permitted deviation will mean that the non-compliant term is void? Can the Minister of State also clarify if there are any situations where non-compliance with the leasing principles that is not a permitted deviation will void the entire lease? These clarifications will help parties clearly understand the legal consequences of non-compliance. In situations where a non-compliant term or the entire lease is void, can the Minister of State clarify how the Court should determine what sums are due to parties?
My second point is on modifications to the Codes and the Schedules. The requirements that qualifying retail leases must comply with will be set out under the Codes. It is significant that requirements are set out in the Codes that can be modified by the Committee with the Minister's consent. The modifications do not require approval of Parliament.
While there should be flexibility, transparency and certainty for businesses are also important. Can the Minister of State share how frequently the Code of Conduct will be modified? Can the Minister of State also elaborate on the criteria and considerations for modifying the Code of Conduct? Can the Minister of State confirm that appropriate public consultations will be carried out before any modifications are carried out to the Code of Conduct and Schedules? Understanding the timeline for potential revisions will help stakeholders anticipate adjustments and plan accordingly.
My third and final point is on the scope of premises that are covered. The First and Second Schedules can be amended to vary the scope of qualifying leases covered by the Act. In addition to this, section 32 allows the Minister to exempt any person or premises from the scope of the Act by order in the Gazette.
The general power to exempt by order in the Gazette is less likely to attract scrutiny than amending the Schedules. Can the Minister of State share under what circumstances might the Minister exercise its power to exempt specific persons or premises under section 32 instead of amending the Schedules? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this topic as a practising lawyer and whose area of practice includes landlord and tenancy-related matters. I have acted for both landlords and tenants.
In principle, Sir, I agree on the need for fair and more balanced lease negotiations between landlord and tenants of retail premises. This is especially so when tenants have spent tens of thousands of dollars renovating their premises and establishing their businesses at the rented premises. Often, there is goodwill built up by tenants in respect of a particular location.
Sir, this Bill makes it mandatory for a landlord and tenant to comply with a set of Code of Conduct for the leasing of retail premises which are defined as \"qualifying leases\". The Code of Conduct was drawn up and issued on 26 March 2021 by the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee. Sir, I have read through the Code of Conduct and, in particular, the leasing principles stated in the Code of Conduct.
First, I agree with this principle that a landlord should act reasonably and not have the power to predetermine the lease of premises unless there is a requirement for redevelopment works. And if the landlord does predetermine the lease due to redevelopment works, then it is only right that the landlord should make some offer of compensation to the tenant for the costs of renovations incurred.
However, Sir, I want to express some caution when Parliament is asked to legislate on matters which ought to be determined by market forces. This was a similar principle made by Minister Indranee Rajah in February 2018 when she responded to my colleague, the hon Mr Murali Pillai, during his Adjournment Motion. She said, \"In general, free market principles should apply.\"
Sir, I am also concerned that the Code of Conduct is not a subsidiary legislation drawn up by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) but by FTIC which has the right to propose modifications to the Code of Conduct. Although members of FTIC are appointed by the Minister, in the event that, one day, more members of this FTIC are pro-tenants, then there is a risk that the recommendations in the Code of Conduct may tilt too much towards protection of a tenant who is not the owner of the property.
Sir, allow me to set the context of landlord-tenancy relationship in perspective. Landlords are typically owners of properties and they had paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to buy real estate. These property owners then part with possession of the premises to tenants who are given exclusive possession of the premises for the duration of the tenancy. And in many landlord-tenancy disputes, the greatest worry of the landlord is that they are unable to recover possession of the premises from a tenant in default of rental. By the time the landlord commences legal action to seek an order of possession, the arrears would have accumulated to a large amount.
Hence, the starting point for most tenancy agreements is that they seek to protect the landlord to enable the landlord to recover possession of the premises whenever there is a breach of tenancy agreement.
Many of us in this House may not remember the Control of Rent Act – except Mr Murali – which was legislated after World War II to protect tenants against unscrupulous landlords during the housing shortage in the post-war years. However, eventually, the Control of Rent Act was abolished and this was because it had outlived its purposes as there was no longer a housing shortage. Further, at that point of time, rental control tenants had demanded exorbitant compensation before agreeing to vacate the rent-controlled premises. And, Sir, I have acted for such tenants before the Tenants Compensation Board. I know how difficult it is when the tenant demands hundreds of thousands of dollars for the premises that he does not own and for which he has been paying a small meagre sum of rental for many years.
Thus, I call on the Government to review any request for amendments to the Code of Conduct with some caution so that a right balance of fairness can be considered from both the landlord and the tenant's point of view. During times when there is a shortage of retail space, usually landlords have a better bargaining position. And we have had a relatively strong economy for many years and property prices remain strong. However, during times when there is a glut of retail space, tenants can and will make demands for better tenancy terms from the landlord. Landlords would then cut rental. They will moderate their tenancy terms in order to rent out their premises. Otherwise, vacant premises are deemed to be a wasting resource to the landlord.
If there are many retail properties which are vacant, it may cause property prices to nosedive. Members of this House who have lived through the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 will know that a negative property market may eventually result in a recession because property owners cannot pay for their loan instalments and many property owners face financial ruin.
In fact, observers of the retail market will also know that not all retail spaces are in equal demand. There are some shopping malls where there are still many empty retail spaces as compared to a major shopping mall where there is huge demand for retail space due to better management of the mall. Thus, Sir, I would urge that we should consider allowing free market principles to set tenancy terms as far as possible.
In respect of the Bill, I have a few queries for the Minister of State.
Paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct provides for Advertising and Promotion (A&P) charge to be capped at the overall gross rent. This means that if a landlord wants to adjust what is commonly known as the A&P charge, he must do so within the total gross rent payable by the tenant.
But surely, A&P charges payable by a tenant must be a matter of negotiation between the landlord and tenant. As long as it can be proven by the landlord that the A&P charges are meant to promote the mall or the building, why does the Code of Conduct restrict the amount of A&P charge to be collected? The setting of this rule would cause a landlord to simply refuse to conduct any A&P activities for the building or the mall if he is unable to raise A&P charges without cutting back on the amount of rental that he receives. So, if the total amount of rent cannot be changed, then he will simply not do any A&P activities because why would he want to cut his own rental?
Paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct also provides for the landlord to pay compensation if there is predetermination of the lease. As said earlier, I agree with this principle and I would add that we should make it mandatory for the landlord to send reminders to the tenant on the need to submit their declaration of value of capex works within three months of completion of the renovation works. This is to avoid a situation whereby the tenant may have forgotten to keep or to submit records of their capex and thus be unable to substantiate their claim in the event that the landlord does predetermine the tenancy.
Next, Sir, I want to speak about clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the law to be applied to all qualifying leases. Sir, may I ask whether this will include even the smaller retail landlords like those in HDB shops or the owners of smaller shops at Lucky Plaza, City Plaza or Peninsula Plaza? How does the Government intend to assist the smaller landlords to ensure that they are aware of the need to comply with the Code of Conduct? For example, would they be aware of the need to provide a certificate from the registered surveyor or the cap on the amount of security deposit? I know many of these small landlords would have absolutely no clue where to find a registered surveyor because they have been renting out the place for so many years.
Next, Part 4 of the Bill requires the landlord or tenant to settle disputes with an authorised dispute resolution body and that authorised dispute resolution body must then maintain a panel of mediators and a panel of adjudicators. May I ask the Minister of State which is the authorised dispute resolution body?
Sir, I declare that I have served as a director in the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for 12 years. And I know, for these past 12 years, it is not easy to establish a dispute resolution body which has a pool of experienced and respected adjudicators and mediators. So, would this body referred to in the Bill be able to find enough adjudicators who are sufficiently experienced in landlord-tenancy disputes?
Finally, clause 26 of the Bill requires parties to a settlement agreement to apply to record the settlement agreement as an order of Court. What if one party refuses to consent to the recoding of the settlement agreement? Who then will bear the legal costs of filing the application to record the settlement agreement?
Sir, I would be grateful if the Minister of State can assist to clarify my concerns. And save for those concerns, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, retail and commercial leases have long been a special class of tenancies that are protected by legislation in other countries, such as Australia, France and Belgium. Despite the rise of online shopping and transactions, the retail shops in our neighbourhoods and shopping malls are still an invaluable part of our lives in Singapore.
This Bill is significant, as mentioned by some of our hon Members who have delivered their speeches, as it seeks to regulate the negotiation of private leases between landlords and tenants. It represents an exception to Singapore's reluctance to interfere with the free market of private commercial transactions. It goes beyond the specific and temporary interventions that this House had passed during the height of the COVID-19 crisis.
One main aspect of the Bill is to elevate parts of the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises into law. The Code was co-created by the retail industry landlord and tenant representatives through extensive discussions between June 2020 and March 2021.
That time period suggests that the Code was created in a context where COVID-19 had significantly affected retail businesses as footfall plunged during the pandemic. Are the principles in the Code suitable for permanent adoption going forward, especially as we leave the pandemic days behind us?
Clause 5 of the Bill, which introduces the Code into legislation, provides that the Code can only be modified with the Minister's approval. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State, would such a requirement introduce bureaucratic \"red tape\" that makes the Code less nimble and ready to adapt to changing market conditions? And how many times has the Code been amended or revised since it was initially issued?
Even though clause 5 introduces the Code of Conduct generally, it appears that the Bill only gives legislative bite to Part B of the Code, by requiring the landlord and the tenant of a \"qualifying lease\" to comply with the leasing principles set out in Part B. May I clarify with the Minister of State if the intention is for Parts A, C and D of the Code to have the force of law as well?
For example, Part A of the Code mandates landlords and tenants to \"adopt a consensual approach to negotiate in good faith\". With the passing of this Bill, is there now a legal duty to negotiate in good faith, even in the absence of an express contractual term? I understand that this is not the current state of the law.
Part D of the Code also requires a landlord to provide the tenant with a completed checklist indicating whether its draft lease agreement deviates or disapplies particular leasing principles under the Code. Will this become a legal requirement? While I understand that the Code has already been voluntarily adopted by major private sector landlords like CapitaLand, CDL, Frasers and Keppel Land, I am concerned about the compliance readiness and costs to other relatively smaller landlords of retail premises, such as, for example, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) or clan associations.
Most significantly, there has been some concern over the Bill’s silence on the data transparency guidelines at Part C of the Code. The tenant group Singapore Tenants United for Fairness (SGTuff) made a public call for landlords to be required to provide data on the footfall and average rental per square foot in their retail premises. Such data provides tenants with a more even playing field when negotiating shopping mall leases with building landlords, especially if the lease contemplates a gross turnover rent structure.
On the application of leasing principles set out at Part B of the Code, the Bill provides that this would only apply to a \"qualifying lease\". Among other things, the lease would be one which is for at least one year, and any period for which the lease can be later extended or renewed is disregarded. May I ask the Minister of State: does this allow for landlords or tenants to escape compliance with the leasing principles by structuring their lease as multiple renewal periods of 11 months, for example?
Four out of the 11 leasing principles under the Code – relating to exclusivity terms, sales performance clauses, rental structure and security deposit – can be deviated from, provided that the landlord and the tenant mutually agree. However, the Code also provides that deviations for the first three principles are to be \"on an exceptional basis\". May I ask the Minister of State as well does this mean that something more is required on top of the mutual agreement of the landlord and the tenant?
Clause 6 of the Bill also provides that any permitted deviation from the leasing principles must be declared to FTIC or else it might be void. The Committee will maintain a register and record of permitted deviations under clause 7 of the Bill. May I ask the Minister of State what is the purpose of lodging these declarations with the FTIC? Is there room for the FTIC to interfere with these permitted deviations if they have been mutually agreed by the landlord and tenant in question?
I would also like to commend, Mr Speaker, the aim of a \"low-cost and expedient\" dispute resolution process for any non-compliance with leasing principles, through the introduction of mediation and adjudication processes at Part 4 of the Bill. I look forward to seeing the rules, procedures and other details that will be established under clause 10 by the authorised dispute resolution body, which I understand will be the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC).
However, can the Minister of State clarify if there would be a stipulation equivalent to paragraph 3 of Part D of the Code of Conduct? It says there that a landlord or tenant may escalate any non-compliance in the lease agreement to SMC \"within 14 days of the signing of the lease agreement\". If yes, what is the consequence if the parties do not escalate the matter within 14 days of signing the lease agreement? A bit of a technicality, but I thought it is good to clear this. Are they barred from raising the issue from then on?
To keep the process \"low-cost and expedient\", will the mediation and adjudication be carried out without lawyers?
I also note that the prescribed mediation and adjudication process is only meant to cover a dispute over \"non-compliance with a leasing principle in relation to their lease agreement\". If there are concurrently other disputes arising out of the lease agreement, I presume these will have to be referred to the Courts or to arbitration, depending on what the lease agreement provides.
May I ask the Minister of State is this a circumstance where a Court would exercise its discretion under clause 13 of the Bill to stay parallel Court proceedings? Does this also mean that disputes over non-compliance with the leasing principles must always be subject to the mediation and adjudication process under the Bill, and cannot be decided by a Court or arbitral tribunal?
Mr Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to briefly touch on one area which is not presently dealt with by the Code of Conduct or the Bill. In most longer-term leases, including those that are renewable for further periods, there are usually terms providing for a rent review exercise to \"refresh\" the rent payable after a certain period of time. This recognises that rent amounts are susceptible to market changes and fluctuations over time.
Rent review is an area which is regulated in other jurisdictions. In France, the law provides for a legal mechanism where the rent will be revised every three years based on an index without recourse to the courts, following a request from the landlord or the tenant. In Belgium, a party may apply to court to obtain an adjustment of the rent where there are new circumstances affecting the normal rental value of the leased building. In various Australian states, the law prescribes certain restrictions on the rent review procedure and calculation methodology that may be agreed by the parties in the lease agreement.
This may be an area that FTIC or the Ministry may wish to look into going forward. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill. The proposed legislation will help to level the playing field for tenants and landlords. It will enhance fairness and transparency during the negotiation process and empower both parties to make informed decisions. This Bill supports entrepreneurship by providing businesses with guidance and certainty. We can expect beneficial change for the whole community, not just the retail sector.
Although some landlords had voluntarily adopted the Code of Conduct, mandating compliance with the Code will ensure that all retail sectors and tenants will be covered and will benefit from it. This will be especially helpful for small business owners with limited means and information resources in their negotiations with landlords.
I would like to ask about sub-tenants, many of whom are sole proprietors, such as those commonly present in the heartland areas, like the ones Ms See Jinli Jean had mentioned just now. They form an important part of our communities, providing products and services catered to their customers’ specific needs in the housing estates. Will they also be able to benefit from this legislation and obtain access to the necessary information, which will be made available to the main tenants? We want to continue to support these local businesses, some of which are quite unique, preserving our cultural heritage in the products and services rendered. More balanced bargaining power will maintain fair rates and would allow these entrepreneurs to prosper as well as to continue to contribute to the lively nature of the heartland districts.
While the Bill is undeniably a huge step forward in advancing the rights of tenants, more can be done. One example is to go beyond sharing of sales data metrics by trade category before signing a lease. Monthly updated information on footfall and the average rental per square foot by mall, building or floor, should be public information, just like for residential properties as well. An open and transparent market will be beneficial to all stakeholders – landlords, tenants and consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): The Bill and Code are important steps forward for the retail industry. They will help to ensure a level playing field for tenants and landlords to negotiate lease agreements in openness and good faith. They will also support entrepreneurship by providing businesses with guidance and certainty on the lease negotiation process and helping them make informed business decisions based on their commercial interests.
However, many small landlords and tenants have long-term leasing agreements. Based on their long-standing relationships, they may not regard lease negotiations in the same way as parties in commercial malls do. For example, many HDB shops pay a lump-sum rent that is not tied to a specific psf rate, since they do not use psf as a benchmark to negotiate their rent. Some coffee shop operators sublet food stalls by verbal agreement. Hence, small businesses may not be sufficiently aware of the legislation to help them in their lease negotiations.
What will the Ministry do to raise awareness of the Bill and Code and communicate their benefits more widely to the industry, especially among small businesses? Will the Government consider conducting townhalls and roadshows to reach out to these businesses? Will these events be conducted in dialects?
What can be done to reassure small businesses which may be worried about compliance costs and whether their leases conform with the law? For example, it can cost $1,000 to $3,000 to engage a lawyer to review and amend a lease agreement, which can be quite significant for some businesses.
How can small tenants seek help to resolve disputes over non-compliance with the Bill and Code? Apart from FTIC and the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), are there other communication channels which are convenient and accessible to small businesses?
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the 10 hon Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their questions, comments and suggestions. Please allow me to address the points raised in the course of my speech. As before, for the sake of clarity, I will refer to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee established under this Bill as FTIC, and the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee that was formed two years ago in May 2021 as \"current Committee\" in my speech.
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I turn to address the Members’ comments, please allow me to recap very quickly the context for the Bill that has been cited by many hon Members.
In June 2020, when we first embarked on the journey to strengthen the retail sector with tenant and landlord representatives from the Pro Tem Committee, to be honest, it was far from certain that any common ground could be found, let alone a full-fledged and robust Code of Conduct that we have before us today in the House for this debate. So, the Code was, in the words of a current Committee member, and I quote her, \"a landmark for the industry\" and it is \"a miracle that we could even reach this stage\". This unprecedented Bill is also a landmark for the Government, like what some Members have shared.
For the first time, we have tabled a Bill that mandates compliance with principles that are drawn from a Code that is developed by the industry, that is owned by the industry. It is because the industry and stakeholders recognised the need for this Code and the collective benefits that it can bring to the stakeholders of the retail sector that we are all here today for the final stage of this Bill.
As Ms Jessica Tan pointed out, the Code does not set out to, nor does it intend to, solve every problem that tenants and landlords face in their lease negotiations. However, it is a critical first step that brings the industry together at the same table and steers it towards a positive direction for a brighter future.
While the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the beginnings of the Code, as Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Saktiandi Supaat said, the conduct and the spirit of negotiations, as well as the development of common leasing principles, will place businesses on a stronger foundation for the long run. And to ensure its continued relevance, the Code will be a living document under the current Committee and then the FTIC’s stewardship, and updated from time to time to meet the industry's needs.
Since the Code was first published in March 2021, it has been updated twice. We are seeing the third version – Mr Louis Ng asked the question – in less than three years, three versions.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms See Jinli Jean in her maiden speech, and many Members have given their firm support, and I am very glad that the Bill addresses their concern about the imbalance of bargaining power for small companies in the retail leases.
I fully agree with Mr Murali Pillai that the Bill promotes equality, fairness and freedom to contract between leasing parties.
I also agree with Mr Don Wee, who has just spoken, that the Bill and the Code provide small businesses with guidance and certainty, and thus support entrepreneurship in general, by helping businesses understand their tenancy rights and make informed leasing decisions – knowing their tenancy rights as well as both sides knowing their obligations.
Above all, we are clear that by no means is this Bill signalling a shift in the Government’s position on free-market principles, the importance of which Mr Lim Biow Chuan had stressed in his very passionate speech earlier. On the contrary, the very reason that we are tabling this Bill is to promote greater transparency and a more vibrant and competitive retail scene to benefit Singaporeans and all consumers.
As highlighted by Mr Murali Pillai in his passionate speech, the Government's underlying philosophy has always been, and still is, in the words of then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah in 2018, that \"in general, free market principles should apply and the Government should only intervene when necessary.\"
The Bill supports this approach. It does not seek to intervene in market outcomes and it does not seek to inadvertently distort competition or distort market forces at work. Instead, it empowers the industry players in the retail sector to come together to identify, and to address, their key pain points by finding common ground.
The leasing principles under the Code are a result of very extensive deliberation between tenants and landlord representatives. They represent the fine balance that both sides have struck.
The trust and partnership that tenants and landlords have forged in developing the Code together provide a firm foundation for widespread adoption by the industry. By mandating compliance with the Code, the Bill will enable both the tenants and the landlords to pursue their business interests more effectively and enhance the competitiveness of our retail scene in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to now respond to the Members' clarifications on the Code and then their clarifications on the Bill.
I thank all the 10 Members for their questions and their suggestions for the Code.
To formulate the Code, the Pro Tem Committee had spent months deliberating each of the leasing principles extensively. The Pro Tem Committee weighed the views of tenants, large and small, and landlords, large and small, and incorporated their feedback to come up with a set of common standards that apply to the industry. Careful consideration was also given to ensure that the Code is not unduly onerous on any party.
The FTIC will certainly continue to drive the review of the Code under the Bill.
Mr Edward Chia had suggested amending specific leasing principles to further increase transparency in lease negotiations. Mr Edward Chia raised a point about electricity costs in his speech. He was concerned that while the Bill prohibits profiteering from the sale of electricity, tenants are charged for additional miscellaneous costs, such as \"meter reading fees\".
Landlords on the En-bloc Contestability Scheme (ECS) will have to procure electricity contracts on behalf of all their tenants. Then, the landlords are to pass tenants the electricity costs, as charged, without any mark-up.
Depending on the contract between the electricity retailer and the landlord, the electricity costs may include various components charged by the electricity retailer, such as fees for meter leasing and meter readings.
Under the ECS, the contract between, say, the electricity retailer with a mall, they will only measure the amount of electricity that the mall uses, but they will have to provide the individual meter to measure the tenants' usage. So, these are imposed by the electricity retailer. This is so that sub-meters can be installed for tenants and their electricity consumption can be tracked.
There are also instances where the landlord is not on the ECS. Those are cases where tenants would be able to choose from an array of electricity retailers of their choice from the open electricity market.
It is thus not practical nor possible for the Code to comprehensively come up with different permutations to try to cover the different types of commercial arrangements for electricity. What we want here is to improve transparency and to promote fair practices to make it clear that the landlord cannot charge mark-ups on electricity costs.
As Ms Jessica Tan said in her speech, \"We should not expect legislation to be the panacea for all issues.\"
What is really important, as cited by many of the speakers today, is that details on costs are communicated transparently during the lease negotiation so that the tenant can make an informed decision whether to lease the premises.
Mr Edward Chia also asked if the Government or FTIC could provide guidelines for parties renegotiating lease agreements due to material adverse change when a tenant cannot carry on its business because of events beyond its control.
Parties are encouraged to abide by the principles governing the conduct and the spirit of negotiations as set out in the Code and to negotiate leases in good faith while also considering the other party's legitimate interests. As circumstances would differ for each lease, it is thus not feasible to issue guidelines for what would be commercial arrangements between the two parties.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Lim Biow Chuan raised some questions about advertising and promotion (A&P) and also service charges during the lease, which landlords are allowed to adjust, on the condition that their overall gross rent does not increase. Again, this is to improve transparency and promote fair business practices so that there is certainty and predictability for retail tenants.
This condition has been set to prevent landlords from arbitrarily raising the gross rent after the agreement has been signed and to provide certainty to tenants on the rent that is payable during the lease term.
I wish to also clarify that the Code does not restrict the amount of A&P charges that a landlord may collect. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan noted, the amount of A&P charges that is payable by the tenant is really a matter of negotiation between parties and continues to be so. Rather, the Code holds the position that A&P charges are considered as business costs incurred by landlords and should thus be subsumed in the overall gross rent, rather than be borne fully by tenants.
In addition, landlords are also encouraged to keep proper records and accounts of these charges to ensure accountability because when renewing the lease agreement, tenants and landlords may review and revise the charges based on prevailing market conditions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Chua asked if data transparency guidelines under Part C of the Code will be mandated under the Bill. I am happy to confirm this: they will be mandated.
The current Committee has updated the draft Code to raise the bar on data transparency and confidentiality and elevated the status of data transparency and confidentiality guidelines to be leasing principles. This brings the total number of principles to 13, instead of 11, which the Bill mandates compliance with.
In cases of non-compliance, parties can pursue recourse in the form of mediation and adjudication. The draft Code will be finalised in the coming months and will take effect on the same day as the date of commencement of the Act in early February 2024.
Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Chua asked if the data transparency principle in the Code can be further strengthened, such as by providing tenants with more information beyond sales data by trade category.
Allow me to share that the Pro Tem Committee had considered all these matters in deliberating on the data transparency requirement. The Pro Tem Committee ultimately landed on the position in the Code that Members see today to promote greater transparency and enable both tenants and landlords to make informed lease decisions while balancing both parties' interests.
The addition of two leasing principles, confidentiality and data transparency, really demonstrates how the Code is a living document which will continue to evolve to meet the industry's needs.
While I am not able to address all the questions that were raised by Members, especially those that are outside the purview of the Code and the Bill, I will certainly convey your feedback to the current Committee for their consideration, including Mr Lim Biow Chuan's suggestion for reminders to be sent for the declaration of the value of capex works.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the frequency of reviewing the Code and its guiding criteria. Mr Saktiandi Supaat then enquired about rent review and if requiring the Minister's approval to amend the Code could make it less nimble.
I agree with both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will have to balance between providing flexibility and transparency and giving businesses certainty. The current Committee considered the industry's feedback when it reviewed the Code and will continue to do so. Under the Bill, MTI will also work with FTIC and ensure there is sufficient lead time for businesses to familiarise themselves with the latest updates on the Code and how the updated principles in the Code will be implemented before it comes into force.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now turn to address Members' clarifications on the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the scope of the Bill and how might the Minister exercise the power to exempt specific persons or premises from the Bill.
I want to assure him that the Government intends for the Bill to apply to all retail premises with a lease tenure of one year or more. Powers to vary the Schedules and to exempt specific entities are not uncommon in other Acts and I would like to assure the Member that MTI will exercise such powers under the Bill judiciously and only consider doing that in exceptional circumstances.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat observed, some parties may seek to escape compliance with the Bill by deliberately structuring their lease in multiple renewal periods of 11 months – that is actually quite painful. He was citing that as an example that some tenants or landlords may game it that way.
I wish to assure him that the intent is to cover the vast majority of retail leases and exempt those on short-term leases. I want to assure him that if any party suspects that their lease terms are being deliberately shortened to circumvent compliance with the Code and the Bill, they can report to the FTIC such practices for going against the spirit of the Code.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the composition of the FTIC and cited there might be a risk of the balance of representation tilting towards either side. He noted the importance of this matter as the FTIC is responsible for maintaining and proposing changes to the Code.
I would like to assure him and the House that the Pro Tem Committee and current Committee have done an admirable job in balancing the needs of the tenants, large and small, and landlords, large and small, in developing the Code so far and we will continue to work closely with the FTIC to ensure that this momentum continues after the passing of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said at the beginning of my speech, the legislative approach we have taken for this Bill is really a first for the Government.
We have chosen to do so as, one, we recognise the potential downsides of overregulating in the lease negotiation space, where market forces and commercial considerations should prevail. Two, we do so because we recognise the benefits of having an industry-led body respond very nimbly and represent the industry aptly to changing needs in the fast-moving retail scene.
To ensure accountability in the process and fair consideration of interests on both sides, the Bill requires FTIC members appointed by the Minister for Trade and Industry to represent the interests of both tenants and landlords and also requires the FTIC to seek the Minister's approval before amending the Code.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the recourse available if landlords do not file declarations of permitted deviation after signing the lease agreement within the period to be prescribed in the Regulations. While the Bill only requires landlords to file any such declarations with the FTIC, tenants are encouraged to acknowledge these filings.
In cases where permitted deviations on exclusivity, sales performance and security deposit fail to be filed – to answer Members' questions – the deviation in the lease agreement would be void and the default position, as stated in the Code, would then apply. So, they have to file it within that period, failing which, deviations on those three areas would be void and the default position in the Code would then apply.
For the fourth scenario, for the fourth leasing principle where deviation is allowed, where it concerns the rental formula, if the permitted deviation related to the rental formula fails to be filed, the lease will continue on the same rental formula. This is because it is not possible to prescribe a default rental formula in the Code or to void the rental formula term in that particular lease agreement as it is an essential element of the contract.
On a related note, Mr Louis Ng asked about the consequences of non-compliance with leasing principles without a permitted deviation. I would like to clarify that that is not permitted. The reason why we are coming to Parliament today to pass this Bill to support this industry-led Code is to mandate compliance with the 13 leasing principles. Out of the 13 leasing principles, there are four leasing principles where, if both parties mutually agree, they can file a declaration of permitted deviation.
I would like to clarify that this is not permitted, because we need mandatory compliance. And in such cases, if he is aware of any, the tenant can decline the lease agreement and, in fact, report the matter to FTIC.
To answer Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on the purpose of requiring parties to file declarations of permitted deviation with the FTIC, this is a good question. These requirements enable the FTIC to monitor industry trends in relation to the four leasing principles of exclusivity, sales performance, security deposit and rental formula, and then, to assess if there is a need to update the Code.
So, as I said, this is a first step, it is a living document, we will continue to engage the industry to collect feedback but it has to be done in a way that all parties come to a consensus at the same table.
We keep talking about \"large landlord\" and \"small tenants\". Actually, landlords can also be small. I will come to that point later. Tenants can also be big. So, there are many, many permutations here and it is important for us to represent the interests of all possible scenarios.
I would like to clarify that while deviations represent a departure from the norms that are agreed to at the industry level, the Code does provide parties with the flexibility to negotiate the terms that are best suited to business requirements and commercial considerations. I hear from some Members that the reason why there are permitted deviations in the four areas, is it because the landlord wins?
Interestingly, the tenants are the ones who may advocate for that flexibility. Because if not, they will think that, in certain situations, it may be overly restrictive.
I want to address the query by Mr Leong Mun Wai. For example, I understand in our engagements with the stakeholders – and as I said, there are large and small landlords, and large and small tenants – I will quote to Members two very interesting examples, which did not come to my mind before my engagement with them.
Certain tenants may want to deviate and opt for a \"whichever is higher\" rental formula, which is currently not permitted in the Code, except by mutual agreement. I will give Members one example – a shop selling bak kwa. They shared that they may have most of their sales around the Lunar New Year period. Of course, you may say, actually we eat bak kwa throughout the whole year. But I think we will agree, we see the long queues one-and-a-half months before Lunar New Year.
They may actually enjoy a huge spike in their income during that period, rather than a steady income stream year-round, compared to other F&Bs, like say, a bubble tea shop. This is just one example. So, the bak kwa shop tenant may prefer a \"whichever is higher\" rental formula, which then will allow them to negotiate with the landlord to pay a lower baseline rent for most of the months, except for the few months leading up to Lunar New Year.
Another example is a winterwear shop. I think we do see that in some shopping malls, where the sales during the year-end holiday or sales to those people who go to Australia during the June holidays can be a bit higher than other months.
So, I just want us to think of other possible scenarios. Basically, this is not just the landlord, also the tenant representatives who told us that they hope for a little bit of flexibility so that it does not encumber them, when they go into a lease negotiation for the retail premises.
As lease agreements are private contracts between willing parties, tenants and landlords should do their due diligence before signing a lease agreement, which is binding once signed. Parties to the lease agreements are also responsible for ensuring compliance with the Code. Tenants and landlords, after signing, it is their responsibility to also ensure that there is compliance, failing which, they can then proceed to alert FTIC and then, if need be, there is a dispute resolution body, which I will touch on later.
If the FTIC receives complaints that a party regularly engages in practices or behaviours that are against the spirit or the requirements of the Code, it may seek further information from the parties and publicly highlight egregious or non-cooperative and non-compliant behaviour.
Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the qualifications of the mediators and adjudicators. Because out of the three speakers, two are legally trained, I want to assure them that the panel of mediators and adjudicators appointed by the authorised dispute resolution body, which will be the Singapore Mediation Centre, SMC for short, will be fully qualified to deal with matters of non-compliance with the Code.
The mediators will comprise both legally trained and non-legally trained individuals who must pass SMC's training programme with a distinction grade. And all adjudicators have to be legally trained individuals. This is to ensure that they are able to address any legal implications in relation to non-compliance with the Code when rendering their decisions. While parties are free to hire their own legal representatives, it is not a requirement. Here, we are trying to make sure that, in the situation of dispute, we are trying to offer a low-cost, expedient avenue.
Mr Murali Pillai, in his speech, also asked about the adjudicator's power to address matters of non-compliance with leasing principles and whether the adjudicator can order both a variation of the lease as well as compensation to rectify the same matter of non-compliance.
This part is going to be quite technical, so please bear with me. I would like to clarify that the adjudicator can only make a determination to require either a variation of the lease, so that it complies with the leasing principle in question, because that would only come about as you go through the lease negotiations and as you sign. So, this will only kick in during that period – at the front part of your lease agreement. The adjudicator can either determine a variation of the lease or order a compensation, if the leasing principle in question provides for compensation to be made.
Let me repeat – the adjudicator can only order compensation if the leasing principle in question provides for compensation to be made. Currently, if you look at the Code – which is available at the URL www.ftic.org.sg, 39 pages long – compensation explicitly applies to three leasing principles in the Code relating to early termination of contracts. In other cases of non-compliance where the leasing principle does not provide for recourse of compensation, the aggrieved party may wish to seek damages through independent civil redress, like what the Member cited.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if the dispute resolution process under this Bill supersedes Court proceedings. I want to assure them that it does not. While we encourage parties to use the mediation and adjudication services that are set out in the Bill for Code-related complaints, this dispute resolution framework is provided, in addition to any other redress that the parties would have outside of the Bill.
As I have said, we would want to do this because we want to provide the aggrieved party a low-cost and expedient avenue.
It is not intended to override any other such redress. The Court would have the discretion, whether to hear or determine the matter or to grant a stay of proceedings, after considering all relevant circumstances.
Mr Murali Pillai's last question concerns the scope to appeal the decisions of the adjudicator. As I have shared, the dispute resolution framework under the Bill is intended to be a low-cost and expedient alternative to other forms of redress available to the parties. It does not supplant the Court's jurisdiction. Parties can only seek mediation or adjudication in relation to non-compliance with the leasing principles which have been clearly set out in the Code. Thus, most cases before the adjudicator should be able to be determined in a relatively straightforward manner.
Sir, before I conclude, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, launched in March 2021, was spearheaded by the industry to promote fairer and more balanced lease negotiations between tenants and landlords. The Code addresses structural issues in the industry and enables both parties to forge long-term symbiotic partnerships.
This Bill will mandate that all tenants and landlords comply with the Code. We hope that the Bill will also support entrepreneurship, by helping businesses understand their tenancy rights and make informed leasing decisions. This will set a strong foundation for a more vibrant and competitive retail scene in Singapore, which will benefit all consumers.
CapitaLand, a major landlord of commercial properties, shared that since adopting the Code, they have strengthened their relationship with their tenants and it has enabled them to work together to enhance the vibrancy of their malls and bring more exciting experiences to consumers.
Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Chua asked how we can raise awareness of the Bill and Code among SMEs and address concerns over compliance costs. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Lim Biow Chuan also expressed concerns on compliance readiness for smaller landlords. I understand Members’ concerns and would like to assure them that we have refined the Code over a period of two years and we have tried to ensure right from the beginning that it is easy to understand and follow.
The Government will work with FTIC, the Federation of Merchants’ Associations Singapore (FMAS) and Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore (HECS) to conduct roadshows and seminars in the heartlands, especially from now to February next year. I would like to assure Mr Don Wee that these seminars will not only be conducted in English, but also in Mandarin. He also asked whether they will be conducted in dialects. I will discuss this with FMAS.
So, we will work closely with FTIC, FMAS and HECS to conduct a series of roadshows and seminars to educate heartland shops about the details of the Bill and Code. Businesses can also approach HECS’ business advisors for one-on-one advice.
FMAS is also developing a lease agreement template tailored for heartland shopowners and will launch it by this year-end. We are grateful to the TACs, including FMAS and the Restaurant Association of Singapore, for their ground-up efforts to introduce sector-specific lease agreement templates, checklists and other resources, which will bring more convenience to businesses.
FTIC will continue to update the Code based on industry feedback. For example, during our engagements in partnership with FMAS and HECS in the past two years, many heartland retailers gave feedback that the requirement to provide a surveyed floor plan certified by a registered surveyor for new leases would increase their leasing costs.
After considering the feedback, the current Committee decided that tenants and landlords can submit certified floor or building plans from relevant authorities by mutual agreement. This shows that the Committee listens closely to the feedback from both tenants and landlords, large and small. The alternative option is more convenient and less costly. The updated Code is expected to take effect on the same day as the commencement of the Act in early February next year.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the key issues that were raised by Members. And as we can see from the last two-and-a-half hours of debate, the passionate speeches of the 10 Members, we have heard many different voices in the Chamber today.
On one hand, while some Members think that the Code can go further to address imbalances in lease negotiations, others worry that it may go too far. And some see the Bill as an exemplary example of our collaborative approach – \"uniquely Singapore\" – to problem-solving, while some caution that not all issues require the Government to step in and not all issues require the Government's intervention.
So, as you can hear from the 10 speeches from the Members, the diversity of views held amongst the 10 speakers – I was reflecting. It truly reflects the extensive and spirited discussions that have taken place these two years in the industry, between the large and small landlords and the large and small tenants.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Code embodies the common ground that is found by tenants and landlords to bridge these differences, and it has been welcomed as a ground-breaking achievement for the industry – developed and owned by the industry.
I am very heartened that all 10 Members affirmed the importance of the Code and the need for the Bill to ensure widespread adoption.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that the Code is a living document and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the industry. This will allow new and current players to navigate the market more adroitly and adapt to disruptions with greater resilience. I am confident that by ensuring fair and balanced lease negotiations, the Bill will strengthen the foundations of the retail market. The FTIC will also be a positive driving force in finetuning the Code and bringing stakeholders together to push the industry to greater heights.
I would like to thank all the 10 Members for their support for the Bill. And I trust that with the support of the House today and the retail industry for this Bill and the Code, we will place the retail sector on solid ground for future growth and greater potential. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State Low? 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. – [Ms Low Yen Ling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Before I call the Deputy Leader, next Wednesday, we celebrate our country's 58th birthday. So, let me wish everyone a happy National Day in advance. [Applause.] Deputy Leader.
","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 at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Harnessing Technology for Better Road Safety Outcomes in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 1970s, as a boy growing up at the JTC flats at 14th mile, Sembawang, my best friend then was my neighbour, Mani. He was living in the flat right above mine. He was several years older than me.
To me, he was the elder brother I never had. We had always played together almost immediately after we returned from school. He taught me how to ride the bicycle and we played chess together, too.
We went on many a cycling trip together, such as to the nearby beach at 15th mile, the cinema along Canberra Road or the public swimming pool at Deptford Road. Those were, indeed, carefree days.
Mani passed away around the early 1990s in a road traffic accident. It happened shortly after he got married. He was riding a motorbike then. It was a double tragedy for the family as his pillion rider, his grandfather, died in the same accident, too.
For the first three months of this year alone, there are 19 people like my friend Mani, and two, like his grandfather, the pillion rider. This is a much higher figure, compared to the corresponding period in the previous two years. I will discuss this worrying trend later in my speech.
Families of the victims of road accidents who die or suffer crippling injuries would also have to bear the pain and consequences of road traffic accidents permanently.
The unfortunate reality is that, every year, there are a significant number of road traffic fatalities and serious injuries here and elsewhere. Globally, about 1.35 million people are killed on roads across the world every year. The number of serious injuries amounts to between 20 and 50 million annually.
Such incidents carry major economic impact, too. Based on a 2019 research paper entitled \"The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Road Injuries: Estimates and Projections for 166 countries\" published in The Lancet, both fatal and non-fatal injuries are estimated to cost the world US$1.6 trillion for the period 2015-2030.
Lives have intrinsic and economic value, both of which are lost in accidents.\tBut it is not realistic to think about totally eradicating road accidents. This is a point that Lord Sumption, the famous former UK Law Lord, put across pithily in his Reith Lecture in 2019. He said, \"Think about road accidents. They are, by far, the largest source of accidental, physical injury in this country. We could almost completely eliminate them by reviving the Locomotive Act of 1865 which limited the speed of motorised vehicles to four miles an hour in the country and two miles per hour in towns. Today, we allow faster speeds than that, although we know for certain that it will mean many more people being killed or injured, and we do this because total safety would be too inconvenient. So, eliminating risk is not an absolute value, it is a question of degree.\"
Sir, if it is a question of degree, then I think there is a case for Singapore to strive to achieve lower rates of fatalities and serious injuries arising from road accidents.
Singapore's roads are relatively safe when a comparison is done on a country-by-country basis. Based on WHO figures, Singapore's road traffic fatality rate per 100,000 population, or RTF rate, for 2019 was reported at 2.09, which was amongst the lowest in the world. It continues to be so.
But the picture becomes a little different when we compare our RTF rates with several metropolitan cities in advanced countries.
Consider Hong Kong. Looking at its 2018-2022 figures, it has about 800,000 vehicles on its roads. That translates to roughly about 200,000 less than ours for the same period. We have slightly under one million vehicles on our roads. Hong Kong's resident population is, however, higher than ours at 7.4 million. In comparison, our resident population is about two million smaller.
The average RTF rate per 100,000 population for Hong Kong for the period 2018-2022 is 1.43. In comparison, ours is 1.92 for the same period.
Next, let us look at London. London has more motor vehicles and a much bigger population. In 2022, London has 2.6 million registered vehicles. Its population is about 8.8 million. In 2022, 101 people were killed on London roads. This leads to an RTF rate per 100,000 population of 1.15. Ours is 1.92 in 2022.
Finally, I come to Tokyo. Tokyo's metropolitan area is amongst the most densely populated cities in the world with a population of 37 million as at 2022. However, it has only about three million vehicles comparatively. The 2022 RTF rate for Tokyo was reported as 0.94 which is much lower than ours at 1.92 in 2022.
Man for man, Singapore loses more lives than Hong Kong, London and Tokyo. We, however, compare favourably with cities, such as Seoul City, which had an RTF rate of 2.18, compared to our 1.46 in 2020, and New York, which had an RTF rate of 2.87, compared to our 1.92 in 2022.
I fully appreciate that the vehicle mix in each of the cities is different from Singapore's. However, the short point I am making is that, notwithstanding the limitations of my research, it is reasonable to infer that whilst we have done relatively well in terms of ensuring a high level of road safety on our roads, there remains room for improvement.
Sir, what precipitated my decision to file this speech is the alarming fatality figures for motorcyclists and pillion riders in the first quarter of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022 and 2021.
As we all recognise, motorcyclists and pillion riders are amongst the most vulnerable road users. Between 2018 and 2022, motorcyclists and pillion riders accounted for 50.7% of road traffic fatalities.
I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) that came up for answer in May 2023 concerning fatalities amongst motorcyclists and pillion riders. The answers revealed that the fatality figure for the first quarter this year is double that of the corresponding figure in the same period for 2022 and 2021.
In an article in a Straits Times dated 7 May 2023, Mr Bernard Tay, Chairman of the Singapore Road Safety Council, was reported as saying, \"The figure is alarming, but it needs to be analysed further to understand the number better.\"
I fully agree with Mr Tay's suggestion and would respectfully commend it to the Government for its consideration.
Anecdotally, I have received feedback from my residents in Bukit Batok on the matter, too. Mr Hairul, aged 32, is an Auxiliary Police Officer who is deployed at Changi Prison Complex. He travels to and fro his workplace via motorcycle. He told me he has noticed an uptick of motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic at great speed and without signalling early. He also noticed a higher number of drivers who are using their mobile phones while driving and not being conscious of blind spots when making turns.
There are many amongst us who are concerned about the safety of delivery motorcycle riders who have a high cognitive tax on them each day on the road, including the need to look at mobile phone apps and the stresses from wanting to make as many delivery trips as possible.
The Police, in its statement, stated that the causes for the uptick include motorcyclists failing to maintain a proper control of their bikes, not keeping a proper lookout and disobeying traffic light signals.
Sir, the Government needs to act decisively to arrest this worrying trend. I do appreciate that the Government has already been taking active steps to enhance road safety over the years. For instance, just within a space of three years between 2019 and 2021, the Road Traffic Act was amended twice with a suite of measures, including the enhancing of criminal sanctions, to deter irresponsible driving and improve road safety. These amendments received broad support from hon Members of this House.
To my knowledge, Traffic Police has been actively enforcing these provisions against offending motorists, especially against those who are caught speeding and beating red lights. These are often cited as the top two reasons for accidents. The officers of Traffic Police deserve our full support in their enforcement efforts.
The hon Minister for Home Affairs, in answer to my PQ, also highlighted that the Traffic Police, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Road Safety Council have implemented various initiatives to strengthen road safety awareness amongst road users. Indeed, the Minister's three-pronged approach of making our roads safer through education, engagement and enforcement has much to commend for itself.
LTA has also taken several important steps to make our roads safer for us. For instance, pursuant to a PQ that I filed in 2022, the hon Minister informed that the introduction of the non-discretionary Red Amber Green (RAG) right-turn signals at junctions where there is a higher risk of accidents has reduced instances of accidents by 40%. That is commendable.
LTA also has other initiatives, such as setting up Silver Zones, appropriate road markings, lighted road studs, integrated pedestrian countdown timers and signs. All these moves, cumulatively, are in the right direction.
Notwithstanding, I believe there is scope for greater room for the use of technology to compensate for human error and inattention. We need to harness safety technology to move the needle more aggressively so as to reduce death and serious injuries on our roads.
Over the years, there have been great strides taken in technological developments to improve the safety features found in vehicles.
Beyond the standard seatbelts, airbags and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), we now have access to safety technology in the form of blind-spot warning systems; rear cross traffic alerts; automatic emergency braking and pedestrian detection systems; lane keep assists; and adaptive cruise controls. I would add that these technologies are not new technologies that would have to be test-bedded to check for reliability. These technologies have long reached a steady state.
Do these crash avoidance technologies result in fewer collisions and save lives? Based on my research, the answer is yes. In a 2019 article entitled \"Net-societal and net-private benefits of some existing vehicle crash avoidance technologies\", it was estimated that just three technologies, namely, blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning and forward-collision warning for all light-duty passenger vehicles in the US would have collectively prevented up to 1.6 million crashes a year, including 7,200 fatal crashes. The crash prevention costs savings, according to the same article, if the technologies were mandated throughout the light-duty vehicle fleet, based on certain assumptions, would be up to US$264 billion.
The ASEAN NCAP, which stands for New Car Assessment Programme, is a body dedicated to elevate vehicle safety standards and encourage a market for safer vehicles in the region. It opined that if all cars are equipped with blind-spot detection and visualisation technologies, it is expected that 37% of collisions, especially with motorcycles, can be avoided.
In Europe, they have gone one step further. From 2022, all motor vehicles, including trucks, buses, vans and cars, will have to be compulsorily equipped with safety features that include intelligent speed assistance – basically, this works as speed limiters; reversing detection system; advanced driver distraction warning system; emergency stop signals; reversing detection systems; event data recorders; and accurate tyre pressure monitoring.
With respect to safety features in motorcycles, it seemed to me that, whilst there are a number of safety features that have been implemented arising from technological advances, they are not as widely adopted as compared to motor vehicles. They include ABS for motorcycles; combined braking systems to engage front and rear brakes at the same time; and traction and stability controls.
In March 2023, the European Transport Safety Council called on EU countries to introduce ABS for all motorcycles, including those under 125 cubic centimetres (cc). Whether its recommendation will be implemented though is not certain. Calls have been made in several countries, including Malaysia, to introduce speed limiters on motorcycles.
What is the downside to mandating the use of safety technology in our vehicles? Well, one significant downside is cost. I acknowledge that. We need to balance this against costs savings arising from crash prevention, as I highlighted. Also, we cannot put a price to the saving of lives and avoiding of crippling injuries.
Furthermore, I had occasion to speak to several motor vehicle insurance underwriters who informed me that the presence of safety features in motor vehicles are factors that are taken into account when assessing the premiums payable even though the weight placed on such factors differ from insurer to insurer.
This is not a perceived advantage. It is already happening. There are a number of insurance companies in Singapore offering to discount motorists' premiums by 4% just by installing dashcams in their cars.
Also, I noted in a 2020 article issued by McKinsey & Company that when regulators make safety features mandatory, like in the case in Europe, the market will react to make these features commoditised over time. If that is indeed the case, the costs will, over time, moderate downwards.
Finally, I note that, thanks to the PARF rebate and COE system, Singapore has a relatively young vehicle population. For example, 37.2% of cars on Singapore roads were registered within the past five years. I, therefore, anticipate that a good number of these vehicles would already be installed with important safety features that l spoke about earlier as standard fare. The cost consequences should these safety features be mandated may not be as significant, as what would be more likely to happen is a standardisation of technologies amongst the cars.
This may not be so for buses though. Based on my calculations, only 22% of buses are five years old or younger. Hence, I acknowledge that the cost consequence of making it mandatory for these heavy vehicles to carry mandated safety features may be higher.
Having regard to the developments that I have outlined, I would like to make a case for LTA to consider mandating the incorporation and use of safety technologies that have an established record of being able to reduce collisions in all our vehicles.
With respect, I think our regulations mandating safety features in vehicles are somewhat behind the curve. We have, in my opinion, only a small raft of regulations mandating use of safety technologies in our vehicles. We have regulations mandating the use of seat belts, for example. More recently, in the discussion on safety in workers' transportation, it was announced that all lorries with a maximum laden weight exceeding 3,500 kilogrammes will be required to be equipped with speed limiters. We can do more.
Mr Speaker, as I have pointed out earlier, there are proven technologies that we can consider adopting as regulatory fiat in our vehicles. They will add slightly to the cost and we can take an incremental approach to their introduction. But overall, I think it is a small price to pay to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
Borrowing the words from Emily Dickenson's poem, \"My friend Mani did not want to stop for Death, but Death, unkindly, stopped for him.\" There can be far fewer such hard stops if we all resolve to improve the safety requirements for all our modern-day carriages, be they bikes, cars, buses or lorries.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the Adjournment Motion and sharing his personal experiences and convictions with this House. As road users, I am certain Members in this House would be able to relate to the issues raised.
Our goal is to have safer roads for all. This is an ongoing journey that requires collective effort from every road user.
The Member has rightly pointed out that technology can be an enabler for improving road safety outcomes in Singapore. Let me assure the Member that this is, indeed, what LTA has done over the years.
For heavy vehicles, LTA has mandated blind-spot mirrors and allowed the use of camera devices to cover blind-spot areas in 2015. The Traffic Police (TP) has also made it mandatory for such vehicles to install speed limiters, as the Member has said.
For vehicles, apart from motorcycles, LTA has allowed the use of camera monitor systems in lieu of conventional rear-view mirrors from 2021.
For public buses, they have progressively been fitted with safety features, such as the Driver Anti-Fatigue System to monitor the bus captain's fatigue level and the Collision Warning System to alert the bus captain on impending collisions. In fact, for the Collision Warning System, 79% of the public bus fleets are already fitted with that.
These measures help make our roads safer. And while the measures target larger vehicles, they also protect other road users, such as motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Technology can only be implemented effectively after careful consideration of other factors, such as road design and user behaviour, as well as extensive industry engagement. For each change, many factors have to be assessed, including motorists' readiness to adapt to the new technology, the reliability of the new technology, cost effectiveness, as well as the impact on motorist behaviour with the adoption of new technology. These considerations apply to safety technology on all types of vehicles, including motorcycles.
In the case of motorcycles, advanced braking systems, such as Combined Braking System (CBS) and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) that the Member mentioned in his speech, have increasingly been made available on smaller and larger engine capacity motorcycles respectively. LTA is aware of campaigns overseas to mandate ABS for all motorcycles, regardless of engine capacity and is studying the impact if we were to impose such requirements locally, based on the factors I cited earlier.
Besides vehicle technology, there are three other pillars in our ecosystem to improve road safety. These are road design, user behaviour and regulations and enforcement.
First, at the very core of road safety is road design. This is an iterative and ongoing effort by LTA as it regularly reviews traffic accident data to identify areas with higher accident rates. For these identified areas, LTA will conduct detailed investigations to assess the need for additional road safety measures. Where necessary, road improvements, such as traffic calming measures and signages, as well as road safety barriers, are introduced.
Beyond that, our road design is inclusive. It takes into account the demographic changes of nearby communities and incorporates the needs of the residents and stakeholders it serves. Members of this House would likely be familiar with Silver and School Zones, which serve to provide safer roads for our seniors and students in areas where these vulnerable groups are in higher proportion. Apart from implementing traffic calming measures, LTA implements a lower road speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour or 30 kilometres per hour in Silver Zones. With these improvements, the number of road accidents involving senior pedestrians has dropped by about 80% in completed Silver Zones.
We will continue to build on these efforts. At this year's Committee of Supply debate, I introduced the concept of Friendly Streets and announced that we will be piloting Friendly Streets at five locations.
This is an ambitious and meaningful endeavour, as we move from making specific zones safer, to making entire streets more pedestrian-friendly and we are doing so in two ways.
First, by changing the road infrastructure with various moves, such as road pinching, more crossings, lower speed limits, to make these roads safer for pedestrians.
Second, by bringing in the local community to give us feedback and work with us to make these roads more conducive and safer, not just for travel, but also for other daily activities.
That is why we call such streets Friendly Streets – friendly for all who use these streets – drivers, pedestrians, residents alike.
We have just started this journey, with pilots to be completed by 2025. Our resolve and end goals are clear. We want safer streets and safer journeys for all road users.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have covered road design, which is the hardware. But our goal is to improve road safety and that will not be complete without the software, which is road user behaviour.
To have safer and more gracious roads, we will need to have safer and more gracious behaviour by all road users, which include motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. TP works closely with the Singapore Road Safety Council to continually improve safety on our roads by inculcating good safety practices among all road users. TP also conducts weekly engagements with various groups and stakeholders.
In addition, TP leverages on technology, such as launching the compulsory simulator training since 2019 for new drivers to experience the top causes of accidents and practise defensive driving under a safe and controlled environment. This allows them to appreciate the dangers on the roads and be more situationally aware of blind spots when driving on the roads.
We could have the safest road designs and the best technology in our vehicles. But it is considerate, caring and gracious behaviour by all while using our roads that will improve our daily commutes and make them safer for everyone.
A third and critical component to improving our road safety is road regulations and enforcement. These are the traffic laws and rules that all road users must obey to ensure safe roads for all to use. And this is the basic framework and tenet to encourage compliance and deter misconduct. MHA amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019 and 2021 to enhance penalties against irresponsible driving and will continue to review them to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality. Of course, enforcement plays an important role in ensuring compliance.
Enforcement takes place through the deployment of resources on the ground and with the use of technology. Besides the deployment of officers to conduct daily and targeted enforcement, TP adopts new technology to augment its enforcement efforts. For instance, mobile speed cameras were deployed to increase versatility of traffic enforcements at new locations. With the addition of 12 more red light cameras in 2020, there are now a total of 252 red light cameras in Singapore, up from 120 in 2015, to bolster islandwide enforcement.
In conclusion, for there to be sustained improvements in road safety, we will need all four pillars that contribute to a healthy and positive transport ecosystem to come together – Road Design, User Behaviour, Regulations and Enforcement, and Vehicle Technology.
I appreciate the Member’s suggestion and thank him once again for raising this Adjournment Motion. LTA will continue to monitor international technology trends, engage the industry and road users and push the envelope in adopting vehicle safety technologies.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.02 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accessible Membership for Persons with Differentiated Abilities to Younger Children in Development Disability Registry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the National Library Board’s Accessible Membership for persons with differentiated abilities can be made available to younger children who are registered with the Development Disability registry to support the joy of reading from preschool age.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The National Library Board (NLB) is committed to providing an inclusive environment for all Singaporeans to discover the joy of reading and learning. To ensure the availability of suitable programmes for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), NLB has curated programmes like Sensory Storytime, and provided relevant resources, such as screen reader-friendly documents and live captioning.
One of the newer initiatives launched on 30 January 2023 is NLB’s Accessible Membership, which allows members to enjoy the following benefits: (a) a longer borrowing period for general lending items; (b) a longer renewal period for items that are renewable; (c) free reservation of eligible items, such as books, magazines and audiovisual materials; and (d) priority access to accessible features in Punggol Regional Library.
The Accessible Membership is currently open to beneficiaries of eligible disability schemes and services under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), and students from Government-funded Special Education schools. Ongoing efforts between NLB and MSF will expand the Accessible Membership scheme, starting with those on SG Enable’s Developmental Disability Registry. NLB will provide further updates when ready.
NLB will continue to ensure equitable access to library resources, with features that are available to all library members, regardless of whether they have an Accessible Membership. For example, Punggol Regional Library, which opened this year, includes several accessible features, such as an Accessible Collection with books written in Braille, assistive technology devices, Calm Pods and wheelchair-accessible book borrowing stations.
NLB is supporting MSF’s efforts to build an inclusive society through the Enabling Masterplan 2030 and continues to collaborate with partners and the disability community to co-create inclusive libraries for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Specific Benefits Offered by Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony Adopters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower given that the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) does not track the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony (TS-WLH), adopters’ provision of specific types of flexible work arrangements and enhanced leave benefits which is a requirement under the TS-WLH, how does the Ministry verify whether a company has complied with the TS-WLH to be listed on TAFEP’s website as an adopter.
Dr Tan See Leng: Companies’ adoption of Tripartite Standards (TS), including the TS on Work-Life Harmony, is voluntary. A company would self-declare its adoption of the TS, after which the information is publicly listed on the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices’ (TAFEP) website.
If TAFEP receives a report on a company’s non-adherence to any TS, TAFEP will work with the company to realign the company’s policies and practices to the TS. If the company does not do so in a timely manner, TAFEP will remove public listing of the company as a TS adopter. To date, we have not received any reports of companies not adhering to the TS on Work-Life Harmony.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Oil and Gas Industry's Presence in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a recent review of the oil and gas industry's presence in Singapore; (b) what is the expected impact of a potential exit by a key oil and gas company, such as Shell, on the industry; (c) what are the downstream implications such an exit may have on suppliers and ancillary service providers; and (d) whether the Ministry has any plans to mitigate any impact of such an exit.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy and Chemicals sector is an important sector which contributes more than S$90 billion to Singapore’s manufacturing output and employs more than 25,000 workers. At the same time, it also creates products for the world.
The Government closely monitors the developments in this sector and regularly reviews the strategy to enhance the sector’s economic contribution in alignment with our strategic priorities, including Singapore’s net-zero target for 2050. We also work closely with key stakeholders in the sector to understand and address the challenges they face.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Fire Extinguishers at Lift Lobbies of HDB Blocks and Steps to Improve Community Fire Safety and Response","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs since SCDF commenced its trial to install one fire extinguisher at the lift lobby of every two HDB blocks in September 2022 (a) in how many fire incidents have residents since used these fire extinguishers; and (b) whether SCDF is studying how to further improve community fire safety and response.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)’s trial to install one fire extinguisher at the lift lobby of every two Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks will commence later this year. Implementation will take place progressively over the next five years. As part of this trial, we are also targeting to have more than 80,000 residents trained to use fire extinguishers.
This initiative is part of SCDF’s continual efforts to improve fire safety. Greater awareness and public education are key to this. SCDF has been educating residents on the use of fire extinguishers through public engagement programmes, such as the Community Emergency Preparedness Programme and Community Resilience Days. At these platforms, SCDF encourages the voluntary installation of fire extinguishers in homes and shares information on where hose reels can be found in common areas.
Members of the public can access the SCDF website or download the latest edition of the Civil Defence Emergency Handbook to get fire safety tips and information on what to do when a fire breaks out. SCDF will continue to engage and work with the community to further improve fire safety and response.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval for Foreigners Buying Properties Zoned \"Commercial\" but Approved for Mixed Commercial and Residential Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law whether foreigners are required to obtain SLA approval for buying properties zoned as \"Commercial\" but which properties have been approved for mixed commercial and residential development.
Mr K Shanmugam: Approval under the Residential Property Act (RPA) is required if a foreign person is seeking to acquire land that is zoned \"Commercial\" but where the permanent approved use is restricted under the Act. As an example, approval is required if a foreign person is seeking to acquire an entire mixed-use development with a permanent approved use that has a residential component of at least 60% of the total Gross Floor Area, which is within the current planning parameters for land zoned \"Commercial and Residential\".
Under RPA, a foreign person is generally not required to obtain approval to acquire individual strata units in a non-landed development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Adult Employment Opportunities for Tradesmen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the Ministry enhance adult employment opportunities for tradesmen, such as recruiting more trainers who can conduct training in dialects; (b) what are the specific targets to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts; and (c) whether the Ministry can provide details of the on-ground communications and outreach efforts to attract more tradesmen to join adult learning and training programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Today, there are various adult learning and training programmes in place to support a sustainable pipeline of locals in the skilled trades, which include occupations, such as plumbers and electricians. These programmes cater both to locals who wish to enter the skilled trades, as well as existing tradespeople who are looking to upskill.
For example, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) delivers entry-level ITE Skills Certificate courses in Electrical Wiring and Residential Plumbing as well as related Part-time Nitec and Higher Nitec courses to provide work-compatible upskilling pathways for adult learners in these sectors.
Apart from ITE, there are also training institutions offering upskilling courses, including courses funded by SkillsFuture Singapore, to mid-career tradespeople. These include the Building and Construction Authority’s BCA Academy for plumbers, and the Singapore Institute of Power and Gas that is recognised by the Energy Market Authority as a training centre for electrical workers.
While courses are delivered in English, training providers will pace their instructions accordingly to suit each learner’s level of English proficiency and supplement the delivery with visual aids, such as diagrams and pictures, to illustrate the concepts.
Besides providing a variety of training opportunities that can support interested individuals to enter these skilled trades, the Government is partnering the National Trades Union Congress to look into how we can redesign skilled trades, particularly those that remain indispensable in our future economy, to offer better salaries and clearer career and skill progression ladders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Enforcement Actions against Drink-Driving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how regular are enforcements against drink-driving undertaken each year; and (b) how many drivers have been caught for non-compliance since the last review of the relevant laws and penalties.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police conducts roadblocks daily, in different locations. This is to deter and detect crimes, including drink-driving offences.
The Government last reviewed and enhanced the penalties for drink-driving offences in July 2019. The enhancements were brought into force in November 2019.
The Member may wish to refer to the Annual Road Traffic Situation Report on the Singapore Police Force's website for the detailed statistics on driving offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Identifying Mental Distress and Stressors in Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry educate and equip employers to identify mental distress and stressors of migrant domestic workers (MDWs); (b) how does the Ministry foster empathy and understanding among employers to support these workers; and (c) what are the available resources for employers to help their MDWs with mental distress.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has a suite of measures for employers to support the mental well-being of their migrant domestic workers (MDWs).
First-time employers are required to attend the Employers’ Orientation Programme (EOP). The EOP educates employers on their responsibilities of care towards their MDWs. Employers are reminded to be patient and understanding when guiding MDWs on their household chores and to integrate them into the household.
In addition, MOM has published a mental well-being guide for employers on our website. The guide highlights the signs and symptoms of stress; shares tips on how employers can help their MDWs adopt healthy habits; provides information on MDW courses and activities; and promotes helplines run by MOM, non-government organisations (NGOs) and mental health organisations for distressed MDWs. MOM also regularly disseminates electronic mailers to advise and reiterate the key content in the mental well-being guide to employers.
MOM also works closely with the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE), an NGO, to interview all first-time MDWs within the first six months of their employment. Through the interviews, CDE representatives will engage both the employers and MDWs to resolve any issues raised amicably, if required, and help both parties improve their communication and understanding with each other.
Besides employers, MOM also educates MDWs through the Settling-in Programme and outreach materials on how to manage their own stress and communicate effectively with their employers. This further helps to foster a harmonious relationship between employers and their MDWs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relaxation of Income Criteria for HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will relax the income criteria for HDB rental flats in light of the per capita income benchmark for Comcare assistance being raised; (b) how many appeals for HDB rental flats have been rejected in the past three years due to household income higher than $1,500 per month; and (c) how many HDB rental flats are rented out under family or joint singles schemes as of June 2023 despite not meeting the household income criteria.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Public Rental Scheme is a social safety net for citizen households with no other housing options. There is no income ceiling for the Public Rental Scheme and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not reject applicants based on income alone. Instead, HDB takes a needs-based approach and reviews all requests for public rental holistically. Various factors, such as applicants' circumstances, household size, family support and ability to afford other housing options, will be considered. Those who do not have family support and cannot afford other housing options will be assisted with a public rental flat, and HDB has approved many applications from households with incomes above $1,500. As at June 2023, some 9,000 flats are rented out under the Public Rental Scheme to households with incomes above $1,500.
Indeed, to better reflect HDB’s holistic and needs-based approach towards public rental applications, we have recently updated the HDB website to remove references to any income figure. This may also help to lower the psychological barrier to applying for those who might be in need of public rental.
As HDB does not reject applicants based on income alone, we do not specifically track the number of rejected applicants with household incomes above $1,500.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Local Farms to Increase Demand and Reduce Wastage of Produce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what support measures does the Government plan to implement to support local farms increase demand and reduce wastage of produce in light of media reports of a 40% surge in leftover produce in urban farms; and (b) how does the Government plan to further collaborate with retailers and other relevant stakeholders to improve product displays and ensure efficient distribution channels for urban farm produce.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) works with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) on initiatives to drum up demand for local produce. An Alliance for Action (AfA) on Local Produce Demand Offtake and Consumer Education is ongoing, to bring together stakeholders across the food supply chain to come up with solutions to raise demand for local produce.
The AfA has also supported the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme, launched to recognise food businesses in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector that procure locally farmed produce. These Farm-to-Table logos help consumers to identify and support food establishments that use locally produced ingredients.
The success of our farms, ultimately, rests on consumers giving greater support for local produce in order to enhance Singapore’s food security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Jobs in Sustainability or Green Economy Sector and Initiatives to Boost Workforce Capability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current number of jobs in the sustainability or green economy sector in Singapore; (b) how is that number projected to increase in the next 10 years in terms of magnitude and across its sub-sectors; and (c) what are the current and upcoming initiatives to boost our workforce's capability in this sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As action against climate change gathers speed globally and takes on greater urgency, new jobs and roles are emerging as green businesses, technology, products and services are being formed. Currently, there is no global or widely accepted definition of what constitutes a \"green economy\". The Green Skills Committee set up by the Ministry, in partnership with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), has started to identify the jobs and skills associated with opportunities in these spheres. The Committee will not only size the workforce demand but also develop the required training programmes for workers.
Meanwhile, the Government has rolled out training programmes under Workforce Singapore’s Career Conversion Programme and SSG’s SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes to help our workers upskill and reskill. These programmes will support workers in taking on new roles, such as sustainability officers and carbon analysts, to help businesses decarbonise and implement their net-zero strategies. Our Institutes of Higher Learning also offer more than 250 sustainability-related Continuing Education and Training courses to equip the workforce with green skills.
The Government is working closely with the Green Skills Committee, industry players and training providers to expand our efforts to help Singaporeans seize opportunities in the green economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Agencies' Review of Security and Access Controls of Most Privileged Operating System and Database Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister how often does the Government require Ministries and Statutory Boards to review the security and access controls of the most privileged (i) Operating System and (ii) Database accounts under their control.\n\n
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): There are standards in place across the whole of Government to regularly review security and access controls of all IT accounts, including privileged accounts. The frequency of review of privileged accounts is tied to the criticality as well as sensitivity of the systems these accounts have access to. It ranges from one to three months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Marking and Assessment Boycott at UK Universities on Students Taking the Bar Examination in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law in light of the marking and assessment boycott by the University and College Union in the UK that began on 20 April 2023 (a) whether applications for the Singapore Bar Examinations by graduating law students from the UK universities will be affected; and (b) how will the Ministry support these affected applicants.
Mr K Shanmugam: Returning graduates from UK universities are required to submit documentation to the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), which administers the admission regime, in order to ascertain their eligibility to take their next steps towards admission to the Singapore Bar, such as taking Part A of the Singapore Bar Examinations or commencing their relevant legal training.
This includes producing the relevant certification that a graduate has completed the degree programme in an approved school and met the necessary academic requirements.
My Ministry is monitoring the situation closely in consultation with SILE. In the event that graduating students seeking to do their Part A Examinations or embark on their relevant legal training are unable to produce the necessary certifications, SILE will consider administrative arrangements to assist on an exceptional basis. This includes looking into allowing the students affected by the boycott to proceed with their Part A Examinations or relevant legal training first, and then submitting their certifications subsequently.
Students who face issues in this regard can approach SILE or the Ministry of Law for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Customer Satisfaction Surveys to Assess SingPost's Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry undertakes customer satisfaction surveys to assess SingPost's performance as part of its quality of service framework; and (b) if so, what are the findings of the surveys for the last three years.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) conducts periodic consumer surveys to gain a better understanding on the usage trends of, and satisfaction with, postal services in Singapore.
In IMDA’s 2020 survey, 88% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the service quality for delivery of letters.
In addition to IMDA’s surveys, SingPost also carries out its own customer satisfaction surveys at post offices and through its MyPostman programme. SingPost’s 2022 surveys showed an average score of around four out of five for its post office and postman services.
IMDA also regularly monitors SingPost’s compliance with the Quality of Service (QoS) standards through quarterly independent assessments. Through these measures, IMDA will continue to safeguard consumer interest and ensure that SingPost continues to provide a reliable and good quality postal service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Households Receiving Lower GST Voucher Payouts Due to Revision in Annual Valuation of Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many households which previously received a $500–$700 GST voucher subsequently received a lower $250–$350 payout because of the revision in the Annual Valuation (AV) of property; and (b) whether the Ministry has taken into consideration how this may potentially invalidate the purpose of the GST voucher. \n
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Annual Value (AV) of residential properties in 2022 was used to determine the GST voucher cash payouts this year. All HDB flats had an AV of below $13,000 in 2022, which meet the AV criteria for the higher tier of cash payouts.
As the Ministry announced previously, we are reviewing the AV thresholds of our social support schemes to ensure that Singaporeans in need are able to receive the appropriate support. We will provide an update on the revised AV thresholds for social support schemes when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health and Wellness Modules in Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in light of the recent findings from Duke-NUS Medical School and the Institute of Mental Health indicating the economic and societal impact of anxiety and depression particularly among young adults, whether the Ministry has plans to implement mandatory health and wellness modules in Institutes of Higher Learning to equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills to manage their mental health effectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All full-time students in the polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education undergo a mandatory mental wellness literacy curriculum in their first year. The curriculum raises students’ awareness of mental well-being and encourages self-care and early help-seeking behaviour. Feedback on the curriculum has been positive, with students generally agreeing that the curriculum equips them with a better understanding of mental wellness and strategies to cope with life’s stressors.
The Autonomous Universities also offer various mental health programmes that equip students with baseline mental health literacy and ensure all their students have access to mental health resources. These include modules on resilience, stress management and self-care.
These programmes are part of a strong ecosystem of support in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). For early detection of vulnerable students, educators are trained to identify signs of distress and will reach out to students to provide timely support. Peer support leaders provide a listening ear to peers in distress and alert educators and counsellors to peers who might require additional support. Students can also reach out to IHL counsellors who provide specialised counselling support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increased Hiring of Administrative and Support Healthcare Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health with regard to the recent announcement that the hiring target of 4,000 new nurses will be exceeded by end-2023, whether there will be a corresponding increase in the hiring of administrative and support healthcare employees. \n\n \n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Employees working in administrative and support roles form an essential part of our healthcare workforce. As shared during the debate on the Healthier SG White Paper in Parliament in October last year, we will need to grow the number of nurses, allied health professionals and support care staff to 82,000 by 2030 to meet Singapore’s growing healthcare needs. Alongside the increase in nurses, there has also been a corresponding increase in the hiring of administrative and support staff by our public healthcare clusters, with over 3,000 such hires in the first half of this year.
The Ministry of Health will continue to work with the public healthcare clusters to build the capacity and capabilities of administrative and support staff, to better attract and retain them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Quality of Cleaning Vendors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will consider implementing measures to assess and review the quality of cleaning vendors.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since September 2014, all cleaning businesses providing general cleaning services are required to be licensed by the National Environment Agency (NEA). The licensing requirements include a trained workforce and payment of Progressive Wage Model wages and bonuses to resident cleaners. Training requirements for cleaners have also been enhanced from 31 December 2022 to align with the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners' recommendations in 2021.
As announced earlier this year, NEA will implement the revised cleaning business licensing framework from 1 January 2024. The revised framework will have three classes of licences to differentiate cleaning businesses according to their capabilities and allow buyers of cleaning services to make more informed decisions when procuring such services. For example, the highest Class 1 licence requires cleaning businesses to ensure that their cleaning workforce is trained in at least three Workforce Skills Qualifications training modules, to meet a higher paid-up capital requirement and to have a good track record, including having no convictions under the relevant written laws. Attainment of the Class 1 licence will provide greater assurance that these cleaning businesses are equipped with more resources, experience and capabilities to undertake larger cleaning contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"IT Vendor Staff with Excessive Access Rights to File Transfer Servers and Encryption/Decryption Keys in PSD's Human Resource and Payroll System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister regarding the Auditor-General's finding of the Public Service Division's Human Resource and Payroll system having 12 accounts belonging to IT vendor staff with excessive access rights to File Transfer servers and encryption/decryption keys (a) whether there has been any unauthorised access, modification or exfiltration of data; (b) whether malicious intent or foul play has been ruled out; and (c) whether remedial action has been taken against the vendor.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The IT vendor of the Human Resource and Payroll System created 12 administrative accounts to facilitate troubleshooting and monitoring of system issues. However, the accounts were configured with excessive rights, which created risks.
In response to the Auditor-General's Office's findings, the Public Service Division (PSD) has taken immediate actions to reduce the rights of these accounts in terms of system access. PSD has checked through and ascertained that there was no unauthorised access to the system and no compromise of system data.
There is no basis to suspect foul play. In addition, PSD also extended checks on other system accounts to ensure there were no unauthorised access or activities. We have issued the vendor a stern warning for all the lapses uncovered within this audit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training for Migrant Domestic Workers in Caregiving for Individuals with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how are migrant domestic workers (MDWs) trained in caregiving for special needs individuals; (b) how are their skills assessed for adequacy in handling such tasks; (c) whether MDWs receive counselling or guidance before being assigned to such clients; and (d) whether they can reject the assignment if they do not feel confident in handling it.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable work with partners from the disability sector to put in place training courses for caregivers of persons with disabilities, including individuals with special needs. Households that hire migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to care for their family members with special needs can enrol their MDWs for such training courses to equip them with the relevant skills to perform caregiving tasks. Households may tap on the Caregivers Training Grant to defray the cost of training.
To facilitate a good match, employment agencies ask employers to indicate the tasks expected of the MDW, including whether she needs to tend to specific care needs in the household. These requirements are made known to prospective MDWs, who would have the opportunity to clarify the job requirements and training that will be provided before accepting the job. Employers have to decide the type and level of care required for the family members with special needs and assess whether the MDWs they employ meet their expectations.
MDWs who are deployed to perform caregiving tasks that they are unsure of, or are uncomfortable with, should inform their employers and request for additional training or support. MDWs may also approach their employment agencies for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Primary 1 Intake for Kong Hwa School to Cater to Children from new BTO Flats in Vicinity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider expanding the Primary 1 intake for Kong Hwa School since there are more young children staying in HDB's new BTO flats that are located in the vicinity of the school.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: School places are planned on a regional basis and consider current and projected changes in local demography. Where needed, adjustments will be made to the intake of schools to meet the projected demand, such as from new housing developments.
In the region where Kong Hwa School is located, the number of Primary 1 (P1)-going children is expected to be stable. There is a sufficient supply of P1 places in this region, because even as new Build-To-Order flats are being completed, the existing Housing Development Board estates are maturing. As such, we have no immediate plans to expand the P1 intake of the schools in this area, including Kong Hwa School. We will continue to monitor the school demand and adjust supply when needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Singaporeans’ Attitudes towards Single Unwed Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the statistical and survey indicators that are used to assess Singaporeans’ attitudes towards single unwed parents; and (b) whether annual data from such indicators is available for the past five years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We do not conduct annual surveys as attitudes and sentiments do not fluctuate frequently. Our occasional surveys show that the majority of Singaporeans continue to believe that parenthood should take place within marriage.
The Government empathises with the needs of unwed parents and their children. This is why single unwed parents are already eligible for all Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare, infant care, foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Men Above 55 Who Have Sought Mental Health Support from General Practitioners or Community Intervention Teams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many men aged 55 and above have sought mental health support from local general practitioners or community intervention teams; and (b) what are the efforts currently undertaken by the Ministry to track the effectiveness of support given to them.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Together with the Agency for Integrated Care and Social Service Agencies, the Ministry has set up Community Outreach Teams and Community Intervention Teams (COMIT) to provide care to persons with mental health needs.
Based on data reported to the Ministry of Health, in the last three years, COMIT, polyclinics and general practitioners under the Mental Health General Practitioner Partnership Programme had supported around 47,000 clients with mental health needs. Approximately 15% of the clients managed by COMIT and polyclinics were men aged 55 and above. Our COMIT service providers and polyclinics monitor the progress of their clients through pre- and post-intervention assessment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for $1 million Overpayment to Scheme Supporting Companies in Aviation Industry during COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport regarding the Auditor-General’s Office finding of $1 million overpayment by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to a grant scheme supporting companies in the aviation industry during the COVID-19 pandemic (a) how did the lapses take place; (b) what are the new checks and control measures which CAAS has since required its staff to observe; and (c) what are the prospects of recovery of taxpayers’ monies wrongfully paid.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): To support aviation companies and workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Singapore Government committed more than $2 billion to the aviation sector. One of these schemes was to provide wage support for key companies in the aviation sector to retain core capabilities. Under this scheme, $114.52 million was disbursed from 1 September 2020 to 31 March 2022. The Auditor-General’s Office’s (AGO) checks found that there was an over-disbursement amounting to $1 million or less than 1% under this scheme during that period.
The over-disbursements were due to erroneous claims made for employees who did not meet some eligibility criteria. In addition, some claims had incorrectly included non-qualifying amounts, such as employer CPF contributions.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) had established checks and controls for the claims submitted by the companies to be in accordance with the grant agreements and only for the purposes for which the funds were provided for. In particular, CAAS had required each company receiving the grants from this scheme to appoint an external auditor to check and verify that its claims were in accordance with the criteria in the grant agreement, before submitting the claims to CAAS.
As explained in the Report of the Auditor-General, for the over-disbursements identified, CAAS had disbursed these claims after the respective companies’ external auditors had verified that the claims had been properly prepared in accordance with the criteria in the grant agreements. The errors were not picked up by the external auditors before the companies submitted their claims to CAAS.
CAAS has since raised these errors with the companies concerned and their respective external auditors. CAAS also appointed an independent external auditor to verify the claims, in addition to conducting its own checks. We expect to fully recover the total amount of over-disbursement within the next three months.
While there were controls and processes in place, including requiring grant claims to be verified by external auditors, CAAS agrees with AGO’s recommendations and has taken steps to further strengthen the grant disbursement process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grassroots Organisations Giving Contracts to Debarred Contractors during Debarment Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) in which constituencies did (i) three grassroots organisations (GROs) award or renew contracts with debarred contractors during their debarment period and (ii) two GROs transfer monies to the personal bank accounts of staff, respectively, as flagged in the Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2022/2023; and (b) whether the People's Association will consider centralising procurement for all GROs to ensure compliance with procurement policies and processes and, if not, why not.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: This question has been addressed on 2 August 2023 in the reply to Question Nos 35 to 38 on the Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Practice of Grassroots Organisations Transferring Sums of Money to Personal Bank Accounts for Official Operational Needs and Actions Taken\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proactive Checks of HDB Flats at Henderson Crescent for Repair and Maintenance of Common Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can perform a proactive check of the flats at Henderson Crescent for repair and maintenance of common issues, such as spalling concrete and corroded pipes, outside of the Home Improvement Programme cycle.
Mr Desmond Lee: As flats age, they will experience natural deterioration of building materials, which may lead to spalling concrete and corroded pipes.
Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of their flats and are encouraged to inspect the ceilings and the fixtures in their flats regularly and to undertake maintenance and repair works where needed.
For flats that are around 30 years old, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) systematically and proactively addresses common maintenance issues and provides improvements within flats to enhance the living condition of these older flats. Repairs to spalling concrete and structural cracks in flats are covered under HIP.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has developed a comprehensive Home Care Guide which flat owners can access on HDB’s Infoweb. This guide includes maintenance tips, preventive measures, videos and a list of repair contractors whom owners can consider engaging. We encourage flat owners to use this guide to maintain their flats in good condition.
Where necessary, HDB will provide assistance to flat owners to repair spalling concrete issues. Under the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme, HDB assists flat owners in arranging for repair works and co-pays 50% of the cost of repairs for Singapore Citizen households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Current Practice of Refusing Coverage under CPF Dependants’ Protection Scheme for Persons with Certain Genetic Disorders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Board will consider reviewing the current practice of refusing coverage under the Dependants’ Protection Scheme for persons with certain genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Dependants’ Protection Scheme (DPS) does provide coverage for members with pre-existing health conditions, including genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome, if their overall health conditions are assessed by medical professionals to be mild or moderate.
As with any life insurance, DPS may not cover those with severe pre-existing illnesses. This ensures that the premiums are affordable for all insured members and that the scheme remains viable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Civil Servants on How to Identify, Refuse and Report Inappropriate Requests from Political Office Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether civil servants receive training on how to identify, refuse and report inappropriate requests from political office holders; and (b) what protections against retaliation does the Public Service whistle-blowing policies provide to civil servants who report inappropriate requests from political office holders.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): I have addressed this Question in my response at the 2 August 2023 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to \"Processes Related to Investigations into Political Office Holders and Civil Servants, and Updates on Recent Cases\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recognition of Doctors and Dentists for Purposes of Paid Sick Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the amendment to the Employment Act 1968 that recognises doctors and dentists registered under the Medical Registration Act 1997 and the Dental Registration Act 1999 respectively for the purposes of paid sick leave, what efforts have been made by the Ministry to educate (i) workers and (ii) employers since it has taken effect from April 2019.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act was amended with effect from 1 April 2019 and made important changes to benefit workers, including recognising medical certificates (MCs) issued by any medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act or Dental Registration Act for the purpose of granting paid sick leave.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices have been working closely with tripartite partners, the National Trades Union Congress and Singapore National Employers Federation, as well as the human resource community like the Institute for Human Resource Professionals and Singapore Human Resources Institute to raise public awareness of the change. This includes the dissemination of guidebooks, newsletters and infographics that detail the change in a simple and straightforward manner. The change is highlighted on MOM’s website as well. The Workright initiative also helps employees and employers understand their rights and obligations respectively under the Employment Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation for Hawkers and Market Stallholders Affected by Closures due to Repairs or Renovations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the amount of compensation provided to hawkers and market stallholders for MSE-owned and HDB-owned hawker centres and markets in the event of closures due to repairs and redecoration or renovation works; and (b) what is the basis for the determination of such compensation.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Hawker centres and markets typically undergo cyclical Repairs and Redecoration (R&R) every six to eight years. During R&R, the centre would usually be closed for two to three months. Affected stallholders are informed in advance about the R&R and are granted rental remission for the duration of the closure. Service and conservancy charges are also typically waived during the closure. The National Environment Agency will assist interested stallholders if they wish to apply for temporary stalls in other hawker centres during this period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Additional Healthcare and Other Benefits for Those in Post-Merdeka Generation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether there are plans to define a post-Merdeka Generation who are born in the 1960s and are approaching retirement age so that they may receive additional public benefits, especially in healthcare.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry responded to a similar Parliamentary Question from Member of Parliament Dr Lim Wee Kiak on 20 March 2023. Our position has not changed from this previous reply. [Please refer to \"Benefits Packages for Seniors Born after Those in Merdeka Generation\", Official Report, 20 March 2023, Vol 95, Issue 93, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment Levels in Preschools that Operate on Saturdays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the past five years (a) what is the number and proportion of preschools that operate on Saturdays; and (b) what is the total enrolment for preschool services on Saturdays.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: All childcare centres licensed by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) are currently required to provide Saturday services from 7.00 am to 2.00 pm. Centres are allowed to close on Saturdays if there is no attendance of children for a period of three months, but they must provide the Saturday service if parents request for it.
Based on ECDA’s survey in September 2022, about 30% of childcare centres did not operate on Saturdays. The remaining 70% of childcare centres looked after an average of one to two infants or children on Saturdays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conservation of People's Park Complex for Its Strong Community Significance and Design Merits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to conserve People's Park Complex for its strong community significance and design merits in view of the recent initiation of its collective sale process.
Mr Desmond Lee: Conserving our built heritage is an important part of Singapore’s planning process. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) conducts regular reviews to identify and assess buildings with heritage value for conservation, including the engagement of building owners to discuss development plans and possible conservation, and will share such plans when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Exceptionally Heavy Rainfall on 20 July 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the heavy rainfall observed on 20 July 2023, which nearly equalled the average rainfall recorded for July (a) whether this is caused by a particular weather phenomenon or tropical storm; and (b) whether it has exposed certain areas of Singapore that require further drainage works to prevent flash floods from occurring due to freak weather incidents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thunderstorms are common occurrences in our warm and humid climate and can be intense under certain atmospheric conditions. The heavy rainfall on the morning of 20 July was due to widespread intense thunderstorms over many parts of Singapore. Nearly half a month’s worth of rainfall fell within one hour. The heavy rainfall on that morning resulted in a localised flash flood that occurred along Dunearn Road. PUB issued early flood risk warnings about 20 minutes before the flash flood occurred and the flash flood subsided within 15 minutes. The Public Utilities Board (PUB)’s Quick Response Team was also on site to render assistance and the road remained passable to traffic.
Dunearn Road is a known hotspot for floods. We completed the upgrading of the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal in 2019. Longer-term measures, including widening and deepening a 900-metre stretch of the canal from Rifle Range Road to Jalan Kampong Chantek, are expected to complete by 2026. Since 2021, PUB has carried out interim works to alleviate flood risks in the Dunearn Road area. These include raising a 450-metre stretch of Dunearn Road and deepening the adjacent Bukit Timah Canal.
Over the years, we have reduced the flood-prone areas in Singapore from over 3,000 hectares to less than 30 hectares today. PUB has also been planning and carrying out similar drainage improvement works for areas with higher flood risks, subject to land and other site constraints. In planning for flood resilience, PUB takes into account the long-term impact of climate change, which could potentially lead to more extreme rainfall events observed in our region and beyond.
It is not sustainable to rely solely on drainage works in land-scarce Singapore for flood resilience. With more intense weather events arising from climate change, we will need to be prepared for and be used to occasional short incidences of flash floods, such as the one on 20 July 2023.
I strongly encourage members of the public to use PUB’s communication channels to receive alerts on flood warnings so that they can adjust their plans accordingly. Managing flood risks is a collective effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revised Regulatory Cap on Retail Deposits for Digital Full Banks and Other Safeguards for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the revised regulatory cap on retail deposits for digital full banks; and (b) given the increase in the regulatory cap, what additional safeguards has MAS put in place to ensure that customers’ deposits are protected in the event of a digital full bank’s default.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires a digital full bank (DFB) to progressively build up its business model and risk management capabilities as it grows. This recognises that DFBs are new startups with non-bank parents and have no track record in banking.
The two DFBs, GXS Bank and MariBank, were subject to an initial aggregate deposit cap of $50 million imposed by MAS when they first commenced operations, to safeguard consumers’ interests. As the DFBs made progress in building their risk management capabilities, MAS has increased their aggregate deposit caps. MAS does not disclose the specific aggregate deposit cap for each DFB, as is our approach for other supervisory conditions imposed on individual banks.
Aside from the aggregate deposit cap, each DFB must comply with a cap on the deposits of an individual depositor of S$75,000. This is the prevailing limit of the deposit insurance scheme, which the DFBs are members of. The DFBs’ business operations in their initial years are also subject to other restrictions, such as not conducting proprietary trading activities, so that the DFBs focus on scaling their core businesses in a risk appropriate manner. In addition, a DFB is subject to the same prudential requirements, such as those on capital and liquidity, as other full banks in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Voters' Names Expunged from and Added to Registers of Electors Since 2020 General Election","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister in the revision of the Registers of Electors (a) how many voters’ names have been expunged in each constituency since the 2020 General Election because of (i) death, (ii) non-voting, (iii) loss of citizenship, (iv) serving a sentence of imprisonment and (v) other reasons respectively; and (b) how many voters’ names have been added in each constituency after (i) attaining age 21, (ii) registering as a Singapore Citizen, (iii) completing a sentence of imprisonment and (iv) other reasons respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Registers of Electors (REs) were certified on 20 July 2023. There are a total of 2,709,455 electors in the registers, which is 58,020 more than the 2,651,435 electors at General Election 2020 (GE2020). The net change by Electoral Division is provided in Table A. This information on the number of electors at each election and after each revision of the REs is available on the Elections Department website (https://www.eld.gov.sg). We do not track the changes in the number of electors based on the profiles requested by the Member.
2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how much money has been lost to concert ticket scams in each year over the past five years, excluding the period during the COVID-19 pandemic when local concerts were suspended; (b) whether there has been a spike in monies lost to concert ticket scams arising from the upcoming concerts by popular international artistes; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to educate the public and prevent such scams from occurring.
Mr K Shanmugam: The amount of money lost due to concert ticket scams was about $84,000 in 2018; $66,000 in 2019; $9,000 in 2020; $3,000 in 2021; and $175,000 in 2022. Between 1 January and 10 July this year, losses from concert ticket scams amounted to more than $518,000.
With regard to the measures to educate the public and prevent the occurrence of concert ticket scams, the Member may refer to my reply to Question No 6 for Written Answer on the Order Paper for 2 August 2023. [Please refer to \"Measures to Pre-empt Rise in Concert Ticket Scams on E-commerce Platforms\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions Determining Impounding of Arrested Person's Passport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the conditions that the Police use to determine if the passport of an arrested person should be impounded.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police may impound the passport of an arrested person if he or she poses a flight risk.
In assessing flight risk, the Police consider, among other factors, the gravity of the alleged offence, the extent of the person’s roots in Singapore, the behaviour of the person during investigations and whether the person has attempted to abscond previously.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Rent Received and Expenses Incurred on Black and White Bungalows in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the total rent received by the Government from black and white bungalows in 2022; and (b) what are the total expenses incurred by the Government on maintaining and marketing black and white bungalows in 2022.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): It was explained at length in Parliament on 3 July 2023 how the Singapore Land Authority manages its portfolio of heritage black and white bungalows. The Member can refer to the speeches made in Parliament as well as the responses to the various clarifications. [Please refer to (a) \"Rentals of State Properties\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section; and (b) \"Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Based on the matters already set out in Parliament, the total rent collected on heritage properties exceed the total expenses incurred, including on marketing and maintaining these properties. This was also the case in FY2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sizes of State Land around Black and White Bungalows Cleared for Safety or Health Reasons since 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law since 2013, what are the sizes of the state land cleared in other instances of land clearance around state-owned black and white bungalows for safety or health reasons.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): From time to time, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) receives feedback, from the tenants of residential state properties it manages and/or other residents in the vicinity, on issues related to vegetated land located within and adjacent to the properties.
SLA’s approach to such cases, including whether site clearance is necessary, is to assess each case on its merits, depending on the specific circumstances and always with a view to safeguarding SLA’s interests as the landlord.
SLA will take into consideration, amongst other factors, the nature of the tenants’ public health and safety concerns, the specific tenancy details and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved in the context of the tenancy and its surrounding circumstances. The solution to the issues may also be site-specific. For example, some cases involving mosquito breeding can be resolved through more frequent fogging. However, site clearance may be carried out if the disamenity persists and it is necessary to address public health and safety concerns.
The considerations behind the site clearance for the cases at 26 Ridout Road and the state property at Dalvey Estate were explained in Parliament on 3 July 2023; these considerations did not include the size of the land to be cleared. [Please refer to \"Rental of 26 Ridout Road\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Restoration and Additional Works Done on Black and White Bungalows since 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law since 2018 and for black and white bungalows, what is the number of instances of the Singapore Land Authority (i) renting them out at exactly the amount of guide rent, (ii) spending over $500,000 in essential repair works to restore them, (iii) allowing the tenants to build swimming pools within the rented properties and (iv) clearing adjacent state land on the tenant’s request which is not part of the rented property.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Second Minister for Law): The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) does not specifically track the number of cases involving residential heritage bungalows managed by SLA, which fall into the categories set out by the Member.
SLA’s approach with regard to the management of state properties was explained in detail in Parliament on 3 July 2023. [Please refer to (a) \"Rentals of State Properties\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section; and (b) \"Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions section.] The Member can refer to the speeches as well as to the various clarifications addressed in Parliament. We highlight the following two points.
On the rental of properties at exactly the guide rent: as explained in Parliament on 3 July 2023, SLA’s practice for its residential state properties is that these properties can be rented out if the offered rent is equal to or above the guide rent. Thus, there would have been cases where residential heritage bungalows were rented out exactly at the guide rent.
On site clearance – SLA’s approach to cases where there is feedback on issues related to vegetated land located within and adjacent to the properties, including whether site clearance is required, is to assess each case on its merits, depending on the specific circumstances and always with a view to safeguarding SLA’s interests as the landlord. SLA will take into consideration, amongst other factors, whether there are any public health and safety concerns, the specific tenancy details and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved in the context of the tenancy and its surrounding circumstances. The solution to the issues may also be site-specific.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clearance Certificates Issued to Foreign Persons to Purchase Landed Properties Since 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law for each year since 2013, how many foreign persons have been issued clearance certificates to purchase terrace houses, semi-detached houses, detached houses or strata landed houses.
Mr K Shanmugam: A Clearance Certificate allows a Singapore entity to acquire and retain residential properties subject to the provisions of the Residential Property Act (RPA). To qualify for a Clearance Certificate, applicants must meet the strict definition of a Singapore entity under the RPA.
Clearance Certificates are not issued to foreign persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Black and White Properties Managed by SLA with Undeveloped State Land Adjacent to Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) to date, how many black and white properties managed by SLA have had undeveloped state land located adjacent to the property, for which tenants have raised concerns about maintenance; and (b) what is the procedure that SLA follows to resolve such concerns.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Second Minister for Law): From time to time, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) receives feedback, from the tenants of residential state properties it manages and/or other residents in the vicinity, on issues related to vegetated land located within and adjacent to the properties. These include issues relating to public health and safety.
SLA’s approach to such cases, including whether site clearance is necessary, is to assess each case on its merits, depending on the specific circumstances, and always with a view to safeguarding SLA’s interests as the landlord.
SLA will take into consideration, amongst other factors, the nature of the tenants’ public health and safety concerns, the specific tenancy details and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved in the context of the tenancy and its surrounding circumstances. The solution to the issues may also be site-specific. For example, some cases involving mosquito breeding can be resolved through more frequent fogging. However, site clearance may be carried out if the disamenity persists and it is necessary to address public health and safety concerns.
SLA does not specifically track the number of requests from its tenants on issues relating to the maintenance of vegetated state land located adjacent to residential state properties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application Procedure for Maintenance of State Land Adjacent to Black and White and Landed Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Law what is the respective application procedure for (i) tenants of black and white properties and (ii) owners of landed properties who wish to independently maintain state land adjacent to their properties.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Tenants of heritage bungalows managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) can contact SLA or the relevant managing agent, if they wish to submit a request to maintain vacant state land located adjacent to their property. Owners of private landed properties can similarly write to SLA.
Such requests are assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific circumstances. The factors that will be taken into consideration include, amongst others, the reasons for the request, what the tenant or owner intends to do with the state land, the specific site conditions and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved given the circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Valuation Principles Used for State-managed Properties and Sale of Land for Public Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law (a) what valuation principles does the Ministry apply for properties that are managed and rented out by SLA; (b) whether these same principles apply to sale of land by the Government, for example, by HDB for public housing; and (c) how do the valuation principles affect the pricing of HDB BTO flats.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): State land and buildings are physical assets that form part of our reserves. Whether they are rented out by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for a short tenure or sold for longer-term development, the principle is to do so at fair market value. Tendering land sites is one way of establishing fair market value.
For land that is not sold through tender, such as land sold to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for public housing development, the fair market value is determined independently by the Chief Valuer (CV). The CV takes into consideration relevant resale transactions on the open market and other relevant factors, such as specific parameters of the site.
For state properties rented out by SLA, the market rate is assessed by professional valuers from SLA or its third-party managing agents. Similar to how the CV takes into consideration relevant transactions in his valuation, the professional valuers who value the properties for rental would establish the market rate for the property, taking into account the rental transactions of comparable properties and the market conditions at the time. The properties would then be marketed to secure the best price for the property, which would not be less than the value determined by the professional valuers.
While the valuations in these two examples have different mechanisms, the underlying principle is the same. Whether for short-term lease or a longer-term disposal, the valuation seeks to establish the price that the market is willing to pay in each case, so that the Government transacts at fair market value.
The pricing of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats is completely separate from the pricing of public housing land to achieve fair market value. HDB sells BTO flats at prices that are below market to ensure affordability to flat buyers across different income levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Phase Out Use of Coal in Energy Production","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there are plans to phase out the use of coal in Singapore’s energy production given that the new 600MW hydrogen-ready Keppel Sakra Cogen Plant is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2026.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Coal makes up around 1% of Singapore’s power generation capacity. The only generation plant that uses coal is the Tembusu Multi-Utilities Complex (TMUC), which produces not just electricity but also steam for industrial use. TMUC employs a mix of clean coal, that is, low-ash and low sulphur, as well as biomass, to reduce the overall carbon intensity of the plant’s emissions.
We do not intend to build any new coal-powered plants. The timeline for phasing out the use of coal in Singapore’s energy production will depend on TMUC’s remaining asset life and the availability of viable alternatives for companies that TMUC currently supplies. We are working with the companies to explore bringing forward the timeline and mitigating the emissions where possible.
Electricity demand in Singapore is projected to increase with economic growth, digitalisation and electrification. The 600 megawatt hydrogen-ready Keppel Sakra Cogen Plant will help to meet the demands of the system and ensure that we have reliable electricity supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Arrest of Managing Director of Hotel Properties Ltd on Running of F1 Singapore Grand Prix 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB)’s arrest of the Managing Director of Hotel Properties Limited, who is also the owner of the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix, will have any material impact on the running of the F1 Singapore Grand Prix 2023 night race; and (b) whether the Ministry will be conducting an independent review of all past F1 Singapore Grand Prix races in relation to its funding quantum and claims.
13 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the CPIB investigation into the owner of the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix will have any impact on the renewed seven-year contract extension for Singapore to host the Singapore Grand Prix till 2028.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Preparations for the 2023 Singapore Grand Prix are at an advanced stage and the race will continue as planned. The Government is working with all partners involved to ensure the success of the race.
Since the inception of the Singapore Grand Prix, the Singapore Tourism Board has undertaken audits which covered contract compliance, procurement procedures and grant administration.
We are unable to comment on any CPIB investigations that are ongoing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Development of Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport following the request for proposals issued by the MyHSR Corporation to develop and operate the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) project, whether the Government has received from Malaysia any proposals, memoranda of understanding or agreements in relation to the development of the HSR project.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): I thank the Member for the question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question Nos 4 and 5 for oral answer at the 3 August 2023 Parliament Sitting.
15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider constructing higher road divider barriers in areas prone to road traffic accidents to help prevent serious injuries and the tragic loss of lives in the event of an errant speeding vehicle.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Land Transport Authority (LTA) regularly reviews traffic accident data to identify areas with higher accident rates. For these identified areas, LTA will conduct detailed investigations to assess the need for additional road safety measures.
These measures include (a) road improvements, such as traffic calming measures and signages, as well as road safety barriers which prevent vehicles from crossing over to the other carriageway; and (b) education and outreach campaigns to encourage safer road user behaviour. In addition, LTA and the Traffic Police will work together to step up enforcement to deter dangerous driving behaviour and ensure compliance with traffic rules at these locations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction Temporary Quarters and Factory-converted Dormitories with Unhealthy Carbon Dioxide Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with respect to the carbon dioxide measurements taken specifically from workers’ sleeping rooms in migrant worker dormitories, what are the current number and percentage of rooms surveyed that had carbon dioxide levels below 1,100 ppm respectively from (i) Construction Temporary Quarters and (ii) Factory-Converted Dormitories.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2021, the National Environment Agency and the Ministry of Manpower conducted a one-off study on the ventilation in migrant worker dormitories using carbon dioxide measurements as a proxy. There are currently no plans to conduct another study. As such, the information requested by the Member is not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Increase Mental Health Literacy and Support in Schools and Higher Education Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) considering that suicide remains the leading cause of death among people aged 10 to 29, what steps are being taken to increase mental health literacy and support in schools and higher education institutions; and (b) how are educators trained to recognise and respond to signs of mental distress among students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education has strengthened mental health education and support measures over the years. It is one of the key features of the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, implemented from primary to pre-university levels. Building on these efforts, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) also avail a range of mental well-being programmes and activities, including modules and workshops on mental health, to all IHL students. Through these lessons and programmes, students are equipped with baseline knowledge and skills, such as emotional regulation and differentiating normal stress from distress or mental illnesses, so that they are better able to manage challenges and remain resilient.
Educators work in partnership with parents, as part of the ecosystem of support for students in our schools and IHLs. They are trained to identify signs of distress and symptoms of common mental illnesses and to provide early support to students expressing mental health concerns. This includes checking in on their students, encouraging help-seeking and referring these students to school and IHL counsellors as well as hospital and community resources if more targeted interventions are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Eligibility Criteria for IHL-specific Financial Aid Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider requiring all Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to publish the eligibility criteria for all IHL-specific financial aid schemes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Most Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) already publish the general eligibility criteria for IHL-specific financial aid schemes. The Ministry of Education has recently advised all IHLs to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help Provided to Social Service Agencies Unable to Meet Sector Salary Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what help does the Ministry provide to social service agencies which are unable to meet the salary guidelines for the Social Service Sector, beyond offering clinics and workshops.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government has adjusted programme funding to the Social Service Agencies (SSAs), incorporating changes in manpower cost based on the revised Social Service Sector Salary Guidelines.
Beyond this, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has engaged SSAs through human resource (HR) clinics and workshops since the publication of the revised Guidelines in April 2023. This is to support them in implementing the guidelines based on their unique circumstances and to guide SSAs on broader compensation and rewards topics. Grants under the Community Capability Trust will also be made available to SSAs to support them in enhancing their HR practices, including improving their talent attraction measures and compensation and benefit practices.
The challenge facing the sector is that unless salaries remain competitive, it will not be able to attract sufficient manpower to sustainably provide the services. Besides Government programme funding, SSAs also raise funds from donors for additional programmes. They will need to engage their donors, so that the value of these additional programmes, as well as the reality of the labour market, are better appreciated by donors. NCSS will support SSAs in this effort. NCSS will be publishing a playbook later in the year to guide SSAs in enhancing their fundraising capabilities. The Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise has also been working with SSAs to develop new initiatives to expand their income streams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Available for Youths Diagnosed with Chronic Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of youths being diagnosed with chronic diseases; and (b) what support is available for these young persons with chronic diseases, especially youths who have recently entered the workforce and may have limited MediSave and financial reserves.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on the 2021 National Population Health Survey, 1% of young adults aged 18 to 35 had one or more of the following chronic diseases – diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia.
At the primary care setting, all Singaporeans with chronic diseases under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) are eligible for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies at CHAS clinics, regardless of income and age. They can also opt to seek care at polyclinics, which provide subsidies of up to 75% for chronic services and treatment. If assessed by general practitioners or polyclinics to need specialised care, they may also be referred to public specialist outpatient clinics, where they will be able to receive means-tested subsidies of up to 70%.
Patients will also be able to tap on their own and family members’ MediSave for all CDMP episodes, up to the prevailing withdrawal limits. Needy patients who still cannot afford their bills at public healthcare institutions can tap on MediFund. No one will lose access to appropriate care due to an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health Support for Elderly Population To Prevent Suicides","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in view of the increase in suicide rates among seniors aged 70 to 79 (a) what additional measures are being taken to provide mental health support for the elderly population; and (b) how are social isolation and loneliness being addressed among this age group.
22 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the mental distress indicators and suicide risk factors for the elderly; (b) how will the enhanced Active Ageing Centres and Silver Generation Office work together to support and prevent suicides among the elderly; and (c) whether the Ministry will offer dialect suicide hotlines for elderly individuals who are more comfortable expressing themselves in their native languages.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed in my reply to Question No 15 for oral answer at the 3 August 2023 Parliament Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Waiting Time for Initial Appointments to See Psychiatrists and Psychologists at Public Health Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is a target median and average waiting time for initial appointments to see psychiatrists and psychologists at public health institutions; and (b) if so, what is this target.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public hospitals employ a triage system to ascertain the urgency of the conditions of patients and then attend to them in a timely manner depending on the circumstances. That is the nature of hospital operations. Hence, it is not practical to set concrete targets on waiting times, because waiting times depend on conditions and circumstances.
Notwithstanding the above, based on 2022 figures, 95% of subsidised patients were given an initial psychiatrist appointment within three months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreigners Renting Bedrooms and Entire HDB Flats from Open Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development in each year since 2010, what is the respective number of Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and foreigners who rent (i) entire HDB flats and (ii) bedrooms in HDB flats from the open market.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of June 2023, there are about 11,900 (5%) Singapore Citizens, 34,900 (15%) Permanent Residents and 185,000 (80%) Non-Resident tenants renting flats from Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owners on the open market. There are about 7,200 (3%) Singapore Citizens, 28,100 (13%) Permanent Residents and 186,000 (84%) Non-Resident tenants renting bedrooms from HDB flat owners on the open market.
Since 2010, the proportion of tenants who rented HDB flats has remained relatively stable and ranged from 5% to 9% for Singapore Citizens, 13% to 24% for Permanent Residents, and 67% to 82% for Non-Residents.
For the same period, the proportion of tenants who rented HDB bedrooms also remained stable and ranged from 3% to 8% for Singapore Citizens, 11% to 21% for Permanent Residents and 70% to 85% for Non-Residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flat Eligibility Letter Applications Received and Average Waiting Time for Approval","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter applications have been received per week since its implementation on 9 May 2023, compared to the previous HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter scheme; (b) what are the average waiting times for approval of HFE applications, compared to HLE; and (c) how have any differences in the waiting times for approvals affected the resale market.\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) implemented the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter on 9 May 2023 to provide a one-stop service that informs prospective flat buyers of their eligibility to: (a) buy a new or resale flat; (b) receive Central Provident Fund Board (CPF) housing grants (and the corresponding grant amount if eligible); and (c) take up an HDB housing loan (and the corresponding loan amount if eligible).
In the past, prospective flat buyers would submit separate applications for their flat eligibility, CPF housing grant eligibility and the HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter. The HLE letter only provided flat buyers with an assessment of their HDB loan eligibility. Given the different scope and coverage between the HFE and the HLE, it would not be meaningful to compare the two.
We recognise that some prospective flat buyers have recently experienced longer processing times for their HFE applications due to system glitches. HDB is working hard to resolve this issue. Currently, the majority of resale flat buyers have obtained a valid Intent To Buy and HLE letter prior to 9 May 2023 and can proceed with their flat buying journey. They are not required to obtain an HFE letter. Prospective resale flat buyers who require an HFE letter urgently may approach HDB for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maximum Number of Concurrent Users HDB Flat Portal Can Accommodate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the maximum number of concurrent users the HDB Flat Portal can accommodate; (b) whether the number of users has frequently exceeded this capacity during BTO launches; and (c) whether there are plans to upgrade HDB’s IT infrastructure to cope with rising demand for housing.
Mr Desmond Lee: The HDB Flat Portal’s planned capacity has been able to meet the Housing and Development Board (HDB)’s requirements and the needs of its users, including the surge in demand during Build-To-Order (BTO) launches. With the higher interest and application rates for new flats in recent years, HDB implemented a virtual waiting room feature during BTO sales exercise as a pre-emptive measure to manage the higher than usual volume of concurrent users. When the number of concurrent users is near the threshold, new applicants will be directed to the Virtual Waiting Room. Hence, none of the BTO launches in the past one year had exceeded the limit of concurrent users, despite the higher application numbers at each launch.
Some applicants in the recent May 2023 BTO launch experienced technical difficulties, which were due to system glitches that were subsequently addressed and resolved. HDB has reached out to applicants who encountered technical issues to help them apply for a flat, while assisting those who needed their Housing Flat Eligibility (HFE) letters to be approved urgently.
As members of the public have at least seven days to apply for a new flat, we seek buyers understanding and cooperation to avoid the peak periods of a sales launch, which is usually during the first two to three days of the launch. For example, at the last May 2023 BTO sales launch, there was no queue in the waiting room from the third day and throughout the remaining period of the launch.
HDB will continue to improve its information technology infrastructure and various digital services to deliver a positive customer experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility Criteria and Amount of Cash Distributed at Festive Events Organised by People's Association and Grassroots Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) for each year from 2020 to 2022, what is the total amount of cash distributed at festive events organised by the People’s Association and its grassroots organisations; (b) what is the total number of cash recipients; (c) whether all the recipients are means-tested and, if so, what are the criteria; (d) how are the recipients selected; and (e) whether the grassroots advisers personally distributed this cash to the recipients.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Grassroots Organisations (GROs) assist in the administration of the Government’s financial schemes to support residents.
In addition, GROs often also initiate their own local welfare assistance schemes to provide targeted assistance to their residents having regard to the specific needs of their local demographic which they assess. These local schemes complement the national schemes. There is a wide range of schemes, aimed at a variety of different segments of society who need assistance.
The above schemes would have different qualifying criteria and also apply differently depending on the design of the scheme. In addition, the distributions may sometimes be made during festive occasions, but often also during non-festive occasions.
The modality of the distribution, as with other features of the scheme, is left to the discretion of the local GROs to decide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Encourage Employers to Provide Mental Health Support in Workplace","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what initiatives are being implemented to encourage employers to provide mental health support in the workplace; and (b) whether there are plans to introduce mandatory mental health awareness and training programmes for employers and managers.
Dr Tan See Leng: There is a variety of initiatives being implemented to encourage employers to provide mental well-being support in the workplace.
The Ministry of Manpower has worked with Tripartite Partners and stakeholders to develop a range of resources on supporting employees’ mental well-being. For example, practical guidance to employers on how to implement mental well-being initiatives is provided through the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces and the Playbook on Workplace Mental Well-being. These resources include plug-and-play templates and tips to help organisations kickstart mental well-being initiatives at workplaces.
Secondly, the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council and Health Promotion Board (HPB) offer programmes on implementing mental well-being initiatives in workplaces. Under the WSH Council’s Total WSH Programme, organisations are provided with free access to: (a) qualified consultants who advise them on how to manage safety and health in an integrated way; and (b) intervention programmes, such as mental well-being workshops, to enhance the organisations’ capabilities. HPB offers a Workplace Outreach Wellness package that supports organisations in rolling out workplace health programmes, including on mental health.
Thirdly, the annual National WSH CARE (Culture of Acceptance, Respect and Empathy) Award recognises organisations that have adopted exemplary mental well-being practices and highlights them as employers of choice.
The Ministry does not mandate mental health awareness and training programmes for employers and managers at the moment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}