1 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) to what extent the policy of using past reserves to fund land reclamation will be applied to finance the projected $100 billion cost of climate change protection measures announced by the Prime Minister; and (b) what are the roles of the President and Parliament in approving or overseeing the use of past reserves for land reclamation-related climate change protection measures.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, we will need a combination of funding methods to finance the various climate change adaptation measures. Smaller scale infrastructure like localised flood barriers for public assets like hospitals and bus depots can be funded from the budgets of Ministries. For long-lived major infrastructure such as sea walls, the Government will look at the option of borrowing to spread the cost across the generations which will benefit. Where the measures include land reclamation, the land reclamation costs can already be met from Past Reserves.
Parliament debates and approves the Supply Bill every year. Under the Supply Bill, the Government seeks approval for development expenditure, which includes land reclamation costs. The land created through reclamation will be protected as part of Past Reserves. When such land is subsequently sold, the proceeds accrue fully to Past Reserves. The reclamation of land is in essence a conversion of Past Reserves from financial assets to state land. This use is not a draw on Past Reserves.
The use of Past Reserves to fund reclamation costs is in accordance with the Reserves Protection Framework, which is agreed between the President and Government. The Government provides the President with a statement on land-related expenditures annually.
MOF will continue to study equitable and sustainable ways to finance the full suite of climate adaptation measures we need to protect our island.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for that reply. I just wanted to clarify – my understanding would be that when the Supply Bill is passed each year as part of the Budget, the policy then will be that any land reclamation cost will be clearly listed in that year's budget. The cost of that will be taken from the Past Reserves and therefore, will not be required to come from current tax expenditure. In the future, when the value of that land will be realised, it will be passed back to Past Reserves. So, in other words, is the commitment then, that in all such cases, the cost of land reclamation will be coming from the Past Reserves without a drawdown or the requirement to raise taxes currently, or is it going to be flexible based on the Finance Minister at the time?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I have said just now, the Reserves Protection Framework already allows the Government to use the Past Reserves for all land reclamation projects. That is already the case today. And that is the basis for which we operate currently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SMEs, Regional Headquarters and Workforce Averting Side Effects of US-China Trade Standoff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how Singapore-based SMEs, Regional HQs, MNCs, and the workforce can protect themselves from the side effects of a US-China trade standoff and how can capitalising on innovation help these organisations overcome such side effects.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question in two parts. First, I will explain why the choice of words \"US-China\" and \"trade conflict\" is not exactly very precise. For the second part, I will answer what we need to do as a country and as companies.
Let me touch on the first part. Today, the challenges that we are facing on the external environment are not exactly limited to only the tensions between US and China. The uncertainties around the world have gone beyond US and China. They include the uncertainties with Brexit, Japan and Korea, Hong Kong and others. It has also affected the functioning of the World Trade Organization (WTO) system, of which the challenges to the continued functioning of the appellate body is a serious concern for all of us. So, it is not just about US and China.
The second part is that it is also not just about the trade war. The competition between US and China today has gone beyond trade to encompass technology and other issues. So, it is a more multifaceted challenge that we are dealing with.
With that as the backdrop, the question is, how do we as a country and as companies adapt and adjust our strategies amidst all these uncertainties?
Let me touch on a three-pronged strategy that I think we need to adopt: diversification, innovation and investment, and training. Let me elaborate on diversification.
To manage the uncertainties ahead of us, which may take quite a while to settle down, we should continuously diversify our markets, our supply chains and our product mix.
For the diversification of the markets, we must always remember that there are still many parts of the world that are experiencing strong and positive growth. And this is the reason why MTI, with the economic agencies, will continue to diversify our portfolio of free trade agreements, both in terms of the number of free trade agreements and the quality of the free trade agreements, in order for our companies to access the markets around the world, especially those with strong and positive growth.
The second part of diversification has to do with supply chains. In this world of flux, supply chains might be disrupted because of economic and political reasons. This is why the economic agencies are working closely with all our companies to make sure that our sources of materials, labour and other factors of production will continuously stay robust and resilient amidst these shifting geopolitical tensions.
Last but not least, we must continue to diversify our product mix as an economy. We must make sure that no one particular sector dominates the economy to the extent that it causes us to be much more fragile than we need be.
This is how we have approached the situation over the last many years. And if we look at the numbers today, while some sectors like the electronics, precision engineering and wholesale trade and retail are down, there are also sectors like the information & communications sector, biomedical sector and professional services sector that are still up. So, that diversification of our economy and product mix actually helps us to stabilise the overall economic performance.
The second strategy that we need to adopt amidst all this flux is to make sure that we continue to innovate and invest. First, we must make sure that we continuously do better to translate our research outcomes into enterprises. We must complete the research, innovation and enterprise cycle – not a chain, but a cycle. We must build real capabilities beyond building capacities. We must compete on the basis of real capabilities, rather than just capacities. For countries that are much bigger than us, with much stronger and a more diverse resource base, they might compete on the basis of capacity. But for us, we compete on the basis of capability.
It is often said that many countries are competing on the low-mix, high-volume products. That is a lot to do with capacity. For us, if we are to be serious in competing with what we call the high-mix, low-volume products, then, research and innovation, intellectual property protection, and quality standards are all very important, and those play to our strengths.
The second thing that we need to invest much more in is the adoption and proliferation of our digital platforms, especially amongst the SMEs within our economy. These are not very difficult solution sets. They are available in the market and we are committed to working with our Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) to make sure that we accelerate the pace of adoption. When we achieve critical mass, it will also bring about a virtuous cycle for us to reduce the price of adoption and allow businesses to do business with one another more easily.
Last but not least, with or without the current challenges amidst the global uncertainties, we must continuously look at our production system and processes. There is always room for us to innovate in such things, beyond the innovation of products. It is about the innovation in production systems and processes that can make us more productive.
The third prong of the strategy has to do with training. There are three sub-parts to the training strategy which I think we need to focus on. We have often talked about the training of the workers and that is well-known and we will continue to invest heavily in the training of our workers, especially in the acquisition of skills for the Industry 4.0 journey, digital platforms and so forth. This is an area where SSG, WSG, NTUC and the trade associations and chambers must work closely to bring the level of the skills of our workers up to speed with what is required by the markets.
Having said that, it is necessary but insufficient just to focus only on workers' training. We also need to focus more heavily on the training of the leadership teams in the respective companies. This is an area that I have discussed with the many TACs and we can do much more.
From my own experience in NTUC, before we even talk about the training of the workers, it is most important for us to open up the vision of the management team. For example, in the recent roll-out of the Scale-up Singapore initiative, we did not focus just on the workers' training. We focused on the training of the management team by getting the entire management team to come in, do their envisioning exercise, do their change management exercises together as a team, before we even talked about workers' training.
Last but not least, when it comes to training, we will have to do much more to better organise ourselves and our respective agencies, from the TACs to the overseas missions from EDB, and ESG and other economic agencies, so that we can combine the market knowledge that we have to help our enterprises to diversify their markets beyond Singapore.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, in short, I think the current situation warrants us to take a close look at how we develop our companies and economies, and we must go beyond looking at just the US-China issues or looking at it as just a trade issue. There are various things that we must do regardless of whether it is US-China or whether it is a trade issue. Continue to diversify our markets, continue to diversify our supply chains and product mix. Continue to invest in innovation, and build real capabilities and not just capacities, and focus on the training, not just of the workers but of the management team. And focus on sharing market knowledge with all our available agencies.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, will we see more regional trade pacts to overcome any side effects of the US-China trade standoff and Brexit, which the Minister alluded to in his response? Secondly, how about regional innovation pacts as a way to adapt to the evolving situation? And innovation being capability-focused, rather than capacity-focused, which was what the Minister alluded to in his reply.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me touch on the regional trade pacts. Today, for Singapore, more than 90% of all our trade are already covered by the existing free trade agreements (FTAs). We will continue to expand our network of FTAs, both in terms of numbers and also in terms of the quality. But more important than that, beyond reducing the tariffs associated with the trade negotiations, we must increasingly focus on the lowering of what we call \"non-tariff barriers\". Because sometimes, the gains from lowering tariff barriers could be eroded by the imposition of new non-tariff barriers. This is a challenge, not just only for the region, but also worldwide. These include the standards for healthcare products, the standards for food, the standards of mutual recognition and so on. This is what we mean by non-tariff barriers.
Corollary to that, on Brexit, we are working with the UK administration to see how we can, post-Brexit, have a short-form agreement that will essentially continue the current arrangements that we have with the UK as part of the EU. So, that is under negotiation at this point in time.
On the Member's second question, yes, there are two parts to the regional innovation. Today, in ASEAN, we have a very lively start-up community. Today, I am very happy when I meet the young start-up entrepreneurs. They no longer see their role as serving only one particular market. In fact, most of the time, they see themselves as what they call an \"ASEAN company\". Grab is one such example. They started their operations with a vision to serve the entire region.
There is a very lively start-up scene in ASEAN, particularly in Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam. Our opportunity is how we can work together to bring these different strengths together, to leverage on each other's strengths, so that we can have a 600 million market, as a hinterland, rather than depending on ourselves individually.
\t
Having said that, beyond the start-up scene, it is also very important for us to enable the multinational corporations (MNCs) to innovate and develop their products across different markets to serve the region. These MNCs can be from within the region or from beyond the region. Regardless, our challenge is to make sure that we have the enabling environment, the business rules that allow them to innovate across borders and to make use of the talent from different parts of the region to come together to develop those new products and services to serve the market.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The Minister spoke about innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises. Is the Minister satisfied with the current trend or direction of innovation capability among Singapore enterprises? Secondly, has MTI done any study that could point to any structural or any other impediments to developing and furthering innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first question, whether we are satisfied with the progress of innovation. No Ministry, no agency, no country will ever say that they are happy with what they have. We always seek to do better. So, the more important question is, how can we do better? The biggest challenge for any research, innovation and enterprise cycle is this: how do we translate research into innovation and enterprise? Essentially, as Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean would say – how do you translate money into research outcome and translate research outcome back into money?
What are the challenges? It is always very difficult to find in one person a scientist, an innovator and an entrepreneur. The challenge and the lesson we have learnt from other countries is to make sure that, while these may not all reside within one person, we must have an environment where both the entrepreneurs and the scientists are able to constantly mix with one another to generate those ideas for both businesses and for scientific research. It is this combination that is most important in any scientific community.
When I was studying in MIT, they have been able to achieve this eco-system very well. Within every class that you go to in business school, there are the scientists, the researchers, there are also the people who have a very keen sense of business to know what is possible. It is this mix that many places around the world are trying to emulate because that is how we can percolate the ideas and bring research outcomes into market opportunities. So, this is one area that everyone wants to do better in.
The second area that we will always strive to do better is to make sure that the funding eco-system provides that continuum of funding options for new enterprises from the start-up stage, all the way through until they perhaps one day get listed on the market. That chain is also something that across the entire globe, everyone is working very hard to make sure that new enterprises have those options to bring their business ideas to fruition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Global Education Programme for ITE and Polytechnic Students to Gain Regional Exposure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education with regard to giving our ITE and Polytechnic students more regional exposure under the Global Education Programme (a) whether there will be more funding resources to support overseas internship opportunities; (b) whether there is concrete and strategic support for regional interaction and exchanges in the cultural, arts and sports fields; and (c) how effective is the opportunity fund in supporting students from low-income families.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Global Education Programme at ITE offers students a wide range of opportunities for overseas exposure, including internships, student exchanges, community services and cultural enrichment. Our Polytechnics also have similar programmes. The Polytechnics and ITE fund these programmes with support from MOE and other Government agencies, providing subsidies for airfare, accommodation and other out-of-pocket costs that students incur. It is also common for Polytechnics and ITEs to tap on funds raised from donors.
Singaporean students from lower income households can also tap on the MOE Opportunity Fund for additional assistance and funding. In 2018, about 3,500 Polytechnic and ITE students benefited from the Opportunity Fund for overseas exposure trips. This is an increase of about 33% from two years ago. In addition, MOE and other Government agencies also provide support and funding that encourage our students to venture into the region for longer overseas internships. These include the Enterprise Singapore's Young Talent Programme which will soon be subsumed under the upcoming Global Ready Talent Programme and MOE's Global Innovation Alliance Innovators Academy programme, which targets internships in overseas start-ups.
As for culture, sports and arts, students do participate in overseas arts performances, friendly matches and other sports competitions with their counterparts in the region. The students typically take part in such activities as part of their co-curricular activities.
The level of funding support has been adequate to help our Polytechnic and ITE students take up overseas exposure programmes. Today, about half of our Polytechnic students and more than a quarter of our ITE students have participated in overseas exposure trips. If the Member is aware of any particular case that needs help, please let us know and we will certainly follow up with the students or the students may want to approach the management of the ITE or Polytechnic.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First is with regards to the Global Education Programme. The sub-component of it, oversees industrial attachment programmes in the region. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how many students so far have benefited from it as part of the total amount because it is also related to what Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned earlier. The industrial attachment programmes help to train not just the workers but our future workers through the students.
Second, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that funding resources are adequate at the moment. Are there plans to enhance funding for the Global Education Programme, for the ITEs and also for the Polytechnics, going forward?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for the two supplementary questions. Today, 40% of our Polytechnic and ITE students participate in overseas exposure programmes, compared to about 30% from six years ago. To the first question, in 2018, as far as Global Education Programme is concerned, ITE disbursed about $700,000 under the Global Education Programme in additional funding and assistance for needy students. This does not include the manpower and other costs of mounting the programme. About 4,000 students benefited under the Global Education Programme.
The Member is right, there is an Overseas Industrial Attachment Programme, there is also the Overseas Student Exchange Programme and Overseas Service and Development Programme. So, the 4,000 students actually cover the three programmes.
In terms of the funding, other than the Global Education Programme, I am happy to update Mr Supaat that there is also the Opportunity Fund that I briefly talked about. Perhaps, allow me to just elaborate. Between the year 2016 and 2018, each year, MOE disbursed through this Opportunity Fund Grant – it is a scheme to help our students from lower income households – an average of $2 million to ITE for the year 2016 to 2018. $2 million a year. And for the five Polytechnics, $5 million. The funding has been increased in 2019 – we have increased the funding to $3 million for the ITEs, from $2 million to $3 million. For the Polytechnics, from $5 million to $6 million. That is one change.
Another interesting change is, previously when the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are administering the disbursement of the Opportunity Fund, there is a gross monthly household income criterion of $4,000. We have done away with that. We want ITEs and also the Polytechnics to have the flexibility to decide the subsidy level for the students and to tier the level of support based on the needs and also profile of the students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Support Companies to Adopt More Age-friendly Work Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what programmes are in place to support companies in making work and the work environment age-friendly to enable companies to leverage on the competencies of their older employees and for older workers to do their best work; (b) what is the progress of companies establishing and adopting more age-friendly work practices; and (c) what is the progress of companies retraining their older workers to enable them to take on new opportunities within the organisation.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government encourages companies to redesign workplaces and processes to create easier, safer and smarter jobs for older workers. Since the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant started six years ago in 2013, over 1,800 companies employing about 20,000 older workers have benefited from the grant and redesigned their jobs.
Even without the grants, many progressive companies have implemented age-friendly practices. In 2018, about 12,000 companies, employing about 92% of the 331,000 local employees aged 50 and above, reported that they have done so. These age-friendly measures include job redesign, flexible work arrangements and well-being programmes.
The Government continues to support our seniors to upgrade their skills alongside changing needs of the industry. For example, the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy provides higher funding support for eligible Singaporeans aged 40 and over. This could be up to 90% of course fees for SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) supported courses and at least 90% of programme costs for MOE-subsidised courses in our Institutes of Higher Learning.
The rate of training in older workers aged between age 50 and 64 has been rising steadily in recent years, from 26% in 2015 to 40% in 2018.
Nonetheless, there is scope to do more. Today, job redesign is mostly very task-specific and benefits only a few workers at a time. Hence, the Government supports the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendation which encourages employers to move beyond this, so that they can implement job redesign throughout their organisation and at the systems level. This move will extend the age ceiling of more jobs and workers.
Older workers are more likely to look to employers to indicate the kind of training they should undertake. As employers are more aware of the changes in industry and also demand and technology, they are well-placed to advise older workers on the type of training they need to stay relevant for the future economy. Hence, the Government also supports the Workgroup's recommendation to encourage employers to engage mature and older workers in structured career planning sessions.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. Could I just ask, how has this helped in terms of making it easier for employers to offer opportunities for re-employment of their employees who have reached retirement age? As well as, what has the feedback been from older workers, in terms of this helping in their re-employment and hearing that it is still task-oriented, but has it helped in their re-employment opportunities with the employers?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I wish to thank the Member Ms Jessica Tan for her supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the Government is always looking at ways to help workers who wish to work longer, to let them enjoy productive longevity. That means longer and more productive careers. At the same time, we stand ready to support the companies to make their work and also work environment age-friendly in support of hiring older workers.
In the last few years, we have put in place many things, not just the policies but also measures and programmes and schemes and even tripartite guidelines. Now, the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendations, the 22 recommendations to allow older workers to work as long as they are willing to work and are able to work and to equip the employers to make the workplace more age-friendly.\t
Today, well over 90% of the eligible private sector local workers reaching the age of 62 who wish to continue working are offered re-employment. Well above 90%. Even for those who are 63 to 67 years old, more than 90% of them are offered re-employment. Some of the workers may chose not to work after a certain age and some of them may choose to vary their intensity, maybe they want flexible work arrangement, part-time and so on. Of those who were re-employed in the same job, the vast majority continue to enjoy the same wages during re-employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption Rate of Cashless Transactions in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current adoption rate of PayNow and PayNow Corporate; (b) whether the adoption rate has met the Government's target; (c) what is the current adoption rate of QR code payment in Singapore, especially at hawker centres; and (d) what is the plan to further push the adoption rate of cashless transactions in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): Since the launch of PayNow in July 2017 and PayNow Corporate in August 2018, take-up has been encouraging.
There have been 2.8 million individual registrations for PayNow, of which 1.8 million are bank accounts linked to mobile phone numbers and the remainder are linked to NRIC numbers. We estimate that more than 65% of Singaporeans aged between 20 and 75 years old have already registered for PayNow, and the numbers are still increasing.
As for PayNow Corporate, over 115,000 unique entity numbers (UENs) have been registered. This represents approximately half of the total number of UENs issued to active businesses. The numbers are also on an upward trend.
Two years ago, when PayNow was launched, there were about 150,000 transactions totaling about S$24 million in the first month of operations. In July this year, those volumes had increased to over five million transactions, with total values over S$1 billion per month.
Mr Ang also asked about the adoption of QR code payments. QR codes are a low cost and effective way for merchants to receive e-payments from their customers. In September 2018, we collaborated with the industry to launch SGQR, our national QR code that consolidated the various QRs of international and domestic payment schemes into a single unified interface. Since then, over 32,000 SGQR codes have been deployed across a range of merchants including hawker centres, retail stores, F&B outlets, supermarkets and healthcare outlets. This represents a penetration rate of about 20% of all retail acceptance points – so, there is a lot more work to do.
Specifically, on hawker centres, Enterprise Singapore has collaborated with NETS to deploy a unified e-payment solution at small food businesses since December 2018. To date, SGQR labels and unified point-of-sale terminals have been deployed at over 500 stalls spread across 10 hawker centres, 22 coffeeshops, and 12 industrial canteens. E-payments usage at these stalls is gradually increasing and four out of five e-payment transactions are via SGQR. While the volume of e-payments is still low compared to cash, we expect it to grow. E-payments are convenient to use at hawker stalls and payment operators are looking into ways to make it even more convenient for hawkers.
Let me take the opportunity to reiterate our approach to promoting e-payments in Singapore. We made a deliberate decision not to have one player dominate the landscape and roll out very quickly, where you end up dominating and monopolising the landscape. Instead, we put in place the backbone infrastructure, so that multiple providers can compete and innovate to increase consumer choice, while encouraging inter-operability.
As a result, Singaporeans can now make e-payments in multiple ways which are simple, swift and secure. Singaporeans are making more contactless payments using credit and debit cards, such as Apple Pay and Google Pay. They can use QR payments via e-wallets and also use PayNow. As a result, the ratio of cash and cheque usage relative to e-payments has decreased significantly over time. Cheque volumes have been reducing by 8% per year over the last three years and ATM cash withdrawals relative to card and FAST payments have fallen from about 50% three years ago to 30% over the same period.
We will continue to enhance the e-payments infrastructure for Singaporeans from all walks to experience convenient and low-cost e-payments.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. We note that PayNow is more popular amongst individuals as compared to the corporates and companies, as per the figures given by the Minister. So, would the Minister consider asking the banks to promote PayNow Corporate more before they start changing the charges for the cheques? Some local banks now charge 75 cents per cheque right from the first cheque instead of the first 30 cheques for free previously. This could be a bit premature because a lot of companies, like the Minister said, half the companies, are still not using PayNow Corporate.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: For PayNow Corporate, the take-up is not so bad – as I mentioned earlier, it is now half of the UENs – considering that it was launched only August 2018, a year ago. The take-up is fast and you see a corresponding drop in the use of cheques. So, I agree with the Member that MAS should encourage banks, and banks should also take the initiative to promote PayNow Corporate, but at the same time we charge for the use of cheques. I think having this carrot and stick, push and pull approach, we will continue to see higher take-up of PayNow Corporate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics and Further Measures on High-rise Littering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) since the deployment of surveillance cameras by NEA to address the high-rise littering problem, how many of those caught were repeat offenders; and (b) whether the Ministry will look into further measures to deter such offences and explore further use of technology to bring such offenders to task.
7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the trend of high-rise littering over the last three years; (b) how effective have NEA's enforcement actions been in arresting the culprits; and (c) whether there are plans to further improve the high-rise littering situation.
8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the situation of high-rise littering in housing estates has worsened; and (b) whether there can be a greater deterrence if the public is able to report and submit visual evidence to NEA similar to how the public can now report errant PMD users.
9 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past year, how many reports from the public have been received and how many of such reports have resulted in prosecution of the culprit on environmental issues such as littering and dumping; (b) what is the standard protocol for NEA to handle such reports; and (c) when the identity of the perpetrator is known, how long will enforcement action take.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 6 to 9 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. NEA received about 26,000 and 2,700 reports of littering and indiscriminate disposal of bulky items in public places respectively in 2018. Enforcement action is taken when there is substantiated evidence.
To this end, NEA first assesses whether sufficient leads are available from the feedback before investigating further. As part of the investigation process, NEA may interview witnesses and suspects, and conduct stakeouts and patrols to identify the offender and ascertain culpability. Cameras may also be deployed, where feasible, to monitor the situation and aid investigations. Once sufficient evidence against the offender is collected, enforcement action will be taken. Depending on the complexity of the case and the response time of the feedback provider and suspected offender, this process generally takes between 10 weeks to six months for most cases.
In 2018, NEA took about 39,000 enforcement actions against littering in public places, and another 30 for the unlawful disposal of bulky items in public places.
To the Members' questions on high-rise littering in particular, more than 7,700 reports of such offences were made to the NEA between 2016 and 2018. These figures have remained relatively stable over the past few years, hovering between 2,300 and 2,800 each year. In most cases, the situation improved following outreach efforts conducted by NEA, Town Councils, and grassroots organisations to caution residents against committing such acts.
However, there are some who persist with such inconsiderate acts despite our education efforts. To address this, NEA has, since 2012, deployed surveillance cameras with video analytics to catch offenders in the act. These cameras have contributed significantly to improving NEA’s enforcement effort. Between August 2012 and December 2018, more than 2,200 offenders were caught for high-rise littering, of whom 52 were repeat offenders.
Stiff penalties are in place to deter high-rise littering. First-time offenders can be fined up to $2,000 for each offence, whilst recalcitrant offenders face fines of up to $10,000 or Corrective Work Order (CWO) in addition to, or in lieu of, a fine upon conviction. Last year, about 2,600 CWOs were issued for all littering offences. Since May this year, NEA has also introduced standees with CWO-related information during CWO sessions and revamped the design of the CWO vest which offenders don to raise public awareness about CWO, increasing the deterrent effect.
The public can report high-rise littering offences through various channels. Members of the public can call NEA's hotline or submit information or evidence of an offence such as photos and video footage through the myENV mobile application.
While we have laws to deter littering and other environmental offences, it is more important that we foster collective responsibility for our environment and cultivate positive social norms. To this end, the NEA has been working closely with the Public Hygiene Council and partners of the \"Keep Singapore Clean\" movement to inculcate the habit of keeping our homes and neighbourhoods clean.
Significant resources are devoted to engaging a wide range of stakeholders, including residents, schools, communities, grassroots organisations, private and public organisations, as well as foreign workers. Many of them conduct ground-up activities such as litter-picking activities, beach and park clean-ups, and cleaner appreciation days, reflecting the whole-of-society approach needed to keep our public places clean. Residents should also bin their litter properly and contact their Town Councils for assistance in disposing of bulky waste items if they are staying in public estates.
The Government will continue with our efforts to develop greater environmental stewardship, but we cannot do it alone. Every one of us must do our part to keep Singapore a clean, green and sustainable home for our future generations.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): I thank the Senior Minister of State. My residents have complained about high-rise littering but, somehow or other, the solution does not seem to be there. I wonder, of the 52 repeat offenders, how many did NEA refer to the Corrective Work Order. Would NEA be open to working with HDB to repossess the flats of recalcitrant high-rise litterers because, really, they pose a danger to the rest of the residents who are just there waiting to be hurt. The recent incident whereby a man died due to high-rise littering, that is something that is cause for concern for many innocent people who are walking around on the ground floor wondering whether a \"missile\" from above will hit them. I hope NEA can clarify and impose a stricter punishment against those who are recalcitrant.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, there are very stiff penalties for high-rise littering and the fine for repeat offenders for the third and subsequent offence is $10,000 per enforcement action upon conviction. In addition, of course, a CWO can be issued.
I do not have specific numbers of the 52 repeat offenders that had gone for CWO. I would assume it is quite a number, but I can give the specific number to the Member separately . As regards to working with HDB, actually there are provisions under the HDB legislation but these are extreme measures and we really need to consider all factors before the relevant authority can make a decision on this. So, I would not say that definitely this is an avenue that we will take, but it is something that is an available option depending on the factors of the case. Such as if it is killer litter, it is under the Penal Code, and the Police will investigate, and it is even harsher penalties.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Member mentioned about the recent unfortunate incident where a man was fatally struck by a falling glass bottle at a condominium, and the Police took swift action and made an arrest all in about 10 days, likely with the help of forensic capabilities that the agency have. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether can NEA also have that kind of resources and, hence, the efficacy and urgency to deal with some of these situations, some of which are actually fatal near misses as well? With that kind of capabilities, they can better deter as well as increase the chances of catching litter bugs at our estates.
\t
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me say that I offer my condolences to the family of the victim who passed away due to killer-litter at Spottiswoode 18 condominium.
With regard to the length of time we take to investigate, which is what the Member is asking about, as the Member has rightly pointed out, we need to take prompt action. But having said that, we also need to make sure that our investigations are thorough and accurate so that we do not wrongfully prosecute a person. Therefore, there are processes put in place that we need to follow. Just let me put this in context.
First of all, NEA oversees a wide spectrum of enforcement offences, of which littering is one. That, of course, includes high-rise littering. In particular, for littering, we receive about 26,000 reports of such incidents per year. With such a large volume of cases and the fact that, of course, resources are not unlimited, we will have to prioritise. So, we do prioritise based on the severity of the littering offence, the type of litter and so on, to take action and investigate.
Having said that, let me also explain. I said enforcement action takes at least 10 weeks in general. The reason is because this is actually for the entire enforcement workflow, from the time we receive the feedback to investigation, to prosecuting. When we receive the feedback, first of all, we will need at least one week to verify the information, contact the feedback provider to get witness' statement, for instance. Then, we would need to decide if we can and should deploy camera surveillance and, if there is a positive hit, we would need to identify the flat owner, for instance, in HRL, interview them as well as the suspects and we need to give a two-week notice in order to get the flat owners and the suspect to be interviewed to take statements. All these will take about four to six weeks. After that, if there is firm evidence, we need to initiate the enforcement proceedings and that takes another three to five weeks. That is where the 10 weeks is coming from.
But in some instances where we have very specific intelligence and very clear evidence, and it is easy to establish the identity of the suspect, for instance, we could take less than 10 weeks to clear the case. So, it really depends. Then, in other cases when it is complex where multiple owners are involved where multiple rounds of surveillance cameras have to be deployed, it could take longer.
We do prioritise our cases and it also depends on the urgency as well as, of course, the evidence available. I would like to urge members of the public that if you do have evidence or information available regarding specific littering incidents, please provide that to us because that will facilitate and shorten our investigation process.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have four supplementary questions. Very often, I receive replies from NEA that they carry out stakeouts when there is feedback. But as far as I can remember, there was zero success. Not a single time, they staked out and they managed to catch someone. At MPC@Khatib, because of lots of littering, there were CCTVs installed but there was no viewing. It is still a lot of littering. Only when I told NEA, \"Why don't you view the CCTV?\", that they viewed the CCTVs and managed to put five faces and tried to catch them. So, I would like to ask if NEA is reviewing its enforcement process and how to be more proactive and diligent in carrying out enforcement.
My second question is: there have been several high-rise littering of sanitary pads for many years. Until today, it is still not solved. Why? Because NEA deploys CCTV only for a few days and the problem persists. If you have a targeted ambition to catch the culprit, I am sure you would be able to catch him. Otherwise, it looks like this problem will only disappear when the litter bug \"menopauses!\"
The third question is whether NEA is short of CCTVs. How many CCTVs does NEA have?
And the last question: very often, my residents give feedback about their neighbours smoking along corridors, at the staircase and then, later on, littering the cigarette butts everywhere. If they are willing to come forward to give statements, is NEA willing to take enforcement action?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to stakeouts, no success, in August 2012, as I have said earlier, we started deploying surveillance cameras. Since then, the number of successful enforcement actions has increased about 120 times. So, in 2011, the number of successful enforcement actions was about 10. Last year, in 2018, it was more than 1,200. So, the deployment of the surveillance cameras has helped us significantly. As you know, with stakeouts, you cannot be there 24/7. So, it really depends on intelligence from the ground for such effective stakeouts.
But having said that, I think the deployment of surveillance cameras is really not the panacea. Surveillance cameras themselves obviously have some limitations, for instance, whether you can find suitable vantage points that you can put them and, of course, safeguarding the privacy of the residents.
How effective we are with the surveillance cameras also depends on the information given. For instance, in the case of the sanitary pad issue that the Member talked about for a specific block in Yishun, the information given to us was just a photo of the sanitary pad with no other information about where it is likely to come from and so on. Therefore, for very high blocks, it is very hard even with a surveillance camera because we may not be able to train the cameras at the appropriate floors because the cameras do have a limit as to how many floors they can cover. Therefore, for this particular case, we have deployed the cameras multiple times and, the last time, in August, with no results. So, if the Member is referring to that. But we will continue to see what we can do together. Also, as I have said before, we cannot just depend on enforcement alone. It has to be coupled with community engagement and education.
Just let me give Members an example. Last year, there was a pilot project which my parliamentary colleague Ms Sun Xueling also mentioned earlier in this House, which is with Ang Mo Kio. It is a High-rise Littering/Pigeon Feeding Pilot Project that was carried out for two blocks of flats that had persistent issues with high-rise littering and pigeon feeding. Through a combination of very proactive engagement by the grassroots organisations, together with the Town Council, NEA and MSO, the grassroots formed a community watch group that actually went to engage every resident in the two blocks to raise awareness about the issue. MSO actually came up with a whole new set of publicity materials, including standees, to raise awareness about the issue too, and also to inform the residents about the number of people caught in that area for high-rise littering together, of course, with active enforcement. So, we put up surveillance cameras. That has improved the situation in that area significantly, in fact, from 21 cases in the previous six months to about nine cases. So, they are planning to roll out this programme to the rest of the GRC in the coming months.
As high-rise littering and pigeon feeding are human actions and require a change in mindset and behaviour, the long-term solution and a more sustainable approach must be greater community involvement, of course, facilitated or complemented by enforcement actions.
On CCTVs, as I have said, resources are never unlimited. But having said that, we will deploy surveillance cameras where it is possible and where it needs to be done. On the duration of deployments, as I have said, even in one of the Yishun blocks, we have deployed the cameras multiple times. As far as the Khatib case is concerned, initially, when the CCTVs were deployed, they were actually done by the Yishun Town Council, if I am not mistaken. We worked together with the Town Council because this is their basketball court and the problem is generally from the basketball players and there was outreach and education. It did not work. So, last year, NEA came in with our own surveillance cameras and we managed to catch one last year and four this year. We will continue to work with the Member's constituency on this.
As to smoking and evidence, as I have said in my reply earlier and also in my appeal that if you do have information, whether it is video footage or photos and so on, you can submit to us. But the feedback provider must be willing to be a witness if there is a need to be in Court.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I think the problem is the surveillance cameras. So, I want to ask whether we are going to improve the surveillance cameras. I also want to share that where I stay, I do have a neighbour that was throwing cigarette butts almost every other day. NEA did deploy the surveillance camera there. But for that week, this resident could see there was a surveillance camera, so the person did not throw any cigarette butts. We could not catch anyone. The minute they removed the camera, the next day, the cigarette butts started to appear again.
So, the problem might be our surveillance cameras are so big that the offenders can see them, they do not litter and that is why we do not catch anyone. We have limited cameras and they cannot be deployed all the time. So, the question is: can we improve the surveillance cameras? Make them smaller so that people cannot see them and then we might be able to catch more people and we do not need to wait for the resident to reach menopause.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me correct the Member. It is not that we did not catch anyone. As I have said, I think the effectiveness has improved. But the idea is to try and change behaviours. So, it is a longer term solution and we want to encourage considerate socially responsible behaviour and civic-mindedness. That should be the priority and not to catch as many people as possible.
If the person can be rehabilitated, why not? If he sees the camera and he stops littering, I think that is a good enough deterrent effect.
Having said that, I agree. We do continue to look out for better technologies which are suitable for investigating our high-rise littering incidences, including, of course, cameras, whether it is smaller cameras, more effective cameras in terms of image resolution, detection capabilities, better video analytics programme, we are doing that. And if we can find something, definitely, we will look at trying it out.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, the Senior Minister of State described the 10-week process to nab the culprit of the high-rise littering and so on. But the fact of the matter is that the Police take about 10 days to arrest the suspect. So, there must be something that they have done that can expedite this whole process. Perhaps, NEA should look at how the Police have done it and, maybe, reduce the pain points that NEA officers have to face trying to find the culprit.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said earlier, there is a need to prioritise, depending on the public health risks and so on. I think the Police also do the same thing.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I have two questions. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that I only gave the photograph of the sanitary pad. If this is what your staff told you, then it is not true. I even took a photo of the stack of the windows. So, in fact, it is well-known which stack of the windows it came from.
Next, if CCTV is deployed many times because it is a five-day cycle, who has menstruation in five-day cycles. So, I would like to ask whether NEA would use DNA to catch the culprits.
\t
The next question is that, there are surveillance cameras in the covered basketball court at MPC@Khatib. How often do you view the surveillance camera? Recently, four have been caught because I told NEA, \"Quickly go and view because it is so dirty. You have surveillance camera but you never view.\" Then, they managed to show five pictures. So, four were identified and caught. So, I would like to ask how often these surveillance cameras are being viewed.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, with regard to the photos, that was what I was given to understand. But, as I have also said, we have actually deployed cameras for that particular block multiple times. Which means that, at the end of the day, we do have some idea of where the stack is and it could be additional information that the Member has given. But having said that, if you deploy a camera for a certain period of time and you cannot catch the culprits, then obviously, you have to review whether it is the camera's positioning or whether it is the right stack or the right floor levels and so on, before you re-deploy again. And that is a process that we go through for all kinds of high-rise littering offences.
With regards to DNA, I think we have answered this in Parliament before. First of all, when the litter comes down onto the ground, it is unlikely it is the DNA of the culprit alone that will be there. So, it will be very difficult. At least, as far as we know, the technology involved – I am not referring specifically to sanitary pads – but we are talking about in general. There will be many other DNA involved. So, that is where we are.
\tMr Speaker: Let us move on. Mr Ang Wei Neng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Size and Usage of Endowment Funds of Autonomous Universities in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education for each of the six local Autonomous Universities (AUs) (a) what is the size of their endowment fund in each of the past five years; (b) what is the current amount of funds and reserves accumulated; (c) what are the top five uses of these funds; and (d) how much of these funds have been used in each of the past five years.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): The size of the endowment funds of our Autonomous Universities are available from their financial reports. Based on these reports, the sizes at the end of Financial Year 2017 are: NUS – $5.9 billion; NTU – $1.9 billion; SMU – $1 billion; SUTD – $1.1 billion; SIT and SUSS – both $0.4 billion each.
The Member also asked for the reserves accumulated. Reserves are operating surpluses, if any, accumulated over the years. They are typically tied up in assets, which can be buildings, facilities, long-term investments and so on. The numbers are also available in the financial reports of the AUs so I will not read them out here.
So, what is pertinent is the use of endowment funds. The AUs set up endowment funds, with Government support, because they should have a separate stream of income such that they can embark on their own programmes and activities without always depending on the Government. Every year, investments from the endowment fund will generate a return and only a portion of the investment returns is spent, with the rest re-invested.
The biggest use of endowment income is to pay for operating expenditure in delivering subsidised education. And this is because MOE contributes significantly to the endowment funds of the Universities, by matching donations that they raise.
The other major uses are providing bursaries and scholarships, supporting additional programmes to enrich students' learning, such as overseas internships and residential learning programmes, funding research projects and sponsoring professorships.
It is common practice internationally, for universities to build up their endowment funds through donations to support students and activities outside of education, such as research and enterprise. Donations are always voluntary, and decided by donors based on their trust in the organisations and their causes. Donors to AUs will typically specify how the monies are to be used, which AUs do not have the liberty to change.
\t
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Can I just seek a couple of clarifications? I have done a quick check. It appears that NTU gives out more bursaries and scholarships compared to NUS although NUS has a reserve of $5.9 billion which is more than the twice the size of NTU's. And SUTD, although it has the least reserve of the three AUs, has more than half of its undergraduates receiving grants for education opportunities and bursaries and scholarships.
So, can MOE clarify whether is that discrepancy or is there suppose to be a correlation between the number of bursaries and scholarships given by each AU compared to the reserves they have?
A second clarification is that, is there a cap that MOE will set for them for the size of endowment fund that AU can accumulate over the years?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I do not have the exact numbers and breakdowns to give an analysis. I am also not sure whether it is factually correct that NTU provides more bursaries than NUS. We should also take into account – that only part of the bursaries and scholarships is funded through the endowment. There are also non-endowed donations where donors, they donate to the University but it is non-endowed, that is, \"I donate $100,000. Please use this $100,000 to distribute and help needy students.\" Those are non-endowed donations and NUS also has a lot of that. So, I think, that assertion I am not sure if it is true. We really need to break down the numbers to compare NUS, NTU, SUTD and so on and so forth.
Is there a limit? There is currently not a limit because our Universities have started building endowments maybe over the last 20 years or so. Compared to international universities, their endowments are not excessively large at all. In fact, many international universities have endowment funds much bigger than that. And also, more importantly is the incomes from the endowment funds – they are put to good use. NUS recently put out a statement outlining what they use their money for – it is for research, for bursaries and to help with residential programmes. And so, they have good uses for it. And so long as there are such good uses, and donors are prepared to part with their donations to support the institution, then I think we should encourage that and Government will continue to match one-to-one or 1.5-to-one.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the richer Universities are effectively able to provide more resources to their students. So, I wish to ask the Minister if he thinks that this situation is equitable and whether the Ministry has any policies to try to level the playing field if it is true that the richer Universities can give more opportunities to their students than the poorer ones.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: So, there is some issue of social inequality between the AUs. Just like society, we redistribute wealth, we support the weaker members of society more, but AUs are all not that weak, including our new AUs such as SIT, SUSS. They are not bad – within a short period, they have built up $400 million each. And part of the reason is that, from Government's point of view, for the new Universities, we match three-to-one. So, for every dollar endowment fund that you raise, we match three-to-one, whereas for a much more established Universities, with a larger reserve, we will match much less.
Having said that, I do not think we want to be too draconian in redistributing the endowment. The logic is not dissimilar to a society because these are donors who willingly part with their donations to support the Universities. They probably saw something they like institutionally and how they use their funds and decide to donate to that particular cause. And I think we should not discourage them either.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Domestic Workers Borrowing from Licensed Moneylenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year in the past five years, among foreign domestic workers (FDWs) found to have borrowed money from licensed moneylenders, what is the median number of months between their first arrival in Singapore and the first loan they take; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on whether a study has been conducted on this issue and, if so, what are the top three reasons for the sharp rise in the number of FDWs borrowing from licensed moneylenders.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the available loan records from the Moneylenders Credit Bureau, which was set up in 2016, the median number of years between the foreign domestic workers' first arrival in Singapore and the time they took their first loan in 2016, is eight years. And for those who took up their first loan in 2017 and 2018, it is seven years and six years respectively. It means that the majority of foreign domestic worker (FDW) borrowers have worked in Singapore for some time.
MOM and MinLaw have studied the reasons for the surge in FDWs' borrowing in recent years. It is a combination of supply and demand side factors. First, it was observed that some licensed moneylenders (LMLs) have been targeting the FDWs through shopfront advertisements and readily extending loans to them. Second, some FDWs have been recommending loans to their fellow FDWs by word-of-mouth, WhatsApp or Facebook. Third, there are some FDWs acting as guarantors for fellow FDWs to obtain loans.
To curb the rise in borrowing by Work Pass holders, MOM and MinLaw had announced in October 2018 the introduction of aggregate loan caps, the self-exclusion framework and administrative penalties on Work Pass holders who borrow from unlicensed moneylenders. In July this year, just about two months ago, MinLaw announced further measures to stem the increase in moneylending activities targeting foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum. The aggregate loan caps for foreigners earning less than $10,000 per annum were reduced and limits were placed on the supply of loans to foreigners. LMLs are also prohibited from displaying advertisements targeted at FDWs and from accepting foreigners as loan guarantors.
MOM and MinLaw are continuing to monitor the situation very closely. We are working closely with employers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and employment agencies to educate FDWs on prudent financial management and the risks and implications of borrowing money.
\t
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. But could I ask, not the top three reasons of how they are borrowing but the top three reasons of why they are borrowing. I think there are some reports that say that they are borrowing because of family emergencies. I am just wondering how effective are our new measures will be. If it is for family emergencies and we block them from licensed moneylenders, will we not then push them to the unlicensed moneylenders that will put them in a more difficult position, the FDWs and the employers as well? That is why I think if we can study the reasons of why they are borrowing, I think then we can address the root of the problem and then come up with policies to address it.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Member Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary questions. At this juncture, let me share some numbers. We have been monitoring the numbers since we rolled out the measures announced in October 2018. Based on the data from Moneylenders Credit Bureau, from March 2016 to June 2019, the number of FDWs who took loans from licensed moneylenders in 2016 was 1,500. In 2017, it was 12,000. And in 2018, it was 42,000. And just in the first half of this year, it is 39,000. So, the spike has been from 2017 to first half of this year which really warrants the two rounds of measures.
The Member is right. The licensed moneylenders are allowed to lend money. So, there is an option for FDWs to borrow, especially those with genuine needs. And we did the study on not just the supply side consideration but also on the demand side. Some FDWs borrow because they need to send money back for their children's education, to pay for urgent medical bills, or to renovate or build houses and so on.
If you think about the numbers that I talked about, actually, in year 2016, it was quite stable, at 1,500. But it spiked seven times to 12,000 in 2017 and then 2018. The two Ministries studied it and we think that increased financial hardship does not appear to be a reason for the surge in the FDW borrowing. Nonetheless, we encourage our FDWs to maintain open communications with their employers to talk about their financial needs and also to plan their finances for rainy days.
In terms of the measures we highlighted in July, we have reduced the aggregate loan cap from $1,500 to $500 and we have also limited the number of foreigners that the licensed moneylenders can lend to in their loan book and so on. And we will continue to monitor the situation.
\t
FDWs who need help, other than speaking to employers, we encourage them to also come forward to MOM and the NGOs, including the Centre for Domestic Employees or even the Foreign Domestic Worker Association.
Going back to Mr Louis Ng's question on why FDWs borrow, I mentioned that there are some FDWs with genuine needs. Our study also found that some FDWs are recommending their fellow FDWs to get loans and even going to the extent of being a guarantor for them to get the loan. When we did a survey amongst the FDWs who were standing there queuing up to borrow money, some of them did share that they were borrowing money to buy clothes, mobile phones or handbags. So, I think it is a combination of needs and wants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlining Public Hospitals' Admission Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the public hospitals' admission process can be streamlined to enable the frontline and medical staff to ascertain the patient's financial status at the time of treatment, admission or prior to bill issuance; and (b) what is the current process for patients to be referred to the hospital's social service officers for financial assistance.
The Senior Minister of State for Health and Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, all hospitals are required to financially counsel a patient receiving inpatient care or day surgery.
For planned admissions and surgeries in public hospitals, financial counselling is done prior to admission or surgery. For emergency cases, however, the priority is on quick diagnosis and intervention, and so, in those cases, patients are counselled as soon as possible after admission. If there is a significant increase in estimated bill size during the course of the inpatient’s stay, which could occur for reasons such as complications that were not anticipated prior, the patient would be provided with an updated estimate as quickly as possible.
Patients are counselled based on their financial status and the subsidies they are eligible for, as well as the expected MediShield Life payouts and the available MediSave withdrawals for their specific treatment and their condition. Information is presented in an easy to understand way, such as graphical way to explain the estimated bill size and out-of-pocket payments that they will be expected to incur.
Patients are also advised to choose the appropriate ward type based on their own circumstances. For example, patients who have concerns over their bill size would be advised to choose a ward type that would give them access to higher Government subsidies. If they indicate a financial difficulty, they will then be asked whether they wish to be referred to a Medical Social Worker to explore additional financial assistance.
Finally, patients may approach hospital staff to request for financial assistance at any point in their healthcare journey at any stage, and they will be referred to a Medical Social Worker for assistance. Patients’ medical needs will be prioritised and no one will be denied appropriate care because of financial constraints.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers he gave. I am asking two supplementary questions, or probably just one, because I am getting quite a number of my residents coming to my Meet-the-People Sessions with regard to post-treatment, out of hospital. My question is whether there can be further streamlined or maybe enhanced processes at the payment counters to assess them and refer them to the Medical Social Workers, instead of waiting for them to request for referrals themselves. I wonder if that can be enhanced even further, following up from the question that I have already asked in my Parliamentary Question (PQ).
Secondly, in terms of referral to the Medical Social Workers at the hospitals, how is the process? Can the Senior Minister of State share how the process can be refined and enhanced further for elderly patients or patients who are there alone and may not be able to converse or understand properly what the bill means and entails, in terms of their financial circumstances and whether there can be any help from the counter staff and nurses.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, there is a framework for trying to estimate as close as possible upfront, prior to the admission and prior to the procedure itself. As far as possible to estimate what it will cost, and likely out-of-pocket expenses. And then to right-size the kind of stay in the ward choice and so on, appropriate to the particular patient's own financial means and circumstances. Obviously, the way in which it is conveyed would also depend to a large extent on the patient himself or herself, and whether this person is conversant in one language or another.
As I mentioned earlier, steps are also taken beyond just verbal counselling to also present the information in easy-to-understand ways – in graphics, in charts, using those as aids to explain to the patient. So, I understand the Member's point that, ultimately what we want to achieve is a greater understanding upfront of the likely expenses and so on, as far as possible so that there is no big surprise at the end.
On the Member's first point, we do have a process where there is proactive intervention in terms of trying to give information proactively, especially for patients who might be identified to as someone who is not able to understand the treatment processes and also may not even know what questions to ask. I would like to let the Member know that in 2014, MOH introduced Proactive Financial Assistance (PFA) to alert patient service associates who deal with the patients, about patients who might require financial assistance. This is drawn proactively from information stored in the National Electronic Financial Records (NEFR) and it is obviously available to help patients who have, prior to that, given consent for their information to be accessed.
So, looking at the nature of the procedure the likely cost of the expenses will be incurred, matched up with what we know from the NEFR, the counsellors will be able to more proactively manage the cost upfront for the patient and provide the advice upfront, even if it is not asked for.
This plus a series of other measures on the ground will be taken. But I understand the Member's point that, ultimately, it is about awareness upfront and to try to anticipate, as far as possible and as accurately as possible, the likely expenses that will be incurred. We will endeavour to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application Form for NDP 2020 Tickets to Include Questions for Applicants to Indicate Preference for Eco-friendly Items for Funpack","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Defence whether the application form used by members of the public to apply for National Day Parade (NDP) 2020 tickets can include a question for the applicant to indicate whether they want (i) a single-use plastic bottle (ii) a reusable bottle (iii) an NDP plastic bag for trash and (iv) an NDP funpack bag.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, NDP funpacks require a longer period to cater for production, delivery and packing. Therefore, it would not be advisable to tie in the public consultation on funpack items with the ticketing process, that is, application for tickets. Each year, the NDP organising committee strikes a balance in providing for the comfort of NDP spectators, including the young and the elderly and in sourcing for sponsors who can provide environmentally-friendly options for the funpack. NDP spectators who do not want the funpack or some of the items need not have to take them. This can be then handed over to the collection points which will be established and can help the organisers gauge the requirements for planning subsequent years’ NDP shows.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Could I at least ask whether we can do away with the plastic bottle? I mean, that is the first step. Two, we have this Clean and Green message that we issue almost throughout the year that people should bring their own reusable bottles but all of a sudden at the NDP, that message disappears. So, I am just hoping for NDP 2020, we can do away with the plastic bottle. And, two, can we then issue the message out to urge people to bring their reusable bottles to NDP?
\tMr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. First of all, I think it is important for us to establish that we are actually on the same side, namely, that we agree with the Member together with many outside this Chamber who believe that we should all be more active in terms of understanding the importance of saving the environment and also each of us doing our part. And within established events including the NDP, what more can be done. So, on that we are completely together.
With respect to the plastic water bottle, in fact, for this year's NDP, for example, a specific effort was made to reduce that. The fact that the NDP shows do take a number of hours and it is held in the afternoon, so one can expect sunny weather most of the time, we do have to cater water for people to drink. What happened in past years was that there were actually two bottles of water in each funpack. For this year, taking into account, the feedback including the input and advice from the Member previously, what the Organising Committee for the NDP for this year has done is that it has reduced it to one bottle.
That is only one of the measures we have taken. But with respect to generally talking about single-use plastics, I just wanted to also provide a piece of information which is that for NDP 2019 over 1.7 million pieces of single-use plastic were saved. Seven hundred thousand pieces of plastic wrappings were avoided due to deliberate efforts made to ensure that the funpack items, where it was not necessary to individually wrap the items, then they are not. So, it is actually a combination of efforts like that.
The rest of the plastic that we managed to save from being put into the funpacks include, for example, the second water bottle that we did not put in, as well as we changed the plastic clappers and also we took away the plastic flag stands.
So, I think what we will do is for future shows, for example, the NDP that is coming next year and the year after and so on, we will continue these efforts. We will take in seriously the feedback and suggestions from the Member and others in this area to see how we can further reinforce, both in terms of the education message to call on all of us, individually also, and beyond NDP shows in their day-to-day lives to also do the responsible thing and to minimise the use of such plastics.
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Besides the plastic bottle, there was also this single-use wrist band which only lights up at the venue but it is useless outside the event venue for NDP. So, perhaps there could be a collection point for everyone to drop it back so that we can recycle it?
\tMr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, there are indeed collection points. If I get my number right, I think there were at least six big collection points established at strategic locations, outside the parade area. There were also trash bags provided within the funpack. Indeed, we encourage and we would like to remind our spectators, as part of being environmentally conscious and trying to help, that all the items that they really do not need or do not want, to hand those in at these collection points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investment in Amaravati City Following Change in Stance of government of India","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will continue to encourage investment in the Amaravati city project following the change in the stance of the government of India in respect of seeking funding for the project.
The Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, in 2014, the then government of Andhra Pradesh state sought Singapore's assistance to masterplan its new state capital, Amaravati. Subsequently, a consortium comprising Ascendas-Singbridge Pte Ltd, which is now part of CapitaLand Group, and Sembcorp Development Ltd was awarded through a Swiss Challenge process, the opportunity to form a joint venture with an AP government company to master-develop the capital using green and sustainable urban solutions in which Singapore companies have globally recognised expertise. This collaboration is complemented by a G-to-G Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Singapore and the government of Andhra Pradesh on training and capacity building, which has been endorsed by the government of India.
The new state government in Andhra Pradesh that took office on 30 May 2019 is reviewing its plans for the capital city project, amidst its other priorities. In July, the government of India withdrew its request to the World Bank for a US$300 million loan for the project and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank also subsequently withdrew a US$200 million loan. The Singapore consortium companies are closely following these developments and evaluating the impact on the investment opportunity.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, just two brief supplementary questions for the Minister. Before I do that, let me declare my interest as the CEO of a consultancy that helps companies invest in India and other countries.
Firstly, does the Minister have any sense of the total investment that has been made by Singapore companies in this project to-date? Secondly, has there been to-date any significant expenditure of state funds in terms of, for example, co-investment or grants to support the companies in terms of the project?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, the investments made by companies is commercially confidential. I am not privy to their details nor able to give the Member a response.
Secondly, in terms of whether there are any subsidies or grants by the Government for investments made in the state, the answer is no.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 15-20, 23-25, 27-28, 30, 32-33 and 35 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 21-22, 26, 29, 31 and 34 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 September 2019.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Variable Capital Companies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Bill comprises two broad categories of proposed amendments. The first category relates to amendments to put in place the tax treatment for variable capital companies or \"VCCs\". The second category relates to amendments to the VCC Act which was passed by Parliament in October last year.
The VCC is a corporate structure incorporated under the VCC Act which may only be used as an investment fund vehicle. It has features that are tailored for this purpose. For example, a VCC may vary its share capital without seeking investors' approval, and may pay dividends using profit or capital. The shareholders of a VCC are the fund investors. A VCC must be managed by a fund manager that is regulated by MAS.
Introducing the VCC will increase the value proposition for fund managers to domicile their investment funds in Singapore and complements our existing efforts to anchor fund management and other related activities here. It will also create new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the two broad categories of the Bill.
The first category of amendments deals with the tax treatment for VCCs through amendments to the Income Tax Act, GST Act and Stamp Duties Act. The proposed tax treatment, which was formulated in consultation with industry, recognises the unique characteristics of a VCC. A key feature of a VCC is its ability to combine the advantage of a single legal entity at the umbrella VCC fund level, with segregation of assets and liabilities at the sub-fund level.
As announced by MOF in its Budget 2018 Statement, a VCC will be treated as a company for Corporate Income Tax purposes. The salient aspects of the Corporate Income Tax treatment for a VCC are as follows:
To ease the compliance burden, an umbrella VCC will only need to file a single Corporate Income Tax return with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, regardless of the number of sub-funds that it has.
Deductions and allowances for expenses incurred by an umbrella VCC will be applied at the sub-fund level to determine the sub-fund's chargeable income.
Where applicable, a VCC will enjoy the start-up or partial tax exemption under our general Corporate Income Tax regime. These exemptions will be enjoyed once at the umbrella VCC level, regardless of the number of sub-funds under the umbrella VCC or the number of sub-funds that are subsequently added to the umbrella VCC.
VCCs will be eligible to benefit from tax incentives for funds under sections 13R and 13X of the Income Tax Act. These incentives will provide tax exemption on qualifying investment income.
As for the GST treatment of VCCs, GST will be applicable at the sub-fund level. GST accounting and reporting are to be performed separately by each sub-fund that is liable for GST registration. This is because sub-funds have segregated assets and liabilities, and each sub-fund makes independent sale and purchase decisions based on its investment mandate.
On stamp duty treatment of VCCs, stamp duty is levied at the sub-fund level. For instance, stamp duty will be levied on an instrument that transfers the interest in property and shares between sub-funds. This treatment regards sub-funds as separate persons for stamp duty purposes and is in line with the principle that sub-funds have segregated assets and liabilities.
IRAS will provide further guidance and details of the tax treatment for VCCs on its website and e-Tax Guides.
The second category of amendments seeks to amend two aspects of the VCC Act.
The first aspect relates to the insolvency provisions in the VCC Act. The current provisions in the VCC Act relating to the receivership and winding up of VCCs and their sub-funds are adapted from the Companies Act. In October 2018, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA was passed by Parliament. The IRDA consolidates all personal and corporate insolvency, and debt restructuring laws under one statute. When the IRDA comes into force, the insolvency provisions in the Companies Act will be repealed. As such, the VCC Act must be amended so that the insolvency framework for VCCs and their sub-funds will make reference to the relevant provisions in the IRDA instead of the Companies Act. This will align the insolvency regime for VCCs and their sub-funds with that of other corporate structures in Singapore.
I had previously highlighted the need for these amendments when I moved the VCC Bill in Parliament last year. This was also highlighted in the explanatory brief accompanying the VCC Bill on the MAS website, as well as during the most recent public consultation on the operational framework for VCCs in July this year.
The second aspect involves technical amendments to the VCC Act. One example is to clarify that a VCC should have at least one member. This aligns the minimum number of members in a VCC with that for companies under the Companies Act. Other amendments include requiring documentary evidence of the directors' decision to be lodged with the Registrar for proper records for alterations to the VCC constitution that do not require a members' resolution. These have been included for clarity, in light of enquiries received.
The Bill will provide clarity to fund managers who are looking to domicile funds as VCCs when the VCC framework becomes operational at the end of this year: first, in terms of the tax treatment for VCCs and second, in terms of the receivership and winding-up framework applicable to VCCs and their sub-funds. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The Variable Capital Companies Act or the VCC Act provides for the incorporation and operation of a new corporate structure, the VCC, which caters to the needs of investment funds. The VCC structure is designed to encourage investors to place their funds in Singapore and strengthen Singapore's economy.
I note that there are several amendments to the VCC Act and they may be broadly classified into two areas: first, amendments to the VCC to align the VCC insolvency regime with all the other corporate structures in Singapore; and second, other more technical amendments.
I have no objections to the amendments, however, my questions today, revolve more so around the development and progress of the VCC Framework since it was introduced last year. In particular, the impact of the VCC Framework on the economy and job market and prospects in Singapore.
The Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah mentioned in Parliament last year, that the VCC framework will create new business opportunities for lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians in Singapore.
MAS has estimated that the VCC framework could create over 1,000 new jobs for service providers in the first two years of its introduction. In this respect, I have the following questions.
First, it has been about one year since the passing of the VCC Act.
How many new jobs have been created as a result of the VCC and has it reached the 1,000 mark?
As a follow up question, are they all in the legal/accounting sector? Would the Minister be able to provide a brief breakdown of the new jobs created within the various sectors?
Second, I note that the VCC framework is a relatively new corporate structure introduced last year, which is unlike the traditional company.
How well received is the VCC structure in Singapore? Has it achieved its objective in making Singapore a more attractive fund management hub?
In the work force: are there also plans to provide education and training to the fund managers, lawyers and accountants, who would be advising and assisting with the VCC? If so, what are these plans?
In the educational institutions: are there also plans to introduce this VCC framework into the local law schools and universities, as part of their Corporate Law modules, to prepare local law students for the possibility of working with the VCC framework, for example, drafting of fund documents, knowing the VCC requirements and so on? If so, is it well received?
Could more be done to prepare and ensure that our students and workers are able to be adept and competent with handling the VCC framework?
Third, there are indications that Singapore economy is headed towards uncertain territory. Would the Minister be able to share whether this VCC framework, with the additional funds flowing into Singapore, can assist with cushioning the impact of the economic slowdown?
Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Second Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member, Mr Patrick Tay, who has spoken on the Bill and for his support.
I would like to like to clarify that whilst the VCC Act was passed in Parliament last year, the VCC framework is not yet operational. The Government is working on the Subsidiary Legislation which sets out the operational framework for VCCs and their sub-funds. The tax treatment for VCCs will also be introduced, which I have just dealt with in my speech earlier. With these components in place the VCC framework is anticipated to come into operation at the end of this year.
As such I will begin by addressing Mr Tay's second question on reception of the VCC structure, and the plans to prepare the industry and the educational institutions for the launch of the VCC framework.
The response to the VCC framework from the asset management industry both in Singapore and abroad has been positive, with the VCC being hailed as a \"game-changer\". It has been welcomed as a positive step to enhance the suite of fund structuring options in Singapore with a structure that is fit for use as an investment fund vehicle.
It is also an important step to ensure that Singapore remains competitive with other long-established fund domiciles such as Luxembourg and Ireland.
MAS has been actively promoting the VCC framework to three main groups: first, the fund managers; second, investors; and third, service providers, including lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, fund administrators and custodians.
When I moved the VCC Bill last year, I mentioned that MAS has been working closely with industry associations, local service providers and consultants to familiarise them with the value proposition and features of the VCC framework. These include providing greater flexibility in the use of capital, allowing fund managers to consolidate certain administrative functions to achieve cost efficiencies, and allowing for funds domiciled in other jurisdictions to re-domicile to Singapore as VCCs.
Since last year, MAS has continued with its engagements with the industry to familiarise it with the features of the VCC framework. MAS participated in various industry-led events and seminars including the Seminar on the VCC Act organised by the Law Society of Singapore in April this year.
MAS continues to conduct regular engagement sessions with fund managers and other service providers, to ensure that they are kept abreast of the developments and timeline for the implementation of the VCC framework.
MAS has also recently concluded two promotional trips to North America and Japan to encourage fund managers and investors to consider the VCC as a viable structuring option for their investment funds. During these overseas trips, MAS also met with fund service providers to familiarise them with the VCC framework, so that they can, in time, introduce the VCC as a structuring option for their clients.
MAS received positive feedback on the VCC framework and many of the stakeholders that were engaged are keen to explore domiciling funds in Singapore when the framework is launched.
In addition, MAS officers continue to participate in panel discussions and seminars in New York and London to educate the local asset management community about the features of the VCC framework.
To familiarise the industry with the VCC framework and to allow fund managers to provide feedback on the registration process for VCCs, MAS will be running a pilot programme for interested fund managers and service providers. These fund managers will be able to have their funds registered as VCCs on the day that the VCC framework is launched. The programme will commence later this month. Interested fund managers and service providers may approach MAS to find out more about participation.
While there are currently no plans to introduce any modules relating to VCCs in the local tertiary curriculum, MAS will study whether this is necessary once the VCC framework is launched.
Mr Tay also asked about the number of jobs created and the impact of the VCC framework to the Singapore economy. It is estimated that the VCC framework could create over 1,000 new jobs for service providers in the first two years of its introduction. We will monitor its impact to the Singapore economy once the framework is launched.
I would add, however, that the introduction of the VCC is one important, but not the only, piece in our plan for Singapore to be the leading pan-Asian hub for fund domiciliation and management. The Government continues to work in tandem with the industry to refine our existing schemes and introduce new initiatives to foster the development of the asset management industry.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I would like to reassure Mr Tay and all interested parties that the Government is putting in its best efforts to ensure that there is maximum take-up of the VCC structure once it is launched. The Government will continue to work with the industry to ensure that all players in the industry are fully apprised of this new structuring option and are equipped to take advantage of its features as well as the new business opportunities that it can provide. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Injury Compensation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have asked the Clerk to circulate a handout to illustrate the key changes to the Work Injury Compensation Act to all Members.
Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, when an employee gets injured at work, he may claim damages under the common law, or claim compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act, or WICA in short, but not both. Under the common law, the injured employee has to initiate legal actions and prove his employer's negligence to succeed. The WICA provides a cheaper and quicker alternative for an injured employee to claim work injury compensation.
Under the WICA, the employee does not need to prove the employer's fault or negligence in order to be compensated. He will be compensated as long as the injury happened in the course of work. This is why we say WICA is a no fault regime. In exchange, the employer's amount of compensation is capped under the WICA.
WICA has benefited many injured employees. Over the past three years, an average of about 15,000 work injury compensation claims were awarded, with a total payout close to $115 million per year for wage and lump sum compensation. All claimants, except five on average per year, were compensated by the deadline set by the Ministry. The common reason for non-payment was because the employer was uninsured and faced financial difficulties. In such situations, MOM will assist the injured employees using the Workers' Fund.
WICA has served its role of compensating injured workers well, but can be improved further, in four main ways.
First, the aims of MOM's work injury compensation regime should not be confined to compensation after injury has happened. It should also incentivise employers to prevent injuries from happening in the first place. Our Workplace Safety and Health 2028, or WSH2028, aspiration for Singapore is to be amongst the best in the world in workplace safety and health standards.
Second, some WIC claims still take too long before payout is made. We will speed up and improve claims processing.
Third, we will enhance insurance coverage and benefits for injured workers employees.
Fourth, we will give greater assurance to employers so that the WICA provides a balanced package of safeguards for both employers and injured employees.
These are substantial changes, so, the existing WICA will be repealed and replaced by a new Act, the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019.
Let me explain how the new WICA will influence companies to prevent injuries. In the recommendations of the WSH2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee in April this year, they were convinced that the key in preventing injuries is aligning commercial interests of employers and insurers closer to preventing injuries. In short, we need to make good WSH good for business. More companies will then be self-motivated to prevent injuries. One of the features in the new WICA is designed to influence employers to be more proactive on prevention by making the business impact of injuries more significant, through its effect on premiums.
Information transparency on claims history is essential in influencing employers to be safer. Today, there is no information sharing between insurers of their clients' past claims records. This has resulted in safer companies subsidising the less safe companies as there is little premium differentiation between these companies. The WSH2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee recommended that MOM facilitates the sharing of WIC claims data with insurers to sharpen the premium differentiation between safer and less safe companies.
Clause 33 of the Bill will require insurers to share policy and claims information with the Commissioner. The relevant data will be made available to all designated insurers approved by the Commissioner. Furthermore, to facilitate more accurate premium pricing, all designated insurers will be able to verify their clients' declared aggregated workforce size and annual payroll through MOM's database. Clients' actual workforce size and payroll data will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to insurers. What the insurers will know is whether their clients' declarations are consistent or not consistent with MOM's records, within a certain margin of error.
With greater information transparency, employers with good safety records should be able to enjoy lower premiums. More importantly, less safe employers who are faced with higher premiums will have greater commercial incentive to put in place measures to prevent their employees from getting injured in the first place.
Next, we have proposed five amendments which aim to speed up and improve WIC claims processing.
First, we will designate insurers to provide WIC insurance under clause 31. These designated insurers will be required to process insured WIC claims in accordance with clauses 36, 44 to 47.
Today, insurers only process WIC claims for temporary incapacity, or TI. For fatal and permanent incapacity, or PI, these claims are processed by the Commissioner. In contrast, insurers are already processing the claims for all other types of insurance, such as life, medical and travel insurance, in Singapore. Other jurisdictions that also adopt the private WIC insurance model, such as certain states in the US and Australia, have also required WIC insurers to process all insured claims. Allowing insurers to process WIC claims can help to speed up claims processing as insurers, who are the payers, do not need to do duplicative work to verify the documents and evidence obtained by MOM on the claim. Under the current system, having the insurers check back with the employers, the workers and with MOM on the claim details can delay processing by up to six weeks.
To ensure that the interests of all parties will continue to be protected under this new process, the Ministry will put in place a system of checks and balances. Clauses 31 to 34 allow the Commissioner to impose licensing conditions on designated WIC insurers. The Commissioner may conduct third party audits on insurers to make sure that they comply with the Commissioner’s conditions. Any insurer that fails to comply with the Commissioner's conditions may be subject to administrative financial penalties, or in more serious cases, have their WIC designation suspended or revoked.
Under an insurer-processing regime, employees' and employers' interests will continue to be protected in four key ways:
First, insurers have to comply with the Commissioner's protocol on claims admissibility. The grounds for liability for compensation under the new Bill remain the same as that in the existing Act. We will set out guidelines to ensure that insurers do not reject claims which are currently admissible.
Second, insurers do not have discretion in determining the compensation amount as it is a fixed formula based on three factors: one, the doctor's assessment of the extent of incapacity; two, the worker’s remaining years of working life; and three, the worker's average monthly earnings, or AME.
And third, in terms of processing, insurers have to meet the processing timelines set by the Commissioner to ensure that the injured employees continue to receive their compensation promptly.
Finally, any parties that are aggrieved by the insurer's decision may raise an objection. Objections will continue to be adjudicated by the Commissioner.
Another recommendation to speed up claims processing is to allow compensation to be based on the prevailing state of incapacity that is unlikely to change significantly after the date of assessment of the incapacity, termed \"current incapacity\" or CI. Today, about 80% of PI claims every year are resolved within six months. The remaining 20% take longer to resolve due to the time required for a PI assessment to be made. The PI percentage is one of the factors determining the amount of lump sum compensation. However, delay in settling the compensation means injured employees will receive their compensation later, employers of injured foreign employees will incur higher upkeep and maintenance expenses, as well as increased uncertainty for all parties involved.
We have consulted the WIC medical board members who advised that the extent of incapacity at six months after accident is a close approximation of the eventual state of the PI in most cases.
Clause 15 of the Bill and the First Schedule to the Bill allow lump sum compensation to be computed based on the CI assessment that is made at least six months after the date of accident. This will help to expedite claims payout to the employee or their families for many long-drawn claims. The default expectation is for CI to be assessed as soon as possible after six months from the accident. Nonetheless, doctors will still have the professional discretion to assess for PI at a later date if they believe that the extent of incapacity will change further for more complex injuries.
Another cause of delay is disputes over AME. The Ministry receives about 360 AME disputes a year. Such disputes may delay claims processing up to one and a half months.
Currently, the Commissioner uses documentary evidence such as pay slips to compute the employee's AME for purposes of WICA compensation. If the employee's pay slip is not available, the Commissioner can compute compensation based on a co-worker's pay slip. However, there are cases where there is no documentary evidence of the employee's or the co-workers' pay slip. Therefore, the First Schedule to the Bill will also empower the Commissioner to compute the employee's earnings based on a multiple of the employee's basic rate of pay, called the derived AME, if there is no other reliable evidence. The derived AME will be set at the higher end of industry norm. This is to ensure that employees are not disadvantaged due to the absence of reliable evidence to compute the actual AME.
We also propose to streamline the claim process to provide for more hassle-free \"auto-claim\" for fatal and serious injuries. Currently, an employee or his representative needs to submit a WICA claim application for fatal or PI compensation.
To speed up claims processing and reduce the risk of employees being misled or being ignorant of application procedures, clause 35 of the Bill provides that a claim is deemed to be made when the employer first receives notice of the accident. Insurers or the Commissioner will start to process the claims once there is a notice of accident, without the employee needing to submit a separate claims application. Under this regime, employees who do not wish to make a claim under WICA can still opt out at a later stage.
Delays can be also caused by parties not cooperating with the Commissioner or the designated insurers in the claims process. To avoid such delays, we will make it an offence under clause 50 for parties who fail to comply with the Commissioner's direction to provide information or documents to the designated insurer or the Commissioner necessary for claims processing.
If accidents do happen, we are also enhancing the protection and benefits for injured employees.
Under current WICA, employers are required to compensate all their injured employees, regardless of their salaries, where they work, and the nature of work manual or non-manual. To help employers fulfil this obligation, employers are required to purchase insurance for all manual employees and non-manual employees (or NMEs) working in factories earning up to $1,600 a month.
The Minister will amend the WICA subsidiary legislation to align with the salary threshold for non-workmen under Part IV of the Employment Act to give added protection to these employees. This will be done in phases to allow employers time to adjust.
In Phase 1, we will extend compulsory insurance to non-manual employees earning up to $2,100 a month regardless of where they work and we plan to do this in 2020.
In Phase 2, we will further increase the monthly salary threshold to $2,600 a month. And we plan to do this in 2021.
This expansion will require around 300,000 more employees to be covered by the compulsory insurance requirement. Nonetheless, we do not expect significant cost impact to businesses as MOM's Conditions of Employment survey indicates that close to 90% of employees are already covered by WIC insurance. Even though employers were not obligated to cover some of them but employees are covered 90% today. By doing so, these companies ensure that they could meet their WICA obligations in case of accident.
The First Schedule to the Bill extends compensation to employees on light duties due to work injuries. This will put them on par with employees on medical leave due to work injuries. An employee injured at work could be given medical leave or light duties, depending on his fitness to work and availability of light duties. Employers would benefit from an employee who is fit enough to carry out light duties, as there would be shorter downtime from work and some restoration of productive capacity.
However, an employee on light duties may be earning less than his usual salary. This is because he is likely to work at a lower intensity and duration, and will miss out on overtime pay or allowances that he would normally have received if he was not injured. The First Schedule requires employers to compensate the difference between what the employee earns on light duties, and his AME, which is what he normally earns, including overtime, bonuses and allowances. Compensation is payable only if the employee's actual wages, while he was on light duties, is less than what he would have received as his AME compensation under the WICA. This is to ensure that an employee who is on light duties due to a work injury, is not worse off than an injured employee on medical leave, because the one on medical leave would have been given compensation of AME.
In addition, the WICA subsidiary legislation will require employers to report any instance of employees on medical leave or light duties due to a work injury. This is to address the concern that some irresponsible employers may try to avoid reporting work accidents by attempting to influence doctors to give fewer days of medical leave or light duties. We will simplify the reporting requirements for accidents with less than four days of medical leave or light duties to minimise the administrative burden on companies.
Today, an injured employee's PI assessment is typically done by a doctor directed by the employer. However, MOM has received feedback, one from Member Louis Ng as well, that some errant employers may attempt to influence doctors to give inadequate medical leave or some doctors may be overly conservative and under-estimate the percentage of PI.
To ensure there is proper and fair assessment of the extent of work injury sustained by the employee, clause 37 of the Bill which requires an employee to attend medical examination required by the employer has an exception which enables the Commissioner to allow employees to undergo medical examination by another doctor doing the PI assessment. This would be exercised, for example, if there are concerns and prima facie evidence that the quality of care and incapacity assessment by the employer's doctor may not be adequate or fair.
MOM will also update the WICA compensation limits in the First Schedule to the Bill to keep pace with wage growth and healthcare costs. This is a regular update which we do once every four years. It prevents the real value of compensation from being eroded by inflation.
The compensation limits for death and PI will increase by about 10% to $225,000 and $289,000 respectively. This is to account for the growth in median gross monthly income since the last review. The compensation limit for medical expenses will be raised from the current $36,000 to $45,000, an increase of about 25%. This will ensure that the limit for medical expenses continues to cover more than 95% of all WICA claims medical expenses.
While we work to make the WIC framework better for employees, it is equally important to ensure that the interests of the employers are also protected.
Employers who buy insurance policies that do not adequately cover their WICA liabilities may not be able to obtain reimbursement for compensation paid. We have come across cases where construction companies bought WICA policies that do not cover accidents arising from working above a certain height, and certain activities such as digging and piling. But these are precisely the type of work where accidents are more likely to happen. To better safeguard employers' interests when buying WIC insurance policies, clause 26 of the Bill allows the Commissioner to prescribe a core set of standard terms for WICA-compliant policies to ensure that insurance policies cover employers' WICA liabilities adequately.
We will also make insurers accountable for the policies they offer to employers. Clause 26 of the Bill requires any insurer who has sold to the employer a policy purporting to be a WICA-compliant policy, to compensate the injured employee according to the standard terms of a WICA-compliant policy. This is on top of it being an offence under clause 30 for insurers to sell policies purporting to be WICA-compliant, when they are not.
Additionally, clause 30 makes it an offence for any insurers not approved by the Commissioner as a designated insurer to sell a WICA-compliant policy.
Under the current WICA, the Commissioner can order the employee to refund the employer any medical leave wages paid if the employee withdraws his claim, if the accident was subsequently determined not to be work-related, or if it was a false claim. We will extend the refund to lump sum compensation and medical expenses. Clauses 16 and 54 of the Bill enable the Commissioner to order the claimant to refund the employer or insurer, if the employer or insurer had paid for the lump sum compensation or medical expenses due to error or false or misleading information. This is on top of it being an offence under clause 62 for any person to obtain compensation by providing false or misleading information.
Sir, other than the four key areas highlighted above, we will be making other amendments to the Act.
Under the current Act, parties have up to 14 days from the receipt of the notice of assessment to raise objections to the Commissioner. If no objection is raised within the 14-day timeline, the notice of assessment takes the effect of an order of compensation, and such orders cannot be appealed to the High Court.
We will amend the Act to allow late objections with valid reasons. MOM had come across a case where the employee had given the completed objection form to the employer to submit to the Commissioner. However, the employer failed to submit the employee's objection form within the prescribed 14-day timeline due to administrative lapses. While the employer had appealed for the Commissioner to accept the late objection, current WICA does not allow for late objections irrespective of the reasons. Therefore, we have provided in clauses 46 and 49 of the Bill to allow the Commissioner to accept late objections if the late objection is due to error or fraud by another person.
On penalties, clause 61 increases the maximum fine for non- or late payment of compensation from the current $10,000 to $15,000. In addition, we will create a new offence under the same clause for failure to deposit compensation with the Commissioner when directed. Both offences are benchmarked to non- or delayed payment of salary under the Employment Act.
To deter repeat offenders, clauses 25, 35, 61, 62, and 68 provide for the maximum fines for a second or subsequent offence to be doubled.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, our goals for the new WIC Bill are: first, to influence employers and insurers to be more proactive in preventing injuries from happening in the first place; second, we aim to speed up and improve claims processing; third, to enhance protection for employees; and lastly, to give greater assurance to employers when buying WIC insurance.
This will make the WICA better for both employers and employees.
We have worked with tripartite partners and other key stakeholders to design the new WIC Bill to support our WSH 2028 vision. With these changes, and all other on-going and upcoming efforts under the WSH 2028 strategy, and continued strong support from our tripartite partners, we endeavour to reduce workplace accidents and raise Singapore's WSH standards to be amongst the best in the world.
The new WIC Bill, if passed, will be effected on 1 September 2020. This will give sufficient lead time for the industry to adjust to the changes. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The Work Injury Compensation (WIC) framework is a no-fault system with the aim of providing workers injured in work-related accidents with low-cost and expeditious means to claim WIC. The Bill seeks to improve the framework to better enable the meeting of its objectives.
Briefly, the amendments to the Bill are commendable in the following areas.
First, there is now a mandatory requirement by MOM to report all instances of MC or light duties due to work injuries. This is beneficial in the sense that there is less incentive for employers to influence doctors to prescribe fewer days of MC to the injured workers, to circumvent the original reporting requirement of only needing to report injuries which result in death, or at least MCs of four days.
Second, MOM will now accredit a standard WIC policy with a core set of insurance terms and conditions, which reduces disputes from policies with complex policy exclusions. This will ensure that both employers and employees' interests are better protected. For employees, there is more certainty in receiving compensation, especially if employers face financial difficulty. As for the employers, they would know with greater certainty that they would be reimbursed under the insurance policies.
Third, under the amendments, there will be an increase in the compensation amount and medical limits, in view of rising wages and healthcare costs. This is a recognition on the Government's end of the financial implications that workplace injuries have on people, such as, loss of income and hefty medical expenses.
Fourth, insurers will now be required to share policy and claims information with MOM and such data will be centralised and available to other insurers too. With this information, insurers are better placed to price the premiums, based on their risk profile and claims history. Companies with fewer work injuries will enjoy lower premiums, as compared to less safe ones. In this aspect, companies will be incentivised to ensure a safe work environment for their workers, which is likewise beneficial for them, as healthy and happy workers will be more productive and efficient at work. On the other hand, workers benefit when they return home safely.
Lastly, the effect of the amendments is the expansion of compulsory insurance coverage to more non-manual employees (NMEs) working in non-factories earning up to S$2,600, an increase from the current S$1,600, which will benefit another 25,000 workers, which comprise largely of junior professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). As this group of junior PMEs are within the lower salary range, the compulsory additional coverage will provide greater assurance both financially and emotionally of coverage in the event of work injuries.
As for companies, while at first it appears that it is an increased financial outlay in terms of insurance premiums, it must be borne in mind that, should there be work injuries, the insurers will step in, which is a cost-saving measure in the long run. Where companies observe safety measures at work, there is the potential for lower insurance premiums.
While the changes proposed under the Bill are welcomed, I would like to suggest some further enhancements to the proposed changes aimed at expediting the WIC claim process and expanding the scope of mandatory insurance coverage.
Under the Bill, all work injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave would have to be reported by the employer. To speed up the claims process, WIC claims will be processed for all work injuries reported by the employer. This will overcome the problem where the worker is not aware that he or she had to file the WIC claim and is subsequently time barred from doing so. Licensed insurers will process all claims arising from accredited WIC policies to reduce the number of disputes arising from policies with complex exclusions.
Last year, following a stepping up of enforcement efforts by MOM, 39 employers were fined for failing to report work injuries, compared to only one employer in 2017. I note that under this Bill, the penalty imposed on employers for failing to report work injuries has been increased. Auto-processing of WIC claims would only serve the injured worker if employers comply with their work injury reporting obligations. I would suggest the following measures to be taken to support the amendments proposed under the Bill.
First, MOM should audit employers to ensure that employers are complying with their obligations to report work injuries. This could be done with reference to third-party data, such as information from workers, unions and medical practitioners. Accurate reporting of workplace injuries will provide a true representation of the extent of workplace accidents in Singapore and provide important information to licensed insurers to enable them to assess the premiums payable by the company.
Apart from implementing audits on the employers to ensure compliance on their part, perhaps more could be done to educate workers and their respective union leaders of their employers' reporting obligations under the law, lest they be fearful of adverse repercussions. For instance, conducting seminars for the union leaders or workers, or stating such avenues or measures in the Employee Handbook which workers and employees can access, on the employers' obligations to report work injuries. It is hoped that with more transparency accorded in the process, there will be a decline in failures to report work injuries.
Second, injured workers should be kept in the loop in the WIC claim process so that they are able to access the documentation trail and make informed decisions concerning the claim, such as whether to elect to take the claim to court instead. Injured workers should be notified when the employer reports the work injury and be kept abreast of developments in the WIC claim process. If for some reason, the worker elects to pursue his claim in Court, it is likely that the employer may not be pleased with such a move for various reasons, such as, bad publicity, legal costs and so on. Perhaps it needs to be reiterated and emphasised that during the course of the litigation process, that the employer is not allowed to terminate the employee for reasons associated with the accident, save where permitted by law, failing which there might be legal consequences.
Third, while the WIC claim is being processed, the employer should ensure that the injured worker is able to seek the medical attention that he or she requires in an expedient manner with the employer's support. There have been reported incidences where injured workers were not able to seek medical treatment because the employer did not provide them with a Letter of Guarantee and the workers had to go without treatment as they were unable to afford medical treatment.
Fourth, there must be avenues for injured workers to raise issues encountered in the WIC claim process to MOM. There have been past incidences where vulnerable workers have been coerced by employers to conceal work injuries in order to remain in employment. Some errant employers have also terminated employment arrangements of injured foreign workers and sent the workers home to escape liability. With the introduction of lower premiums for \"safer\" companies, some companies may be incentivised to under report work injuries. As such, there must be avenues for workers or whistle blowers to report any malpractice for MOM's investigation.
It is first commendable that there is a general increase in the compensation for work injuries under this Bill to keep pace with wage growth and healthcare costs. However, we note that under the proposed amendments, employees will only be compensated the full average monthly earnings (AME) for the first 14 days of MC and/or light duties, and thereafter, only two-thirds AME of up to one year.
It is odd that the workers are not able to be paid the full AME for as long as they are on light duties, especially if the sole reason for being placed on light duties is because of their work injuries. Perhaps, it is time to explore the possibility of paying the workers the full AME for the full period that they are placed on light duties and not limit it to the first 14 days.
Granted that this could possibly mean increased costs on the employer' side while not being able to reap the full economic benefits from the employees and workers. However, it should be borne in mind that the decision and/or duration for light duties is ultimately the doctors' decision, and based on a true and accurate assessment of the workers' sustained injuries and the doctors' assessment on how long the worker requires to fully recuperate before being fully fit to perform his original duties. In any case, any increased costs on the employers' part should be reimbursed by the WIC insurance.
The expansion of mandatory insurance coverage to non-manual employees earning up to $2,600 a month together with the lifting of compensation levels to keep pace with wage growth and rising medical costs provide enhanced protection for vulnerable workers. In parallel with this enhancement, efforts must be stepped up to raise workers' awareness of their rights under the WIC framework and to also better monitor employers' compliance with the maintenance of mandatory coverage.
Additionally, the Government should also work with Unions to continue encouraging companies who employ professionals, managers, executives and Technicians (PMETs) earning more than S$2,600 to also buy insurance for peace of mind of employers and workers. Of course, this suggestion may face resistance from employers, however, to alleviate any such worries, it is proposed that the expansion of mandatory insurance coverage protecting workers earning beyond S$2,600 be imposed gradually in consultation with employers and in tandem with economic growth over the years. Second, it is important to bear in mind that the costs of insurance premiums would pale in comparison to the amount a company without insurance may have to pay an employee who suffers work injury, under the common law. In any case, given that the risk profile of NMEs are significantly lower than manual employees, insurance premiums for NMEs would be lower.
Employers can work with unions and Migrant Workers' Centre or MWC for short, for their foreign-worker workforce to raise workers' awareness of the rights under the WIC framework. This will reduce the worker's anxiety in the event a work injury is sustained and smoothen the work injury complain process for all parties. Unions or MWC, as the case may be, can also assist workers with their queries on the WIC claim process to enable them to make informed choices concerning the WIC claim. Workers can also seek free legal advice through legal clinics offered by NTUC and MWC, in partnership with the Law Society of Singapore's Pro Bono Services Office.
There have been instances where some errant employers have terminated insurance coverage for their foreign workers within the term of their Work Pass or had overlooked renewal of coverage. With the sharing of policy and claims data by licensed insurers with MOM and other licensed insurers, MOM can now implement a better monitoring system to ensure that employers maintain mandatory insurance coverage for foreign workers throughout the validity of their work passes. Audits should also be conducted on the insurance policies procured by the employer, to ensure that adequate coverage has been secured for their workers and the type of work undertaken by the workers.
Even with good processes in place, there must also be provision for cases which slip through the cracks. We must ensure that there are adequate safety nets in place to help injured workers to seek medical treatment and compensation in the event where the employer has failed to perform their obligations under WICA. With the increase in WIC insurance premiums, it may be timely to explore if a small percentage of the premiums could be channelled to grow the Workers' Fund to provide relief in such exigencies.
Sir, I stand in support of this Bill and hope that my recommendations will be considered, with the objective of enhancing work safety for our workers in Singapore, for a more productive and efficient economy.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, the Work Injury Compensation Act or WICA is a critical piece of social legislation for all local and foreign workers in Singapore. Previously known as Workmen's Compensation, the concept of providing compensation against workplace injuries via legislative fiat dates back to the late 19th century. In Singapore today, manual workers are covered regardless of salary. With the changes proposed under this Bill, non-manual workers receiving a salary of up to $2,600 will also be covered in stages, up from $1,600, as is currently the case.
Sir, the tabling of the public feedback consultation to this Bill early this year, roughly coincided with a compensation claim under WICA that involved one of my residents, who came to seek my assistance at a Meet-the-People Session. I will refer to him as R.
R was employed as an Industrial Relations Officer by a union. He was injured when he was on his way to attend a labour workshop some years ago. At the time of the accident, he did not make a claim under WICA. His employer informed him that they would take care of the medical costs arising out of the accident. The employer did the needful and incurred medical expenses which included a surgical procedure that saw four screws inserted into R's spine.
R returned to work after his hospitalisation leave. As he approached the age of 67 a few years after the accident, he was informed by his superiors that his employment would not be extended. The matter of his injury came up just before he left the employ of the union. His injuries had left him unable to find another employer who would hire him. And separately, in need of medical follow-up, R then decided to make a belated WICA claim to MOM. It was originally rejected due to it being out of time and because, in the Commissioner of Labour's assessment, the accident he was involved in did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and hence, rejected for the purposes of a WICA claim. This position was in fact wrong in law, but this initial conclusion by the Commissioner of Labour could have turned on how R framed the circumstances of his injury. An appeal was thereafter made to the Commissioner of Labour which was successful. After the submission of a medical report which was initially challenged by the insurer, R eventually received a pay-out of 25% of permanent incapacity which amounted to $54,500.
Sir, I seek a few clarifications on the Bill and the application of the proposed amendments. Where useful, I will refer to R's case in raising them.
My first set of queries are general in nature. At the outset, a question that comes to mind in R's case is why he did not file a claim independent of his employer. I put the question to R to which he replied – the matter did not cross his mind. R could have been under the mistaken belief that since the accident occurred outside his usual place of work, it was not claimable under WICA. But even if R was labouring under that presumption, his employer should have known better, which then begs the question why the employer did not proceed in making a WICA claim for him.
According to the former Minister of Manpower in a reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in January 2018, out of the 33,000 plus WICA claims in the two years from 2016 to 2017, about 2,500 claims were withdrawn either because workers received private compensation from their employers, chose to pursue a common law remedy or decided not to proceed with their claims.
While I am not aware if R falls under the category of those who chose private compensation, it is a relevant question whether the support or compensation received from employers is adequate in all of these 2,500-odd cases.
To give the House a sense of the latest numbers involved, what was the percentage and absolute number of successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years, and separately, what is the breakdown of workers who chose a common law remedy, private compensation and did not proceed with their claims respectively? To this end, does MOM follow up with employers and make the necessary enquiries with regard to private settlements and workers' decisions not to proceed with claims so that workers are not worse off than they would be under the WICA framework? If MOM does so, how do cases like R's slip through the cracks? More specifically, would MOM monitor private settlements between employers and workers under the amended Bill and would MOM consider a more activist approach in overseeing private settlements to ensure that workers get a fair deal?
Sir, employer-worker relationships are almost invariably weighted in favour of the employer. A power relationship exists, one that can be incredibly lopsided regardless whether local or foreign workers are involved. Very often, discussions over workers' rights can gloss over this lived reality. Not all workers are vocal, some may wish not to make trouble for their bosses for the fear of being ostracised or labelled or even sent home. Yet some others may fear for their jobs and simply bottle things up. Other more specific issues for specific groups of workers can also come up. In 2017, in a TODAY article, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a well-known NGO reported that some lawyers pursue questionable practices with regard to foreign workers who are ill-informed about electing between a WICA claim on the one hand and common law remedy on the other. Separately, the Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People said foreign workers are sometimes \"poorly informed about costs\" involved in legal processes.
To that end, one of the main purposes of the Bill – that is to provide for a more expeditious process for workers to receive compensation for injuries suffered arising out of and in the course of employment is to be welcomed. In 1975, when this Bill's predecessor, the Workmen's Compensation Act came up for second reading, the intention to introduce an expeditious compensation regime was a key purpose of the law. In those days – in the words of then Manpower Minister Ong Pang Boon – some employers even ignored the notice of assessment and despite repeated reminders, would even delay the payment of compensation by disputing the extent of liability to pay compensation or the extent of the dependency of the claimants on the earnings of a deceased worker.
Sir, the WICA regime has moved significantly from the realities of those days, thanks to both the commitment of not just employers, but the Ministry too. But as this House has heard in the past, most recently when the Act was amended in 2011, the reality is that workers need enough information to assess how best to pursue their injury claims as not all are highly educated and informed or know of their rights and responsibilities.
What R's experience suggests is that in spite of the various initiatives to make workers aware of their rights, much more can be done, and the modified claims framework that underpin the changes proposed under this Bill is a good opportunity to review how WICA is communicated to all workers and employers.
Coming back this Bill, in view of the fact that most of the feedback on the public consultation to it came from insurers, I would like to ask the Minister how MOM will ensure that all employers adhere to the new WICA processing regime? In 2008, MOM committed itself to raise worker awareness of avenues for compensation through the community, union leaders and employers so as to create awareness among employers and workers. How does MOM plan to engage employers and workers to further improve compliance to the new claims reporting framework and to better protect worker's rights after the passage of the Bill?
Sir, one critical improvement to the Bill seeks to make to WICA is the requirement for employers to report all injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave to be reported to MOM. The amendments see that an injured worker will be compensated up to their usual level of earnings if they are given light duties by a doctor, principally because they would not be able to undertake overtime work to boost their wages while on light duties, hence a lower Average Monthly Earnings (AME) calculation for the purposes of their claim. This is a progressive move.
The Ministry has stressed that such reporting will not be an administrative burden for employers and has provided for a simplified procedure for reporting injuries that result in less than four days of light duties or MC for the worker. Under the Bill, the responsibility shifts to the employer to file a WICA claim as employees now do not have to separately file a claim. This is a fundamental change in the claims framework and it requires a religious compliance commitment from employers to make it work smoothly.
In 2017, the Minister of State for Manpower in a reply to a PQ confirmed that it was mandatory and not voluntary for employers to report any work-related accidents resulting in an employee's death, or hospitalisation for at least 24 hours, or medical leave for more than three days. In that regard, Minister of State stated that MOM had taken enforcement action against errant employers for persistent late reporting of minor injuries after repeated reminders or delayed reporting of a serious work injury, with seven employers taken to task.
Sir, in view of the new claims framework which makes the burden of reporting injuries on employers more acute, I seek more information on how the Ministry manages errant employers. Are they issued warning letters, stern warnings or reminders in the first instance? It would appear that the regime is escalatory and calibrated to deal with egregious employers. Can I confirm this to be the case, and if so, how many warnings has MOM issued to employers over the last five years, from reminders to warnings, amongst others, and finally, prosecutions? And the case of R, what action would MOM typically take against an employer in his scenario under the new amendments?
Sir, in R's case, when he sought to revisit his WICA claim almost two-and-a-half years after his accident, unsurprisingly, it was met by a rejection from MOM for the two reasons, one of which was that he was out of time as the claim had to be made within a year. To that end, over the last five years, I would like enquire how many WICA claims were outside the one-year claims window and how many of these were successful claims?
It is probable that R would receive a similar response from an insurer in the first instance, that of being out of time, under the new claims regime proposed under the Bill. Clause 36 of the Bill gives the Commissioner broad powers to process a claim. Under the proposed amendments, insurers will now also process death and Permanent Incapacity claims, a function that was previously undertaken by MOM.
In view of this, what new or roles, if any, will MOM or the Commissioner of Labour play to support the claims process for workers? For example, would MOM consider all appeals that fall outside the claims window to be addressed by the Commissioner of Labour at the first instance, so that the workers can deal directly with regulator for advice and assistance? This would give effect to the Commissioner of Labour's powers to override an insurer's assessment under the amended Bill.
Furthermore, such a work process would support its objective of making the claims process as worker-friendly as possible and position the Ministry as a pro-active intermediary for all WICA claims. Can the Minister share a broadly exhaustive list of the circumstances under which the Commissioner of Labour will take over the processing of a WICA claim as opposed to insurers leading the process as envisaged under the Bill.
Mr Speaker, when the Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo spoke on the Bill as a backbencher about 10 years ago, the Minister sought to persuade the Government to review the WICA compensation limits once every three years, in effect allowing injured workers to receive a higher compensation payout by virtue of a more frequent review of the compensation limits. The proposal was agreed to by the then Minister for Manpower. Since then, I understand the Ministry has decided that WICA compensation limits will be reviewed once every four years instead. Would the Minister explain why this is the case and consider reverting to the three-year review window to give workers a higher payout, particularly those struck by permanent and debilitating injuries? The Minister would agree that even though the new limits may not differ significantly from one year to another, a few thousand dollars can make an important difference for workers or their families.
Sir, the NGO, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics or HOME, in its feedback to the Bill raised some useful feedback. Specifically, it raised clause 37 and medical examinations that a worker must surrender himself or herself to if injured in the line of work. A reality of Singapore's workforce is that much of the manual work is carried out by foreign workers. In the last few years, we have read about doctors falling far below the standards of their profession, ostensibly because they are beholden to a worker's employer. It is mind-boggling to wrap one's conscience around some of the headlines and the stories that have appeared in the local mainstream media on this matter. In one story last year, The Straits Times senior health correspondent in a story titled, \"Doctors reminded to give injured workers the rest they need\" noted that the Ministry had reported three doctors to the Medical Council for not ordering the requisite rest or recovery period commensurate with the worker's injury. A doctor wrote to the ST Forum page, in response to the story, to state that doctors cannot be site inspectors to verify if a company is in a position to extend the appropriate light duties to a worker, as the reality may be that the employer has no light duties it can reasonably offer the injured worker.
Nonetheless, in view of the power imbalance between employer and worker, would the Commissioner of Labour consider giving effect to requests by workers to see a doctor of their choice, possibly one on a panel managed by the Ministry, as opposed to being restricted to choose a doctor of the employer's choice? An important condition could be that the consultation fees and medical costs are within a stipulated range so as not to disadvantage the employer.
Sir, on this point, the prospect of injured workers not being able to sufficiently recover, partly because there are effectively no light duties for them to undertake, is something that needs to be watched closely, particularly since workplace safety can be compromised when a worker is not medically fit to return to work. Such on-going scrutiny and prospective improvements will ensure our manpower laws are effective, fit for purpose and protect our workforce.
I understand from the handout that the Minister of State has shared that workers can go to another doctor if they are not satisfied with the initial diagnosis. Can I just confirm, who would pay for that second consultation?
Sir, the Workers’ Party supports the amendment Bill. In the main, the majority of workers should not face any difficulties with their claims. However, laws like WICA that are a critical expression of our social attitudes and shape our social compact – in this case towards manual workers and non-manual workers who earn less than $2,600 – are often judged on where they fall short and the cases which slip through the cracks.
As the new WICA claims processing regime comes into being, I hope the Ministry not only puts the welfare of the worker first but puts itself in the shoes of our workers and their lived reality, as it operationalises the amendments to this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. We have made great strides in prioritising workplace safety and health (WSH). Our WSH 2028 strategy articulates a Vision Zero for all stakeholders to work towards preventing all forms of injury and ill-health at work.
While we work towards the WSH 2028 vision, the work injury compensation regime provides a safeguard for employees who unfortunately have suffered a workplace injury. In this distressing period, work injury compensation helps to alleviate some of the financial burden on employees and to ensure that they have access to the necessary medical treatment.
The Bill proposes an overhaul of the existing work injury compensation regime which on the whole benefits both employees and employers by expanding WICA coverage, licensing WIC insurers, and simplifying and expediting work injury claims processes. I applaud the ambitions of the Bill.
I have the following clarifications and recommendations on how the proposed amendments will be implemented in Subsidiary Legislation and operational policy.
The problem of some doctors giving insufficient medical leave to migrant workers has been a recurring problem for several years. I would like to highlight two recent cases where doctors were suspended by the High Court for professional misconduct.
In the first case, Dr Kevin Yip gave two days of medical leave and light duties thereafter to Mr Zhang, a construction worker, despite the latter having a serious fall that resulted in multiple injuries such as a fractured collarbone and a few rib fractures. In the second case, Dr Wong Him Choon likewise gave two days of medical leave and light duties thereafter to Mr Fan, also a construction worker, despite the latter sustaining hand and forearm fractures that required surgery after a fall from height.
Errant employers may influence medical practitioners to prescribe lesser days of medical leave and provide light duties in order to downplay the severity of an injury or to avoid reporting the accident.
I previously asked the Ministry whether the requirement for reporting work-related or workplace accidents can include cases where the employee is placed on light duties. I understand that the reporting requirements for a workplace accident will be updated in Subsidiary Legislation. The criteria for reporting an injury will now be at least 24 hours of hospitalisation or any instance of medical leave or light duties.
This will help address cases of doctors under-prescribing medical leave to employees so that employers can avoid reporting an accident. I thank the Ministry for taking this step.
However, my concern is that doctors may now circumvent this requirement by not prescribing any medical leave or light duties at all. The Ministry has stated that the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has mechanisms to take disciplinary action against doctors who do so. However, this requires a process of detection, investigation and enforcement. The employee who has suffered a work injury may be denied access to medical documentation, proper and timely medical treatment and compensation in the meantime.
How will the Ministry monitor incidences of medical malpractices by doctors under the new reporting requirements?
Further, will the Ministry consider implementing a dual reporting system by both doctors and employers in the future?
Next, the Bill also extends compensation coverage to employees on light duties. This is welcome as it is now very common for injured employees to be prescribed light duties in lieu of medical leave.
However, I understand that there is a lot of confusion on the ground as to what constitutes light duties and when an injured employee can be prescribed light duties. The SMC Ethical Code and Guidelines require doctors to ensure that there are appropriate light duties available to the employee at their work places before prescribing light duties. In practice, I understand that many doctors prescribe light duties when in fact there are no light duties available at the workplace. This leads to confusion for both the employees and the employers. There are stories of employees who end up not working at all or employees who do heavy labour that is inappropriate for their physical conditions.
I appreciate that this is an issue that will have to involve the Ministry of Health, SMC and doctors and return-to-work occupational therapists. Given that light duties are now more significant under the work injury compensation regime, will the Ministry work with the relevant stakeholders to shed more light on what constitutes light duties and when it can be prescribed?
Next, the Ministry has also stated that employees will receive notice of accident reports after they have been submitted to the Ministry. The amendments will also introduce an automatic claim application system for fatal or serious injuries. The accident report and claim application state important details such as the location of the accident, the nature of the injury, and the Average Monthly Earnings (AME). These are key details that will affect the compensation assessment.
Can MOM confirm that the employee will receive notice of the accident report and claim application in all cases? Will the employee be given the opportunity to challenge the details stated in the accident report and claim application where filed by the employee or automatically processed?
Further, can the MOM share how it intends to ensure that the accident report and claim application will reach the hands of a migrant worker whose address is likely to be the office address of their employer? Can the accident report and claim application be sent to the migrant worker through existing mobile applications? Alternatively, do employees have the right to obtain copies of these documents directly from MOM free of charge?
Next, the Bill proposes for licensed insurers to process insured WICA claims. I hope this move will help to expedite the claims process and ensure timely payouts for employees. I have two points relating to processing of claims by insurers.
First, can the licensing regime for insurers also include a requirement that insured employees be issued with insurance cards to facilitate faster processing of medical appointments and procedures? I understand that injured employees are sometimes caught in limbo where their employer has not paid for medical treatment and refuses to provide a Letter of Guarantee for the necessary medical procedures. Requiring that employees hold insurance cards not only benefits, it will also take some of the burden off employers and reduce the amount of bad debt hospitals face due to unpaid medical bills by employers.
Secondly, to facilitate the insurance payouts, can the Ministry assist injured migrant workers who do not have bank accounts in opening one? I understand that MOM can issue a letter to help migrant workers open a POSB payroll account at the Kaki Bukit branch. The feedback from NGOs is that this is a good practice and some have suggested to me that we institutionalise this practice. This will also be of great assistance to insurers who can make more easily their payouts through bank transfers.
As a matter of standard practice, when commencing a work injury claim, can the Ministry issue such a letter to a migrant worker who does not already have a bank account?
Next, as insurers will now take over the processing of claims, the task of determining AME now falls to them. I understand that determining the AME can be a contentious issue and there are incidences of erroneous, missing, and forged time cards and salary slips. This is a difficult enough problem for MOM with their statutory powers of investigation. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to address the possible difficulties that insurers may face in determining the AME?
Where a dispute over the AME goes to the Commissioner, the Bill empowers the Commissioner to compute compensation based on a multiple of the employee’s basic monthly salary if there are no other evidence available. Can the Minister share if it will issue guidelines for determining what this multiple should be or if the issue is left entirely up to the discretion of the Commissioner?
Next, employers are currently required to provide adequate food and acceptable housing for migrant workers during the entire injury compensation process. However, it is not clear what adequate food and acceptable housing means. NGOs have shared with me horror stories where migrant workers are required to travel long distances to their work sites in order to get food when they should be resting, or where they are housed in accommodation with appalling conditions.
Can MOM look into providing guidelines on what constitutes adequate food and acceptable housing? While this will differ from employer to employer, we are not asking every employer to meet the standards in the same exact way. These guidelines will provide a minimum standard to ensure that employers cannot abuse the ambiguity of adequate food and acceptable housing.
Next, the Bill also proposes for the compensation to be assessed based on current incapacity (CI) to expedite compensation for the employee. I understand that in practice when the injury is assessed is important because employers consider their responsibilities to be fully discharged upon assessment of incapacity. Can MOM clarify, where the assessment is based on the CI, will the employer be responsible for the medical treatment after the assessment? For instance, is the employer responsible for the cost of a follow-up treatment and for therapy after the assessment?
Can the Minister also clarify whether the Ministry’s intention is for migrant workers to be repatriated after assessment based on CI is done? My concern is that this will have the effect of denying migrant workers continuing care and rehabilitation that may be necessary until their condition fully stabilises.
It also is proposed that employees be allowed to switch assessing doctors to address cases of inadequate care of overly conservative incapacity assessments. The Ministry has stated that the Commissioner may allow employees to switch the assessing doctor in certain cases. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances the employee will be allowed to switch assessing doctors and whether the employee will be able to determine which doctor to consult?
Lastly, the First Schedule of the Bill limits the compensation payable by an employer to the cost of medical treatment within one year of the date of the accident. However, it is plausible that bad employers may prevent or obstruct their employees from getting appropriate medical treatment in the first year after the accident. In such cases, can the Ministry clarify whether the employee’s only recourse will be to seek compensation via the common law route? Can the Ministry introduce exceptions to the one-year time bar where the employer has actively sought to prevent the employee from getting medical treatment?
Sir, I hope the Ministry will provide the clarifications sought and consider my recommendations in subsidiary legislation and implementation of the Bill. I stand in support of what is an overall positive step in strengthening our work injury compensation regime.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and commend the Ministry for giving broader coverage and higher compensation with the amendments, amongst other improvements to the work injury compensation process, especially given that workplace injuries increased to 12,810 cases in 2018, a jump of 312 cases from the year before, with construction remaining the industry with the highest number of fatalities.
If we truly wish to provide workers with one of the safest and healthiest workplaces in the world as recommended by the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee in April 2019, we must take into account their working realities, especially our 970,000 migrant workers who form the bulk of our manual labour force and therefore most at-risk from work injuries.
I would like to raise three key concerns that are not, I feel, adequately addressed by the Bill and propose additional measures accordingly.
My first concern, Mr Speaker, is that the Bill proposes to let insurance companies handle the processing of claims rather than it being under the purview of the Ministry for reasons of efficiency, as the Minister of State has alluded to. I appreciate the intent but we will also agree that private insurers have no incentive to ensure workers are fully apprised of their rights and it is unclear which party is responsible for ascertaining validity and how a party can appeal the decision.
If it is to be private insurers making the decision, then there should be a rigorous Code of Practice or Conduct for them to follow to ensure integrity and reasonable speed in the process. Such a Code should include procedures and principles that align with the fundamental rules of natural justice, which include the principles of impartiality and fair hearing. Arbiters must allow parties adequate opportunity to contest statements made by another party. This is especially important for workers, as employers may possess more documents and be able to withhold certain evidence more easily.
Migrant worker NGO, Transient Workers Count Too or TWC2, has seen cases where the employer may under-declare overtime hours and hence salaries of migrant workers. Take Bangladeshi worker Naseer. He had filed WICA and salary claims at the same time. While the WICA case was on-going, TADM had found that he was incorrectly paid before the injury and computed the total underpaid amount as $13,000 over 12 months. However, he was told to wait for his WICA claim to be completed before proceeding with his salary claim. When the WICA compensation amount was offered nine months after the accident, it was based on the employer’s version of the Average Monthly Earnings (AME). However, he accepted the compensation because he did not want to wait much longer and still had an outstanding salary claim.
Hence, arbiters must be trained to scrutinise the evidence presented. Under the Employment Act, employers are legally obliged to document working time records and payslips, and furnish these documents to the workers. Adverse inference should be drawn against the employer who failed to keep or furnish proper records. Recent amendments to the Employment Claims Act already mandate such inferences in salary claims. It would also be useful to have the WICA and salary disputes to be conducted in parallel, where there is a salary dispute, so that the AME can reflect the result of the salary claim process accurately.
Mr Speaker, as illustrated before, the processing of claims is seldom a straightforward application of formulae or medical reports. It is therefore imperative that the Ministry implements safeguards to ensure that the insurers will process each claim in accordance with the worker’s full rights and entitlements, including conducting spot checks on claims processed by insurers and monitoring the processing by insurers. This is crucial since the insurer is paid for by the employers, therefore stringent external regulation is needed to ensure that the insurer acts impartially.
The changes in these procedures must be coupled with efforts to inform low-wage local and migrant workers of their insurance coverage and claims processes. Migrant workers, who rely on WICA for compensation, may be unable to push for their own interests if they lack a detailed understanding of the law.
According to BMJ Global Health Journal, a 2016 survey conducted by medical practitioners with 433 migrant workers in Singapore found that only 61.4% of these workers were certain that they had medical insurance coverage. Some workers mistakenly believe they have to bear their full medical expenses and avoid treatment, as they are not aware that it is mandated by law for employers to purchase WICA insurance.
Moreover, it is unclear how workers will receive information that a claim has been initiated by the employer. Workers do not automatically receive accident reports from the Ministry when their accidents have been filed by their employer and hence may not see the details filed that may be prejudicial to the worker. While NGOs can email the Ministry on behalf of workers to request for a copy, the Ministry charges a fee for this. In addition, the Ministry sends letters addressed to workers to the office address of the employer, but there have been cases where the employer has failed to pass these letters to the workers.
I urge the Ministry to consider informing the workers immediately by SMS and letting workers opt to obtain a free copy of the accident report and letters from a counter from the Ministry instead.
My second concern, Mr Speaker, is the delay in medical treatment or services received by migrant workers because of their employer’s refusal to pay, that essentially defeats the purpose of WICA which is to ensure that workers are able to receive proper, and certainly timely, medical treatment.
As we speak, a Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Ahmad, is at risk of more damage from delayed treatment. Ahmad sustained a severe back injury at work when he fell while carrying heavy construction material five months ago. He required MRI scans for on-going treatment but had to miss two scan appointments because his employer did not pay outstanding bills nor issue undertakings to pay for on-going treatment. Without the scans, the specialists are reluctant to determine further course of treatment. Other health professionals like physiotherapists also cannot help in the absence of diagnostic imaging. Ahmad is currently supported by another NGO called HOME, to get his employer to provide the undertaking and we are hoping he will be third time lucky to make the MRI appointment.
A Chinese worker, whom I will call Liu, had an accident when he was hit in the eye by a large metal hook which caused a cornea rupture into his eye two months ago. The doctor had indicated that he is mostly likely permanently blind in that eye. Yet, due to the lackadaisical approach to settling an outstanding bill of $200 by the employer, the Singapore National Eye Centre almost stopped Liu from seeing the specialist for follow-up which may have caused further damage. Thankfully, HOME was able to support him through a kind donation.
Mr Speaker, in case we think that these are just a couple of odd cases recently, it is far more common than we think because more than a considerable number of migrant workers are affected. I do urge the Ministry to study the prevalence of this problem.
In the meantime, to circumvent the challenge of employers promptly providing the Letter of Guarantee, I propose that workers be issued with insurance cards by the insurer that acts as a Letter of Guarantee, to facilitate easier and faster processing of medical appointments, medical procedures and scans. In the proposed Code of Practice I mentioned earlier, insurers must also fulfil target timelines and settle the claims expeditiously, so that the medical treatment of workers are not delayed. A 30-day timeline as a target is recommended to determine whether the injury is work-related and, hence, treatment should be covered under insurance.
The Bill also provides that, upon the employer’s insolvency, the insurer assumes \"the same liabilities in relation to the employee as if the insurer were the employer.\" This suggests the insurer should pay for the medical treatment directly and not merely reimburse the worker. However, clause 18 of the Bill provides that all compensation payable should be paid by the insurer to the injured worker or their representative if they are under incapacity. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the insurers will pay for the medical treatment directly, or reimburse the worker.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight the urgent need to safeguard the mental health of our migrant workers. A 2015 survey of 605 Bangladeshi and Indian workers conducted by the Singapore Management University (SMU) found that more than 60% of respondents who had outstanding injury or salary claims were predicted to have serious mental illness.
A Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Jamal, suffered work injuries in his hip and spine. His employer refused to pay for the total hip replacement he needed. He sought help with HealthServe, another NGO for migrant workers, who provided him shelter and supported him with his case to get the surgery he needed. In that six months with HealthServe, Jamal suffered great pain which caused insomnia and depressive moods that later escalated when he also met with a slew of major stressors, including his father having a stroke, his wife having left him and the loss of his home in Bangladesh due to flooding, and his escalating debts; he thought of killing himself. HealthServe provided counselling to Jamal who reportedly cried several times during these sessions. He was repatriated in May 2019, broken in flesh and spirit.
Again, Jamal is not alone, Mr Speaker. I urge the Ministry to consider the following suggestions from the community.
First, we must educate our migrant workers on mental health and provide peer support and/or mental health first aid training.
We must provide easy access to counselling services for migrant workers in distress. To my knowledge, there is only FASTCare by the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training by MOM for foreign domestic workers but none yet for non-domestic and male migrant workers. I am very happy to hear that HealthServe has plans to start a mental health programme but the needs are way more than what one NGO can handle.
Lastly, we could implement a structured intervention programme such as a case management rehabilitation programme, which can improve several aspects of the workers’ psychological well-being and quality of life. This will provide the motivation to not only prepare injured workers to return to work but, more importantly, to help them adjust better and ensure sustainability in their post-rehabilitation work life. There are already successful implementation of such programmes in Malaysia and Germany.
Last but not least, I urge the Minister to consider allowing workers who have had their permits cancelled prematurely by employers after they have suffered an injury, but are free from medical leave or light duties, to look for new jobs instead of being sent back home unfairly when they have already recuperated.
Mr Speaker, in that same report I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Tripartite Strategies Committee also recommended that Singapore must aim to be amongst the best in the world in our workplace health and safety performance. This is a worthy goal indeed. Yet, as I recall how heartening it was to see the different migrant communities come together to support one another at the Migrant Cultural Show I was at last Sunday, I cannot help but think that we must surely include in that goal above one that obliges us as a government and society to enable and support our one million migrant brothers and sisters to be the best that they can be – in total health and safety. For if they help us build our homes and take care of much of our needs for us to thrive, how can we send them back to theirs, broken and less?
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation and Vice President of the Singapore National Employers Federation.
I rise in support of the Bill. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was first enacted in 1975, an Act related to the payment of compensation to workmen for injury suffered in the course of their employment. In 2008, the Act was reviewed and renamed as the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), which aims to provide low cost and expeditious resolution of work-related injury claims. The coverage of the Act was in general extended to all workers, compensation limits were increased and processes were streamlined.
WICA was last reviewed in 2016 where the maximum and minimum compensation limits for death and total permanent incapacity were increased. The cap for compensation on medical expenses was also raised.
In this Bill before the House, MOM has taken a more comprehensive approach. The proposed key changes cover four areas, namely, (a) enhanced protection of injured employees, (b) enhanced protection of employer's interests, (c) faster and simpler claims processes, and (d) increased deterrence against WICA contraventions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always advocated for the strong tripartite partnership between the Government, employers and the employees. It is my belief that especially in areas with potentially wide-ranging implications, such as those which this Bill touch on, it is the collective strength of our tripartite partnership that will engender the buy in of all stakeholders. I would, therefore, urge the Ministry to continue its efforts to engage the employers, and through the different labour unions, the employees, in constant dialogue.
In manifestation of this tripartite partnership, the Singapore National Employers Federation, representing employers, has briefed and consulted 900 of our members on the proposed changes to the WICA. Several areas of concerns were raised from an employer's perspective. These concerns pertain largely to the proposed increase in the compensation limits and the likely corresponding increase in insurance premiums, the extension of compensation to employees on light duties, and the requirement to report any instance of work injury to MOM.
While we as employers will continue to engage the Government through MOM, and our employees through our communications in the office and through the unions, please allow me now to share with this House the main inputs from employers alongside some of my own humble observations and suggestions.
Mr Speaker, while the objects of the Bill should be lauded, we cannot shy away that some of the provisions will probably lead to increased cost for businesses, firstly, by way of increasing insurance coverage for more workers and, secondly, by way of increased premiums for higher compensation limits. I will now address each of these in turn.
First, all employees doing manual work, regardless of salary level, and all employees doing non-manual work, earning $1,600 or less a month, are currently required to be insured under WIC insurance bought by the employer. MOM has proposed raising this salary threshold to $2,600.
It is heartening to note that MOM has proposed implementing this change in steps to give employers more time to adjust and re-evaluate their current WIC insurance plans.
However, employers, at first sight, feel that the increase in coverage is too drastic as it will inevitably mean that companies will have to spend more in insurance premiums covering more employees.
Secondly, I note that the proposed increase in the maximum and minimum compensation limits for death and total permanent incapacity is around 10% and 25% for that of medical expenses respectively. Employees who are on light duties, are also proposed to be compensated.
An employer who bought WIC insurance may not be able to claim compensation due to policy exclusions, for example, injury sustained from an accident which happened at a certain height. Thus, the proposed change to have the insurers offering a standard WIC insurance policy, helps to prevent disputes and provides more certainty to the employers. This is indeed welcomed.
Yet, according to MOM statistics, there were 14,585 work injury cases in 2018, amounting to $21.89 million in compensation for medical leave wages and $89.84 million for permanent incapacity and death compensation. With the change, the licensed insurers will take over MOM's claim processing role. The standard insurance coverage and the taking over of the claims process by the insurance companies, together with the higher compensation limits, point to a potential increase in insurance premiums.
This is a major concern for employers. May I ask the Minister if there is an estimate of the number of additional workers that will have to be covered under the increased salary threshold and, if there is, is the Ministry able to provide an estimate of the total increased insurance cost for Singapore businesses as a whole? Is the Ministry also able to provide clarity on what is the expected increase in premium for a business?
Employers will need to factor this increase into their total business cost. This is especially important, in the context of today's challenging business climate and these information will go some way towards assisting us to assuage the fears of employers.
Another avenue which is likely to lead to increased costs for businesses is the requirement for employers to report to MOM for all instances of work-related injuries including light duty incidents. This will increase administrative work and compliance costs. Employers hope that MOM will look into how to operationalise this efficiently, and perhaps offer financial incentives for employers with a clean record.
The next aspect I would like to touch on in my speech is a call for better outreach and education to businesses for compensation for employees on light duty due to work-related injury. Employees who are injured due to work-related accidents are compensated based on Average Monthly Earnings (AME) for the first 14 days of outpatient sick leave or 60 days of hospitalisation leave, and two-thirds AME thereafter, up to one year. With the proposed extension of WIC to employees on light duties, the concept of AME will also apply to this group of injured employees. I hope MOM will engage businesses better to educate employers who have trouble in understanding or operationalising this new requirement. One commonly asked question would be how this requirement would apply to an employee who is on light duty, but fails to report for work with valid reasons.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move now to address the proposed regulatory regime for WIC insurers and to make a couple of suggestions in this area. One of the proposed changes under this Bill relates to the licensing regime for insurers. WIC insurance premiums currently range from around 0.3% to 1.5% of wages. Insurers would now be required to share policy and claims information with MOM.
The objective of this proposed change is to allow centralisation and sharing of data amongst insurers – to allow them to offer insurance plans of differentiated premiums to employers of different risk profile and claims history. This, in my opinion, is a step forward for the WIC insurance market, taking after the current practice in the motor insurance market.
This differentiation, would necessarily influence employers who are \"not so safe\" now, to reduce their exposure to workplace injury risks. \"Safe\" employers will be motivated to continue to maintain their high level of Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) standard. This is also one of the strategies laid out under \"Strengthening WSH Ownership\" in the WSH 2028 report, released in April this year.
That being said, with this requirement, MOM will now be yet another repository of information. It is important therefore that access to such information must be safeguarded and employers should be informed what information could be shared with insurers.
In relation to this, I would like to suggest to the insurers to introduce a preferential rate or incentive scheme, similar to the no-claim bonus concept in the motor insurance market. This would now be viable, with the sharing of past claim data with the insurers. This would provide employers an incentive to place greater emphasis on WSH. This would be a win-win-win situation for the employees, employers and insurers.
Second, and on a separate note, according to a recent report, the annual medical inflation rate for Singapore is expected to be 10% for this year. Of course, this includes non-work-related medical expenses. I would like to take this opportunity to advocate before this House a \"portable\" medical insurance scheme whereby the employer contributes to employees' MediSave account, for them to use to pay for their MediShield Life or buy an Integrated Shield Plan. The tripartite partners have been advocating this as it reduces duplication of coverage between the employer's medical benefits and MediShield Life and will also arrest the increase in overall medical expenses.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, my fellow business leader, Mr John Ng, who is also a Vice President of the SNEF, chairs the WSH 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee and I concur with him that good WSH is good for business. This Bill plays an important part towards our journey to make Singapore amongst the world's best in WSH.
Every employee is important to the employer. That includes their health and safety at the workplace. Employers should provide a safe work environment and employees should do their part and follow safety practices
I affirm my support for the Bill, but at the same time, reiterate the legitimate concerns that the employers have. I hope that MOM will address these concerns and lend enhanced support to employers. As a firm advocate for the tripartite arrangement, I strongly believe that with the Government's support, both employees and employers can help Singapore achieve sooner the WSH 2028 vision of – A Healthy Workforce in Safe Workplaces; A Country Renowned for Best Practices in Workplace Safety and Health.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I support the extension of WICA coverage to a larger group of workers as proposed by the Bill and urge continuing efforts by the Ministry to afford comparable protection to the more vulnerable workers currently excluded from WICA coverage because they are classified as self-employed persons, namely such workers in higher risk occupations and those who earn lower income, and thereby are less able to weather the storm of work injury.
Self-employed persons in this context are typically defined as workers for their own account. WICA coverage is available to workers employed under a contract of service, but not workers for their own accounts, whatever their occupation or income. The idea is that in some very important sense, self-employed persons as independent contractors can better take care of themselves and their work. For example, it is widely accepted that many delivery riders are contractors and not employees because they may choose their own work arrangements such as riding their own vehicles and managing their own working hours.
This is a fundamental and longstanding distinction traceable to the English common law, and for good reason. I would like to urge, however, that we be more ready in our own circumstances to re-examine critically the assumptions underlying this distinction, especially where lower income workers in higher risk occupations are concerned.
The bargaining powers of the contracting parties are often unequal. Let us continue to study how these more vulnerable workers for their own account are differently situated in meaningful ways from others employed under, say, a part-time or short-term contract of service. Do these differences really represent a greater ability on the part of the workers to take care of themselves and their work that warrant the contractors/employers doing significantly less for them? Do they warrant exclusion from WICA coverage? How many hours of work and at what time of day or week are in effect readily available for the worker to choose from, and on what notice? How much of a capital investment does an e-scooter for food delivery represent, for example?
Also, Sir, the Tripartite Workgroup on Self Employed Persons notes that the majority of self employed persons in Singapore work in desk-bound non-manual jobs where the risk of injury is low. And for the smaller group of self-employed persons engaged in higher-risk occupations, it recommends that the Government promote the adoption of private insurance in higher risk occupations through licensing controls, or tapping on the Government’s role as a service-buyer, where possible.
Sir, I look forward to reports in time from the Ministry on the progress that it will have made in this area.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act, or WICA in short, is timely and progressive. While we push for safety first at zero accidents, workplace injuries do happen. Higher injury compensations and broader insurance coverage to more workers give greater insurance to our working people and it is timely with the rising cost of living and medical expenses
The amendments to better regulate insurance coverage with limited exclusions provide clarity as insurers cannot include non-approved exclusions. Also, the proposed appeals channel by the MOM for workers who dispute claims as assessed by insurers is much welcomed as it provides recourse for the injured workers. Moreover, the measures to encourage better safety track records of the companies based on differentiated insurance premium, employer's risk profile and claim history will give greater impetus for employers to partner unions in ensuring a safe, healthy workplace for all workers of which I will address later in my speech.
While these proposed amendments are most welcome, I would like to see clarity on three issues and put forth some suggestions.
The first is the Work Injury Compensation due to the nature of work arrangements and insurance coverage. As flexible work arrangements become increasingly adopted by employers, such as working from home or telecommuting, will WICA cover any work injuries sustained during work outside of the workplace, specifically when work accidents occur when the worker is on flexi-work from home.
While the move to expand insurance compulsory insurance coverage to non-manual employees is welcome, the salary threshold with proposed amendments from $1,600 to $2,600 is still low. As automation and technology increasingly change the way we work, we are seeing more working people multi-tasking, taking up additional job roles and responsibilities. While they might be considered as non-manual workers, part of their job responsibilities will increasingly expand. Their day-to-day job might be office-based but the job roles and functions might require them to be around in an environment where the risk of injury is high. These employees might be drawing a salary beyond the stated amount of $2,600. So, may I suggest that more be done to encourage employers to buy insurance coverage for all employees.
Secondly, how are workers under contract for service covered under WICA? Correct me if I am wrong but the answer is none. With the advent of the platform economy, we have a growing number of self-employed persons, estimated to be more than 200,000 in Singapore. With the increasing prevalence of contract for service and the gig economy, they will not fall under the ambit of WICA as service buyers who engage them will not have to take up a WICA-related insurance coverage for these self-employed persons. What recourse do these employees then have in the event of injuries sustained in the course of their employment?
IMDA, through the Tripartite Standards on Procurement of Service from media freelancers, provided details on insurance coverage for media freelancers to be covered by their companies if they are required to offer their service onsite or on locations specified by the companies. The work-related personal accident insurance covers against claims for death, total permanent disability and medical expenses. As such, the responsibility is on the freelancers to ensure that they are insured with personal accident insurance that will be paid by the buyer while the service buyers should be prepared to factor such insurance cost into their service fee.
Will other Government Procurement Entities (GPEs) consider taking the lead to provide work injury insurance, especially for a significant GPE like MOE's schools, as this will help set the tone and shape responsible procurement practices where work injury insurance is the norm for responsible outsourcing.
Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point I would also like to get an update on progress made by the Ministry and other Government agencies, besides IMDA, to provide insurance coverage and self-employed persons for work-related accidents for the many outsourced contracts they have.
My third point of clarification is on mental illness brought about by work stress which is increasingly common in the workplace but it is not covered by the WICA amendments. As a unionist, I have come across members who have been diagnosed with depression. One such member initially wanted to resign from the company when diagnosed with depression but the company persuaded him not to do so and to continue his employment while undergoing treatment. He was granted sick leave for a year with medical review done every month. During this period, the company paid his basic salary and medical treatment. After more than a year of therapy and medication, there was no improvement to the member's condition. The company had to reluctantly terminate his employment. This member was fortunate as the company continued to pay his salary and medical treatment for a year, but what happens if an employer opts to terminate an employee with mental illness at the early on set of the condition. Can WICA can extend to cover the medical expenses and wages for such illnesses? After all, mental wellness is an area not very much talked about but it is an increasing trend in the workforce.
On the amendment to provide for a differentiated WICA insurance premium based on employer's risk profile and claims history, it now gives more significant incentives to companies to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for its employees. Here the companies can partner the union to develop a safe and healthy culture in the company. One such example is PSA, the port operator.
The Port's unions have a close partnership in working with PSA to raise safety standards at the workplace. Unions and management have worked closely together to improve workers' training and implement work procedures to create a safe work environment. As part of this close partnership, there are many channels for union leaders to provide feedback to management, in particular, the Health, Safety, Security Environment (HSSE) Council which comprises management and union representatives; and chaired by the top management executive – is a platform with regular meetings to jointly review safety and health performance, set safety and health directions, and provide feedback to management about workers' concern in safety related as well as health, security and environment related issues.
To assimilate, HSSE in the work culture, PSA has also developed an in-house workshop programme called \"Starfish\". Union leaders are part of the first batch trained alongside PSA leaders and we have provided feedback to strengthen the course structure and material for the subsequent rollout to all our workers. Union leaders also play a vital role in rallying workers' support for safety related initiatives. For example, PSA taps on technologies such as video analytics and telematics to improve on-the-job behaviour and prevent accidents to the pre-emptive intervention programmes aimed at mentoring, coaching and training workers to improve their safety behaviour. This collective efforts have resulted in significant improvements in safety standards in PSA over the years and have helped in the reduction of costs.
An injury is one too many and we are partnering management to cultivate a generative, safety culture. The Labour Movement aims to create a safe and conducive environment for every worker in Singapore.
To conclude, Sir, the Labour Movement welcomes this additional amendments that brings benefits to the workers. We do hope that the Ministry can look at ways to cover every worker including workers with mental illness under the Act. We also call on our companies to work with the unions to promote safety and health at the workplace. As union leaders, we can and will be the ambassadors and catalysts at the workplace to promote health and safety at the workplace. After all, the well-being of our members is always our core business. I support the Bill.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a doctor who looks into work injury cases. I stand in support of this Bill which will first, provide for affected employees to receive compensation for work injuries more expeditiously; second, ensure that the insurance policies meet minimum standards; and third, employers maintain full insurance coverage for their liabilities.
First, I welcome the amendment to commence claims processing upon the Ministry's or the insurer's notification of fatal or serious injuries, thus removing the requirement for employees or their dependents to file compensation claim applications. This is an improvement from our current system, reducing time spent on paperwork by all parties, particularly the victims and their families during a very stressful and difficult time.
I would just like to seek clarification on instances when claims assessment on injuries are delayed because employers are slow in paying for or guaranteeing the necessary medical examinations. Presently, they or insurance companies pay for clinic visits or hospital stays but not necessarily for outpatient tests, such as scans. Would the Minister elaborate on any changes or improvements, if any, for such cases that is provided for in this Bill?
Next, I have a question regarding the proposal to compensate employees placed on light duties due to work injuries. Where such light duties pay less, going forward, employees/employers will need to compensate them up to their average monthly earnings (AME). The intention of the Ministry is that these workers should not be worse off than those who are given medical leave. Currently, injured employees on medical leave are compensated with their AME. Under this Bill, compensation will be equal for both but I would like to ask if there are definitions of what injuries can be addressed with light duties versus medical leave.
In addition, I would like to seek clarification on surveillance on reporting by employers. There may still be employers who do not report smaller injuries. What measures are in place to minimise this problem? Employees are required under the WICA to inform their employers of any incidents as soon as possible. Is there a way whereby the employee reporting process informs both their employers and MOM simultaneously, possibly through a one-step reporting system at the health professionals' office for greater efficiency? Such a system will also ensure that employers do not have the opportunity to under-report.
Finally, I would like to make a brief comparison with a few other developed nations for a sense of how we are aligned. I noticed that a key difference is that a number of these countries offer the option of pensions for workers who suffer permanent disabilities. Here in Singapore, workers can only claim a lump sum. Fixed amounts offer certainty for employers and insurers but may impose greater hardship on employers as we live longer. The disbursement of such a large sum of money all at once has the risks that it may all be spent too quickly or unwisely.
For example, in the Federal Republic of Germany, under the statutory occupational accident insurance, such workers receive a pension until the age of 65, unless he or she begins receiving old-age pension earlier than that age. They can also opt for the pension to be paid out as a lump sum. Furthermore, in the event of death, any children they have who are under 18 years of age will receive an orphan's pension.
Similarly, in Western Australia, in addition to a lump sum payment capped at AUD$232,000, there is a provision for a periodic child's allowance for dependent children.
In the United Kingdom, on top of compensation from the compulsory Employers' Liability insurance bought by companies, affected employees can receive between £35.80 and £179 weekly under Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme, depending on the level of disablement.
In the United States of America , there is no federal oversight nor minimum standard. Every state has its own workers compensation system and they vary widely. Some cap benefits for permanently disabled workers at 450 weeks while others allow benefits for life or until the worker reaches the age for Social Security benefits.
And finally, in Japan, a worker may receive his Disability Pension Benefit either as a lump sum or as a pension.
Hence, I would like to suggest that for workers who suffer permanent disabilities, the Ministry consider some form of pension arrangement as an option, as well as regular financial support, perhaps for their children up to the age of 18. Thank you and I support the Bill.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Bill. Overall, the proposed amendments will essentially make the bill more worker-centric. I would like to focus my speech to share my perspective of this bill in relation to vulnerable low-wage and foreign workers.
Extending compensation under WICA to include those on light duties due to work injury is a positive change towards covering the potential loss in workers' income because they may not be able to work overtime given the highly manual and strenuous nature of their work and hence, losing out on overtime pay or other incentive. For many low-wage workers, a sizeable portion of their pay package comprises of overtime payments, allowances and incentive payments while doing their regular work.
More importantly, it also prevent the occurrence of possible abuse of the system where the injured vulnerable worker may be given medical leave for less than the stipulated four days as a way to get around the duty to report for WICA and the remaining recovery period is covered by light duties. Such circumventing measures may arise as company-approved medical practitioners may face the dilemma of balancing their financial interest against their ethical obligation when it comes to prescribing appropriate duration of medical leave for the workers.
The Employment Act has been amended to make it mandatory for employers to issue pay slips. However, in WICA cases assisted by Migrant Workers' Centre involving many work permit holders, especially on the lower end of the skills profile, they continue to be paid in cash without the issuance of any records.
Thus, NTUC welcomes the proposed amendment that allows MOM to order compensation based on a multiple of the worker's basic monthly salary or the Average Monthly Earnings (AME) based on at least 75% of cases of the industry norms. This will benefit the low wage and migrant worker sectors where the absence of pay slips tend to be more prevalent.
NTUC also supports the move for initial compensation based on current incapacity or CI assessment at six months after the work accident to allow for a faster claim resolution for workers. In fact, this makes the WICA to be more worker-centric and responsive to the specific needs and situations for the migrant workers as it levels the playing ground for migrant worker claimants and evens up the odds in favour of workers.
MWC had encountered cases involving injured foreign workers who were required to stay in Singapore for extended claims, but not allowed to work and inevitably, run into difficulty with upkeeping and maintaining themselves. There are good reasons to suspect that some employers or insurers may deliberately drag the cases because they are aware the migrant worker will run into hardship and put the employers or insurers at an advantage to negotiate a lower quantum which the worker has little choice but to accept; or even hold out on payment, against which the worker has no means, whether in terms of time or money, to enforce.
Currently, all employers are required to have Compulsory Medical Insurance for their migrant workers but, most employers will only ensure minimum medical insurance coverage for their migrant workers to meet MOM's requirement. As our laws require the employers to be liable for the medical treatment for the foreign workers, some employers will incur huge medical expenses for their injured migrant workers if the WICA cases drag for too long, since, all foreigners are charged unsubsidised rates for treatment and hospital stay.
As such, having a safety net provision for CI assessment at six months will benefit workers and employers as well because WICA is also meant to cover medical treatment cost for claimants, or at least help to defray the cost of treatment which for migrant workers are liable to borne by employers.
Hence, the increased WICA coverage for treatment, together with expedited claims payouts will certainly help in cases where urgent medical treatment is needed by the worker but, the employer is unable to pay due to lack of medical insurance coverage or other cost issues.
Another issue arising from claims processing times is the situation where employers do not provide accommodation or maintenance for their claimant workers anymore or the worker himself wishes to leave his employer's hold given the breakdown in their relationship for whatever reasons. The migrant workers who decide to stay on pending the outcome of their injury claims are generally prohibited from working which may cause them a lot of financial hardship.
A situation where the injured migrant workers opt to stay on their own and unable to work legally, to support their own maintenance and upkeep, is undesirable given the potential for them to moonlight illegally which will deny them of all the employment protections. Some may succumb to anti-social or even criminal behaviour in a bid to survive, which is detrimental to our society's well-being and safety.
Thus, expediting the claim processing time will minimise the cost of their maintenance and upkeep and perhaps, lessen the likelihood of the migrant workers facing financial hardship and having to resort to undesirable actions that would be detrimental to themselves and our society.
Given the changes made to WICA, there is a need to raise workers' awareness through outreach efforts especially among the vulnerable low-wage and migrant workers. Many vulnerable workers are still unaware of the basic provisions under WICA like how you can still claim under common law even after filing for WICA, but cannot do so in the reverse.
Some injured vulnerable workers may file injury claim under common law at the advice of overzealous lawyers without realising that they are signing away their rights to a WICA claim. They might also be unaware how WICA differs from legal suits under common law in its compensation quantum and other aspects like standards of proof and others.
There must also be concerted efforts to change the mindset of employers to see WICA as an extension of the company's Work-Safety-Health worksite culture where employers are themselves briefed extensively in WSH and WICA laws and these aspects are refreshed regularly in worksite safety briefings and meetings. Such efforts will result in a general levelling up of the understanding of WSH and WICA for both employers and their workers and thus, minimising potential cause for misunderstanding and disputes.
While the migrant workers will face a shorter waiting time for their claims processing and can return to their home country earlier, I would like to enquire on the channels that would be made available for workers to seek reassessment in event their injury condition deteriorates after the six-month mark. Ideally, such established channels must be guided by MOM and not by employers or insurance companies who might make it too onerous for workers seeking reassessment.
Some occupation diseases or ODs can be undiagnosed for a prolonged period. For example, symptoms of asbestosis may only occur 20 years after exposure but, given WICA’s current one-year time bar, it would exclude such ODs with long latency periods. How can workers be compensated for such work-related injuries or diseases?
As our Government is also encouraging older workers to work, would the standard WICA insurance clauses be inclusive to ensure employers can buy insurance coverage for all their workers? Since older workers are sometimes prone to injuries due to slips and falls, some insurance companies may have exclusion clauses, in fine print, to exclude coverage for older workers.
Under the proposed amendments, MOM-licensed insurers will assess and process all WIC claims as per stipulated MOM guidelines and time standards. This will lead to more expeditious claims processing but, with check and balances by MOM to ensure fairness to all parties.
In the past, MOM processed the claims and was perceived to be guardian of fairness of the WICA claim. However, outsourcing this function to MOM-licensed insurers may lead to the judgement being questioned in terms of fairness as the insurance companies have a vested interest to keep compensation on the low side.
In addition, insurance companies may also try to keep premiums low for their policies to be competitive but, at the expense of being unable to have sufficient financial standing to give our workers adequate and fair compensation. To mitigate this, NTUC welcomes the system of controls and penalties to accompany this legal innovation to ensure insurers remain on-side, fair and objective in their assessment.
How effective this new licensing and enforcement regime will be, can only be re-assessed after the new system has been in place for some time. In the meantime, the unions and MWC will continue to get a better ground-sensing when we help our workers in the claims under WICA.
Nevertheless, we urge the policy makers to review the application of the new insurer-processed system at appropriate junctures, so that further review and strengthening may continue to be made to it along the way to more effectively safeguard the rights and welfare of the key intended beneficiaries of the Act. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] NTUC supports the amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act because it will provide better protection to workers who suffer injuries while working.
The amendments propose a higher compensation limit and will include even more workers. In addition, the amendments also ensure a more stable insurance coverage with limited exclusions, which ensures that employers and workers can submit appeals to receive compensation for most types of injuries that commonly happen to workers.
Although the responsibility for processing appeals for compensation under this Act is given to insurers appointed by MOM, these amendments will still allow workers to challenge the compensation amount that is given, if necessary.
For employers, these amendments also help to reduce the cost of buying WICA insurance which will become more affordable provided they have a good safety record, whereby not many of their workers suffer injuries while working.
WICA is a very useful Act for workers, but it is important that the Ministry take steps enhance workers' awareness towards this Act, especially for low wage workers. This will prevent irresponsible employers from taking advantage by cheating injured workers so that the workers do not submit appeals to obtain compensation through WICA, which affects the company's accident record.
(In English): I believe that we are indeed making a big step in the right direction for our workers here in Singapore. The proposed amendments show that we understand the urgency of workplace compensations and the need to be fair and transparent to all parties involved.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. At this juncture, I also want to declare my interest as I work for an organisation that handles work injury assessments.
Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. The Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA)'s \"no-fault system\" ensures that employees receive fair compensation for work related injuries or illnesses without having to go through the lengthy and costly process of taking legal action against their employer.
In 2018, while there was a drop in the number of workplace fatal injury cases from the year before, workplace injury cases increased from 12,498 cases in 2017 to 12,810 cases in 2018. Both workplace major and minor injuries saw an increase in the number of cases.
The proposed enhancements to compensation to keep pace with healthcare cost and wage growth and the amendments to make it compulsory for employers to take work injury compensation insurance coverage for employees will provide assurance to employees of fair compensation and ensures timely payout of compensation.
Since 2017, there were four cases, referred to the Singapore Medical Council for investigation, where doctors were suspected of issuing inappropriate medical certification to workers that had work injuries. The proposed amendments to make all medical certificates and light duties reportable and expansion of compensation to cover workers on light duties due to work injury will be key to preventing employers from influencing doctors on the prescription of MCs. This ensures that workers are given appropriate number of days of MCs for their recovery and care.
With employers having to take compulsory insurance coverage for work injury compensation, we must, however, be cognisant that this will have increased cost impact on businesses. Clause 24 states that the insurance policies must be approved policies with one or more designated insurers and that a minimum coverage may be stipulated. Clause 26 requires that an approved policy must contain all the prescribed compulsory terms and disallows derogatory of the compulsory terms. Clause 25 outlines the penalties for employers who breach the terms set out in clause 24 which include fines, imprisonment or both. With such obligations placed on employers, what measures will there be to ensure insurance premiums for work insurance compensation remain affordable and sustainable for businesses, especially given the current market challenges that businesses are facing?
I was glad that Minister of State stated that there will be a phased approach taken in the implementation of the amendments. The Minister of State did say that 90% of companies are already insured. But despite this, because of increased scope of compensation that will come with the amendments as well as the fact that more employees will be required to be covered under this Act, it will definitely increase the cost of premiums so I do hope that there will be measures to also look at the premium affordability and the trends of how that posed.
The proposed new regulatory regime for the Workplace Insurance Compensation does, however, offer better protection for employers as well as only insurers licensed by MOM are allowed to sell the approved WIC policies. MOM's endorsement of a standard WIC policy with a core set of insurance terms and conditions will also help ensure claims are paid and employers will not be faced with exclusions and have to make out-of-pocket payment of compensation to employees despite having insurance coverage.
The regime will also required licensed insurers to process all WIC claims in accordance to stipulated terms and condition, guidelines as well as processing timelines. So, in the event of disputes, this will be reviewed and handled by MOM so this does provide additional protection for employers directly. Under the current Act as well, employers have no recourse against fraudulent claims if they have made payment for medical, permanent incapacity or death compensation. The proposed amendments of the Act will enable restitution to be paid to employers for false claims.
As outlined in clause 33 of the Bill, insurers will be also required to provide MOM with policy and claims history information. This information will be centralised and, I believe, shared with insurers to allow insurers to differentiate premiums based on claims history and the risk profile of employers. This concept is a novel idea and may encourage employers to ensure safe and healthy workplaces. However, the devil always in the details and the exact implementation. So, can MOM share more information on how this will work? Will there will be greater transparency on the differentiation of premiums and will employers also be provided with information of the insurance premium trends to allow them to also make better decisions on the insurers that they select?
I would also ask that MOM consider the approach of sharing of information of good work safety practices of employers and having this included as part of premium differentiation because this will help also prevent a practice of under-reporting because if reporting was the only – if the claims history was the way of premium differentiation, it could lead to a dangerous situation of under-reporting.
With the proposal for new and enhanced penalties to deter employers from non-compliance, I do also ask how MOM will keep track of compliance to ensure that employers do in fact take up WIC insurance coverage for their employees and reporting of all work injuries and illnesses? At the same time, will there also be tracking of the adequacy as well as the timeliness of payouts by insurers to ensure that employees do get paid appropriately as well as in a timely manner.
Ultimately, the best protection for workers and for employers is to have safety protocols and training to ensure a safe working environment. While employers have the duty of care to provide a safe working environment for their employees, employees also do need to adhere to safe work practices as they carry out their work and this will help minimise the number of injuries as well as diseases in the workplace. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 is a significant step that will improve both workplace safety and the rights of injured workers. I see the purpose of regulations covering workplace safety as addressing two problems: first, the imbalance of power between the worker and the employer; and second, the market failures inherent to the provision of workplace safety. So, quite apart from the question of justice, there are economic efficiencies to be gained from good regulations covering workplace safety.
Simply put, workplace safety can be costly. While no employer intends for workplace injuries to occur, employers face incentives to minimise expenditures on safety. While the common law provides for redress, the legal system is costly. So, WICA is really a means of ensuring that the employers internalise the costs of injuries at work. Employers have to pay the correct price for any deficiencies in workplace safety. Without WICA, it is clear that the costs of work injury are more likely to fall on the worker and the family, and in extremis, society as taxpayers. With the revisions in the WICA, employers who expose workers to greater occupational hazards will have to pay for those risks through insurance loading. This provides a market-based mechanism for improving workplace safety efficiently.
In fact, the mechanism could function even better if the employer's risk-loading was publicly reported so that workers and other firms can make decisions, bearing the employer's safety record in mind. However, even if we welcome these improvements to workplace safety, we should examine two related problems of workplace safety which face continuing market failures – the case of self-employed persons and the insurance and medical ecosystem that give WICA effect.
The first concerns self-employed persons, particularly those providing services through market platforms – our private-hire drivers, taxi drivers, food delivery riders and the like. Self-employed persons are not covered by WICA. In principle, this is because self-employed persons are not subject to the control of an employer. We expect that the self-employed are best placed to judge the risks of a particular task and how to mitigate those risks efficiently. But in practice, the risks faced by the self-employed are really no different from those faced by the employee. Traffic accidents, slips and falls do not check for whether you are employed or self-employed.
Sir, the lack of regulations covering work injury for the self-employed creates a substantial difference in the effective price of labour for the same type of task. There are now competing employment arrangements in the market for point-to-point drivers and food delivery riders. At least one taxi company engages drivers as employees rather than as self-employed hirers. Food delivery services also employ some delivery riders directly. A market platform that chooses to employ workers directly will have to comply with WICA and pay the appropriate insurance costs for the risks, in addition to bearing other regulatory costs of employment, such as CPF contributions.
Taken together, I fear that we will inadvertently create an incentive for employers to create and promote self-employment arrangements to avoid the regulatory costs. In fact, because the regulatory costs are, in effect, shared between employer and the employed, it means that take-home wages for the self-employed may well be higher than that for employees, for the same type of task. While the self-employed may see this as a good thing, the self-employed are really going to be under-priced in the market; their wages will not reflect the full risks of the job. The self-employed and their families will end up bearing the real costs if they suffer injuries in the course of work.
I acknowledge that there are Government efforts to promote work injury insurance for the self-employed. Minister Teo noted in a reply to a Parliamentary Question earlier this year that the Workplace Safety and Health Council has encouraged food delivery services to provide private accident insurance for self-employed riders, and Deliveroo and GrabFood have done so. But there is a crucial difference. Private Accident Insurance will not be subject to specific regulation under WICA. Therefore, we have no regulatory levers for ensuring that the comprehensiveness of coverage, standards for claims and processes for payment are similar to the protections provided under WICA, or even if they are adequate for risks of the task.
One objection to regulating self-employed persons for work injuries is the cost burden. Who will pay for the costs and how will protection be organised? Here, I believe the market platforms have a role to play. The market platforms already handle payments between self-employed persons and the buyers of their services. The platforms have the necessary economies of scale to contract with insurers to provide coverage for their drivers and riders. While this is currently voluntary, we should study whether it is possible to improve workplace injury protection for self-employed persons on market platforms to the same standard as that enjoyed by employees.
The second area where we need to understand market failures in safety better is the broader safety ecosystem. There are two other parties playing a major role in WICA: the insurers, who guarantee the payment of liabilities under WICA, and the medical institutions, who treat the injured and provide medical reports for the purpose of computing compensation under WICA. The problem is that both insurers and medical institutions face significant conflicts of interest in discharging their roles under WICA.
The insurers are essentially assuming the financial liabilities faced by the employer under WICA. While insurers should, in principle, price insurance premiums appropriately so that the employer bears the eventual cost of lapses in safety, the insurers also have an incentive to reduce payouts to the extent possible. While the move to have WICA insurers process all claims is administratively efficient, I urge the Ministry to continue monitoring the performance of insurers in claims processing, with the interests of the injured worker in mind. In particular, I urge the Ministry to commit to sampling and independently assessing claims, to determine if injured workers are receiving their full entitlements under WICA.
As for medical institutions, the concern here is that the medical providers effectively work for the employer and not the injured patient. Many employers have established contracts with medical providers for employment-related medical services. The problem is when medical providers face a conflict of interest between their duty to the patient and their financial relationship to the employer. In one recent case, this conflict of interest resulted in a surgeon being convicted for professional misconduct for providing grossly insufficient post-operative medical leave to a foreign worker. While I acknowledge that the Ministry is monitoring this issue closely, there are some regulatory reforms that could grant workers more protection.
For example, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics has suggested that workers facing a work injury could be granted the right to seek medical treatment and medical reports from a medical institution of their choice. If so, the costs should be completely claimable from the employer. To guard against the inefficient inflation of claims, the Ministry could establish a set of medical institutions that are approved for this purpose, such as the restructured hospitals.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Ministry for drafting a comprehensive set of regulations that will enhance workplace safety and improve justice for injured workers. I think the most notable gap now is protection for our self-employed workers and our migrant workers who often face barriers to exercising their rights under WICA. I trust that the Ministry will continue to work with the market platforms to provide full and equivalent protection for self-employed Singaporeans and with non-Government organisations to support migrant workers in their pursuit of justice. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.07 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me make a declaration in my capacity as an Emergency and Trauma Specialist, I manage some of these work-related injuries and deaths at work and I also write their assessment and compensation claims.
Pertaining to the technical aspects of the Bill, I have the following queries.
Firstly, there are currently some 15,000 to 16,000 claims per year. What is the trend that we are seeing over the last few years? This is a reflection of our workplace safety. Also, how does it compare with other cities with relatively similar industrial and size make-up as Singapore?
Secondly, the salary cap for coverage will be increased to 2,100 from April 2020 and then 2,600 from April 2021. Can we not just do this in one step? The sooner the better I feel. For such an important issue whereby lives and limbs can be at stake, the faster the better. Anyway, the WIC premiums' incremental cost is at 0.015 the annual total labour cost. Can the Minister explain this in a bit more detail and how the decision was reached to do this in two steps rather than just one step?
Thirdly, there may be cases where the salary records are missing or unavailable. I note one of the prerequisites is the itemised payslip. How can we reconcile and improve this as it seems a fundamental and a basic requirement for employers? Is there a significant number of such cases that MOM faces annually? How can we, perhaps, implement some kind of enforcement with this because this is really a basic fundamental for our workers?
Fourth, for some cases where their medial status needs stabilisation before the final compensation can be decided upon, they will need multiple follow-ups and appointments with the medical specialists. Also, who will pay for these consultation fees? For foreign workers, especially, they have to actually pay foreign rates and non-subsidised rates. Are these claimable from the employers or MOM? Also, these follow-ups are done before the claims are given out. Therefore, the workers will usually have to fork out their own money for this. These fees may amount to quite a significant value and, at times, the employees have no choice but to follow up. In some cases, we have also seen them defaulting on their follow-up, thus, leading to problems medically for them.
Can the Minister also share with us on the claims for dental procedures and dental cases that are related to injuries? Are employees only able to attend Government or public dental services or can private dental specialist care also be recognised as well, as dental injuries are probably less common than just medically-related ones?
One other area which is still rather nebulous is the area of mental incapacitation resulting from a work-related issue. I think one of our colleagues Mr Arasu brought this up earlier and I support his call for some considerations in this area. Proving this may be more challenging. Therefore, has there been any examples of such cases, if the Minister can share with us? And also moving forward, how can we perhaps give these cases some kind of consideration?
Next, claims from workers can be reported by the workers, employers or the medical practitioners. The Singapore Medical Association takes serious disciplinary action against doctors for non-reporting or even for insufficient medical leave and assessment which is not done appropriately in relation to injuries. In this light, perhaps, can MOM work with MOH on a framework or guideline to assist and advise medical practitioners on some kind of algorithmic process, so that there is actually some kind of a loose framework they can refer to?
Also, how frequently does MOM review the claims compensation amount and how is the AMF derived? That would be good for us to understand as well.
Finally, on claims processing time, I hope that this can be hastened as well, as on and off, I still see workers requesting for help on follow-up and this is already amounting to, probably, sometimes two years or more after the initial injury. Therefore, perhaps, some expedition in this area will be useful. In all, I support the Bill.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. According to statistics from MOM, the number of workplace injury cases is rising. Last year, 2018, saw 12,810 workplace injury cases, up from 12,498 cases in 2017. The statistics showed also that although fatal injury cases had decreased, the number of major and minor workplace injury cases saw an increase.
The proposed amendments to WICA are, therefore, timely as it seeks to provide a faster and better way to compensate employees in the event of an unfortunate accident occurring at the workplace. However, I have a couple of questions.
Let me start by recognising the pro-worker amendments to the Bill, which MOM had jointly formulated with the Labour Movement.
Over the past year, I have been advocating for differentiated WIC insurance premiums, based on companies’ risk profiles and claims records. I am, therefore, glad to see that this suggestion has been adopted. Differentiated insurance premiums will incentivise companies with strong workplace safety practices to continue their focus on creating a safe working environment and encourage companies with poor track records to improve their workplace safety practices. Nudging companies to focus on their workplace safety culture is important as this will directly result in a better safety outcome for our workers.
The Labour Movement has also worked closely with MOM on other key measures in the Bill that will result in enhanced protection to employees. These include expanding the coverage of compulsory WIC insurance to more employees and extending WIC to include employees on light duty who may be paid significantly less than usual due to their work injury but are not eligible for medical leave.
Such measures will, undoubtedly, enhance the protection of employees in the area of workplace safety. However, we also need to look at WSH holistically by placing equal emphasis on workplace health, which is the latter – and often overlooked – half of the WSH equation. I have some suggestions on how we can do exactly that.
Our workplaces are becoming increasingly desk-bound, particularly for many of our PMEs. Studies have shown that sedentary jobs give rise to new forms of occupational diseases, many of which are not covered under WICA. For example, long working hours, coupled with a stressful workplace environment, can result in mental health issues, such as workplace burnout, which is now a recognised occupational phenomenon by the World Health Organization.
\"Feeling burnout\" is a common phrase we hear from our workers, among our workers, but little has been done to learn more about its longer term health issues. Such occupation-related mental health issues can lead and have led to negative physical health outcomes. Can the Ministry consider expanding the list of occupational diseases covered under WICA to include mental health issues arising from the workplace? If we are not ready to do so, we should at least initiate more studies on the effects of such workplace work-related mental health issues.
Mr Speaker, mental health issues arising from work are a real and ever present danger at the workplace. We can quip about how to label such mental health issues, whether it is an occupational phenomenon or a work-related disease. What is clear, however, is that we need to protect our workers who may be suffering in silence.
For WSH to be pervasive in every industry, companies must also embrace Total WSH and encourage their employees to lead a healthy lifestyle. For instance, those companies with staff canteens can provide healthier food options for their workers. The canteens operated by the National Transport Workers Union (NTWU) have done exactly this through our Brown Rice campaign, which has been a big success across our 46 canteens islandwide. We have also tried to promote sugar-free drinks, such as Kopi-O kosong and Teh-O kosong. Unfortunately, this has not been as successful as the brown rice initiative, but we will try again.
Through constant experimentation, I believe that we will be able to find the right initiatives to encourage healthy eating among our workers. What we eat is key to what we turn out to be. The Labour Movement stands ready to partner with companies to introduce more initiatives to promote healthy eating and achieve Total WSH.
Mr Speaker, this Bill proposes to license insurers that sell and process WIC claims, to create a faster and simpler compensation process. This is a good idea and we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place.
Insurers may have vested interest in reducing the number of work injury claims, to reduce the compensation that is paid out. Therefore, it is vital that MOM set up channels for workers to seek redress if they disagree with the insurer’s assessment on the validity of their claims. Beyond MOM's proposed role as adjudicator of any WIC disputes, MOM should also have levers to penalise insurers who indiscriminately dismiss claims as non-work injuries.
Under the proposed licensing regime, MOM will accredit WIC policies based on a core set of standard terms and conditions to ensure adequate WIC insurance coverage. However, insurers would still be permitted to offer exclusion clauses. The question is: what are the safeguards that MOM will put in place to ensure that insurers do not diminish the adequacy of such insurance coverage through these exclusion clauses?
Mr Speaker, while the Bill focuses on work injury compensation, we cannot achieve Total WSH without a strong focus on the prevention of workplace accidents. As I have mentioned earlier, 2018 saw a total of 12,810 workplace accidents reported across all industries. Every accident that happens – even the minor ones – is a danger to our workers. Inherent in every injury is the risk that it may worsen and result in a tragedy. Seemingly minor injuries at the first instance can worsen into a major injury and a major injury can lead to death. Unfortunately, in 41 of the accidents that happened last year, the victims succumbed to their injuries.
Here, I would like to reiterate the calls that I have made on how we can step up on prevention, as well as provide MOM with a suggestion on how to use the data from the WIC claims to help in conducting targeted inspections and enforcement.
The prevention of workplace accidents requires a strong company culture geared towards safe workplace practices. Therefore, we should make it mandatory for every company to have at least one trained WSH representative. Today, only certain sectors are required to have a WSH officer. Having a mandatory WSH representative in every company will certainly go a long way in making Total WSH more pervasive and help prevent accidents from happening.
Earlier this year, I had proposed to set up a National WSH Training Academy that doubles up as a WSH Centre of Excellence. I hope that the Ministry can reconsider this suggestion. The Centre can establish a central registry of WSH practitioners, share industry best practices and showcase the use of new technologies to strengthen safety and health standards. Our SMEs would be the greatest beneficiaries of such a Centre of Excellence, as they have limited resources and would benefit from such knowledge sharing.
Finally, in addition to ensuring safeguards to prevent fraudulent rejection of WIC claims, MOM should also use the data from WIC claims to aid in inspections and enforcement. By analysing the data from a large enough sample size of claims, MOM would be able to derive the sectors and sub-sectors that are lagging in their WSH practices and conduct more targeted inspections.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act will benefit both workers and employers. As we put the pieces of the new legislative framework in place, we need to be mindful that Workplace Safety and Health needs to be tackled holistically. Only by focusing equally on preventing workplace accidents and on Workplace Health initiatives can we truly achieve Total Workplace Safety and Health. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, let me thank all 13 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
Prof Fatimah Lateef had asked about the trend in the number of WICA claims and how our safety performance stands among our peers. In line with Singapore's improving WSH performance, the number of awarded claims has fallen by 7% in the past three years, from around 15,700 in 2015 to around 14,600 in 2018.
As the WICA is but one option for employees to seek compensation for work injuries, a better reflection of our workplace safety is the workplace fatality rate. As mentioned in my earlier speech, our three-year average fatality rate has improved significantly from 18th place among OECD countries in 2010 to seventh place in 2018. We are working hard towards the goal of having a rate of less than 1.0 per 100,000 workers by 2028, which will make our workplaces one of the safest in the world.
Mr Douglas Foo and Ms Jessica Tan asked how MOM will share policy and claims information with insurers. Only authorised representatives of designated WIC insurers will be allowed to check on employers' information. As mentioned in my earlier speech, the Ministry will not be revealing the actual workforce size and annual payroll data to insurers. Rather, our system will just tell insurers that their clients' declaration is either consistent or not consistent with MOM records.
Ms Jessica Tan also asked about transparency in premiums quoted by insurers. The WIC insurance market today is highly competitive, with 31 insurers operating. As in other insurance products, such as motor insurance, employers can approach different insurers to obtain a quote, based on their company activities, accident record and workforce size.
MOM will also explore and take on board Ms Jessica Tan's suggestion on how best to publish general information on the range of premiums quoted, to help employers see where they stand and to encourage them to strive for a clean safety record to obtain the lowest premiums.
I would like to thank Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the need for an expeditious claims process. This is core to WICA. The average time for claims for permanent incapacity or death to be resolved is 4.5 months after the claim has been filed. Amendments, such as streamlining of the claims process and compensating based on current incapacity, will further shorten the claims process.
With regard to insurer processing claims, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about measures that are put in place to safeguard employees' interests. As I have detailed out in my earlier speech, the interests of the employees will continue to be protected as insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Just to allay your fears again, insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Compensation for incapacity is based on the assessment of a heath professional and computed using a fixed formula based on age and earnings. The Ministry will put in place a system of checks and balances in the licensing scheme to ensure that claims are processed fairly and in a timely manner.
Employees who feel that their compensation was not processed fairly can raise objections to us, which will continue to be adjudicated by the Ministry. Employees who face other problems or suspect errant behaviour by insurers or employers should report this to the Ministry.
Nevertheless, given that this is a new regime, I fully agree with Mr Zainal Sapari that we should conduct reviews at appropriate junctures to fine-tune if necessary.
Mr Zainal Sapari sought clarifications on whether employees who are compensated based on their CI assessment are able to seek re-assessment if their injuries deteriorate thereafter.
Firstly, I want to say that a doctor should not make a CI assessment unless he is of the view that there is unlikely to be a significant change in the employee's condition.
Secondly, in coming up with the CI framework, we consulted with the WIC Medical Board, which comprises medical professionals that help MOM to review appeals against the treating doctor's assessment of incapacity. The Medical Board confirmed that the state of incapacity six months after the accidents would be very close to the eventual extent of permanent incapacity in the vast majority of cases.
Thirdly, in the unlikely event that an employee's condition deteriorates significantly after the CI assessment, the new WICA provides for the initial assessment to be revised if the doctor can provide the reasons for the revision within 90 days after the deadline to raise objections.
Mr Louis Ng sought clarifications on whether the introduction of current incapacity will affect the employees' WICA entitlement to medical treatment for their work injuries. Under the new WICA, employers are responsible for their employees' medical expenses up to $45,000, or one year from the accident, whichever is reached first. This entitlement is independent of the medical assessment of either the PI or the CI. So, it is independent and employees will still get it.
As mentioned in my earlier speech, CI assessment would take place at least six months after the date of accident, where the WIC Medical Board assesses that the extent of incapacity is a close approximation of the steady-state incapacity for most cases. As such, the bulk of the medical treatment and, hence, expenses would have taken place before the CI assessment. The introduction of CI assessment, therefore, allows foreign workers to recuperate and be with their loved ones earlier in their home countries. I note that this view is echoed by Mr Zainal Sapari who is familiar with workers' situations through the unions and the MWC.
I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng and Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the importance of employers to provide itemised pay slips and difficulties that we face when such reliable documentary evidence is unavailable. It is mandatory under the Employment Act for employers to issue itemised pay slips to their employees. It is an offence not to do so.
To address the handful of cases that we see each year that lack reliable documentary evidence to determine AME, the Commissioner can either set the \"derived AME\" based on the co-worker’s earnings or a multiple of the employee's basic rate of pay. For the latter, the multiple will be set at a level such that the \"derived AME\" is higher than industry norms, further incentivising employers to provide proper documentary evidence, that is, the employer is likely to be worse off if he does not provide documentary evidence or itemised payslips.
Sir, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Prof Fatimah Lateef proposed higher coverage for compulsory insurance and a faster pace of implementation. The Ministry had originally proposed during the public consultation to raise the salary cap in one step. However, employers were concerned about the cost pressures they were already facing and an uncertain economic outlook. The eventual outcome of a two-step increase was a tripartite consensus. I would like to place on record my appreciation for our union leaders and I am sure employers also feel likewise. MOM will continue to consult tripartite partners on the timeframe for compulsory insurance to be adjusted further.
I note Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jessica Tan were concerned employers may under-insure for WIC. As part of the licensing conditions, designated insurers will have to report to the Ministry their data on the number of workers insured by each of their clients. This will be checked against our own records of companies' workforce size to identify which companies are not insured or which companies are under-insured.
Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about dental claims. I am happy to confirm that under the new WICA, employees can claim for medical fees incurred for dental procedures from any registered dentist in Singapore, if the need for dental procedure arose out of a workplace accident.
Mr Douglas Foo sought clarifications about compensation for light duties. Employees who are on light duty but are absent without reasonable excuse or leave will be ineligible for such compensation.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested to compensate injured employees with light duties with the full AME for the full period of light duties. With the new WICA, we have made the treatment of light duties to be on par as medical leave. So, just as full AME is payable for the 14 days of medical leave under the existing WICA, full AME is also payable for the first 14 days of light duty or medical leave.
The WICA adopts the sensible approach of compensating the full AME for the first 14 days of medical leave and 60 days of hospitalisation leave. For injuries that require more than the combined 74 days of medical and hospitalisation leave, AME is not fully compensated because such injuries would be serious enough to warrant an award for PI.
Mr Louis Ng, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for greater clarity on medical leave and light duties. With the move to expand compensation to work-related light duties and to report any instance of light duties or MCs, light duties will be treated like MC under the new WICA. So, the distinction between medical leave and light duties will be less important under the new WICA.
Nonetheless, I agree with the Members that we can do more to reduce confusion on the ground. We will work with the medical community and seek their professional opinion on the grounds for doctors to prescribe either medical leave or light duties.
On Mr Louis Ng and Mr Pritam Singh's questions on doctor switching, as mentioned in my earlier speech, we want to ensure that there is proper and fair assessment of the employee's injury. Therefore, in most cases, the first treating doctors will be in the best position to assess incapacity as they have the most complete picture of the accident. However, if there is prima facie evidence of inadequate care, such as significantly shorter MC duration than from other doctors, the employee will be allowed to switch to another doctor of his choice without having to seek the employer's consent. He just has to inform MOM. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, the employer pays for both assessments.
Mr Douglas Foo raised concerns about the administrative work and compliance cost of reporting accidents resulting in any instance of medical leave or light duties. To ease the administrative burden on employers, the report form for those with medical leave or light duties that are three days or less will be simplified and shortened. Nevertheless, employers will still need to provide the additional details should their employee get subsequent medical leave or light duty that exceeds the three-day threshold.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Anthea Ong sought clarifications on whether employees will be kept informed of the claims process, such as being notified when their employers report the accidents and if they will be given the opportunity to challenge the details stated in the accident reports. Once an employer submits an accident report to the Ministry, the employee would receive a letter informing that an accident report has been made, his/her rights and the steps to be taken to receive compensation. The Ministry or insurer will verify important information, such as injury sites and salary information, with them and conduct fact-finding if there are any disputes.
To Mr Tay's point that claimants should be kept in the loop of the WIC process, this is already the case today. Claimants or anyone assisting them can obtain information about the claims status through our website or text messages. For the latter, they come in four languages and claimants can subscribe to our text messaging service to receive notifications when the claims status changes.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong also asked how the Ministry intends to ensure that foreign employees receive notification of the accident reports and whether employees can obtain a copy of the accident reports for free. We will explore how we can provide such notifications. In the meantime, employees who did not receive such a letter within three weeks of informing their employers of their work injuries can approach the Ministry for assistance.
I would like to clarify that the content of accident reports will not affect employees' amount of compensation under the WICA. So, workers would not need the actual reports. Reports could be useful if the employee makes a common law claim, as it may suggest whether any party was at fault in the accident. In such a situation, it is reasonable for employees to pay the nominal fee of $5 for the report.
Various suggestions were raised by Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu to address the under-reporting of work injuries by employers.
On auditing employers reporting of accidents by referencing third-party data, this will be possible under the new WICA as insurers will share with MOM the claims made by employers.
On subjecting both employers and doctors to a duty to report work accidents, the primary responsibility rests with employers, as they are required to ensure the safety and health of their employees. Instead of burdening doctors with additional legal liability, WICA simplifies the reporting regime for employers. As long as an MC of any sort is issued, the employer has to file a report. It also makes cases of medical malpractice more clear cut, as it would be very unusual that any significant injury would not warrant at least an MC or light duties. This approach allows employers and doctors to focus on what they do best, rather than making a doctor also responsible for what an employer should be doing.
On the suggestion to allow employees to report to MOM, I would like to clarify that employees can already report accidents to MOM. They can do so when accidents occur, or when they did not receive notice of their employers' accident reports.
Mr Pritam Singh raised various issues. Let me first say I welcome his new-found interest in work injury compensation, as the Workers' Party has so far not raised any questions concerning the compensation of employees for work injury during this term of Parliament. It would have also been nice to have heard from the Workers' Party when we had the public consultation for WICA, but it is never too late to start.
Mr Pritam shared the case of R, and asked if there were gaps that led to the late reporting of this case. We have managed to trace the case that he had referred to, and fuller facts will be useful for Members of the House to understand the context. In R's case, he was injured in 2015 while he was on his way to training at a third-party venue. Both he and his employer did not report the injury then, as they thought it occurred when he was not at work.
His employer nevertheless paid more than $54,000 for his medical expenses, which exceeded even the upcoming WICA limit on medical expenses, even though they thought it was not a work injury. R only filed a report two years after the accident. This was after he had left his employer, having served till age 67. Well, actually his employer was also progressive in re-employing him up to 67, even though the re-employment obligations under the Retirement and Re-Employment Act were up to 65 in his case. He later explained to MOM that it was only after he left employment, and he told a friend, that his friend asked him why he did not file a WIC claim.
I would like to point out that this is not a case of \"power imbalance\" that the employer exploited, but in fact, the employer's actions in covering the cost of medical treatment shows that the employer was doing right by the worker. MOM did not admit the claim initially, as it was not made within one year from date of accident. Upon appeal, MOM investigated further the circumstances leading to non-reporting in 2015. It was clear from the worker's and employer's account, that both parties believed that it was not a work accident. MOM therefore exercised discretion under the law, to admit the claim.
I should highlight that the concept of a time-bar for claims exists in both WICA and under common law. When a time-barred report is filed, without further information of the background, the right thing to do is to reject it. However, there is an avenue for the claimant to appeal, and provide facts to support his appeal, as he did in this case.
In the end, as MOM admitted the claim, R was ultimately assessed to have suffered 25% permanent incapacity and awarded another $54,500 in compensation.
I should also note that the employer could have taken the position that since the worker wanted to pursue a WICA claim, benefits and cover that were provided for him in 2015, which exceeded WICA limits for medical costs, could have been recouped. However, the employer did not do so.
Far from illustrating deficiencies in the WICA system, R's case shows how the WICA regime is robust in compensating deserving cases. Time-barred cases are reviewed if the appellant is able to provide facts to show why a claim could not be filed earlier. It also shows that there are employers who are willing to go well and above what the law mandates, because they care for their workers.
Mr Pritam also extrapolates from R's case, to claim that private settlements are not fair to workers and that MOM should oversee such settlements. R's case in fact shows the opposite. The employer has actually ended up paying more than he needed to. While Mr Pritam called for MOM to put ourselves in the shoes of the worker, as our response for the case of R shows, MOM puts itself in the shoes of both the worker and the employer.
Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Douglas Foo and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke on educating employees and employers on the WICA.
We agree that this is important for workers to know their rights, and for employers to understand what counts as an injury. Over the years, the Ministry has expanded its outreach to educate employees, such as through the foreign workers' Settling-in Programme. Mr Tay has also shared the assistance and support that unions and the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) can provide to those with work injury compensation claims.
For employers, MOM will continue to conduct briefings to clarify any doubts. MOM will continue to raise public awareness of WICA, and seek new channels and partners to work with us.
On the frequency of reviewing the compensation limit, I would like to clarify with Mr Pritam Singh that we have initiated reviews every three years. At the conclusion of the review, we announce the revised limit to take effect the following year. The next review is then initiated three years later. In the review, we consider wage growth and inflation since the last revision of the compensation limit, and discuss with tripartite partners on what the new limit should be, taking into account the interests of workers as well as businesses.
On Member Prof Fatimah Lateef's question on age multiplying factor, the age multiplying factors are derived by taking into consideration the net present value of the worker's projected loss of earnings due to work injury until retirement age. Therefore, younger workers have higher age multiplying factors than older workers.
A few Members – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Anthea Ong, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef – have raised concerns about workers' treatment being delayed or workers not following-up on treatment because employers did not provide the hospitals with the letter of guarantee, or LOG.
Hospitals today ask for LOGs to be assured that employers will pay for medical expenses since some treatments may not be for work injuries, or may be discretionary. Otherwise, the burden of bad debts could be passed on as higher cost to all other patients.
Nonetheless, no worker would be deprived of treatment for work injury regardless of the ability to pay, or whether an LOG was provided.
Employers are already required under the WICA to pay for their employees' medical treatment for any work injuries. This includes for diagnostic work like MRI scans to assess the extent of injury. Workers should report to MOM if their employers are not willing to furnish an LOG for work injuries. We will take action against employers who fail to meet their obligation to pay for medical expenses under the Act. In addition, the new WICA will allow the Ministry to order insurers to pay medical expenses directly to the healthcare institution if necessary.
On the suggestion of insurance cards to employees to facilitate prompt treatment, I thank members for the suggestion, but would point out that work injury compensation insurance is just one of several medical insurance products for both local and foreign workers. Local workers also have their own MediShield Life policies, as well as company provided insurance. For foreign workers, it is a condition of the work pass that the employer has to purchase insurance to cover medical treatment generally. Issuing cards to workers will not solve the problem of whether the medical treatment is being claimed under the correct policy and may even lead to greater confusion, given the many insurances that are out there, or that they are being covered under.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zainal Sapari enquired about the food and housing arrangements for injured foreign workers.
Employers are still responsible to look after their workers while they are in Singapore even after they have cancelled their work permits. They have to provide acceptable housing and adequate food, that is three meals a day, for workers whose work injury claims are still pending.
Before 1 August 2019, if the worker does not want to stay at the accommodation provided by the employer and requests to stay at other accommodations, we permitted it. However, this has caused other problems, such as no control over the housing conditions where the workers stayed.
From 1 August 2019, we have established higher standards for injured workers' housing. Employers have to continue housing the workers at their dorms, or pay for housing and upkeep in other MOM-approved dorms. So, indeed, you are going to be put in one of our approved dorms at the minimum.
Ms Anthea Ong suggested for WICA and salary claims to be conducted in parallel. This is already the case as both claims will be processed concurrently. In the event that the AME is disputed, the salary claim will need to be settled first, in order to establish the correct AME.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about the coverage of mental illness under the WICA. The WICA stipulates compensation for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of work. Employees can thus be compensated for mental disorders and any resulting incapacity, even if there is no physical injury, if the following three criteria are met: first, the injury is a clinically diagnosed mental disorder; second, the mental disorder is caused by an accident; and third, the accident arose out of and in the course of work.
In the past five years, three cases of psychological injury arising from work-related accidents were compensated under WICA. They involved conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosed and assessed by psychiatrists.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy asked whether the WICA will cover work injuries sustained while telecommuting. The answer is yes. In cases where it is clear that the injury was clearly due to work, such as an employer requiring the worker to respond urgently to work calls while at home, and the worker fell while rushing to answer the call at home, the injured worker will be entitled to WICA compensation.
Mr Zainal Sapari asked about compensation for occupational diseases, or ODs with latency periods that exceed the prescribed limitations for WICA compensation. To clarify, the limitation periods for compensation for ODs are set at between one and three years after the end of employment. There are indeed some ODs such as asbestosis with very long latency that can be more than 10, 20 years, and employees may not be eligible for WICA compensation if they have already left their companies. However, it is not practical to impose unlimited liability on employers. They may not even be in business after so long, and secondly, WICA is a no-fault regime.
Therefore, the Ministry has opted for a pragmatic approach, by providing payouts from the Workers' Fund to employees with long latency ODs who are time-barred from WICA. They can also seek recourse under the Common Law.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Mr Chen Show Mao and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the recourse available to self-employed persons in the event of a work injury.
As Members may be aware, the WICA does not cover self-employed persons as they are not considered as \"employees\". The service buyers of self-employed persons often do not have control over the self-employed persons' work conditions and hours, relative to employers' arrangements with their employees. Unlike employees where there is a clear one-to-one relationship with the employer, many self-employed persons also contract with multiple service buyers. It would not be fair for multiple service buyers to compensate or purchase insurance for each self-employed person they contract with. It is difficult to tell at which point in time they are working for which employer.
To protect themselves, the Ministry has encouraged self-employed persons to buy prolonged medical leave insurance, or PML insurance, and personal accident insurance, or PAI, to mitigate their income loss and cost of medical treatment in the event of a work injury. Self-employed persons can also consider seeking damages from third-parties under the Common Law.
But many self-employed person occupations also do not face significant injury risks, such as real estate and property agents. Different self-employed persons also devote different amounts of their time to self-employment. Thus we recognise that it may be too onerous to mandate insurance for all self-employed persons. Nonetheless, I agree with Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that the marker platforms have a role to play too, given that they employ a large number of self-employed persons outside the traditional self-employed persons. To-date, at least 28,000 Grab and Gojek drivers are already covered by PML insurance, and ComfortDelGro taxis also has plans to cover their drivers.
For food delivery, the Workplace Safety and Health Council has engaged the main delivery companies to voluntarily provide personal accident insurance or PAIs for the self-employed riders they contract with. Deliveroo and Grab are now providing PAI coverage for their self-employed riders.
These are some developments and I hope that we can encourage more.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested to channel a portion of WIC premiums to the Workers' Fund to ensure its sustainability. The Workers' Fund provides a safety net for employees who did not receive their full entitlement of WICA benefits. Reasons include employers who were uninsured and were in financial difficulties. At the moment, the Workers' Fund has sufficient resources to compensate cases that meet its criteria.
Finally, I note Mr Douglas Foo's and Ms Jessica Tan's concerns about the increase in business costs due to the slew of changes in WICA. There are three changes that will impact business costs.
One, higher compensation limits for medical expenses, death and permanent or current total incapacity. The nominal value of compensation is reviewed every three years to keep pace with wage growth and inflation.
Two, wider coverage of compulsory insurance. Companies that have not already purchased WIC insurance for such workers will have to do so. But the vast majority of companies insure all their employees already. We estimate that only about 25,000 to 30,000 employees will need to be additionally covered. Therefore, companies would not face significantly higher premium costs as a result of this change.
Thirdly, the WIC insurance market is competitive, so it will be difficult for any insurer to unilaterally raise premiums sustainably. In fact, average premiums paid per employee insured declined 12% from 2015 to 2018, despite compensation limits being raised by 20% in January 2016.
So, my advice for employers who are concerned about higher premiums is for them to strengthen their WSH management processes and prevent accidents. This will help them achieve savings in premiums.
Once again, I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Your speeches reflect the views and concerns of employees' and employers', and underscored the importance of maintaining a fine balance between additional protection and higher business costs. Your suggestions will also help refine our implementation of the new WICA. I also thank the many groups that we have consulted, the unions, the employers, the insurers, NGOs, who have helped to shape the new WICA.
To conclude, the age old adage, \"prevention is better than cure\", is particularly apt for today's amendments. I hope all stakeholders will continue to give us your full support as we strive towards being amongst the best in the world in Workplace Safety and Health performance by 2028. With your permission, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have four clarifications for the Minister of State. The first pertains to his remarks or the allusion that this is a subject that the Workers' Party has suddenly developed some sort of interest in. I have most of the Parliamentary Questions that were filed by Members on Work Injury Compensation for this term of Government. I am not going to make the argument that the Members of Parliament who did not file any questions have no interest in WICA. Having said that, the Minister of State also said that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament – and correct me if I am wrong – did not ask any question on it. I believe in 2017, there was a question filed and – I mean, not filed, sorry – a question filed by Members and Ms Sylvia Lim had supplementary questions for the Minister. So, that is just for the record.
My first query pertains to R's case. I believe in his reply, the Minister of State said that it was rejected because it was out of time. But in the letter that was sent to R, the Commissioner of Labour stated that – and I will read out the paragraph, it is a short one – \"We understand that you met the accident before you reached the training venue.\" That is the first reason and the second is, \"You did not make a compensation claim under WICA within one year from the date of the accident.\" So, my question is: the first reason, it is settled law that if you are injured on your way to work from your workplace, that you can claim under WICA. So, I am not sure why that statement was made to R. I suggested in my speech that it could be because of the way R framed his claim, in the first instance, to MOM. So, can the Minister of State just confirm that?
The third issue is a question I asked in my speech which was to give the House a sense of the numbers of all successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years. I do not believe the Minister of State answered that question and the breakdown of workers who chose a Common Law remedy, private compensation and those who did not proceed with their claims respectively. I think those numbers were not provided.
The final query I have which was also in my speech was about whether MOM follows up with private compensations, whether MOM inquires with employer, whether MOM takes a proactive view as to whether that compensation is fair vis-a-vis WICA.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: On the first point on the PQs, yes, we checked by PQs filed so I mentioned that there were no PQs filed. To me, I think what is more important is that, we are all here, like I said, it is never too late to start.
The second point, on R's case, there were two triggers. One was it was after more than one year. The second one, if you notice, after we admitted the case, we agreed that it was indeed one that WICA can cover or WICA should cover. So, in my earlier speech, I did mention that both employer and employee did not think it was a WICA case or it was a work-related case. So, therefore, as a result, I do not think anyone thought – whether the employer or the worker – none of them felt it was work-related injury. So, that was why it was not picked up, to begin with. And why MOM rejected in the first place was that it was beyond the first year. Upon appeal, we reviewed it, as I said, and we took it into consideration. After the case was admitted, we were then able to look deeper into the case and interviewed both employer and employee to understand why it was that way. So, at the end of the day, I think employee still got the case done and it was treated as WICA.
On the statistics that were asked for, I do not think this is the right platform to provide that. I think it is better that the Member files a PQ to get the statistics. We have it but we have to prepare it for you in the way you have asked for it.
And the last question was about —
Mr Pritam Singh: It was about whether MOM tracks private settlements and whether they are fair for the worker.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Under the old WICA, we did not track private settlements but, moving forward, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, insurers have to report back on the outcomes of the cases that they handled. So, therefore, it will be more meaningful for us to use the database, moving forward with the new WICA.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick follow-up again on the first point about R's case. So, I understand the employer and the worker both did not believe that this was a legitimate claim under WICA. My point is that the Commissioner of Labour also felt that way at the first instance; and my concern is the law is quite settled on this issue and it is surprising that at the first instance, it was not picked up at the MOM level. Why not?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Like I said, there were two trigger points. First was, I suppose, beyond one year, the case was not able to be admitted, to begin with. So, therefore, at that point in time, it was not possible to determine the facts of the case and to determine whether truly or not, the accounts were valid and the views were valid. It was only after the fact, when MOM had spoken to both employer and employee, were they able to establish that both of them did not think it was a work injury case. It would not have been practical to have just assumed, at face value, until you go deeper into investigations and of which after investigations and after we admitted the appeal, we understood the case better and, therefore, we admitted the case and awarded it accordingly.
I think in this case the employee had also made the application two years after the incident and after leaving the firm so, therefore, at face value, it had breached the one-year liability by the employer. So, to that extent, it was rejected upfront. After appeals – and this is what we do – on appeal, we reviewed the case, we investigated deeper. And, therefore, upon investigation we find that both of them did not think it was but, after clarifications, we took the case in.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Just a last point, Mr Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. The point I am making is: this is a worker who has received the letter from MOM. If he had not gone for an additional recourse, seen his Member of Parliament, he could have well said, \"Look, MOM has rejected me as being out of time. Number two, they are telling me that I cannot claim because it is not claimable under WICA since I wasn't injured in the workplace\", confirming his own state of mind that actually this is not an injury he can claim for.
What I am saying is: if you put yourself in the shoes of the worker, you would realise that actually the answer MOM gave was wrong. Not the one-year time bar but the point about it not being a claimable injury. I think that is the issue which I am a bit concerned about.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I do not have the letter with me. I am sure you have it. Okay. But, I think, like I said, there were two triggers. You already breached the one-year time bar and, therefore, the case is not admissible by current laws. But moving forward, under the new laws, we will be able to accept these claims a lot more readily and, therefore, make the appeals clearer. So, I think, hopefully, in future we will have better visibility on such appeals and the process to facilitate it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari: MOM will define a core set of insurance terms and conditions to prevent unfair exclusion. Since we are encouraging older workers to remain employable, will MOM ensure that the insurance companies will provide coverage for all workers, regardless of age, as long as they are manual or non-manual employees earning up to $2,600? I think there should be no exclusion clauses, especially in fine print, to deny any age group because it will affect their employability. Can I have that assurance that all age groups will be covered?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Well, we have not reached the part where we define the terms for this insurance but, certainly, we will study it and take it on board and take the Member's suggestions on board.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: This is on the self-employed persons. I agree with the Minister of State that the problem is service buyers lack the economy of scale to provide WIC coverage. But Government is a large service buyer; so, could Government consider leading the way when buying services from self-employed persons to provide WIC-equivalent coverage, much as you are already going to be doing for contribute-as-you-earn in the future.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The relationship, as I mentioned, between self-employed persons and employers are very different. Employers set the conditions in which you work and, therefore, you deal with WICA in this case. There is a lot more certainty in the environments that you are dealing with. For self-employed persons, as I mentioned, the self-employed person serves multiple buyers, not just the Government but someone else. So, it is difficult to manage in that sense. But having said that, we will continue to encourage them to undertake both personal accident insurance as well as PML. I think that is the logical thing to do and, perhaps, that will be priced in, hopefully, as how they charge for their service. We have seen, as I mentioned, the major players coming on board and we will encourage others to do so and continue the effort.
Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications for the Minister of State. The first is on the Code of Practice or Code of Conduct for the insurance companies that I mentioned in the speech. You had assured us that you will make sure that the insurers would treat each claim fairly and in a timely manner. Can you share with us how you would do that because these are private companies?
The second clarification – I am absolutely delighted that the Minister of State is confirming that workers are entitled for claims for mental illness resulting from work injury or at work. You cited that there were three claims on psychological illness in the period cited. I shared that there were 60% of migrant workers that are predicted to have serious mental illness. So, that disconnect with the number of claims that had been made – the three cases versus the 60% – I wonder if that is a case of both the employers and the employees, especially the employees, are not aware that they can actually make the claim. This comes from my own personal interaction with two Bangladeshi workers whom I supported because they were under such extreme distress and not knowing that they can actually claim for this.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I would answer the second question first, on mental illness. I have to stress again that it has to be linked to an accident. Without that link, it is not possible to cover it under this Act. So, this Act is really about accidents. In an accident case where you have PTSD, for example, that will be something we could cover but you have to show that cause, diagnosed by a doctor, to show that link to an accident. Then, you can claim for it.
As for insurers, the one thing that is different with the new WICA and the old WICA is that we are licensing the insurers. In certain sense, you cannot sell WICA insurance. If you want to get into this business, you have to abide by the regulations. So, that is the ultimate assurance that we can give employers, in terms of the terms that the WICA insurers set. There cannot be certain exclusions. There are certain terms we need them to cover and these will be covered. At the same time, the database for the insurers as well, there is assurance that employers do not under-insure. So, the whole scheme of things works by providing more transparency for both the employer, the insurer as well as the worker. There is a certain sense that the assurance is being provided to create a different eco-system that is based on greater transparency.
Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Speaker, just to clarify. So, the Minister of State is saying that mental illness resulting from a work injury is covered. Is that explicitly stated so that employees are aware and also the NGOs and the medical institutions?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I said work accident and injury resulting from an accident. So, it has to be a mental health condition, such as PTSD resulting from an accident.
Ms Anthea Ong: But is it explicitly stated or is it implied?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: It is in there. It has been covered.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Can the Minister of State give an example of a mental illness as a result of work accident that is claimable under WICA?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: As I have mentioned earlier, one example is PTSD. So, we have done three and all three were PTSD-related. They suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after an accident that they faced. Apart from this physical injury, they also had mental injury as a result.
[(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 Zaqy Mohamad]. (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":"Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\". With your permission, Sir, may I request the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the Bill to signpost the debate.
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Sir, sometimes, in our work as Members of Parliament, we encounter families that have faltered, where the children have been abused or neglected, or have gone wayward or run into trouble with the law. These families need a lot of support and intervention, to make sure the children have the best shot in life in spite of their circumstances.
This is where the Children and Young Persons Act comes in. It provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons below 16 years of age, whom I will subsequently refer to collectively as \"children\". The Act was last amended in 2011 and a review is, therefore, timely.
In preparing for this Bill, we consulted many stakeholders, including social service agencies, volunteers and professionals, and I met some of them in May this year. They gave strong support for the proposed changes and also provided valuable feedback. The concerns and suggestions they have raised helped us to make many refinements to the Bill that you see now before you.
Let me begin by highlighting the two guiding principles behind the Act. These are set out in section 3A of the existing Act. First, parents have the primary responsibility for the care and welfare of their child; and second, in administering or applying the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration.
Section 28 of the existing Act also sets out the considerations that the Youth Court must take into account when it hears cases.
Under clause 24 of the Bill before you, we propose to widen this. The Youth Court should not only aim to facilitate the protection and rehabilitation of the child, but also facilitate his reintegration with his family and with society; and second, the Youth Court should have regard to the needs of and risks faced by the child and prevent any further ill-treatment or offending. We do this to ensure better outcomes for children and break the cycles of abuse, neglect and offending.
Let me now run through the other main features of the Bill, which fall broadly into four categories. If you look at the infographic that we have just distributed, you will see four pockets of amendments. I will take you through the Bill in the course of its Second Reading and you can follow accordingly.
First, we will cover provisions that safeguard the interests of abused or neglected children. So, taking action and intervening for children who are abused or neglected. The second group of amendments relate to improving the rehabilitation and re-integration of youths with offending behaviour. The third relates to guiding families in their parenting, with support from the community; and most people would refer to this as the beyond parental control regime (BPC). Lastly, strengthening partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.
Let me start with the first set of amendments: protecting abused or neglected children. Currently, the Act allows us to intervene to protect children below 16 years of age. Clause 2 amends the definition of \"young person\" and \"juvenile\" to raise the age limit to cover children below the age of 18 so that we can intervene when the safety of older children is threatened. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Singapore is a signatory.
Under the Act today, we can intervene to provide care and protection to a child in a range of situations. One of these is if \"there is such a serious and persistent conflict within the family that relationships are seriously disrupted and the child suffers emotional injury\". However, the term \"emotional injury\" is not defined, giving rise to confusion about whether we can intervene. MSF has also encountered other situations where a child's emotional well-being has been severely affected and help should be rendered.
To address this, clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill define emotional harm, which includes manifestations, such as delayed development or post-traumatic stress disorder. Emotional harm which causes serious impairment to the child may not always be as readily or immediately observable as physical injuries, such as bruises or burns. The clause also provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a child is deemed to be in need of care and protection because of emotional or psychological abuse by parents. These are based on established child protection guidelines, such as those from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
By sharpening the meaning of emotional or psychological abuse, the amendments give better guidance to all stakeholders – MSF, social service agencies and the Court – on when we should intervene and when we need not.
Take the example of Valerie, not her real name. She is 10 years old. Valerie's mother would deliberately isolate her at home or confine her to her room to minimise her interactions with other people. She frequently told Valerie that she was dirty, smelly and unclean and refused to hold her \"unclean\" hands. She also frequently blamed Valerie for anything and everything that went wrong. When a relative who took care of Valerie fell ill, the mother would call Valerie a jinx. Valerie's parents argued frequently over her. Whenever her father tried to protect or side with her, the mother would threaten to commit suicide. Valerie was very much affected by the emotional abuse. She fears and, not unexpectedly, bears hatred towards her mother. Her anger, coupled with anxiety, has manifested as aggressive and rough play in school. This is a 10-year-old girl who needs help. We need to see past her behaviour and recognise the emotional harm that is within.
I highlight Valerie's case to show that emotional or psychological abuse and its impact may not be as readily observable as physical abuse and injury, but the harm to a child is no less significant. The new amendments make clear that cases like Valerie's fall within the scope of the CYPA.
Where children have to be removed from their families due to safety concerns, it can be unsettling for them to be placed in an unfamiliar environment. Their anxiety may be compounded if there are changes from their usual routine. Or the children may feel abnormal or inferior to their school mates, if placed in situations that remind them of their incomplete families and disadvantaged backgrounds.
The persons who are entrusted with the care of such children, such as foster parents or staff of children's homes, handle a range of matters related to the child's welfare and development. This can range from day-to-day care matters, such as personal grooming, dietary arrangements and health vaccinations, to more substantial matters, such as overseas travel, choice of school, surgery and so on. Particularly, where the matters are more sensitive or significant, the care-givers would wish to respect the views of the child's parents. But getting parental consent can sometimes be challenging because these are the very parents from whom the children have had to be removed for safety reasons in the very first place.
Some of them are uncontactable. Some will not cooperate, and make things difficult for the foster parent or the children's home. As a result, the development and emotional well-being of the children who have been removed for safety reasons can be further affected. The Bill enables MSF and designated care-givers to provide smooth and stable out-of-home care arrangements for such children.
Clause 41 allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day care decisions for children under a Care and Protection order without the need for parental consent. More substantive decisions for the children, such as overseas travel, can be made only if MSF establishes that the parents cannot be contacted despite reasonable efforts, or are otherwise incapable or unwilling to decide.
Of the children who are in out-of-home care, MSF has handled cases where, despite the best efforts of professionals and the community, it is not possible nor in the interest of the child to be reunified with his parents. Take, for example, five-year-old Joshua, again not his real name. Joshua was referred to MSF for possible neglect by his mother. He has a developmental disorder and requires extra care to meet his developmental milestones. His mother was diagnosed with a mental health condition. MSF placed Joshua with foster parents, who were harassed by Joshua's mother because of her delusional belief that they were ill-treating him. The mother was also unable to consistently adhere with her treatment plans and her mental health condition was assessed to be long-term. Given the condition of Joshua's mother and her poor response to medical treatment, it would not be in Joshua's best interests to be reunified with her. She would not be able to adequately care for Joshua, especially with his special needs and young age.
Other scenarios where reunification is not in the interests of the child are where the parent had severely ill-treated or allowed other persons to severely ill-treat the child or another child under his care and custody; the parent had been convicted of causing or trying to cause death to a child in his care and custody, or to the other parent of the child.
In these scenarios and for cases like Joshua's, the children are likely to spend many years and, perhaps, even the majority of their childhood, in out-of-home care despite best efforts at reunification. We should do what we can to provide them with a sense of stability. Therefore, clause 41 of the Bill enables the Court to place such children under a new Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO) up till the age of 21.
The ECPO allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day, as well as more substantive decisions, such as overseas travel, just as what parents would do in normal family settings. But sensitive decisions that are neither day-to-day in nature nor ordinarily made in the care of a child, can only be made with parental consent or the Court's authorisation.
Let me give an example of how the ECPO would have made a difference for a boy called Ben, again not his real name, whom MSF had placed with foster parents. Ben is today 13 years old, has multiple conditions that require frequent medical appointments. Ben's mother has been unwilling to care for him since he was born. Ben's father was uncontactable. Once, Ben was admitted to the hospital for a persistently high fever. Doctors recommended surgery to prevent further medical complications but Ben's mother was unwilling to provide consent. MSF had to apply to the Court for orders to allow Ben to undergo the necessary surgery. The new ECPO will allow the foster parents, with MSF's authorisation and in consultation with medical practitioners, to make a more timely decision to allow Ben to be treated.
At this point, I wish to assure Members that the ECPO does not sever the legal ties between parent and child. Parents who disagree with any decision made by MSF or designated care-givers can bring the matter to Court for determination. And even after an ECPO is made, parents may apply to vary or revoke the order, if there has been a material change in circumstances from the time when the ECPO was made. This requires the parents to demonstrate significant and sustained changes in addressing the safety concerns that have hitherto hindered family reunification and the child must be assessed to be ready for contact with the family and eventual reunification.
Let me move on to talk about a special group of people – our foster parents. We currently have 510 foster families. They are among some of the biggest-hearted people in Singapore. Children grow up best in a supportive family environment, especially if they have been abused or neglected. So, MSF's preference is to place such children in foster families, rather than in residential facilities, such as children's homes, if it can be helped. These foster families have opened their hearts and their homes to provide their foster children with the opportunity to grow up with a positive experience of family life – an opportunity that many of us take for granted but which vulnerable children may not have. These foster parents have responded to MSF's call for more people to step forward to provide family-based care in lieu of institutional care.
We seek Parliament's support to grant childcare leave benefits to our foster parents to enable and help them with care-giving challenges that they face, just as natural parents do.
Sir, I have covered the first sector of amendments relating to interventions to protect and care for abused and neglected children. Let me move on to the second bucket of amendments. If Members could look at the infographic handed out to Members earlier.
These relate to the rehabilitation of children and young persons with offending behaviour whom I will subsequently refer to as youths or youth offenders. There are many reasons why youths commit offences. Sometimes, it is because of challenging family circumstances, negative influences or the absence of family support. They need hand-holding and good role models so that they can pick themselves up and make responsible decisions.
We seek to make a few major changes in this area. First, we want to cover older youths under the youth justice framework, instead of treating them as adult offenders. Second, we need to take steps to enhance the safety of all youths who are housed in MSF's Youth Homes as well as the staff working in our Homes. Third, we seek to treat youth offenders' criminal records as spent after they have completed their Youth Court orders.
Let me begin with plans to cover older youths under the youth justice system. Currently, the Youth Court hears cases against youth offenders who are below 16 years of age. Young people who are 16 years and above who commit offences are tried as adults in the State Courts or the Community Court, unless they are diverted away from the criminal justice system. But studies have shown that these young persons may still not have the full cognitive maturity of adults. An inter-agency committee chaired by AG's Chambers to review the youth justice system had also recommended allowing them to benefit from a wider range of sentencing options. We will, therefore, make two changes.
First, clause 2 expands the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to hear cases involving youth offenders below 18, up from the current 16. This will be the default mode for most youth offenders. But we need to retain an avenue for exceptions, such as for youth offenders who are 16 and above but below 18 years, who commit serious offences, such as gang or drug-related activities or unlicensed moneylending, or who are repeat offenders.
Clause 55 of the Bill inserts a new Second Schedule to the Act which spells out the full list of serious offences. When the offender has committed such a serious offence or if he is not a first-time offender, clause 27 gives the Public Prosecutor the discretion to charge the offender in either the Youth Court or a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, such as the State Courts. This is intended as a deterrent that we are not soft on crimes, especially those of a serious nature, and that there are times where firmer punishment of the offender is warranted, in spite of his youth. Clause 27 also allows the Youth Court to decide, on its own motion, that another Court of appropriate jurisdiction is to try the case and mete out the appropriate sentencing for these offenders.
Second, clause 71 makes related amendments to the Probation of Offenders Act, to enable the Youth Court to impose probation on a child below the age of 18, even if they do not express willingness to comply with the conditions of probation. Currently, the Youth Court must ask a child who is 14 years old and above if he is willing to comply with the terms of probation, before it imposes such an order. We will raise the minimum age from 14 to 18. This addresses the current gap where some youth offenders reject probation in favour of a shorter imprisonment term in adult prison which works against the Court's and MSF's efforts to help such youth rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
Next, I will turn to the issue of safety and security within MSF's Youth Homes. The guiding philosophy underpinning the work of our two Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres (JRCs) is to rehabilitate, guide and support youth offenders. For that reason, many of the security features present in adult prisons are not found in our JRCs. Yet, at the same time, we need to strike the right balance of measures because, without adequate safety and assurance of security, it will not be possible to provide an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation in our JRCs.
Even with today's age limit, where youths may be admitted to the JRCs if they are below 16 years of age, there have been incidents where aggressive youths put our youth guidance officers, case workers and other youths at risk of harm. I would like to share with Members two incidents at the Singapore Boys' Home to illustrate why we are concerned about safety and security.
In one case, a 15-year-old youth verbally threatened the staff at the Home every day he was there. On the day of his Court hearing, he pretended to grab the baton of the escorting police officer. He then swung his arm towards an MSF officer to intimidate him. Despite being counselled, the youth was recalcitrant and continued to intimidate other youths at the Home.
In another case, we had a youth with a history of aggression, including past incidents of punching his schoolmates, getting into fights with strangers. While he was at the Singapore Boys' Home, the youth punched and injured his dormitory mates on various occasions. He also assaulted and injured a few auxiliary police officers and MSF officers.
These are incidents that we need to prevent and I describe these cases not to adjudicate or assign blame to these young people, but rather that these things can and, indeed, do happen, for whatever reason. This means recognising that some youths may not be suitable for rehabilitation within a JRC, but may instead require a higher level of supervision in a more structured environment, such as Reformative Training.
Clause 32, therefore, allows the Youth Court to decide if an offender aged 14 to below 18 years can be safely detained at a JRC and, if not, the Court may make an order for the offender to undergo Reformative Training in the first instance without going through a JRC. I would like to emphasise that this new provision will be for a small minority of youth offenders who are found to be so unruly that, in the Court's opinion, his presence at the JRC would be disruptive to the rehabilitation of the other residents there and he would be better managed in the Reformative Training Centre (RTC). This is also consistent with clause 24, where the Youth Court is to have regard to the needs and risks of children and prevent any further re-offending or ill-treatment of all children.
To further enhance safety and security in MSF's Youth Homes, clause 48 allows MSF officers working in the Homes to use restraints, such as handcuffs, leg braces and flexi-cuffs, to prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or injury to others. These include situations where youths continue to create a disturbance or taunt other residents because such hostile behaviour, if not put to an end, can escalate quickly and compromise safety. This is the prevailing practice in other jurisdictions, such as in Korea, the United Kingdom and some States in Australia, for the same purpose of preventing escape, violence, self-injury or other incidents.
I wish to assure Members that there will be strict guidelines pertaining to the use of such restraints and MSF officers must be trained before they are authorised to use the restraints. They will not be used as a punitive measure but to ensure safety and security of both the youth and those around him. Our officers are also trained to de-escalate conflicts among residents and prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or harm to others using other safe intervention methods, where possible.
For youth offenders who have been successfully rehabilitated, we must make sure they have the best shot in life. But, often, the label of being an ex-offender tends to stick. This makes reintegration more difficult. Many jobs today require applicants to declare whether they have a criminal record and some employers hold it against those who do. Doors may remain closed and the sense of rejection can be daunting. That is why the Yellow Ribbon project is incredibly important.
We, therefore, propose to amend the Registration of Criminals Act via clause 73 of the Bill so that a youth offender's criminal record will be considered spent once he successfully completes his Youth Court order. These Youth Court orders refer to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre order, probation order, community service order, detention order and an order to pay a fine, damages or costs. Therefore, after the law is amended, youths who have completed their Youth Court orders can, if asked whether they have ever been convicted or have a criminal record, legitimately declare \"No\".
We will go one step further. Sections 27A and 35 of the Act now protect the identity and privacy of a child when he is below 16. Through clause 50, we will widen this to ensure that the identity of a child who is or was in care and custody or the subject of an arrest, investigation, Court order or any proceedings under the CYPA, remains protected for the rest of his life. However, if the individual were to commit more offences when he is older after he turns 18, the protection of identity will not apply to these subsequent offences.
These amendments signal our commitment to better protect and support our youths in their journey to reintegrate with family and society. We have met many former young offenders who have successfully turned their lives around while under our care and supervision. Take for example Jasper Yap, a former resident of the Singapore Boys' Home, whom I consulted when I was gathering feedback on this amendment Bill. Jasper discovered he was capable of studying and doing well when he scored his first A during his stay at the Singapore Boys' Home. He is now an entrepreneur and currently serving National Service. Jasper is also a member of the Youth Advisory Group advising MSF, MHA and other Ministries on youth policy work. He shares his rehabilitation journey with the youths in the Singapore Boys' Home and teaches them ways to kick their bad habits. Like Jasper, we want to help our youths to have good role models and opportunities to succeed in life.
Let me now explain the third category of amendments in this Bill. These seek to reform the area of practice currently known as BPC or \"Beyond Parental Control\". Today, parents can apply to the Youth Court to seek help for children who are labelled as \"Beyond Parental Control\". The children may display difficult behaviour, such as running away or being in the wrong company. The Court may place the BPC children under the supervision of an appointed person, or in a residential setting, such as a children's home. The term \"Beyond Parental Control\" blames the child and holds him solely responsible for his behaviour. However, many social work professionals, legal practitioners and my own MSF colleagues have shared with me that it is just as, if not more important, to address poor parent-child relationships and poor or absent parenting. I agree with them.
We will, therefore, do away with the label \"Beyond Parental Control\" and replace it with a new order known as the \"Family Guidance Order\" or FGO, which makes clear that our focus is on the role of and dynamics within the family and not just squarely looking at the behaviour of the child. This is not just a mere change of name.
The new framework requires parents and child to complete a family programme before the parents can file for a Court application. The Court may allow the parents to first file an FGO application and then have the family complete the family programme later if, for example, the child refuses to attend the family programme. The Court can also order parents to attend mediation, counselling, psychotherapy or programmes before, during or after FGO applications are heard. This is in contrast to the existing framework where the Court can give such orders to the parents only after a BPC order has been made for the child.
I spoke earlier that we are expanding coverage of the Act to persons aged below 18 years if they face abuse or neglect or have committed offences. For FGOs, however, there will be no change to the current age threshold. This means that a parent can make a Court application for family guidance only if their child is below 16 years of age. This is because older youths are more likely to resent or resist participating in programmes and resent being brought to Court by their parents. We are, therefore, keeping the age limit at below 16 years so as not to worsen family relationships that may already be strained. We do this after taking significant advice from professionals.
Sir, I have covered the three buckets: intervening for abuse and neglect of children; second bucket – youth offenders; third bucket – the former BPC regime, now the FGO regime.
I will now talk about the last bucket of amendments which will strengthen partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.
Child protection work is currently done by MSF's Child Protective Service (or CPS) and they partner our social service agencies who also play an important role. For example, social service agencies, such as Montfort Care and Fei Yue Community Services, run Child Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), as well as Family Service Centres (FSCs). These are run by social service professionals.
But child protection work also involves many dedicated, trained volunteers. This is especially important if we want to keep families intact and ensure the safety of children within the community. Clauses 7 and 51 of the Bill strengthen the roles of these partners by providing them with appropriate statutory support and legal protection, as well as enabling relevant information sharing.
Clause 3 allows MSF to appoint members of the public to carry out specified duties under the Act. These individuals are known as \"Volunteer Welfare Officers\" in the Bill. For example, in child abuse cases, volunteer welfare officers can conduct visits to the child's home to monitor his well-being and safety. These volunteers will receive training and they may act only under MSF's instruction.
Clause 7 also allows MSF to share information relating to a child with community partners, such as the Child Protection Specialist Centres and children's homes. The purpose is to enable our partners to intervene quickly to protect vulnerable children from harm and work with families to pre-emptively resolve issues.
The conflicts within families can create acrimony that poses risk to people who work to support them. Thus, clause 51 extends to people performing a function or exercising powers under the Act protection from legal liability, as long as they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. These persons would include volunteer welfare officers and foster parents.
The participation of volunteers in complementing MSF's statutory work of protection and rehabilitation is not new. For example, volunteers assist MSF's Probation Officers by befriending, guiding and supervising probationers, and volunteers from the Singapore Boys' Home and Girls' Home support rehabilitation and reintegration, such as by befriending youths and providing tuition. Volunteers help provide transport to children under the supervision of MSF's Child Protective Service, such as to and from their residence to medical appointments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure Members that the amendments we are proposing today do not supplant the role of families. The overwhelming majority of families do their best to care for, protect and raise their children well. However, when it comes to the small number of families who require help to fulfil basic responsibilities to their children, the proposals in this Bill are vitally important and may, in some cases, literally be a lifesaver.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which was last amended in 2011, provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children under 16. It also supports children who have committed offences, those who have been abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers, and those whose parents are seeking the Court's guidance because of their children's behaviour. The importance of this Act cannot be understated. Children who go through a traumatic experience or have challenges when they are young are more likely to have issues when they are older.
A research done by Rasmus Birn, Barbara Roeburn and Seth Pollak in 2017 explained that individuals who have experienced chronic and high levels of stress during their childhoods are at increased risk for a wide range of behavioural problems, yet the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. They measured the life circumstances of a community sample of school-aged children and then followed these children for a decade and found that those who had experienced extreme stress as children were hampered in their ability to make good decisions as adults. Simply put, childhood trauma – due to circumstances like neglect or exposure to violence – created young adults fundamentally unable to correctly consider risk and make healthy life decisions. In fact, no threat of punishment was likely to be effective in changing this deficit.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, in his keynote address at the Conference on At-Risk Youth in 2015, aptly said: in general, it can be said that the more a child is exposed to adverse circumstances at an early age, the more disadvantaged will that child be.
Indeed, it has been suggested that the strongest predictors of whether a child will eventually turn to crime are likely to be in such things as poor parental supervision, parental conflict, disrupted families and, most notably, having parents with a criminal or anti-social background. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance that we keep an eye on the state of our families.
Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many studies have shown that whenever children undergo traumatic experiences or challenges when they are younger, it will have a profound impact on their lives. One such study conducted in 2017 stated that childhood trauma, possibly due to the child being abandoned or exposed to violence, will create youths and adults who are unable to assess risks and make healthy and correct decisions in life. It is clear that traumatic experiences will affect the trajectory or direction in the life a child or a youth.
Therefore, this CYPA Bill is an important piece of legislation that protects children and young persons from danger and facilitates rehabilitation, if required, as soon as possible. As a community, we must also continue to support and guide parents, especially those who are facing challenges because they may have had traumatic or bad experiences themselves when they were young. Perhaps the support and assistance for parents who face issues with their children should be enhanced so that they can understand the process that they are undergoing and be equipped with the skills to educate their children. As much as possible, we would like the family to stay intact and live harmoniously, but the most important thing to do is to protect children from precarious or hazardous situations.
(In English) Mr Speaker, in English.
Childhood and youth are points in life when one is supposed to be the most carefree and protected. However, this experience may not be true for some children or young people. We need to help those undergoing challenging periods as much as we can. The underlying principle of any regulation in this respect must be that the welfare and best interests of the children and young person will be the paramount consideration.
I appreciate that the work done by all the officers and caregivers in this sector is not easy. I, therefore, acknowledge the need to review and make amendments to this Act over time. I support the amendments but have a few matters which I wish to seek clarification on.
Firstly, I would like to welcome the move to extend the protection under the Act to all children and youth below the age of 18, up from the age of 16 today. Those who are under 18 are still young, generally less mature cognitively and are still, therefore, vulnerable to abuse and neglect. They should also be given the necessary attention and appropriate rehabilitative support when they offend. The amendments to extend the Act to include children who are abused or neglected and young offenders aged 16 to below 18 is, therefore, a good move.
However, I would like to echo the concerns of some stakeholders about the implications of having to oversee and rehabilitate a wide age range of children and young people. In particular, when we deal with young offenders, a wider age range of young people may be placed within the same residential facility. The needs and risks of a small child and a physically larger youth would differ and present different challenges. I have already received some anecdotal feedback about the instances of bullying in some of the residential homes. Typically, it happens when one resident or a group of them feel that they have more control and power over another. Will this problem be aggravated when there is be a wider age group of residents, with older youth? Further, will it be more difficult to coordinate targeted programmes or support for rehabilitation when you have a wider age group in the residential homes?
In addition, what is the Ministry's assessment of the capability of the sector to carry out the necessary functions to manage a higher number of children and young people? The increase of the age limit, will not only increase the numbers but as alluded to above, the different group of young people will have a new profile with differing needs and risks. What is the plan to strengthen the ability of the Ministry and the social service agencies to operationalise the amendments?
Lastly, I would like to seek a clarification on the proposed amendment to include the new section 68A, which enables the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons that is operated by or under the management or control of the Government to use, or authorise any person who is assisting the person-in-charge to use, mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home.
I am a little bothered by the possible scenarios and the impact such actions would have on the children or young persons restrained. Such circumstances could add to the trauma faced by the children, and such actions seem antithesis to the spirit of rehabilitation. I note and appreciate that this power is only sanctioned in very specific circumstances and in practice, may be necessary. I note that the Minister has earlier explained the need to ensure safety of the social workers as well as other residents who are in the group home. However, I would like to understand these specifications considerations that led to the decision to have this provision and how we could reconcile the spirit of rehabilitation. In particular, I would also like to know what standard operating procedures are in place to guide the use of this power and what processes and checks are in place to prevent the abuse of this provision. I feel that it is important for the Ministry to constantly assess the use of this provision and its impact on the children and young people.
Mr Speaker, the CYPA provides an important framework to ensure protection of our children and young persons from harm and the provision of support and rehabilitation when they go astray. There is a need to review and strengthen the Act so that we can best address the needs of the sector and the community. Notwithstanding the comments I made earlier, I stand in support of the Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release of 5 August, it is stated that the purpose of the Bill is to \"strengthen Government and community support for abused and neglected children, and improve the rehabilitation and re-integration of children with offending behaviour.\" This enhanced support is much needed. All children have great potential. Unfortunately, some are beset with difficult circumstances which plague their early lives. I am in support of this Bill.
Specifically, I would like to re-state my support for the amendment which will raise the maximum age for protection under the Children and Young Persons Act to 18 years, up from the current age of 16. I have been tracking this issue for some time. I am glad to note that when the Bill comes into force, youths aged between 16 and 18 who face criminal charges will, in general, be tried in the Youth Court, which sits in private and in an atmosphere of greater understanding compared to the open adult courts.
Such youths will also be entitled to have their identities protected from publication throughout the proceedings and their lifetimes, to reduce the harm of stigmatisation and labelling which would jeopardise their futures. These changes will bring our laws in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Singapore Government ratified more than 20 years ago in 1995.
That said, I have some specific observations and questions on the Bill. These are mainly about the fostering scheme, youth offenders, the new Family Guidance Orders, and the right to be heard.
First, fostering scheme. Where a child's parents are deemed incapable of caring for the child, the child may be placed in the care of a foster parent. This may be done with the consent of the parents under a voluntary care arrangement, or by an order of Court applied for by the Child Protective Service. Volunteering to be a foster parent is an onerous responsibility, involving providing a home and caring for children whose backgrounds are difficult and who may exhibit challenging behaviours. Sometimes, foster parents also face pressure from the child's natural parents. We must, indeed, thank the 500-over fostered parents who have signed up for this mission.
This Bill strengthens the framework for fostering in a few ways. First, voluntary care arrangements are given statutory recognition in the proposed section 11A, which clarifies how these voluntary arrangements will be managed. Secondly, the Bill introduces a new Part IIA on fostering. Under the proposed section 27B, a Committee on Fostering will be set up to periodically review cases of children fostered out, to ascertain if the foster parent is implementing a proper care plan for the child. At the same time, the Bill also gives more recognition to foster parents, for example, clause 63 will amend the Employment Act to enable the foster parent to take childcare leave.
I also note that under clause 69, an amendment is being made to the Passports Act to enable the Director-General, a protector or a foster parent to give consent for a child to be issued with a passport for international travel. In my opinion, this is a useful amendment. I am aware of a case where the child's parent refused to give permission for the child to go to Malaysia with his foster family, as the parent was highly critical of the care given by the foster parent. This was despite evidence that the child was happy and doing well in his foster home. Once this amendment is made and under the ECPO, which the Minister just described, the child will no longer have to be left behind while his foster family went on holidays.
Next, youth offenders. I now come to a few issues concerning young persons who get into trouble with the criminal law.
First, I am quite concerned about clause 25 of the Bill which will amend section 30 of the Act. Section 30 currently provides that youths who are arrested and not released should be brought before the Youth Court or, if not possible, before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. This is an important safeguard to ensure that any further detention of young persons should be approved by a Court, and that the youth or his parents will have the opportunity to be heard before a Court before further detention is permitted. Clause 25 proposes to amend section 30(2) to add that the youth should be produced before the Magistrate \"within 48 hours\". I do not know why there is a need to add in the words \"within 48 hours\", as this time limit is already provided under Article 9 of the Constitution and applies to all arrested persons, adult and young alike.
What concerns me is not the redundancy of the addition, but that law enforcement officers may take the addition of the 48-hour limit in the CYPA to wrongly assume that there is no additional urgency when dealing with young suspects. A child or young person in a Police lock-up, away from familiar surroundings, is vulnerable and needs to be processed fast. To this end, I would like to ask whether our law enforcement officers have protocols that require them to process cases involving youth offenders at a faster pace, what shorter time limits are set out in these protocols and how these protocols are enforced. On a related note, I would like to know if there is any special training being given to the law enforcement officers in handling suspects who are children or young persons.
Secondly, the Bill enlarges the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to deal with cases of youths between 16 and 18. This is a welcome move, but at the same time, significant limits have been placed. Under clause 27, such youths can be tried in an adult Court if the offence involved is listed in the new Second Schedule, or if the accused has been found guilty of a similar offence previously.
At first glance, I do appreciate that the offences listed at the new Second Schedule appear to be more serious, such as drug trafficking, robbery and certain moneylending-related offences. It would appear, however, that a youth who has a prior conviction of any offence, however minor, may also be tried in an adult Court. How will this work in practice?
Clause 27 provides that in such situations, the Youth Court or the Public Prosecutor can initiate the transfer of the case from the Youth Court to the adult court. Earlier, I believe the Minister did touch on this point. Can the Minister re-confirm that the power in the Youth Court and the Public Prosecutor is discretionary, that is to say, such a case may still remain in the Youth Court? Further, if the case gets transferred to an adult Court, which sits in public, how will the protection from publicising the youth's identity be enforced?
Thirdly, I would like to ask about clause 32 which touches on Reformative Training (RT). RT is a tough regime that emphasises military-style discipline and involves participants who are older. With these amendments, RT will usually be ordered for offenders between 18 and 21 years of age. Under the existing Act, section 44 provides that RT can only be imposed upon a young person below the usual age of RT under two situations: the first is that he had been sent to a juvenile rehabilitation centre (JRC), that is, he has been sent to a JRC for an earlier offence and is now before the Court again, indicating that he might need a tougher court order. The second situation is that while the youth is serving detention in a JRC, the person in charge of the centre finds him so unruly that continued detention there is not feasible and RT may be needed. Under this Bill, clause 32 introduces a new category where a Youth Court could order RT for a youth who is being sentenced for the first time. The wording of the proposed section 44(1)(k)(iii) is that an offender aged between 14 and 18 years of age could be sent to RT if the Youth Court \"is of the opinion that the the offender is of so unruly a character that the offender cannot be safely detained in a juvenile rehabilitation centre of a place of detention\".
The Minister earlier clarified in his speech that this will enable the Youth Court to send a youth to reformative training at the first instance even if he has never stayed at a JRC. On what basis then will the Youth Court conclude that he would be a failure at the JRC if he has never been sent there? Is there a danger of over-reach here?
Finally, on the issue of juvenile justice, I would like to share an observation. One of the advantages of the Youth Court is its focus on formulating orders that are appropriate to each youth, depending on the Court's assessment of what is required in individual circumstances. This advantage can also become a bone of contention, as several youths involved in the same incident may end up being treated differently by the Youth Court. For instance, a group of Secondary school students who decide to steal motorcycles for a joy ride could end up getting different sentences. One could be ordered to undergo probation, where he continues his normal schooling and resides at home, subject to curfew hours; his accomplice, on the other hand, could be ordered to be detained in a JRC like the Singapore Boys Home, separated from his home environment, with normal schooling disrupted.
Such disparate treatment needs to be rigorously justified. I remember years ago when I was representing a youth before the former Juvenile Courts. His mother asked me point blank whether her son was ordered to be incarcerated because she was a divorcee, while his accomplice got a probation because he came from a two-parent household. While certainly the Youth Court has to assess risk factors, I would caution that the system must never become so rigid as to under-estimate the effort and resilience of persons facing challenges in life.
Next, Family Guidance Orders. Under the existing Act, parents who believe they are not able to manage their children can apply to court to place them in the care of an institution or other person, under what is currently known as the BPC or Beyond Parental Control regime. Children under BPC are effectively labelled as \"bad\" children and will undergo psychological damage. I thus welcome clause 43 of the Bill, which replaces the existing BPC orders with Family Guidance Orders, a more nurturing term that does not blame the child.
I note that under clause 43, a Court making a Family Guidance Order may attach further orders for parents or the child to comply with. Such orders include attending mediation, counselling, psychotherapy, assessments or other programmes or treatment. As such programmes involve interfacing with professionals, could the Minister clarify who will pay the costs of complying with these requirements? Will parents be penalised if they are unable to pay the fees required to comply or will financial support be provided?
Finally, the right to be heard. I wish to raise a concern regarding the right to be heard before the Youth Court. There are various provisions in this Bill and in the Act itself, that provide that before the Court makes an order, the child, young person or parent has the right to be heard; for example, there is a right to be heard before care arrangements for a child are changed. There is also a right to be heard when young offenders are about to be sentenced. In theory, these persons have a right to engage a lawyer, but only a minority can afford one. To represent oneself before a Court is unfamiliar to most people and I have observed that unrepresented persons tend to either not speak up or do the opposite by being argumentative and casting aspersions on Government officials, which will be most unhelpful to their causes. Another typical problem is that what is said is not logically arranged and is difficult for the Court to follow.
I recently encountered a family who expressed frustration at their perception that the court was not listening to them on the care arrangements for their son. Upon probing further, I realised that the Court was not to be blamed but it was simply a matter of the parents organising their thoughts on paper and being respectful to the Court.
How can we facilitate the right to be heard, especially by the lower income? Can there be more pro bono services available for family and youth matters? As a second alternative, can there be a simple process of, say, a form being given out to these persons ahead of their hearing, so that they have time to formulate their thoughts and write them out for the Court to follow more easily?
Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The changes in this Bill are overall steps in the right direction and bring our law in line with international norms. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's responses to my queries.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a parent it is certainly disquieting to look at the cases where children are abused, ill-treated or neglected by their parents. I am sure this sentiment is shared by other hon Members too. What is worrying is the number of cases being reported has been on the rise, especially for sexual abuse with 248 cases, up from 107 in 2016 and 181 in 2017. Physical abuse 584 cases up from 444 in 2016, 373 in 2017. And the number of neglect cases has somewhat stayed in the 300 range since 2016. It is also troubling to see there is a rise in cases of kids between 13 and 15 years who are beyond parental control.
We are living in very challenging times. Our young not only can access all sorts of disturbing materials online, but are also basing their relationships and self-worth on social media. They are very vulnerable. They receive a lot of information, but might not be sufficiently mature to understand consequences. Like the saying in Chinese, 似懂非懂.
The aim of this Bill is to strengthen the Government and community support to help these children and improve their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. What I would like to ask the Minister is what is there now, or anything in the pipeline, which helps the community to intervene, even before the kids reach this situation?
We need parents who have difficulty handling their kids to be able to turn to someone for advice, counselling or guidance before the situation gets out of hand.
I am very encouraged to read of how a number of cases of sexual abuse were captured by MOE after the students went through lessons on sex education and spoke to the counsellors. So, for MSF, can a parenting education clinic be run for parents who need to address the challenges they face in bringing up their child? Perhaps, some form of structured programme for parents who have children in Primary or Secondary school? This would make them better parents. Sometimes, they are so stressed out and they do not know how to handle their children and end up harming their children.
Sir, another point I want to raise is what is the approach of the MSF counsellors when they are called in to investigate a case of child abuse? Under what circumstances would they recommend to the Police to take action against a parent? I raise this question because I want to share with the House an anecdote that happened where one of the parents, the father was charged and jailed for beating the 10-year-old child. This case went to Court and the father was jailed. But in the one year, between the time of offence to the Court sentence, the father and child had a very close relationship, going out together, bonding together. So, my question is what do counsellors and the Police take into consideration when recommending the offender for Court action? I think there are circumstances which merit consideration as even today the child and the offending parent are very close. To me, the main thing is to look at how we can help to reconcile the child with the parent. The offender can be warned, sent for counselling and so on.
Next, I would like to ask in the case of those children who are the subject of any investigation, how would the Ministry work with MOE so that the teacher would be able to pay special attention to the child, in case he or she needs extra care, or the teacher may need to be more sensitive to the trauma that the child might have gone through?
Mr Speaker, Sir, in empowering the director, protectors and designated care-givers to make decisions for the child on sensitive and important decisions, I would like to ask if the Minister could share whether the child's other close relatives, such as uncle, auntie or grandparents or any other close person, wherever possible would be included or consulted for an opinion in the decision-making process? This is to ensure that at least a family representative has a role in the whole process. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have heard of one case. A father beat up his 10-year-old son but his relationship with the boy was still very close afterwards. In the end, the father was sentenced to jail and was forced to be separated from the child. I feel that parent-child relationship is a lifelong one. When dealing with such cases, we should value the parent-child relationship more and be flexible in terms of punishment.
I also feel that when a child is abused or has behaviour issues, the Government should work together with the school to pay attention to the child's mental state. If the parents are not suitable to look after the child, should the designated care-giver consult the child's close relatives such as grandparents when making important decisions?
Recently, there is an increasing number of cases of children being sexually abused or children beyond parental control. Hence, these amendments are very timely. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I believe he has applied for leave of absence. He is away.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. Before going into my points proper on the Bill, I would like to put on record my thanks to the hardworking and committed MSF officers who give of themselves in their calling, their duty to serve and protect among the most vulnerable, in our society.
Sir, I return to my points on the Bill. Ten years ago, in 2009, MSF investigated 272 cases of child abuse involving family members. Fast forward five years, in 2014, MSF investigated 381 such cases. By 2018, MSF investigated 1,163 in one year alone. Among last year's investigations, about half were physical abuse cases while about 20% involved sexual abuse. Remember, these abuse cases involve a family member. Not just statistics, these numbers reflect the number of young lives affected by domestic abuse. Children put into perspective the importance of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) which this Bill amends.
Sir, I would like to talk about four aspects. One, how the Bill extends the applicability of the Children and Young Persons Act; two, how youths are treated in the criminal justice system; three, how the Bill provides greater support for care-givers; and four, how the Bill provides greater discretion to MSF officers as to determining at points of intervention.
Firstly, this Bill extends the protection under the CYPA to more people. Clause 2(1)(b) and 2(2)(b) amends the definition of young persons, extending the applicability of the Act from those 16 years of age and below to those 18 years of age and below. This brings it in line with some other statutes such as the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act which draws the line between adult and child protection at 18 years of age. This is to be welcomed.
Besides amending the definition for young person to include those 18 and under, child trafficking offences in the Children and Young Persons Act are extended from just children to include young persons. Clause 10 amends the heading for sections 12 to 18 so that the trafficking offences apply to children and young persons. This again, is to be welcomed. The words of the offences have similarly been expanded. This is to be welcomed. For instance, section 12 prohibiting the transfer of possession, custody or control of a child for valuable consideration has been amended by clause 11, extending it to young persons.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, this Bill tweaks how youths are treated in the criminal justice system. Where the offence is under the CYPA, the new section 84B ensures that the victim's identity is held in strict confidence even after the victim turns 18 years of age. It may seem a slight amendment but actually has major positive consequences. The judge is also able to order take down of publications in media as well as on social media. Exceptions are at the court's discretion in the interest of justice as stated in the new section 84B(2).
Director-General and protector have stronger powers of investigation in the new section 8. For instance, although self-incriminating information cannot be withheld, they are inadmissible unless false information is provided. As it is difficult for victims to retell the horrendous stories of abuse, would the Minister therefore provide an update on what is being done to minimise the trauma involved in recounting the harrowing experience especially in Court settings?
Several changes to the CYPA also better support the youth offender's rehabilitation and now reintegration into society, trying as best as possible that the past does not hold them back from achieving their potential and that they can continue to have hope for their future.
One way is to allow sentences meted out by the Youth Court to be deemed as spent at the end of completing the supervision, detention, community sentence or fine, without needing to wait the normal three or so years. This is provided for in clause 73 and allows youth offenders to more easily reintegrate into society as they can declare that they have no criminal record. This enables the youth offender to turn over a new leaf. In fact, it creates a supporting scaffold structure around the youths, such as, to be able to turn over a new leaf. So, another key amendment here.
Another way is by the extension of the Children and Young Persons Act to those 18 and under and not just those 16 and below. This provides young offenders access to a criminal justice system which places emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration so that the mistakes of the past do not continue to haunt the young person when he or she is older. One way is by providing for the youth offender's identity to be kept confidential for life and not just while he is still a young person, unless he or she reoffends. This is provided for in Clause 50. This allows the young person's space to grow and change without being shackled to his past.
Another example and a good example, is clause 27(a) read with the Second Schedule within the Bill, which allows for Prosecution or the court to transmit cases involving the causing of grievous hurt, certain Misuse of Drugs Offences and other more serious offences to the court of appropriate jurisdiction. This is especially important for the Misuse of Drugs Act offences as we do not want our young persons to become targets for drug syndicates to hire them or manipulate them as mules just because they are specially treated by our criminal justice system or the Youth Courts.
Thirdly, this Bill provides greater support for those who care for children and young persons. In particular, I want to highlight the support that this Bill strives towards fostering. Clause 57 extends childcare leave to include foster children and allows the foster parent to disclose information necessary for this purpose. It is good that foster parents are supported in taking care of the children. They need the same kind of leave to be present for their children, for instance, if the child is sick or at a parent-teachers meeting. They also need it in order to better ease a foster child into the family and bring the child for therapy sessions if therapy is necessary.
By better supporting foster parents, hopefully more loving families will be willing to step up and provide a loving and caring environment for children and young persons, showing the foster child what family and parents' love looks like. And, thereafter, hopefully the child can be adopted either by the foster parents or parents who are hoping to adopt a child. Or if there can be reconciliation with the child's biological parents and the fostered child, then, if possible, the child can be reunited with the family, provided it is indeed safe.
Fourthly and ultimately, Sir, this Bill addresses child abuse within the family, particularly tackling the question at what point is it in the best interests of the child or young person that the state intervenes in the parent-child relationship? On one hand, the protection of the child and hence, the child's welfare and best interests are at risk. On the other hand, the benefit of being cared for by his or her parent or guardian is significant.
As mentioned in the beginning of my speech, the number of child abuse cases are concerning. Even as we seek to find a better balance, we must also ensure that the broader discretion given to Child Protection Service Officers achieves deterrence of child abuse, and that deterrence must come with powers to act swiftly. When a child is abused, a child's life is at stake – not just physical but also the long-lasting emotional trauma from being emotionally or psychologically abused. Swift intervention is, therefore, necessary. It is a basic ingredient that I am supportive of. The broader discretion through this Bill allows the Child Protection Service Officers to make the necessary judgement as to when that intervention is necessary.
With regard to the amended section 4(2) which sets out specific examples of emotional or psychological abuse, I do have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Paragraph (a) mentions well-being and a sense of self-worth. How will this provision operate?
Paragraph (b) mentions that threatening to physically hurt the child or young person is child abuse. Will the Minister clarify how this provision is to be understood in the context of section 64 of the Women's Charter where correction is an exception to \"family violence\"?
Paragraph (d) says that confining a child or young person to a small space for the purposes of discipline is considered abuse. Would the Minister elaborate on what is intended by the phrase \"any small space\"?
Paragraph (e) talks about influencing the development of self-destructive, criminal, deviant or other mal-adaptive behaviour. Would the good Minister explain what is meant by \"influence\", \"deviant\" and \"anti-social\" behaviour? Also, would the minister explain what \"infantilising\" means in illustration (b)?
Notwithstanding my clarifications above, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that enough latitude and discretion be given to Child Protection Service Officers for swift intervention where necessary. Would the Minister explain also the process of investigating a possible child abuse case and elaborate on the thoughts that go towards deciding how a child abuse case is best managed? In particular, under what circumstances will a child be removed from his or her parents, and, if that happens, will the child still have opportunity to meet and even reconcile with his or her parents under appropriate circumstances?
This amendment broadens the discretion of the Child Protection Service Officers and allows them to intervene swiftly where necessary. Would the Minister elaborate on whether there is sufficient resources, particularly manpower, to exercise that broad discretion given to the Officers in light of the unfortunately increasing number of cases investigated as well as the expansion in definition of child abuse through this Bill? As a significant number of child abuse cases involve children under the tender age of seven, would the Minister also elaborate on how have childcare teachers been trained to be able to detect child abuse?
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill consolidates an extensive review of the Children and Young Persons Act, putting into law amendments that can better support caregivers, youth victims, youth offenders and child abuse victims.
Sir, as I had stated at the start of my speech, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. For those reasons, I support this Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill for increasing support for children and young persons including up to 18 years which brings us in ratification with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I am especially heartened that the Bill now includes emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, thereby allowing affected children and young persons to be protected by the Bill and allows older youth offenders to have more rehabilitative options.
And yet, in the very same Bill that recognises emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, a new section 68A proposes the use of mechanical restraints on children and young persons. \"Mechanical restraints\" in this case refer to handcuffs, leg braces, flexi-cuffs or any similar means of restraint. This is disturbing, especially given the psychological risks and effects on the use of physical restraints. A 2008 research by Cornell University found restraints to be \"a considerable risk to vulnerable youth, are intrusive, have a negative effect on the treatment environment, and have a profound effect on those youth who have experienced trauma in their lives.\"
It is also not clear to me if there are any guidelines on its use, or if restraints should only be used after less intrusive methods have been applied and deemed ineffective, especially when there are already therapeutic and trauma-informed alternatives as well as environmental interventions available, such as a padded room to prevent self harm or a Calming Room to manage aggressive/violent behaviour.
In fact, I believe this is already a MSF requirement for all children's homes in keeping with the Standards of Care for Children and Young Persons Homes. Also, I understand that one out of three care staff have also been sent for the Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA®) training programme to ensure that personnel involved in handling crisis situations, can maintain the care, welfare, safety and security of all involved. So, I am not sure if I understand the intent and need for section 68A. Can the Minister please clarify?
Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss what more we can do to invest in families so as to support and protect our children, given that \"family\" is one of the three principles of our social safety net.
Parents and guardians are expected to exercise responsibility for their children but I would argue if families are adequately enabled and empowered. Because we all know that there are many ways in which a family situation may manifest itself depending on the parenting attitudes as well as who are the present and absent family members, their dynamics, needs and aspirations.
Take Farhana, 47 and a single mother living at Yio Chu Kang who used to struggle with raising her five children. She barely had time for herself with taking care of the children and trying to earn some money from home, so she often felt exhausted trying to hold it all together. At times, she also resorted to physical methods with her children. When her eldest child was not attending school regularly, the state intervened and later found out about the abuse. She was then required to attend counselling and therapy sessions. Ironically, the well-meaning sessions which were meant to help her and her children saw her in even more emotional distress, which clearly also affected the psychological well-being of her children. Perhaps the support for Farhana should have come earlier?
I would like to urge the Ministry to strongly consider providing pre-emptive support programmes for at-risk families before we get to the vicious trap that Farhana faced. Family Service Centres when working with families could suggest counselling or parenting courses if the staff are also trained to assess parenting capacity.
In addition to parents, when a child or young person is in a care placement outside the family, whether short or long term, retention of relationships with the extended family or significant people, like grandparents and siblings, is critical for their sense of identity to be preserved, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the child. Research on family reunification shows maintaining parent/family-child contact in the first six months of alternative care placement improves the chances of family reunification.
The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children states that it is important to keep siblings together in any alternative care placements. When siblings are separated, it causes anxiety among them – with separated siblings often having to manage life-long issues of attachment, identity and loss in their lives. I know that Darul Ihsan Orphanages is one of the residential home facilities that provide care for both girls and boys with deliberate joint activities to facilitate sibling interaction. There are nearly 10 sibling group placements within the home of 50 children.
I would like to propose that concerted effort be made to ensure contact time between siblings placed in different care placements, such as if one is in foster care and the other in residential care. In addition, we should extend family work intervention to the other sibling who is in the household to prevent further family separation and risk being referred to the care system in the future too.
Mr Speaker, I commend the extension of childcare and infant leave to foster parents with section 27 of the Bill to make fostering more accessible and recognised. The demand for foster parents is more pressing now, as more children have entered the foster care system in recent years. A children's home, no matter how well-run, cannot replicate the \"therapeutic elements\" found in a family, said Dr Yong Ming Lee of NIE. How can we encourage more fostering?
First, we could reframe foster care to also include kinship care and incentivise keeping children within their families by extending the amendments to section 27C to enable grandparents and next-of-kin, such as uncles and aunts, to childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave.
Mr Speaker: Order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 2 (5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes, although we do not need to use up to 30 minutes. Please proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We should reframe foster care to also include kinship care. Hong Kong had piloted a two-year project on Child Care Training for Grandparents with the aim to strengthen inter-generational family ties as well as scaling up childcaring skills. Perhaps we can learn from such initiatives as we align family policies with Active Ageing in strengthening family bonds.
Second, I urge the Ministry to consider a tiered foster care system with tiered allowances based on the complexities. The amount a foster carer would receive then takes into account both the \"placement type\", for example, care for children with special needs and disabilities alongside their \"competence\" to provide care for the children. This has been implemented in many independent, for-profit agencies, charities and area councils in the UK.
Next, I would like to propose tax relief for foster carers as means of recognition and retention as well as an incentive for more potential families to apply to the fostering scheme, as how the Australian government has incorporated tax exemptions into their fostering provisions.
And, finally, Mr Speaker, let us go upstream to look at preventive measures. Preventing delinquency and on-going offending behaviours is as important as downstream interventions, if not more, so that our children and youths can avoid the harmful effects of detention and incarceration, and the potential involvement with the adult criminal justice system.
One of the risk factors for delinquency is mental health disorders, which is increasing amongst children and young persons in Singapore. A record number of teenage boys committed suicide in 2018 according to SOS, and calls to SOS by children between five and nine have jumped by an alarming 500% within three years. A global study showed that young persons diagnosed with major depressive disorder were found to be more vulnerable to involvement in violence. It also found that depression in children and young persons may be harder to recognise and could manifest itself as irritability and aggressiveness. There is accumulating evidence that depression can be predictors of youth delinquency.
Currently, the programmes and interactions for children and young persons by SSAs, schools and grassroots are designed based on offending behaviours and not on the risk factors such as mental health conditions. Can we create an inclusive environment by training community workers to identify and respond to these mental health risk factors as well?
Mr Speaker, another risk factor is the community that a child grows up in. How can we do more to provide our children and the young persons with a nurturing and stimulating environment, especially so in at-risk neighbourhoods?
Community workers at Beyond Social Services facilitate competent communities in rental housing neighbourhoods across Singapore. They believe in engaging children and young persons in the longer term, and nurture family and community support around them. An example of a participatory design project is at the Kebun Baru neighbourhood where community needs assessment conducted earlier in the year highlighted the needs of the children and young persons such as the lack of playground, halal food facilities and the feeling of a safe, inclusive environment. Currently, community-based conversations are being held with grassroots support to visualise what different segments of the community would envision for their neighbourhood.
Another example of re-purposing the immediate environment is Project Hearts in Nee Soon East which also highlights active citizenry among its residents. The group saw a need to kick off with academic and play support programmes for the children in Yishun Blocks 269A and 269B. Bernard, born with a congenital development condition that affects the spine, leads the academic outreach of Project Hearts in collaboration with the Singapore Red Cross. During the sessions, the void deck is converted into a study area with portable chairs and tables and the session caters to the needs of children in the area. The children feel they are part of a community whilst their academic and play needs are being met in a holistic way.
It takes a community to raise a child, indeed. How can we enable more of such efforts that empower the community and therefore, our children and youths? Children and youths are key drivers for inclusive growth and sustainable development of a society.
Mr Speaker, I would like to end by sharing these powerful words from Nelson Mandela – he said, \"history will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of our children.'' And also how we protect them, I believe. Because it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men and women.
We – the Government, the community and the family – must share this paramount responsibility of protecting each and every one of our children and young persons and do everything possible to create enabling and nurturing environments for them to learn, to live, to love and be loved so that they can thrive and contribute meaningfully to society.
Before I completely end, I would like to also take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to thank the everyday and invisible heroes in child protection work from the Ministry and the community for their dedication and compassion. I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Leader, \tmay I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Dr Janil Puthucheary] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.00 noon tomorrow.\" – [Dr Janil Puthucheary]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.05 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Lease Buyback Scheme from Persons who Have Not Yet Fully Paid Up Housing Loan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) since the introduction of the Lease Buyback Scheme, how many appeals have been received from HDB flat owners who wish to apply for the scheme but have yet to fully pay up for the housing loan due to financial hardship; (b) how many of such appeals have been granted on compassionate grounds; and (c) whether the Ministry will change the rule for such applicants.
Mr Lawrence Wong: When the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) was first introduced in March 2009, HDB flat owners had to have an outstanding mortgage loan of no more than $5,000 to be eligible.
Since February 2013, we have relaxed this requirement and allowed flat owners with outstanding mortgage loans of more than $5,000 to take up the LBS, as long as the proceeds from the lease sale is sufficient to fully discharge the loan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Workers with Injuries or Occupational Diseases Sustained at Work who Filed Claim under Work Injury Compensation Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since 2017, what is the number of foreign workers with injuries or occupational diseases sustained at work who have filed a claim under the Work Injury Compensation Act; (b) what is the breakdown of the nationalities of these claimants; (c) how many have been successful in their claims; and (d) what are the actions taken to discourage false claims.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In 2017 and 2018, there were about 18,200 claims from foreign workers for work-related injury or disease under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). These claimants comprise less than 1% of our foreign workforce. This has stayed around the same level in the last three years. Claimants can be of any nationality but given the occupations they tend to be in, there are more from Bangladesh, China, India and Malaysia.
Among the approximately 17,500 cases that have since concluded, 85% were valid claims, 13% were withdrawn, and the remaining 2% were invalid claims as their injuries were not deemed as work-related.
The vast majority of the invalid claims made in the past two years were due to misunderstanding over what scenarios are claimable under the WICA. We have found five cases in the past two years with dishonest intent to claim compensation. We have initiated prosecution against all of them. Those convicted will face a maximum fine of $15,000 and/or 12 months' imprisonment under the WICA and will be permanently barred from working in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Housing Grants and Priority for Adults with Special Needs to Live Near Care-givers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider providing special additional housing grants and special priority for adults with special needs to live near their parents or caregivers when they apply for their first HDB flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government already provides significant subsidies to help Singaporeans purchase their first HDB flats. These include pricing new HDB flats at a generous discount to market, and offering additional grants to first-timers. They also enjoy priority when they apply for new flats close to their parents. Beyond BTO flats, first-timers can also opt for resale flats near their parents, where there are many more options to consider. They will then enjoy the relevant CPF housing grants, as well as the Proximity Housing Grant, which was recently enhanced in 2018. First-timer applicants with special needs will benefit from all of these measures. We will continue to review and update our housing schemes to ensure affordable and accessible housing for all Singaporeans, including those with special needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Tools to Prevent Taking of Videos or Footage of Security Officials Attending to Crisis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what legal tools are present to deter the taking of video or camera footage of police officers, or officers from security agencies, who are attending to a crisis or security threat, especially where taking of such footage interferes with the officers' ability to de-escalate the threat and secure public safety.
Mr K Shanmugam: Taking videos or pictures of law enforcement officers conducting security operations can interfere with and jeopardise the operations, endangering the safety of the public and our officers.
Under ordinary circumstances, the Public Order Act (POA) empowers law enforcement officers to direct a specific person to stop taking or sharing films or pictures of ongoing operations. Failing to comply is an offence which carries a punishment of up to one year imprisonment, a fine of up to $20,000, or both.
For serious incidents that could cause mass public disorder, such as terrorist attacks, the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) provides Police with special powers to exert further control over communications. Under POSSPA, the Commissioner of Police can issue a Communications Stop Order (CSO). It bans the taking or sharing of films, pictures, texts, or audio messages of the entire declared incident area. Unlike the powers provided for in the POA, this order does not need to be directed towards any specific individual, but bans all persons. Offenders that breach the CSO are liable to two years' imprisonment, a fine of up to $20,000, or both.
These special powers are not available in day-to-day operations and need to be activated by the Minister for Home Affairs before they can be used.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transnational Families Living under Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current percentage of transnational families that are living under the Public Rental Scheme; (b) how many of these families also require services from other Ministries such as learning support or medical subsidies; (c) whether the Ministry has considered a family-centred approach with one key social worker who assists and facilitates the transnational families in accessing the services they need; and (d) whether there are plans to invest more resources for transnational families to include job skills and language-based training, and providing language interpreters in schools to better help the integration of the foreign parent.
Mr Desmond Lee: About 7%, or around 3,300, of the families living in Public Rental flats are transnational families, defined as households headed by Singaporeans married to foreigners.
The Government takes a family-centric approach and works closely with community partners to deliver comprehensive, convenient and coordinated support to families in need. Social Service Offices (SSO) and the Family Service Centres (FSC) are two key touchpoints for low-income and vulnerable households. SSO officers and FSC social workers seek to work closely with families, including transnational families, to address their needs and challenges. These could include health, housing, schooling and employment concerns, or other family-related issues. To support families facing complex circumstances, a lead agency is identified to have oversight of the family’s needs. The lead agency works closely with the family, and also rallies other agencies and partners to coordinate and align their interventions. This way, we can render holistic help to support the family towards stabilising and improving their circumstances.
We recognise that transnational families may face unique challenges, such as language difficulties. To address this, foreign spouses who attend our marriage preparation programmes can also sign up for free basic language classes, to help reduce language barriers in daily life. Alternatively, they can also attend language courses run by the People's Association.
Schools have not reported difficulties interacting with foreign parents, but where language is a barrier, they can enlist the help of the other parent, family members or school personnel who are conversant in the foreign parent’s preferred language.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties for Illegal Smuggling of Pet Birds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there can be additional measures to ensure that pet bird shops do not get their sources from illegal smugglers of pet birds; and (b) whether the penalties for illegal smugglers can be increased to include caning and confiscation of vehicles used.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Importers are required to have the necessary health certificates and import permits to bring birds into Singapore. NParks works closely with Singapore Customs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, as well as local and international partners to carry out checks at Singapore's borders to combat bird smuggling.
Under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA), those found guilty of smuggling animals may be fined up to $10,000 and/or face imprisonment of up to one year. The penalties are higher for offences involving endangered species protected under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). In addition, smugglers found guilty of animal cruelty may be fined up to $15,000 and/or face imprisonment of up to 18 months for a first offence, with higher penalties for those who do so in the course of carrying on an animal-related business. NParks can also seize the vehicle used for smuggling.
Pet shops are also required to maintain records of each bird that they have kept in their premises as part of NParks' pet shop licensing conditions. These records must include the source, import date, importer, date of reception, and date of sale of the bird. NParks conducts periodic unannounced checks at pet shops to ensure that the numbers and species of birds in the shops match import records.
Under the ABA, shops found in breach of NParks' licensing conditions may be fined up to $5,000, and their licences may be suspended or revoked. Higher penalties may be imposed for offences involving endangered species protected under the ESA.
NParks will continue to review these requirements and penalties to ensure that they remain robust and effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Former School Sites Returned to Singapore Land Authority in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past 10 years, how many former school sites have been returned to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA); (b) how many former school sites are still left vacant as of 2019; (c) whether the Ministry has plans to re-develop these sites; and (d) as of 2019, how many former school sites have been renovated for a different use.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE regularly reviews the use of former school sites under its care. If there are no plans for the sites, MOE will return them to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).
Over the past 10 years, MOE has returned 30 former school sites to SLA. Another four sites are in the process of being returned. Of the 30 sites returned, eight have been demolished and redeveloped for a variety of uses, including public housing, while 12 have been repurposed into facilities like Special Education schools, childcare centres, foreign system schools, homes for the elderly, offices and even urban farms. For the remaining sites, SLA will continue to work with the relevant Government agencies to put them out either for adaptive reuse or for longer term redevelopment plans.
MOE currently has about 25 former school sites, with the majority of these being used or set aside to be used as interim holding sites for schools undergoing upgrading. A few of these sites are pending development plans, for example, to use for Special Education schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Government Electronic Business Policy to Encourage Growth of Nascent SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) policy can be reviewed so that nascent small and medium-sized enterprises can qualify as Expenditure and Policies Procurement Unit Suppliers, or Building and Construction Authority Suppliers, and thus have more opportunities for growth; and (b) whether alternative modes of assessing a company's financial strength can be adopted in place of the current practice where historical financial statements are used.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Government agencies typically conduct procurement via Tenders or Quotations. Tenders are called for higher value procurement, while Quotations are for procurement below a certain monetary threshold.
Companies wishing to participate in government procurement by Tender may be required to qualify as Expenditure and Policies Procurement Unit Suppliers or Building and Construction Authority Suppliers with registration under the Government Registration Authority (GRA). GRA qualification is not necessary for Quotation level procurement.
Over 80% of all Government procurement opportunities are at Quotation-level and hence do not require GRA. This makes it easier for nascent Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to participate in government procurement. Suppliers need only have a GeBIZ Trading Partner account to bid for Quotations and there are no financial pre-requisites to be a GeBIZ Trading Partner. The first user account is also free.
Earlier this year, we increased the upper limit of Quotations from $70,000 to $90,000, thus making even more procurement opportunities accessible to SMEs without GRA. This benefits the 12,000 existing suppliers who only participate in government quotations, as well as other new suppliers.
GRA is only required for some higher value procurement above $90,000 where Tenders are called, subject to the specific needs of the agency calling the Tender. Its primary objective is to provide assurance that a supplier has the capacity to deliver the goods or services that are paid for with public funds.
There are different levels of GRA depending on the value of the Tender. If a supplier wishes to participate in a higher value procurement, he may be expected to have a higher financial capacity to qualify for a higher level GRA.
To make GRA more accessible to SMEs, last year, we removed the requirement for companies with less than $5 million turnover to submit audited accounts when applying for non-construction related GRA. We now accept unaudited financial statements if the company’s Director certifies that their financial statements are accurate and true. About 3,900 GRA registered suppliers, or approximately 80%, have benefited from this.
Finally, the supplier’s financial standing is just part of the whole suite of factors taken into consideration during evaluation. Other factors such as the quality of the proposal in meeting the objective and requirements of the procurement, including innovative elements, capability of the supplier and price are all considered. In fact, over 80% of procurement contracts in the past two years were awarded to SMEs.
We will continue to review our policies and practices to ensure government procurement remains accessible to SMEs.
25 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether guidelines will be given to the procurement departments in the Ministries and statutory boards to allow for a contract variation of their existing outsourced services contracts to factor in the possible cost increase that will be faced by service providers due to changes in CPF contribution rates or any policy-related changes that affect the wage cost.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The recent announcement on CPF contribution rates affect workers after the age of 55 years, and the intent is to restore the full CPF rate gradually taking into account economic conditions, over the next 10 years starting from 2021. Contractors bidding for Government contracts have advance notice to price their bids accordingly when they bid for contracts.
The Prime Minister has also said in his 2019 National Day Rally speech that the Government will help businesses to adjust to these new arrangements through a support package and details will be announced in next year’s Budget. The approach taken by the Government is to give sufficient notice of changes that affect businesses, to help companies plan ahead. As nominal wage increases have averaged over 4% p.a. in the past 10 years, we expect most companies to be able to manage the planned 0.5-1% point increase in employers’ CPF contribution rate within the total wage increases in the coming years.
27 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will review the punishment for selling non-compliant PMDs.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We take a tough stance against retailers who advertise, display or sell non-compliant personal mobility devices (PMDs), as well as those who provide illegal device modification services. Those convicted of selling non-compliant PMDs for use on public paths may be liable to a fine up to $5,000 and/or jail up to three months for the first offence. We are considering raising the penalties to root out such irresponsible acts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Punishment for PMD Users Causing Injuries to Pedestrians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will review the punishment against riders of PMDs who cause injuries to pedestrians.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We will take firm action against personal mobility device riders who cause injuries to pedestrians. They can be prosecuted under the Penal Code for an offence of causing hurt or grievous hurt through a rash or negligent act that endangers the personal safety of others. The penalty for causing grievous hurt through a rash act is a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail up to four years.
The Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant agencies regularly monitor the effectiveness of the penalties at deterring errant riding behaviour, and will enhance penalties if necessary.
30 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether additional measures can be introduced to tackle the issue of spam SMSes from illegal moneylenders and sports betting syndicates.
Mr S Iswaran: The Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is working with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to counter spam SMSes that promote illicit activities such as illegal moneylending and sports betting. Such SMSes are typically sent using prepaid SIM cards. Hence, we have taken measures to curtail the abuse of prepaid SIM cards by criminal syndicates. For example, since 2014, we have reduced the number of prepaid SIM cards that a single person can own.
IMDA, MHA and SPF are studying other measures to tighten the prepaid SIM card regime. In addition, IMDA is working with the telecommunication service providers to explore technical solutions to reduce such SMSes being delivered.
As the public also plays an important part in this effort, SPF is stepping up efforts to increase public awareness through the use of infographics. Individuals can also take steps to block such SMSes by using the spam filtering functions on their phones. In addition, members of the public are advised to report unlicensed moneylending SMSes via the X-Ah Long Hotline (1800-924-5664) or SPF's I-Witness platform.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Amendment to Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability to Maritime Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update as to when will the 2012 Amendment to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability to Maritime Claims (LLMC) 1976 be introduced in the Merchant Shipping Act.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: MPA will implement the 1996 Protocol in December this year, and with that raise the liability limits to the 2012 limits as required of all contracting states of the Protocol by updating the Schedule of the Merchant Shipping Act.
33 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in respect of shared-PMD services, whether operating from private or public premises (a) what measures are in place to ensure that tourists and other foreign visitors are familiar with PMD riding regulations before they are allowed to rent the devices; and (b) whether such measures will be included in the operators' licensing requirements for both types of services.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Under the Parking Places Act, operators who wish to offer dockless PMD-sharing services in a public place are required to obtain a licence. LTA will require the licensees to include in their mobile applications the essential active mobility regulations, such as speed limits and prohibitions against riding on roads. They will remind all users of these regulations, before starting a trip. They will also be required to charge PMD-sharing users who fail to end their trips within a designated parking area, a $5 fee. This is to discourage indiscriminate parking. We are considering additional regulations to ensure that all shared devices are used safely.
Separately, LTA has also encouraged PMD-sharing operators who operate solely on private land, to include in their mobile applications the advisory on the safe and responsible use of such devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Advertisements for Car Loans to Include Effective Interest Rate Calculation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry can consider requiring interest rates advertised for car loans to be calculated using the Effective Interest Rate method, which is based on the outstanding principal of the loan, instead of the Flat Rate method, which is based on the original principal of the loan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Lenders which extend car financing on a hire-purchase basis are required to comply with the disclosure requirements under the Hire Purchase Act. This includes disclosing the Effective Interest Rate (EIR) to consumers in writing before they enter into a hire purchase agreement. Other information which must be provided include interest rates for overdue instalments and administrative charges. If these information are not provided prior to signing of the agreement, the agreement will not be enforceable.
In addition, banks, which provide the bulk of car financing today, are also expected to include the EIR in their advertisement of loan products, including car loans, as set out in the Code of Advertising Practice issued by the Association of Banks in Singapore.
We strongly encourage consumers to review the terms of car loan agreements carefully and assess their ability to meet the financial commitments before entering into any agreement.
1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister what is the rationale for reducing the amount of childcare leave from six days to only two days when the child turns seven years old.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Under the Child Development Co-Savings Act, parents of Singaporean children are provided with six days of paid childcare leave per year until their child turns seven years old. Childcare leave provisions have been enhanced progressively over the years. In 2008, childcare leave provisions for parents with children aged below seven years old were raised from two to six days. In 2013, two days of childcare leave were also extended to parents with children aged seven to 12, recognising that parents with children in primary school would also need time to tend to their children's needs. More days of childcare leave are granted to parents of younger children in the earlier years of their development as they require relatively more care from parents, compared to children in primary school.
We have taken a practical approach to calibrating the childcare leave provisions for parents with young children, balancing the caregiving needs of parents with the manpower and operational needs of employers. We will continue to study how to better support working parents, including partnering Singaporeans through the Citizens' Panel that will convene next month, to identify new ways to address work-life harmony issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Improve Regulation Regime of Credit Rating Agencies in Singapore to EU Equivalent Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister whether there are plans to improve the regulation regime of credit rating agencies in Singapore to re-achieve equivalence status with the regulation regime of the European Union.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Some media reports might have given the impression that the European Commission (EC) is reducing its market access to financial institutions in Singapore. This is not true. There continues to be no impediment, for financial services provided out of Singapore to customers in the European Union (EU). There has also been no impact on investors' confidence in Singapore.
Let me explain. The EC's decision covers only Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) and does not extend to any other financial services. Further, the EC recognises CRAs in a third country through two approaches:
First, deeming the third country's CRA rules as equivalent to EC rules. This is called the equivalence decision;
Second, an endorsement approach, where the CRAs in the third country rely on their related entities in the EU to endorse their ratings.
CRAs in Singapore have been using the endorsement approach, and the EC has confirmed that it will continue to recognise Singapore-based CRAs using this approach.
Having said that, equivalence is the highest form of market integration, which CRAs in Singapore, like those in several other jurisdictions, no longer enjoy. The reason has to do with the different approaches taken by major regulators internationally.
On how the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) regulations on CRAs compare to those in the EU, MAS' CRA regulatory regime is based on, and consistent with, standards promulgated by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which is the global standard setting body. The EC has assessed MAS' CRA regulatory regime to be less prescriptive than EU rules in certain areas, such as in defining specific situations in which a conflict of interest for the CRA arises. MAS takes a more principles-based approach. It nevertheless requires conflicts of interest to be effectively addressed, and is fully in line with international standards and appropriate to our context and needs.
Singapore is in good standing with the EU. We have EC recognition on a broad range of other financial services, including for over-the-counter derivatives trading venues and central counterparties. In July 2019, we were one of the first two jurisdictions to obtain EC equivalence for financial benchmarks regulation. MAS will continue to closely engage our EU counterparts in reviewing our rules to ensure that financial institutions in Singapore continue to have access to the EU market in various financial services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Overly Conservative Budgeting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether measures are being adopted to reduce instances of overly conservative budgeting or budgeting approaches which tend to under-state the eventual real surplus on Government accounts.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Ministry of Finance takes budget marksmanship seriously as part of its work in ensuring sound financial management. The accuracy of budgeted estimates for Operating Revenue (excluding Net Investment Returns Contribution) and Government Expenditure (excluding Special Transfers) is tracked as part of the Ministry of Finance's Key Performance Indicators, published in the annual Budget documents.
Overall, the variances of our projections have been within a reasonable range. From FY2014 to FY2018 (revised), the average variance between our eventual outturns and forecasts was under 3% for revenues, and under 2% for expenditures. These are comparable to those in Hong Kong, Korea and New Zealand, where average revenue and expenditure forecast variances range from 2% to 6% and 1% to 3% respectively for the same period.
Forecasting is an inherently uncertain exercise, in particular for a small and open economy like Singapore. The more significant differences from our past projections have tended to be driven by revenues that are influenced by economic volatility and market sentiments. In FY2017, for example, there was an exceptionally high Statutory Board Contribution from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) (+$4.6 billion) and Stamp Duty (+$2.2 billion). The former was driven by unexpected investment gains from a global rally in equity and bond markets. The latter was the result of an unexpected pick-up in property market transactions.
When there were unexpected surpluses, we have deployed them for the public good, saving them for anticipated spending needs and sharing some of the surpluses with Singaporeans. For example, arising from the unexpected surplus from FY2017, we set aside funds in a Rail Infrastructure Fund to support plans for future MRT development. We also announced a one-off $700 million SG Bonus to share the surpluses with Singaporeans.
Our approach to budgeting is a prudent and citizen-centric one. We plan for sufficient revenues to meet the needs of our people across each term of Government. Any surpluses are invested to yield long-term returns. Up to half of these returns on our net assets are then channeled into future budgets to meet growing needs in areas from education to healthcare, support for our seniors, and keeping our home safe and secure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Overstayers Arrested in 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs of the 940 overstayers arrested in 2018, what is (i) the number of Social Visit Pass overstayers and Work Pass overstayers respectively and (ii) the duration of overstaying for the 20th percentile, 50th percentile and the 80th percentile.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of overstayers arrested in Singapore has decreased from 1,690 in 2013 to 940 in 2018.
Of these 940 overstayers, 510 were Short-Term Visit Pass holders, and 107 were Work Pass holders. Another 283 were holders of Special Passes, which were issued to them for specific purposes such as assisting in an investigation or attending court. The remaining overstayers held other passes, for example, Long-Term Visit Pass and Student's Pass.
The median overstay duration is about two months.
ICA will continue to maintain its enforcement efforts to ensure that the overstayers situation is kept under control.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Sensitivity Training to Police and Other First Responders to Victims of Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether sensitivity training is provided to the police and other first responders to facilitate responding to victims of violence in connection with sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, including LGBTQ victims of family violence and intimate partner violence; and (b) how such training is conducted, if applicable.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police officers are trained to be sensitive to the needs of all victims, including those from the LGBTQ community. The training covers a wide range of issues, including the causes of victim trauma, the needs of victims, the vulnerabilities faced by victims, and victim management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Granting of Long Term Visit Pass/Long Term Visit Pass-Plus to Single Non-Singaporean Mothers of Singapore Citizen Children under Age 21","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether divorced, widowed or separated non-Singaporean mothers of Singapore Citizen children under the age of 21 can be automatically granted a Long Term Visit Pass/Long Term Visit Pass-Plus if they fulfil certain background conditions; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can make public this list of conditions for the automatic grant so as to assure such mothers and their children of a stable family life.
Mr K Shanmugam: Divorced or widowed foreign mothers who have custody of their minor Singaporean children would generally be able to qualify for a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+). The LTVP or LTVP+ will facilitate their continued stay in Singapore to care for their children.
Each application for LTVP/LTVP+ is assessed carefully taking into consideration the circumstances of each case and other relevant factors such as whether the applicant has adverse records. The vast majority of such foreign mothers have been granted long-term stay in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Care-givers Usage of Care-givers' Training Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health for each year from 2013 to 2018 (a) what is the number of care-givers broken down by caregiver type, such as family member or domestic worker, who have used the Care-givers' Training Grant; and (b) which is the most popular care-giving course.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2013 to 2018, the number of unique caregivers1 who utilised the Care-givers Training Grant (CTG), and their profile are as follows:
The care-giving courses that are most frequently taken up under the CTG are eldercare courses, such as those equipping caregivers to assist those who need help with Activities of Daily Living, and to care for seniors with dementia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Food Waste Generated in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in 2017 and 2018, what is the total amount of food waste generated in Singapore by (i) all the hawker centres (ii) all the hotels (iii) all the caterers (iv) all the meat importers and distributors and (v) all the pre-packed food manufacturers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In 2017 and 2018, approximately 810,000 tonnes and 763,000 tonnes of food waste was generated respectively. Of this, about half was from residential households. The remainder was from other sources, which includes food manufacturers, importers and distributors, caterers, hotels, and hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) does not track the specific amount of food waste generated from individual source categories.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hiring of Male Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each year from 2013 to 2018, what is the number of male domestic workers; (b) what are the reasons cited by applicants to justify the hiring of male domestic workers; and (c) whether there are any plans to allow more men to work as domestic workers and, if so, what are the reasons.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In each of the five years from 2013 to 2018, there were about 50 male foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore. The main reason cited when applying to hire a male FDW is that a female FDW is not suitable for the family's care-giving needs. Examples are where the family member to be cared for has a disability, is of heavy build and/or has a special medical condition.
The vast majority of employers prefer to hire female FDWs. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to assess applications for male FDWs on a case-by-case basis and exercise flexibility in exceptional situations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audit of Insurance Companies' Coverage of Employees with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can commission an audit of all insurance companies to ensure (i) they approve the applications of workmen's compensation insurance coverage for employees with disabilities and (ii) all employees with disabilities are covered for workmen's compensation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: All employees, including those with disabilities, are covered by the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and can receive work injury compensation from their employers if they suffer an injury arising out of and in the course of work.
We do not condone selective coverage or cherry-picking of employees based on their personal characteristics by insurers. With the new WICA 2019, insurers offering WICA policies must be licensed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The licensing conditions will prohibit designated insurers from refusing to cover certain group of employees based on personal characteristics such as disability, age, or health status. Under the new Act, designated insurers will also have access to companies' actual claim records, to help them price the premiums to reflect the risk profile of the company. In other words, there is no need for them to presume that a company hiring disabled persons will face higher WICA claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Government-paid Childcare Leave by Eligible Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the last three years, what is the utilisation rate of Government-Paid Childcare Leave among eligible employees, disaggregated by age group and gender.
Mr Desmond Lee: Working parents with citizen children below seven years of age are provided with six days of paid childcare leave. Employers absorb the cost for the first to third days, and the Government reimburses employers for the fourth to sixth days under the Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL) scheme.
The estimated utilisation rates of GPCL among eligible working mothers and fathers, disaggregated by age group, for each of the last three years are in Tables 1 and 2 below. This data reflects eligible working parents who took at least four days of childcare leave, but does not include those whose employers do not submit claims for the fourth to sixth day of GPCL. These numbers do not reflect those who took one to three days of childcare leave only.
12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for 2017 and 2018 (a) what is the take-up rate of parent-care leave by public servants; and (b) what is the number and percentage of private companies that currently offer parent-care leave.
Mr Desmond Lee: Civil servants are eligible for up to two days of parent-care leave per year, and they have the flexibility to take this leave in full or half day blocks. In 2017 and 2018, the percentage of eligible officers who took up parent-care leave was 43% and 44% respectively.
More companies have offered paid parent-care leave over time. From an MOM survey, 20% of companies in the private sector offered such leave benefits in 2018, up from 15% in 2012.
To further support employees with unexpected care needs, the tripartite partners have also encouraged more employers to adopt the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, regardless of whether they already provide parent-care leave. Today, 700 companies employing about 250,000 workers have adopted this Standard.
Care-givers have given feedback to the Government that they prefer flexible work arrangements (FWAs) over parental leave, as a more sustainable way to balance work and care-giving responsibilities. Arrangements such as telecommuting or flexible working hours provide caregivers with greater flexibility if they need to take some time away from work for ad hoc parental care duties.
Employees have greater access to FWAs today. More than nine in 10 employees today work in companies that provide some form of work flexibility. Among those who needed FWAs, more than eight in 10 employees had access to the FWA that they needed. To encourage more companies to meet their employees' FWA needs, MOM increased the Work-Life Grant budget from $30 million to $100 million in July 2019. This scheme allows each company to receive up to $105,000 over two years, to help the company maintain their employees' FWAs on a regular basis, whether it is flexi-time, flexi-load or flexi-place. MOM and the tripartite partners will also continue to actively promote the Tripartite Standard on FWAs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3232,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190903/vernacular-3 Sept 2019 - Mr Zainal Sapari - WICA.pdf","fileName":"3 Sept 2019 - Mr Zainal Sapari - WICA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3233,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190903/vernacular-3 Sept 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - CYPA.pdf","fileName":"3 Sept 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - CYPA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3234,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190903/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah CYPA 3Sep2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah CYPA 3Sep2019-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}