*The opinion of the President on the draw on past reserves was notified to hon Members at the Sitting of 3 November 2020. Please refer to Annex 1.
"}],"takesSectionVOList":[{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"President's Opinion on Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to inform hon Members that I have on 2 November 2020 received a letter from the President on the Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill. Pursuant to Standing Order 93(7)(a), I will announce the opinion of the President to Parliament.
\"I have accepted the recommendation of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and given my assent to the Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustment (FY 2020) Bill, in accordance with Article 58 of the Constitution. My opinion is based on the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and Revised Estimates of Revenue for Financial Year 2020/2021 in Paper Cmd 3 of 2020 that accompany the Bill, which states that these lead to a drawing on the reserves not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office. I give this opinion pursuant to Article 148A(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.\"
Order. Questions for Oral Answers. 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":"Digital Distribution of Government's Tourism Vouchers to Singaporeans including the Elderly and Extension of Use of Vouchers to Arts-related Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how is the Ministry distributing the $100 tourism vouchers digitally; (b) how will Singaporeans who do not know how to handle the digital tourism vouchers be taken care of; and (c) whether the Ministry will minimise fraud pertaining to the digital tourism vouchers.
2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are plans to help seniors utilise their SingapoREdiscovers Vouchers especially seniors who are staying alone with little family and social support; and (b) what are the safeguards put in place to prevent unscrupulous individuals or companies from misappropriating these vouchers from the elderly.
3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers can be extended to arts-related activities such as festivals and stage plays given the link between the tourism industry and Singapore's ambitions to become a global cultural hub.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Taking Question Nos 1 to 3 together? Okay.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Thank you. I would like to thank the hon Members Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Leon Perera for their interest and questions about the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers.
The SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme aims to encourage Singaporeans to support our tourism businesses, which have been among the hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The vouchers will be available for redemption from 1 December 2020 and will be valid until end-June 2021. Singapore Citizens will be able to redeem the vouchers via SingPass. And the Government is cognisant that some seniors may need help with accessing the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers or SRVs via SingPass, which is the question that Mr Melvin Yong had raised.
We just wanted to say that while we encourage all Singaporeans to register for a SingPass account, if they have not already done so, and redeem the vouchers digitally, we will provide some physical touchpoints for those who need them.
Klook Travel Technology with UOB Travel Planners, Changi Travel Services and GlobalTix, which are booking platforms for the SRVs, will offer both digital and physical touchpoints. Singapore Citizens who require help making their bookings for tourism products can seek assistance at the physical touchpoints provided by these platforms. These physical touchpoints will span the island to make it easier for people to access them. Currently, STB is working with the People’s Association or PA to supplement these with touchpoints at some community centres and STB will also set up a hotline to handle public enquiries and feedback.
STB is also working with the relevant Government agencies and appointed booking platforms on developing safeguards against fraud. The use of SingPass will provide secure authentication for the distribution of the vouchers and help mitigate fraud. Citizens are reminded to keep their SingPass account details confidential, not to share their one-time password or OTP with anyone and to be careful of unsolicited text messages or web links that direct them to suspicious portals claiming to be SRV booking platforms, to avoid falling prey to scams. Members of the public are advised to make purchases from only authorised platforms. And the ambassadors at the physical touchpoints will also remind seniors of the above safeguards.
STB will also conduct regular checks and audits and leverage data analytics to flag out suspicious transactions for further investigations. Cases of fraud will be reported to the Police.
To the hon Member Mr Leon Perera's question about the arts-related activities, I just want to remind the Member that the point here is that the vouchers are primarily targeted at businesses that derive most of their income from tourists, which include hotels, tourist attractions and tours.
And so, museums and galleries that cater to tourists are already eligible for the scheme as tourist attractions. Arts and cultural organisations which offer complementary products can work with eligible merchants, such as hotels, tourist attractions and tours, to develop bundles to qualify for the SRVs. They can also leverage marketing initiatives by STB to reach out to locals. For example, they could contribute deals and content for the SingapoRediscovers campaign.
I agree with the Member and affirm that the Government recognises the importance of the arts and culture sector here in Singapore. In fact, entities under this sector qualifies for the Jobs Support Scheme, JSS, Tier 2 support till March 2021. The Government has also rolled out the Arts and Culture Resilience Package or ACRP to safeguard livelihoods, retain capabilities in our eco-system and position the arts and culture sector for the post-COVID recovery.
Sir, I appreciate our Members' interest in the SRV scheme. I look forward to their support of our tourism establishments. If Members and members of the public want more information, the information of the redemption process and the list of authorised platforms will be mailed to Singapore Citizens prior to the planned roll-out later this month.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I think the Minister of State for his reply. I have one supplementary question. Mr Speaker, I have many seniors living in my Radin Mas constituency. It has been many months since they had been able to gather with their friends and go on community-led outings. Many of them tell me that they are really looking forward to these SRVs so that they can use this opportunity to go on local tours with their friends once again. I would like to ask if the Ministry has plans to work with vendors to create senior-exclusive tours that can be paid for with these vouchers and to hold these tours during off-peak hours where there are lesser crowds, so that our seniors can have a safe Singapore holiday with their friends?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the hon Member Mr Melvin Yong for his questions. In fact, we hope that all Singaporeans will get to enjoy the SRVs and take some time off what is a very busy and difficult year for many of us. Specific to the Member's point, to help seniors who are staying alone or have little social support to use their vouchers, STB will explore working with social service organisations and the PA to facilitate of the usage of the vouchers such as by organising small group tours for seniors where permissible.
In addition to that, the booking platforms, where commercially viable and where there is a demand, are also very much welcome to come up with packages, for example, family packages or packages that are targeted at seniors, and bundle these with F&B and retail as well. These are all possibilities; and we also facilitate, particularly with the social service organisations and PA.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, appreciate the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Could I clarify with the Minister of State, as we are very concerned that many seniors are still not very familiar with SingPass and they may go and reset the SingPass, so, how many community centres is MTI thinking of designating to help facilitate with SingPass and whether this will be extended to all the community centres because the numbers may be large? Perhaps the Minister of State would want to share how many Singaporeans will be eligible for this scheme and how many percentage of them do you think will need this kind of special service, where they would need a new SingPass account or need help from the ambassadors?
The second supplementary question is, if this scheme is popular – and we hope it is going to be popular – many attractions may be having problems coping with the demand, especially at the peak periods that people want to go. So, how would MTI work with the different attractions to increase the capacity during this period and without compromising the safety of Singaporeans?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng for his questions. I will just take them in two parts. The second one first, with regard to the capacity at our tourist attractions, we have increased it to 50% for now. As the hon Member has mentioned, the health and safety of our people are paramount. So, we will look into how the COVID-19 situation is being managed.
Also, with regard to the spread of the vouchers, it is meant to be from December all the way up to June. So, we will also encourage Singapore Citizens to utilise the vouchers across the period of time – it covers the December holidays, it covers the March holidays and it also covers the June holidays. But also, in between, where there are off-peak periods, that is where potentially the seniors and potentially those who are not working, can utilise the vouchers.
With regard to the physical touchpoints, currently, STB is working with PA for about 40 community centres or CCs with SingPass counters, and up to 66 physical touchpoints, set up by the appointed booking platforms that I mentioned, or near the CCs to assist the Singapore Citizens to redeem their vouchers. They will also have SRV ambassadors appointed by STB. But we will look into the hon Member's suggestion to potentially expand it to more physical touchpoints so that Singapore Citizen can reset their SingPass and have more assistance in redeeming those vouchers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons on Operations and Safe Distancing Measures Gleaned from 14 October 2020 MRT Service Disruption Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent MRT breakdown on 14 October 2020 (a) whether there are sufficient business continuity plans and emergency preparedness exercises conducted on a regular basis to ensure that the relevant teams know what to do in the event of a power failure; and (b) how long has it taken for the crowd control process to kick in and what have been the measures implemented.
5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport when buses or trains are stranded at peak hours (a) what are the protocols in place to ensure safe distancing measures and good ventilation for the commuters; (b) whether public transport workers are trained to guide commuters to safety and address their concerns; and (c) what are the lessons learned from the MRT disruption on 14 October 2020 with regard to crowd management and safe distancing measures and how will this be improved upon.
6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what was the cause of the cable insulation fault which triggered the MRT disruption on 14 October 2020; (b) why did the circuit breaker in the vicinity of Tuas Link and Tuas West Road fail to isolate the cable insulation fault; and (c) why was the cable insulation fault not isolated before SMRT attempted to draw power from the Buona Vista intake station resulting in the power supply disruption to Circle Line.
7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) given its past experience, whether SMRT could have taken much less time to complete passenger recovery or evacuation during the MRT disruption on 14 October 2020; and (b) what were the reasons for the delay.
8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what are the key lessons arising from the MRT disruption of 14 October 2020 and what measures will be taken to ensure that similar future incidents will be avoided.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I answer Question Nos 4 to 8 together, please?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The 14 October 2020 incident was significant and affected over 120,000 commuters. As with this House, I am concerned about the disruption. Our imperative must be to get to the bottom of the matter, take follow-up actions and prevent similar incidences from recurring.
\t
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has, therefore, investigated the incident thoroughly, with inputs from operator SMRT and the equipment supplier Alstom. They identified what went wrong and have started to address the gaps and shortcomings. On 28 October, that is, last month, LTA issued a detailed media statement and its full investigation report. Together with SMRT and Alstom, they held a joint media briefing the same day to explain the cause of the incident, the follow up actions and answered many questions. Their findings, including answers to many of the questions posed by Members, were widely covered in the media.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me recap the pertinent points.
The disruption was caused by the occurrence of concurrent faults and one mistake.
First, there was a 22kV power cable fault in the electrical zone between Tuas Link and Tuas West Road stations. This is along the Tuas West Extension. This would not have caused a disruption if the circuit breaker, which is a protection feature of the system, had kicked in and isolated the affected electrical zone because, once isolated, the power can flow and service can continue.
But then a second fault occurred, in that the circuit breaker at Tuas West Road station, close to where the faulty cable was, malfunctioned. It was later found out that the trip coil, which is a component of the circuit breaker, was faulty.
A secondary protection mechanism at the sector level did kick in and then isolated the fault. But that cut off power supply across large sections of the North-South and East-West Lines. At that point, the Operations Control Centre then made a mistake and did not isolate the fault before drawing power from the Buona Vista Intake substation. As the Buona Vista Intake substation also supplies power to the Circle Line, this, in turn, affected train services along parts of the Circle Line.
Members have asked: why was the power cable faulty? Why did the primary circuit breaker, which is the first level of protection, not work? Why did it not work? Why did the Operations Control Centre not remotely isolate the fault before powering up?
LTA, SMRT and Alstom have given their explanations during the media briefing. The reasons for the component failures are still unknown. The faulty power cable and the circuit breaker have been sent for forensic examination by the original equipment manufacturer, to ascertain the reasons for failure.
What we do know is that there have been four power cable failures along the Tuas West Extension since 2018. LTA and SMRT had earlier expressed their concerns to Alstom, the supplier, who was forthcoming and had already agreed much earlier to replace some of the cables. In fact, work was on track to start in the later part of October.
Following this recent incident, Alstom will conduct a complete replacement of all the power cables – 150 km of it – along the Tuas West Extension. This is quite a major undertaking and will be completed progressively by the end of next year. The cables will take time to procure and arrive. At the right time, LTA will schedule early closures and late openings on weekends or full Sunday closures for limited periods in 2021 to facilitate the cable replacement works. We will announce these plans in due course.
Alstom will also replace all 113 trip coils in the circuit breakers along the Tuas West Extension by the end of this year. LTA will implement weekend early closures to facilitate the replacement exercise and we seek commuters' understanding for the inconvenience caused. During this time, SMRT will also step up the frequency of mechanical testing of the circuit breakers of this sector from annually to every six months. This is in addition to visual inspections of the trip coils once every 10 days, to ensure that they are in working order.
As for the Operations Control Centre not isolating the fault before drawing power from Buona Vista Intake substation, this was a human error. Members asked if there was a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in responding to such a situation. There are, in fact, many sets of SOPs to cater to different scenarios, but one thing we have learnt over the years is that every disruption is different and unique. So, besides being guided by SOPs, the engineers on duty will have to exercise judgement and make quick decisions during an emergency.
I have not been in their shoes and cannot imagine the challenges they are facing. But under the pressure of time and circumstances, the personnel involved, I believe, made an honest mistake. I have no doubt this has been a major lesson for them. They wished they had decided differently and they have much learning to share with their colleagues, so that such a mistake will not happen again.
Members also asked about evacuation and crowd control. I want to assure Members that LTA, SMRT and the Home Team jointly conduct emergency preparedness exercises every year. SMRT staff also regularly get refreshed on their roles and responsibilities during a service disruption. On the evening of the disruption, the SOPs were promptly implemented. About 400 additional SMRT staff were immediately activated to both rectify the fault and help affected commuters.
Safety of commuters is the top priority during service recovery. That is why detraining commuters is always a last resort because to have commuters walking along the track poses risk, especially for those who are elderly or handicapped. So, they need to be very carefully carried out. The Operations Control Centre, therefore, has to balance the risk posed by detrainment against the discomfort and heightened anxiety of commuters in the stalled trains. Therefore, as far as possible, the Operations Control Centre will try to restore power to the trains and then bring commuters through the trains to the nearest MRT station.
However, 40 minutes into the disruption, the Operations Control Centre concluded that it could not restore power to the system quickly and, therefore, decided on detrainment. Train captains carried out the safety protocols, and station staff walked on the tracks to the trains to guide commuters to the nearest stations. All 6,800 commuters on the stalled trains were brought safely to the nearest station platform in under an hour, except for the 78 commuters whose detrainment was delayed by inclement weather and lightning risk.
Free boarding of regular bus services was activated within 10 minutes of the incident to disperse the crowds outside the train stations. One hundred and twenty bridging buses were in place within 35 minutes of the incident and SMRT staff guided commuters to look for suitable alternative transport arrangements to carry on with their journeys.
Despite this, crowds built up around the MRT stations. This is, unfortunately, inevitable in the event of a train disruption. While there is understandably concern about overcrowding, given the current COVID-19 situation, it will not be practical to ensure physical distancing without further inconveniencing the affected commuters in such an unexpected situation. The transport team simply has to do our best to prevent such incidents from happening in the first place and to rectify the incidents as quickly as possible should they occur. Thankfully, on that evening, commuters were very cooperative. They continued to wear their masks and minimised talking to each other, and I thank the commuters for their understanding and for doing their part under such trying circumstances.
In the course of their investigations, our engineers learnt many useful lessons, to improve operations and maintenance. There are also wider, non-engineering lessons, too, for policy makers and, I think, for this House as well. I think there are three lessons.
First, mass rapid transit systems are very complex. Engineers who have worked on mass rapid transit systems and other systems, and have a basis for comparison, will very likely testify to that. Several fields of engineering converge to get a mass rapid transit system to work reliably to carry millions of commuters safely, for many hours throughout the day. Given its complexity, when a major disruption occurs, the circumstances and causes are often unique.
That leads us to the second lesson – because of the nature of mass rapid transit systems, we should never be complacent. Keep learning and keep improving. Always emphasise building up engineering and operational capabilities and experience. Regularly review SOPs and conduct staff training to ensure processes are up to date and everyone in the team knows what to do when the need arises.
Third, MOT, LTA, SMRT and SBST must work as one team. This is the spirit of the One Transport Team. We coined the term to remind ourselves of the imperative. This was how we managed to significantly improve the reliability of our MRT system, bringing the Mean Kilometres Between Failures or MKBF from under 200,000 train-km just five years ago to more than one million train-km today. With the recent disruption, the morale of the teams on the ground has taken a hit.
Nobody wishes for an incident like this to happen, but when it did, we should not let it break our spirit. There are honest and hardworking people who have toiled over the past few years to make our MRT system amongst the most reliable in the world. By believing in them and in ourselves, we can stand tall, be united again and press on with our work. So, as a team, we take collective responsibility, not finger point, and we will do our best, close the gaps and address the shortcomings. Only then can we continue to fulfil our collective mission of serving commuters well.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Minister for the reply. I have one supplementary question. The Minister mentioned about elderly commuters. I would like to find out how SMRT took care of our elderly and wheelchair-bound commuters when the trains broke down. How did they evacuate these vulnerable commuters, especially from trains that were stuck above ground?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for the question. This is one of the reasons, in consideration of elderly and wheelchair-bound commuters, that detrainment had to be a last resort. Yes, there are risks, especially for this group of commuters. But when we have to, you cannot have wheelchairs on the tracks. But on the Circle Line, in the tunnels, you can have wheelchairs because there is a side platform that you can push the wheelchair on. So, evacuation on the Circle Line is much faster. In fact, that evening, it took half an hour to evacuate three trainloads of passengers because of the side platform.
For viaducts, the North-South East-West Line, it is not as straightforward. Typically, even when evacuation and detrainment start, the rest of the passengers can walk but the elderly and those with mobility challenges will stay on the train until further manpower, including SCDF, arrives. If need be, we use stretchers to carry such passengers to the nearest station. The stations are also equipped with what we call battery-powered motorised trolleys that we can use and deploy to ferry them to the nearest station.
So, SOPs are in place. We are very careful about it. Walking on the viaduct has its risks and we will always be very careful. But most importantly, is to prevent such incidents from happening.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\t
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Minister for the answer to our questions and also to thank the One Transport team for quickly responding to the situation on that particular day and helping out commuters. I have two supplementary questions.
The first is in regard to Minister's answer earlier that it took 40 minutes before a detrainment decision was taken and thereafter the commuters got off the trains in separate moments. My question is, is there a specific SOP – because there could be rising anxiety within the trains. In my question, I was asking about good ventilation for commuters within the train itself, especially if you are stuck in the train for an hour or more before eventually detrainment, typically, how long is the SOPs before a decision is made? That is my first question.
Secondly, in regard to this incident, will companies like say SMRT be taken to task? Will there be a fine being made against SMRT for such incidents; not just SMRT, but other providers going forward, in the future, if such incidents happen?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member. For specific SOP, typically the guideline is half an hour; 30 minutes. But I want to emphasise you are balancing two unpleasant things. One is being trapped in a train and I can imagine the discomfort and anxiety. Whenever there is a disruption like that, the battery does kick in the train. The battery cannot power the aircon but that there will continue to be a bit of light and some ventilation through a fan. It is warm and it is uncomfortable. There is a battery that will operate for about an hour.
Within an hour, you then have to decide whether to do the other unpleasant thing which is detrainment. Detrainment, as I have mentioned, has risks. You can trip. There is a 750 volts DC, third rail, and you are walking next to it. You got to make sure you disable it, double confirm, triple confirm, quadruple confirm because it is no joke walking next to a 750 volts third rail. Then, like on that night, there could be inclement weather and then there was lightning risk. Once there is lightning risk, you should stop. Never put passengers' lives in danger. So, you are balancing between these two things. But typically, after half an hour, a decision should be made whether to do detrainment.
In this case, there was some hope that they could repower, but the repower went wrong and brought down CCL, or sections of it. So, 40 minutes later, detrainment was decided. Not an easy task but the Operations Control Centre of SMRT has to make those decisions. And I think the decisions they made that night, in terms of detrainment, was correct.
On companies that could be taken to task, if the operator has made a big boo-boo, resulting in a big disruption, of course, some of these actions would have to be looked into and there is a disciplinary framework. But I think in this case, the investigation report went up. The equipment supplier came forth, agreed to replace all 113 of trip coils, and 150 km of cable wires and within SMRT and LTA, everyone self-reflected what they could do better.
So, I think what is more important than meting out punishment, is the team able to come together, reflect upon what could be done better and take it upon themselves, take responsibility to say, \"I can do things better\". And together, without finger-pointing, work together to better serve commuters. The mood can easily change and go wrong. When it becomes one of penalty and punishment, then the mood changes when everyone become defensive, everyone, to put it crudely, will cover their behinds. And after a while, you do not get the best outcome.
So, as far as possible, there is a disciplinary structure and we will use it if we have to. But as far as possible, I feel, hold the team together, be able to work together for the benefit of commuters – that is a lot more important.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers. I just have two supplementary questions. One, beyond the suspension of the two staff, will LTA look into how the SMRT or indeed, both rail operators, can improve their work processes in future to prevent or mitigate against similar staff, human error in similar situations like this?
Two, in respect of the proposed replacement cables by Alstom, whether LTA will require more stringent tests to be conducted on the replacement of the upper layer cables, to ensure that similar faults which were spotted on the current cables on the previous four occasions, as well as which caused 14 October disruption, will not be present in the future replacement cables.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Let me answer the second question first – will more stringent tests be conducted? I think to put it in context, this set of components and equipment are not new. It has been used on other lines. And they typically have a life span of 20, 25, or 30 years. So, this is a bit premature to have four faults in the last few years, which I think explains why Alstom is stepping forward and replacing everything. I do not want to prejudge why the cable was faulty. It is going through forensics and once the results come out, I am sure it will provide insights.
But there is an SOP and there is an inspection regime for all cables and trip-coils throughout the system. For this stretch, while the components are being replaced, we will step up, double the frequency, so that we make sure it works.
As for the first question, I should I emphasise, suspension does not necessarily mean we are blaming the workers or they are being punished. Because they may not have committed wrong. If there is gross negligence, in fact, if there is wilful wrongdoing, disciplinary actions will be taken, including even bringing in the Police, if there is wilful wrongdoing. But in most operations involving live operations and in a place where there is a strong safety culture, suspensions are not uncommon. It is actually carried out, quite routinely, as a matter of professional conduct and safety protocol. You will find that in the SAF, you find it in bus operations. You have a near-miss, or a side swipe of a bus, the captain might be suspended for a week. It does not mean it is a punishment. Sometimes, it is not their fault, or even running theme parks or manufacturing plants, process plants. These are always carried out. It is part and parcel of a professional conduct of an engineering company.
The purpose, depending on the circumstances, need not always be punishment. Sometimes, it is really a matter of retraining, refresh what you have learnt, self-reflect and go back, you do better and share your learnings with your colleagues. And I think it is a good system to ensure that we keep on improving.
The question specifically asked if there would be improvement in work processes. Definitely. As I have mentioned, every time there is a major disruption, it is always unique. This time, it is also unique. SMRT has not encountered such a situation before where a cable fault, coupled with a trip-coil fault, resulting in a disruption. So, they will be improving their SOPs. But frankly, when it happens, you do not have time to go and refer to them. It has to be internalised into the experience and lessons learnt by all the operators, and by the engineers. And I think this incident provided a lot of lessons for them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for that broad-ranging explanation as to what occurred. Just one supplementary question specific to the faulty cable. The Minister mentioned that the cable is now being forensically examined as to the reason its failure. For the earlier episodes of cable failure, was it a consistent reason as in there were not two or three different reasons so that the OEM could not identify why the cable is failing in the same way, or could this have been pre-empted to an extent if the earlier cable failures were all down to the same reason or same cause?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: There were four. Two was when the system was first commissioned; that was 2018. So, of course, there were concerns. In 2019, there were no failures.
And this year, there were two earlier failures, now this one. So, the reasons for the failure has not been established which is why, given that what has happened, we should send it for forensic examination and understand the reason why.
In the meantime, regardless of the reason, the cables would be replaced.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Clearer Communications for Alleged Sexual Misconduct Incidents at Autonomous Universities ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether Autonomous Universities can provide clear communications with their students whenever there are allegations of misconduct involving teaching staff and students so that students can be better protected.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Education): The question raised by Mr Lim Biow Chuan follows the recent media coverage of the case involving a former teaching staff at the National University of Singapore or NUS who was dismissed for being in an intimate relationship with an undergraduate, which is a clear contravention of NUS' Code of Conduct for staff. Given the undergraduate's allegations of sexual misconduct against the individual, a Police report was made and the investigation is underway.
Where allegations of serious misconduct are made, the Institutes of Higher Learning, or IHLs, will immediately require the accused individual to stay away from campus temporarily, if they assess that the alleged offender may pose a danger to any member of their community. If the case involves a student or staff from the same institution, the IHLs may also impose a No-Contact Order to ensure that the alleged offender is prohibited from contacting or being in the vicinity of the party making the allegations.
A Police report is typically made for allegations of serious misconduct, and where the alleged offender is proven and charged in Court, this will be a matter of public record.
Separately, the IHLs also conduct their own internal investigations to determine if the alleged offender has breached their Code of Conduct. Those who do so are subject to disciplinary sanctions, including possible suspension or expulsion of students, or dismissal of staff.
In the course of addressing allegations, MOE expects institutions to be open and timely in their communications, while taking into consideration the facts of the case, the need to ensure the safety of their communities and safeguard the well-being and privacy of victims and other members of the community who are directly impacted, and the need to ensure that Police investigations are not impacted.
MOE will continue to work closely with the IHLs to ensure that the well-being and safety of students and staff on campus are protected.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, one aspect of the unhappiness by members of the public is that the disclosure was not timely. So, may I ask the Minister of State, what is the time frame when we say that MOE expects the institution to be open and timely in their communications with the students. As an undergraduate, if you are approaching a lecturer, you would want to know whether the lecturer is under investigation and whether the lecturer is likely to be a predator. Given the unequal relationship between a student and a lecturer, I think it is justifiable that a student would ask for timely disclosure, so that they would be able to know and assess how to deal with the lecturer.
In that sense, may I ask MOE how would the Ministry want to keep the student community safe in circumstances like that? Can I also ask MOE whether they can provide this House with an update on the number of similar incidents in the past years?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. We agree that communication is very important and we will ask the IHLs to do more on this front, while bearing in mind the context and specificities of each case.
In the present case regarding this specific lecturer, I have shared that NUS required the accused individual to stay away from campus and that a No-Contact Order was swiftly made out. These were carried out and disclosed by NUS in its media conference.
Let me be very clear. We do not condone instances of sexual misconduct as well as sexual offences that happen on campus. MOE will work closely with the IHLs to protect our students.
On the second question that the Member raised, on the number of incidents, the AUs handled a total of 56 disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct committed by students from 2015 to 2017. This translates to an incidence rate of around 0.21 sexual misconduct cases involving student perpetrators per 1,000 students. In 2018, the AUs handled 17 such cases. The corresponding incidence rate is 0.16. In 2019, the number of such cases fell to 14 with a corresponding incidence rate of 0.13.
If we look at the IHLs as a total and if we look at sexual misconduct cases committed by both students and staff, the IHLs handled a total of 172 disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct committed by students and staff from 2015 to 2019. This translates to an incidence rate of 0.12 sexual misconduct cases involving staff and student perpetrators per 1,000 staff and students.
I also want to add that our IHLs are key public institutions and they are expected to uphold high academic standards and professionalism. They also owe a duty of care to their students. That is why we have zero tolerance when it comes to sexual misconduct instances that happen on campus.
There can be open discussions; we have very bright teaching faculty, we have students who are also discovering themselves, exploring their passions. But all that said, these discussions must have academic rigour and be constructive. Staff are expected to uphold professional codes of conduct in their interactions with students. When there is a breach of the IHLs' codes of conduct, the punishments are swift. Students can be suspended, they can be dismissed from school and the same goes for staff. And we see that in this case, the teaching staff was dismissed very quickly and NUS has shared that it will endeavour to do better when it comes to communications.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Speaker, I thank the Minister of State. I would like to ask two supplementary questions with regard to this, whether MOE has any plan to engage relevant experts in handling of sexual assault cases to provide training and sensitisation to personnel in IHLs as well as Secondary schools and tertiary institutions, given that in this digital age, our children are getting exposed to sexual material and content very easily and at a much earlier age through digital media?
Secondly, will MOE consider putting in place a requirement, if it does not currently have this requirement, for educational institutions to create or set up a small team or committee of properly trained personnel to handle such cases, going forward?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. There is some overlap in the two questions. So, if I may just take the two of them together.
Firstly, I think it bears noting that from April last year, a Victim Care Unit was set up at NUS; and they have something similar in the other AUs as well. The Victim Care Units, or VCUs, are staffed by professionally trained care officers and their objective is to provide the first line of care and support to victims of sexual misconduct. So, I hope that helps to allay the concerns that the Member has.
The Member has asked about what happens in Secondary schools at the younger ages and at tertiary education, I think we all recognise that different age groups have a different understanding of sexuality. We have to ensure that sexuality education is targeted in its delivery. So, starting from Primary schools, students are made aware of how they can protect themselves. In Secondary schools, teachers also provide certain scenarios so that students are aware of how they can protect themselves. Specialised training for sexuality education teachers is conducted by very specialised staff within MOE.
In sum, MOE takes this very seriously how students of different ages can protect themselves, and we deliver that education in a targeted manner. Where, unfortunately, a sexual offence has occurred and victims require help and support, we have dedicated personnel, who serve as the first line of support for the victims. They centralise the care and support, and students and affected individuals do not have to go about looking for different individuals for help. They can go directly to the dedicated personnel.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I have two supplementary questions. The first is whether there are any plans to make any investigations into such complaints about sexual violence and sexual misconduct, whether to make them independent to give students better confidence? So, basically, independent in the sense that it is not undertaken by the Universities or the institutions themselves.
My second question is, as Ms Carrie Tan mentioned earlier, the Minister of State has responded regarding Secondary school level, steps taken for these students to make sure that they are aware of sexuality and issues relating to consent, is the Ministry taking any proactive steps to making sure to examine whether this is also a problem at younger levels, and whether there is any studies being conducted at the Secondary school level to see whether there are any problems? So, just being proactive and find out whether it is an issue.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. On the first, I would like to share that there are two tracks of investigations when an offence around sexual misconduct is highlighted in the IHLs. Firstly, a Board of Discipline may be convened by the IHLs. There is a certain structure in the Board of Discipline; students are also included in the Board of Discipline to provide their perspectives on the issue. Investigations are carried out through campus security and the issue is very seriously considered by the senior management of the IHLs.
Separate from that, there is the criminal justice system. When there are concerns of a serious offence having occurred, a Police report is made and investigations are carried out by the Police. So, there is an independent track of investigations. That is with regard to the first question that the Member highlighted.
On the second question with regard to Secondary school students, we take in feedback from parents. Sexuality education is such that it does not happen in a vacuum. I mentioned earlier about scenarios being used to teach students; or, rather, to also solicit inputs from them. So, it is a two-way process. Otherwise, as part of the education process, we do not really quite know whether the students have imbibed what has been taught. So, sexuality education educators are well aware of the sensitivities around this topic and when they teach it in classrooms, they are very sensitive about it and then use scenarios, so that the students best know how to apply those lessons to undertake self-care.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Earning $1,300 or Less a Month on Take-home Basis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) to date, what is the total number of Singaporeans who have received the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS); (b) what is the range of the wage supplements; (c) what is the demographic breakdown of the recipients; and (d) what has been the impact of WIS on employment.
11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower what is the current number of Singaporeans who earn $1,300 or less a month on a take-home basis, excluding employer and employee CPF as well as other deductions of income, for (i) full-time employment and (ii) part-time work or self-employment where their income will be $1,300 per month or less on a take-home basis were it to be extrapolated to full-time equivalent work.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the International Labour Organization or ILO’s definition of earnings includes contributions of employees to social security and pension schemes. Singapore’s approach is broadly aligned with the ILO and considers personal income to include —
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad, are you taking both questions? Question Nos 10 and 11?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Yes, Speaker, I will take both questions together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I will repeat the answer again. Sir, the International Labour Organization or ILO’s definition of earnings includes contributions of employees to social security and pension schemes. Singapore’s approach is broadly aligned with the ILO and considers personal income to include the Central Provident Fund or CPF contributions and the Workfare Income Supplement or WIS payouts, as these can be used for necessities including healthcare and housing.
In particular, Workfare provides cash supplements and CPF top-ups to encourage eligible lower wage Singaporean workers to work regularly and build up their CPF savings. CPF contributions and top-ups also go towards retirement savings.
Including Workfare and CPF contributions, there are about 30,000 full-time employees among Singaporeans receiving less than $1,300 per month; likewise, for 22,000 self-employed persons. These lower wage workers also receive further support from the Government, such as Silver Support, ComCare, GST vouchers and U-Save rebates.
Workfare remains a key pillar of social security for Singaporean lower wage workers. Studies have consistently shown that Workfare has been effective in motivating less educated Singaporeans, particularly those in the older age groups, to enter and stay in the workforce. This is important as workforce participation is key to supplementing their household incomes and their ability to save for retirement.
Workfare has been regularly reviewed since its launch in 2007. The qualifying income ceiling and payouts for Workfare were raised on four occasions to ensure continued support for deserving workers. From 2007 to 2019, over $6.8 billion has been disbursed to 890,000 unique lower wage workers.
In the past three years, an average of about 400,000 individuals receive Workfare annually. About 11% are aged 35 to 44, 21% are aged 45 to 54, and 18% are aged 55 to 59. Slightly less than half, or 49% of all Workfare recipients are aged 60 and above.
During the same period, the average Workfare payout received annually was about $1,560, while the maximum was $3,600.
\tThe Government will continue to provide holistic support to low-wage workers. Besides Workfare and the schemes already mentioned, there are also efforts to raise standards of living for low-wage workers in other meaningful ways, such as providing access to quality healthcare, enhanced housing grants and subsidies to help them own their own homes, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, the Workfare Income Supplement scheme is indeed a commendable scheme. It uplifted the low-wage workers' income and yet not compromising on the employability. A big credit to the Government for this scheme. I just want to focus on the 32,000 or now, the Minister of State mentioned, it is 30,000 low-wage workers that earn $1,300 and below per month. Can I find out from the Minister of State, what is the profile of the 32,000 or 30,000 low-wage workers and more importantly, what is the Government doing to support this group of workers here?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his clarification. The first question was 32,000 and now, I have reported 30,000. I suspect Mr Liang was referring to Member Dr Koh Poh Koon's speech last month when he cited 32,000. The difference is because, when we run reports, our labour statistics is based on resident statistics. Here, the Member, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about Singaporeans, so that is the difference between resident profile and the Singaporean statistics.
On the Member's question about the profile of the 30,000 workers, among the 30,000 employees are office clerks, F&B workers, cleaners, shop salespersons as well as several other smaller groups of occupations. Many of them have lower education profiles, of which four in five have post-Secondary qualifications and below, while half of them have Secondary education and below.
More than third of them are aged 50 and above, which reflects an older profile who have less access to higher education as compared to the current generation. They are also potentially at a higher risk of disemployment and are likely to face greater difficulties in finding jobs, if they are displaced. So, they are less skilled and therefore more at risk at finding jobs in the current climate.
Notably a third of them are youths aged between 15 and 24. Some of us have been there before; they are in vacation jobs. It is also useful to consider another group in terms of the existing household support. Out of this group of 30,000 full-time Singaporean employees, half of them live in households with household income per capita above $1,300. Basically, per capita income implies that if you have two persons living in the home, you probably have a household income of more than $2,600. If you have four persons at home, you have household income of more than $5,200 per month.
Therefore, half of this group have alternative means of support and which also suggests that they are not the primary breadwinners of the household and have other means of support too.
In short, of these 30,000 Singaporean employees who still earn less than $1,300 a month today, half of them are staying in households where they are not the primary breadwinners and have others in the household providing income support. The majority of these 30,000 employees have low education and work as clerks, F&B workers, cleaners and shop salespersons. And more than one third are older Singaporeans at higher risks of disemployment, while the other one third of them are youths on vacation jobs.
Besides the monthly Workfare Income Supplement wage top-up they would already receive, this group of 30,000 Singaporeans will continue to be supported by the Workfare Skills Support scheme that will enable them to upskill and earn higher wages, and by other schemes such as the Silver Support, ComCare, GST voucher and U-Save rebates for their daily and medical needs as well as retirement needs in the future.
Additionally, the Government will continue to raise the standards of living for low-wage workers in other meaningful ways such as providing access to quality healthcare, enhance housing grants and subsidies to help them own their own homes, education for their children and adequate support in retirement.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad for his clarifications. With all due respect, I wonder if I could get a clarification, specifically with respect to the question, which is that we are wondering how many receive a take-home income of $1,300 and below, excluding all these supplementary schemes. An alternative way to look at this question is, if we could look at the breakdown of wage earnings only, so what is the share or the number of Singaporeans that receive less than $1,300 based on wage earnings only versus those who receive $1,300 and below, after you take into account all these supplementary schemes.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarification. On this, I just want to reiterate that the holistic understanding of Singapore's system, of how we use personal income including CPF and Workfare income payouts. CPF is part of income too, as these can be used for necessities. Workfare Income Scheme or WIS gives you cash. As for CPF, I think many of us use it for housing and healthcare. I think it is worth it to note that 75% of our Workfare recipients, lower income workers, also own their own homes and therefore there is a direct impact from CPF into your home ownership. That is still income which, in other countries, you would have had to use your cash to pay for your own homes or mortgages.
In line with the International Labour Organization (ILO) – so this is not a pure Singapore definition – if you think about the alignment, the concept and definition of gross earnings, the data collected is before tax deductions and inclusive of CPF contributions. If you use the ILO statistics of earnings for example, they define to include social security, pension schemes, insurance premiums, union dues and other obligations of the employees. So, this is how it is done internationally. Therefore, we keep the same conventions because it provides a meaningful comparisons and benchmarks.
Calculations to exclude CPF contributions, as asked by the Member, how do you do that? Or deduction of other incomes will require various other assumptions. For instance, income tax deductions will differ based on individual profiles, and some do get different sorts of reliefs for example.
Moreover, almost all the Minimum Wage systems internationally including in the US, UK, Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Spain also stipulate that Minimum Wages are subject to taxes and social security contributions. That also implies tax as well as social security, your pensions, your CPF. This means that that Minimum Wage levels are also before deductions.
Given this these considerations, it would not be meaningful nor accurate to consider income according to the parameters of the Member's query.
In fact, I would like to turn the question around to the Member and ask for clarification of the Workers' Party's position on the Minimum Wage level that it is advocating for.
According to the Workers' Party manifesto 2020, it calls for all working Singaporeans to receive a minimum take-home wage of $1,300 per month for full-time work and pro-rated for part-time work. Yet, in the September 2020 Debate on the President's Address, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggest that the appropriate Minimum Wage levels should be – well, he was suggesting that we should have a national commission to determine this. Thereafter, in October 2020, in the Ministerial Statement just last month, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said that the Workers' Party is proposing a Minimum Wage of $1,300. Member Mr Pritam Singh also asked Member Mr Edward Chia, if he would be agreeable to pay the 32,000 workers $1,300 as a business employer.
Both these statements suggest a gross Minimum Wage of $1,300 per month. But Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's current query seem to suggest that the Workers' Party is now proposing for a minimum take-home pay of $1,300. That is a shift in where the line is.
If this is the case, then the gross wage inclusive of CPF contributions should be higher – between $1,600 and $1,700, thereabouts.
Given the statements put out recently and in line with ILO's definition of earnings to include contributions to social security and international conventions of Minimum Wage to be before tax deductions and social security contributions, could I ask the Member to clarify what is the Minimum Wage level that the Workers' Party is proposing. Because I think it is useful for us to all have this same level of benchmark now, so we can have meaningful debates in the future.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the opportunity to clarify. If I may just quickly expand on the question. I appreciate that the ILO has a particular definition, but I am that he would also appreciate that for a worker who works full-time in Singapore, they will have a notion of how much their labour effort is worth every month.
Importantly, to the average Singaporean, what they care about is not necessarily limited to just how much they receive in terms of CPF payments. Because, of course, many Singaporeans justifiably think that the CPF payments are what ultimately is what is owed them after all they have saved for that for that amount.
If I may just step quickly into this Minimum Wage clarification. I should note that the premise of my question had nothing to do with the Minimum Wage per se, the question did not specify anything about Minimum Wage, it was about the idea of $1,300. In part, the reason why we raised $1,300 was because that was the notion of how much a reasonable basket of goods and services for adequate living in Singapore would entail. So, that was in very much, in fact the reason why I had raised this question about $1,300.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I think the Member is evading the question because I have shown that in the manifesto, it was $1,300 mentioned. In the last few debates too, the same figure was mentioned but in different definitions. So, I think the root of the issue now is the Workers' Party changed its definition for its Minimum Wage line.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Let me be clear. I do not think I was evading the question because I think the Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad imputed an inference of the $1,300 take-home pay was what the question was asking. I think that the Workers' Party's position has been consistent and that it was about $1,300 in terms of full-time work.
But this particular question was about take-home pay, in part, because it is about what it means for survival in the case of Singapore. That is why I do not think that I am actually evading the question because I think that an inference of what I was asking in the question was actually attributed to be, whereas I did not make them.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I was just checking with the Member again because I just referred to his quote before. There was a $1,300 gross wage and now he is saying $1,300 take-home. I appreciate his questions for this Parliamentary Question and I have given the answer as to why you do not separate your CPF, for example, from your salary. Because your CPF clearly provides for amounts of money that you pay for your mortgage and pay for your homes. Many of our Workfare recipients, many of our low-income workers own their own homes as a result of the CPF.
To some extent, you have got Government subsidies but you also have CPF flow-through that enables many of our low-income workers to own homes. So, that is income too and that is also a recognition by the employer for the ability for workers to earn and that is why we talk about gross wages typically.
Generally, figures are what we pick up from statistics and this is how we do it. It is the benchmark, not just by ILO, but Minimum Wage benchmarks around the world too use a similar definition of using tax and social pensions and social security systems as part of the wage. If we keep to the convention, it is easier to make for good meaningful benchmarks and discussions and debates, in the future.
Could I just confirm once again that the Workers' Party's $1,300 Minimum Wage benchmark is gross income, so that we could settle this and come to an understanding.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, that is a fair characterisation. [Please refer to Official Report, 3 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 12, \"Clarification by Member\".]
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Okay, thank you very much.
\t
\t
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I have a question for Senior Minister of State Zaqy. The question pertains to the age criterion of 35 years old for eligibility for Workfare Income Supplement or WIS. I understand that this policy's aim is mostly to supplement the income of ageing workers who have a lower chance of increasing their salaries due to their age. Also, the Senior Minister of State Zaqy mentioned about the focus on helping breadwinners of families. I would like to ask if it is possible that we can revise or remove the 35-year-old age criterion if the individual is a sole breadwinner in the family, as I have seen many single parents in the community who struggle to bring up their children and they are below 35 years old, and would greatly benefit from this income supplement.
The second question is, Senior Minister of State Zaqy mentioned that the amount WIS that an individual gets within a year, ranges from $1,000-plus to a maximum of about $3,600. Even at the maximum, it translates to about $300 increment on a monthly basis. I would like to ask if it would be possible to consider increasing the quantum of WIS payouts so that instead of a family having to go to multiple and various agencies to receive different kinds of social security benefits, they can get this increased ability in terms of financial resources very directly from WIS, so that they do not have to go through the hassle and the quite undignifying experience of going to multiple aid agencies, which also would translate to more efficiencies from a whole-of-Government perspective.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. Since WIS was first introduced, we have made significant adjustments to the payout quantums across all age bands. With the WIS Enhancement recently done – just made in January this year – the maximum WIS payout would be, for a 45-year-old, for example, about $2,500. This is more than double the payout of such workers in 2007 when we first introduced WIS. From the example here, it does show that we revise and take into account inflation and consider how we can better make Workfare more meaningful for our workers.
I can understand the Member's question, in terms of whether we can lower the age criterion and make payouts to those below 35 years old. But really, the target of WIS and if you look at the profile of those receiving WIS as I had mentioned earlier, more than half are on the older side. This is because the younger workers have got the potential; they are more educated; they have more skills upgrading opportunities. Therefore, there is that potential which we want to help through. But of course, I do understand some are single parents, for example, and some have to take care of family and other issues and have other concerns and challenges in the home. This is where our whole-of-Government efforts come into play – whether it is ComCare for social support, Financial Assistance Schemes in school to help their kids through school too. These are ways in which we help them.
For worker support, this is where Workfare makes a difference especially for the older workers to beef up and pump up. I am glad the Member noted that the maximum amount that we had given before 2020 was about $3,000-plus. That translates to about 30% or one-third of an older worker's salary, which studies have shown, has motivated some of our seniors to go back to work or continue working because they get the extra boost from Workfare to supplement their incomes.
","clarificationText":"\t
","clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of National Wages Council 's 2020 Wage Cut Advisory on Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower what will be the impact of wage cuts in the next 12 months given the recent announcement by the National Wages Council that employers can consider temporarily cutting workers' basic pay if necessary to stave off retrenchments.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the National Wages Council or NWC issued its Supplementary Guidelines on 16 October 2020, encouraging employers and employees to work closely together to minimise retrenchments. The NWC expects wage adjustments in the next 12 months to vary across sectors and firms. Not every employer will need to cut wages to save jobs. Some have seen no reduction in demand and thus have no reason to make wage cuts. Others have already adjusted wage levels or non-wage costs, in line with the Guidelines issued in March.
The NWC also expects that employers will deliberate carefully whether to proceed with a wage cut. A key principle is for management to take the lead in taking wage cuts and to accept steeper cuts than what they ask of their workers. Employers will also be mindful that unwarranted wage cuts will make them less attractive to their workers and they will risk losing talent.
The NWC has also clearly marked out a roadmap for the eventual wage restoration. Employers are to quickly restore wage cuts accepted in good faith by employees when business conditions allow them to do so. In addition, the Supplementary Guidelines recommend that for workers earning below $1,400, employers should, if necessary to avoid retrenchment, freeze wages rather than cut wages.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Manpower for her response. I appreciate that the companies are impacted in an uneven way during this COVID-19 pandemic. But the National Wages Council Guidelines for employers to implement temporary wage cuts to save jobs is actually too broad and left too much to the discretion of the businesses. There were a lot of concerns on the ground about the signalling effect of the Guidelines, which may result in more widespread pay cuts than necessary because there is this Guideline, and the potential abuse by some opportunistic firms. So, how do we ensure that companies implement wage cuts fairly and reasonably, and restore wages in tandem with business recovery in a timely manner?
I would like to encourage the Minister to consider putting in place a set of transparent indicators to guide wage adjustments, rather than leave it so broad and at the discretion of the businesses. For example, indicators for companies' efforts to reduce non-wage costs before wage adjustment, or company profitability, and market and economic indicators.
I have a second supplementary question to this. For lower wage workers who are impacted by the wage reduction, will the Government consider a Workfare special payment to cushion the pay cut in order to ensure that these families have a basic level of income to sustain their daily living?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Member's concerns that the NWC Guidelines could be too broad. At the same time, I think the NWC in its deliberations has also got to consider the flipside, which is that its Guidelines could be too prescriptive and too one-size-fits-all. So, I think between the two, both of which are equally difficult, they have to strike a balance.
To share with the Member, the NWC very carefully deliberated whether they should even go into, for example, sector-specific Guidelines. Meaning to prescribe a certain range of adjustments that could be applicable on a sectoral basis. And after intense deliberation, the NWC came to the conclusion that even sectoral Guidelines would be too one-size-fits-all. That is because within the same sectors, we have companies that have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic to different degrees. And so, the Guidelines on a sectoral basis could be too generous for some companies and too tight for some others.
I give you the example of the logistics sector. If the companies are, for example, serving the aviation and the aerospace or hospitality related industries, then, these logistics companies would be impacted to a larger degree. But if they are serving the e-commerce or some aspects of manufacturing, they could still be doing very well, for example, in healthcare and pharmaceutical.
The NWC ultimately decided that the most reasonable way of going about its Guidelines was to set out a certain set of principles. The principles that they clearly articulated were six: firstly, whichever company in whichever sector, should utilise the range of flexibility under the Flexible Wage System. The presence of the Flexible Wage System differs from company to company. Some companies have implemented the Annual Variable Component and on top of that, they also have the Monthly Variable Component. So, those are the components that should be used first. So, that is the first principle.
The second principle is that if an employer has not adopted a Flexible Wage System, then any adjustments that they make to wages should then constitute a new variable component in the employer's pay structure.
The third principle is for the management to take earlier and deeper wage cuts. I think this applies across the board and is well understood.
the fourth principle is that employers who already pay Annual Wage Supplement, should endeavour to continue to do so. That part is quite specific. The NWC was not vague about it at all.
The fifth principle is that in deciding on the reasonable level of wage cuts, employer should take into account a couple of factors. For example, the sector and the company's performance and outlook. It should take into account the level of Government support that it has already received or it is about to receive. It should take into account the cumulative effect of prior wage cuts and other cost-saving measures that have been implemented. It should take into account the impact on the employees' finances and also the employees continue to contribute full or longer working hours. In other words, this particular criterion already has quite a lot of dimensions.
The sixth principle that the NWC articulated is that these wage adjustments should be negotiated and agreed upon if there is a union in the company, and if there is no union, the employer should do so directly with the employees. In other words, to share information, to exchange an understanding of where the company is right now, in coming to an agreement to what the wage adjustments should be.
I think whilst I understand where the Member is coming from, if the NWC were to go beyond this, I suspect that we would say that it has become too prescriptive and not providing sufficient flexibility for different circumstances across firms and across sectors. So, it is a delicate balance and I know that it is not easy for them to strike. Given that all the tripartite partners were involved in this discussion, they came out with a set of Guidelines that I think were reasonable and something that on the part of the union, they also felt that they could operate on this basis.
The Member's second question with regard to Workfare special payment, I appreciate her concern for our lower wage workers. It has been our intention wherever necessary to provide additional top-ups to help these workers tide over this period of difficulty. This year, there was a Workfare Special Payment made, both tranches have already been paid out. In the considerations for next year's Budget, I am very certain that the Ministries of Finance and Manpower will work very closely together to see how best to support our lower-wage workers.
","clarificationText":"\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. If I may just quickly clarify a point made in our earlier exchange – and that is that I acknowledged that I had made an error. Which is that the Workers' Party's position on the minimum take-home wage is for $1,300 a month for full-time work and pro-rated for part-time work, and not gross income. Please refer to Official Report, 3 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 12, \"Singaporeans Earning $1,300 or Less a Month on Take-home Basis\", Oral Answers to Questions section.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, next question.
","clarificationTitle":"Clarification by Member","clarificationSubTitle":"For Question on \"Singaporeans Earning $1,300 or Less a Month on Take-home Basis\"","reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Jobs Support Scheme Beneficiaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether there are statistics pertaining to the ultimate beneficiaries of the Jobs Support Scheme by (i) income quintile (ii) race (iii) educational status and (iv) gender.
14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance to date, what is (i) the total amount of funds disbursed and (ii) the total number of workers benefiting from the Jobs Support Scheme, with a breakdown of both numbers by industry sector.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS provides wage support to employers to help them retain their local employees during this period of economic uncertainty.
Mr Speaker: Minister, are you taking both questions together?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am taking Question Nos 13 and 14 together, with your permission.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Thank you. We do not track the detailed breakdown of the profile of JSS beneficiaries as requested by Assoc Prof Lim. But as the JSS is a broad-based scheme to support all local employees across a wide range of businesses, the profile would mirror that of the local workforce in the broader economy.
In terms of industry breakdown, based on the JSS payouts that have been made so far, which cover wages for October 2019 to April 2020, the amount of JSS disbursed to Tier 1 sectors is about $2.2 billion, benefiting 223,000 employees. Tier 1 sectors comprise aviation, aerospace, tourism, hospitality, conventions and exhibitions, and built environment.
For Tier 2 sectors, which comprise arts and culture, marine and offshore, food services, land transport and retail sectors, the total JSS paid out is about $1.9 billion, benefiting 317,000 employees.
For the remaining sectors, the total JSS paid out is about $12.4 billion, benefiting 1.7 million employees.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam. Keep it short.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not all sectors were hard-hit by the COVID-19 crisis. Based on MTI's Economics Survey of Singapore, there were some sectors that actually did grow. It means that these companies in these sectors would have received large JSS payouts despite not needing them or asking for them. On the other hand, many of the residents who have come to me to appeal for CSG and SIRS have received rejections because of their income or the annual value of their homes exceeding by a few hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The Government is so exacting about setting the criteria for individual citizens. Can it apply the same level of rigour to means testing companies before it gives out such large amounts of support?
Can we redirect some of these grants that are given to companies, to individuals now who are really in need of support? This especially so because many of these grants come from draws from our past reserves.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we need to understand the objectives of the different schemes. There are schemes that are provided to assist individuals, whether it is a COVID-19 Support Grant or others; and there are other schemes which are directed towards economic support. In this case, the JSS is really a broad-based wage support scheme. You may not feel the impact of it directly, but I assure you, it is extremely important to have such a scheme to ensure that companies retain their local workforce. Without such a broad-based wage support scheme, I am quite sure unemployment rates today would be far higher than they are. And we would be in a different position altogether.
Having said that, circumstances will change. We are talking about a period when we had circuit breaker, when a lot of companies were impacted and we had to put in place a broad-based support scheme. We have already started to differentiate the JSS by tiers and we will continue to review to see how the JSS can be more targeted and transit also now, to a Jobs Growth Incentive, to encourage companies to create new jobs.
So, these schemes will continue to be reviewed and updated.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Home Affairs.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 16-17, 26-27, 29, 32, 36-38, 41-42, 48-49, 51, 53-55, 57 and 59-63 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 15, 18-25, 28, 30-31, 33-35, 39-40, 43-47, 50, 52, 56 and 58 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 November 2020.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to control the handling of guns, gun accessories, explosives, explosive precursors, weapons and noxious substances, to repeal the Arms and Explosives Act (Chapter 13 of the 2003 Revised Edition), the Dangerous Fireworks Act (Chapter 72 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and the Explosive Substances Act (Chapter 100 of the 2014 Revised Edition), to make related amendments to the Arms Offences Act (Chapter 14 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Chapter 65 of the 2013 Revised Edition) regarding offences and penalties, and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statue Law Reform Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Revised Edition of the Laws Act (Chapter 275 of the 1995 Revised Edition) in support of a universal revision of Acts and to make related amendments to the Interpretation Act (Chapter 1 of the 2002 Revised Edition), to amend the Interpretation Act in relation to the delegation of Ministerial functions, to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 217 of the 2000 Revised Edition) in support of sittings of Parliament under continuity arrangements, and to repeal or amend certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2020 covers 39 amendments. Of these, 25 arise from the Financial Year or FY 2020 Budgets and the Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat, on 17 August 2020. Another 14 amendments arise from the periodic review to refine or clarify Singapore's income tax regime.
We have sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. MOF has evaluated the feedback received and incorporated them where they are relevant to the Bill. We thank the contributors for their inputs.
Let me start with the key amendments that give effect to the announcements made at the FY2020 Budgets and the Ministerial Statement earlier this year.
First, to help companies with cash flow, a Corporate Income Tax Rebate of 25% of tax payable, capped at $15,000 per company, is granted for Year of Assessment or YA 2020. Clause 56 of the Bill provides for this amendment.
Second, also to help businesses with cash flow, qualifying deductions for YA2020 may be carried back up to three immediate preceding YAs, instead of one immediate preceding YA. This allows businesses to get a refund of up to $17,000 of income tax paid for YA2017 to YA2019. Clauses 29, 34, 35, 36 and 39 of the Bill provide for this amendment.
Third, to continue encouraging our firms to internationalise, the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme has been extended until 31 December 2025. The scope of the scheme has also been enhanced to cover more qualifying expenses. Clauses 17, 19 and 20 of the Bill provide for these amendments.
Fourth, to continue encouraging companies to consider mergers and acquisitions or M&A for growth and internationalisation, the M&A scheme has been extended to cover qualifying acquisitions made on or before 31 December 2025. Clause 41 of the Bill provides for this amendment.
Fifth, prescribed payouts received by individuals, businesses and employers under certain schemes announced this year, like the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, COVID-19 Support Grant and Jobs Support Scheme, will be exempt from income tax. This will allow citizens and business owners to benefit from the full amount of the support measures, without having to pay tax on them. Clauses 16, 22 and 60 of the Bill provide for these exemptions and amendments relating to these exemptions.
Next, as highlighted earlier, MOF regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. So, let me now touch on several key amendments amongst those arising from this periodic review of the tax regime which are found in the Bill.
First, to further deter tax avoidance arrangements, we will introduce a surcharge equal to 50% of the amount of additional income tax payable as a result of the adjustments by the Comptroller of Income Tax to counteract tax avoidance arrangements.
Currently, the tax avoidance rules only allow the Comptroller's adjustments to restore taxpayers to their initial tax position, as if the tax avoidance arrangement had not been entered into. This is insufficient to deter aggressive taxpayers from taking the risk of later adjustments made by the Comptroller to counteract the tax avoidance arrangement.
As a related amendment, we will also amend the Stamp Duties Act to introduce a surcharge equal to 50% of the amount of additional stamp duties payable as a result of adjustments made to counteract the tax avoidance arrangement.
Clauses 30, 31 and 63 of the Bill provide for these amendments, and a similar amendment is proposed for the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill which we will discuss later.
Second, to encourage taxpayers to enjoy the convenience of digital services, and to allow them to get refunds faster, MOF will be allowed to prescribe in subsidiary legislation that tax refunds by the Comptroller of Income Tax to companies are to be made via electronic means.
An assessment of the readiness of companies will be made in 2021, and exceptions will be provided where needed.
Clause 5 of the Bill provides for this amendment. And a similar amendment is also being proposed for the GST (Amendment) Bill 2020 for refunds of GST by the Comptroller of GST to GST-registered businesses.
Third, the ITA is amended to clarify the application of the section 37B adjustment factor.
The section 37B adjustment factor should be applied when offsetting any unabsorbed capital allowances, losses and donations in respect of income that is subject to tax at one rate, against income subject to tax at another rate, whether within the same YA or across a different YA.
For example, say there is a $1 million loss arising in respect of income taxed at 10%, the tax savings should be $100,000. Without applying the section 37B adjustment factor, this loss will give rise to $170,000 tax savings if it is offset against income taxed at 17%. But with the section 37B adjustment factor, we ensure that the tax savings from this loss remains at $100,000 regardless of the tax rate of the income it is eventually offset against.
I should clarify there is no change in policy intent or even in practice. But this amendment seeks to ensure that the section 37B adjustment factor applies in all scenarios, and it is consistent with existing practice. We have provided a validation clause to provide certainty that past applications of this adjustment factor were valid, and that unabsorbed capital allowances, losses and donations brought forward from prior years will continue to be preserved at their tax savings value in line with the policy intent.
Clauses 37, 38, 39, 42 and 66 of the Bill provide for these technical amendments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, with monetary policy severely limited by near-zero interest rates worldwide, many governments have appropriately turn to fiscal policy as the primary mechanism for support for their economies.
Singapore has been fortunate. We have been able to rely on our reserves to supplement traditional fiscal policy during this trying time. Of course, prudence dictates that we not only spend wisely but also carefully examine our revenue streams. This is our fiduciary responsibility to Singaporeans to be sound stewards of our nation's fiscal balances and reserve holdings, both today and tomorrow.
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill of 2020 implements the tax changes that were previously discussed and debated at this Government's Budget Statement together with a host of supplementary Budgets. I wish to only offer a few brief additional remarks on the general spirit underlying some of the Bill's specificities.
The Bill seeks to further bolster the longstanding stance of minimising tax avoidance. A number of amendments, in particular, the two clauses, clauses 30 and 63 explicitly take on avoidance issues. With Government expenditures heightened as a result of pandemic related spending, assuring the integrity of the revenue side on the balance sheet has become even more imperative. That said, perhaps additional clarity as to estimates of how much leakage currently exists would be helpful.
Given the rising trend in self-employment and entrepreneurship, has avoidance become more pervasive over time? If so, are there mechanisms other than the more punitively oriented surcharges dealt within this Bill to better nip avoidance in the bud? Perhaps the Minister would be willing to share if tools in artificial intelligence designed to identify anomalous patterns in data on individual tax returns vis-a-vis bank account flows or credit card usage are being deployed to better identify such potential arrears?
The Bill also introduces a number of amendments that permit allowances on capital expenditure such as in clauses 15, 27 and 56. Such relief is certainly welcomed, especially by small and medium enterprises who are facing unprecedented challenges in keeping their businesses afloat at this time.
However, it is worth noting some seeming discrepancies in the applicable duration for capital taxes. Clause 40, for instance, indicates that deductions for qualified investments are to have occurred between July 2010 and March 2020. In contrast, allowances in clause 27 are for three years whereas write-offs are for two. Perhaps, most inexplicably, clause 15 affords profit and capital gain exemptions through till the end of 2027.
Mr Speaker, these discrepancies in the timing of corporate tax relief may well be rationalisable. But I would note that a delay in increasing the burden of the major tax faced by workers, which is the Goods and Services Tax, is only fully precluded for 2021, with Minister Heng stating that the GST hike will occur by 2025. This essentially institutionalises differential treatment of capital and labour in the revised tax code. Some justification for this distinction would be very much welcomed.
It is also useful to observe that the Bill offers extremely limited relief for individual employees. Clause 16, for instance, provides exemptions for expenditures on accommodation and other necessities for those who normally are residents outside of Singapore but who have, due to COVID-19, been forced to remain here for a year. But there are precious few other cuts applicable for employees.
To be fair, the Budget has stipulated a host of direct transfers that workers enjoy – either directly via cash grants or indirectly through the Jobs Support Scheme, for example. Academic research also suggests that fiscal policy tends to offer more bang for the buck when effected as spending rather than tax cuts. Moreover, a more universal income tax cut may excessively compromise fiscal balances and thereby run at cross-purposes to the targeted transfers effected by the various Budgets.
Still, given the prevalence of COVID-19-inspired income tax reductions in many countries worldwide, it seems fair to question whether there could be room for explicit income tax relief for specific groups within society. This will apply in particular to workers within Tier 1 and Tier 2 sectors as discussed previously, such as flight crew and hotel staff for the former, and musicians and restaurant personnel in the latter. Given the relatively small size and disproportionately difficult economic circumstances faced by employees in these industries, further tax relief may be especially welcomed.
Notwithstanding these additional points of feedback, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill covers a broad range of issues, including the implementation of measures announced in the Unity Budget and COVID-19 crisis measures in the later Budgets.
I have spoken up previously on our COVID-19 support measures and I am supportive of the increased financial support that we are providing in these difficult times. In this speech, I will focus instead on another important issue – tax avoidance.
This Bill proposes significant changes to strengthen our tax avoidance regime. I have three points to make on these changes.
My first point is on the test for tax avoidance arrangements.
The Bill proposes to repeal and re-enact section 33, which allows the Comptroller to disregard tax avoidance arrangements. The test for tax avoidance is set out in the case of Comptroller of Income Tax versus AQQ, which sets out a scheme and purpose approach for interpreting section 33. CIT vs AQQ remains the landmark decision for the approach to applying section 33 and has been followed in subsequent cases. The IRAS e-Tax Guide on anti-avoidance provisions also states that the Comptroller adopts an approach based on the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the CIT vs AQQ case.
Can the Minister clarify if the existing test for tax avoidance in CIT vs AQQ continues to apply to the re-enacted section 33?
My second point is on the principles for determining tax avoidance.
To determine whether there was tax avoidance, again, CIT vs AQQ requires that the Court look at whether the use of a specific provision in the ITA was within the contemplation of Parliament. However, the bulk of the guidance on what constitutes tax avoidance has been provided by the Comptroller in the IRAS e-Tax Guide or in case law rather than the Parliament's clarification on whether certain uses of the ITA provisions constitute tax avoidance.
Can the Minister clarify if the arrangements listed in the IRAS e-Tax Guide should be understood as arrangements that the Parliament considers as tax avoidance?
My third point is on the comptroller's discretion in pursuing tax avoidance arrangements.
Under the current Act, the Comptroller may disregard tax avoidance arrangements. The new section 33(2) proposed by the Bill replaces \"may\" with \"must\". In response to public feedback that the Comptroller should be allowed to retain discretion on whether to take action against tax avoidance arrangements, the Ministry stated that the amendment is consistent with the strong stance taken against tax avoidance in Singapore.
While I agree with the strong approach against tax avoidance, the new section 33A(7) also provides that the Minister may \"for good cause, remit wholly or in part any surcharge or interest payable under this section\". The surcharge here refers to the 50% surcharge that must be paid if a tax avoidance arrangement is found on top of any penalty. The ability of the Comptroller to remit the surcharge or interest appears to be slightly inconsistent with the strong stance we have taken against tax avoidance. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances the surcharge or interest may be remitted? What constitutes \"good cause\"?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Ng for their comments and also for their support of the Bill.
Assoc Prof Lim highlighted the different durations in the schemes for the various capital allowances and profits, and I think he also compared it with the time frame for GST.
Mr Speaker, I would like to put it to the Members that there is really no basis for making such comparisons. Every scheme has to be considered on its own merit – the objective of the scheme, the time frame and then the continuous review of the scheme to ensure that it is relevant and serves its objective. That applies for each individual revenue scheme, it applies for each individual tax item and it also applies for our overall revenue base. We have to ensure that at the overall level, we have a revenue position that is sustainable in order to meet expenditures on an on-going basis, and that is what we will continue to do.
On Assoc Prof Lim's comment about tax avoidance, it is an area that we continuously look at – whether or not the leakage exists and has it become more pervasive, it is hard to quantify this but we do know that tax avoidance arrangements are becoming increasingly creative and complicated. That is why IRAS indeed uses a range of analytical tools to try and detect such cases. But we also need to future-proof our anti-avoidance rules to ensure that taxpayers are sufficiently deterred from entering into such arrangements in the first place. Hence, the amendments that are being proposed here.
Let me also now address specific questions by Mr Louis Ng with respect to some of these tax avoidance arrangements.
First, Mr Ng asked if the existing test for ascertaining tax avoidance in the landmark CIT vs AQQ case will continue to apply. The short answer is yes. What constitutes a tax avoidance arrangement does not change under the re-enacted section 33. In other words, the principles set out in the CIT vs AQQ case will continue to apply and will assist the Comptroller of Income Tax in practice.
Second, Mr Ng asked if the examples of arrangements that are provided in IRAS' e-Tax Guide should be understood as arrangements that the Parliament should consider as tax avoidance arrangements.
I should clarify, Mr Speaker, that these tax avoidance arrangements provided in the e-Tax Guide are the Comptroller's guidance to taxpayers on what he considers to be examples of tax avoidance arrangements. These examples are, in part, distilled from cases to date and are not meant to be and cannot be conclusive or exhaustive. Whether an arrangement constitutes tax avoidance will still have to depend on the facts of the case concerned and then it will go back to the provisions in the Act as well as the provisions in section 33. A taxpayer who disagrees with the Comptroller's decision may appeal to the Income Tax Board of Review and thereafter, to the Courts.
Third, Mr Ng asked if the ability to remit the proposed surcharge or interest payable under this new section 33(A) is inconsistent with our stance against tax avoidance and the circumstances in which surcharge or interest may be remitted.
Indeed, the proposed surcharge and other amendments to section 33, which we are proposing in this Bill, underscore our continued strong stance against tax avoidance. But we do provide an avenue in the law for the Comptroller to remit the surcharge or interest on the surcharge. But I would stress that this remission would be rarely and judiciously exercised. We cannot anticipate what the scenarios will be but in the event that something were to happen that is meritorious, then indeed we will have a remission provision that can be exercised. So, whether or not the surcharge or interest on the surcharge will be remitted will depend on the facts of each case, and whether such a remission is sound.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I think Members would agree that tax avoidance arrangements are, as I highlighted earlier, becoming increasingly creative and complicated. We need to do more to ensure that our revenue base is protected. We need to future-proof our anti-avoidance rules to ensure that taxpayers are sufficiently deterred from entering into such arrangements in the first place. That is why we are putting in place the amendments in this Bill. 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. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2020 covers seven sets of amendments. Two relate to the introduction of measures to enhance the Comptroller of GST’s powers to safeguard public monies and investigate tax offences. The other five arise from our periodic review of the GST regime to clarify technical rules and improve on administration.
MOF sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. We have evaluated the feedback received and incorporated them where they are relevant to the Bill. We thank the contributors for their inputs.
Let me start with the first two sets of amendments, which relate to the implementation of measures to safeguard public monies and investigate tax offences.
First, we introduce three measures to counter Missing Trader Fraud.
In other jurisdictions and in Singapore too, there have been multiple attempts to use Missing Trader Fraud to defraud the tax authorities. For example, in the European Union, Missing Trader Fraud has cost around 60 billion Euros annually. Disrupting the capacity of organised crime groups involved in Missing Trader Fraud is one of the EU’s priority crime areas.
How does Missing Trader Fraud work? Basically, all GST-registered businesses are required to charge GST when they sell goods or services. This is known as output GST. These businesses are supposed to pay the output GST to IRAS.
GST-registered businesses who incur GST on their purchases of goods and services may claim a refund of this GST from IRAS. This is known as input GST claim.
Missing Trader Fraud is a fraud scheme used by syndicates, where a party who has collected output GST and is supposed to pay it to IRAS absconds. This party is, therefore, known as the Missing Trader.
Meanwhile, parties downstream of the chain continue to make input GST claims to IRAS, on purchases that they had made.
Syndicates make the detection of Missing Trader Fraud difficult, by interposing many businesses along the chain to deter IRAS from tracing back to the Missing Trader.
Currently, businesses which IRAS have found to be involved in Missing Trader Fraud will have their input GST claims denied, as they have not fulfilled the conditions for claiming input GST. The purchases that such businesses made and are seeking input GST claims on were not genuine business transactions.
Beyond this, it is also important that we stop Missing Trader Fraud from being attempted across the value chain in the first instance. It is critical that all GST-registered businesses undertake adequate and appropriate due diligence checks, as well as precautions, to avoid being in a fraudulent arrangement. Doing so is also in the interest of all businesses, as part of good corporate governance. Bona fide businesses generally already conduct due diligence checks on their transactions.
The first set of amendments will allow us to put in place three measures to deter Missing Trader Fraud.
The first measure allows the Comptroller of GST to deny a GST-registered business’ input GST claim, if the business knew or should have known that his purchase was part of a fraudulent arrangement.
The burden of proving that the business knew or should have known of the fraudulent arrangement lies on the Comptroller, with the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities.
And I should note that this measure is similar to the approach taken in the United Kingdom and the EU to safeguard tax revenue.
The second measure introduces a surcharge of 10% to be applied on the amount of input GST denied for a GST-registered business which should have known that its purchase was part of a fraudulent arrangement. Again, this surcharge serves as a deterrent effect and we will review the surcharge quantum periodically. Other jurisdictions do likewise with a surcharge to serve as a deterrence.
The third measure allows the Comptroller to impose conditions on a business which is required to register for GST. It also allows the Comptroller to deny a GST registration, or cancel GST registration if any of the conditions imposed is breached.
The three measures under the first amendment can be found in clauses 4, 6, 7, 10 to 13, 20 and 22 of the Bill.
The second amendment enhances IRAS’s powers to seize goods for investigation of tax offences.
This amendment empowers specially authorised IRAS officers to seize or prohibit the disposal of or dealing in, any goods suspected or intended to be used to commit an offence under the GST Act. The seizure powers also include goods which may aid in the investigation or prosecution of such an offence. This prevents syndicates from using the goods to perpetuate fraud, and it is an important measure in disrupting the operations of fraud schemes.
Clauses 2, 5, 13, 14 to 17 and 25 in the Bill provide for this change.
Beyond these two sets of amendments, MOF regularly reviews the GST regime to clarify technical rules and to improve GST administration. Let me now touch on the remaining five amendments in the Bill arising from this periodic review.
The first two amendments arising from this periodic review relate to enhancing our GST rules to counteract tax avoidance arrangements.
Under the first amendment, we will remove the discretion for the Comptroller of GST to disregard or vary arrangements that are carried out with tax avoidance as one of their main purposes, and not for bona fide commercial reasons. This seeks to maintain a certain level of consistency across the Comptroller's treatment of GST tax avoidance arrangements.
The amendment also expands the tax avoidance rules to include GST avoidance arrangements that result in an earlier entitlement to input tax claims or to unjustified bad debt relief claims.
Under the amendment, tax adjustments by the Comptroller to counteract tax avoidance arrangements must be made within five years from the end of the relevant GST accounting period. The taxpayer will also be required to pay the additional GST arising from the Comptroller’s tax adjustments within one month.
These changes to our GST rules to counteract tax avoidance arrangements are found in clauses 8 and 12 of the Bill.
The second amendment further deters tax avoidance arrangements, by introducing a surcharge equal to 50% of the amount of additional GST payable as a result of the adjustments made by the Comptroller to counteract tax avoidance arrangements. That is similar to what we had just discussed and passed earlier in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.
Currently, there is no such surcharge – instead, the Comptroller’s adjustments under the anti-avoidance rules only restore taxpayers to their initial tax position, as if the arrangement had not been entered into. This is insufficient to deter aggressive taxpayers from taking the risk of later adjustments made by the Comptroller to counteract the tax avoidance arrangement.
Clauses 9 and 12 in the Bill provides for these changes.
The third amendment arising from our periodic review seeks to provide certainty to taxpayers, by clarifying the treatment of claims relating to overpaid or erroneously paid GST.
For instance, the GST Act currently allows a person to claim a refund of money that has been overpaid or paid erroneously as GST, such as GST that was wrongly charged on non-taxable transactions.
The amendments clarify that such claims relating to overpaid or erroneously paid GST must be made to IRAS within five years from the end of the relevant GST accounting period or the date on which the GST was paid; and that such claims are also applicable to overpaid or erroneously paid GST on imported goods.
These changes are found in clause 19 in the Bill.
The fourth set of amendments seek to encourage taxpayers to benefit from the convenience of digital services and allow them to get refunds faster. MOF will be allowed to prescribe in subsidiary legislation that refunds of GST are to be made by the Comptroller of GST to GST-registered businesses via electronic means.
And just as I mentioned for the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, in this case an assessment of the readiness of GST-registered businesses will be made next year, and exceptions will be provided where necessary.
Clause 18 of the Bill provides for this amendment.
Finally, the fifth amendment seeks to enable IRAS to effectively carry out its official duties in administering public schemes, such as the Jobs Support Scheme. The amendment allows the Comptroller of GST to disclose information to the CEO of IRAS, or officers authorised by the CEO of IRAS for that purpose and allow these officers to access any records or documents where necessary for the purpose of these duties. This amendment is found in clauses 3, 21 and 24 in the Bill. A similar amendment was proposed for the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill just now. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, it has been said that in this world, nothing can be said to be certain except for death and taxes and of all the forms of taxation in the market, the Goods and Services Tax being a broad-based consumption tax is perhaps one that is most inescapable to the everyday person.
In the context of Singapore, the GST is now one of the largest contributors to our operating revenues at $11.2 billion in FY 2019, behind corporate income tax at $16.8 billion and personal income tax at $12.2 billion respectively. While GST revenues were initially estimated at $11.27 in FY 2020, this has since been revised to $9.69 billion or a 14% reduction given the impact of the current economic slowdown.
Particularly against this backdrop, I agree in principle that strengthening measures to enhance the Comptroller of GST's powers to safeguard public monies and minimise the loss of public revenues is of utmost importance. The introduction of measures to counter Missing Trader Fraud and counteract tax avoidance arrangement in the GST (Amendment) Bill is thus timely.
In the EU, it is estimated that the losses from VAT fraud amounts to 60 billion Euros annually, as Second Minister Lawrence Wong has mentioned in his speech.
To this end, I would like to ask what is the Ministry's assessment of the estimated annual losses in Singapore due to Missing Trader Fraud. In addition, I am also concerned about the potential impact of the amendments to SMEs who are already facing resource constraints.
Section 20, subsection (2)(d) to (f) specify the conditions to reach a taxable person should have known that the supply made to the taxable person was part of an arrangement to cause loss of public revenues. These include whether the circumstances are such that there was a reasonable risk of the supply being part of the fraudulent arrangement and, hence, whether or not taxable person took reasonable steps to ascertain these.
However, even if the taxable person had taken reasonable steps and arrived at the wrong conclusion, it does not spare the taxable person from being taken that he should have known that the arrangement was fraudulent. This would this be potentially onerous on companies, especially SMEs who may not have the same capabilities to conduct extensive due diligence, as compared to larger companies with greater economies of scale.
Codification of what the reasonable person or reasonable steps mean would thus be critical for SMEs to not fall foul of new requirements.
Yet while we are looking to address the loss of public revenues via Missing Trader Fraud with this amendment, I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Ministry what has been the progress of the Government's study on an e-commerce tax?
In Budget 2018, I note the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement that the Government will introduce GST on imported services with effect from 1 January 2020 or what we commonly call a “Netflix tax”. This is to make sure that our tax system remains fair and resilient in the digital economy.
For the import of goods, I noted Minister Heng Swee Keat then remarks and, I quote, \"For the import of goods, there are international discussions on how GST can apply. We will review this before deciding on the measure to take.\"
The OECD has since endorsed new rules and frameworks for the collection of taxes on online sale of goods in March 2019. Meanwhile, COVID-19 has resulted in the dual impact to the retail sector in Singapore: first, an acceleration in the already rapid growth of the e-commerce market where online sales represented 10.9% of the latest retail sales value in August, having reached a high of 24.5% in May this year; secondly, the continued struggle of bricks-and-mortar retailers amid an uneven playing field.
As we look to support SME retailers with the Rental Relief Framework while providing support to employment via the JSS, it is perhaps now timely to look into addressing a growing source of tax leakage due to overseas online retailers and correct the key imbalance faced by tax-paying retailers in Singapore. More broadly, the liquidation of Robinson's after more than 162 years of operation here in Singapore is perhaps a grim reminder of the state of the retail landscape in Singapore today and how more needs to be done to address the various costs of doing business.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, I support the Bill and believe we are rightly concerned about the loss of public revenues as a result of missing trader fraud and tax avoidance arrangements. But the changing economic and retail landscape is perhaps a timely reminder of our need to continue addressing other forms of GST leakage and exploring other forms of revenue sources before looking to an eventual GST hike to raise tax revenues.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will strengthen safeguards of public monies and Singapore’s national interests.
It is more crucial now than ever in the existing financial climate to ensure that tax revenue is protected from fraud or loopholes. In doing so, this Bill draws lessons and references from similar provisions in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Australia.
I support this Bill, which will improve GST administration and enhance the Comptroller’s powers to safeguard public monies, investigate tax offences and counter GST fraud. That said, I have four points of clarification on this Bill.
First, I would like to clarify how we are supporting SMEs’ compliance with due diligence requirements. The amendments to section 20 require businesses to undertake due diligence checks to avoid being involved in a fraud that they “should have known”. I understand the need for businesses to step up and take reasonable steps against fraud. However, big businesses and small businesses have different resources and capacity to conduct checks. What is a reasonable step for a big business and a small business may not be the same. Can Minister clarify how it will ensure that such requirements do not constitute an onerous burden to our SMEs? I am aware that the Minister plans to provide guidance for businesses on what constitutes “reasonable steps” in section 20. Beyond that, can the Ministry share whether it will offer training and industry-specific resources to ensure small businesses can still effectively conduct their due diligence checks?
My second point of clarification is on the Comptroller’s review process when investigating fraudulent arrangements. A company involved in fraudulent arrangements could face the severe penalty of deregistration. Can the Minister clarify the key considerations the Comptroller will take into account when evaluating a company’s involvement in fraud? For example, in the UK, adequate and timely checks by the company to ensure the integrity of its supply chain will be viewed favourably.
Providing these key considerations will be useful in guiding honest businesses in their due diligence checks so as to mitigate risks of an unwitting involvement in fraud. Because the level of checks expected for business sectors that are commercially risky or vulnerable to fraud and other criminality is higher, can I propose that the Minister identifies these sectors so businesses know to step up their due diligence checks and also share a separate set of key considerations businesses in these sectors can align to?
Given that we also expect more intensive checks for industries more susceptible to fraud and criminal activities, can the Minister identify such industries and share additional guidelines specific to these industries? After all, if we are going to ask more of certain businesses, it will help if we can also provide more support for their compliance. Can I also request the Minister to then share and incorporate these guidelines in the IRAS e-Tax Guide so businesses are able to access this information easily?
My third point of clarification is on the documentation businesses are expected to maintain as part of their due diligence checks. Can the Minister clarify in regulations or codes the methods and level of detail of documentation businesses are expected to maintain to be deemed to have taken “reasonable steps to ascertain whether the supply was part of a fraudulent arrangement”?
Can the Minister also clarify for how long businesses are expected to retain these documentations, given that the timeframe for the Comptroller to determine if a supply is part of a Missing Trader Fraud is open-ended? We want to avoid the situation where honest businesses do their due diligence checks but cannot back it up because they discarded or deleted supporting documents after a period of time. We also want to avoid the situation where fraudulent businesses can realistically claim to have discarded supporting documents even when no such checks were done.
My final point is a proposal for an anonymous reporting channel for whistleblowers. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2018 report revealed that tips are consistently and, by far, the most common detection method for fraud. Fifty percent of the cases are detected through tips. Businesses or individuals may, in the course of their due diligence checks, come across potentially fraudulent suppliers or entities. We must make sure businesses or individuals feel safe coming forward.
Currently, it is unclear the parties who will be privy to the tip beyond the generic email provided at ifd@iras.gov.sg on IRAS' “Report Tax Evasion” website. This should be made clear to whistleblowers. And if these parties are the very target of the tip, there should be an alternate reporting channel whistleblowers can turn to. Can the Minister clarify the parties that are privy to the tips sent to the IRAS email address mentioned and whether there are alternate reporting channels for whistleblowers to report suspicious or fraudulent arrangements that are potentially related to these very officers? Can Minister confirm that this information will be reflected on IRAS’ “Report Tax Evasion” website so whistleblowers are aware of their options?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, let me thank Mr Louis Chua and Mr Louis Ng who have spoken in support of the Bill and the need to safeguard our GST base. Let me respond to some of their comments and suggestions.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the extent of missing trader fraud in Singapore. As at 31 December 2019, more than 300 GST-registered businesses audited have been suspected to be involved in missing trader fraud in Singapore. The total GST involved is about $450 million. Now, of these 300 GST-registered businesses, IRAS has completed its audit and investigation for about 70 businesses and the GST involved amongst these businesses is about $90 million in GST. So, those have been completed. The remaining businesses are still under investigation. So, the GST at risk of loss for this category is the remaining, that is, $450 million minus $90 million, so, it is $360 million. That is where we stand today. It is not at the same scale as the EU, but we see the trends internationally. We are concerned and that is why we are putting in place these measures and I am very happy that Mr Louis Chua also supports them.
Second, Mr Louis Chua also mentioned the possibility of doing an e-commerce tax and I am very happy that he supports this, too, because we will certainly look for ways to raise more revenues. We have already moved on GST for imported services and we will be looking at the GST for imported goods, too. So, that is something on our minds. This is something that is quite complex because the way to go about doing this, obviously, is to tax at source, right? When you buy something from an e-commerce platform, impose the GST at source and then you can ensure that GST applies even for e-commerce transactions. But if countries do not all impose such a tax, it is quite easy to circumvent. You can imagine shipments being sent to different countries in order to bypass. So, there are some complexities around this but we are studying this very carefully with a view towards putting in place a proper regime to ensure that the e-commerce transactions are also subject to GST. We will be updating the House in due course when we are ready with this.
Next, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Louis Ng both highlighted concerns about the compliance burden that would be imposed on SMEs and we are equally concerned. So, let me share some of the ways in which we are intending to deal with this.
With regard to, for example, guidance to SMEs on the due diligence checks that they have to make, how can we provide more clarity? Today, IRAS already provides and makes available such guidance, and it will continue to educate taxpayers on the kinds of due diligence checks that are necessary. Besides providing ready information on its website and through the media, IRAS has been engaging industry associations and tax intermediaries to raise industry awareness. Newly GST-registered businesses can also access e-learning and other resources on IRAS' website, so that all these will help them to understand and better comply with the GST obligations.
As is the case with previous legislative updates, IRAS will publish an e-tax guide soon after the Bill comes into force and this will provide businesses with the latest guidance. The e-tax guide will highlight examples of risk indicators that a business ought to take notice of in relation to a supply that might be part of a missing trader fraud arrangement. So, hopefully, SMEs will start to be more aware of what they should be looking out for and we will also provide some illustrations of the due diligence checks that businesses should take in response to the risk identified. And the Comptroller of GST will take into account all the facts and circumstances of each case, including the firm's circumstances as an SME, where relevant, in considering what is reasonable.
IRAS will also work with interested industry associations to conduct dedicated outreach sessions and businesses may contact IRAS if they require further information.
Mr Louis Ng sought clarification on how the Comptroller of GST will assess whether a GST-registered business knew or should have known that its purchase was part of a fraudulent arrangement. The Comptroller's assessment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and will include taking into account all the relevant considerations, like whether due diligence and risk assessment checks were performed by the business, what were the results of these checks, to what extent were the checks appropriate, adequate and timely to address the risks identified and whether the taxable person took appropriate action in response to the results of these checks.
Under the proposed arrangement, the burden of proving that the GST-registered business knew or should have known of the fraudulent arrangement lies on the Comptroller, based on the balance of probabilities. And businesses that disagree with the Comptroller's decision may apply for review and revision of the decision under section 49 of the GST Act. And if businesses disagree with the Comptroller's review and revision of the decision, they then may appeal further to the GST Board of Review. And, again, if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the Board, they can appeal to the High Court.
Mr Louis Ng asked for the level of detail and duration that GST-registered businesses must maintain the documents or the records of reasonable steps that they have taken to determine whether a supply made to them was part of a fraudulent arrangement. So, on record-keeping of documents, what constitutes reasonable steps?
As advised on IRAS' website, businesses today must already keep proper records and accounts of business transactions. This includes retaining the source documents, accounting records and schedules, bank statements and any other records of transactions connected with the business. Business should, generally, maintain records of the steps taken to ascertain whether the supply made to or by the business was likely to be a part of a fraudulent arrangement and this includes documents detailing the risks assessed, the due diligence checks that were performed and the actions and precautions taken in response to the results surfacing from these checks. This information should be made available upon request by IRAS to ensure there is proper accountability for decisions made. Again, IRAS will make all this information available in its e-tax guide.
On the duration of how long the record should be maintained, under the GST Act, GST-registered businesses are required to keep the records for a period of five years from the end of their prescribed accounting periods.
Finally, there was a suggestion from Mr Ng about an alternate anonymous channel for whistleblowers, particularly if they wish to report IRAS officers themselves who are involved in a fraudulent arrangement. As Mr Ng highlighted, IRAS' Investigation and Forensics Division maintains a mailbox that businesses or individuals may utilise to notify IRAS of any possible case of tax evasion or tax avoidance. This information including examples of signs of tax evasion and information that may be useful to IRAS is published on IRAS's website. IRAS takes every report of tax evasion seriously, and if the whistleblowing relates to an IRAS officer or a staff of IRAS' vendors, the whistleblower can write directly to the Director of IRAS' internal audit branch. We wish to assure Mr Ng that the whistleblower's identity and all information and documents provided would be kept confidential and subject to an independent evaluation within IRAS. Alternatively, if the whistleblower suspects that an IRAS officer is involved in a corrupt act, the whistleblower may lodge a complaint with the CPIB.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the proposed amendments to counter Missing Trader Fraud are necessary to safeguard public monies. It is critical that all GST-registered businesses undertake adequate and appropriate due diligence checks as well as precautions to avoid being involved in a fraudulent arrangement. These are critical steps that we will need to safeguard and preserve our revenue base. 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. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (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":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Edwin Tong's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Edwin Tong's speech. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
With your permission, Sir, I have asked the Clerks to place handouts on Members' seats, explaining the details of the new framework introduced in this Bill.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is also linked to the next Bill on our Order Paper, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill, or IRDA Bill, for short. May I, Sir, propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both these Bills takes place now. Members will be welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the IRDA Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are met.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, I will first speak on the new Part 10 introduced by this Bill and subsequently on the IRDA Bill. Minister Desmond Lee will speak on the relief for the construction and property sectors, found in the new Parts 11 to 13 introduced by this Bill. Finally, Minister Lawrence Wong will speak on the amendments relating to the property tax rebate and rental relief.
Mr Speaker, over the past year, since the pandemic began, several major temporary measures have been passed by Parliament to provide relief for businesses and also to protect our economy and fundamentally, jobs. Today, new temporary measures have been tabled before this House. Before I take the House through the key features, allow me first to explain why there is a need for these further measures and the broad architecture of the proposed amendments as they are tabled in the Bill.
Sir, after almost a year, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on around the world. The global toll stands today, at about 45 million infections and over 1.1 million deaths, across over 160 countries. 21 October – less than two weeks ago – saw the highest total infections reported in a single day across the world. A second wave of COVID-19 is surging across Europe. France, Germany and most recently, the UK, are now in lockdown. Infections in the US are trending toward a third peak, and just last week, saw a record for the highest number of cases in a single day.
COVID-19 is staggering in scale and unprecedented in the way, it has affected almost every aspect of our daily lives. The way we work, the way we go to school, the way we transact business and even the way we greet each other – we no longer shake hands!
When we pause to reflect and compare our lives and our daily routines now, compared to where it was eight to nine months ago, we see what a drastically different world we live in today.
We have managed to do quite well in terms of treating the sick and keeping the number of deaths low. However, as an international trade hub, we cannot escape the global economic disruption caused by COVID-19 restrictions and border restrictions around the world. And indeed, for Singapore, we are in our worst recession since Independence. Our GDP is forecast to shrink by 5% to 7% this year. MAS predicts that Singapore's recovery will be more protracted than in previous crises and uneven across different sectors.
In a corresponding manner, unprecedented Government relief has been provided, to help businesses weather the storm and also to protect jobs. Around S$100 billion has been committed in support measures to deal with COVID-19 or assist people in the face of the impact of COVID-19. This amounts to about 20% of our GDP.
Just last month, in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Heng observed that the relief measures have helped avert a 5.6% loss in real GDP this year and they would have helped save an average of 155,000 jobs each year, in 2020 and 2021. That shows the extent of the measures that the Government has so far introduced.
Measures were also enacted, to deal with the contractual aspect, as Members would know. Let me just briefly recap them. In April this year, my Ministry enacted a temporary legal circuit breaker. We called that \"COVID 1\". We did that practically on the eve of the circuit breaker in April this year. \"COVID 1\" provided for a moratorium on legal and enforcement actions, for prescribed contracts. Over 8,000 Notifications for Relief were filed and they were filed to invoke the moratorium from April this year.
\"COVID 1\" also raised the debt thresholds for bankruptcy and insolvency to help people avert those consequences as far as possible. Bankruptcy and insolvency applications have consequently dropped significantly, to half or less compared to the first quarter of 2020, since the measure was introduced. June saw the introduction of \"COVID 2\" to give SME tenants immediate rental relief.
The relief has worked as intended and in September I updated Parliament on the impact of these measures. They have been a crucial lifeline for many businesses. One beneficiary of the Act likened it to a parachute, stopping the free fall, helping affected businesses land safely – so still dropping, but with some measure of resistance. This has softened the impact of the pandemic on the economy as a whole and prevented a precipitous increase in defaults on contracts, insolvencies, litigation and consequently, loss of jobs.
However, we cannot allow or afford for these relief measures to continue, indefinitely. We will risk sustaining businesses that are no longer viable. It would trap, and lock away, precious economic capacity, such as workers or property and assets. This, in the longer term would be damaging for our economy.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng said as well in October, that for the economy to recover, support must evolve and it must go from resuscitate, to rejuvenate. That is the key principle behind why this Bill has been proposed. The existing Government support will eventually have to taper off.
The \"COVID 1\" moratorium should also not be prolonged. The moratorium holds enforcement actions at bay, as Members know, but it does not stop debts from being incurred as businesses continue and as they continue to perform on contracts entered into. As announced on 12 October, we have extended the moratorium for a short period of time. Save for construction and supply contracts, options and sale and purchase agreements with developers and event and tourism-related contracts, which will be extended for longer periods, the moratorium for the other types of contracts are extended only for a month and will expire on 19 November. The extension for these contracts was for one month, in anticipation of the present Bill being introduced at this sitting.
Sir, with Government measures tapering off, where are businesses today? Businesses have been feeling the impact of COVID-19 since February and in some cases, possibly before that. In April and May, the circuit breaker was implemented. This was necessary to break the chain of COVID-19 infections and transmissions and to flatten the curve. But this was an especially painful period for businesses. Many lost two months of revenue and the impact continues to be felt even some time after the end of circuit breaker.
Due to the impact on their cash-flow, many businesses started accumulating arrears. Through the Phase Two re-opening, the Government has been carefully monitoring the evolving situation, to see if further relief is needed. Members would know that there has been a modest recovery – uneven and modest. However, COVID-19 restrictions cannot be completely lifted as we move cautiously into Phase Three, as announced by the Multi-Ministry Task Force about two weeks ago. This would continue to significantly impact some businesses.
First, travel restrictions are still stringent. This affects roughly over 20,000 businesses in the tourism, hospitality, conventions, exhibitions sectors – in those sectors alone, 20,000. This will also affect the F&B and retail stores and transportation workers that rely on tourist spending.
Second, foot traffic remains reduced, especially in the CBD areas where many still continue to work from home.
Third, retail and F&B outlets must comply with mandatory safe management measures. This has reduced their operating capacities.
Fourth, some businesses are not even permitted to operate at all and this may continue for quite a while. Take for example many of the 1,300 nightlife establishments, which employ around 20,000 workers. Those have not been able to operate even now. Many businesses will be forced to operate in unfavourable conditions in the COVID scenario and in fact, including the immediate post-COVID period for an extended period of time.
In a survey by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry or SCCCI from mid-June to early August this year, they found that half of the respondents said that COVID-19 had a major impact on their business models. Respondents had experienced a substantial average decline in revenue compared to 2019, without a proportionate decline in business costs. Over 80% of them do not expect business to recover to pre-COVID-19 levels in the next year. And 58% indicated that they were worried that they will not be able to generate sufficient revenues to even cover their costs.
Nightlife businesses especially, are in a difficult situation. According to a poll by the Singapore Nightlife Business Association, over 90% of respondents said there was at least a 50% chance of them wholly shutting down, if they did not reopen soon. And close to 40% said they would definitely, permanently shut down
That is why the Government has rolled out specific, targeted support for the worst hit areas. For nightlife businesses, MTI will be providing an assistance package for them to transit out and pivot to new areas should they choose, and will be announcing more details soon.
For the tourism, aviation, arts and sports sectors, the relevant Ministries have, to-date, announced specific support packages for them as well, including grants to help with them with the immediate cash flow difficulties.
Sir, our broad objective in this Bill is this: as we move from resuscitate to rejuvenate, a key priority is to ensure that businesses can look ahead and focus on recovery. They should be reallocating resources to more productive uses, rather than being stuck in a prolonged, painful and unproductive struggle, when circumstances, business assumptions have clearly changed.
However, some businesses, particularly the smaller ones, face obstacles in doing so. And let me just share an example to illustrate the point with Members.
A tenant wrote to MinLaw that his tenant's lease was for a period ending in October 2021. The rent was approximately $9,000 per month, something that he entered into before COVID-19. Safe management barriers have been erected near his shops. As a result, footfall has dropped drastically. The tenant's earnings dropped to only $3,000 and even after the Phase Two reopening, the pick-up in footfall has been slow, and clearly, unlikely to return to pre-COVID levels. He clearly cannot continue at this rate until October 2021.
And I think this is a story which many of the Members in this House would find some resonance with. The tenant approached the landlord, hoping to negotiate a temporary reduction until the situation improves. If he could only get a rent reduction for a period of time, he could also free up some resources to transform his business or do what was needed to survive. However, in this particular case, the landlord refused to entertain discussions.
On the other hand, if the tenant chooses to terminate the contract before his lease ends next year, over a 12-month period, he will have to pay substantial damages for termination. And that is calculated on the unexpired portion of the lease period. He is therefore stuck in this position and continues to bleed. If nothing changes, it is likely that he will breach the tenancy. If the arrears or compensation for termination is not paid, parties could then end up litigation and the tenant might then end up insolvent.
Sir, this case is not unique and we receive feedback from many businesses asking for assistance in a similar fashion.
That said, we are at the same time also aware of many enlightened landlords. Many of them have proactively approached the tenants to offer relief or vary the terms of the tenancy. They have renegotiated them, on new terms to help the tenants at least tide over this period of time.
However, for the many businesses suffering from the lasting economic effects of COVID-19, it really is a simple question in some ways. Will their counterparties work with them to help them adapt to their business models, restructure the arrangements, possibly downscale or pivot to a different area? If they cannot get the counterparties to work with them and they are looking at meeting pre-COVID-19 obligations in a COVID-19 economy, then they are heading inevitably for at least a significantly curtailed cashflow, possibly insolvency, and very likely, litigation.
This latter scenario is not in the interest of parties nor indeed in the interest of the greater overall good of our economy. If these businesses close down, they will likely be under a mountain of debt. That is not good for the counterparty either because it is unlikely to be able to recover the full debt. Jobs will be lost, while businesses and creditors tussle over in insolvency or litigation proceedings in Court. The fallout is likely to be substantial. The number of SMEs who have experienced a significant revenue fall on a rough estimate is about five times what it was in 2019.
And we can expect the number of insolvency proceedings to substantially increase correspondingly.
Hence, Sir, we have a two-pronged solution. First, to ensure that these businesses do not get stuck in a limbo in a situation where they can neither find it feasible to continue in the present trajectory on the current cash flow and assumptions, nor to terminate and then bear the brunt of the financial impact of that termination.
So, that is the first prong.
The second is to have a situation where resources are instead quickly unlocked for more productive ventures in the new operating environment. That is the broad objective of these two Bills.
In this respect, Part 10 of the Bill puts in place a realignment framework or we call it the Re-Align Framework for parties to have new alignment. It will help businesses to realign the contractual obligations to the new business reality. Second, the IRDA Bill will put in place amendments to introduce a Simplified Insolvency Programme, SIP. This will make it easier for small businesses to restructure their debts, liquidate, and also distribute their assets in an orderly, effective and efficient manner. The two measures are separate but complementary, as Members will see. I will take the House first through the Re-Align Framework and subsequently the Simplified Insolvency Programme.
Sir, first, let me briefly explain the need for intervention. I wish to emphasise that this is not a step that has been taken lightly and we have very carefully considered both the implications as well as the scope of this framework.
The nub of the problem for the mall tenant that I took the Members through is that he has entered into a contract pre-COVID-19. The business environment and assumptions that he had then is very different today. Now, when all these assumptions are different, he is bound to a set of obligations that were designed at a very different time. And while business is not stagnant, no one could have predicted that the environment would have changed so dramatically, drastically and fundamentally in such a short period of time.
For the businesses that are not permitted to resume operations, which I have sketched out earlier, the situation would be even more dire.
Just to give one example of many, I will share an appeal we received from a nightclub owner. He had been prohibited from operating since March this year, as is the case for the nightlife industry as a whole. Its lease continues to run due to expire only in March 2021. Pivoting to another business model like F&B is possible, but will be difficult. The premises themselves have no kitchen and the nightclub's workers have returned to their home countries. Its manager cannot today enter Singapore to come back to work.
The owner is fearful of terminating the lease due to the termination penalties that I sketched out earlier, but with each passing month, the dilemma I think is clear to see.
For suppliers of goods and services, their costs may have skyrocketed and the price that they are contractually bound to pay for the goods and services no longer covers their cost.
Sir, in the free market and with freedom to contract, there will be risk and the risk will not be different from what I have outlined earlier; change in market conditions, higher prices, drop in supply – all of which would affect the ability to deliver services at the contracted price.
But the impact of COVID-19 has also been sudden, widespread and deep. And whilst some large businesses might be able to absorb the shocks like this, for many businesses, it will be unsustainable. Our first prong, the Re-Align Framework, therefore deals with contracts entered into when the world was a very different place. The problem, Sir, that needs to be addressed would be as follows.
In relation to businesses trying to meet obligations in a very different circumstances, the contracts in this scenario will need to be realigned. It will not happen on its own for a number of reasons.
First, counterparties may refuse to renegotiate the terms of the contracts. This is now a familiar story and I have outlined some examples. This also commonly arises with the smaller businesses, with less leverage and negotiating power. So, you take the examples that I have highlighted earlier. It is going to be very difficult for a small business – one of maybe several that the counterparty is dealing with, to go back and seek a renegotiation of terms.
Here, I think it would be useful to reiterate what Minister Shanmugam had said when this Act was first enacted in April; in these critical times, everyone should take a collective approach. This is not the time to be circling the wagons, taking all that a business can give until they go bust, in the name of exacting contractual rights.
Sir, second – a business who is unable to renegotiate a contract, may then want to terminate it. But they are often deterred by the risk of having to pay substantial damages for terminating the contracts early. Again, in the manner which I have outlined earlier.
Third, the existing recourse that may be available in such situations, may be out of reach and difficult for these struggling businesses to access. Depending on the facts of the case, some businesses may already have recourse to the doctrine of frustration in Singapore law to discharge their contracts. Under this doctrine, parties are discharged from further performance of their contractual obligations where it can be shown that there is an unforeseeable, supervening event that occurs after the contract was entered into. The event is not the fault of either party and it renders the performance of the obligations fundamentally different from what the parties had envisaged.
COVID-19 is clearly an unforeseeable event. However, as I am sure Members here will know, if there is a dispute, businesses will end up spending precious resources: time, effort, money in Court. The outcome could also be uncertain and maybe also uneven in the context of different businesses, depending on the facts of each case.
COVID-19 is unprecedented. So, it is also difficult to predict how the Courts may rule in one case to another.
For a business already bleeding, the prospect of going to Court to argue these points can be daunting and it is also unproductive for parties to spend the resources in this fashion. It is worth noting that these problems with relying on the law of frustration, were highlighted in an op-ed by former Justice VK Rajah and Dean of SMU Law School, Goh Yihan, published in May. In the op-ed, the authors recognised the need for new COVID-19 legislation to overcome these problems. They suggested borrowing aspects of contract law from civil law jurisdictions, which allow adjustment of contractual obligations where there is a supervening event.
What the above makes clear, Sir, is that if left to the market alone, the necessary realignment of contracts on the new paradigm, in many cases, will probably not happen. That is why we have considered intervening. My Ministry has received requests from businesses seeking fairly substantial and substantive interventions. For example, they have asked the Government to consider requiring the mandatory reduction in arrears. That means you go back to the arrears and you just forgive the arrears. Or second, just having a different way to calculate future rent.
We have studied these proposals carefully. What we think would work best is a more measured approach, which I will now go into.
The Re-Align Framework seeks to help small businesses substantially impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. These are businesses that have been faring badly, little leverage and so on. It provides a framework to renegotiate, failing which the contract may be terminated on a no-fault basis in a manner that gives a fair and just outcome.
In redesigning the Framework, I would like to outline to the House three key objectives that we have kept to, in designing this framework. The first is to sort out the imbalance to give parties the best chance to come together to renegotiate for themselves what is just and fair in their own context.
And we believe that contractual issues between two parties are best sorted out between the parties themselves as far as possible. They know their contract best. They know their operating assumptions and their cost positions and they know what innovations could be made to their specific contract, to help them get over this period.
The Framework therefore seeks to solve this issue by giving the affected business the right to demand renegotiation from the counterparty, as a start. And second, unless agreement is reached, an eligible business will have the right to terminate the contract on a no-fault basis without having to pay substantial damages in penalties for compensation in the manner that I had outlined earlier – for example, in relation to the unexpired balance period of the tenancy.
The first aspect is adapted from concepts found in some major civil law countries. In these civil law jurisdictions, the right of renegotiation is built into the law. For example, in France, in Germany and in Japan, parties significantly affected by an intervening event can invoke the right to renegotiate the contract. And if it is not successful, they can then apply to court to vary the contract.
The second aspect, the \"no fault\" termination is drawn from principles of frustration. It extinguishes all prospective obligations but the parties remain liable for all accrued obligations. These consequences in respect of the accrued obligations also apply as a default in this Framework.
This right to terminate will shift the calculus for the party on the other side – to give it a nudge, to see if a re-negotiated contract would be a better alternative to either termination or litigation.
Often, termination is not the answer for both parties. For a tenant, for example, terminating the lease will come with costs, disruption, the impact of relocation and the risk of losing customers. For the landlord, insisting on strict contract rights in some cases might mean a tenant in serious unrecoverable debt, or a vacant unit or, very often, both. It may be better to temporarily accept slightly reduced rent or find some other mutually workable formula to help the tenant survive and stay on in the tenancy rather than to leave the premises vacant and to incur the cost of finding a new tenant.
There are a myriad ways to work things out, including shifting to a Gross Turnover or GTO model, for example, for rent or taking a lower rent in the initial period and then extending the term of the lease with a higher rent built in at the tail end – a number of different options that parties can look into. But ultimately, both sides must work out an arrangement that works well for them.
The second objective is to keep this relief narrow and limited so as not to unduly trample upon the sanctity of contracts. That is a key and fundamental principle that undergirds our legal system. In line with the Government's policy of respecting the sanctity of contracts, this Framework will therefore be limited in scope in terms of who it helps and what it will do. I will elaborate on that in a moment.
The third objective is to ensure that the Framework is accessible, efficient and it has to be relatively simple to invoke and to use. We want to minimise uncertainty and to help parties realign their contracts efficiently, fairly and, also importantly, quickly. The sooner we are able to do this, the more we are able to deal with uncertainty in the market.
The Framework will therefore set out clearly who it applies to, what contracts it covers and what contracts it does not cover, what the default consequences of termination would be if parties were unable to reach an agreement after re-negotiation. So, it sets out a framework and a fairly clear formula as to what would be considered, should termination take place.
Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill spells out the default consequences that will apply to a contract covered by this Framework.
The Framework is designed to encourage and give the tools to the parties to work out a negotiated resolution for termination on their own as much as possible. That is the fourth objective – for parties to work together as far as possible.
I will now go into the key features of the Framework to explain to Members how this is designed to work.
First, let me focus on whom this Framework would help.
The first limb of Part 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill states that the first criteria will be by revenue. As I have mentioned earlier, our primary objective is to help the smaller and the micro businesses – give them a bit of a leverage to find some basis to re-negotiate. They have less negotiating power and are most in need of this assistance. We aim to extend help to the spectrum of businesses that fall within the criteria.
We will set a revenue threshold which will exclude the larger enterprises that ought to have the sophistication and wherewithal to engage in negotiations with their own counterparties even without the assistance of this Framework. We also intend to cover individuals who enter into contracts for a business or trade purposes, such as freelancers or private hire car drivers and also non-profit organisations.
Second, how do we identify those businesses that have been impacted by COVID-19?
Sir, as Members know, even in a non-recession year, a proportion of our businesses will suffer a fall in business revenue. That is just the vicissitudes of business. This Framework is not intended to help those businesses who might see a cyclical drop or who maybe, in a scenario where the economy has been doing well, they see a drop in their revenue. That is not the target audience of this Bill.
It will be, however, onerous and impractical to expect a struggling business – especially the very small ones, including the micro businesses – to have to go through a detailed analysis of its own business performance and pull out the factors that would justify its qualification for this relief. The effects of COVID-19 have been wide ranging, affecting businesses in many direct ways but also in many indirect ways, including disrupting supply chains, weakening consumer demand. Some may experience one or more of these and it may be uneven as well.
It will not be feasible to show all the various factors that have led to the revenue fall and further, to prove that these are caused by COVID-19. Even if it were possible, it would be difficult and it would be a protracted, long-drawn forensic investigation into each measure and then we get into an argument over whether this factor has got how much proportion and what weightage and whether there has been mitigation.
By the time that process is complete, it will likely be that the business will be in deeper trouble and might well be beyond saving at that juncture.
Indeed, Sir, it should not be difficult to identify a business that has been badly affected by COVID-19 and that is what we have done – to set an objective financial threshold. So, in the second limb of Part 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill, eligibility will be determined by the fall in revenue it has suffered over a prescribed period compared to a relevant comparable period prior to the pandemic. The fall in revenue criteria will be suitably substantial and pegged to a level such that a business that needs it will clearly have been significantly and adversely affected by the pandemic.
This, in our view, will strike an appropriate balance between sufficiently showing that there has been substantial impact due to COVID-19 and helping businesses that need an efficient and accessible remedy. We have been and we remain in consultation with the industry on the precise criteria and we will announce the criteria once it is finalised. This will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
Next, which contracts would this apply to?
First, the contract that can benefit from this Framework must meet the following criteria. First, it must be governed by Singapore law and at least one of the parties must have a place of business in Singapore. Second, it must have been entered into before 25 March 2020.
The reason for this date is consistent with, and also explained when, we passed \"COVID 1\". It is the day immediately after MOH significantly stepped up COVID-19 related restrictions and if parties entered into contracts on or after 25 March with knowledge of the changed circumstances, then these circumstances are no longer unforeseeable, which is really the raison d'etre behind these amendments.
Next, the Framework will only cover the prescribed contracts. These are commercial contracts that tend to have substantial prospective obligations, which attract substantial damages or penalties. As such, these are the types of contracts that a business will likely want to re-negotiate and restructure.
So, the legislation covers four main types of contracts for now. Section 78 of the Bill empowers the Minister to amend the Schedule of Specified Contracts. This power is needed so that there is flexibility, if necessary, to respond to evolving situations.
Sir, the four types of contracts are specified in Part 1 of the Bill and Members may refer to Handout 1, which I have left on your seats and which sets up a summary of the different categories of contracts to which it applies. [Please refer to Annex 2.] I will just very quickly take Members through them.
The first type of specific contract are leases or licences for non-residential property in Singapore that have terms not exceeding five years. In general, for these contracts, these are significant cost component for many businesses and the SCCCI's survey, which I cited earlier, found that the topmost need amongst respondents was a reduction or a waiver of rent. So, that is the first type.
The second relates to contracts for the supply of goods or services and these contracts are often at the centre of a business' operations.
The third category of Specified Contracts comprises hire purchase and conditional sale agreements for commercial equipment, including commercial vehicles.
As with \"COVID 1\", we have excluded from this category, hire purchase agreements entered into with MAS-regulated banks or finance companies. That is because MAS has worked with the financial industry to provide corresponding substantive relief. They will extend credit relief measures beyond 2020 to support individuals and SMEs who need more time to resume full loan repayments. These measures include partial deferments of principal repayments until March or June 2021, depending on the sector that the SME is in.
In addition, borrowers that require additional help can approach the banks or finance company for more customised restructuring arrangements. In that respect, banks and finance companies have recently developed a protocol to facilitate restructuring of loans across different lenders to reduce the need for borrowers to go to the Courts for resolution.
The fourth category comprises rental agreements for commercial equipment, including commercial vehicles such as taxis and private hire cars. For the avoidance of doubt, a business may invoke this Framework in respect of a contract even if the Government is a party to the contract as long as the contract is a Specified Contract.
Certain contracts will be excluded from the Specified Contracts for various reasons. We have set them out in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule. Again, Members can look at Handout 1 for a summary of these exclusions.
For example, contracts with consumers and employees are excluded. These groups deserve greater protection. Construction and supply contracts will be excluded. They are dealt with under a customised set of measures for the construction industry. Minister Desmond Lee will be speaking on this later. Also excluded are contracts that are uniquely interconnected with other contracts, where the termination may have unforeseen knock-on effects. Finally, contracts that are governed by specific international conventions or regimes will also be excluded.
Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule defines a Specified Contract to include contracts that are substantially in the nature of a specified contract. Let me explain this.
Not all contracts are neatly defined into one category or another necessarily and there are often contracts that are mixed or multi-faceted. For example, a contract for the supply of goods, which is in the whitelist, may well have an element of carriage of goods, which is in the blacklist. If it is substantially in the nature of the contract for the supply of goods in the whitelist, it will still be covered by the Framework.
A contract of national interest is defined in section 41(1) of the Bill. The contract must be certified as a contract of national interests by the relevant Portfolio Minister. It must be one where termination is likely to affect the provision of essential service or the ability of a public body to carry out its function – that is the definition. A list of specified essential services is set out in Part 2 of the Second Schedule and includes water supply services, security emergency services, broadband Internet services and so on – I think Members understand.
Special considerations therefore apply to contracts of national interest. An abrupt termination of these contracts can adversely affect national interest. Hence, a special regime will apply. This is set out in Division 6 of Part 10 of the Bill.
In this context, for these contracts, there will be no right to terminate contracts of national interest. Instead, there will be a right to re-negotiate the pricing under the contract. If no solution can be found by that negotiation, the party seeking relief can apply to a Specialist Assessor to adjust the price of the contract. Specialist Assessors will comprise judges and senior judicial officers appointed to the panel by the Chief Justice. This is needed because of the potential complexity, seriousness and, of course, sensitivity of the disputes, which may relate to contracts of national interest.
Sir, I now come to how the process will work. If Members refer to Handout 2, I have diagrammatically summarised the process, but I will take Members through key aspects. [Please refer to Annex 3.]
First, this relief will be available for a period of six weeks from the commencement date of this Bill if it is passed. As I explained earlier, we do not intervene lightly and when we do so, it will be in a limited way. The relief is therefore for a short window to prevent a wider disruption. This is in line with the desired outcome, also, of a quick resolution to the matter. Parties really ought not drag it out and there should not be uncertainty for a prolonged period as to whether a counterparty might end up wanting to terminate the contract or not.
Thus, to invoke this relief, the business which is defined as Party A in the Bill must serve a Notice of Negotiation on Party B, the counterparty, within a six-week window. Once the notice is served, there will be a moratorium on legal and enforcement actions for any non-performance of obligations arising after the date of service of the notice.
Second, after the Notice of Negotiation is served, there will be a mandatory four-week period for the parties to negotiate, during which no application can be made to the assessor. We hope that parties will use this four-week period productively and – I would say – openly and constructively to engage with each other in good faith to work out suitable and mutually acceptable arrangements for the longer term, for the balance period of a contract. If the parties are able to successfully re-negotiate that position, then the matter ends there.
Third, however, if the re-negotiation is unsuccessful, the contract will be terminated but with the default consequences set out in Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill. These default consequences generally hold the terminating party to all accrued obligations. Generally, all prospective obligations are discharged. Members can refer to my Handouts 3A to 3D which will illustrate the default consequences that would generally apply for each type of Specified Contract. [Please refer to Annex 4.]
Fourth, either Party can apply for an Assessor's determination if there is any disagreement on the application of the Framework. So, if after you have terminated or you are trying to work out the terms and you are unable to settle on the consequences of termination, for instance, then the parties may apply to an Assessor and the Assessor's determination in those cases will be final, binding and non-appealable.
If there is subsequently a dispute over the performance of any obligations that a party may remain liable for after the termination, that dispute can be resolved in the Courts.
Sir, I now come to two specific regimes catered for under the Framework.
The first relates to an exception for small landlords who might face hardship. To invoke this exception, the landlord must meet certain eligibility criteria, which will also be prescribed.
The landlords that we have in mind for this are those who have invested their small property and rely on the rental for a good proportion of their annual income. And if the tenant were to terminate the lease in this case, the landlords may be put into a situation of hardship.
Division 3 of Part 10 of the Bill therefore provides that such landlords are entitled to additional compensation if the lease is terminated. The compensation amount will be determined by an Assessor in accordance with the criteria that is set out in the prescribed subsidiary legislation. To clarify, this is not an assessment of damages. It will not be done as an assessment of damages in the usual sense. And the small landlord might not be awarded the full damages that he might have had had he taken the matter to Court. But he would have to establish that on a different property value.
However, given that a tenant who qualifies to invoke this framework is likely to be suffering badly because of COVID-19, there is a chance that the landlord could not have recovered the full amount of damages from the tenant anyway. So, bear that in mind in the context of what I have also outlined in the preamble earlier.
Sir, the second specific regime relates to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements, and leases, for commercial equipment.
As an alternative option to termination, the Bill also provides a Statutory Repayment Scheme or SRS specifically for these types of contracts. This is set out in Division 4 of Part 10 of the Bill. Let me explain why this specific regime is necessary.
My Ministry received petitions from several hirers. Once was a business that hire-purchased mini vans to ferry tourists and corporate clients. Its usual business had ground to a halt. It is now using the vans to do deliveries. The revenue earned is still not enough for it to fully pay its hire-purchase instalments. At the same time, the finance companies are threatening to re-possess the vans. And without the vans, obviously, even the new delivery business will fall. The livelihoods of these hirers depend on the equipment and the vehicles that they hire-purchase. Their situation is precarious. They are often the sole breadwinners with families who do depend on them to survive and termination in these cases is not really an option for such businesses. They cannot just, say, give up the vehicle and go back to where it was because that is the tools of their trade.
These businesses will benefit from the SRS which will allow them to pay outstanding arrears from a specified period in equal instalments every month for up to 18 months. Interest will remain payable on the outstanding arrears, capped at 5% per annum. And if a party fails to pay any instalment as required by the Schedule, or terminates or repudiates the contract during the period of the repayment period, otherwise they are still offsetting the instalments due, then all outstanding arrears will become immediately repayable.
Sir, this Framework will not affect contracts terminated prior to 2 November 2020, yesterday, when the Bill was read for the first time.
However, to ensure the smooth implementation and delivery of the relief to the intended beneficiaries, the relief under the Framework applies to contracts that are terminated from 2 November 2020 when the Bill was introduced. This will prevent a rush of terminations, leading to uncertainty in the market.
This Framework, Sir, is an exceptional, targeted intervention, for extraordinary times. The Rule of Law, which includes respecting the sanctity of contracts, is a foundational value for Singapore. We worked with legal experts, considered it carefully, and consulted industry stakeholders such as Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore Nightlife Business Association and other businesses and trade associations, landlords, tenants and banks. This was not a step that was taken lightly. Ultimately, this Framework protects our economy in the longer term by helping businesses overcome barriers to choosing the more economically productive route. It helps the market to correct and operate as it should. It is also not a concept alien to both the common and civil law traditions where we see that there is a recognition of fairness and that a fundamental unforeseeable change in circumstances that impacts the performance of a contract can justify a change in the contractual environment.
This Framework therefore adheres to the principles for intervention by the state in contracts, as set out by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament, when this Act was first introduced in April. First, that the freedom of contract has never been absolute, and even today, there are mandatory laws that can invalidate or override terms of a contract. The law of frustration being one example.
Second, a state may intervene in contracts, to fulfill its duty to safeguard vital interests of its people, where a significant part of the economy is at stake, and strict enforcement of a particular contractual rights could lead to damage to the whole economy.
In these circumstances, a state may intervene, with reasonable steps of limited duration, to safeguard the economic structure for the common good.
Let me also call on Members to bear in mind the impact of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on fellow Singaporeans and our business community. We have never before seen such deep and significant impact in any of our past crises, whether it is the Asian Financial Crisis, the Global Financial Crisis, or SARS. Often in those cases, we did not intervene to this extent. I therefore emphasise again that this is an extraordinary measure that the Government has taken carefully as a reaction to a once in a lifetime event of unprecedented proportions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Framework will serve as a necessary complement to support the measures that have already been put out. It would ensure that the cash infusions are not drained away because businesses are stuck in their contracts. It will help substantially impacted businesses avoid protracted disputes, re-strategise and, in Deputy Prime Minister's words, to rejuvenate.
I understand there may be concerns about knock-on terminations, chain reactions and so on. But let me ask Members to consider the facts.
The businesses that we have scoped this to cover are those that had been substantially impacted. Even without this relief, they face a likelihood of being insolvent, at the minimum, substantial litigation. The contract may not survive anyway. The nature of the consequences, even if one qualifies, will be calibrated and modelled on established legal principles as I have outlined, and outstanding debts will remain payable. The duration of this relief is limited and in consequences following the termination, carefully scoped, to ensure as far as possible, fairness for both parties.
There are fears the Framework could be used by parties as a convenient escape route to terminate the contracts that some parties might set unreasonable or unacceptable re-negotiation terms to force a termination. But Members ought to note that, first, this is designed to allow parties to be as flexible as possible in the context of their own contractual environment. And I would urge the parties to work together to look this productivey.
And second, whilst we cannot say for everyone and over-generalise, we believe that the vast majority of people and businesses affected by this will act commercially and rationally. No rational tenant will choose to exit a tenancy unnecessarily because there is a cost to moving, there is a relocation cost, and moving away from its existing pool of customers. Those who choose to exit will probably generally believe that they have no choice given their business and operating assumptions, and the cost.
But even in those cases, the landlords can engage in discussions to try and understand their difficulties and find a solution, again, using one of the different options that I have outlined earlier.
In the situation where there might be a number of parties who seek to attempt to misuse this system, the Assessor system is a check and safeguard against this. The Assessor's responsibility is primarily to ensure a fair and just outcome. If the facts show, for example, that a tenant is, in reality doing well, the Assessor can take that into account, make the appropriate directions, including additional compensation that can be paid on termination. Sir, if we are dogmatic and overly cautious in our approach, we will see our businesses continue to struggle and flounder.
In unforeseeable circumstances that are no fault of their own, many businesses will be worried about cutting costs, making ends meet, dealing with impending litigation or maybe insolvency. And this is a time when we would much rather help those businesses to adapt, to find a new paradigm, find a new operating assumption, to recover, get their businesses back on track and save jobs.
Sir, I will now move on to deal with the IRDA Bill, and the Simplified Insolvency Programme, that it introduces.
In order to fully appreciate how this Bill will help financially distressed companies, assist in saving jobs and strengthen the macro environment for businesses, let me first explain why an effective insolvency framework is important. for the economy.
A successful restructuring allows a company to continue as a going concern. This results in a better outcome for employees, creditors and investors as a whole, by saving jobs and the businesses and giving a lifeline.
Where the business of a company, on the other hand, is no longer viable, then an effective liquidation process realises the company's remaining assets in an orderly fashion and distributes the proceeds to creditors and stakeholders through an effective and transparent collective enforcement mechanism. This enables the reallocation of resources to other more productive business activities. It also reduces the number of zombie companies that might exist, those that are unable to generate enough profits to cover their debt-servicing costs and other obligations while the value of their assets dissipates over time. An efficient liquidation process will reduce the costs of liquidation, and maximise returns to the company's stakeholders.
It is therefore critical that the distressed companies are provided with the necessary statutory framework to either restructure, or to wind down their operations in an effective and orderly manner. An efficient and streamlined framework will reduce the complexity and hence the cost and time of doing so for debtors and stakeholders alike. The purpose of this Bill is to create such a framework, tailored for the micro and small companies.
We already have in place, Sir, a progressive and modern insolvency framework in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA. This is the fruit of a multi-phase process that has taken about five years to put in place to strengthen our insolvency framework and enhance our position as an international centre for debt restructuring.
In 2015, the then-Bankruptcy Act was amended. This introduced a new differentiated discharge framework that promotes a more rehabilitative regime by giving bankrupts clear targets to work towards so that they can become eligible for discharge. It puts in place also, a requirement for institutional creditors to appoint private trustees in bankruptcy when making a bankruptcy application. This encouraged greater engagement by such creditors and also drives creditors to exercise greater financial prudence when granting credit.
In 2017, we introduced ground-breaking amendments to the Companies Act to strengthen the framework even further, introducing super-priority for rescue financing, encouraging fresh funds to assist the debtor through the restructuring proceedings. We enhanced moratoriums to provide breathing room for distressed companies and also put in place pre-packaged schemes of arrangement to fast-track pre-negotiated, pre-agreed restructuring plans.
On 30 July 2020, just a few months ago, the IRDA was commenced and incorporates the relevant provisions from the Bankruptcy Act and the Companies Act, into a single new statute. The Act also builds on the earlier phases of amendments that I have outlined.
Our legislation provides the best features of the world's leading regime. It also seeks to strike a balance between the different competing stakeholders' interest, enabling companies to restructure successfully whilst at the same time, protecting creditors' rights. The touch stone of any Singapore restructuring remains the support of its creditors. In any insolvency, it is the creditors who own the company.
A recent restructuring example that I would like to highlight to Members is Swee Hong Limited, a civil engineering contracting firm.
In February 2020, the High Court granted Swee Hong an order to give super-priority status to over US$2 million worth of rescue financing. This allowed them to continue the business whilst it attempted to restructure.
Seven months later, the proposed scheme of arrangement was approved by more than 90% in number of creditors, representing more than 80% in value, higher than the requisite statutory threshold, and if sanctioned by the Court, the restructuring would allow Swee Hong which was insolvent to continue as a going concern and avert a winding up. This in turn helps to save the business, keeps jobs not only for Swee Hong but also for many of its counterparties and subcontractors.
Whilst the IRDA has facilitated positive results such as Swee Hong, it was not designed with the effects of a global pandemic like COVID-19 in mind.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have forecasted global business insolvencies to increase by 35% in 2021.
In Singapore, in 2018, there were over 250,000 micro and small enterprises. These are enterprises with annual revenues of less than $1 million and $10 million respectively. So, micro is $1 million, and \"small\" would be $10 million.
Together they form about 95% of Singapore's enterprise framework. Thus, it is likely that a significant number of financially distressed companies, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be micro and small companies.
We have received feedback that these companies, in particular, may still find it financially challenging to apply the provisions under IRDA. Applying tailored processes to these micro and small companies however could help these companies get back on their feet in the same way as Swee Hong, which has benefited from IRDA.
This Bill, Sir, therefore, introduces a Simplified Insolvency Programme comprising two bespoke temporary processes to better suit the needs of micro and small companies:
First, to restructure the debts of viable companies to rehabilitate their businesses. For example, where there is a ready investor prepared to come into the business, or alternatively, where the company is in a position to renegotiate with its creditors.
Second, to wind up the company, where the business has ceased to be viable but in a quick, efficient and low-cost manner.
The proposed amendments seek to provide temporary processes that fit these purposes and benefit stakeholders of the company such as employees and, of course, also the trading counter-parties, creditors and shareholders by reducing the time it would take to either do a restructuring or a liquidation and maximising potential recoveries.
The new processes were developed in consultation with public agencies and stakeholders from the private sector. This ensures that the framework is able to meet the needs of small and micro businesses.
Separately, the Bill also has one miscellaneous amendment which I will cover at the end, in relation to the licensing framework.
Sir, let me take the Members now, very briefly, through the key features of the Bill.
The Simplified Insolvency Programme comprises the restructuring programme and the liquidation programme. In some ways the process and the formulae for determining who qualifies for both have similarities so I will cover them very briefly.
In relation to the application processes for both programmes, the new sections 72B and 250B of the IRDA Bill, the programmes will open for application by eligible companies for a “prescribed period”. Subject to further consultation and review, we intend for this at first instance to be six months. This may be shortened or extended for a period to be determined by the Minister. Overall, this window for application will be shorter than the overall lifespan of the proposed provisions, which is three years after its commencement.
Where any company applies to the Official Receiver under the new sections 72E or 250D under the relevant “prescribed period”, and the Official Receiver assesses the eligibility requirements and are satisfied on the face of the application, then the Official Receiver under the new sections 72G or 250G, will send a notice of the application to the applicant company and all creditors named in the application and, in the case of section 250G, which is for liquidation, also to every contributory or officer named in the application, and publish the notice on the designated website.
The requirements are intended to ensure that only cases that are suitable for this simplified process are accepted. These requirements include a limit on the total liabilities of the company, not exceeding $2 million; limits on the number of creditors and employees, not exceeding 30 employees and 50 creditors respectively; the amount realisable in the winding up, not exceeding $50,000 and the company is not in the midst of any other debt restructuring or, otherwise, some other form of insolvency process.
To provide flexibility, the figures that I have mentioned to Members may be substituted by the Minister abd prescribed by way of an Order in the Gazette.
Where there is any objection to the acceptance of the applicant into the relevant programme, the Official Receiver must consider the objection and decide whether or not that particular company qualifies. If not, to exclude; if so, then to allow the company to avail itself of the process.
The applicant company has to pay a fee and a deposit and this will be used in a way which would defray the costs of the Official Receiver.
In order to provide flexibility to address companies that merit assistance under the programme even if they might miss out on the eligibility requirements, the Minister may direct the Official Receiver, under the new sections 72H or 250H, to send and publish the notice of application and then to accept the applicant into the programme.
Part 5A of the IRDA Bill establishes the simplified restructuring programme and I will just quickly take Members through the most salient provisions.
This, as Members might appreciate, is modelled on the existing pre-packaged scheme in section 71 of the existing IRDA. Under the pre-packaged scheme process, a proposed compromise or arrangement is worked out among the company and its creditors but done out of Court, without having to invoke the Court process. You come to an arrangement with your creditors, which is then subsequently submitted to the High Court for approval. Instead of two applications to the Court required in a typical scheme of arrangement, the pre-package only requires one application.
Upon the acceptance of a company into the simplified debt restructuring programme and before the company is discharged, the company enjoys a statutory moratorium under the new section 72K(1), and amongst others, it restrains the commencement or continuation of any proceedings against the company.
The company is also restrained from disposing of its property under the new 72K(3), unless it is done in good faith and in the ordinary course of its business. This is to ensure that the assets are not dissipated whilst there is a moratorium in place.
Creditors are also prohibited from exercising certain contractual rights under an ipso facto clause under the new section 72T, which applies section 440 which is the ipso facto clause of IRDA. This is done with modifications, as appropriate, for smaller companies.
This framework balances the interests of the various stakeholders by providing, on the one hand, breathing room via the moratorium to the company but, at the same time, preserving the rights of creditors to have access to the company that has not wrongly and unfairly dissipated its assets.
Sir, there will be a Restructuring Advisor appointed for the company to assist the company to formulate a proposed compromise or arrangement. This Restructuring Advisor will be available to advise the company to prepare its papers and generally to guide the company through this process.
The company may make an application under the new section 72M(1) for approval of the proposed compromise or arrangement an,d the Court may only approve the compromise or arrangement if there is an agreement of a majority of two-thirds in value of creditors. So, two-thirds in the value of the debts that are owed by the company must approve this scheme.
There is no specific number of creditors required to assent to the scheme, unlike a traditional scheme of arrangement. So, the thresholds are slightly more relaxed than in the usual scheme of arrangement under 210 of the Act.
Sir, it is worth noting that this reduced threshold takes into account feedback that we received that it will typically be too onerous as a condition to be fulfilled by micro and small companies especially in this current business environment.
In looking at whether the threshold is met, the Court must disregard the agreement or disagreement of any related party of the company. So, you cannot have a company which has several creditors who are related to officers of the company come together and decide on an outcome and use that consensus or agreement to bind the other creditors. There will be three classes in the scheme: secured creditors, preferential unsecured creditors and unsecured ordinary creditors.
This is intended to provide certainty to the company on the default approach towards classification of creditors, given the simpler nature of the debt structure of these micro and small companies and, of course, to avoid potential litigation which sometimes happens in relation to the way in which the company classifies its creditors.
Nevertheless, the Court retains overriding discretion under the new section 72M(5) to take into account the agreement or disagreement of any related party, and if the circumstances so require and the result of doing so would be fair and equitable to all creditors. So, the Court still retains an overriding discretion to do so.
The Court may, under the new section 72M(6), without hearing all arguments, grant or dismiss an application, as the case may be; and instead of having the company required to engage counsel, a duly authorised officer of the company may represent the company in the relevant court proceedings without the leave of court. This is provided for under the new section 72N.
Section 72Q provides that the programme will have a shelf life in the first instance of 90 days. This is not uncommon in many other jurisdictions around the world even for the usual restructuring process. This keeps the process on an even keel and if more time is needed, an application for extension can be sought. But in the first instance 90 days is being given to enter into the arrangements, and also the limited timeframe is designed not to unfairly prejudice creditors because during that period of time, whilst this is being looked into, there is a moratorium.
Under the general framework, Sir, typically at least three applications are required. First, for the moratorium itself; second, for leave to convene a meeting; and third, for the sanction of the proposed compromise or arrangement and then oftentimes, a financial adviser will also be required. This simplified process brings it into one single application and, if accepted, the company will enjoy the benefits of the moratorium early on and really only one application would be needed.
Sir, let me now quickly touch on the simplified winding up. Part 10A of the IRDA Bill establishes a simplified winding up programme, which a company may resolve to be wound up voluntarily under. Under this voluntary winding up, a company is wound up without the need for a Court application to place the company into winding up. This is modelled on the existing creditors’ voluntary winding up process that is already found in the Act.
Before making an application, the company must pass a special resolution, authorising the making of the application and so on. And upon acceptance of a company into the simplified winding up programme, the voluntary winding up of the company commences at that stage. The Official Receiver is the liquidator of the company under the new section 250K(3). The Official Receiver may also appoint a qualified person to act as a special manager under section 250M.
The winding up is treated as if it were a creditors’ voluntary winding up, as I mentioned earlier, under section 250K(2). The provisions that therefore apply to the creditors' voluntary winding up will also apply in relation to the company, unless they are modified under section 250L and the conditions are set out in section 250L.
A company is discharged from the simplified winding up programme under section 250N – when the company is dissolved; or an order is made by the Court to wind up the company, stay the proceedings or terminate the winding up.
Lastly, the new section 250O sets out the non-exhaustive circumstances in which the Official Receiver, as the liquidator, may apply to the Court under section 124 of the IRDA to wind up the company. Such circumstances include where the Official Receiver is satisfied that the company either did not meet, or could not meet, or no longer meets the eligibility criteria for the programme. The provision is not intended to affect the rights of any person entitled to make an application under section 124 of the IRDA for the company in simplified winding up to be wound up under a Court order. And that also includes the Official Receiver as liquidator.
Sir, the proposed winding up in this form, under the simplified regime, provides a simpler and more streamlined framework for the winding up of micro and small companies relative to the usual process. Currently, one would have to apply to Court or pass a special resolution and convene the necessary meetings, the company would have to seek a liquidator who would have to agree to being appointed, and the creditors may also then appoint a Committee of Inspection to act in respect of the winding up.
In comparison, under this simplified process, the process is commenced once an application is made to the Official Receiver. If the Official Receiver accepts it, the winding up commences without more. The Official Receiver becomes the liquidator and there will not have to be a Committee of Inspection. These are in addition to the other features and modifications that I have outlined earlier.
The simplified winding up process is really designed for companies who have taken the view – small and micro businesses who qualify – that it is no longer sustainable to remain in this business. Rather than have a protracted process where more time, more effort, more costs are put into managing the exit from the business, those companies can avail themselves of this mechanism.
Sir, let me now touch briefly on the licencing of insolvency practitioners.
This is an amendment that is separate from the Programme. It is a miscellaneous amendment introduced under the existing section 50 of IRDA and it seeks to empower the Minister to exempt any individual from the requirement of being a qualified person in order to be a licensed insolvency practitioner.
This power will be exercised judiciously, on a case-by-case basis. It is not intended to allow a person to circumvent the general requirements but it is intended to be used in exceptional cases, where the exemption is justified. Members who have been in Court and argued this or seen this applied, will know that there have been insolvency professionals who act for companies or creditors in cross-border transactions, cross-border restructurings, and those are one type of professionals that we envisage would come under these exemptions.
Sir, let me now conclude. I have taken Members through the two new measures in both Bills. At the level of individual contracts – business to business, party to party – the Re-Align Framework will allow businesses to have a basis to renegotiate and re-base their contracts to adapt to substantially changed circumstances. At the corporate level, the simplified insolvency framework will allow eligible companies an easier route to restructure or rehabilitate, or to exit in the way I have just outlined. These are necessary as a part of a suite of measures that the Government is providing to help businesses and our workforce and, fundamentally, people and jobs emerge stronger from the pandemic.
Sir, let me end off with a few words about the process of preparing the Re-Align Framework.
In some ways, it is significantly more complex than the earlier \"COVID 1\" and \"COVID 2\" in terms of the concept and its scope of application. We also did not have the luxury of time as a Bill like this would typically have taken some months up to a year to conceptualise and make workable. It was only possible because of the outstanding contributions of many of those who worked very closely and very hard with my Ministry to put this together.
Sir, we are indebted to the various agencies who have worked for many months, over the last few months, with meetings, turning this around, draft after draft, giving valuable input, going out to the ground, importantly, taking soundings from the different stakeholders in the business community and reflecting those views in our meetings.
MTI and ESG, in particular, were always ready to help with ground sensing, with the data, making helpful suggestions to refine our proposals, to scope them carefully and appropriately. MAS, too, did the same, contributing their own domain expertise and helping to bring stakeholders on board in explaining the process, explaining the intent.
We are indebted to our other colleagues from the other Ministries and agencies like MOT, MCCY, MND, HDB, JTC, MHA and SLA, and of course, MOF, too. Besides paying for the Bill, they also attended all our meetings and helped us to work out a solution, especially when it came to dealing with contracts of national interest.
Sir, a few more. I wish to thank in particular, Mr Sushil Nair and Mr Patrick Ang – two private sector lawyers on the committee who have been working with us since \"COVID 1\". They gave of their time very generously and they also helped us to not just conceptualise but also draft and redraft the Bill. Along with a judge of the High Court, Justice Kannan Ramesh, their years of legal experience and insights were very much invaluable and a pivotal part of the way in which we were able to produce this Bill in short order.
Sir, we also have an industry resource panel. We consulted with them very closely and we scoped the provisions based on the views that they gave us and the feedback that they gave us, honing our policies and our thinking. I will put their names on record without having to mention them individually. There is an Annex which will be put into the transcript. [Please refer to Annex 5.]
Finally, I think, perhaps, to our Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong and his team at AGC – Lee Yean-Lin, Leong Kit Yu and Ng Jun Yi. This Bill is the product of not just legal solution but indeed legal innovation that they have helped us with in difficult, complex times.
I wish to thank all of them and place on record the MinLaw's gratitude to all of them for their framework. Because of this, we believe that we will have a better chance at emerging stronger from this pandemic, ready to overcome the challenges ahead of us in the mid to longer term. Thank you, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, I think Minister Lawrence Wong and myself will speak before the Members.
Mr Speaker: Okay. Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the built environment sector builds our homes and our workplaces, lays our roads and rail, creates our recreational spaces such as parks and sports facilities and much, much more. But the sector, especially construction, has been hit very hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Construction ground to a complete halt during the circuit breaker period. After the circuit breaker, projects could not restart immediately as the dormitories took some time to be cleared. Without any work done, payments were delayed and consultants and builders faced serious cash flow problems. Border restrictions also disrupted supply chains and some workers being stuck outside Singapore.
Within Singapore, many of our migrant workers were locked down in their dormitories due to COVID-19. Home buyers and business owners were also impacted as their premises under construction were delayed and many had to make alternative arrangements meanwhile.
As the impact of a total shutdown of construction activity was unprecedented and the situation was evolving very rapidly, we had to have very frequent meetings between agencies and industry associations and ground visits. This allowed us to better understand ground realities and adjust our restart measures accordingly.
To prevent a collapse of the entire industry, we had to intervene very significantly – through providing financial assistance, foreign worker levy waivers and rebates and putting in place legislation.
This Bill seeks to provide further support to stakeholders to ensure that no one in the built environment sector has to bear a disproportionate share of the burden brought about by the pandemic.
So, please consider the measures being proposed today not in isolation but as part of a whole series of interventions and trade-offs along the length and breadth of the entire built environment value chain, affecting but at the same time also supporting buyers, developers, consultants, builders, sub-contractors and suppliers.
With these and other measures in place, we hope the sector can adapt and adjust to the new operating environment, recover quickly from the pandemic and preserve industry capacity.
Before diving into the provisions of today's Bill that are pertinent to the built environment sector, let me first sketch out the measures that we have already put in place to support main contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.
Beyond supporting salaries of local employees through the Jobs Support Scheme and providing significant foreign worker levy waivers and rebates, we have extended a $1.36 billion construction support package to construction firms.
Through the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, firms also have temporary relief against stipulated legal action. In addition, the Act also provides a defence against breach of contract and damages due to COVID-19 for the construction and supply contracts that they are parties to. This means that developers cannot claim damages from their contractors for a delay that is assessed to be due to COVID-19.
Part 8 of the Act also provides a mechanism for firms to seek relief from additional rental costs that are incurred due to construction delays caused by COVID-19. This means that contractors who had rented equipment during the circuit breaker but who were unable to use this equipment as no work was on-going can apply for an equitable adjustment of the rental costs that they must pay to the suppliers.
Sir, the built environment value chain is very much interconnected and the impact to our construction sector has a cascading effect on the entire value chain.
Developers have to deal with project delays and the increased costs for their projects. As projects are delayed, home buyers and businesses may have to incur additional rental and other costs while waiting for their new homes and premises to be ready.
Hence, the Government has also provided relief to developers and purchasers. For developers, we provided an extension on the project completion period and additional buyer's stamp duty remission timelines. To protect purchasers, we prohibited developers from withholding or forfeiting any part of the booking fee paid by purchasers under the option to purchase during the relief period unless determined otherwise by an assessor.
Developers could not terminate agreements for sale and purchase of property with the buyers on the basis of the buyer's non-payment nor increase interest rates or impose new charges without buyers' agreement during the relief period. We also capped the late payment interest or charges under agreements for sale and purchase of property.
Together, we have made progress in restarting construction. Almost all construction works have restarted.
We completed the clearance of the dormitories in August this year and since then, COVID-19 infection among our workers in dormitories has come down significantly. On a daily basis, there are very few infection cases, if any. But to prevent a resurgence, we have also taken measures to strengthen our defence against COVID-19. In October 2020, we completed the cohorting of workers in dormitories so they stayed together with colleagues from the same firm instead of mixing with workers from other firms.
We are also giving out 450,000 BluePass tokens, which will allow us to better conduct contact tracing of COVID-19-positive cases and to more surgically quarantine those who have been in close contact instead of casting an overly wide quarantine net. We have implemented the BuildSG-COVIDSafe Platform for better worksite access control and data-driven audit and inspection.
While we have made progress, the construction sector is far from being out of the woods. The threat of resurgence continues to loom and the sector will grind to a halt again if we are not careful.
We also continue to receive feedback that the sector is still facing challenges. Labour cost has increased due to a lack of supply of new migrant construction workers. Projects continue to face delays as productivity has dropped due to the necessary safe management measures in place at construction sites.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is in this context that we need to provide further support to the built environment sector so that no one segment of the value chain bears a disproportionate portion of the overall burden. Let me briefly run through the proposals in turn – in Parts A, B and C of the Bill.
First, Part 8A of the Bill will provide a universal extension of time, or EOT, of four months for construction contracts.
Members may ask, why four months? Why this number? First, from 7 April to 1 June 2020, construction works stopped for approximately two months due to the circuit breaker period. Second, works were further delayed by at least two months as all dormitories were only cleared in early August 2020. This universal extension of time will reduce the administrative burden for contractors so that they can focus on restarting and ramping up work quickly and safely and adjusting to the new measures required.
For contractors who wish to seek a longer EOT beyond the four months, they can negotiate with developers or rely on contract provisions. Alternatively, contractors can also serve a Notification for Relief on the developer as a defence under section 6 of Part 2 of this Act, to disregard any liquidated damages payable under the contract due to delays.
Next, let me go through Part 8B of the Bill, which will require the built environment value chain – from builders to contractors to sub-contractors, to co-share additional costs due to delays in the project caused by COVID-19. For example, some contractors will need to rent machinery like tower cranes for a longer period, as works have been delayed.
The Bill will allow contractors or sub-contractors to claim part of these costs from their clients through regular progress payment claims. The amount will either be 50% of the total qualifying cost for anything done for or provided to or enjoyed by the clients in the specified period or 0.2% of the contract sum whichever is lesser. But the total amount that may be claimed under this mechanism is capped at 1.8% of the contract sum. This will ensure contracting parties co-share a fair amount of these additional costs.
In cases of disputes, contractors can submit an adjudication application under the existing Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act or SOPA framework.
The appointed SOPA adjudicator will be able to determine whether the relief applies, and if it does, he will then determine the amount to be co-shared between the parties.
Mr Speaker, Sir, finally, let me move on to Part 8C. As I described earlier, developers are also facing difficulties on their end. Even as they are required to provide the EOT to contractors and to co-share additional costs of the delay in Parts 8A and 8B respectively, they remain liable to deliver the units to purchasers according to the deadlines set in their sale and purchase agreements entered into prior to the pandemic.
It is in the interest of developers for projects to be completed in a timely manner and they have been working closely with contractors to do so, while ensuring compliance with COVID-safe measures.
However, there may be some instances where they are unable to meet the committed delivery date due to unexpected delays caused by the COVID-19 situation.
We have been encouraging developers who are unable to meet the date of delivery to first discuss with their purchasers and come to a workable and mutually agreeable arrangement.
For developers who are unable to come to an arrangement and require help, the Bill will allow them to seek relief on the date of delivery of possession.
Under Part 8C, developers who have faced construction delay due to COVID-19 and require relief may serve a notice for an extension of the delivery date by up to four months, in line with the EOT for construction projects that I described earlier.
Should the developer need relief of more than four months, they will be required to seek an assessor's determination of the length of construction delay materially due to COVID-19.
Let me assure this House that as we provide relief to developers, we recognise that purchasers face challenges on their end as well.
Hence, we want to support purchasers who have had to incur out-of-pocket expenses and costs due to the delay in delivery of the units.
For example, some purchasers may have had to rent accommodation or find alternative premises during the period of delay. As such, purchasers may seek reimbursement from the developer for these actual costs, up to a cap of 70% of the original liquidated damages that would have been payable to the purchaser for the delay, based on the terms in the agreement for the purchase of the property.
For HDB flats, purchasers can similarly claim up to 70% of the prescribed LD formula, which will be aligned with that of the formula stated in the Housing Developers Rules for private residential properties. This allows for co-sharing of such costs between the developer and purchaser. And if there are any disputes, parties can seek an Assessor’s determination.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to sum up, COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge to the entire built environment sector. The sector has been brought to its knees and is slowly standing up again, adjusting to a totally new operating environment.
In this regard, stakeholders of this sector continue to face significant financial, possibly legal burden due to COVID-19. Parts 8A to 8C of the Bill will help alleviate the hardship faced by these stakeholders. The aim of the amendments is to share the burden amongst the stakeholders while providing relief, to allow us to get through the crisis together.
Beyond this Bill, MND will continue to work with the stakeholders to help the built environment sector recover and preserve industry capacity for us to continue building and improving Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, let me touch very briefly on the provisions in this Bill pertaining to the remission of property tax.
Members will recall that to help businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government introduced a Property Tax Rebate for Year 2020 for non-residential properties, in the Unity Budget on 18 February 2020. This was later enhanced in the Resilience Budget on 26 March 2020.
Depending on the category of non-residential property, owners are granted a Property Tax Rebate of 30% to 100%. For example, a shop is granted 100% Property Tax Rebate, which is equivalent to approximately 1.2 months of rent.
Property owners are also required to fully pass on the benefit of the Rebate to their tenants within the prescribed timelines. This obligation is provided under Part 6 of this Act and the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Regulations 2020, or the PT Rebate Regulations, which came into force on 13 May 2020.
Later on, to further support tenants, the Government introduced the rental relief framework. And that came into force on 31 July 2020. Specifically, if the tenant-occupier is an SME or a specified Non-Profit Organisation or NPO, the rental relief framework effects rental waiver for the period from April to at most July 2020, depending on the type of property. For example, the owner of a shop is required to waive up to four months of rent for his eligible tenants, for the period April to July 2020. And the Government co-shares in this mandated rental waiver, by providing support through the Property Tax Rebate and a Government cash grant. For example, for a shop, the support by the Government, through the Rebate and the grant, is about two months, or about half of the four months of rental waiver which the shop owner is required to waive for his eligible tenants.
The issue that arises is that the existing PT Rebate Regulations do not take into account the rental relief framework, and this could result in unintended consequences, such as when there is a change of tenants during the year and the property owner is subject to the rental relief framework.
So, this Bill and the provisions in this Bill enables the Minister for Finance to make new or revised regulations, so as to ensure that the obligation to pass on the benefit of the Property Tax Rebate will take into account the rent waived under the rental relief framework.
These regulations are needed to ensure that the property owner will not become unduly worse off by having to pass on the benefit of the Property Tax Rebate to his tenants, on top of the rental waiver that is effected under the rental relief framework.
To give an illustration of how such an inadvertent consequence may arise, let us assume that there is a change in tenants during the course of the year, with Tenant A occupying the shop premises until July 2020, and then Tenant B comes in, occupying the premises from August 2020 onwards. If Tenant A is a SME, the shop owner is to waive up to four months of rent for Tenant A, from April to July 2020, under the rental relief framework. The owner should have then fully satisfied his obligation to pass on the benefit of the Property Tax Rebate of about 1.2 months of rent as well as some of the cash grant and he would have satisfied the obligation.
But under the existing PT Rebate Regulations, the owner is also required to pass on the benefit of the Property Tax Rebate to Tenant B, pro-rated at about 0.5 month. And this is not the intended outcome because the owner had already waived four months of rent for Tenant A under the rental relief framework and passed on the benefit of the Property Tax Rebate to Tenant A. So, the owner should not need to pass on any benefit of the Property Tax Rebate to Tenant B.
That is why the Bill provides regulations to be made retrospectively, to ensure that this position is maintained. And if the owner has already passed on the benefit of the Rebate to Tenant B, this Bill will also allow regulations to be made to allow the owner to recover the excess amounts from Tenant B in such circumstances. So really, the provisions are here just to ensure that the intended policy outcomes are effected and there is no undue burden on property owners.
Details of the regulations will be provided through subsidiary legislation and on IRAS' website when ready.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.38 pm until 5.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of both Bills. I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer who handles insolvency matters in the course of my work.
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA which came into effect in July this year is an important reframing and harmonising of the insolvency regime in Singapore, which was previously found largely in the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act.
The general principles governing the insolvency regime have been to ensure that all interested parties will have a say in the insolvency process, depending on their interest in the company. So, for solvent companies, the winding up process can be commenced by shareholders. For insolvent companies, typically, it is the creditors that commence the winding up process. This process, generally, requires public notification and an order by the Court. Interested parties can appear in Court and either object to or be heard in the process if they wished.
While many envision insolvency as a creditor-driven process, the insolvency process also provides important protections for debtors, including protections like moratoriums on enforcement actions and, in some cases, this will even permit the companies to operate. So, the current insolvency regime includes schemes of arrangement or judicial management systems which allow companies to continue to be run. This has the important benefit of preserving jobs for employees while also allowing creditors better recovery than a fire sale of assets.
The main downside of this process is that it can be costly and, for many small companies, especially those that have financial difficulties, the cost of such a process can be prohibitive. So, for small companies, they generally do not commence the debt restructuring process themselves and are often led into winding up or insolvency when one of their creditors finally decides to wind-up the company. Before that, it is likely that the creditors would have seized and sold whatever assets they could to satisfy their debts. So, what would be left may well be a rump company.
So, these latest amendments provide a more efficient and cheaper insolvency process. These amendments permit a company with the support of a special resolution – 75% of shareholders and two-thirds of its creditors in support – to apply to the Official Receiver to come under this regime. This should not be difficult to do if the company has a few creditors and only a few shareholders, which is the case for many smaller companies. Once these parties agree, it can go into this process and get a moratorium on its liabilities. Additionally, if the business is viable, it would be able to enter into a process similar to a scheme of arrangement which allows the management to stay in place and operate the company with a view to repaying creditors through operating the company.
This process may seem \"rough and ready\" compared to the insolvency process in the Courts. But I think it is a fair trade-off for lower costs and efficiency. The onus will be on company officers to ensure proper disclosures have been made in the course of the application process and all creditors will receive notification of the process and can participate if they wish. This, to me, is a very practical solution and I think it will work well. Of course, for this process to work effectively, the OA must have enough capacity to meet a caseload that would previously have been handled by the Courts and make decisions quickly as a moratorium can make the difference between life and death for small companies.
One last point, as I note that the main driver for these amendments is the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to put in place urgent measures to help businesses survive during this period. I would suggest that if this process proves efficient and effective, we should consider making these amendments a permanent feature of our legislation rather than just a temporary measure for these times.
In the second part of my speech, I will address the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. This is actually the fourth Bill in relation to COVID-19 put forward by MinLaw. COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on our economy, and industries like aviation, tourism, oil & gas and retail continue to remain under water. Our national carrier, Singapore Airlines, is on life support and, recently, Robinson's, once our flagship retail store, announced its plans to close its remaining stores in Singapore.
While many sectors have reopened, some do not have clarity on the horizon. This includes sectors like tourism, aviation and nightlife-related businesses. One of the features in the new latest COVID-19 amendments is a mechanism under section 42, which actually allows businesses to terminate obligations they would not otherwise be able to. But before doing that, they can actually trigger a process to renegotiate contracts and, in particular, paying slight rental obligations.
This, to me, is actually a very powerful mechanism, if we look at it from the prism of businesses that are affected. So, businesses may be locked into long-term contracts and this may be difficult for them to get out of. So, on the one hand, they cannot terminate the contracts if they are locked in, say, a two-year lease. But on the other hand, because their business is completely impacted, they have no way of making those payments. So, what this amendment does is that it actually gives companies like that an option to terminate the lease if they want to, an option they do not otherwise have. But what the Bill also hopes to for is that giving companies this option to terminate will allow them to renegotiate their existing obligations. I think this is a very powerful mechanism to help what we expect will be the weaker party in the contract, the one that is locked into unfavourable terms. I hope that all businesses act in the spirit of this legislation and actually renegotiate their obligations, rather than end up at the default termination if they do not.
But I should also mention while this mechanism is likely to give many smaller operators greater leeway in negotiations, it is also important that we do not forget that landlords, too, are likely to be affected by this range of measures. There is a whole spectrum of landlords. You may have big landlords all the way to small landlords. While we may not look at big landlords very favourably, it is also important to understand that many big landlords, especially the corporate ones, may have obligations to lenders who are financing their operations, they have employees to pay for. So, they would also have obligations. Of course, for smaller landlords, it is far easier to understand their plight. Some of them may have heavily leveraged to pay for properties and may require rentals to pay off their loans. So, these landlords may also be facing difficulties. Retirees are another group of people who may have investment properties and rely on rental income to pay for their retirement.
Related to this, I have two questions for the Minister. How will the framework ensure that landlords are not unfairly burdened by the termination of leases? Second, businesses will have six weeks to decide whether to invoke the framework and parties will have four weeks to negotiate, failing which the contract may terminate. Is it envisioned that landlords will face a sudden increase in vacant properties within a short timeframe? If so, what should landlords do in this situation?
Notwithstanding the questions I have raised, I believe this is a well thought through and necessary Bill that helps many businesses to continue or at least exit with less difficulty. I support the Bill.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as Advisor to the Federation of Merchant Association, which represents SMEs and micro-SMEs.
I stand in support of both Bills. The amendments are essential refinements in our response to the pandemic.
The COVID-19 Temporary Relief Act was described by Minister Shanmugam as a Noah’s Ark, with many moving parts to bring as many as possible to higher ground. The points I would like to raise today are on the temporary provisions regarding bankruptcy and insolvency.
With the “COVID-19 Temporary Relief” set to expire on 19 November, a large number of lawsuits are being prepared as a consequence. Similarly, the Moratorium which ended on 19 October will likely lead to a large number of bankruptcies and insolvencies through legal actions.
I would like to make two suggestions.
One, for some of the worst hit sectors, I propose restoring Part 2 of the Temporary Relief Bill, namely, the prescribed measures relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, for at least several more months.
Two, for these same badly hit sectors and, hopefully, even beyond, I also propose temporarily removing some of the penalties for directors of insolvent companies affected by the pandemic, so that they can meaningfully contribute to the re-birth and restart of their sectors.
Let me speak on my first suggestion. I applaud Part 2 of the Temporary Relief Act because it gives individuals and businesses breathing space. This was done by increasing the bankruptcy and insolvency limits as well as to extend the minimum number of days, from serving of a statutory demand, to serving notice of bankruptcy.
As of today, we have made excellent progress in controlling the pandemic. More and more of our economy is operating closer to normal, and Part 2 has largely served its purpose. However, there are compelling reasons to restore Part 2 for our worst hit sectors. Let me give a few reasons.
One, as we move towards Phase Three, many of these badly hit sectors could become financially viable again as safe-distancing measures get redefined. With support, many insolvent companies in these sectors may not need to go down that path.
Two, while the past six months have created a valuable breathing space, a large amount of effort and time was spent on clarifying the terms, such as the rental relief details and on refining the powers of the assessors. It is only until recently – based on my conversations with the SMEs – that creditors and debtors are better able to work together to support SMEs through this crisis. So, extending the runway will be beneficial and in Singapore’s best interests.
Three, for the badly hit sectors, our economic agencies will need more time to identify the way forward, to find higher ground for companies in those sectors. As an example, a clear way forward for some well-managed companies in these sectors would be to re-capitalise or to pivot to a new direction. But we have to ask ourselves are we giving the present Government schemes sufficient time to take effect, to allow them to make this happen? Is the equity funding part of our business eco-system ready to step up? Do investors or white knights have enough time to complete their due diligence? I believe that more time is needed for the Government to work with these sectors to reinvent themselves.
Four, we have a moral obligation to do even more to support these sectors. Even though we now have low number of local infections, we have extensive safe distancing measures because we need to keep our economy open. That means running the risk of imported cases as the situation deteriorates in many parts of the world.
To counter balance the risk, we are continuing with strong curbs in the events, entertainment and high-end F&B activities. Firms in these sectors are paying the ultimate price of our collective efforts to fight COVID-19. They deserve more time to work with creditors to find a way forward.
Five, many of our national retraining and reskilling efforts are under strain from the recent spike in unemployment and we need to give them more time to ramp up. By forestalling bankruptcies and insolvencies, we can buy MOM, WSG and E2I more time to help displaced workers find new opportunities.
Let me now focus on my second suggestion – temporarily removing some of the penalties of bankruptcy for the directors of badly hit sectors, so that they can meaningfully contribute to the re-birth and restart of their respective sectors.
The rise and fall of companies are part of any economic downturn and restructuring. In a normal downturn, when old firms fade away, new firms will seek new opportunities funded by new capital and the economy will rise again. But for the badly hit sectors, what we have is not a normal downturn. This is a mass extinction event, especially for SMEs – a global killer so to speak.
Of course, many of these sectors, especially the SMEs, will need to do things differently, or at least continue operating with restrictions for a prolonged period of time.
But when conditions allow for re-emergence of these sectors, when the green shoots emerge, Singapore could face a shortage of our top entrepreneurial and managerial talent, namely top business leaders who serve as the directors of businesses.
The personal consequence of insolvencies to the directors are severe. This is because bank loans to SMEs generally require a personal guarantee and it is frequently born by the directors.
Personal consequences include: (a) not being able to serve as a director of another company for a period of three years; (b) not being able to borrow more than $500; (c) not being able to travel without permission; (d) credit bureaus also to keep the bankruptcy records for three years.
The sum is greater than the parts. The result is that for several years at least, directors of many firms – the leaders of these badly hit industries – will not be able to raise funds and take an active role to transform their sector again.
Given that COVID-19 was something that was thrust upon these sectors, I hope our Government can, at least on a temporary basis, reduce the consequences for the directors of these badly affected sectors.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can and must do more to give more time for our badly affected sectors to work out the crisis.
In business, insolvency is always a distinct possibility. But in these worst hit sectors, what we are seeing for SMEs is a mass extinct event, an unpredictable collective disaster not easily foreseeable.
There will be a whole lot of hurt coming our way.
For the business leaders facing imminent personal bankruptcy, it can be a soul-crushing process, a destruction of a lifetime of hard work. For their families, it could mean changed lives forever, not to mention many years of financial distress. For their workers, it may mean a period of hardship until new jobs can be found.
It is our duty, as Members of this House, to do more, to prevent and reduce the pain. Notwithstanding my points, I give my full support for both Bills.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the proposed amendments to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, calling it the realignment framework of 2020 and the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA of 2018, in tandem.
The underlining objective of both amendments to offer streamlined procedures for renegotiation, restructuring and potential termination of contracts, especially for smaller businesses, is well founded and both timely and pertinent in light of the disruptions introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. I only wish to raise a few points – mainly on the scope of each Bill's coverage but also wish to take a step back and highlight the key big picture issues on the implications of a less onerous bankruptcy resolution regime for entrepreneurial culture, that the IRDA amendment Bill inevitably identifies.
The realignment framework stipulates that contracts signed prior to COVID-19 be made available to possible renegotiation or termination with a moratorium period pertaining to affected agreements. This is eminently sensible given the forced stoppage to economic activity imposed by the circuit breaker and other COVID-19 containment measures.
Construction contracts, in particular, are afforded a stay of up to 122 days for delivery. Madam, while I am certain that this duration was chosen carefully, it is unclear to me why the period is 122 days. Following Minister Desmond Lee's speech, my rusty Math now sees that it is basically four months. But by my count, the circuit breaker and Phase One lasted for 73 days; while that of Phase One to the start of the Bill is 136 days.
One is left to wonder how this cap of four months was actually chosen, given that it is not closely related to the specific phases and disruption periods that were identified by policy.
Perhaps more relevant, it is not so much the maximum number of days for which a delay is allowed but rather why there is no equivalent minimum. Here, I am keenly aware that I always seems to be harping about minimums these days.
Since the circuit breaker period coincided with a forced cessation of a wide range of economic activity, it strikes me that the moratorium should afford a default of a 55-day floor, which is consistent with the circuit breaker period. Importantly, while larger firms may well be able to accelerate their work schedules to meet or exceed unanticipated delays, smaller firms simply do not possess the economies of scale or scope to do so.
Of course, if delivery is possible within a shorter window so much the better. But allowing for a default, returns some bargaining power back to the small businesses which were forced to disrupt activity due to no fault of their own.
The other benefit of such a default is that small and micro businesses that possess limited understanding of the realignment framework can easily grasp the principle that an automatic extension of the contract terms for the duration of the circuit breaker period applies via this default.
This brings me to the related issue of how small firms will navigate the complexities of revised legislation. In particular, sections 68 and 69 simultaneously remove the right of appeal while limiting the ability of assignees to obtain informed advice in the Adjustment Relief Assessment process. While this stipulation can expedite what could well be a flood of assessments, it also presumes the accuracy of the official Assessor.
This introduces a clear asymmetry in the power dynamic between the two relevant parties. Perhaps a potential route of appeal with an alternative, independent Assessor, applicable to special cases, could be considered. At the very least, the circumstances by which the Adjustment Relief Assessor may permit the presence of legal representation should be spelled out.
As written, the IRDA Bill currently concurs significant discretion to the Executive to alter jurisdictional parameters by which the Act applies. In some instances, such discretion is well justified and increases operational flexibility. For instance, section 250F details specific eligibility criteria for firms' acceptance into the simplified winding up programme, but also allows for these values to be substituted by the Minister by order in the Gazette. Since it is difficult to ascertain whether these values, such as the threshold for sales turnover is set at $10 million, are optimal, the added flexibility is most welcomed.
However, in other instances, the discretion affords a very wide berth without clear justification for such leeway. In particular, section 72H and 250H allows the Executive to freely overturn acceptance and eligibility requirements. This could open up avenues for potential error, thereby, undermining confidence in the application of the Act.
Moreover, the language of the Bill does not limit the authority only to the Minister but also to all political officerholders, such as the Second Minister, Minister of State or Senior Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary or Senior Parliamentary Secretary. While I understand this allows secondary officeholders to act in the stead of the Minister should he or she be otherwise predisposed, we should be mindful that it also raises the risk of potential inconsistencies, as I have just shared.
I would like to suggest that we allow an independent institution such as the Courts, to be the adjudication authority instead. Alternatively, the Minister could provide a clear public explanation for every waiver that is granted.
As I alluded to previously, it is difficult to be certain ex ante whether the specific parameters used to define micro and small enterprises – the beneficiary targets of the IRDA Bill – are reasonable. I appreciate that the existing qualification criteria were not chosen in an arbitrary fashion, but it is also useful to recognise that the definitions for what constitutes a small enterprise differs worldwide. The 30-employee threshold specified in the Bill, for instance, would encompass medium sized businesses in Australia but constitute only small firms in the EU and US. And it would be a micro enterprise in Somalia.
That said, my point is not so much that definitions differ. Rather, given the inherent difficulty of establishing what constitutes a micro and small enterprise, and by extension, the nature of the firms which may be able to endure more complex restructuring and dissolution procedures, it may be valuable to consider the possibility of a tiered set of bankruptcy rules that apply to micro, small, medium and large enterprises, consistent with the likely complexity of the operations. Relatedly, it may be worthwhile considering qualifications subject to simply just satisfying one or two, rather than the set of all criteria.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe that the aim of these series of simplified bankruptcy procedures and resolution mechanisms is to reduce the burden that small business owners face at a time where they may be facing significant distress due to COVID-19. While it is important that such firms be allowed to fail when the economy is operating far below potential, as is likely the case in Singapore today, over zealous persecution could wipe out the income of the firm's erstwhile workers which would otherwise have been available to spend on the economy, which may end up in turn, prolonging the recession.
However, it is also equally important that we understand what the trade-offs we are making are. Excessively forgiving bankruptcy procedures can delay foreclosures on non-performing loans, enabling firms that would otherwise fail to keep operating. Such zombie firms, as Minister Edwin Tong clarified, can be detrimental to economic vibrancy and can inhibit the growth of other non-zombie firms, as the experience of Japan in the 1990s amply demonstrates.
On the flip side, there is substantial evidence that appropriately designed restructuring procedures can encourage entrepreneurship, especially for small business owners who would otherwise assume their firms' debts as personal liabilities.
Less onerous insolvency legislation can also promote opportunity-seeking and innovation orientation. As we transition our economy towards a knowledge and information-driven one, the continued refinement of IRDA would play an important role in cultivating a culture that is more willing to take on calculated business risks.
Whether we decide on permanently codifying the temporary measures introduced by the IRDA amendment Bill, then lies in our assessment of whether these reforms are deemed to have fulfilled their objective of improving the business climate for small and medium enterprises – not just during this COVID-19 period, but beyond.
To that end, it is imperative that we embed the tools to evaluate the efficacy of the law even as we begin to roll it out in earnest. At the simplest level, this would entail complimentary collection of relevant data on firms that avail themselves to the simplified regime versus those that decline it. In a similar spirit, more systematic sector-by-sector tracking of the performance of small firms deploying further provisions should also be undertaken.
Notwithstanding these additional points of feedback, I do support both Bills.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Second Minister for Law for the swift action taken on the amendments to the Insolvency, Restructuring, and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill and the courage to introduce the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill.
The amendments taken together is a holistic approach as the Bills are complementary and reinforce each other to assist small and micro businesses. However, we must keep in mind the reality that some micro and small businesses will never recover.
The good part, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is that my understanding is that these Bills are essentially for these entities to elect. So, I am a bit confused when the hon Member Jamus Lim spoke about the challenges in terms of the use of independence and additional lawyers to support the move to essentially recover from the challenges posed by the pandemic for these small and micro businesses. In fact, the Simplified Insolvency Programme or SIP seeks to help businesses that need to recover quickly, restructure their debt obligations to keep the businesses going or to have a simplified and orderly exit if there is no better alternative.
The existing insolvency process today, while useful, takes time and is expensive. And in this case, the amendment allows more than micro businesses that are already struggling and cannot afford more costs. As such, the SIP is a welcome response to meet the urgent needs under this pandemic condition. That is why I said, it is an option and Small and Micro businesses that do not feel that it benefits them, need not move and elect for these remedies in this Bill.
I now turn to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. The intent is to help eligible businesses impacted by this pandemic to focus on the future and not be stuck in unproductive positions is a positive move. On this, I wish to raise three areas: two on the eligibility criteria and the third on how the current Bill works with the rental relief framework, that will impact the effectiveness and execution of the Bill, for Minister's consideration and clarification.
On the eligibility criteria, the use of (a) revenue drop to identify businesses impacted and (b) business size to ringfence this remedy for smaller companies is logical. However, I would request the Minister to ensure that such interventions are well calibrated to ensure a balanced and fair approach to all businesses.
The reason for this is that our Government must advocate for our businesses that sit on both sides of the contract. A clear example would be in the area of leases, where there is a clear need to take care of not just tenants, but also landlords. So, there is a need minimise interference in the risk-taking between parties that is at the heart of business activities and the spirit of entrepreneurship.
Further, for this amendment Bill to be helpful, the criteria for the revenue drop should not be too conservative, else it would only cover companies that are already deeply in the red, facing imminent solvency issues.
In the example of a successful small businesses in the F&B industry, with a healthy 30% profit margins last year, this means that with a 30% drop in revenue this year, the business would already be bottom-line break-even. Under this pandemic situation, small businesses operating at half of its previous turnover is not uncommon. This means that a high revenue drop eligibility criteria requirement would be of little assistance to businesses that are already struggling.
Further to the above, I also seek the Minister's consideration on calibrating reliefs for certain agreements. I believe that for example, tenants that are stuck in fixed rental lease agreements are in greater need of the present reliefs tabled compared to those leases which vary with the turnover of the tenant.
Regardless of what the eligibility criteria might be, this amendment Bill might potentially have a negative impact on some businesses that narrowly miss the threshold. I think Minister gave some examples earlier on and these examples are not unlikely to happen, where in the case of a tenant-landlord relationship, as an example, it is probable that the position of a landlord of a non-eligible business might harden. He may be emboldened not to negotiate as the landlord would be aware that the tenant will not be eligible to terminate his lease without incurring sizeable penalties. This can potentially happen, which runs contrary to the good intentions of this Bill.
I now turn to the last part, which is my query on the interoperability of the earlier rental relief framework and the present framework.
I understand that there have been businesses that have availed themselves to the rental relief framework but have continued to perform poorly and have been incurring substantial financial losses. Such businesses now may wish to then invoke the reliefs under the present framework to exit their businesses notwithstanding the previous assistance they had benefited from. Can Minister clarify whether such entities can still benefit from this Bill?
In concluding, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Bills represent a proactive step by the Government, which I believe will be welcomed by the public. It is tough to find the exact balance to avoid under or over-correction. Under-correcting will lead to helping fewer deserving entities, while over-correcting will distort the market. But we cannot fear to act, to do the right thing. Hence, the courage that I spoke about earlier of the Government and Second Minister for Law for tabling these Bills.
For the policy intent of these Bills to be effective on the ground, the various criteria need to be calibrated appropriately where a conservative starting point ought to be held without being too conservative should be considered and sufficient latitude be given to the expert assessors to achieve a just and fair outcome for deserving cases. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of these Bills.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, the IRDA Bill aims to alleviate difficulties that may be faced by micro and small companies or MSCs during COVID-19.
Many businesses, including our MSCs, may not be able to weather this storm. If they are to survive, they may need significant restructuring. The Bill recognises the reality that the experiences of MSCs facing restructuring or winding up are going to be very different from that of companies with more substantial assets. I commend the effort to streamline the processes for MSCs that are in this position. I also support the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill which addresses difficulties faced by another group – companies in our construction sector.
I have three points of clarification for the IRDA Bill and one point on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill.
First, the IRDA Bill lowers the threshold vote from creditors required to commence restructuring. Currently, approval from a majority of creditors holding 75% in value of the debt owed must be obtained to approve a Scheme of Arrangement. This Bill lowers the threshold from 75% to two-thirds.
The threshold is important because a company that is able to continue without intervention should not be forced to undergo restructuring at the whims of a small number of creditors. Restructuring may also compromise the rights of creditors, including those that vote against approving it.
To ensure that we strike a correct balance, will Minister share what further safeguards are in place to help businesses in the face of potentially overzealous creditors? Related to this, can Minister share what guidance is provided to MSCs and their creditors in deciding whether and when to undertake restructuring? For instance, I understand that Credit Counselling Singapore will administer the restructuring assistance scheme for sole proprietorships and partnerships. Can Minister share if the Simplified Insolvency Scheme will be complemented by programmes that provide closer guidance for MSCs and their creditors through the restructuring process?
Second, the new subsection 50(1A) allows exempted individuals to hold an insolvency practitioner’s licence without being \"a qualified person.\" The licensing regime for insolvency practitioners was introduced in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. It was a welcomed move to increase professional standards in this area.
However, allowing exemptions to basic qualifications required of insolvency practitioners, so soon after the new regime is in place to raise standards, might send a contradictory message on the expected standards of insolvency practitioners.
Can Minister clarify in what situations does the Ministry intend to use this exemption clause? What checks and balance will be in place to ensure that exempted individuals perform to the standards expected? For example, will exempted individuals be required to hold any basic qualifications? Can Minister clarify if this exemption is intended to cope with the short-term increase in case-load from the fast-track process or is this intended to be a general longer term exemption? Can Minister also share if exempted individuals will be provided with any guiding principles on how to apply the relevant insolvency principles in relation to winding up or restructuring?
Fourth, although the fast-track process introduced by the Bill is limited to just six months, it is very possible that the effects of COVID-19 on small- and medium-sized MNCs will exceed this duration. Will Minister explain what factors were taken into account when stipulating this specific duration of time? Will there be any possibility of the fast-track process being extended and what are the factors that determine this extension?
Further, the intention behind the Bill of allowing smaller companies to avoid the increased costs and time associated with the usual court process should continue to apply after we have emerged from this crisis. Will Minister therefore share if the Ministry will consider adopting the provisions of this Bill on a permanent basis for MSCs and possibly even all SMEs in the future?
For my final point, I turn to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill.
The universal extension of time is a welcomed move. I understand there are currently some uncertainty on whether an extension of time automatically applies once a contractor has applied for relief from liquidated damages under Part 2, section 6 of the current Act. As a practical safeguard, some contractors may be legally advised to continue applying for an extension of time pursuant to the contract provisions.
However, this gives rise to its own set of issues. Importantly, an extension of time under the contract may be discretionary. Further, condition precedents for the extension of time stated under the contract may not have been fulfilled. I understand this is a common defence raised.
The universal extension of time of four months addresses this uncertainty. However, contractors who require relief for a longer period of time may still have to seek recourse under part 2, section 6 or negotiate under their contract provisions.
In this event, can the Minister clarify whether an extension of time automatically applies where a contractor applies for relief and serves a Notification for Relief? If so, can the Minister clarify how this extension of time beyond the four-month period interacts with the contract provisions on extension of time?
Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill which will establish a simplified insolvency programme.
The intent of this programme is to provide a simplified process for eligible companies that require support, to: restructure their debts to rehabilitate the business, or wind up the company as the business has ceased to be viable.
The programme focuses on assisting small companies by providing simpler, faster and lower cost proceedings for eligible companies, for example, for simplified debt restructuring, requiring one Court application, instead of two Court applications in a typical scheme of arrangement. In respect of a simplified winding up, the process is based on the voluntary winding up process, instead of a Court-ordered winding up, and removes the necessity of a Court application to place the company into winding up.
The simplified proceedings may help to reduce the time and costs involved in conventional insolvency processes which, in turn, may help to somewhat increase the overall pool of assets and monies to be eventually used to satisfy a company’s debts.
For simplified debt restructuring, it may help certain businesses rehabilitate and survive this economic downturn which, in turn may help to preserve certain jobs.
However, as the primary intent of the programme is to assist troubled companies, it, therefore, means that the programme does not significantly improve the position of workers with owed salaries or retrenchment benefits. This is something I have raised on several occasions in this House. In the event that a company has to wind up, even though there is a priority of debts provided in the Act, workers’ outstanding wages and salaries remain unsecured debts, which may result in a situation where there are little assets left to pay these workers’ salaries and benefits, including those provided in their collective agreements, after all the company’s secured debts have been satisfied.
In the event the company survives and continues its operations, an unpaid worker may still need to go through a protracted enforcement process against the company to recover unpaid salaries and retrenchment benefits where provided and applicable. Even then, there is no guarantee that the worker would be able to recover all his outstanding salary, retrenchment benefits or benefits under their collective agreement. This is further exacerbated during recent times when companies undergo insolvency or other related proceedings, such as judicial management and receivership. In any event, there is little or no recourse for both workers and unions as a moratorium of sorts prohibits the enforcement of rights under a collective agreement or any other due process. Although a leave of Court could be obtained, this has to be done through legal processes which may be too onerous, involve costs and, sometimes, beyond the reach of workers and unions.
A good example would be the latest announcement of the closure of Robinson's Department Store last Friday. Robinson's is a branch of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers’ Union for which I am their Executive Secretary. The union is in talks with the management and the liquidators. In fact, in this latest Robinson's saga which caught many unawares by the sudden closure, there are broadly three main groups that will be impacted.
First, for the 175 workers, a number long-serving and loyal, their fate remains uncertain, as they are unsecured and, as such, rank low in the priority of debts if the liquidation goes ahead. It is disconcerting that workers who stay on to help the company out of loyalty may be left with little or nothing at all.
Second, the SMEs and vendors that are in business with Robinson's. Over the past few days, there have been several news reports quoting vendors who have come out to state that they have been unpaid for months. This is worrying, as it also signals a possible snowball effect, where a company not duly paid and, therefore, has its business viability threatened which, ultimately, may lead to unintended impact and consequences on the livelihoods of workers employed in these SMEs.
Third, not to forget the many Robinson's customers who have bought and paid for items but have yet to receive those items, who now have to deal with the liquidators and left in the lurch.
It is laudable that the Bill seeks to help companies and businesses by simplifying and expediting relevant insolvency proceedings during these difficult economic times.
However, in the same vein, many workers have had their livelihoods impacted in this period of economic uncertainty. Hence, there should also be more direct assistance provided to support workers who seek to recover their unpaid wages, salaries or benefits by simplifying and expediting the enforcement of recovery proceedings. This is especially pertinent where the employer companies are experiencing financial difficulties and there are limited assets to satisfy all creditors. By the same token, vendors that have business with the company as well as consumers should also be accorded some form of protection in such scenarios.
Madam, suggestions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now speak on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill which I am also in support of. We are in challenging times and the introduction of this No 3 Bill and its attendant initiatives are laudable.
This new Bill provides for contracts already entered into, to be renegotiated. This is something novel amidst these unprecedented and uncertain times. Renegotiation would aid businesses to survive the brunt of this downturn, as many of them had entered into contracts when the outlook was very different. The pricing model and assumptions as to costs were also quite different. Forcing them to continue with those terms or face liquidated damages would cause severe hardship to many SMEs and micro-SMEs, especially those who just started business before COVID-19. The survivability of companies and businesses also has ramifications for jobs and workers. As such, this ability to renegotiate will go some way to help many of these SMEs and micro-SMEs stay in business and re-balance themselves. In this regard, can MinLaw consider outlining certain set parameters for renegotiation which can help as many of these companies as possible?
Notwithstanding – although this renegotiation sounds plausible – I submit that we need to tread carefully and with caution and limit the scope of what we can and are able to do. This is to ensure that the fundamental principle of contractual sanctity is upheld and not undermined.
Finally, I would like to raise an issue on the decisions of assessors which is provided in the Act. I have residents as well as fellow practitioners who have given me feedback and raised questions and eyebrows over some of the decisions made by the assessors where a claim or dispute is brought before them under this Act. I am aware the decision of the assessors is final but is there any other recourse which can be taken in the event where a decision is manifestly prejudicial against a non-offending or innocent party?
Madam, clarifications and suggestions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is universally accepted that COVID-19 qualifies as a “black swan” event with significant consequences. Since April, we have been responding well to these consequences and must continue to do so because the months ahead will continue to be challenging for our country and economy.
MinLaw has made strategic changes to our laws, thereby enabling Singapore to be highly adaptable and flexible, which is essential for our businesses. Many of these contracts were signed in one particular context. Now that this context has changed, we need to provide a fair and transparent way to redesign these contracts that leads to a win-win situation for all contracting parties.
This provision of the Re-Align Framework in COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) ensures that these contracts entered earlier do not allow one party to subject the other to a disproportionate financial and legal distress arising from COVID-19. In other words, the framework allows affected businesses to renegotiate and rebase their contracts, failing which the contracts may be terminated with prospective obligations extinguished. This approach is extremely practical to ensure that Singapore’s legal framework for businesses continues to be responsive and competitive.
I strongly believe that Singapore needs to support our businesses by giving them the opportunity to re-start and the Re-Align Framework is certainly a tangible effort in that direction. I hope that “Re-Align” signals the continuation of contracts with new commitments, rather than an immediate termination of contracts. We hope that these renegotiations lead to a continuation of the existing contract with new and acceptable obligations so that businesses grow with certainty, thereby protecting jobs and livelihoods of our Singaporeans.
Earlier in my maiden speech, I also spoke on how the rental relief framework for SMEs have been beneficial, providing peace of mind for our businesses. I propose an extension of the categories within the current rental relief framework to include other debts so that it provides businesses with a longer runway to pay their debts while attempting to restart their businesses. The simplified insolvency programme in the IRDA Bill provides this process for the restructuring of debts to any eligible company that seeks to enter into a compromise or an arrangement between the company and its creditors or any class of those creditors. This offers mental wellness for our entrepreneurs that old debts are managed. They can focus quickly on restarting their businesses, creating jobs and contributing to the overall economy.
Regarding the amendments made to both Bills, I have two considerations and two clarifications that I would like to put forward to MinLaw. One of my considerations is to urge the Ministry to set evaluation criteria that would cover a large majority of companies, so that the intent of the amendment is broadly achieved. On my second consideration, I would like to recommend providing other types of qualifying criteria other than aggregate group revenue, such as EBITA, as companies in the same industry may have different cost and margin compositions. For example, a $4 million revenue grossing furniture retail company will have different profitability and employment sizes, compared to a $4 million grossing electronics retail company.
Adding to this point, I would like to further propose having a different qualifying criteria for different industries, as businesses in different industries have varied margins and the ability to withstand shocks. For instance, a $50 million grossing company in pharmaceuticals is very different from one in services. Therefore, additional evaluation criteria, other than revenue, recognises intra-industry nuances, and an industry-specific approach to recognise inter-industry differences, will help to save businesses and jobs effectively.
On my clarifications, firstly, I would like to ask if the framework could include sunk costs by tenants, such as exhaust system, M&E systems, fire suppression systems to offset outstanding obligations. This is because such fixtures could eventually benefit the landlord in the event of a contract termination. The landlord in this case would have a fitted-out unit to lease.
Secondly, I would like to ask what would be the approach used to compare revenue differences between financial periods in 2019 and 2020. Would this be audited accounts? If so, most companies would not have audited accounts for the period in 2020.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the considerations and clarifications I have raised, I rise in support of both Bills and the broad principles of the amendments made to provide opportunities for businesses, especially SMEs and even micro ones, to discover potential solutions, given the unique circumstances. When both parties approach with such a rational and progressive mindset, the amendments to these Bills can be very successful in helping all parties navigate through these tough times.
I would like to end my speech by reiterating the famous saying, “tough times do not last, tough men and women do”. With such adaptable and flexible approaches by the Ministry, I believe tough businesses will outlast tough times.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the two Bills.
I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer, a director in a law practice involved in dispute resolution work, a member of the Law Society of Singapore and the co-chairperson of the Law Society's Pro Bono Services' Community Legal Clinics' Committee.
Over the past few months, we have witnessed how the COVID-19 pandemic has wrecked economic devastation on our people. It would be an understatement to say that many Singaporeans are badly affected by these economic difficulties and that it would be a long cold winter ahead for many more.
The small and micro businesses are the backbone of our economy, many of which have the potential to continue their businesses despite the on-going pandemic by adopting new practices. However, there are still more that are suffering. For instance, the night-life industry and travel and tourism-related businesses are still struggling due to their inability to resume operations, causing them to experience a tremendous drop in revenue while their financial obligations continue unabated.
The owner of one of the buffet restaurants that catered mainly to tourists during pre-COVID-19 days had shared with me recently that while he is appreciative of the Government's grants and support systems that we have offered, his business continues to suffer and struggle with revenue as his customer pool has dwindled. Yet, his business operation costs have only gone up while the arrears in rental fees continue to accrue.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have previously shared with this House about my \"GEL\" mission in Woodgrove. \"G\" pertains to green living, \"E\" is about embracing parenthood and \"L\" is about law awareness.
For the past few months, many residents have either written to me or met me at the Meet-the-People Sessions to enquire about the legal issues that they are facing. There are two relevant scenarios that I would like to take this opportunity to share with this House.
Firstly, a business partner of a travel agency. She wrote to me expressing her concern about the debts that she has been owing as a result of the failing business. Secondly, an elderly couple who rely on collecting rental income from their shophouse came to my Meet-the-People Session and shared with me that their tenant, who runs a restaurant, has not been paying their rental promptly.
It is clear that the persons in both scenarios continue to suffer from the pandemic's effects, whether it be worrying about one's business or how to enforce their rights as a landlord in this trying time.
Upon perusing the Bills, I am heartened that these situations stated therein are applicable to the two scenarios concerning my residents, which I have shared earlier and will, hopefully, put them at great ease.
The Simplified Insolvency Programme SIP under the Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill can assist financially distressed small and micro companies to restructure their debts, rehabilitate their business or to wind up the company when the business has ceased to be viable. At the same time, the Re-Align Framework, as provided for in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, will assist businesses to re-negotiate and re-base their contracts, failing which, the contracts may be terminated with prospective obligations extinguished. The Re-Align Framework will also enable the smaller landlords in financial hardship to have additional compensation for early termination of contracts.
With that said, I would like to ask a few questions about the execution of the two Bills.
Just like SIRS, I anticipate that the Re-Align Framework will invite much interest and many applications by business owners whose businesses have been adversely affected as a result of this unexpected COVID-19 pandemic. How will the Ministry ensure that the assessor panels are adequately staffed so as to be responsive to the applications made within a short time period?
While the realigned framework and SIP are beneficial, we need to raise awareness to ensure that those eligible will know how to apply and are encouraged to do so. In this regard, what assistance, including legal assistance, will be provided to help these businesses understand their options and to advise them on whether and how to invoke the right framework or programme?
One suggestion that I have is to consider introducing an informative flow chart – something similar to the handout tool issued by MinLaw to the House earlier – a navigation guide to enable businesses to better understand whether they are eligible and the steps to take to invoke the framework or SIP.
I would also like to seek the following clarifications pertaining to section 69 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, which states that \"no party may be represented by an advocate and solicitor at proceedings before an adjustment relief assessor, except with the permission of the adjustment relief assessor\". Under what circumstances will permission be actually granted by the assessor?
The general perception is that engaging a lawyer equates to hefty costs and protracted proceedings. However, legal representation actually has its benefits. In recent years, at the Courts' encouragement and with the support of the Law Society of Singapore, the role of lawyers have begun to shift towards facilitating disputes to be resolved amicably between parties without resorting to lengthy litigious Court proceedings.
I take the position that we should recognise that lawyers should still be allowed to play a vital role in the execution of the two Bills. Lawyers can advise and ensure that both the applicant and respondent follow the correct rules and procedures and draft the necessary documents required – and not just pertaining to what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has suggested earlier in the House to include a course of appeal and for legal representation to be granted for the appeal proceeding.
One suggestion I have after taking into consideration the concern of my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Derrick Goh, which he has shared earlier – that small and micro businesses affected are already struggling and cannot afford more costs – is for the Ministry to consider collaborating with the Law Society of Singapore to establish an enabling framework akin to what the Community Justice Centre has done for smaller claim cases, like the Primary Justice Project (PJP), where a volunteer lawyer would charge a flat rate for consultation and another flat rate if further assistance is required to file the necessary papers or prepare for the assessment hearing. The flat rate will be less than the normal market rate, taking into account what will be deemed as affordable and fair for both the client and the lawyer. In addition, a Community Legal Clinic can also be set up specifically to assist those who are unable to afford this discounted flat rate.
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my request for clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the two Bills.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have led medical operations in purpose-built dormitories to support migrant workers during the height of infections in the dormitories. I have also had the privilege to speak to contractors and sub-contractors and visit construction sites that are in the midst of restarting construction activities. So, I have had a first-hand glimpse into the extent of disruption that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused to the construction and property sectors.
With regard to MND's proposed amendments to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act to provide further relief to the built environment sector, I would like to raise three points.
Firstly, on the co-sharing of non-manpower-related additional costs. While I welcome the move, anecdotally, it has not been easy in the first place for contractors and other players to fully account for the additional costs caused by the pandemic. For example, movement restrictions mean their supervisors who are on S Pass and with lodging outside the dormitories now have to take private transport. These incremental costs are hard to capture fully but these things add up.
Secondly, on the universal extension of time, I would like to suggest that the proposed amendment be extended beyond contracts between developer and main contractor to cover contracts between contractor and sub-contractor. This would provide further support for a larger portion of the value chain – support sub-contractors who would otherwise have to negotiate with main contractors under current provisions of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act.
Thirdly, also on the universal extension of time, I would like to recognise that for most industry players, the disruption caused by COVID-19 has gone well beyond four months. Indeed, there may yet be further disruption, the extent to which remains highly uncertain as rostered routine testing for construction workers continues and the possibility remains that groups of workers would continue to be quarantined from time to time. But a four-month universal extension of time strikes a practical balance and gives contractors a legal option besides negotiating for relief, a legal option that offers more certainty.
I hope the Ministry has consulted the industry widely for this proposed amendment and has achieved broad buy-in. It would also help the industry if potentially disruptive safe management measures like the quarantining of workers could be applied more consistently. There has been feedback about apparent inconsistencies on the ground whereby some workers get quarantined but others in similar circumstances do not. These inconsistencies add to the frustration.
That said, I know our officers implementing these measures have been working very hard and trying their level best. In this respect, I hope the BluePass tokens for targeted contact tracing amongst the construction worker community will be a game-changer.
Ultimately, these measures, while potentially disruptive, reflect a new normal that the industry must adapt to in order to resume construction activities safely. The additional pain will persist but our construction industry is rising to the occasion. As long as everyone continues to play its part and share the burden, we will get through this together.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] COVID-19 has dealt a severe blow to the construction and the property sectors. The numerous measures introduced by the Government have prevented a total collapse of these sectors. The immediate challenge will be to help businesses recover slowly under the new normal.
Under this new normal, project arrangements will be more complex, operating costs will rise and the supply of foreign workers may be interrupted from time to time. Hence, I support the Government's proposed amendment to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill to provide more certainty and fairer protection for contractors, developers and the individual businesses along the entire value chain.
At the same time, I would like to urge the Government to continue to improve the testing regime and safety measures such as quarantining and complement with legal measures. By adopting this two-pronged approach, the Government will help businesses tide over this difficult time and emerge stronger.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the above notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill was presented in this House on a Certificate of Urgency for First Reading just yesterday. It would be good to recount that in this crisis year, not only did we have five Budget Debates, through which we infused an extraordinary sum of money and implemented decisive measures in the fight against COVID-19, we also passed three Bills on Certificates of Urgency dealing with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on businesses. This is the fourth urgent Bill.
This is a testimony to the intense efforts that have been put in by the whole-of-Government to help Singapore and Singaporeans as well as Singapore businesses navigate through this crisis. This is a point that the hon Member Mr Edward Chia just made a few minutes ago.
The fact that we have been able to move speedily to consider and, if found appropriate, implement these legislative measures to provide the adaptation and scaffolding necessary for our businesses to climb out of the economic difficulties they face is commendable and sometimes can be taken for granted, but it should not be so.
In his speech, the hon Minister outlined the reasons why he believes the economic outlook is not likely to change in the near term. This means that small and micro businesses are particularly vulnerable.
It is against this context that I fully support the Re-Align Framework introduced in this COVID-19 Bill to help small and micro-businesses as we transition from the \"resuscitate\" phase to the \"rejuvenate\" phase, in the strategy that the hon Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat articulated in his Ministerial speech last month.
Amongst the potential beneficiaries under the framework would be Mdm Prabha who is one of my residents. She runs a mini-mart from a rented premise. She informs that before COVID-19, she was already impacted by dropping profits brought about by changing habits of residents. Since COVID-19 struck, she has not made a profit because the footfall dropped even further. She now has a serious cash flow problem arising from her commitments to her vendors and landlord based on pre-COVID-19 contracts.
Another resident of mine who may potentially benefit from this framework is Mr Andrew Neoh. He is a blind masseur who rented premises to run his business. His business ceased during the lockdown period. He benefited from the rental relief introduced under \"COVID 2\". However, his business continues to decline and he is unable to meet his financial commitments under pre-COVID-19 lease.
For businesses run by people like Mdm Prabha and Mr Neoh, if we do not do anything, many small and micro businesses will fold and a lot more Singaporeans will be out of jobs. This will exacerbate an already rising unemployment figures. No doubt, there will be a knock-on impact on families and society too. That would not be a correct move.
Also, there are implications for the future when SMEs fold leaving behind only the big players.
The hon Senior Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam identified this in an illuminating article entitled \"The Global Jobs Crisis & Why We Should Think Longer Term\" that was published in Straits Times on 31 October 2020. He said, and I quote, \"We need strategies to ensure that the SME sector survives and adapts to the new post-pandemic normal, to avoid much larger job losses in time as well as greater wage inequalities...While a churn of businesses is inevitable and needed, there is a real risk of a diminished SME sector as a whole, compounding the increases in industry concentration seen over the last few decades in many economies. That trend if it continues will have implications for future economic vibrance. It will likely also have an intangible impact on social capital.\"
Currently, it would be difficult for small and micro-businesses to be able to lawfully terminate the pre-COVID-19 contracts without adverse consequences. As the hon Minister pointed out, firstly, they need to go to Court. This would mean that they have to raise funds to instruct lawyers. This is, in itself, a bridge too far for many of them.
Secondly, from a legal standpoint, their cases are not straightforward. They would have to invoke the doctrine of frustration. Under this doctrine, a contract may be discharged if an unexpected supervening event makes it impossible for the contract to be performed. As the hon Minister pointed out, whilst the COVID-19 pandemic is an unanticipated supervening event, the economic consequence and significance on each individual contract is likely to differ. Given that the Courts apply this doctrine strictly, it would be difficult to predict whether it can be raised successfully.
The Re-Align Framework offers small and micro-businesses suffering from serious drop in their revenue a ready option to re-negotiate their contracts with their counterparties within a contained period failing which the contracts may be terminated. Disputes arising from these matters will be referred to the assessor for final determination quickly. This is a much better option for small and micro businesses.
I do appreciate that some counterparties may feel aggrieved over this arrangement. The hon Minister dealt with this point in his speech. Apart from the point that he made that these micro businesses are already financially distressed, I would add further that the ability to negotiate a contract would actually provide a win-win situation or at least have a potential to provide a win-win situation, given these market conditions.
I have two questions and two suggestions for the hon Minister.
First, there is a need to properly categorise the SMEs that may invoke the relief measures under this Bill. And this is a point that a number of hon Members who spoke before me also raised.
In the proposed Second Schedule, Part 3 of the Bill, the eligibility criteria is to be based on the SMEs' revenue in the past and the revenue drop in the current situation. And this is proposed to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation.
May I ask the hon Minister what approach he will take to decide on these matters? As this is an important decision, I would imagine that the hon Minister would have already conducted some consultation with industry players before determining the figures.
The hon Member Mr Edward Chia suggested having bespoke figures for each industry. While I can understand his approach, my respectful counter is that we may not have the benefit of time. We cannot be debating on the figures because there are small and micro businesses suffering and they would appreciate these measures to be given as soon as possible.
Whichever way the hon Minister decides, it is inevitable that there will be SMEs which will fall out of the criteria. I wonder if the hon Minister could please recount relief measures that these SMEs may be entitled even though they may not directly benefit from this Bill.
Second, may I please ask whether, under this Bill, there is any provision that can be invoked to allow for the preservation of the status quo or restrain in exercising security rights whilst the process contemplated under the Bill is being played out? If not, may I ask why not? Would it not be consistent with the objective of the Bill for a hiatus to be built in so that the small and micro-businesses will not suffer further hardship through the exercise of security rights, for example, forfeiting deposits or security bonds? Otherwise, the re-negotiation may take place in circumstances where the bargaining position of the small and micro businesses will be further weakened.
I now come to my suggestions.
The first suggestion is this. I note that SMEs are encouraged to re-negotiate the contracts with the counterparties during the negotiation phase. To facilitate these negotiations, may I please suggest that MinLaw make available to these parties some model clauses that they can incorporate into their revised contracts? This will have an impact of promoting certainty and enforceability of these revised contracts.
Second, I wish to convey a suggestion mooted by my hon friend, Ms Nadia Samdin, in a pre-debate discussion.
Recognising that small and micro-businesses only have a six-week window to invoke the Re-Align Framework, it is important to publicise this framework widely especially through Trade and Merchant Associations. We should not assume that people who would benefit from this framework would be actively looking out for these matters. Such a proactive approach will augment the policy intent behind this Bill.
In conclusion, I think it appropriate to once again acknowledge and commend MinLaw, AGC, the various Ministries, private practitioners and industry associations for working together at almost \"breakneck\" speed to draft yet another Urgent Bill for presentation in this House within short notice. They have been working in overdrive for some time now, all with a view to ensure that Singaporeans get the best help possible whilst we navigate ourselves out of this terrible crisis.
The Re-Align Framework is unique and creative; a first in the annals of Singapore's legal history. To them, this House and fellow Singaporeans owe them a debt of gratitude.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minister to Speak More Than Once","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders and Business Motion without Notice","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) so far as it is necessary to enable Minister Desmond Lee to speak more than once? This is because several queries have been directed to him in respect of his earlier speech and this is to enable the Minister to reply to the queries raised by Members.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Deputy Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) so far as it is necessary to enable Minister Desmond Lee to speak more than once. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: I would like to thank the Leader and this House for the dispensation.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me address some of the questions that have been raised in respect of the provisions in Parts 8A, B and C of COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Amendment Bill.
First, Mr Louis Ng asked whether an EOT, beyond four months automatically applies when a contractor serves a Notification for Relief under Part 2 of the Act, and how this would interact with contractual provisions on EOT; while Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked why we chose four months universal EOT instead of aligning with the two months circuit breaker or with Phase One, and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked if we had consulted the industry on the universal EOT proposal, and whether contracts between contractors and sub-contractors will also be covered.
First, let me assure the Members that our proposals were developed in close consultation with the industry and are supported by the industry associations.
Part 8A of the Bill provides for a universal EOT of four months to cover the period earlier this year when most construction projects were stopped.
As I mentioned earlier, two months account for the Circuit Breaker period, and two months account for the subsequent period when all dormitories were yet to be cleared. So, instead of aligning it with Phase One, we aligned it with the reality on the ground which is the duration for which most of the workers were still in the dormitories and the dormitories had not yet been cleared.
All contractors, including sub-contractors, were affected by these delays. Hence, the proposed universal EOT will also apply to contracts between contractors and sub-contractors.
Contractors seeking an EOT beyond the universal four months period provided by the Bill should negotiate with their counter-party, or rely on contract provisions. The intent is to arrive at an amicable resolution that is acceptable to both parties.
But if the matter cannot be resolved, then the contractor can serve a Notification for Relief under the existing Part 2 of the Act.
Once the Notification for Relief is served, the contractor will be able to rely on the defence under section 6 of the Act against any claims for liquidated damages payable under the contract in respect of delays that are materially caused by COVID-19 which occur beyond the four months EOT provided by Part 8A, and within the prescribed period.
In this respect, in response to Mr Louis Ng's question, the protection afforded under section 6 of the Act is similar in effect to an EOT but they are not exactly identical. For instance, depending on the terms of the contract, an EOT may clearly have an impact on matters such as defects liability period or DLP of a project.
Mr Xie Yao Quan also asked how equitable co-sharing between parties will be determined in respect Part 8B of the Bill. He suggested that we model the universal provision for co-sharing after the approach that has been adopted for public sector projects. I think he is referring to the prolongation cost that the Government procuring entities have provided to Government projects. That is indeed what we have done.
The proposed provision in Part 8B of the Bill will require 50% co-sharing of additional non-manpower-related costs between the contracting parties in all applicable construction contracts, whether public or private. This is subject to a monthly cap of 0.2% of the contract sum, with the total claimable amount capped at 1.8% of the contract sum.
Mr Xie also said that it may not be easy for contractors to fully account for additional costs such as incremental private transport costs, which may add up.
To clarify, the provisions under Part 8B of the Bill provide for co-sharing of additional costs due to delays arising from COVID-19. We have separately provided construction firms with substantial financial support to help with additional compliance costs associated with COVID-Safe restart criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
6.31 pm
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the various Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
Let me just make three overarching points before I go into the specific questions that have been raised.
The first is to reiterate that these measures have to be looked at in the context of the broader schemes, measures, budgetary as well as non-fiscal measures that have been put in place to assist individuals, businesses and also to seek to rejuvenate the economy. And to the extent that Mr Henry Kwek has said what else can we do, and also whether we should keep and extend Part 3 of the earlier COVID Bill – please also look at this in the context of the fact that beyond these immediate measures, there are also measures implemented by MAS, by EDB. There is the Extended Support Scheme, both standard and customised for those who do not meet within this scheme. And then, also in relation to the insolvency thresholds, the IRDA has been revised recently so that the debt repayment scheme to ensure that individuals have a reason, have a basis on which to avoid bankruptcy had been extended, and that was implemented in July 2020. We moved the thresholds to $150,000 for those individuals.
Second, all three of these Bills need to be looked at in tandem. They provide different options. Some are complementary and, indeed, an individual or a business can use more than one of these measures. I believe it was Mr Edward Chia who asked whether these are in addition to the measures that have been put in place in the earlier rental relief framework. The answer is yes. They do support the businesses who may already have enjoyed the rental relief framework but now choose to decide that they wish to renegotiate the contract with parties; you can avail yourself of this but, obviously, to the extent that the rental relief framework also provides for a repayment period, if the repayment schedule for the outstanding amounts has not been fulfilled, then it could be unfair to allow you to exit from the contract.
So, that has to be taken into account. Those arrears should be discharged and then you can look at the termination provisions under this plan.
Third, the purpose behind these measures, as I said at the start, is to rejuvenate, not only to look at where we were six months ago which was to hold the line with a moratorium. That was the reason behind \"COVID 1\"; then with \"COVID 2\" we look at an additional injection to help tenants with their rental, one of the biggest cost components.
But we want to also look forward, in terms of rejuvenation so, for example, I mentioned we do not want to have zombie companies remain on the books, companies which are no longer sustainable as a business entity, but which remains alive because of financial and fiscal injection. That is not going to be viable in the long term. It ties up resources, manpower as well as assets.
We also want to move away from the thresholds that just hold the line. So, again, on Mr Henry Kwek's proposition as to whether we can go back to where it was before in ensuring that we assist parties to stay out of bankruptcy, for instance, or liquidation, I would suggest that those entities look at this framework in the SIP, decide whether you can restructure, if not to exit under the liquidation plan. So, the overall momentum and direction of these amendments is to take the economy, businesses forward.
Mr Murali raised several questions, one of which was whether there was going to be a moratorium within the framework of this Bill whilst the parties were working out their own renegotiations. The answer is yes, the Bill does provide. And service of the Notice of Negotiation will itself trigger an automatic moratorium on both legal as well as enforcement actions. So, if you have an outstanding judgment then there might also a moratorium on enforcement on those judgments. The list of prohibited actions, for Mr Murali Pillai's benefit is found in Part 2 of the Fifth Schedule of the Bill and this sets out the series of steps that would be covered by the moratorium.
Several Members – Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Vikram Nair – spoke about the thresholds and the concern that the thresholds that we set not to be set too high so that more entities could benefit from this.
I wish to reiterate our position that our overarching goal in designing the architecture of these two Bills is to help the economy for the long term. We are neither on the side necessarily of the landlord; we are not pro-landlord or pro-tenant or pro-hirer or pro-supplier. But we want to achieve a fair balance between the business entities and provide a framework for them to re-look at their operating assumptions, look at it in the context of what they know today about the economy, about the restrictions to the businesses and then, make a considered decision as to what the renegotiated terms ought to look like. It is in this context that we will be setting the thresholds.
I forget whether it was Mr Edward Chia or Mr Murali Pillai who asked where we would set the revenue cap. We would look at, as far as possible, helping the majority of micro and small businesses. We believe that those are the entities which would need assistance, the nudge that we spoke about, to give them a bit of leverage in initiating the renegotiation. So, it will cover a broad range, the majority of micro and small businesses.
And as far as the revenue drop is concerned, something that is of an order of magnitude that will make it quite clear that these are entities that have suffered,and it is a result of COVID-19. The drop between the comparable periods in 2019 and 2020 will demonstrate that. And I have explained earlier why we chose to use a number, as opposed to having each and every case come before the Assessor to undertake an individual forensic evaluation as to whether or not this factor is part of the COVID-19 or not part of COVID-19, and whether it is mitigation and so on.
We have consulted with the industry. We will continue to do so and those numbers will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. And I assure Members that the moment we settle on the decision on this, we will make an announcement, so that as much notice as possible is given to the stakeholders.
Mr Edward Chia proposed several novel additional qualifying criteria and I do share his concerns as well. Remember that one of the objectives I outlined earlier was for this to not just be fair and thorough in how we apply it, but it has also go to be efficient in how it is administered. The last thing we want is for a scheme that is very well designed with many exceptions and many differentiated tiers, only for it to cause a problem in the administration and operationalisation of the scheme.
So, whilst I understand where Mr Edward Chia is coming from, I wonder whether the gains of that approach that he has suggested, would not be commensurate with the costs and the possible drag on the efficiency of the administration by costs.
To formulate the criteria with intra and inter industry differences would make it difficult to apply and would also raise questions as to what would be the appropriate differentiated levels between each industry.
Mr Edward Chia also asked whether the cost incurred by a tenant on fixtures such as fixed equipment, can be used to offset the outstanding obligations and I think the rationale Mr Edward Chia gave was that these fixtures when left behind could benefit the landlord. That is a matter that is within the discretion of the Assessor when the Assessor decides what the appropriate release terms ought to be following the termination. We recognise that the default consequences that have been sketched out in a fairly long and quite elaborate table in Part 4 of the Second Schedule, might still not fit every situation. But we believe that if you look through it, the relevant guiding principle behind how and on what terms the termination ought to be allowed would be quite clear.
Assessors, therefore, have a broad discretion to adjust the rights and obligations of the parties upon termination. An overarching intent is to achieve a fair and just outcome in each case. So, to give Members some further clarity as to what this might entail, the Assessor might well allow parties to pay sums, including the accrued obligations through instalments, having regard to the relative financial position and cash flow of the parties. They might also determine if additional compensation might be payable that is just and fair in the circumstances, one of which might be the value of the fixtures that have been left behind, as suggested by Mr Edward Chia.
One other scenario that might arise would be whether some of the property that was unutilised, that was not consumed should be returned to the other party, the counter-party upon termination. So, there is a fairly broad and flexible range of options that the Assessor would have regard to.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me turn to some questions Mr Derrick Goh had raised. I think I covered it earlier when I said that the rental relief framework and the Re-Align Framework were not mutually exclusive and tenants that had qualified under the rental relief framework can still qualify for the Re-Align Framework as long as they meet the Framework's criteria. I should point out, as I mentioned earlier, that one of the conditions of the SRS is that if the tenant terminates the lease during the repayment period with some amounts still outstanding, then that has got to be something that the Assessor would take into account. The Assessor will not be able to allow a tenant to walk away from a tenancy that is under SRS without the outstanding rental still due to be paid.
Mr Patrick Tay asked about appeals and raised some questions over outcomes of some of the earlier \"COVID 1\" and \"COVID 2\" Assessor decisions. Madam, in a limited situation, a party can seek a review of the determination by the Assessor for the Re-Align Framework that is set out in section 67 of the present Bill. One example of where this power could be invoked is where the party either did not or could not put in relevant evidence before the Assessor and in the context of the case it is just and fair for the Assessor to reopen the case and look at the evidence that is available and then make a decision based on the review.
To Mr Patrick Tay's point that there have been questions on the determination under \"COVID 1\" that has raised some degree of unhappiness with his residents, I would like Mr Patrick Tay to know that we engage with many of these individuals quite often. Indeed, we have been engaging with parties who give us feedback on the assessment process. And, in most cases, the relief is to grant the moratorium. But having said that, we do look at the cases very closely within MinLaw. I believe previously when I spoke about the earlier Bill, I mentioned that these Assessors are organised in a form where there is a district judge who heads each of the groups, and they discuss the outcomes across the different Assessor panels. In many cases, particularly when we first set up the Assessor panels, both Minister Shanmugam and myself were involved in reviewing each decision, making sure that there is parity across the different Assessor panels and to really discern the different issues that come through so that there is alignment and uniformity in the decisions.
That said, if Mr Patrick Tay is aware of any other outlier decisions that he wishes for us to look at, please do contact MinLaw and we will have that evaluated.
Madam, there are various miscellaneous and clarificatory amendments to Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Act. These also come in to modify the process and to improve on the process as we learn more about it.
First, these amendments will clarify that the Minister may extend the prescribed periods under Parts 1, 2 and 3 or for description of the scheduled contracts under Part 2 of the Act by different periods of time.
Second, the Bill provides that applications pending at the end of the prescribed period will be deemed withdrawn. Apart from events and tourism related contract and construction and supply contracts, which I spoke about in my opening speech, the only relief available under Part 2 is really the temporary moratorium. And once the prescribed period expires, there is no need for any further determination by the Assessors. The rationale being the relief is in fact, the moratorium itself.
Third, to facilitate the smooth operation of Part 2 of the Act in relation to each scheduled contract, the Bill makes amendments to remove all the references to this section 3 prescribed period and instead have the provisions refer to the specific dates prescribed in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Rental and Related Measures) Regulations. This will facilitate necessary flexibility should there be a need to make further amendments subsequently.
Ms Hany Soh asked about assistance to help businesses understand the options how the Framework works and to whom it applies and the process. I think she made several very useful and thoughtful suggestions. My Ministry is getting ready to support the businesses and as I said at the outset, we know that as much as good intentions and thought have gone into designing the scheme, we do want it to be able to be operationalised and administered well and efficiently on the ground.
We have reached out to various industry groups, including the various chambers, trade organisations, associations – those who are in touch on the ground with the micro and small businesses – for help to disseminate information packages. I think Mr Murali also made that point.
We will also arrange for these organisations to set up legal clinics so that they can have a more direct port of call, more direct way of consulting with pro bono lawyers to assist in at least making a first triage of whether the case or the contract is something that they would wish to seek renegotiation for. And if so, what kind of terms will be appropriate for them; some kind of assistance. We have also been exploring with the Law Society to set up something on a broader scale for more outreach for these pro bono lawyers to assist parties on the ground. In doing so, we are very mindful that we have a limited six-week period. I have explained why it ought to be six weeks because of certainty but at the same time we also acknowledge that parties will need assistance on the ground in this six-week period and we will do so.
Apart from Law Society and the trade associations, we have also reached out to the law schools. As Members may know, law schools also run pro bono centres with the assistance of tutors and students. We have also reached out to the Singapore Mediation Centre or SMC for assistance where mediators can then help parties to break the impasse during the negotiation period. Because very often, when you have two individuals come together, the environment could be hostile in those situations where expert mediators can play a role, MinLaw officers will put them in touch with SMC mediators to try to facilitate the process.
All of that, done in the context of understanding that what we really want out of this, is for parties to renegotiate their positions, come up with something that both sides can live with, mutually workable and carry on from that position.
Mr Murali suggested that model clauses be looked at and I think that is a very good idea. We will work on some of those and maybe consult with Mr Murali as well. We have another pro bono source now. And we will tap on Mr Murali's experience and expertise to work some of these clauses into contracts upon renegotiation.
Ms Soh also asked if there will be enough Assessors with the right qualifications to ensure that the determinations are responsive. I think that is another very important point because much as we want the process to be resolved quickly with a six-week time period, we also want to ensure that the Assessors will be able to expeditiously, in the context of the case, reach a decision.
Our Assessors for the contractual moratorium period set up by \"COVID 1\", comprise mainly volunteers. I outlined that in a previous Parliamentary Question. For this framework, the six-week deadline as I mentioned, means that we must expect that most of the applications will coalesce and come together at around the same time. And so, the applications for the adjustments will also likely be more complex with regard to the schedule that we have set up and yet at the same time, need to be more timely.
So, the mechanism that we have set up, we will require more resources and hence, we have decided that the Assessors for this Bill, will first of all be a dedicated and separate pool of Assessors from the earlier COVID-19 Bills. Second, they will also be full-time Assessors, engaged by the Ministry to look into these cases and they will comprise experienced lawyers and accountants who will look at this on a full-time basis once the Bill is in force.
Ms Soh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about legal advice and legal representation in relation to claims under the COVID-19 Bill for assessment. I just want to clarify that legal advice is always available. And legal advice in fact, will be available through the various pro bono options that I have outlined earlier. What we have not done is to allow for lawyers to represent the parties before the Assessors and there are good reasons for that.
First, if you have a lawyer represent one party, it is invariably going to be the stronger party to the negotiation. The whole purpose and raison d'etre behind this, is to assist the smaller micro and small enterprises to be able to take advantage of this Bill and to try and take a position before the Assessor. So, we do not want the two parties to be unequally represented before the Assessor.
Second, this process is not designed with legalities in mind, where rules of evidence, how you prove a case and so on will be the central feature of the assessment. It is really about looking at what is fair and just, in the context of the case, in the context of the two parties and the circumstances between the two parties.
As Members know, the Assessors' overarching objective is really to achieve that fairness. From that perspective, it is not an adversarial process with the Assessor in the middle. The Assessor is really trying to bring the parties together to find what is a fair and just outcome for both parties.
Madam, I turn now to the questions raised on the Simplified Insolvency Programme or SIP. Mr Chia also asked about the eligibility criteria and whether they could cover a large number of companies and whether we could include other qualifying criteria. I think for the earlier reasons I have set out, we would not want to differentiate the criteria. Because there is already a fairly clear criteria not only in terms of the size of the entity, but also as I outlined in my opening speech, we are also restricting qualification to number of creditors, number of employees, the size of the debt and in the context of liquidation, the amount of realisable asset. So, these criteria already scope the relevant cases and right-size the kinds of companies and corporates, who are entitled to take advantage of the SIP.
I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also sought to argue that there ought to be a differentiated tier for a small company, that is different from a micro company, that might be different from another company. I think what we wanted to do as its name suggest is to simplify it and not to over complicate the matter. As I said, these are the criteria that look at different touchpoints in the context of a restructuring or liquidation, and already right-sizes the corporates for the purposes of this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng made several comments and have some queries in relation to the lowering of the threshold for creditor approval. Mr Ng asked about the guidance and assistance provided to these companies and their creditors both at the initial stage and if accepted into the programme, during the restructuring process.
The viability and suitability of a micro or small company for the simplified debt restructuring will be continually evaluated. I outlined at the outset, in my opening speech, that not only does the criteria have to be satisfied at the outset but the Restructuring Adviser and the Official Receiver continually evaluates if the company can continue to maintain its eligibility criteria, and whether or not it is in a position to carry out with these functions as stipulated by either the restructuring plan or in the liquidation process.
Mr Ng asked about the licensing and regulatory framework behind IRDA, in particular section 50(1A) and the extent or scope to which the Minister intends to exempt and individual from being a qualified person. Allow me, Madam, to first clarify that the amendment is a separate one from the Simplified Insolvency Programme and the amendment will supplement the general powers of the Minister found in Part 3, Division 3 of IRDA and this relates to the licensing of insolvency practitioners.
The exemption may be granted to a professional who has accrued sufficient expertise and experience, so practical experience, undertaking insolvency work as an approved liquidator under the predecessor Companies Act, but who does not presently meet the qualified person requirement. Granting an exemption in such a situation would allow this individual to be considered for the insolvency practitioner's licence and to continue to undertake such work under IRDA. One other example, which I did allude to in my opening speech was for foreign practitioners who are involved in cross-border, multi-jurisdictional restructurings, to also be allowed to come into Singapore to practise to the extent that an aspect of the restructuring either touches on or involves Singaporean assets or Singaporean stakeholders.
Mr Tay had a series of questions on the employees and I would like to just briefly respond to those questions that deal with the position of employees and how they are protected in the context of both the simplified restructuring and the simplified liquidation. As Mr Tay would appreciate, the approach and treatment of claims under these two situations are quite different. One is for the continued rehabilitation of the company and the other is for the dissolution and liquidation.
In a restructuring scenario, the impetus is to facilitate the potential rehabilitation and for there to be a meaningful rehabilitation, the employees will be an important group of stakeholders. The Simplified Debt Restructuring programme, in fact, through its threshold requirements, expressly recognises this position. Hence, if a company proposes to compromise debts owed to employees and other unsecured creditors with preferential debts under section 203 of IRDA, then these creditors will, as a default, vote in a separate class under the proposed section 72M(4)(b)(ii). What this means is that, without the assent of this group of creditors, the scheme will not pass. Each of the classes have to, on their own, pass the two-thirds threshold before the scheme will be sanctioned.
To avoid doubt, this provision, however, is not intended to affect the existing principles that apply to classification in schemes of arrangements generally, outside of the current Simplified Debt Restructuring programme.
In relation to a situation where companies is in an insolvent liquidation, this is different because it is a terminal procedure and this is a scenario where there are insufficient debts to meet the creditors' claims, including the employees' claims. In this context, the existing priority of debt provisions under section 203 of IRDA already strikes the appropriate balance by giving priority to the varying claims in a descending order as Members might know. This is to facilitate an orderly and optimal distribution of the company's assets. The cost and expenses of liquidation and the expenses of the applicant for the winding up under section 203(1)(a) to 203(1)(c) are paid out first before any other debts. Removing priority for this type of categories of claims would undermine an orderly liquidation and also a distribution of dividends.
To Mr Tay's point, that ranks in priority to the employees' claims and after that, those priority claims are paid off, the employees claims would then be paid next, thereafter.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had one other point about section 72H and section 250H. This relates to the criteria for admission into the Simplified Insolvency Programme, both for restructuring and liquidation. And I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had some comments about how this is a broad use of Executive discretion.
I wish to assure Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that, first of all, this is not meant to overturn the Official Receiver's decision to admit a company into the programme. This allows the Minister some discretion at the margins where, if a company might, say, have 51 employees instead of 50, in all other respects, you satisfy the criteria, the Minister has the discretion to allow this company into the programme.
This is no free pass because all the other criteria to the programme, including the continued satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, still apply to these companies. It is not as if it is a broad discretion, or at least that is how I heard it to be, which seems to turn the criteria upside down. It does not do that and it only allows, out of fairness, for some corporates who exist at the margins, who may not have made it into the criteria, to be considered by the Minister.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe I have covered most if not all of the queries raised by Members. With that, I beg to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any clarifications? Okay.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\". This Bill is linked to the earlier Bill on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. We have had a substantive debate on both Bills and Members have raised their questions and expressed their views. These have been responded to. Therefore, Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 1.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (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":"Monitoring COVID-19 Sample Testing to Prevent Future Lapses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health regarding the lapses in COVID-19 sample testing (a) whether the Ministry audits the standard operating procedures of the laboratories in order to prevent future lapses; (b) to date, how many incidents have been reported to the Ministry; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to further strengthen the COVID-19 testing framework.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics (PHMC) Act requires all clinical laboratory licensees to put in place an effective quality management system. MOH reviews the laboratories' Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and quality measures among other requirements, including participation in external quality assessments for every type of test performed, and licensees are required to address any gaps in process controls prior to being licensed. Clinical laboratories approved for COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing are also required to perform satisfactorily in a parallel testing with National Public Health Laboratory (NPHL), with appropriate improvement measures implemented prior to scaling.
To date, there were 11 incidents reported to the Ministry for further investigations, out of a total of 3.68 million tests performed as of 26 Oct 2020. Three incidents relate to self-reported apparatus and equipment issues with no impact to the test results; three relate to improper specimen handling causing backlog or delay of test results; and five relate to quality control and reporting lapses causing test result errors. MOH was able to take quick actions to address any public health issues arising from these cases. MOH treats all incidents seriously and our investigations assessed them to be isolated events and did not result from any systemic laboratory issues.
When incidents occur in a clinical laboratory, MOH also requires the laboratory to review all its processes to identify the root cause and take appropriate corrective and preventive actions to address the laboratory error identified. The adequacy and appropriateness of the laboratory’s review and actions taken are also assessed by MOH.
For COVID-19 testing, additional quality assurance measures were introduced where a process review would be initiated to exclude any laboratory lapses when the laboratory’s result does not corroborate with clinical findings. In such instances, MOH will also provide expert advice to improve processes where needed. There are ongoing efforts to continually monitor the laboratory’s performance, and to engage the laboratories collaboratively to enhance the overall performance through further system integration and automation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspected \"Long COVID-19\" Cases in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there have been any reported or suspected cases of \"long COVID\" cases in Singapore; and (b) if so, how many cases have been reported.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: 'Long COVID', one of the names given to lingering symptoms of COVID-19 infection after a person has recovered, has been the subject of discussion as more COVID-19 cases arise in the current pandemic. What constitutes a 'long COVID' case is currently not well defined, and is the subject of on-going studies.
MOH has thus far not received any reports of 'long COVID'. However, our healthcare institutions are following their recovered patients closely to look for prolonged and lingering symptoms arising from COVID-19 as well as for late complications from the infection. We will also continue to monitor the emerging findings on long term effects of COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of Private Hire Cars Versus Taxis and Plans to Standardise Regulations for Both","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the last three years, what is the monthly utilisation rate of private hire cars versus taxis; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to regulate the private hire car and taxi population to be in line with Singapore's vision to be car-lite.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2018 and September 2020, the average monthly hired rates for taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are about 90% and 79% respectively.
There is a limit to the growth of taxi and PHC populations. For taxis, LTA only allows taxi operators to grow their fleets by up to 2% annually. As for PHCs, they are part of the COE system. Within these limits, the vehicle populations adjust according to the market. Hence, since January 2020, the population of taxis reduced by about 13% while that for PHCs fell by 9%.
The Government's policy is to encourage mass public transport. Notwithstanding, point to point services such as taxis and PHCs have a place in the land transport system. They provide jobs to many drivers and offer commuters a convenient service at a higher price point. It was not too long ago when taxis were in shortage, which frustrates many commuters. Today, with the advent of PHCs complementing taxi services, this is no longer an issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Profile of Private Hire Car Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the respective number of active private hire car drivers and taxi drivers compared to the respective number of holders of private hire car driver's vocational licence and taxi driver's vocational licence; and (b) for private hire car drivers, what is the breakdown based on (i) full-time versus part-time drivers (ii) Singaporeans versus non-Singaporeans and (iii) drivers below the age of 30.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of end August 2020, there are:
(a) About 97,000 Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence holders of whom 32,000 are registered drivers in the month of August 2020; and
(b) About 52,000 Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) holders, of whom 43,000 drove at least one PHC trip in the same month. Given the flexible nature of PHC driving, there is no official definition for a full-time PHC driver.
Currently, about 95% of PDVL holders are Singaporeans, and the rest are permanent residents; 85% are above the age of 30. Since 15 September 2020, new PDVL applicants must be Singapore Citizens who are at least 30 years old. Existing PDVL holders are not affected by the new rule as long as they continue to renew their PDVLs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scams Targeting Children and Teens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past year, how many scam victims have been children/teens aged 17 and below; (b) what are the common scams targeting children; (c) what are the measures taken to mitigate this problem; and (d) whether there is a legal liability on parents when their children are found to have an account on an online platform despite not meeting the legal age of use.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the 12-month period between October 2019 and September 2020, 430 persons aged 17 and below had been a victim of scams.
Victims in this age group most commonly fall prey to e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams. In the last year, there were 214 and 105 persons aged 17 and below who were victims of e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams respectively.
The Police have been working closely with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness on scams, with specific messages for e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams. In December 2018, the Police launched the \"Young Police Buddy\" initiative aimed at raising crime awareness, including scams, amongst primary school students. The NCPC and Police have also developed advisories for popular messaging apps like TikTok, which are frequently used by youths.
The Police also work with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) to raise awareness on cyber safety. The Police and CSA recently published an interactive Cyber Safety handbook to help young readers navigate cyberspace safely and learn how to spot online scams. The handbook was distributed to all Primary 5 students and is available on CSA's website.
Our laws do not impose any legal obligation on parents to ensure that their children meet the legal age of use before setting up an online account. Nonetheless, we urge parents to play a proactive role in ensuring their children's cyber-wellness and cyber-safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workfare Special Payment and Workfare Income Supplement for Those Holding Multiple Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether Workfare Special Payment 2020 can be considered for workers who hold multiple jobs with each job salary within $2,000; and (b) if so, can the same criteria be extended for eligibility of future Workfare Income Supplement.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Workfare Income Supplement is intended to help supplement the incomes of Singaporean workers in the bottom 20%, with a smaller degree of support for those slightly above. During this challenging period, the one-off Workfare Special Payment is an additional support component provided to those receiving the Workfare Income Supplement for Work Years 2019 or 2020.
Given that Workfare and the Workfare Special Payment are intended for lower-wage workers with limited household resources, using the total income earned by the worker from all employment sources is a fairer way to assess their eligibility for the additional support, together with other criteria such as the Annual Value of residence and income of their spouse.
We recognise that this is a difficult period for many Singaporeans. Many lower-wage workers would also have received higher Care and Support – Cash payments, and support under government schemes such as the GST Voucher scheme. Those who require further financial support may seek help through the MSF Social Service Offices.
36 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is driving the recent demand for landed and private properties in Singapore; (b) how are banks scrutinising the loan applicants under the current economic climate; and (c) whether there is a risk of a property bubble with the current market demand.
Mr Desmond Lee: The transaction volume of private residential properties has increased following the reopening of sales galleries and home viewings post Circuit-Breaker. Our assessment is that this reflects pent-up demand, supported by the current accommodative interest rate environment.
Overall, private housing prices have remained broadly stable, rising marginally by 0.1% in the first three quarters of the year. The earlier rounds of cooling measures have moderated the property market cycles, and brought prices more in line with economic fundamentals.
MAS also has in place macroprudential measures, such as the total debt servicing ratio (TDSR) and loan-to-value limits, to protect households from over-extending themselves when taking out residential property loans. For instance, the TDSR framework anticipates potential volatility in an individual’s income by imposing a 30% haircut on variable income, and accounts for future interest rate increases by applying a higher medium term loan interest rate of 3.5% to compute monthly residential property loan instalments.
In processing new mortgage applications, banks are expected to continue to maintain sound credit underwriting standards and prudent lending practices, especially in the current economic environment. Banks are mindful that an individual’s income could become more uncertain during this period and will take that into account when assessing potential borrowers.
All prospective buyers should carefully consider their ability to service their mortgage obligations over many years, and not be attracted by low interest rates in the short term. Given the labour market uncertainties in the current economic situation, prospective buyers should remain prudent in their property purchase and financing decisions. The Government will continue to monitor the property market closely, and will adjust our policies where necessary to maintain a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Number and Severity of BTO Flat Defects Associated with Particular Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB monitors the number and severity of BTO flat defects associated with particular contractors in particular developments, both during and after the one-year defects liability period; (b) whether HDB takes into account the number and severity of defects caused by particular contractors in prior developments when awarding future contracts; and (c) if so, how much weight is accorded to such defects when awarding future contracts.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB tracks the performance of contractors closely during construction, and the Defects Liability Period (DLP). During this time, contractors are assessed every six months under HDB's Contractors Performance Assessment (CPA) framework, which takes into account the progress of site works, the quality of works completed, as well as site safety. Poor performance, including a high incidence of defects, whether at the construction or the DLP stages, will result in lower CPA scores, and impact the contractor’s ability to secure future HDB projects.
In evaluating building tenders, HDB adopts the Price Quality Method (PQM) where tender bids are scored according to price, quality and productivity criteria. The CPA scores of a particular contractor constitute part of the quality component in the PQM evaluation.
The vast majority of defects are reported during the DLP, and would therefore be factored into a contractor’s CPA score. For issues reported after the DLP, HDB will investigate the likely cause and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. If the issue is assessed to be due to an inherent defect or quality issue, HDB will engage the building contractor to rectify it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment of Persons With Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many persons with disabilities (PWDs) are currently employed and how many PWDs are looking for employment; (b) how many employers currently have PWDs in their employ; (c) what further support can be extended to employers to encourage them to employ more PWDs; and (d) what further support can be extended to families of PWDs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on data from the Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (CLFS), among resident persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the working ages of 15 to 64 in 2018 and 2019, on average, 28.2% were employed, 3.6% were without a job and actively looking for one, and the remaining 68.2% of resident PwDs were outside the labour force, with most of them citing poor health or disability as the main reason. Based on the number of PwDs known to SG Enable, MSF estimates that there are around 32,000 PwDs aged 15 – 64, of whom around 9,000 are employed, 1,000 are unemployed, and around 22,000 are outside of the labour force.
Employers receive wage offsets under the Special Employment Credit (SEC) and Additional Special Employment Credit (ASEC) for Singaporean PwDs earning below $4,000 a month. In the first half of 2020, there were almost 5,000 employers who received SEC and ASEC for over 8,300 Singaporean PwDs who were in their employ. The total number of employers who employ PwDs would be higher than 5,000, as there are other employers who employ PwDs who earn more than $4000 a month.
The Government is committed to supporting the employment and employability of PwDs. The SEC and ASEC, which provide wage offsets of up to $240 a month for PwDs under 67, and $330 for PwDs over 67, will expire in December 2020, and be replaced by the Enabling Employment Credit (EEC). The EEC will provide employers of Singaporean PwDs with a wage offset of up to 20% of the employee’s monthly income, with a higher cap of $400 a month, compared to the SEC and ASEC. In addition, employers who hire Singaporean PwDs who have not been employed for at least six months will receive an additional wage offset of up to 10% capped at $200 a month, for a period of six months.
Last month, the Government announced that we will provide the higher level of wage support of 50% under the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) to all new local PwDs hired by JGI-eligible firms from September 2020 to February 2021. We are also finalising plans through the National Jobs Council to provide more support for employers to hire PwDs during this economic downturn and will announce more details when ready.
These additional support measures will complement the existing support available under the Open Door Programme, which helps PwDs enter suitable jobs and better integrate into the workplace. The job placement and support services under the ODP are free and available to all PwD jobseekers and employers.
We will also continue to invest in training, both to equip PwDs with industry-relevant skills, and to help employers and co-workers work better with PwDs. In the first half of 2020, 209 PwDs benefited from the ODP Training Grant, which subsidises course fees and provides training allowance. Employers also receive funding to send their employees for training to better understand how to work with colleagues with disabilities. The ODP Training Grant was enhanced in July 2020 to provide stronger funding support to encourage more employers to send their employees with disabilities for training. Under the enhanced Training Grant, there are more course fee subsidies and training allowance, as well as a new training commitment award of $100 per completed eligible training course.
We will continue to push for progressive and inclusive workplaces, and recognise employers who are leading the way. To help defray the cost of job redesign initiatives, the ODP Job Redesign Grant provides funding of up to 90% of job redesign costs, capped at $20,000 per employee with disabilities. SG Enable also launched the Enabling Mark earlier this month, which is a national-level accreditation framework that seeks to incentivise organisations to adopt best practices, and support them as they improve their inclusive employment practices.
MSF set up the Enabling Masterplan Workgroup on \"Preparing PwDs for the Future Economy\" last year comprising members from the people, private and public sectors. This is a collaborative, cross-sectoral effort to co-solution and co-implement initiatives to improve the employability of PwDs. Some of these initiatives have already been implemented, such as the enhancements to the wage support scheme and the ODP Training Grant, as well as the launch of the Enabling Mark mentioned earlier. We are also looking at other initiatives to expand opportunities for lifelong learning, create more job opportunities, and better support PwDs at the workplace. The workgroup will release its full report and recommendations in the first half of 2021.
Beyond support for inclusive employers and PwDs, the Government recognises that families and caregivers are the first line of support for PwDs. We have introduced financial assistance schemes such as the Home Caregiving Grant last year, and CareShield Life earlier this month. The Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) also helps caregivers to develop care plans to ensure that the future needs of their loved ones are met. We have worked through SG Enable to build caregiver support networks, facilitate peer-to-peer training, and support ground-up initiatives such as the Inaugural Care Carnival that was held in November 2019. Detailed information on all these caregiver support services can be found on the Enabling Guide website which was launched by SG Enable last year. We will continue to partner caregivers to co-create solutions that better address their needs and concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Age of First-time Recipient of Subsidised Hearing Aid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the median age of a first-time recipient of a subsidised hearing aid; and (b) what is the median, 10th percentile, and 90th percentile operational lifespan of a subsidised hearing aid device.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Seniors' Mobility & Enabling Fund (SMF) supports seniors as they age by providing eligible Singaporeans aged 60 years and above with means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of home healthcare items and assistive devices. The median age of seniors receiving hearing aids under the SMF is 77.
A standard hearing aid can typically last for three to five years. However, the actual lifespan differs depending on factors such as how well the device is maintained.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Drug Subsidy under Medication Assistance Fund Plus Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) how many applications for drug subsidy does the Drug Advisory Committee receive every year and how many of these applications are successful; (b) how many patients have received drug subsidies every year under the Medication Assistance Fund Plus scheme since it was introduced in 2011; and (c) whether the Ministry has conducted any review of the current framework for drug subsidy since the Standard Drug List Gap Analysis Project in 2007.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are currently 581 drugs on the Standard Drug List (SDL) and 66 drugs listed for Medication Assistance Fund (MAF). The number of MAF recipients has been rising each year. In 2019, almost 18,000 unique patients received assistance from MAF. Drugs listed on the MAF are generally more expensive and must be prescribed to patients with specific clinical conditions in order to qualify for subsidy.
The Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) is supported by the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). Each year, ACE receives applications for around 35 drugs for subsidy consideration from public healthcare institutions. Other drugs are also identified for evaluation through horizon scanning and monitoring drug utilisation trends. Since January 2016, ACE has evaluated 211 drugs for the DAC's deliberation. 114 of these drugs were recommended by the DAC for subsidy listing on either the SDL or MAF.
ACE conducts regular horizon scanning and gap analyses to identify therapeutic gaps in the SDL and MAF. For instance, this resulted in the listing of SGLT2 inhibitors for Type 2 diabetes mellitus in 2018, which reduced the co-payment for eligible patients to below $10 a month after 75% subsidy. We will continue to review the list of subsidised drugs regularly to ensure it is sufficiently comprehensive to meet the needs of our local population while taking into account evidence on clinical and cost effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandate of Statutory Boards' Investment Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the investment mandate for EDBI; (b) what has been the number of investments made to date; (c) at what stages are these investments currently in; and (d) what is the value that the portfolio companies have contributed to Singapore.
49 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) apart from EDB and ESG forming their own investment funds, whether there are any other Statutory Boards that have plans to launch their own venture capital offshoots; and (b) what is the rationale for launching the funds if there are plans to do so.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Trade and Industry aims to build a vibrant economy in Singapore, with globally competitive companies and exciting jobs. To do this, the Government employs a variety of tools including venture capital-type investment funds. Each fund supports different economic objectives and invests in companies at different stages of their development.
Enterprise Singapore (ESG) administers the Startup SG Equity scheme, through which the government co-invests with third party investors in Singapore-based, tech startups. The funds are managed by SEEDS Capital, the investment arm of ESG, and SGInnovate, a private organisation wholly-owned by the government.
The National Research Foundation (NRF) administers the Early Stage Venture Fund (ESVF) that seeds funds with selected venture capital firms to invest in Singapore-based early-stage technology startups, as well as startups whose business models are underpinned by intellectual property generated from publicly-funded research.
EDBI invests mainly in globally competitive startups and high-growth small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which have the potential to compete globally and through Singapore, participate in our economic transformation or deepen our capabilities. EDBI's portfolio comprises about a hundred investments, the majority of which are in the growth stage.
Many of these companies eventually established their regional headquarters, R&D operations, innovation labs and other operations. These activities in turn create good jobs, strengthen our capabilities, develop our industries and grow our economy.
There are currently no plans to set up new venture capital-type investment funds. Nonetheless, the government will continue to monitor our evolving industry landscape, investment opportunities, and assess if there is a need to do more.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permission for Foreigners Due to Register Marriages with Singapore Citizens to Enter Singapore Despite COVID-19 Travel Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether entry into Singapore can be accorded to foreigners to allow them specifically to register their marriages with their fiance/fiancee who are Singapore Citizens at the Registry of Marriages provided that they adhere to the prevailing health checks and quarantine measures as prescribed.
Mr K Shanmugam: To manage the risk of importation of COVID-19 into Singapore, all foreign visitors are required to seek prior approval before entering Singapore. ICA will generally be facilitative of foreigners who apply to enter Singapore to register their marriage with a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident. They will need to submit an application for entry via the ICA website. If the application is approved, they will be subject to the prevailing COVID-19 measures for inbound travellers, such as the Stay-Home Notice (SHN) and swab test requirements, including related fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Patients from Unnecessary Optional Medical Screenings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Government protect patients from being subjected to unnecessary optional medical screenings; and (b) how many cases of abuse or fraudulent medical claims have been detected in the past five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Physicians are encouraged to take reference from the clinical guidelines on screening tests published by the Screening Test Review Committee (STRC). The STRC is made up of senior clinicians from across various disciplines. The STRC Guidelines recommend tests shown to be safe, cost-effective and appropriate for health screening, in the early detection of illnesses in asymptomatic patients. Such patients may be apparently healthy individuals, or patients that are seeking treatment for a particular disease but are offered further screening tests to detect diseases that have not yet manifested. The Guidelines also highlight tests which have insufficient clinical evidence to be effective for the screening of certain diseases and encourages patient to be educated on possible harm of screening using these tests.
The Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) require that doctors offering screening tests ensure that these are validated and clinically appropriate. The ECEG also mandates that advertisements for health screening services must also be factual, verifiable and not be misleading, or induce the public to seek healthcare services which they may not need.
MOH supports appropriate health screenings through subsidies for the Screen for Life (SFL) programme. Under this program, Singapore residents are encouraged to go for regular, evidence-based, health screening at Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioner clinics, polyclinics and participating community providers. Clinicians will assess patient factors such as age, gender and medical history before prescribing the appropriate health screening. MOH also allows MediSave to be used for specific screening tests such as mammograms in higher risk age groups.
Based on audits of claims for MediSave claimable health screening tests, there had been no evidence of fraud or abuse detected. Nevertheless, MOH takes a serious view of any attempts to defraud or abuse the healthcare system, public funds or Medisave, and will continue to work with the medical community to investigate any such reports. We encourage the public to provide feedback to MOH if they are aware of such cases of fraud or abuse. MOH will also continue to educate the population on the appropriate use of health screening tests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study of Impact of Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening on IVF Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is aware of any scientific studies which suggest that the Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening will negatively affect the success rates of embryo implantation, pregnancy and live births for people who go through in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Published studies on Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) have reported mixed findings, ranging from those with favourable outcomes for PGS in selected patient groups, to those that find that PGS does not improve, or may even result in lower, in-vitro fertilization success rates. For example, a 2013 randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that the sustained implantation rate and delivery rate per cycle were significantly higher in the PGS group compared to the control group. However, a 2018 RCT found that PGS did not increase live birth rates in women of advanced maternal age, while a 2011 meta-analysis of RCTs showed lower live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates in the PGS group compared to the control group.
However, given the limitations of the studies (such as suboptimal recruitment), the clinical efficacy of PGS remains widely debated. More data is needed before we can conclude on the clinical efficacy of PGS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-English Language Provisions for SGUnited Skills Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education under the SGUnited Skills programme, what provisions have been made to cater for potential applicants who are not conversant in English and whether some of the courses and training schemes can be offered in mother tongue languages.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As SGUnited Skills (SGUS) courses are designed to help trainees acquire industry-relevant skills, they require a functional understanding of relevant technical terminology in English.
To cater for jobseekers who are less proficient in English, the SGUS programme includes bridging modules on Workplace Literacy. These modules range from one to three months, and cover skills like reading and writing at the workplace.
SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) is prepared to work with training providers to offer SGUS courses in other languages, if there is sufficient demand, and if the industry and designated job roles allow for it. SSG currently supports courses conducted in other languages. For example, basic courses on hygiene and food safety, as well as on information and communications technology are conducted in Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Home-based Care-giving Services to Protect Infants and Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the recent case of a babysitter found guilty of poisoning two infants (a) what are the regulatory requirements to be a home-based babysitter in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will look into regulating home-based care-giving services to protect infants and children from harm.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Home-based care arrangements are generally more informal and small-scale (compared to centre-based care), and are founded on mutual trust between parents and caregivers. Many parents rely on grandparents, relatives, friends or neighbours for such arrangements.
There are no specific regulations for such small-scale, home-based care services. Regulation, with its attendant registration requirements, may discourage such familial arrangements. Home-based care also tends to be decentralised, small-scale, and varied in nature, making it difficult to enforce a common set of standards in the home environment.
For parents who choose to engage these informal home-based care services, we encourage them to know their caregivers and conduct the necessary checks before doing so, such as obtaining and checking references from past clients. There are also legal safeguards in place against mistreatment of children under the Children and Young Persons Act and the Penal Code. For any cases of suspected mistreatment or abuse of children by centre-based staff or informal caregivers, parents can make a report to the police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Rare Disease Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Rare Disease Fund.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Rare Disease Fund (RDF) is a charity established to support Singapore Citizens suffering from rare genetic diseases, where medication is often very costly and required for life. For example, Gaucher disease, which require the drug \"Cerezyme\" to replace the missing enzyme the body is unable to produce, can cost a child more than $24,000 monthly. The cost will increase into adulthood, as the required dose increases with weight. It was set up in 2019 by the Ministry of Health and the SingHealth Fund in response to calls from the community to better support these Singaporeans as a caring and inclusive society. The RDF is designed to provide long-term financial support to defray the very high cost of medications of these patients over their lifetimes.
Through the RDF, the Government and the community come together to support these patients and their families – the public through their donations, and the government through 3-to-1 matching of these donations. Donations are eligible for tax-exemption, and the Government also funds all administrative costs so that donations go fully to patients. The target was to raise $25 million for a start, and as at end September we have raised $21 million. Together with government seed funding and matching, the RDF currently stands at $93 million.
Most of these funds are put aside into an endowment fund such that only the investment income will be used to support patients. In this way, we can sustainably support beneficiaries, and give them assurance that financial support will be available over their lifetime. An RDF Committee comprising volunteer members, and supported by clinical experts, has been appointed to assess suitable drugs and applications from patients.
Six medicines that treat four rare disease conditions have been included for support from the RDF for a start. A few more drugs are under consideration. To date, the fund has six beneficiaries who require a total of $2 million in support since the launch of RDF. This amount is expected to increase over time as many of the patients are young and will require higher doses of medicine as they grow.
Donations have understandably slowed this year. As more medicines and beneficiaries can be supported with more donations, we encourage everyone to donate generously to this cause.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Volume and Frequency of Pre-recorded Public Announcements on MRT Trains and in MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport whether the volume and frequency of pre-recorded public announcements on MRT trains and in MRT stations can be reduced to give commuters a quieter travel experience and minimise their need to speak loudly, thus reducing the spread of airborne viruses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public announcements on MRT trains and stations serve two essential purposes. First, to announce service-related information such as the upcoming station. Second, to convey important safety and security related issues, such as reminding passengers on what to do when they see suspicious-looking persons or unattended baggage. The volume of these public announcements are calibrated to ensure that announcements may be heard above the ambient noise level.
In view of the COVID-19 situation, we would like to remind commuters to refrain from talking to one another or on mobile phones and to wear their masks at all times. Together, we can make the public transport experience a safe and pleasant one for all commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Busking Despite On-going COVID-19 Situation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether buskers can start busking again; (b) if so when; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank the Member for raising this topic. Our buskers enliven Singapore’s streets and neighbourhoods, and busking has become a platform for them to creatively express themselves and share their talents. Thus, my Ministry is also keen to allow busking to resume under safe public health conditions.
MCCY and MOH are exploring busking pilots to test out the safe management measures required for busking. These pilots would be held at selected venues, where we are confident that venue managers will be able to comply with the necessary measures and maintain the safe distances required for audiences and the performers.
We are adopting a cautious approach with busking because there are specific challenges that we have to address. Firstly, most busking activities involve singing, wind or brass instruments – all which bear higher risks of virus transmission as they require the expulsion of air. Secondly, there is also the challenge of crowd management and maintaining the safe distance of audiences in ungated spaces. Nevertheless, we will continue to identify measures and ways to resume busking activities safely.
In the meantime, we urge buskers, like other artists, to reach out to audiences through digital means and take this opportunity to continue upskilling. Since April 2020, NAC, *SCAPE and the Singapore Buskers' Association have worked with different online partners such as Twitch.tv, and Circles.Life to enable buskers to bring their content to audiences. We note that Nee Soon East Community Club has introduced e-busking initiatives and welcome more of such opportunities. In October, NAC also organised a virtual talk for buskers about leveraging digital platforms. Another session will be organised in December 2020 and buskers are encouraged to join.
We also urge members of the public to continue supporting Singapore’s arts and culture community – by attending digital performances and donating to your preferred artists and groups to enable them to continue practising their craft during this difficult period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection of Data Collected for Next-generation ERP System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what data fields will be collected by the new ERP system; (b) where will the data be stored; (c) how will the data will be anonymised and at which point in the data collection process will it be anonymised; (d) who will have access to both the non-anonymised and anonymised data; (e) what protocols are put in place to ensure that the data will not be mishandled and will remain securely held; and (f) under what circumstances can the data be accessed by other parties.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Like many applications and payment systems we use today, the next-generation Electronic Road Pricing (nexgen ERP) system will collect transaction data such as whether the vehicle is on ERP-priced roads, the amount charged and whether the transaction is successfully completed. The system will also collect road traffic data such as vehicle speeds.
Nexgen ERP was designed with strict data security safeguards. This was a key consideration when LTA, in consultation with other agencies, decided on using an on-board unit (OBU) to process the transactions, as opposed to an open system using our smartphones. There are also safeguards in place governing the storage, usage and sharing of data, in line with Government-wide standards.
For road traffic data, once it is transferred from the OBU to LTA's backend system, the data will be automatically anonymised. The data will be aggregated for traffic management and transport planning purposes. As an existing practice, such data can also be shared with third-party developers and researchers to develop traffic management solutions. For example, LTA publishes aggregated land transport datasets on the LTA DataMall website.
As for vehicle-specific data, LTA will only use it for payments, charges and enforcement. Summons related to such non-payments will largely be auto-generated.
Like all Government agencies, personnel who can access nexgen ERP data will be tightly controlled and restricted to a need-to-know basis, and data access will be logged and regularly reviewed.
LTA also adheres to Government-wide standards on data sharing with other Government agencies. For example, sharing of data to support policy and planning purposes will only be done on an anonymised or aggregated basis, in accordance with the Public Service (Governance) Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Specific Category of \"Second-hand Smoke from Neighbour\" on NEA's Online Feedback Form","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can include a specific category of \"second-hand smoke from neighbour\" on NEA's online feedback form to accurately capture the amount of concerns on this issue.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency’s (NEA) online feedback form is designed for the public to provide information on issues regulated by NEA. Currently, the feedback form lists 13 categories which cover the most common types of feedback received by NEA, such as smoking at prohibited places, littering and mosquito breeding. In addition, there is a general category for the submission of feedback on other issues, including secondhand tobacco smoke from neighbours. Feedback providers can select one of these 13 categories when submitting their feedback.
The form is designed to be user-friendly and hence, care has been taken to list the more common feedback issues. Having too finely cut categories covering the broad range of issues under NEA may make the feedback process cumbersome and even increase the chances of erroneous tagging by feedback providers.
Feedback on secondhand tobacco smoke from neighbours submitted through the form remain small. Secondhand tobacco smoke from neighbours in homes constitutes just 1.2% of total feedback submitted through the form this year. This is much lower than some of the most common feedback areas such as mosquito breeding, which accounted for 16% of the total feedback. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the feedback on secondhand tobacco smoke from neighbours to see if this category warrants inclusion in the form.
In addition, every feedback item recorded in NEA's system is promptly looked into and tagged appropriately. In the backend, NEA will sieve out the feedback on specific issues and monitor the trends accordingly.
Besides NEA, there are other accessible channels for the public to provide their feedback on smoking-related matters. The Municipal Services Office, Housing Development Board, Health Promotion Board and Town Councils also receive such feedback and will respond accordingly. All these agencies work closely together on joint-solutioning to address feedback on smoking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Merchants and Hawkers under Community Development Council Voucher Scheme and Rate of Redemption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister (a) how many merchants and hawkers have signed up for the Community Development Council Voucher scheme; and (b) what is the rate of redemption thus far.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was launched in June to help defray the cost of living of lower income Singaporean households as well as to support local businesses in the heartlands.
Under the CDC Vouchers scheme, 8000 merchants and hawkers have signed up to participate in this scheme. As of mid October, close to 55% of the total vouchers have been redeemed under this scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Amount Disbursed from COVID-19 Support Schemes to Singapore Residents by Household Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance out of the $5.9 billion in household transfers disbursed to Singapore residents in various COVID-19 support schemes (a) what is the percentage breakdown of the value of transfers by household income level of those who receive them; and (b) what is the average amount received by each household member in different household income level groups.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The $5.9 billion in household transfers comprises the Solidarity Payment, Solidarity Utilities Credit, and measures under the Care and Support Package such as the Care and Support – Cash, PAssion card top-up, Workfare Special Payment, additional GST Voucher – U-Save rebate, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate, Grocery Vouchers, and grants to self-help groups and Community Development Councils (CDCs).
Of the $5.9 billion, $0.2 billion are the additional grants to self-help groups and CDCs for them to use to help needy families and children during this pandemic. These grants are on top of the usual subvention provided to them by the government in our annual Budgets to support them in their work for the community. This $0.2 billion is an indirect transfer and is not included in the breakdown.
Of the $5.7 billion in household transfers, 26% went to households in the bottom 20% (by per capita monthly household income), with an average of about $2,000 received per household member. Households in the middle 20% received 20% of the household transfers, with an average of about $1,500 received per household member. Households in the top 20% received 12% of the household transfers, with an average of about $900 received per household member.
These household transfers are over and above other additional measures to help Singaporean workers during this difficult period such as the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), COVID-19 Support Grant, and the extensive existing education, healthcare, and housing subsidies and structural household support measures like the GST Voucher scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sharing Progress of Carbon Emissions and Sustainability Targets by SAF Annually","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence whether there are targets by the SAF on carbon emissions and sustainability and whether the SAF can commit to sharing progress on these targets annually.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has incorporated environmental sustainability as a key factor within its organisational planning processes. This consideration is subject to the availability of alternate platforms and products which do not compromise SAF's core missions and operational readiness to protect Singapore’s sovereignty and the well-being of Singaporeans.
Within this framework, the SAF's targets on environmental sustainability are also aligned with the energy and water efficiency and green mark building standards under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative. SAF's progress in achieving the targets is also tracked annually as part of this whole-of-government initiative. Some recent examples include the replacement of its fleet of administrative vehicle with hybrid models and electric vehicles when the island's infrastructure is ready; and the incorporation of energy efficient designs for its new buildings and facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Efforts to Raise Awareness about Arctic Issues in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Ministry could provide an update on the efforts to raise awareness about Arctic issues in Singapore; and (b) whether future campaigns can include the impact of melting polar ice caps on Singapore's maritime sector.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore is committed to raising public awareness on the effects of climate change. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) initiated thematic years - the Year of Climate Action in 2018, the Year Towards Zero Waste in 2019, and the Singapore Food Story in 2020, to raise awareness and encourage collective sustainable action. Earlier this year, MSE launched the campaign \"Let’s Game Change Climate Change\" and organised Singapore's Climate Action Week in August, where 30 ground-up initiatives from the 3P (People, Private and Public) sectors were organised to raise awareness on climate action and sustainability issues.
Public interest in the Arctic region has also grown since Singapore's admittance to the Arctic Council as an Observer State in 2013. We have hosted various fora and exhibitions in close cooperation with local and Arctic partners to raise awareness on Arctic issues. These include the \"Changing Course\" multimedia exhibition last year on the climate crisis in the Arctic, and the Arctic Frontier Abroad Forum organised in 2017 and 2019, which brought together key international stakeholders in Singapore to discuss Arctic issues and opportunities. Our youth have taken a greater interest in the Arctic as well. A youth forum on the theme of \"A changing Arctic\" in August 2018 attracted more than 100 youth participants. A Singaporean university student, Victoria Lim, was sponsored under the National Youth Achievement Award in 2018 to participate in the \"Students on Ice\" expedition to the Arctic to study climate change. Our local universities also run programmes that explore subjects like remote energy access, Arctic technology and land use in the Arctic. These are positive signs that Singaporeans are becoming more aware of and concerned with the sustainability of the Arctic, and its implications on our region and the rest of the world.
As a low-lying island with almost 30% of land less than five meters above the mean sea level, the future of the Arctic's environmental well-being will impact Singapore on many fronts, especially transport and shipping. With rising temperatures, the opening of new Arctic water channels, especially the Northern Sea Route, could significantly reduce travel time between Asia and Europe via the Suez Canal by around 20 to 30%. We must continue to monitor developments on the commercial viability of the Arctic route closely, and be nimble to seize new opportunities. Given that Singapore's maritime industry has developed decades of experience and strong credentials in shipbuilding and repair, offshore engineering, port operation and marine support services, we will work with the industry and other stakeholders to ensure that Singapore remains a premier global hub port and international maritime centre. Notwithstanding challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we will continue to anchor Singapore as a critical node in the global supply chain and facilitate the continuous flow of goods.
Singapore's interest in Arctic issues is clear. Our observership in the Arctic Council is an opportunity to learn and play a constructive role. For example, we participate actively in the Arctic Council's Working Groups on Emergency Prevention Preparedness and Response (EPPR), the Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). These efforts are valiantly led by our respective agencies such as MPA, NEA, and NParks. We will continue to take a Whole-of Government approach to build up Singapore's capabilities, contribute meaningfully to Arctic issues, and work with local and Arctic partners to promote greater climate awareness and action in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number of Singaporean Babies Born between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020 by Month","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Singaporean babies were born between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020, with a breakdown by numbers per month.
Mr K Shanmugam: 24,239 Singaporean babies were born between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020. The breakdown by months is in Table 1. These figures are subject to change, as they do not include babies born overseas to Singaporeans who have yet to apply for and been granted Singapore citizenship.
6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, how many drug offenders have returned to drug consumption after release from rehabilitation more than once; (b) how effective is the new drug test through diagnosis of hair instead of urine to identify the repeated offenders; and (c) what are the measures taken to prevent offenders returning to drug consumption.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2015 to 2019, the number of drug abusers who relapsed after having been released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) was approximately 1,300 per year.
However, to better understand the effectiveness of our rehabilitation efforts, we track the two-year recidivism rate. This is an established indicator adopted by most rehabilitation institutions worldwide. The two-year recidivism rate for DRC inmates has remained low, hovering between 23% and 32% in the past five years. In the 1990s, it was about 60% to 70%.
Hair analysis was introduced in 2012 as an alternative drug abuse detection tool. It is as effective as the urine test. Its advantage is that it can detect drug consumption from several months earlier, compared to the urine test which can only detect drug consumption from within one week. The longer detection window allows for a longer drug supervision reporting interval, and this reduces the disruption to the ex-abuser as he seeks to reintegrate into society after release.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) adopts a multi-pronged approach to tackling drug addiction: robust laws, an evidence-based rehabilitation framework, and community and family support.
With the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2019, drug abusers who have not committed other criminal offences will be channelled to the DRC to undergo rehabilitation. In the DRC, abusers undergo psychology-based correctional programmes calibrated to their specific risks and needs, as well as family programmes and skills training.
Abusers will subsequently progress to the Community-based Programme phase, where the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG), in collaboration with community partners, provide support to the abusers in securing employment or opportunities to study, mending their relationship with their family, and generally reintegrating into society.
After the completion of treatment, former drug abusers undergo a period of supervision by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). Besides ensuring that the supervisees report for urine or hair tests, CNB officers will check on their well-being and follow up on their reintegration needs. This allows CNB to intervene early and refer the supervisees to appropriate agencies for follow up, to reduce their risk of relapse.
Community support is critical to helping former drug abusers lead drug-free lives. SPS, CNB and YRSG work with community partners to provide support to former drug abusers in areas such as training, career facilitation, family support and counselling. That said, more importantly, it is the personal determination of the individual former abuser to turn away from drugs and lead a drug-free life henceforth, that will make the difference.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Recording Western Names with Their Surnames Listed First","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to national registration records (a) what is the rationale for recording western names with their surnames (last names) listed first; and (b) whether this can give the misimpression that Singapore is unaware of personal name order conventions around the world.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are different personal name order conventions around the world and there is no universal practice. In view of this, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not register names in any particular sequence.
Names registered under the National Registration Act (NRA) and printed on National Registration Identity Cards (NRICs) are based on: (i) the names listed on registrants' birth certificates for Singapore Citizens (SCs), or (ii) the names listed on registrants' foreign passports for Permanent Residents (PRs). The NRIC does not specify the registrant's first, middle, or last name.
The Singapore birth certificates also do not specify the newborn's first, middle, or last name. The sequence of the name is determined by the parents during the birth registration process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clearer Indication of Surname of Passport Holder in Singapore Passports to Avoid Confusion and Ambiguity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Singapore passports can clearly indicate the surname (or the patronym or matronym) of the passport holder to avoid confusion and ambiguity when the passport is presented at foreign immigration checkpoints or when completing official documents.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Passport complies with the standards and requirements set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
In the name field of the passport biodata page, the passport holder's name is displayed according to how it is registered in his/her birth certificate or National Registration Identity Card (NRIC). The passport holder's surname, if it is specified at birth, will be clearly identified in the machine-readable zone (MRZ) at the bottom left of the passport biodata page after the letters \"PASGP\".
Any foreign authority that scans the MRZ of the passport during immigration clearance will be aware of the passport holder's surname, regardless of how the surname is sequenced in the name field.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Structured, Comprehensive Strategies to Reduce Mental Healthcare Costs in Public and Private Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Mental Wellness Taskforce will look into implementing structured, comprehensive strategies to reduce the costs of mental healthcare in both the public and private sectors; (b) whether there will be a review of the MediShield and MediSave claim limits for mental health conditions; and (c) how is the Ministry working with social welfare organisations to help them cope with increased demand for mental health care support.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce (CoMWT) was set up to look into the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population, take stock of the mental health and well-being initiatives that have been introduced across ministries and agencies to address the impact thus far and identify gaps that will need to be addressed to better meet the mental health needs of the population during this time.
Up to $500 of MediSave can be used annually for the outpatient treatment under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), which includes mental health conditions such as major depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. From 1 January 2021, this annual MediSave withdrawal limit will be raised to $700 for patients with complex chronic conditions under the CDMP. Patients aged 60 and above can also tap on Flexi-MediSave of up to $200 a year.
For inpatient psychiatric treatment, there is an ongoing review of MediShield Life, and one of the preliminary recommendations is to increase the psychiatric claim limit from the current $100 per day (up to 35 days per policy year), to $160 per day (up to 60 days per policy year), to better support patients with mental health conditions. Public consultation for the review has just concluded and the MediShield Life Council is reviewing the feedback received.
To cope with the potential increase in demand for mental health services in the community, MOH together with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), continues to work with community partners such as the Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to develop mental health services under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. This includes expanding community mental health services such as the community outreach teams and community intervention teams to support persons with mental health needs in the community. In addition, the MOH Office for Healthcare Transformation (MOHT) has recently launched mindline.sg, an online platform that SSAs and the public can tap on for mental health and well-being resources. There is also a concerted effort by National Council of Social Services (NCSS) and community partners to strengthen community-health nexus and counselling support for persons with mental health needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Dementia Testing and Support Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is a national dementia plan under development; (b) whether there are any plans to expand testing for dementia for seniors deemed at risk; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider expanding subsidy support to middle-income families for dementia care.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The National Dementia Strategy (NDS) guides the Ministry of Health (MOH), as well as public healthcare institutions (PHIs) and community service providers, in the development and implementation of services to care for persons with dementia, and to support their caregivers. MOH developed the NDS in 2009 in consultation with partners including clinical experts on dementia care. The NDS was reviewed and updated in 2017 to meet the evolving needs of persons with dementia and their caregivers.
Key elements of the NDS include increasing awareness of dementia and promoting early detection of the condition. In this regard, MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care have been working with community service providers to set up community outreach teams, to reach out and look out for seniors exhibiting signs and symptoms of dementia and refer suspected cases for further assessment at the PHIs. As of June 2020, we have set up 48 community outreach teams which have reached out to over 324,000 persons, and we will continue to set up more teams to reach out to more seniors.
Government subsidies are available for dementia care treatments at the PHIs. Singaporeans who need a hospital stay can enjoy government subsidies of up to 80% in subsidised wards. They can also tap on MediShield Life and MediSave to help pay for their bills.
For outpatient treatment, Singaporeans are eligible for the usual subsidies at specialist outpatient clinics in our hospitals as well as at our polyclinics. There are also subsidies at GP clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Dementia is one of the chronic conditions that qualify for chronic CHAS subsidies. Middle-income Singaporeans benefitted when CHAS was enhanced in November last year so that all Singaporeans are now eligible for CHAS chronic subsidies regardless of income, and the annual subsidy cap for CHAS Blue and Orange cardholders with complex chronic conditions was also increased from $500 to $520 and $300 to $320 per year respectively. In all outpatient settings, Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation seniors also receive additional subsidies.
Singaporeans may also make use of their MediSave to pay for outpatient treatment of dementia through the Chronic Disease Management Programme, which allows patients to withdraw up to $500 yearly. From 1 January 2021, the withdrawal limit will be increased to $700 for patients with complex chronic conditions. Those aged 60 and above can also withdraw up to $200 under Flexi-MediSave. Singaporeans who have difficulty with their healthcare bills can approach the medical social workers at PHIs for MediFund assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Service Standards Required for Telecommunication Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information what are the service standards required for telecommunication operators and whether these service standards are able to accommodate those who are less tech savvy such as those who are elderly.
Mr S Iswaran: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) protects consumers' interests by prescribing baseline requirements that telecom operators should adhere to. These include requirements to accurately disclose subscription terms and conditions upfront to customers and provide avenues for customers to contest charges. The IMDA has also stepped in to prescribe service standards for specific telecom operators where necessary.
Several telecom operators have implemented measures to meet the needs of their elderly customers. For example, some telecom operators have express queues for seniors at retail shops and processes for service providers to call customers back so they do not have to wait on the line for too long. They will also arrange for elderly customers to be served by officers who can speak the same language or dialect when receiving calls on their hotline, where possible.
IMDA's Consumer Awareness and Satisfaction Survey conducted from January to March 2020 showed that consumers are generally satisfied with their telecom operators, and consumer satisfaction has improved in several areas such as telecom operators' customer care services.
In addition to the measures by telecom operators, the IMDA organises programmes to help seniors learn to use mobile and digital technologies safely and meaningfully. IMDA's Seniors Go Digital programme has reached out to more than 36,000 seniors since it was launched in May 2020. About 80% of the seniors who received training continue to apply the digital skills they have picked up in their everyday lives.
The IMDA will continue to monitor the public's feedback and work with telecom operators to better accommodate those who are less tech savvy, such as the elderly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Complaints Made to Do Not Call Registry since 2019 for Unlicensed Moneylending Messages and Calls and Illegal Betting or Gambling Opportunities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) since 2019, how many complaints have been made to the Do Not Call registry; (b) how many complaints related to unlicensed moneylending messages and calls; and (c) how many complaints relate to illegal betting or gambling opportunities.
Mr S Iswaran: Between January 2019 and September 2020, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has received approximately 73,000 complaints on unsolicited calls and text messages. Of these complaints, around 21,000 were related to unlicensed moneylending, and 19,000 were related to illegal betting or gambling opportunities. These complaints have been referred to the Singapore Police Force (SPF).
The PDPC will continue to support the SPF in their efforts to tackle scams and other illegal activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Domestic Non-recyclable Waste Disposal Rates and Domestic Recycling Rates in Past Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether domestic non-recyclable waste disposal rates have increased significantly in the past six months due to work-from-home arrangements; and (b) whether domestic recycling rates have increased in tandem.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The domestic non-recyclable waste collected by the Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) from domestic and trade premises1 did not change significantly in the last six months. The PWCs collected an average of 3,340 tonnes per day of waste from April to June 2020. This fell slightly to 3,265 tonnes per day between July and September 2020. This is similar to the waste collected (3,241 tonnes per day) in March 2020, before work-from-home arrangements were widely adopted.
The daily average amount of recyclables collected by the PWCs in April to June 2020 was 20% lower than in March 2020. The decrease is largely attributed to the suspension of the Cash-for-Trash recycling programme and door-to-door collection by PWCs during the Circuit Breaker period. However, the daily average amount of recyclables collected in July to September increased significantly, exceeding March 2020 levels by 11%.
While we have seen a shift in consumption patterns brought about by COVID-19 and work-from-home arrangements (e.g. more online shopping, food delivery and takeaway), we have continued to encourage the community to adopt good 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) habits. For example, the National Environment Agency (NEA) published a Food Wastage Reduction Handy Guide, with tips to help consumers reduce food waste. As part of the Say Yes to Waste Less campaign, NEA is also emphasising waste reduction measures, such as bringing reusable food containers for takeaway and not opting for disposable cutlery. We have also started a Citizens' Workgroup to co-create solutions with members of the public to reduce the excessive consumption of disposables. We look forward to hearing participants' ideas on how we can reduce the use of disposables, whether working from home or at our workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The domestic and trade premises served by the PWCs include all HDB flats and landed residential properties, as well as private apartments and condominiums (those that opted in for their waste to be collected by PWCs) and shophouses, which together account for the vast majority of waste generated by residential households. The PWCs may also serve trade premises such as petrol stations, hawker centres, places of worship, community centres and clubs, as well as Government and Statutory Board buildings and developments."],"footNoteQuestions":["13"],"questionNo":"13"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funeral Wakes Held in HDB Void Decks Annually","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) over the past 10 years, how many funeral wakes have taken place in HDB void decks annually; (b) whether any forecast has been done for future trends; and (c) what is being done in light of Singapore's ageing population to ensure adequate facilities and community spaces for bereaved families to hold funeral wakes in future years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Funeral wakes are mostly held at Housing Development Board (HDB) community spaces. Between 2010 and 2019, an average of about 8,000 wakes were held annually at void decks and multi-purpose pavilions. A smaller number of funeral wakes are held in purpose-built funeral parlours, places of worship and private home compounds.
As the population ages, the number of resident deaths is projected to increase to around 40,000 in 2040. The demand for after-death facilities and services, such as wake spaces, will increase in tandem.
The Government has long-term plans to ensure sufficient funeral wake spaces as the population ages. We will be increasing the number of funeral parlours in Singapore. NEA and HDB is redeveloping the existing funeral parlours at the former Mount Vernon Columbarium Complex into a new funeral parlour complex in Bidadari estate, which is expected to complete in 2025. In addition, four more funeral parlour sites will be launched for development over the next decade. The sites are located in various parts of Singapore to provide a better distribution of funeral parlours for the convenience of the bereaved families and visitors. The first of these four sites, at Woodlands Industrial Estate, was launched in July 2020 for development.
My Ministry and NEA will continue to work closely with other Government agencies such as the Ministry for National Development, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the HDB to monitor the long-term demand for funeral spaces and ensure that the necessary facilities are ready ahead of demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of Applications for Temporary Bridging Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the success rate of applications for the Temporary Bridging Loans; (b) what are common reasons for the loans to be rejected; and (c) given that the Government bears 70% of the risk share in the Temporary Bridging Loan programme, whether the success rate for loan applications can be improved further.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: TBL applications are subject to PFIs' credit approval to ensure the prudent use of public funds. The success rate for Temporary Bridging Loan applications is high, over 90%, with more than 20,000 loan applications approved by Participating Financial Institutions (PFIs).
Common reasons for rejection cited by the PFIs include:
(a) The company was loss-making or had weak cashflow pre-COVID;
(b) The company and/or its owner had prior records of loan default; or
(c) The company was over-leveraged, or in receivership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Service Providers' Selection of Eligible Singaporeans and Permanent Residents for SGUnited Skills Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has oversight over how training service providers select eligible Singaporeans and permanent residents for the SGUnited Skills Programme where there is an oversubscription for the programme with that provider.
Mr Lawrence Wong: SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provides broad guidance to \tSGUnited Skills (SGUS) training providers on their selection of applicants. Training providers should select applicants who have a potential fit with the jobs that the SGUS course is designed for, and who are able to cope with the course requirements. This includes accounting for applicants' prior learning and experience.
If the programme is oversubscribed, the training provider will direct the applicants to similar courses with available capacity. These can be from other SGUS training providers. To facilitate such cross-referrals, SSG regularly provides training providers with the range of courses offered by other SGUS training providers.
SSG actively monitors the enrolment profile across courses, looking at the profile across age groups, highest qualifications attained and industry of last employment. Taken together with feedback from training providers, SSG is constantly reviewing the list of available courses and training places under SGUS to ensure that this meets the needs and matches the profile of potential jobseekers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Performance Management System and Measures Taken to Train School Leaders and Head of Departments on Principles of Fair and Objective Ranking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education with regard to the performance management system of stack ranking, what are the measures taken today to train school leaders and heads of departments on principles of fair and objective ranking.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Performance appraisal is a common performance management tool that enables us to assess the effectiveness of our staff, provide feedback on their performance and help them to be more effective in their work. It is important that our School Leaders and Key Personnel in schools are equipped with the skills to manage this process well so that they can continue to motivate our teachers to stay true to their calling as educators, recognise good officers and identify those who need more support.
As part of their leadership development, all our Key Personnel and School Leaders attend leadership milestone programmes at different stages of their leadership appointments. Examples of such programmes are the Leadership and Management Programme (LAMP), the Management and Leadership in Schools (MLS) and the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP). Performance management is a key component in all these leadership milestone programmes. Through these programmes, our School Leaders and Key Personnel learn about the performance management framework, the expected standards of performance, and the follow up actions to help officers improve.
In addition, the Cluster Superintendents provide close guidance to School Leaders in the performance management process. They are present at the annual school ranking sessions to advise on the performance management process and guidelines. The Ministry HR also regularly updates and engages all School Leaders on the key HR policies and issues which include performance management policies and good practices. We will continue to help our School Leaders and Key Personnel develop and strengthen their performance management skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Respite Care Options for Family Care-givers of Special Needs Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the care options for family caregivers of special needs children to get respite care and whether there are plans to expand these options.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Caregivers play a critical role in caring for children with special needs. To care for their children well, we recognise that caregivers themselves need respite care from time to time.
At present, there are preschools and early intervention (EI) centres which enrol and provide support for children under the age of seven with developmental needs. There are also Special Student Care Centres (SSCC) which provide before-and-after school care service for children aged 7 to 18 years, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is working closely with the Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to build more of these SSCCs. These services can provide some respite for caregivers during those hours that the children are in the schools/centres. In addition, Child Disability Homes (CDH) provide both long-term and short-term residential care services to children aged 7 to 18 with special needs.
SG Enable (SGE) has also brought together 24 organisations, comprising SSAs and hospitals, to form a caregiver support coalition. Members of the coalition share knowledge and learn from one another, identify current challenges, and find common ground to collaborate.
Through SGE's Enabling Guide website, caregivers can also find informal support groups. The Caregivers Pod (Facility) at Enabling Village serves as a meeting place for support group activities, providing them with a space for rest and respite, caregiver training, and engagement with SSAs and community partners.
To better equip caregivers to support fellow caregivers, SGE has worked with the community and SSAs to organise Peer to Peer (P2P) Mentor training. This allows caregivers to be supported by other more experienced caregiver mentors.
EI centres also provide caregiver engagement and training under the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), so that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support their children at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Percentage of Differently-abled Children with No Access to Development Support and Learning Support Programmes in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the last five years, how many and what percentage of children who are differently abled have not had access to the Development Support and Learning Support programmes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Development Support (DS) and Learning Support (LS) programme provides support to children with mild development needs within the preschools. The DS-LS programme is currently offered in 550 preschools which enrol about 40% of preschoolers aged five to six, up from about 300 preschools in 2015. About 60% of preschoolers are enrolled in preschools which currently do not offer the DS-LS programme.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) is working closely with preschool operators to make the DS-LS programme available at more preschools. ECDA is working closely with the regional DS-LS providers and preschools to expand provision of DS-LS to more preschools. ECDA also provides funding to preschools which are prepared to be DS-LS providers themselves, to train their Learning Support Educators and procure therapy services. These preschools are also supported with a Place-and-Train programme to facilitate the training of more in-house Learning Support Educators.
For children enrolled in preschools that do not provide the DS-LS programme today, there are channels for parents, healthcare professionals or preschools to flag out children with developmental needs for support. If a preschool identifies an enrolled child who may have developmental needs, they can contact the regional DS-LS providers for assistance to screen the child for early intervention support. During regular medical screenings and check-ups, healthcare professionals in the polyclinics, paediatricians and General Practitioners (GP) may also detect delays in the child's development. In such cases, they will refer the child to the Child Development Programme in KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) or National University Hospital (NUH) for diagnosis of developmental needs. Depending on the severity of their development needs, children may be referred to the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) or to KKH's Department of Child Development or NUH's Child Development Unit for therapy services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Green Lanes or Special Travel Arrangements between Singapore and USA and Precautionary Measures in Place for Incoming Passengers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport regarding SIA launching non-stop flights to USA (a) what are the current travel arrangements between Singapore and USA; (b) whether there are plans for green lanes or special travel arrangements with USA; and (c) what are the COVID-19 precautionary measures for inbound passengers from USA including returning Singaporeans, considering the high infection rates in USA.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, Singapore does not allow entry of short-term visitors from the United States of America (USA) unless they are (a) immediate family members or relatives of a Singapore Citizen or a Singapore Permanent Resident (PR), (b) spouses-to-be of a Singapore Citizen or Singapore PR, or (c) non-residents who have extenuating or compassionate reasons to enter Singapore.
Travellers from the USA who are entering Singapore must serve a 14-day Stay-Home Notice (SHN) at SHN Dedicated Facilities. Like all travellers who serve SHN, they are required to undertake a COVID-19 swab test before the end of the SHN period.
The prevailing advisory is for Singaporeans to defer all non-essential travel to the USA. As of now, we have yet to begin negotiations of a green lane or special travel arrangements with the USA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Flexibility in Employment of Foreigners as Chefs for Specific and Unique Cuisines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can introduce more flexibility in employing foreigners as chefs especially where the cuisine is specific and unique to a certain country.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, there is no country source restriction on S Pass or Employment Pass workers. This allows restaurants with cuisines unique to certain countries to bring in key workers like specialist chefs.
We encourage food service companies to find more sustainable solutions to their manpower needs and to transform their businesses to be more manpower-lean. They could also foster skills transfers by training up locals. Job redesign is another avenue that businesses should explore to attract more local workers.
Businesses may tap on the Lean Enterprise Development (LED) Scheme for transitional manpower support where merited to support their transformation. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) works with other agencies such as Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Tourism Board to consider such requests for manpower flexibilities by businesses in food services, on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Helping Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and Professional Bodies to Run Career Events to Provide Career Advice and Online Resources for Jobseekers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower how does the Ministry work with trade associations, chambers of commerce and professional bodies to run career events, provide career advice and produce online career resources to support job seekers within their respective professions in their job-seeking efforts.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Workforce Singapore (WSG) provides employment facilitation services and programmes to help local workers secure jobs, and supports the transformation of the local workforce and industry. WSG has overall responsibility for designing the framework for service delivery. It works with strategic partners such as the Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i), Career Matching Providers (Ingeus and MAXIMUS), as well as Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) and professional bodies to deliver these services.
The TACs and professional bodies bring certain strengths to the employment facilitation ecosystem, such as their wide network of industry professionals and in-depth knowledge of the jobs and skills in the sectors they oversee. For example, WSG works with the Singapore Computer Society (SCS) and the Institute of Banking and Finance (IBF) to provide sector-specific career matching services for the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Financial Services sectors respectively. WSG provides funding support for SCS's Career Compass to run programmes such as career mentoring sessions and career preparatory workshops. In 2018, IBF set up IBF Careers Connect, with support from WSG and other agencies, to provide personalised career advisory and job matching services to locals exploring careers in the financial industry.
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, WSG has intensified efforts to curate job, traineeship and training opportunities for Singaporeans. WSG has tapped on its partnerships with TACs and professional bodies such as the Singapore Business Federation, the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, Singapore Lift & Escalator Contractors & Manufacturers Association, the Association of Small & Medium Enterprises, and Singapore International Facility Management Association, to do so. These TACs and professional bodies activated their network of member companies, encouraging them to participate in WSG's Virtual Career Fairs. WSG also worked with TACs to ramp up career conversion programmes for roles that continue to be in demand, such as the Technology in Finance Immersion Programme that reskills mid-career jobseekers for roles in Artificial Intelligence, Cloud Computing and other emerging areas.
Additionally, WSG recently launched the volunteer Career Advisors initiative and appointed the pioneer batch of over 30 advisors for the ICT and Retail sectors who were nominated in consultation with the relevant TACs and professional bodies. The nominees, mostly industry veterans in their fields, have stepped forward to volunteer their time, professional experience and industry networks to provide peer support to their fellow workers in their career journey and job search.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Breakdown by Marital Status and Age Bands in Five-year Intervals of Singaporean Purchasers of Private Residential Properties over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in respect of private residential property transactions entered into by Singaporean purchasers over the last 10 years, what is the annual breakdown of purchasers by (i) marital status and (ii) age bands in five-year intervals.
Mr Desmond Lee: Of the private residential transactions (including ECs) by Singapore Citizens over the past 10 years, the breakdown by marital status and age of the purchaser have remained broadly consistent:
(a) Married purchasers accounted for more than two-thirds of transactions.
(b) Purchasers aged below 55 accounted for more than 80% of transactions.
(c) Purchasers aged between 35 and 39 accounted for the largest share of transactions, at around 20%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Purchasers by Age Bands in Five-year Intervals of HDB BTO Flats and Resale Transactions by Flat Size over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in respect of HDB BTO flat purchases and HDB resale transactions for each flat size, what is the respective breakdown of the purchasers by age bands in five-year intervals over the last 10 years.
Mr Desmond Lee: The age profile breakdown of flat buyers who completed their BTO and resale flat purchases from 2010 to 2019 is as follows:
25 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development over the last 10 years, what is the annual number of successful BTO flat applicants who cancelled their flat applications after booking a flat, broken down by the applicants' eligibility scheme and reasons for cancellation.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2010 to 2019, on average, about 2,300 BTO flat applicants cancelled their flat bookings each year. The total number of cancellations was about 12% of the number of BTO flats offered over this period.
Of the flat applicants who cancelled their flat bookings, about 52% had applied under the Public Applicant Scheme, 36% under the Fiancé/Fiancée Scheme, and the remaining 12% under other schemes like the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme or the Joint Singles Scheme.
Applicants cited a variety of reasons for cancelling their flat bookings, such as financial difficulties, a break-up of their fiancé-fiancée relationship, or a change of housing plans, among others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Enrolment and Pass Rate for Council for Estate Agencies' Real Estate Salespersons Examinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the Council for Estate Agencies' Real Estate Salespersons Examinations (a) what is the annual number of students who take the examinations since the examinations were started; (b) of this, what is the annual percentage of students who (i) pass the examinations and (ii) are above 60 years old; and (c) of those above 60 years of age, what is the annual percentage who pass the examinations.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2011 to 2019, an average of about 8,000 candidates took the Council for Estate Agencies' Real Estate Salesperson examination each year. The average annual passing rate was about 30%.
On average, less than 5% of the candidates who took the examination were above 60 years old. The annual average passing rate for this group of candidates was in line with the overall average, at about 30%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Outstanding Housing Loans Approved or Pending Approval by Banks and HDB for Repayment Deferments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the most recent data on the outstanding housing loans pending approval or have been approved for repayment deferments; (b) what are the respective proportions owed to banks and HDB; and (c) what are the demographics of the segment of population who require these deferments.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB and banks provide financial counselling for homeowners seeking help with their housing loan repayments to understand their needs, and identify suitable measures to assist them.
From April to September 2020:
(a) For households on bank loans, 26,500 are on deferred payments. Of these, 77% owned private residential properties and 23% owned HDB flats, generally mirroring the proportion of bank loans for private property and HDB flats respectively.
(b) For households on HDB loans, 1,000 are on deferred payments and 300 on reduced payments. In addition, HDB has suspended late payment charges from April 2020 to March 2021, giving households flexibility on their repayment schedules with no penalties.
Homeowners who took up deferments are generally similar in profile to the overall population of homeowners with housing loans, except that they are slightly more likely to be above 50 years old, and to be employed in General Commerce and Business Services industries, which include subsectors like travel agencies, retail trade, F&B, and accommodation. For HDB flat owners, they are also more likely to be living in 3-room or smaller flats.
HDB and banks have recently enhanced their financial assistance measures to support homeowners who face difficulties keeping up with mortgage repayments during this pandemic. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1546,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"ATBP","file":null},{"annexureID":1547,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":1548,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":1549,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":1550,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4101,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201103/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan CTMA 3Nov2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan CTMA 3Nov2020-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}