1 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether he can provide an update on the plan for live-streaming of Parliament proceedings and how this can be implemented in a way that mitigates concerns about its potential impact on the quality and tone of debates.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I begin by wishing you and all Members of this House a happy and healthy new year.
Sir, the live-streaming of Parliamentary proceedings commences today. As we speak, this Sitting is being streamed real-time on MCI’s YouTube channel, which is accessible to all. There will be two live-streams: one with English interpretation of speeches made in vernacular languages, and one without. As with current practice, the full video of each live-stream will remain on MCI’s YouTube channel for a period of six months after the end of the Sitting.
All currently available avenues to access Parliamentary proceedings remain. These includes attendance in-person from the Strangers’ Gallery, online video clips uploaded within hours of the Sitting and the written records of the Hansard which are also available online.
These arrangements already give us the full benefits of transparency, accountability and accessibility. With live-streaming, members of the public will now also be able to watch proceedings in real time, without having to be physically present in Parliament. As I explained in September last year, the Government has agreed to this in view of the global and technological trends which have made online streaming more feasible and enabled legislatures around the world to live-stream their proceedings.
Even as we seek deeper engagement of our citizens through the live-streaming of Parliamentary proceedings, we must preserve the integrity and dignity of Parliament as a forum for serious debate on national issues.
The Member has asked how concerns over the potential impact of live-streaming on the quality and tone of parliamentary debates can be mitigated. Ultimately, it rests with all Members of this House, present and future, who must uphold the highest standards of conduct and decorum, as we engage in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Just one supplementary question. Could I just check whether there will be sign language available for the live-stream, as well?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. At this point, we do not have the provisions for sign language. However, the English stream on YouTube will have auto-captioning available. In other words, that which has the translations of the vernacular as well. So, that will be our starting position in terms of how we make it more accessible for those who may be hearing impaired.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details of COVID-19 Vaccination Roll-out Plan and Concerns on Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of COVID-19 vaccines that have been secured for Singapore; (b) how will the vaccination programme be rolled out; (c) what is the earliest projected date to commence the programme; and (d) whether the vaccination be made mandatory for both Singaporeans and foreign residents.
3 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the measures taken by the Ministry to ensure that any vaccines for COVID-19 are appropriate and safe for Singaporeans; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed all potential side effects of the vaccine.
4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the details of the rollout plans for COVID-19 vaccination in Singapore; (b) how does the Ministry determine the safety and effectiveness of the various vaccines coming into the market; and (c) whether individuals who have been vaccinated will be given a \"vaccination card\" to facilitate identification that may be required from time to time.
5 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what criteria are used by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to assess COVID-19 vaccinations before approval for public use; and (b) what benchmarks for efficacy are used.
6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health regarding the COVID-19 vaccines (a) what are the potential side effects associated with the vaccines; (b) whether the extent and probability of side effects occurring are significantly different from existing flu vaccines; (c) what are the plans to deal with the severe side effects that can arise due to the administration of the vaccines; and (d) what recourse do Singaporeans have should they experience severe side effects.
7 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of COVID-19 vaccine submissions that are in each phase of evaluation by HSA; (b) what is the number of doses of each type of COVID-19 vaccine that has been secured for Singapore; (c) what is the delivery timeline for these vaccines; and (d) whether individuals will be given autonomy to decide on the type of vaccine they will receive when more than one vaccine has been approved.
8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health what are the measures to assuage ground concerns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.
9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health in view of certain COVID-19 infections having \"high genetic similarity\" of virus despite dissimilar countries of origin among persons who served Stay-Home Notice (SHN) at Mandarin Orchard Singapore, whether the Ministry will consider establishing capability for scaled-up rapid whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of virus from clinical samples including nose swabs, so as to complement existing WGS from cultured COVID-19 virus.
10 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether any research is being done on public attitudes towards vaccination against COVID-19; and (b) how will the public communications strategy be formulated to engage residents across all demographics.
11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health considering that there is little change between Phase Two and Phase Three of the re-opening, what is the current strategy to progressively reopen Singapore until our borders are opened to foreign visitors.
12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health what measures will be put in place in Singapore to deal with the new variant of the COVID-19 virus that is reported to be spreading rapidly in the UK and parts of Europe.
13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the reason for the delay in supplying the TraceTogether tokens to all residents by 14 December 2020; and (b) what is the new timeline for all residents to collect the TraceTogether tokens.
14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there will be a need to separate blood collected from donors who have and have not received COVID-19 vaccinations; and (b) if so, whether all necessary measures will be put in place ahead of the vaccine being introduced for use in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, as Minister Lawrence Wong and I will be making a Ministerial Statement in a short while, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 2 to 14 in our Ministerial Statement instead, so that we can provide the proper context to the replies?
\tMr Speaker: Please do. Mr Christopher de Souza.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Provisions and Safeguards in Using TraceTogether Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether TraceTogether data will be used for criminal investigations and, if so, what are the legal provisions and safeguards in using such data.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Police Force is empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC to obtain any data, including TraceTogether or TT data, for criminal investigations.
The Government is the custodian of the TT data submitted by individuals, and stringent measures are in place to safeguard this personal data. Examples of these measures include only allowing authorised officers to access the data, using such data only for authorised purposes and storing the data on a secured data platform. Under the Public Sector (Governance) Act, public officers who recklessly or knowingly disclose the data without authorisation or misuse the data may be liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his response. In an investigation, there are suspects and there are witnesses. So, in the event that the TraceTogether information is used of a witness, would there be a possibility of deletion of this information, by virtue of its private nature, if the investigation does not yield anything or the investigation comes to a close? I am wanting to draw a distinction between the suspect and a witness.
\tMr Desmond Tan: Data will only be taken from the individual. In a criminal case where there is a suspect and a witness, we will extract the data from the witness. However, for individuals who are suspects or are under investigation, the data will not be extracted from them, for the purpose of security.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, we all know that effective contact tracing is key to containing the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people use TraceTogether, the better. We should always be looking for ways to remove the impediments to voluntary adoption of the TraceTogether app. So, if people suspect that their TraceTogether data is being used for anything other than for contact tracing, would this not lead to a lower than expected adoption rate?
And I am sure that the Minister of State is aware that users can prevent the app from being used, for example exchanging proximity information, even if they have it installed. So, my question is, now that the Government has said that they might actually use the TraceTogether data for Police investigations, does this not violate the TraceTogether privacy statement, which says that any data shared with MOH will only be used solely for contact tracing of persons possibly exposed to COVID-19?
\tMr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the question. TraceTogether is conceived and implemented for the purpose of contact tracing and for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
We do not preclude the use of TraceTogether data in circumstances where citizens' safety and security are or have been affected. This applies to all other data as well. Authorised police officers may invoke the Criminal Procedural Code, as I had mentioned earlier, to obtain this data for the purpose of criminal investigation and for the purpose of protecting the safety and security of our citizens.
But otherwise, TraceTogether data is indeed to be used only for contact tracing and for the purpose of fighting the COVID-19 situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expenses Incurred to-date by Singapore on High Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport what has been the total amount of expenditure incurred to date by Singapore on the High Speed Rail project and what are the terms specified in the bilateral agreement in relation to compensation claims upon termination of the agreement by either party.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Singapore has incurred more than S$270 million for the Kuala Lumpur – Singapore High Speed Rail, or HSR Project. Some of these costs, such as for consultancy services, design of infrastructure and manpower to deliver the HSR Project, are abortive costs if the HSR Project does not proceed.
To date, Singapore has already received about S$15 million from Malaysia, arising from Malaysia’s request to suspend the construction of the HSR Project back in 2018 and up to May 2020. Subsequent to that, at the request of Malaysia, the HSR Project was further suspended until 31 December 2020. Malaysia has now decided not to proceed with the HSR Project. According to the terms of the Parties' agreement, Malaysia is obliged to pay termination compensation to Singapore. This will include various abortive costs but not land acquisition costs since the value of the land can be recovered.
The compensation amount for the termination and schedule for payment are specified in our agreement. In addition, there is a small component of miscellaneous abortive costs for the suspension of the Project requested by Malaysia that Singapore is currently verifying, before we send to Malaysia.
Due to Singapore’s confidentiality obligations under the HSR Bilateral Agreement, we are unable to reveal the exact terms in relation to the compensation for the termination of the HSR Project.
We look forward to continue to build good relations and work closely with Malaysia to improve connectivity in other ways, and in many other fields, for the mutual benefit of the people of both countries.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\t
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his response to the question. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is, now that we know that the high speed rail has officially been cancelled, if the Minister can share with the Members of the House what were some of the substantive points of differences that cannot be breached that led to the cancellation?
And in relation to compensation, I note earlier in July 2018 that former Transport Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan said that the total cost incurred back then was exceeding $250 million which is expected to exceed $300 million by the end of 2018. So, in relation to the expenditure already incurred, if Minister could share the details on what is the difference and whether or not we will be able to recover the full amount of the expenditure, excluding land acquisition costs, as the Minister had mentioned, and if so, when should we expect some form of conclusion on this?
\t
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Let me answer the Member's second question first. Then-Minister Khaw Boon Wan did mention the figure of S$250 million. He also mentioned that costs continue to be incurred and, therefore, it may reach S$300 million or so later.
Today, our expenditure is roughly S$270 million, less than what he had indicated earlier, because when the Project was suspended and we agreed to the suspension, we wound down the contracts and we maintained activity at a low level, which is why we did not incur as much as it was indicated earlier.
Will we be able to claim the full amount? The amount to be compensated, as I have mentioned, and the schedule for payment, these are specified in the agreements. So, it is a fixed amount specified in the agreements. Unfortunately, due to confidentiality obligations, I cannot disclose the amount. But we have started the process of compensation.
As for the first question, it is an important one – the substantive point of difference. Let me go back a little bit.
Singapore and Malaysia signed the HSR Bilateral Agreement – we call it HSR BA – in 2016. And that is after three years of negotiations to implement the HSR Project. Subsequently, both Parties signed two supplementary agreements relating to the suspension of the construction of the HSR Project. Both suspensions were at Malaysia's requests. So, the first supplementary agreement was signed in 2018, to suspend the construction of the HSR Project. The second, in 2020, extended the suspension period to 31 December 2020, with the explicit understanding that it would be the final extension. By then, it would have been extended by two and a half years.
I will refer to the HSR BA, subsequently amended by the supplementary agreements, generically as the \"HSR Agreements\" as a short form. So, the HSR Agreements are legally binding international agreements. Parties come to the table as equals, discuss the various terms, such as how to structure and implement the cross-border HSR Project, and the rights and obligations placed on both Parties. As Members know, this process involves understanding each other's concerns, addressing them, striking compromises and finding mutually acceptable common ground.
Singapore was fully committed to carry out our obligations under the HSR BA. But Malaysia felt that circumstances had changed, including due to COVID-19, and proposed several changes to the HSR Project.
Be clear about this, which is, Singapore was not obligated to agree to any of such changes because we had signed an agreement in 2016 already. But, notwithstanding, we considered them in good faith. But we were unable to agree to one particularly significant change proposed by Malaysia. This involved the removal of the Assets Company – in short form, we call it \"AssetsCo\" – which is the systems supplier and network operator of the HSR service between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur (KL).
Let me explain why. As the HSR is a cross-border service, it must be a single train system operating between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Because neither country has the expertise and experience in operating an HSR, we agreed, under the HSR BA, to appoint a best-in-class industry player through an open and transparent international tender to assume the role of the AssetsCo. Once appointed, the AssetsCo would supply the train system, operate the network, ensure that appropriate priority is given to cross-border HSR service vis-a-vis Malaysia's domestic service, and AssetsCo would be accountable to both countries, that is, Singapore and Malaysia.
To Singapore, AssetsCo is the centrepiece of the HSR Project. It is necessary to ensure that the interests of both countries are protected. This will minimise the possibility of future disagreements and disputes over the long duration of the Project, lasting decades. Singapore, therefore, informed Malaysia that the removal of the AssetsCo constituted a fundamental departure from the HSR BA and could not be accepted.
Malaysia has since decided to allow the HSR BA to be terminated. In these circumstances, it has to compensate Singapore, in accordance with the HSR Agreements. Now that the HSR BA has been terminated, Singapore is willing to discuss any new proposal on a KL-Singapore HSR from Malaysia in good faith, but starting from a clean slate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer to Mr Louis Chua's question earlier.
First of all, I would like to thank the MOT team for putting in a lot of good work done that led to an agreement after four years of negotiations. But, alas, Malaysia proposed changes to the agreement and it did not go through. But following up on the Minister's answer just now, also for the sake of transparency, can the Minister share why another extension of the bilateral agreement would not have been possible and whether a further extension would have allowed some room for further discussions to be made to reach an agreement?
Another question is whether Singapore is open to HSR-like projects in the future.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. As I have mentioned in my earlier clarifications, at the request of Malaysia, we suspended the Project for two years up to May 2020. And then, there was a second request from Malaysia to extend it until 31 December 2020, that is, another six months, which we were not obligated to agree, but we agreed to it. So, there were two extensions, at the Malaysians' requests and we agreed to it in good faith and in the spirit of good bilateral relations. But we cannot extend indefinitely and, so, for the second extension to 31 December 2020, both sides agreed that it shall be the final extension, and it is part of the agreements. So, I think there will have to be a finality to the suspension and extension of the Project. Having said that, there is a fundamental difference which I have explained earlier with regard to the removal of the AssetsCo.
Whether we are open to future discussions, of course, we are. But it should be on a clean slate, after we have settled the current HSR BA.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions.
First, is there any impact of the cancellation of HSR on the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS)?
Second, what would be the impact of the HSR cancellation on the development of the Jurong Regional Centre? Although I have moved from Jurong GRC to West Coast GRC, but many of the West Coast GRC divisions are very close to the Jurong Regional Centre. I hope the Minister can give a good reply.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. The short answer to the first question is no. RTS is progressing well so far. The Johor Bahru side has broken ground; on our side, we will break ground soon and we hope the Project and the service can commence in 2026 as scheduled.
As for Jurong Regional Centre, let me assure the House that MND had started planning to transform Jurong as early as 2008. So, the Jurong Lake District is part of a broader effort to develop urban centres outside of our CBD and our city centre. The plans for Jurong Lake District, or JLD were, therefore, developed well before Malaysia proposed the current HSR Project in 2012. It was only much later, in 2015, that we decided to locate the Singapore terminus of the HSR in Jurong. The termination of the HSR Project, therefore, does not affect the overall impetus and vision for JLD, although some details may need to be adjusted along the way. When completed, this will be the largest commercial and regional centre outside of our city centre, bringing many jobs, business and recreation opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.
The land parcels that the Government has acquired are still needed to realise these plans. For example, the Jurong Country Club site will provide for new mixed-use developments and community facilities. The Raffles Country Club site is also still needed for the Cross Island Line's western depot and the Integrated Train Testing Centre. We will be able to realise the full potential of the land to benefit Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.
Prior to COVID-19, the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur air route was one of the busiest in the world, with more than four million passengers flying this route every year. The HSR Project was meant to shorten the travel time between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur from about five hours by air to just 90 minutes, and provide greater access to both cities.
My first question is, what is the impact of the HSR's cancellation on the attractiveness of Singapore as the region's premier air hub and on the SIA Group as a whole?
My second question is, how many staff at SG HSR Pte Ltd have been impacted by the project's cancellation and how many have already been redeployed to other job roles? Will these be made permanent? And what are the manpower plans for the remaining staff that have yet to be redeployed?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I think the Member just now meant five hours by car, not five hours by air.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Yes, not by air.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: What is the impact of HSR termination by Malaysia on our aviation air hub? As I have mentioned earlier, there are some reasons given as to why the Project was terminated and the impact on air hub was cited in some media reports. But as mentioned, our main concern was the removal of the AssetsCo.
Having said that, Malaysia's new proposal to connect the HSR to Kuala Lumpur International Airport or KLIA means that HSR will share tracks with the express rail link to KLIA. The Express Rail Link is an existing train system, not an HSR, and runs at half the full speed of HSR. So, should we have proceeded, there would have been many technical issues to resolve. But having said that, the main concern for us was the removal of the AssetsCo.
Since the Member has asked about the impact on aviation, actually, without the HSR, the Singapore-KL aviation route will continue to ferry and transport many passengers, in fact, closer to five million than the four million number stated by the Member. But throughout this whole discussion, the status of our aviation hub due to the HSR Project has not been the key consideration. We knew that this Singapore-KL air corridor is the busiest in the world – 46 flights a day, almost five million passengers a year – a number that is almost equivalent to Singapore's residential population. But it is precisely because of this heavy air traffic between Singapore and KL that we believe that the HSR Project was viable, mutually beneficial and strategic for the long term. So, Singapore will always assess the cost benefit of such major infrastructure projects from a national and long-term perspective, and not just from the perspective of one company or one industry.
As for the Member's second question about manpower, 80 staff are affected. Out of the 80, 70 or so have been redeployed to LTA and the other 10, we are looking them. We are confident we can redeploy all of them in LTA or within the larger transport eco-system. There are many important projects that are happening, and there will always be a need for good people, such as those 80 people working on the HSR Project.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I thank the Minister for the response so far. I just have one question. What is the reasoning behind the Malaysian government's reason for the change on their position on the AssetsCo?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for the question, but I really cannot speak for the Malaysian government.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Error in Khoo Teck Puat Hospital's Laboratory Test for Cancer Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health following the error in the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital laboratory test for cancer patients (a) how many patients suffered side effects arising from being given the wrong treatment; (b) how many were treated at private hospitals versus Government hospitals; and (c) what is the average cost of medication incurred by all these patients.
18 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to the case of breast cancer patients at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital who may have received unnecessary treatment since 2012 due to inaccurate test results (a) what are the key revelations from the review of the process; (b) what measures have been implemented to prevent similar incidents; and (c) whether there have been cases of patients suffering from detrimental effects.
19 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health with regard to cancers inaccurately classified HER2-positive by Khoo Teck Puat Hospital laboratory (a) how many patients (i) received unnecessary treatment and (ii) suffered significant or long-term side effects thereby; (b) what is the ensuing cost to affected patients; (c) what is being done to help these patients; and (d) what measures are taken to ensure fidelity of laboratory tests.
20 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health with regard to the incident at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital where breast cancer patients received unnecessary treatment since 2012 (a) why did subsequent follow-up checks on the patients over the years not pick up any misdiagnosis from the earlier test; and (b) whether there are regular audits of hospitals and medical clinics on laboratory protocols to identify lapses.
21 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health what are the reasons for the wrong test results for cancer patients at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and what measures will be put in place to ensure that such errors do not occur again.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 17 to 21 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, on 19 November 2020, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH) was informed by its laboratory that its immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) were producing higher-than-expected rates of positive results for breast cancer patients. Preliminary investigations by the laboratory suggested that some of the HER2 results may be inaccurate.
Following the incident, MOH has been working closely with KTPH to ensure that affected patients are provided with adequate support. KTPH has sent the samples of all patients, who have been tested HER2 positive since 2012, when HER2 testing first started in KTPH, to external laboratories for re-testing to determine how many have received inaccurate results. Preliminary investigations by the KTPH laboratory suggest that the inaccurate results could be due to a suboptimal staining process. The KTPH laboratory has since stopped in-house testing of HER2. MOH has also issued an alert to our other public healthcare institutions to conduct a quick review of their laboratory-developed IHC tests to ensure that positivity rates are within the acceptable range. Thus far, we have not received any reports of similar risks from other healthcare institutions.
KTPH's Department of Laboratory Medicine is subject to regular inspection by MOH as part of regulatory processes under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics (PHMC) Act to ensure that its laboratory facilities, systems and processes are in place to meet patient and personnel safety standards. In addition, the laboratory is accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP), where the last biennial inspections by peers were conducted in 2019.
As at 23 December 2020, 200 patients have been reclassified from HER2 positive to HER2 negative. Of these, eight patients were treated at private hospitals and 192 patients at Government hospitals. Eight patients are still pending retests. Joint care teams have been formed, comprising KTPH surgeons, histopathologists and the treating oncologists, to review the individual care plans for these affected patients, based on the change in their HER2 status.
KTPH and the treating oncologists are in the process of actively reaching out to these patients to conduct open disclosure and assess these patients for any potential side effects due to unnecessary treatment. The more common side effects include diarrhoea, chills and fatigue – these are usually short-lasting. About 3% to 4% of those who underwent HER2-directed treatment, for example, using Herceptin, may also experience heart problems. KTPH is also reviewing the bills of these affected patients. The portion of the bills which arose from the unnecessary treatment will be fully refunded. KTPH is also ready to provide any clinical and financial support to the affected patients including on-going or follow-on treatments, if any, which may be needed as a result of this over-treatment.
The National Healthcare Group has convened an independent review committee, comprising external experts from multiple relevant disciplines in the healthcare industry. The objective is to conduct a thorough evaluation of the incident, to understand better the lapses that have occurred and recommend appropriate measures to improve the process. This ensures that any system gaps are identified and addressed swiftly to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
The committee's investigations are on-going right now and more time would be required to ensure a thorough review. NHG will provide an update when more information is available and these findings will be shared with the other healthcare institutions for improvement.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I start by declaring that I am a doctor who happens to be a specialist in medical oncology but I should also declare that my Clementi residents too follow the news. Some have also raised this issue with me, in my Member of Parliament capacity.
Sir, a number of residents have said this unfortunate situation should not have happened. But it has, and it is incumbent upon the authorities and the hospital to do the very best to support the affected patients in as holistic a way as possible and as compassionately as possible. Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first is that in terms of supporting the patients, will the relevant authorities bear in mind that patients who undergo unnecessary treatment as a result of this unfortunate situation, some of these patients will have had to make recurrent visits to clinic, recurrent visits for treatment involving time-off work, care-givers taking time-off work – all of these with possible financial implications as well as implications for job security in the current COVID-19 climate. And I ask, will the Ministry, together with KTPH, consider this compassionately and holistically in supporting the patients who have gone through this?
The second question to the Senior Minister of State is that even as the root cause analysis is on-going, can the Ministry assure us that we will also look at whether any areas of improvement may impinge on other immunohistochemistry tests that may have come out of that relevant laboratory?
Sir, I say this because pathology tests, immunohistochemistry tests – they are like the charts which guide sailors at sea, which guide the treating medical team, which guide the patient. And if there has been an issue with the charts for whatever reason, it is, of course, a concern for navigating the patient care journey and giving the relevant treatment. Sir, I raise these questions to the Senior Minister of State.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member, Dr Tan, for raising these two questions that I am sure, must be on the minds of many patients and relatives who are cancer sufferers.
First, I must say that Herceptin treatment for HER2 positive patients usually is not so much of a monotherapy, that means on a standalone basis. Usually, it is in combination with other chemotherapy drugs for breast cancer. So, in other words, even in a HER2 negative patient, where you do not need Herceptin treatment, you will still require some chemotherapy to overcome breast cancer, and therefore, you will still have to come for recurrent visits, treatment, monitoring and testing by the managing oncologist. But we know that some of these can create a lot more anxiety, maybe a few extra visits that will be required for monitoring of side effects.
KTPH and the managing oncologists and doctors will take a compassionate approach to reassure, to also help these patients to overcome their disease and anxieties by keeping close communication with them through a more dedicated care team, especially those who are affected by the change in result status.
But I must also say that in this situation where the issue is more of a false positive, it does mean that some patients would have perhaps, over treatment. I think it is probably a preferred state than to have under treatment, especially when you have cancer. In this situation, HER2 testing has shown that some of them should have been classified as HER2 negative, meaning that actually the patient does have a better prognosis compared to those who are HER2 positive.
Overall, it is not necessarily a bad thing for the patients to be actually reclassified as HER2 negative on testing. KTPH has informed that any costs, as well as investigations that are done as a result of Herceptin treatment will be borne by the hospital and refunds will be given. So, I think that will go in some way to relieve some of the financial pressures and stresses that a patient has undergone.
On the second question of whether other immunohistochemistry tests would be reviewed; I think we must understand that immunohistochemistry testing is classified in most laboratories as a highly complex test. By highly complex, what I mean is that it is a test that is not quite the same as you drawing a blood test – pop it into the machine and the result comes up within a few minutes. It is not as simple as that. It is a multi-step process that has multiple steps of human intervention in the process.
First, as a tumour specimen is removed, what we call cold ischemic time – how soon the tumour, after it is removed from the body – gets put into a fixation, that means to fix the tissue in the chemical, usually it is recommended to be less than one hour. So, how the operating team in the Operating Theatre, not even the pathologist, just how the operating team handles the tissue – when do they take a specimen out, when do they call for the team to put into the solution; you must also put into the correct solution, otherwise if you put in the wrong chemical to fix the tumour tissue, that sample cannot be used for IHC staining.
Then, when it goes to the laboratory, how thick the specimen is sliced, what kind of stains are used, what kind of temperature that is done, what is the concentration of the stains being used, what is the choice of antibody and subsequently after staining, how the pathologists themselves grade the degree of staining. And the degree of grading or staining is what we call a semi quantitative method. It means it is not a \"plus\" or \"minus\", \"yes\" or \"no\". It is a gradation of degrees of staining just like when you look at your iPhone photos, and you try to adjust the contrast. Between two sets of persons looking at the adjustment, to you, this may look pleasing enough, dark enough, but to another person, this may be too light.
So, there is some degree of inter-observer variation which trained pathologists must then make the judgement call and say is this dark enough stain to be deemed as a positive 3+, 2+, 1+ or 0. So, it is semi-quantitative in that sense.
Therefore, you can appreciate that this being a very complex test, as in most other immunohistochemistry tests, will require multiple levels of validation. But I will also say that the reason why this issue was discovered is because the institutional processes within KTPH have allowed this to be picked up. Because being a multi-step process, if we depend on one single point to validate its accuracy, then it will be at a very, very high risk of failure at some point of time. But fortunately, because there is an institutional process through the Tumour Board – a multi-disciplinary review board looking at tumour outcomes, specimen and treatment, it was flagged up at the point of review that the positivity rate seems to be higher than expected. And that was what triggered the review.
I would say that the processes are there. We now need to look at which part of this process could have been strengthened further and that is the on-going review that the expertise team is looking at, at the moment. We will also use this chance to learn about some of the failures that may have happened in this multi-step process and help the laboratory to strengthen them for other immunohistochemistry tests as well.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\t
\t
\t
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State because my original questions were not being answered.
Actually, the main thing around it is this, because as the Senior Minister of State has said, all these patients had gone for recurrent visits to their respective doctors. Certainly, over the entire period of time, something must have been picked up even if the first diagnosis was supposed to be wrong. So, as the Senior Minister of State said, with all these specimens and also all the different processes that are in place, why was there not an earlier trigger? I think that is the key to the issue.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for asking this question. It is going to be a little bit technical but let me attempt to explain this in a way that most people can understand.
Inherent in any laboratory test, there is always a chance of false positivity, false negativity. That relates to the sensitivity and specificity of the test. In recent months, because of COVID-19, we have all been doing PCR testing, everybody is a little bit more attuned to the concept of why a certain test can give you a false positive and false negative result.
Immunohistochemistry test actually is fairly notorious for having this kind of risk because, as I said, it is semi-quantitative, so the staining process is like mixing poster colours. If any part of the mixing process – the process of processing the specimen by putting stains, dyes and counter-stains – is not done optimally, the key word here is \"optimal\", you can perform all the steps but if the timing is a bit off, maybe the concentration is off by a little bit, the kind of picture that comes out on the slide that the pathologist gets to look at, will be quite different in terms of contrast and stain.
If I may quote from a paper in Journal of Clinical Oncology published in 2015, a British medical journal, it gives a background that early studies using this technique to look at HER2 staining has shown high false positivity rate, as high as 19% –\tas high as 19% – in the early days when this test was started. Over the years, after 2007, when a stronger push by the professionals to put out guidelines, that false positivity rate has now dropped to about 6% or less, but it is still present; it is never going to be zero.
What we need to do, as in this instance, where the clinical practice within an institution does regular review of data accumulated over time; because to show that there is now an over-representation over time, you need to have accumulated enough caseload over a period of time, to show on a retrospective basis that after three years, five years, I accumulated 200 patients, 1,000 patients, and I aggregate the data and I realise, \"Oops, it is actually more than 6%\". Then, this is when it triggers a review.
But when you first start the test, you only have one case, two cases, three cases, there is not enough to do statistical analysis to tell you whether you are above or below the 6% mark.
So, I hope that gives a sense that it is not a complete failure of the system; it is inherent in the test and that is how a review process through a multi-disciplinary tumour board picks up any outlier conclusions to trigger a review.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have a few supplementary questions.
Firstly, while these errors were actually discovered in a review process, since the error actually started in 2012, why did it take so long to discover the errors? Is it a standard timeframe for enough statistics to flag up a possible error? Secondly, would the Ministry consider a second independent test for serious illnesses? The last supplementary question is about compensation to the victims. What sort of compensation is being considered and is a lifetime of free healthcare on the cards?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, let me clarify the Member's misconception. When I said in my reply that KTPH is reviewing all the results from 2012, 2012 was taken at a point in which the test first started in KTPH. It does not mean that all the results going back to 2012 are erroneous. So, in that sense, KTPH is being prudent and careful, super kiasu, going back all the way to when the test first started. It may well be that the errors could have occurred in the last three months or six months.
I think the key point usually is when the reagent has been changed. A different brand of reagent or a different provider of the reagent could usually be the starting point of why the protocol or the test conditions were no longer as optimal as they should be.
But going back to 2012 when the test first started was really trying to be comprehensive and to be careful, to make sure that we do not miss anybody in the process. It does not mean that the test was erroneous from 2012. The results of the review are still on-going, so I do not want to prejudge the review process from the experts. Let us wait for the experts to look at all the results going back to 2012 and then decide at which point, what step of the process that could have been where the error occurred.
When it comes to the question of whether you are going to get compensation, as I said earlier, any treatment cost due to the treatment arising from a positive HER2 results, in other words, usually treatment with Herceptin as the drug, the cost of the drug likely would be refunded. Any investigation or tests or treatment of any related complications as a result of, say, Herceptin, would also be refunded as well. But to then say that this translates to a lifetime of compensation, I think that would be a little bit too far a thing to stretch because most of the complications, if any, or most of the side effects relating to the treatment, are transient – diarrhoea, a bit of fever, a bit of chills. They do not have long-term consequences, they are not long-lasting and we have to take that in the correct context of medical treatment.
I hope that answers the Member's questions.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa: I also had a question about a second independent test for serious illnesses.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: I take that as a general question which in any form of medical diagnostics, if the clinician is unsure that a particular test alone cannot give you a high degree of probability of predicting a positive diagnosis or presence of an illness, then it behoves clinical judgement to call for a second test. But immunohistochemistry is a specific unique test. It does not necessarily mean that an alternative is available. Although in the literature, there are other alternative tests that could be done but we have to consider that against the time needed to do it because that could delay treatment, and also whether that brings on unnecessary costs.
That, I think, we should leave it to the experts to come up with the process guidelines on what is a testing algorithm to decide for \tHerceptin-related treatment.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Senior Minister of State also have not fully answered my Parliamentary Question regarding, how many patients were actually involved and how many patients have MOH engaged in the first place currently now that are affected by this particular error. Currently, what measures have been taken to ensure the well-being of the patients, both psychologically as well as physical health? I would also like to know what was the average cost of the medication, of this particular medicine that was just mentioned. Because the Senior Minister of State did not mention anything about the costs; he just mentioned that it will be refunded but I am not sure what is the actual cost.
I do have a patient, who is my resident in Sembawang GRC, who saw me at my Meet-the-People Session. She was very worried when she saw the news; she said she is one of them. When I asked her whether has MOH contacted her, she said not yet. So, she was asking me what legal help can she now seek. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what avenues do affected patients have to seek compensation for such an error?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, the anxieties of patients are quite understandable, especially when they read about this in the news.
I would want to give assurance and say that if you have not been contacted by your oncologist, it means you are okay. Those who are affected, as I said in my reply, 200 patients so far have been reclassified from HER2 positive to HER2 negative. In other words, these 200 patients from a poor prognosis tumour now has a better prognosis tumour, because HER2 positivity codes for a poorer prognosis to begin with.
Therefore, it needs the managing oncologists to go on a one-to-one with any of these patients whose status have been reclassified, to do a detailed conversation on their own clinical prognosis, what is the stage of the tumour, what treatment has already been given in the past, what will be the on-going treatment needed.
Not all patients, I must say, who have been tested HER2 positive be it now or previously, will go on to Herceptin treatment because it is a treatment decision that is guided by the needs of the patient, not just by the test alone. There are some patients for which the body may be too frail; even if you are HER2 positive, you may not receive Herceptin treatment. On the other hand, there are recurrent tumours where the oncologist feels that you have reached end of line, you will still require Herceptin treatment as a last resort, even though it may not be the first line in some other cases.
The decision matrix is not a straightforward one. For patients who may be affected, it is best to seek your oncologist's advice. But if you have not been contacted specifically for this, it means that you are okay, your status remains as it was from the last conversation with your oncologist.
The cost will vary from institution to institution. I do not have the exact numbers right now because it also depends on how many doses, how long the duration of treatment each patient got, and also different body size of patients may require different dosages to begin with. So, that is something that we cannot generalise; it is probably quite individual. That is why the dedicated care team from KTPH, especially the oncologists, will have to reach out to affected patients one by one and go through the conversation in a detailed manner.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. In addition to the physical side effects that many of these patients might have suffered, some of them might suffer panic attacks, anxiety attacks. So, would Khoo Teck Puat Hospital be able to support medical costs relating to mental health?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think it is best we leave such a assessment and decision to the managing joint care team together with the patient. A panic attack or anxiety episode can occur with or without cancer, can occur with or without treatment. There can be a myriad of factors involved. But the joint care team will deal with the patients with compassion and find a way to help them overcome this current hurdle they are facing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Hygiene of Food Stalls and Catering Licensees","subTitle":"Impact caused by COVID-19 circuit breaker","sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how often do NEA and SFA conduct checks on the hygiene of food stalls and catering licensees; (b) whether these have been affected by the circuit breaker measures; and (c) what steps are taken to work with food stall licensees to improve cleanliness and hygiene standards when such stalls are faced with licence suspensions.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The formation of the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) in April 2019 has brought together all food-related functions under a single agency to enhance regulatory oversight of the entire food supply chain. All food establishments, including food stalls and caterers, are licensed by SFA and required to comply with SFA’s licensing conditions and regulatory requirements. These include maintaining and cleaning their stalls regularly, ensuring that workers who handle food have attended and passed the requisite food safety courses, and having proper infrastructure in place to safely prepare, handle and sell food.
SFA conducts routine inspections to ensure that the food safety regulations are adhered to. The inspection frequency is guided by the risk profile of the food establishments, which is based on the premises type, nature of food sold, food handling process and compliance track record. SFA also conducts ad hoc inspections in response to feedback received from the public. From April 2019 to March 2020, SFA conducted more than 47,000 inspections on food stalls and caterers, which was on average about twice per food stall or caterer over this period.
During the circuit breaker period, the total number of inspections conducted temporarily decreased as some food establishments had ceased their operations. SFA resumed its usual frequency of inspections after the circuit breaker period.
In February, when we started detecting COVID-19 cases in Singapore, my Ministry launched the SG Clean campaign to rally all Singaporeans to keep Singapore clean. As part of the campaign, we introduced sanitation and hygiene checklists for food establishments which highlighted key practices to safeguard food safety and reduce contamination risks. SFA and NEA also issued joint advisories and stepped up engagement efforts with food establishments on the importance of ramping up cleaning efforts to safeguard public health. Such engagement efforts and food safety checks continued during the circuit breaker period, when critical food services were allowed to remain open for takeaway and delivery services, to ensure food safety for consumers.
\t
\t
SFA also ensures that food establishments that have breached any of the licensing conditions are aware of the rectifications needed to comply with them.
SFA will inform licensees of the necessary corrective actions whenever a food safety lapse is detected during an inspection.
In the case of a suspension, all food handlers must also re-attend and pass the Basic Food Hygiene Course (BFHC) before they are able to resume work at the premises. The BFHC equips food handlers with relevant food safety and hygiene knowledge, including proper food handling and good personal hygiene practices. All appointed food hygiene officers working in suspended premises will also be required to re-attend and pass the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications Conduct Food and Beverage Hygiene Audit course to ensure that they remain properly trained to be able to continue to oversee and enhance the food safety standards of the premises.
SFA will also carry out a re-inspection after the suspension has been lifted to ensure the food establishment has rectified the lapses.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. Since the circuit breaker, we have seen an increase in the use of food delivery services, I have two supplementary questions.
Will the Ministry consider looking into guidelines to mandate F&B merchants on food delivery platforms to display the relevant grades or awards obtained under the Food Hygiene Recognition Scheme (FHRS) so that customers are aware and have access to the information? And secondly, whether food delivery riders are regulated or fall under the FHRS and if so, how?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Nadia for the supplementary questions. She has given us some food for thought. At the moment, the grade of the food establishments is not listed on the delivery platform, we will consider her suggestion when we next review our food safety framework. At the same time, the delivery personnel are not licensed under our food safety framework as well. Similarly, we will consider her suggestions when we next review the framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cleaning of Marine Trash and Micro Debris in the Sea","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) beyond beach clean-ups, how is marine trash (including both micro and macro debris) cleaned off the coasts of Singapore to keep our blue spaces clean; and (b) what are the most common types of (i) micro debris and (ii) macro debris found on our shores.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The bulk of our beach litter is marine debris brought in by natural tidal conditions. NEA cleans our recreational beaches twice a day during the Northeast and Southwest monsoon periods, when the amount of marine debris increases. During the rest of the year, the beaches are cleaned daily or four times a week depending on the location.
The most common micro- and macro-debris encountered along our shores are styrofoam, film and hard plastic fragments, with some variation in the volume and distribution of macro-debris due to seasonal monsoons.
We can all do our part to keep our beaches clean. This includes demonstrating social responsibility by not littering, as well as supporting beach clean-ups, especially during the monsoon periods. This will help maintain a pleasant and safe environment for beachgoers and wildlife, and preserve the beauty of our shores.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. Could I ask whether MSE is studying whether there is micro-plastic in our local seafood that is bred in the kelongs in Singapore waters? Secondly, I think we do a lot of beach clean-ups and it really is never-ending. I am just wondering whether we can go a bit upstream, work with our neighbouring countries and support some of their waste management and waste disposal plans?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. SFA will ensure quality and safety of our food regularly and they do inspect on a regular basis. Specifically, with regard to kelong and micro-plastics, I will have to come back to the Member and I will encourage the Member to file a Parliamentary Question if he is interested in this topic.
I do agree with him. With each tide, each day, each monsoon season, marine litter is washed ashore. Indeed, I think we are very, very grateful to many of the community groups that have been conducting beach clean-ups. Some of the Members here have joined them and would appreciate the enthusiasm and the commitment these groups have demonstrated.
We do actively participate at the regional as well as the global arenas. We are active in ASEAN. We participate, we agree, we sign on to declarations to stop and act on marine litter. We are also actively conducting courses for the officials on this issue about tackling waste and managing litters. So, we will be an active member regionally as well as globally. This is a topic that I think is receiving a lot of attention and we will continue to play a constructive and responsible part globally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards for Elderly and Vulnerable Users as More Government Services Move to Singpass Digital Platform","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Prime Minister (a) with the increasing need to use Singpass, what measures are in place to ensure privacy and security for users, especially senior and vulnerable citizens, when they depend on third parties who are tasked to assist them to navigate online services and enter their IDs and passwords; and (b) whether the Government will consider maintaining more alternative avenues, such as physical counters, for the elderly to avail of such services without the need for Singpass as they have difficulty keeping up with the pace of digitalisation.
25 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister with the discontinuation of the OneKey token from 1 April 2021, how will GovTech ensure that (a) all residents who do not own a mobile phone will be able to access Government e-services using Singpass, given that a local mobile phone is required for the Singpass two-factor authentication (2FA) process; and (b) notwithstanding the introduction of Multi-User SMS 2FA, whether alternative 2FA methods can be provided to enable residents with no mobile phones to login with Singpass independently, without the assistance of a third party.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I address Question Nos 24 and 25 on behalf of the Prime Minister.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, we are committed to building an inclusive Smart Nation, one where nobody is digitally excluded.
Members would be aware that the key element for the delivery of digital services is to get digital identity right. In the case of Singapore, our national digital identity is expressed through Singpass.
For the well over 90% of people in Singapore who have access to a smartphone, I think all of you, particularly in this House, would use Singpass through Singpass Mobile. And I would take a bet, that most of us who use Singpass Mobile have forgotten our password, because we depend on the biometric features of our smartphone to not only authenticate but also to act as a two-factor authentication system. So, these two questions really relate to the minority of Singaporeans who do not have a smartphone. You will also recollect that in the old days – I said old because it is quite many years ago – Singpass consisted of a user ID and password. This was not secure enough. Therefore, we introduced a two-factor authentication system.
The two-factor authentication system, the second factor was delivered either through an SMS or through a token – we called it the OneKey token. The challenge with delivering an SMS is that it requires someone to have a phone, otherwise the SMS message with the one-time password will not reach you. Or to use a token. The token will be phased out and the last day of use will be 31 March 2021.
Therefore, these two questions relate to the small minority of people without a smartphone, without a mobile phone and for whom, the use of the token as a second-factor authentication will not be available from the first of April this year.
I want to emphasise, that when we design our digital services, we design them to be accessible, secure and convenient. We therefore have to have this assurance that after 31 March this year, these services will continue to be available for everyone just as they have been today.
So, let me explain how we are adapting our system. The first thing is, many Members of this House may not be aware of this new system we have rolled out called facial verification. This allows users who do not have a mobile phone to log into the Singpass system without the help of a third party. And they do so by using an Internet-enabled computer with a web camera, webcam for short. The webcam allows the computer to scan your face, the system then verifies that against the biometric information that the Government has on all of us through ICA. That means, it verifies against the face on record that we use for Identity Card or our Passport. This allows people to log on and to authenticate to Singpass even if they do not have a smartphone. But that requires a webcam.
So, the next supplementary question you would ask, what about those who do not have access to a computer with a webcam? The answer is that if you do not have access to such a device you can access it through kiosks which the Government has rolled out at selected public locations. These locations include all CPF Service Centres, IRAS Taxpayer and Business Service Centre, Our Tampines Hub's Public Service Centre, Geylang East Public Library – I am just going through a list but this list is going to keep expanding. So, in other words, even if you do not have a computer with a webcam, do not worry there is still a physical counter which you can access.
The next point I would make, is that the other modification we have introduced is what we call Multi-User SMS two-factor authentication, in which users can opt and nominate to have their SMS one-time password sent to another Singpass user who has a mobile phone. This allows a resident – remember without a smartphone – without a mobile phone, to continue to access services with the help of a trusted family member. For this mode to work, obviously, the key word is trust. And our system has to make sure that it also protects privacy and security.
How do we do that? Before the nomination of a trusted party is activated, there is a strict process for us to ensure that we have verified identities of both persons, the nominator and the trusted party, explain to them the use of these and to obtain – very importantly – obtain consent. I would also emphasise that the person who is nominated would only get the one-time password. That person does not have access to the services which the actual user is logging on, does not have access to the information or the transactions that the actual user is transacting in.
The next point is that we will provide help for all those who need it so that there will always be able to have access and skills for an increasingly digitalised environment. Basically, we have to put our money where our mouth is and ensure that no one is excluded simply because of lack of resources. For instance, we have the Home Access scheme, which subsidises broadband connectivity and a smartphone or a tablet for lower income households especially focused on low-income seniors. Our low-income seniors can go to a SG Digital community hub to apply for support under the Mobile Access for Seniors scheme, which offers eligible seniors a subsidised smartphone and a mobile plan. The subsidised smartphone starts from as low as $20, the mobile plan from as low as $5 a month. And I am sure if someone cannot afford that, if they see their local Member of Parliament, we will find ways to help people. So, do not worry about access to equipment or devices.
But actually, the greater challenge is skills – digital skills and that is why we have the SG Digital Office, which is supporting seniors to pick up these skills, including the most important skill, is how to use Singpass Mobile. And again, if you have observed the digital clinics in our community clubs, you will notice that that is almost 101, the first lesson which is provided. For those who need it, we will also provide in-person support at the 55 SG Digital community hubs at our community clubs and libraries islandwide and at PA's Tech Connect initiative and Integrated Public Service Centres.
Finally, for those who truly require a physical means to access public services, we will make sure that physical counters remain available.
Whilst the Government is working towards the digital delivery of all Government services, we will also ensure that everyone always has access to all these services.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Minister has said that the people who are not able to use Singpass right now because of the phasing out of the OneKey token are in the minority, which is true. But many in this minority are the elderly, the less educated and the disabled. So, although they are a minority, they must not find themselves excluded because of the phasing out of this OneKey token.
For example, face verification can be done only if the user is physically present at these counters that the Minister has explained. However, residents who are physically disabled will find themselves having difficulty visiting the counters. I understand that there are other methods of logging in but none of these fully replace the OneKey token which allows users to log in independently without the mobile phone.
So, will GovTech consider introducing other 2FA methods that do not require users to have a mobile phone or be physically present at counters?
Secondly, I also note that several locations like the IRAS Service Centres will have the counters that provide the Singpass face verification. Can such counters also be extended to all Social Service Offices (SSOs) because many residents who visit the SSOs are not tech-savvy but they need to log into the Singpass to retrieve supporting documents like CPF statements and HDB statements?
And, lastly, will residents without a recent photo on record at ICA be able to be matched by the face verification algorithm?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for the questions. But, in fact, that is precisely the point. I have gone to great lengths to explain how the system will work, even without access to a smart phone, without access to a mobile phone and how you can either have someone else whom you rely on as a trusted party to be the mediator of the second factor authentication as well as a new method which we call facial recognition.
My point is that we totally agree with you that we must make sure no one is excluded, that no one is worse off in the face of the inevitable progress of digital technology.
I also want to reiterate the point that I made earlier that the key thing actually is not hardware or devices, it is really trust, confidence, digital literacy. And for this, I think I will also say – and I think from all Members' experience – hand-holding is necessary. And that is why the SG Digital Office and the more we can roll that out on the ground, accessible, so that someone is there to hold your hand and explain and teach the person, the better. So, you have my assurance that we will continue to roll this out. And the Member's suggestion on Social Service Offices, I think we will look at it. This is part of the delivery of Government services at the retail level.
What was the Member's third point? Sorry, I want to make sure I answer him accurately.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you. I was asking for residents without a recent photo on record, how will the Government be able to match by the recognition algorithm.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Yes, thank you. That is a valid point. I think Members will also now realise why ICA has been fastidiously reminding people at a certain age to update photos so that the photo on record is a recent one. And I would also add, because Singaporeans are quite well travelled at least until 2020 came along, if all of you were to log on to your Singpass Mobile now and look at your National Digital ID, you will realise that that photograph has been updated to your latest passport photograph.
But, nevertheless, your point is valid, we need to make sure we have got updated photos. I would also add this additional point. That the digital systems actually are fairly robust and are able to identify, even if we have got more eye bags, wrinkles and grey hair on our visages.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I am glad to hear Minister say that physical counters will still be around to help those who really do not have the skill sets to do it, and also to minimise the risk. They want to do it themselves rather than relying on someone to key in the Singpass password for them. So, my first supplementary question is, is there a timeline where physical counters would be phased out?
My second question is, how would the Government ensure that the private sector also maintains access to services which do not require Singpass, especially for the senior citizens. Because I get feedback from citizens, senior citizens that to open a bank account now, going to the counter with an identity card is not good enough. They still need to go through the Singpass route.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. Those are two very salient supplementary questions. Is there a timeline to phase out physical counters? If you ask me, I would believe there is no timeline to phase out physical counters because there will always be a need for some contact, some hand-holding, some training, some engagement.
Now, how and where the physical counters are expressed on the ground, will vary with time. Today, the common ones we are all used to is community clubs, libraries and other suggestions. I think that list would evolve but I do not see the time when we will eliminate all physical counters and human-to-human interactions.
Your next point was on the private sector. And here, this is another important question because the example that you cited – opening a bank account, it used to be that you showed up at the bank with your IC or your passport and maybe if you had, for those of us old enough to have a POSB account with stamps and all that, there was a track record, and it seemed quite seamless to open a bank account.
Actually, that same capability is available today but banks have also had to keep up with the times, both in terms of the digital possibilities which have opened up as well as the dangers of fraud and impersonation in the new world. That is why you will find that today, most banks, in fact all our local banks, when you actually are opening a new account, will try their best to get you to also use Singpass. The reason why they want to use Singpass is because of this other module which we call \"MyInfo\". Which means the Government as the ultimate custodian or a source of truth of trusted data that \"I am who I am; I exist; my details, address and so on and so forth\". You realise many times now, you do not need to keep filling up forms repeatedly because the private sector wants to have access with consent to those fields of data which the Government verifies and that is why the banks today would prefer that you use Singpass Mobile and that you authorise them so that they can get the data that they need in a way which they feel is more accurate.
So, the point I am trying to make is that these are possibilities which emerge because we are a Smart Nation, because we use the digital tools available. But even as we do this, we must make sure nobody gets left behind. And that is why the focus on training, on hand-holding, on physical counters to get people past this hurdle. Thank you for that very important point.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Emotional and Financial Support in Schools for Students with Divorced Parents","subTitle":"Follow-up from Government's Study on Impact of Divorce","sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Education in light of the recent study on children of divorced parents faring worse than their peers from intact families (a) what support is available to such children in the schools; (b) whether schools can offer deferments and temporary financial waivers with the goal of encouraging such children to complete their studies; and (c) whether teachers are made aware of the family situation of such children so that they can provide motivation and show more sensitivity during school lessons.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, our schools monitor the well-being of students affected by divorce and other issues closely, and provide social, emotional and learning support for those in need. When the school is informed of a change in parents’ marital status by either the parents or the students, the teachers will check in with the students and assess their needs to decide what support is appropriate and necessary.
For students who exhibit emotional distress or social and behavioural changes, or where there is a need for counselling support, School Counsellors and Student Welfare Officers in school will provide individual counselling or group programmes for the students. They may also make referrals to community agencies such as Family Service Centres and Self-Help Groups to provide wrap-around support to the students and their family.
Students who require financial support can apply for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) to meet essential school expenditure such as school and miscellaneous fees, textbooks and school uniforms, and transport and meal subsidies. There is also school-based financial assistance to provide further support for students who need additional aid.
While updates on marital information is based on voluntary disclosure by parents to schools, the teachers will look out for any changes in the behaviour of their students and follow up with these students and their parents when there is a cause for concern.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheng.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I thank the Minister. Will the Ministry also consider doing a study on children of divorced parents who have done well to understand how they have negated the challenges? And two, do the Counsellors also hand over the cases from Primary to Secondary schools for the more vulnerable ones, such as those on the UPLIFT programme?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. On the study of children of divorced parents who are doing well, I think it is very important for us to do that because if you look at the outcome of the recent study, whilst it is indicative that there could be some less favourable responses or outcomes of children of divorced parents, there are significant number of children of divorced parents who have done well, too. Certainly, divorce alone is not a causal factor to the outcomes of children. There are many factors – it is dependent on the way the divorce happens and on the support level given by parents post-divorce and throughout the lives of their children. It is really useful to understand the children of divorced parents who have done very well. And amongst us, I am very sure we all know that. I would encourage MSF to work together with MOE to venture into studying deeper with reference to children with positive outcomes and to look at factors that have made it possible for these children to have succeeded.
The second question is really whether we transfer information of children who have had challenges in Primary school, moving on to Secondary school. Prior to this, there is always this tension on whether we want to give children a fresh start when they get into Secondary school.
\t
There are two schools of thought. One school of thought really is: we want to give them a second chance, a fair chance, even if they have had situations in Primary school, whether they had disciplinary problems, or issues in schools. When they start Secondary school, we want them to have a fresh start so that teachers do not see them with a certain mindset, a certain lens.
But we also understand that it is useful to transfer some of the information. What MOE has done now is to allow school leaders to have sight of some of these Primary school children who may have had some challenges while they were in Primary school, but not all teachers. School leaders will be able to make a determination. It is more about having sight of some of these students who come to the Secondary schools, not necessarily to make a judgement on them; more indicative. Should the child show some indication of challenges early, the school leaders would then be able to alert the school personnel, like the School Counsellors and the Student Welfare Officers, as well as some of his teachers, to be able to help the child.
From MOE's perspective, every child's well-being is of paramount concern, not just in terms of academic pursuits but also their emotional and social well-being.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to give an update to Members on the COVID-19 situation and, specifically, on our plan to vaccinate our population. Minister Lawrence Wong and I will address earlier Parliamentary Question Nos 2 to 14 and Question Nos 15 to 18 for Questions for Written Answer from today's Order Paper, as well as questions filed by Members of Parliament for future Sittings.
With your permission, I may also call upon my other colleagues to address supplementary questions that may follow, as we work as a team under the Multi-Ministry Task Force.
Sir, it has been almost a year since we had our first case. We have come a long way. We strengthened our healthcare system, enhanced our contact tracing capability, expanded our testing capacity and introduced safe distancing measures. All these efforts work together as a multi-layered defence system to keep us safe from COVID-19.
With the continued support and sacrifices of everyone in Singapore, we have brought the situation under control and kept community transmissions low. We have now moved into Phase Three and are making steady progress towards a new normal.
However, this is not the moment to be complacent. Globally, daily infection numbers and deaths continue to rise in many countries, constantly setting new records, including countries that had been successful in containing their outbreaks previously. We have also seen the emergence of new variants that appear to be more transmissible and have had to tighten some of our border restrictions as a precaution.
We must, therefore, be prepared that, despite best efforts, new infections will still occur here from time to time. We face the continuing risk of new clusters and outbreaks and the danger of a new wave of infections getting out of control. This will be the new normal for a long time to come. That is why we still need to keep up our multi-layered defence. In fact, we must further strengthen it as we continue our journey through Phase Three.
Vaccination is a new line of defence we must put in place. Vaccination is a critical shield to protect us and our loved ones against COVID-19 even as the global situation remains volatile. It will also be a key enabler, allowing us to return to normalcy.
The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination – comprising professionals in infectious diseases, immunology and other relevant fields – has studied the available data on the vaccine, reviewed the reports from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), deliberated at length and considered carefully safety and efficacy aspects of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The Committee has concluded that the vaccine meets the safety and efficacy requirements of the World Health Organization and other international regulatory authorities as well as that of our own HSA. It recommended that everyone who is medically eligible should be vaccinated so that Singapore can achieve as high a level of vaccination coverage as possible. Vaccinations should, however, be voluntary. The Government has accepted these recommendations in full.
A high level of vaccination coverage will maximise protection for the population and minimise the proportion of persons still susceptible to COVID-19. This will, in turn, reduce the risk of large outbreaks and continue to keep community cases low and allow us to further reopen the economy and resume more normal, social activities.
We received our first shipment of vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech at the end of last year. Our first vaccinations were conducted at the National Centre of Infectious Diseases last week. This is an important milestone and we are beginning to see the light at the end of this very long tunnel.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Louis Chua asked about the number of vaccines that we have secured. I am not at liberty to disclose the specific quantity ordered due to commercial sensitivities and confidentiality undertakings in our advance purchase agreements with the vaccine manufacturers. However, I can assure Members that we have secured enough vaccines for all Singaporeans and long-term residents in Singapore. A team headed by the Head of Civil Service led the efforts and undertook this very urgent, complex and difficult task.
The vaccines will arrive in Singapore in batches, given high global demand, especially from countries with high rates of infection. Pharmaceutical companies will also need time to scale up vaccine production and distribution. Following the first shipment of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at the end of last year, we are expecting more deliveries in the next few months, including from Moderna and Sinovac. If all goes according to schedule, we will have enough vaccines for everyone by the third quarter this year.
As recommended by the Expert Committee, we will prioritise vaccinations of groups that are most at risk. This is also consistent with the World Health Organization's guidance and similar to what other countries are doing. We will, therefore, begin with the healthcare workers and staff working in the healthcare sector as they work in direct care of patients or in supporting roles. We will also prioritise COVID-19 frontline and other essential personnel, including swabbers hired by the Health Promotion Board, staff working at Government Quarantine Facilities, Community Care Facilities and dedicated Stay-Home Notice Facilities.
We plan to start vaccinating our elderly and those at greater risk of severe disease from COVID-19 infection starting from February 2021, beginning with seniors aged 70 and above. We will also prioritise others who are in jobs or settings where risk of super-spreading events is high, such as the construction, marine and process sectors, including migrant workers. Thereafter, we will progressively broaden our vaccinations to include other Singaporeans and long-term residents who are medically eligible.
As more vaccines are approved for use, we will adjust our vaccination programme, depending on the vaccine supply as well as the disease epidemiology at that point in time.
The national effort to vaccinate the population will require considerable resources to implement. This is one of our key focus areas this year.
The last time we did a vaccination of this scale was in 1959, in response to an outbreak of smallpox where slightly over one million people were vaccinated. The scale of the current effort is larger but we are also much better prepared. We started planning for this very early on. We have put in place end-to-end processes to meet the cold-chain logistics requirements – from delivery and receipt at the airport, through to storage and then transport to vaccination sites – so that the quality and efficacy of the vaccines are not compromised.
While our healthcare workers are receiving their vaccinations within their healthcare institutions, we are concurrently readying clinics and vaccination centres for others to be vaccinated when it is their turn. Prior bookings will be necessary, given the cold-chain requirements at the vaccination sites and multi-dose vials of the vaccines. It will also ensure operational efficiency and minimise individual wait times. More information on how to make the booking will be provided later.
We encourage everyone to come forward for your vaccination when your turn comes so that we can increase our coverage as soon as possible. We should also bear in mind that some vaccines, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, will require two doses, 21 days apart, and it will take up to another 14 days after the second dose to achieve maximum protection against the virus.
At the same time, we will test our systems thoroughly before ramping up to ensure that vaccination operations proceed smoothly and patient safety is not compromised.
There were several questions from Members, including Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Sylvia Lim, on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. These concerns are understandable, given the extraordinary speed at which the COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and brought to the market. The speed achieved is the result of a strong and concerted global response to a major pandemic rather than a compromise of safety standards.
Let me assure you that the safety and well-being of Singaporeans is the top priority in our vaccination efforts.
First of all, the vaccine must be approved by HSA. Under HSA's Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR), HSA's scientific and clinical experts apply strict international standards to assess COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that they meet the stipulated high standards of quality, safety and efficacy. These standards are the same as those used for full vaccine evaluations except that long-term data from clinical trials will only be evaluated later as the data becomes available.
The data that has been reviewed includes those from pre-clinical studies done in laboratories, clinical trials on human volunteers, manufacturing and quality controls as well as the on-going experience with the actual use of the vaccines.
The assessment and recommendations for the vaccines are also reviewed by HSA's Medicines Advisory Committee and Panel of Infectious Diseases Experts.
HSA will only allow a COVID-19 vaccine to be used if it is assessed to be sufficiently efficacious and safe for use and only if the benefits of the vaccine are assessed to outweigh the risks of any potential adverse effects from the vaccination. HSA has put the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through this rigorous review process and has authorised its use. The Moderna and Sinovac vaccines are also currently undergoing the review process.
Following HSA's approval, the independent Expert Committee appointed by MOH has also reviewed the clinical data on the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and has been briefed by HSA on the full range of considerations in granting interim authorisation. The Expert Committee concurs with HSA – that the vaccine is suitable for use in Singapore, for persons aged 16 years and above, for the prevention of COVID-19.
In assessing the suitability of vaccine candidates for specific population groups, the Expert Committee took into consideration four key criteria – vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, vaccine tolerability and data adequacy of clinical trials.
The Expert Committee has assessed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine demonstrated a high vaccine efficacy of 95% in reducing symptomatic COVID-19 disease among persons aged 16 and older and its safety profile is consistent with that of other established and registered vaccines used in immunisation against other diseases.
Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there is any data to show that the current COVID-19 vaccines are effective against the new strain seen in the UK and Europe. Mutations occur in viruses naturally and different strains can emerge from time to time, especially in a long-drawn pandemic. While this B.1.1.7 strain from UK does appear to be more transmissible, there is currently no evidence that current COVID-19 vaccines are less effective against this strain.
Experts have said that it is unlikely that mutations would impact effectiveness of current vaccines.
Vaccine producers such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have also come forward to reassure that their vaccines should protect against the B.1.1.7 variant, and are undertaking studies to formally confirm this. MOH will evaluate the data as it emerges and review our vaccine strategy and border measures, if necessary.
Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and others have asked about potential side effects. Both HSA and the Expert Committee have studied the data, from clinical trials as well as actual experience from vaccinations carried out in other countries. They have factored this into their evaluation before granting authorisation or making a recommendation on the use of COVID-19 vaccines.
Based on data available today, people who receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may experience side effects such as pain in the injection site, fatigue, fever, muscle aches, or headaches. These are similar to side effects for other established vaccines and they usually resolve on their own in a few days.
As with all medications and established vaccines, there is a small risk of very rare but serious adverse events that may occur post-vaccination, including allergic reactions.
HSA and the Expert Committee have therefore recommended that those with known severe allergies should not be vaccinated. All vaccine recipients should also be observed on-site for 30 minutes post-vaccination, so that any severe allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis can be detected and treated promptly.
MOH will also introduce a vaccine injury financial assistance programme to provide support for persons who suffer a serious adverse event that is assessed to be related to COVID-19 vaccines administered in Singapore. While we expect few to need this, the programme will give a greater peace of mind for those taking the vaccination. Further details on the programme will be provided in due course.
In addition, HSA requires vaccine manufacturers to submit new information continually for active review. HSA and the Expert Committee will also continue to monitor and review the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in the local population and internationally. This includes data on specific population subgroups such as those below age of 16, persons with immunosuppression, or pregnant women that were excluded from initial clinical trials. HSA and the Expert Committee will also look at long-term safety data to detect rare and severe adverse events, and study the durability of protection provided by the vaccines. This on-going monitoring is the norm expected for any vaccines that first come into use.
Mr Dennis Tan asked whether there will be a need to separate blood collected from donors who have and have not received COVID-19 vaccinations. There is no need to do so. The COVID-19 vaccine does not cause infection.
While the COVID-19 vaccination will be voluntary, we strongly encourage everyone who is medically eligible to get vaccinated when the vaccine is offered to you. This will not only provide protection to yourself, but also indirectly protect those who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons. This collective protection would be more effective the more are vaccinated. In turn, we can keep the number of cases low, minimise the stress on our healthcare system, ensure that those who are ill get the treatment that they need and allow us to return to normalcy sooner.
Some may feel that there is no urgency to get vaccinated given the current low number of community cases and the local situation is under control. We must not be complacent or wait till an outbreak and then rush to be vaccinated. We have seen a few community cases in the last few days, which shows clearly that there are hidden cases among us. We are also seeing new variants that are more contagious. Any of these cases has a risk of sparking a major outbreak as we have seen in other countries. The best time to vaccinate is now. If people wait until an outbreak has happened to get themselves vaccinated, it will be too late – both to protect themselves and to prevent the outbreak in the first place.
As the Prime Minister has said, we have every confidence in our experts and the process that has been put in place. The Prime Minister and our Cabinet colleagues, including myself, will lead on this. We will be getting vaccinated as early as possible when our turn comes.
To ensure access to the vaccine, COVID-19 vaccination will be free for all Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and long-term residents in Singapore, which includes Employment Pass, S Pass, and Work Permit holders, Foreign Domestic Workers, and Dependent Pass, Long-Term Visit Pass and Student Pass holders – totalling about 5.7 million people. This excludes Short-Term Visit Pass holders, such as tourists.
I understand Mr Yip Hon Weng would like to know whether those who are not vaccinated will have their job scopes reviewed, in order to reduce exposure to the virus. In most instances, redeployment of non-vaccinated employees is unlikely to be necessary, unless there is a resurgence of local cases. But all workers should continue to take the necessary precautions such as mask-wearing, and where required, donning of Personal Protective Equipment or PPE, and undergoing Rostered Routine Testing or RRT. That said, there may be specific cases such as researchers or laboratory staff working directly on the COVID-19 virus or those who face very high risk of exposure to infected individuals. MOH and MOM are reviewing the issue of vaccination of workers in such workplace settings and will provide further advice later.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked if individuals will be issued vaccination cards after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Every person who is vaccinated will receive a physical vaccination card and this will help remind them of their appointment to return for their second dose, indicate clearly which vaccine was administered and provide brief post-vaccination advice. In addition, any person who is vaccinated will have their record updated in the National Immunisation Registry, and individuals will be able to check their vaccination status digitally.
Mr Louis Chua asked if individuals will be given a choice of vaccines when more than one has been approved for use. The allocation of vaccines will largely be based on medical indications of the different vaccines and the suitability of the vaccine for the different population groups, as well as availability of the vaccines. Any COVID-19 vaccine that is approved for use will have to meet the stringent safety and efficacy requirements. Therefore, it is not necessary to allow individuals to have choice of vaccines, which will unnecessarily complicate the already complex vaccination programme. Anyway, in the immediate term, only the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been approved for use. So, there is no choice.
Mr Alex Yam and Ms He Ting Ru asked about our public communications strategy. Government agencies have been using various channels to understand public sentiments on the COVID-19 vaccines, including ground outreach and surveys. Our findings showed that more than half – close to 60% – say they would get vaccinated if a vaccine becomes available in Singapore. About a third were more cautious, saying they would prefer to wait for more data before deciding.
We will continue our efforts to reach out to our population to explain the importance of vaccination and to assure them of the safety and efficacy of the vaccines we are using. I hope parliamentary colleagues will also help to share the information with your constituents.
I would also like to urge everyone to refer to official or credible sources of information and not to forward unconfirmed or untrue information. For example, there were claims that six people had died due to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine during clinical trials. However, the facts are that only two of the six individuals were given the vaccine and the other four were given the placebo. Investigations revealed that there was no causal relationship between the vaccine and the two individuals’ deaths. Spreading such misinformation undermines our efforts to protect Singapore and Singaporeans against COVID-19.
Let me conclude. We have come a long way in the past year. We have been through the circuit breaker. Many have missed their vacations for the whole year. We have had to learn and manage with safe distancing measures when we are out and about. It is only through everyone’s concerted efforts that local transmission is now low in Singapore. However, the global situation is still far from under control.
Vaccinations will be a key enabler for us to return to normalcy. We have secured enough vaccines for the whole population. Every vaccine will meet all our safety and efficacy requirements before being approved for use. And I strongly encourage all Singaporeans and long-term residents to get vaccinated when the vaccine is offered to you, to protect yourselves and your loved ones.
This will be the key focus of the MTF over the next few months. Let us all do our part, so we can overcome and emerge stronger together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Minister for Education will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on both Statements after this Statement. Minister Wong.
The Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, our key priorities for the year are to implement the vaccination programme smoothly and to continue with our re-opening plans safely while keeping the infection under control. Minister Gan has just given an update on our vaccination plans. Let me now elaborate on our other areas of focus and what we should be prepared for over the coming months.
We have worked hard together over the past year to get to where we are today. It has not been an easy journey. We have been tested severely. We have put in place some very tough measures. I thank everyone for cooperating with them and taking them in your stride.
In a crisis like this, we have learnt to expect the unpredictable. You can have the best laid plans. But new issues will inevitably crop up and some things will go wrong. What matters most at the end of the day is our ability to rally and work together, to adapt along the way and to regain our footing after setbacks.
That is how we were able to bring things under control, keep community transmission low, and move to Phase Three on 28 December last year. It is a careful acknowledgement of our state of readiness to resume more activities in a controlled manner. The specific adjustments from Phase Two to Phase Three may not seem like a lot. Indeed, in his Parliamentary Question (PQ), Mr Leong Mun Wai said there’s “little change”.
But let us not trivialise these hard-won gains. They are the result of the efforts and sacrifices by many people over the course of the year.
Importantly, we are not out of the woods yet. We cannot afford to relax and let our guard down. As Minister Gan highlighted just now, the global situation continues to escalate rapidly.
Cases continue to climb in many countries, including in places which had previously established good control over the virus. In Singapore, in recent days we have already seen two family clusters. Marine workers went on board ships, they got infected and they spread the virus to their family members, including their spouses and children. One of the children had a school-mate who visited the home and was infected. Fortunately, this happened during the school holidays, so they had limited contact with other students. But it is a sobering reminder of how easily new infection clusters can break out. it only takes one super spreader event to spark another major outbreak, so we must continue to stay alert and vigilant.
The emergence of new viral strains that may be more infectious, such as the B.1.1.7 variant, is indeed very worrying. And I share the concerns raised by Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Melvin Yong.
Where necessary and practical, we will tighten our border restrictions to limit importation risk. For example, from the UK and South Africa we have introduced additional testing and requirements, as well as restricted the number of travellers. We have also recently tightened the testing regime and safe management measures for those working in the aviation and maritime sectors, as they are the ones who are most likely to be interfacing with travellers and crew from overseas.
For example, for air crew who have layovers in higher risk countries, we are testing them more frequently after they return to Singapore and requiring them to self-isolate for a few days. Likewise, we are doing a one-time sweep to test all marine workers and we are increasing the frequency of testing for marine workers going on board vessels. We are testing them every seven days instead of 14 days.
This is not the first time we have picked up new strains of the virus. Nor will it be the last.
The fact is that the virus has always been mutating, and will continue to do so. Other new strains will continue to emerge. We do not know what their cumulative effects will be like. So, we will have to constantly monitor the latest developments around the world, review the data and evidence, and update our measures accordingly.
With the virus raging around the world, we clearly cannot afford to freely open our borders at this time. But neither can we close ourselves completely from the world and simply stop all flights or ships coming to Singapore. Trade and travel are our lifeblood. This is an existential issue for us because we do not have the luxury of a hinterland to depend on.
Therefore, we take a calculated risk-based approach in managing our borders. Minister Ong Ye Kung recently made a Ministerial Statement on this. So, I will just reiterate the key points.
To facilitate essential business and official travel, we have established special travel arrangements with certain countries and territories. We control the number of travellers on these schemes tightly, and we require the travellers to stick to a controlled itinerary and strictly limit interactions with the wider community.
For example, we have a Fast Lane between Singapore and six provinces and municipalities in China, established in June last year. Miss Cheng Li Hui asked how many have taken this up. Around 500 travellers have arrived from China under this arrangement. Since early November, we have also allowed short-term Chinese visitors to enter Singapore via the Air Travel Pass.
In order to promote both Singapore’s economic interests and our status as a global business and transportation hub, we will continue to negotiate and formulate additional travel arrangements with other like-minded countries or regions while ensuring that public health is not compromised.
Recently, we also announced a new travel lane, called Connect@Singapore, aimed at a limited number of business, officials and high economic value travellers coming to Singapore for short-term stays. As it would not be practical for these travellers to serve a 14-day quarantine, we manage the risk by placing a “bubble wrap” around these travellers. So, the travellers will only stay at dedicated facilities and will not be allowed into the community. They will also undergo regular testing and observe all prevailing safe management measures.
Besides these special travel arrangements, we have, on a daily basis, a far larger number of travellers who are returning Singaporeans, PRs and long-term pass holders. There is also a continued flow of new migrant workers coming in, mostly construction workers and foreign domestic helpers. We need them to build our homes and infrastructure, and to support the care-giving needs of our families.
For these returning residents and essential workers, we allow their inflow on a controlled basis, but we require those who are from higher risk countries to serve a 14-day Stay Home Notice or SHN at dedicated facilities. They will be tested at the end of their SHN. Travellers from countries with new virus variants will serve their SHN at designated hotels to further minimise the risks of spread. This system ensures that we are able to tightly ring-fence imported cases and minimise the risk of leakage into the community.
Since 18 November, we have required all non-citizen and non-PR travellers from higher risk countries or regions coming to Singapore to take a pre-departure test within 72 hours prior to their departure. We have not required this of citizens and PRs because we do not want to place additional barriers for them to return home if they have urgent need to do so. Additionally, as paediatric testing services may not be so easily available in some countries, those aged six and below are also exempted from this pre-departure test. But through the SHN, we ensure that community transmission risks are minimised for these travellers, even in the absence of a pre-departure test.
So, in response to Mr Gerald Giam’s query, between 18 November and 27 December last year, there have been over 12,000 travellers, including citizens and PRs, from higher risk countries and regions who entered Singapore without pre-departure tests. So far around 100 or 0.85% have tested positive. Importantly, none of these cases has resulted in local transmission.
We recognise that our containment measures depend on good management of the hotels which are used as SHN facilities. We make sure these facilities have strict protocols in place to segregate persons on SHN from all other guests. These include placing them in segregated blocks, wings or floors, clearly demarcating their route of movement and instituting regular cleaning and disinfection regimes.
Persons on SHN are not allowed to use common facilities in the hotels. Once there is a confirmed case, comprehensive contact tracing and ring-fencing of contacts, including staff working in SHN facilities, will be done to prevent further transmission. And any links between confirmed cases from the same facility will be thoroughly investigated.
Even with the multiple layers of safeguards, the risk of leaks, though small, remains. And the recent incident at Mandarin Orchard Hotel is a case in point, as Mr Ang Wei Neng highlighted.
Based on our preliminary investigations, there had been no breaches in SHN protocols at Mandarin Orchard Hotel. But investigations suggest that infection protocols can be improved, for example, through better crowd regulation as well as having good ventilation systems to circulate more fresh air. We will continue to work closely with all SHN hotels to ensure that infection prevention protocols are robust.
As an additional safeguard, all hotel staff in contact with SHN individuals will henceforth be placed on a 14-day rostered routing testing regime or RRT.
Monitoring genetic information of the virus in Singapore’s COVID-19 cases has been important in uncovering the Mandarin Orchard Hotel incident and is required to detect any importation of new COVID-19 strains into Singapore.
Specific to Dr Tan Wu Meng’s question regarding whole-genome sequencing in Singapore, this is an established capability within the National Public Health Laboratory or NPHL. Where possible, whole-genome sequencing can be performed rapidly and directly on clinical samples of COVID-19 positive cases. However, in samples that have low viral loads, it may be necessary for the virus to be cultured before the sequencing can be done. We will continue to assess available and emerging laboratory technologies so we can improve our capabilities and enhance our responses.
One important issue is whether we can relax our border measures for persons who are vaccinated. We are studying this issue very carefully. As mentioned earlier, the main benefit of the vaccine is that it offers protection to the vaccinated individual. It is likely that the vaccination can also reduce the risk of transmission of the virus. But at present we still do not know the extent of the reduction.
There are several on-going studies on the effectiveness of vaccines in reducing transmission risk and we are monitoring these very closely. To Ms He Ting Ru’s question, if there is clear evidence that transmission risks can be lowered significantly, then we will certainly consider some relaxation to the SHN regime for vaccinated travellers.
But for now, we will continue to take a more cautious approach. In other words, vaccinated travellers will continue to be subjected to prevailing border measures and SHN requirements. We will fine-tune our approach over time, once we have understand the effect of the vaccine better.
Of course, border measures are just one part of our overall system of defence against the virus. Within our community, we must continue to adopt a calibrated approach towards resumption of activities in Phase Three and minimise the risks of any further flare-ups during this period.
The tools for us to do so are not new – we have repeatedly emphasised them throughout the past year, but I think they bear repeating as we begin this new year because memories are short, as we all know.
First, we must uphold safe management measures. Under Phase Three we can go out in larger groups of eight people. By all means, use the opportunity to catch up with family members and loved ones. But please do so responsibly and in accordance with prevailing rules and restrictions.
Unfortunately, there are a few who persist in pushing their luck and disregarding the rules. We have stepped up checks over the festive period. Firm enforcement actions have been taken and will continue to do so against any such breaches.
Let us also not forget some of the basic measures that we have put in place. All the good practices that we have emphasised and cultivated over the past few months remain very important – wearing a mask, practising good hygiene, washing of hands regularly, not using your hands to touch your face. Remember we talked about all these repeatedly at the start of the outbreak last year. Let us not forget them. They are simple but still very effective.
Second, testing remains important and we are continuing to deploy more tests as widely as possible, so that cases can be detected quickly.
Anyone who sees a doctor with acute respiratory infections or flu-like symptoms will be advised to take a PCR test. On average, we have tested more than 14,000 individuals every week in December last year, through this surveillance mechanism. That was how we picked up several of our recent cases. So, it is very important for anyone who feels unwell to see the doctor immediately. And if the doctor advises you to be tested, please comply with the doctor’s instructions.
For those engaged in higher risk activities, we are putting them on a rostered routing testing regime or the RRT. This already applies to workers in the construction, marine and process sectors, as well as to airport and marine workers, and now to staff in the SHN hotels, as I mentioned just now.
Beyond the RRT, we undertake special testing operations from time to time to do a sweep around specific areas or groups of individuals, whom we assess to be at higher risk of transmission. Over the past few months, we have done such tests amongst staff of nursing homes, hawkers, as well as bus and taxi drivers. This month, we will be testing the students staying in our University hostels.
We have also been stepping up the use of antigen rapid tests. They are useful as a pre-event measure for larger scale activities. They are also a very good complement to the PCR tests which are more sensitive but take longer to obtain results. The costs of these rapid tests have been coming down. The first of such rapid test kits administered in Singapore cost about $80 per person. That is not just the test itself, but also the operation and manpower costs. Now, it is possible to do this for under $50 per person, and the cost is likely to come down further.
Over time, we can expect more innovative rapid test kits that are cheaper, faster and more convenient to administer. These will enable us to test more extensively and conveniently, to detect positive cases and protect our population more comprehensively.
When we first deployed testing in a significant way, I know there were concerns amongst certain groups. Some thought it would be a hassle. Others were worried that there would be a stigma associated with being identified for testing. But I hope by now we can all appreciate and understand the reasons why testing is important and necessary.
Frequent and widespread testing is a critical enabler, which we intend to ramp up over the coming months. We must all start getting used to the idea of regular testing being a part of our lives during this pandemic period.
Third, we will continue to strengthen our contact tracing capabilities. Despite our best efforts at safe management measures and testing, we know that cases will still slip through from time to time. That is why we need to be able to quickly identify and trace the contacts, and ring-fence the clusters.
The TraceTogether and SafeEntry Programme has been, and will continue, to be a key part of our contact tracing operations. Before TraceTogether or TT, we had a good contact tracing system but it was manpower intensive. It worked well for SARS, but not for COVID-19, where the virus spreads much faster, well before the onset of symptoms and even in cases who themselves remain asymptomatic. In the past it took two days for us to interview an infected person, establish all of his close contacts and then get in touch with these people and put them on quarantine. Two days. That was too slow. Today, with TT and SafeEntry, we are able to do all this in a matter of hours.
Once we identify the contacts, we test them immediately, at the start of their quarantine. For those who are positive, we in turn get their TT data to identity their contacts and then, initiate the tracing process. In this way, we try to get ahead of the virus and contain clusters before they get any bigger.
Our ability to do all of these is not just because of the TT programme. It is fundamentally because of the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in our system – the way we handle the data, the way they go about doing contact tracing.
I thank everyone for their cooperation and support because this has enabled our contact tracers to do their work and to keep cases under control.
To date, we have spent around $10 million on developing both the TraceTogether app and SafeEntry system. Mr Gerald Giam asked if the cost is justified. Well, the results speak for themselves – TraceTogether has stopped the transmission of the virus in many instances and has helped save many lives. So, I have no doubt about the cost-effectiveness of the programme.
Of course, in developing the programme, we remained mindful of the need to ensure value for money. For example, Mr Dennis Tan had filed a question on whether we could work on a rechargeable version of the TraceTogether tokens. Doing so would inevitably increase the cost and also the time needed for manufacturing. Instead, we have designed the tokens using off-the-shelf components where possible to minimise manufacturing complexity, time and costs.
More than 4.2 million people or around 78% of Singapore residents now participate in the TraceTogether programme. And we certainly encourage an even higher take-up. Not all of them use the token. Quite a number, around two million or slightly less than half, just use the TraceTogether app on their phones. I am one of them because I think that if I have the token with me, I quite likely to lose it. So, I just use my phone and that works well for me. But we recognise that some people want the tokens and that is why we made them available and distributed them across all the Community Centres or CCs.
Given that the TT app was easily available, we had initially not expected such a strong demand for the tokens. On the supply side, there were also some delays in the manufacturing schedule. That is why, as mentioned by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, we were not able to complete the distribution of the tokens across all the CCs. We have been steadily building up the inventory of the TraceTogether tokens and will soon be able to resume distribution in the CCs that are currently closed. As announced previously, we will also be distributing the tokens to school students who have not yet collected them, through the schools.
After everyone who needs a token has had a chance to collect one, we will put in place the requirement to use TraceTogether only at the SafeEntry checkpoints. In other words, we have what we call TT-only SafeEntry where the SafeEntry checking in/checking out is done either through the app or the token. We will give further information on this once the details and timelines are firmed up, and will provide adequate advance notice to all the affected establishments, so that they can gear up and prepare.
Mr Speaker, 2020 was undoubtedly a difficult year, but we can take heart that we have learnt and grown tremendously in our abilities to cope with the virus.
I thank everyone who has worked so hard and made many sacrifices to get us to where we are today. Our healthcare workers and frontline officers – contact tracers, safe distancing ambassadors, our swabbers, enforcement officers, immigration and security officers, airport workers, our SHN operators – have all been working hard round the clock. There are also many who have contributed; many unsung heroes all over Singapore doing their part.
Toward the end of last year, Minister Gan and I held a simple appreciation event – in accordance with all safe distancing rules, of course – to thank the people involved in setting up the COVID-19 Community Care Facility. This is at the Expo and Big Box.
Members will recall this was a pivotal moment in our fight against the virus. At the peak of the pandemic, we had more than 1,000 cases per day, and our healthcare system was at risk of being overwhelmed. The team came together from both the public and private sectors. In the spirit of SG United, they got the facility up and running in a matter of days. They truly made the impossible possible.
Now, we have stood down the facilities at the Expo and Big Box because we do not need them for now. I told the team we will do our best to avoid calling on them again. I think they were quite relieved to hear that. But I was also very heartened when they said, \"Don't worry, if the need arises, we will be ready to respond anytime\".
That is the indomitable spirit that gives me confidence in our fight against COVID-19. We must not allow this prolonged vigilance to wear us down. We must not falter; we must not weaken or tire.\tLet us approach the new year with the same spirit of fortitude, solidarity and unity that we had shown over the past year. Let us finish the job and complete our mission together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Ministers for their Statements. I would like to ask one clarification to highlight a group of individuals who may well benefit from expedited access to the COVID-19 vaccine. These are Singaporeans who serve Singapore overseas. Often in jurisdictions where COVID-19 may be very prevalent and even with the best protective measures, they may come face-to-face with a COVID-19-infected person during their overseas duties. These include our public officers at overseas missions, whether from MFA, MTI or MINDEF.
Another related group would be our national sports women and sportsmen, some of whom may be training overseas, some of whom may be back home in Singapore right now, like one of my residents, but at the same time worried about what will happen when they return overseas for studies, when they go overseas to train, and may again come face-to-face with a COVID-19-infected person while flying Singapore's flag.
So, I would like to ask the Ministers what is the policy approach that will be taken to support Singapore Public Service officers and our Singaporean sportswomen and sportsmen who represent us overseas, often in jurisdictions where COVID-19 is running rampant?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. I would like to thank Dr Tan for his questions and clarification. In fact, these are issues that the Multi-Ministry Taskforce is discussing. We are also consulting the expert committee on vaccination on how to deal with the various priorities. As I mentioned earlier, the key priority today is to focus on healthcare workers because they are at the frontline and they are dealing with the patients and some of them could be, in fact, infected with COVID-19. So, our priority is to first protect the healthcare workers, ensure they can continue to preserve our healthcare system.
Secondly, we look at those who are at a high risk of a severe outcome, should they be infected. This includes vulnerable seniors. Therefore, this is the second group that we will be focusing on.
Beyond this, we are also looking at different categories of people including key entities like our military, our Police force, which are very important in ensuring law and order, and national security, as well as our foreign representatives, our embassies overseas, particularly in countries where there is a high prevalence of COVID-19. They are protecting Singapore's interests and we should find ways to protect them as well.
So, all these are factors that will be taken into consideration. But as the Member pointed out, there are many groups and many of them are also facing challenges. We do want to protect them as much as possible. So, the key really is to expand our vaccination as quickly as possible to cover as many people as possible. If it is your turn, please come forward and get vaccinated, do not wait. This is the only way for us to protect individuals as well as to protect one another.
I take the Member's point that there will be different groups that have an interest and that require protection. We will see how we can manage our vaccination programme to meet their needs. But bearing in mind that the priority is still to protect our healthcare system, our healthcare workers and the next priority are the seniors, who are vulnerable to severe outcomes.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me thank both Ministers for the Statement. The pandemic itself is a war. When we first saw the first shipment of the vaccine that arrived in Singapore with Minister Ong receiving at the airport, we were very happy.
But, subsequently, we were a little bit disappointed with the speed of the roll-out of the vaccine. In fact, in Canada, during the Christmas period, they closed the vaccination centre and they were being slammed, \"Why did you close the vaccination centres during Christmas?\" They should be speeding on now to quickly vaccinate as many people as possible. As from today, Israel has already vaccinated 12% of their population.
Initially, I was hoping that Singapore should be the first country in the world to get the whole country vaccinated. If any country can do it, Singapore can do it. We can show the world. Because we are small, we are fast, we are efficient, we are organised. If this is a war, I would say that vaccination, initially, I was hoping it would be made mandatory. Of course, the Government has chosen to make it voluntary.
I know that vaccination is a personal choice, but it has public consequences. I certainly urge everyone to be vaccinated as soon as possible. So, I hope that the Ministers now can consider rolling out this vaccination programme faster than what we are talking now. Because as it is now, I am not sure what are we waiting for. We should be vaccinating more people now. In fact, I hope that the healthcare workers should be vaccinated within the next two weeks and it should be completed as soon as possible.
Next, I would also like to ask when will the Speaker, Deputy Speakers and the Members of Parliament be vaccinated.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: First, let me thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for his enthusiasm and his strong support for our vaccination programme. In fact, I do agree with him. Our objective is to roll out our vaccination programme as quickly as possible, but we have to bear in mind that we have limited supplies, we need to progress based on the supplies that we can receive.
Secondly, I must also stress that we did not rest over the Christmas or the New Year. The key reason for our approach is to adopt a cautious one because vaccination is a very complex process, particularly bearing in mind that we need to ensure the ultra cold-chain is intact to ensure the quality and efficacy of the vaccine will not be affected. So that is one.
Next, we also want to make sure the safety of those who are receiving the vaccination, making sure that there is a proper queuing system, they are registered properly, and data are captured accurately. It is quite a complex situation. We conducted a trial recently, last week. And we will be rolling out full-scale vaccination for the healthcare workers.
Hopefully, soon we will be able to make it available to Speaker as well as Members of Parliament. It is important that we also roll out for the rest of Singaporeans. So, I agree with Dr Lim and I am equally anxious to cover as many Singaporeans as possible. I look forward to Members to help support our effort and to convince your constituents to step forward when their turn comes for the vaccination.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister for Health. The first is whether the Health Sciences Authority or HSA works with any threshold for efficacy before it approves any vaccine. I read, for example, that in the US, the regulators need a minimum efficacy threshold of about 50%. Does HSA have some minimum threshold that it works with before considering approving any vaccine? So, that is the first question.
The second clarification concerns HSA's approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. HSA has announced that it is actually an interim authorisation and that further data – probably longer term data – will need to be submitted by the manufacturer before the vaccine can be given full registration. So, I would like the Minister for Health – for public consumption – to explain what additional information the manufacturer needs to submit in order to get full registration for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Thank you.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. First, on the question of efficacy threshold, it is true that WHO and the US, have a threshold of 50%. We, too, have a minimum threshold of 50%. But I think that the efficacy threshold has to take into account the potential risk that the vaccine may create, the potential risk of adverse incidents, as well as other factors. So, it is not a clear-cut threshold that once it is 50.1%, we will approve it. If there is greater uncertainty, then we will require a higher level of efficacy for us to be assured of the benefits versus the risks.
We also have to take into account the current situation of the pandemic. If it is a very severe pandemic, then it is important for us to ensure that we vaccinate our population as quickly as possible and, therefore, we may have to accept a lower threshold of efficacy. If the pandemic is less severe – low mortality and so on, we may require a higher level of efficacy. Basically, it is a balance of benefits and risks. So, it is a holistic assessment that HSA's experts will have to take into account in coming to a conclusion whether or not it will be approved for use. It is not just a single number.
Secondly, Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the meaning of \"interim approval\" and what long-term data we are looking at. Because this vaccine has been made available only in recent months and it has only been applied for a couple of months, we still need to monitor how it is applied in real life. Manufacturers are required to report any adverse incidents that happen so that we can keep track of the performance of the vaccine on the ground as well as the potential risks that it may carry.
We need to do this continuously for a prolonged period of time – usually one year, two years or maybe longer – so as to give us assurance of the long-term effect of this vaccine. This is part of the reason why HSA has not given a full authorisation because a full authorisation will require these long-term data to be available before we do so.
But in view of the pandemic that we are facing today, HSA has given an interim approval for the use of this vaccine, accepting the fact that long-term data will only be available in the long term and we will need to continue to monitor and to make our assessment in the long term.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Ministers, for the comprehensive responses. I have two supplementary questions.
First, we take comfort from Minister Gan's report that Singapore has secured sufficient supplies for the entire Singapore local population and that vaccination is anticipated to complete by the third quarter of 2021. I would like to ask the Minister: what are the risks of Singapore not getting delivery of our vaccine orders even though we have secured them – whether they will be delivered as we compete with other nations to get hold of the vaccines? That is the first supplementary question.
The second supplementary question is, testing has been a key requirement for travel under COVID-19 conditions. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will add vaccination in the future as a qualification for travel and perhaps even for employment in certain occupations or engagement in certain social activities. Particularly, also related to this question on vaccination, how would vaccination be featured in the upcoming World Economic Forum (WEF) to be hosted in Singapore in May?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. On the delivery of our advance order for vaccines – there is always a risk of non-delivery or a delay in delivery. So, we are in close contact with our manufacturers that we have entered into contract with and we are monitoring their delivery schedule, and if our vaccination programme has to be adjusted.
We are also looking forward to more vaccines being approved so we have alternatives. We want to make sure that we diversify our sources of vaccines so that even if one shipment is delayed, we have access to other supplies. This way, we ensure that we have adequate vaccine supplies for the whole of Singapore.
With regard to the questions on travel, I will leave them to my Co-Chair to respond.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, it is important that we look at vaccinations as just part of the broader suite of measures that we have to protect ourselves, including safe management, testing and contact tracing. Vaccination is not a silver bullet. It is just part of that overall system.
As I have mentioned just now, we are still assessing the extent to which vaccinations can help reduce transmission risk. We know when you get vaccinated, you are protecting yourself. You do not know how much you can protect others. Yes, there will be some beneficial impact but what is the extent? It is still under consideration. So, until we understand the effects of the vaccine, I think we will not be able to make any changes to our measures, be domestic or travel measures.
But if the results indicate that vaccinations do offer protection to others, then, clearly, we can make some adjustments.
What are some of the adjustments that are possible? For example, if there is a concert being held today, typically, under today's rules, we would require a pre-event test for everyone going to the concert. Potentially, if you have been vaccinated, we might say: well, someone who has been vaccinated need not take such a pre-event test. That is conceivable.
Subsequently, if we have, again, more evidence, we might say, for travellers, well, you do not need a vaccination to travel but, if you are vaccinated, you travel and you come back, I might consider the extent to which I impose the Stay-Home Notice (SHN) conditions or the number of tests you are required to take. These are also possible. So, those are the things that we are looking at and these are all being studied very carefully
For purposes of the WEF event which Ms Foo highlighted, well, if the travellers come in on a vaccine and if we have the data and evidence, then, indeed, we can review the requirements that we impose on these travellers. Otherwise, the basic arrangements for the WEF event will be through existing prevailing measures. For example, we will bubble wrap a facility. We will put the travellers under frequent testing to ensure that they are safe. We will have safe management measures in place. All of these measures are still effective and we should still continue to rely on them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I have two follow-up supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, I understand that because of commercial sensitivities, the exact number of doses of vaccines cannot be shared but, perhaps, the Minister can share with us, in aggregate, the number of doses that have been secured to give people the assurance that there is more than sufficient. As alluded to by Dr Lim Wee Kiak as well as Ms Foo Mee Har, I think you will also give Singaporeans comfort to know of the expected delivery timeline of when they will be able to be vaccinated in the rest of the year.
The second question is also a follow-up question to what the Minister has said in terms of individual autonomy to choose the vaccines. For people who are within the same category, for example, who are Singaporeans, who are male and of a certain age, what is the approach or process by which the vaccine is being administered, given that should there be more than one that has been approved? Would the Ministry provide the up-to-date information as to the different side effects, efficacy rates as well as various clinical trial data for people who are being administered a particular vaccine to have a sense of these are?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. I thought I have answered the question on quantity. I will not be able to give a specific number but suffice to say that we have secured a sufficient quantity for the whole population. Our strategy is also to ensure that we have a portfolio of vaccines and not just rely on a single supplier. Today, we have approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and we are continuing to evaluate two other vaccines that I have mentioned in my speech.
With regard to the second question, I am not quite sure what the question was about. How do we administer the vaccine if there are different types? As I have mentioned, it will be based on the assessment. If there are significant contra-indications for a specific vaccine that, say, for example, is not suitable for young children and another vaccine is suitable, then we will use the vaccine that is suitable for young children, depending on the indication that is provided by the manufacturer.
But if the indications are similar, then it will also depend on the availability of the vaccines at the point in time, whichever stock is available. So long as we are able to administer them, we would use the vaccine that is available to us. The key is that whatever the source of the vaccine, all of them must meet our safety efficacy requirements. From a safety and efficacy point of view, they should be treated similarly.
But at the same time, as the Member has pointed out, we do provide information on these vaccines. I think HSA's assessments are published, reports are available and the manufacturers also shared a lot of details with regard to the potential side effects of these vaccines and I have mentioned some of the side effects in my Statement earlier.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Ministers for their Ministerial Statements.
With regard to my question, the answer provided by the Minister earlier is that, based on the recent surveys, over 60% of Singaporeans were prepared to be vaccinated. I would like to ask the Minister three follow-up questions.
One is: this figure of 60% \"satisfactory\" to the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF), should it be higher, because we had mentioned that we should be looking at above 70% vaccination rate?
Second question is: as more vaccines come on stream or are approved for use in Singapore, the sentiments with regard to different vaccines – will that also be similarly surveyed?
Thirdly, on when these additional vaccines come on stream. Anecdotally, over the weekend, as I was speaking to residents as well as family members, quite a number of older Singaporeans seemed to indicate a preference for CoronaVac, which is the vaccine that is developed by Sinovac, which is not using the new technology. For some reason, they indicated that it is because it is older technology, it is more established. If it comes on stream, they would like to choose to have that.
If, in the event that, at the time that they are assigned to take their vaccinations and these other variants of vaccines are not available and they reject the current vaccines, how soon, when new vaccines come on stream, will they be eligible to be vaccinated?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. Let me say that we hope that more than 60% of Singaporeans – in fact, ideally, everybody in Singapore – should be vaccinated. Therefore, regardless of whether it is 60% or 70%, we must work hard to try to get the last person to get vaccinated. The Government alone cannot do this. We need everyone to chip in to help – the professionals counselling your patients and their family members to get vaccinated and Members of Parliament going down to the ground, persuading their constituents to step forward and get vaccinated.
I think we want to push the coverage to as high as possible a level, so that we provide protection especially for those who cannot be vaccinated because of medical conditions and/or for various reasons; and there are some for whom the vaccine may not be effective because effectiveness is 95% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Therefore, we need to protect them by making sure that all of us are vaccinated to the extent possible. I urge Members to continue to help us to share this message that we want to encourage Singaporeans to step forward to get vaccinated.
With regard to Sinovac or any other vaccine that has not been approved, my advice is, do not wait for them because we do not know when they will be available and we also do not know whether they will be approved at all. Because until we have the full information, until we have completed the review, I cannot assure you that these vaccines will be available in the short term or even in the long term. So, let us not depend on something that is far away. Focus on what we have today, that is the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and get vaccinated. When additional vaccines are available, we will share the details with Singaporeans including the safety efficacy data and everything.
We aim to be as transparent as possible, even side effects, adverse events, we share with everyone so that we can all collectively make an informed decision. So, I think it is important to be transparent, so that we can maintain the trust between the Government and the people and so that we can embark on this vaccination programme together as a country.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the two Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. Minister Lawrence Wong made some comments in respect of the Parliamentary Question I filed for tomorrow's sitting. Essentially, I have asked whether the Government is considering or working on a rechargeable version of the TraceTogether token and whether battery replacement for the current version will be provided without charges.
I would just like to see some clarification from the Minister following his comments. Does it mean that the Government will provide free replacement of the current token, free replacement with similar models, not a rechargeable version when the battery runs out, say after six months? I read the literature that the battery will last about six months.
My second clarification is, has the Government already computed at this current non-rechargeable version, if supplied free of charge to all Singaporeans, will cause the Government less in the longer term as compared to a rechargeable version? And this is not forgetting the environmental costs arising from the current model.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we had indeed considered these factors on whether or not to have a battery or rechargeable version. I think if you consider the imperatives of what we had to do – roll out the token very quickly and get it distributed in a short time – there is no question, we have to use a version that allows us to use off-the-shelf components. We do not have to incur more costs. We do not have to incur greater complexity in manufacturing. So, that was very clear.
In terms of battery replacement, yes, for the tokens that we have today, the batteries will need to be replaced and we will put in place an implementation process to facilitate that for free, for everyone. Some of it can be done through a simple replacement. Depending on the version of the tokens, because there are different versions. Some of them can be done just through true a simple replacement of the battery, you need not do a one-for-one swap. In other instances, it may be easier to do a one-for-one swap.
But we have indeed taken into consideration all of these factors including the fact that with the current model, you may need to do a one-for-one swap, but we overall still think that this approach, given the circumstances, given the urgency of rolling out the tokens, was a better approach.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, many of my residents have expressed concern about the speed of the development of the vaccine. And the Minister's assurance was very helpful in allying their fears. Sir, I wish to ask the Minister for Health, I recall that in the 1950s and 1960s, there was this wonder drug thalidomide, which had severe side effects for pregnant women. So, let me ask the Minister, what assurances are there that, there would not be adverse side effects which may show up perhaps a few years later, especially for pregnant women.
Another clarification which I wish to ask Minister Lawrence Wong is about the TraceTogether token. Sir, I hear what Minister had said about residents collecting tokens, even though they have apps in their smartphones. I feel bit disconcerted because I feel that for residents to collect them and keep them as a reserve, is really quite a waste of resources. And the literature, as the hon Mr Dennis Tan had said, states that the battery runs out in six months and you will be given a free replacement of the battery. If it is damaged, there will be free replacement of the token. If you lose it, there will be a first free replacement as well.
I feel that we should encourage our residents not to waste resources like this. Use the app if they have it in a smartphone and for those who do not have the smartphone, then yes, we want to encourage them to adopt this TraceTogether programme by collecting the token. But certainly, for those who have smartphones, I hope that the Minister can reconsider and ask those with smartphones to not collect or not seek a replacement when the battery wears out.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, let me address the first question on the long-term side effects for pregnant women. Minister Lawrence Wong can deal with TraceTogether token.
In my speech, I explained that specifically for pregnant women, because the data is insufficient for the time being, therefore, we have advised pregnant women not to be vaccinated for the time being. We are continuing to do research to study the effects on pregnant women. The manufacturers are doing that. As data emerges, we will look at the data and reassure ourselves whether it is safe for pregnant women to take the vaccination. That is a safety precaution we are putting in place.
They are also looking at indications even from a short-term reaction to see whether they are likely to have long-term effects on a pregnancy. These are the part of the scientific work that is on-going. Rest assured that HSA as well as the Expert Committee will take into account all these data before recommending vaccinations for pregnant women.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I just want to say I fully agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan. Thank you for making the plug for the app. For those who have smartphones, there is really no need to collect the token. I have not collected my token. I do not see a need to collect my token either because I am quite happy using my app.
So, we will continue to strongly encourage everyone with the app – use the app. We will try to make the app more useful, add more features and hopefully, when we do that, it will further tilt the balance and encourage more people in favour of using the app as opposed to the tokens.
But to the extent that Singaporeans want to collect the tokens, I think we do want to make them available, reduce any anxieties associated with the roll-out of to TraceTogether-only SafeEntry and that is why we are doing this one time distribution. We will complete that soon and then, we will transit, as I said, to this new phase of having TraceTogether-only SafeEntry.
I share Mr Lim's concerns and I would strongly encourage all of us to put the message out to our residents, the app is just as effective perhaps even more effective when new features are added on, so, please use the app.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Ministers for giving us so much information today. To the Minister for Education, I like to clarify that I am not trivialising the effort that the Government has put in from bringing us from Phase Two to Phase Three. However, I am also reflecting some sentiments of many Singaporeans that since there is not much change from Phase Two to Phase Three, we would like to know a longer roadmap whereby we will get closer to the pre-COVID-19 situation. Although it is a new normal, we would like to see this new normal to be far more liberal than before.
So, we would like to know – we would like the Minister to enlighten us on that. Some areas that perhaps we would like to ask is that, one, if we attain a certain level of vaccinations, are we going to open up? Two, if we attain a certain level of testing capability, especially in the rapid test capability, are we going to open up? Three, can we upgrade further the way we use our tracing technology?
For example, just now we were talking about the token, why the Government actually introduced token when we could have push everybody into smartphone, in the first place? So, there are all these questions that on the mind of many Singaporeans. And to open up, can any of these conditions be satisfied or a combination of these conditions will allow us to be closer to the full opening up?
Mr Speaker: It would be useful not to repeat some of the questions that have been answered, please. Thank you.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Mr Leong reflected the sentiments, he says that people have, that these changes from Phase Two to Phase Three are not very meaningful. But in fact, in fact, when you go from five to eight, in groups of five to groups of eight, you are adding a lot of risk. Particularly, if one person goes out multiple times, each time a group of eight persons eating, dining, visiting, you are adding a lot of risk. So, I would say, \"Don't sweat the small stuff\".
It may appear small but these are significant moves that we are making. I think people do appreciate that they can meet in larger groups, meet with their family members, meet with their loved ones and every time we make one step forward, relax a measure, we are adding risk and all of the risk, do add up.
So, it is not just simply saying, \"The situation looks very good, let's all keep opening up, let's keep opening up.\" But each time we make a move, we have to be very sure that we have the tools and the enablers to keep the infection under control.
With regard to these different tools on testing, on tracing, we have already reached quite a high level. We have reached the desired capacity of testing that we wanted to build up. We have the capacity to test more frequently and we are going to do more, using rapid test. We have 78% of people in Singapore on TraceTogether. It is already a very high percentage, probably the highest in the world on a contact tracing system; and we will still try to get a higher rate. So, on these, we are doing quite well.
The one thing that can allow us to open up more is vaccination. But we will only be able to get people vaccinated, a significant number of people vaccinated, as we said, by the third quarter of the year. So, between now and the third quarter of the year, let us not rush to make big changes and big relaxations. We have to do this in a controlled manner, recognising that the risks are there and the virus is raging everywhere in the world. There are new strains emerging. So, let us do this in a very controlled, careful, calibrated manner.
Even after we have had a lot of people in Singapore being vaccinated, it does not mean that everything is over. Because no country is safe until everyone in the world is safe and it will take some time for the whole world to get vaccinated.
So, yes, getting all of us in Singapore vaccinated is important. It will enable us to move further in terms of relaxation of measures for travel, for our own resumption of activities within Singapore. But if your hope is to get back to a pre-COVID-19 sort of normal, I think we still have to be circumspect and we still have to be realistic. The virus is still going to be raging in many other parts of the world, vaccinations will take time to distribute to every country, to everyone in the world. So, we have to be prepared to live with COVID-19 for quite a while.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me start by thanking both Ministers for not just the update but their hard work, and, indeed, the work of all Government Ministries and agencies. It has been a long road to get us here and I, for one, feel very thankful. I have two clarification questions that should be very quick to answer.
The first is, given that the endorsement for the usage of the vaccine is only for those over 16 and, understanding that, access is voluntary, would it be possible for those under 16, if they wish, to be able to do so, be vaccinated?
The second question is, if I could clarify the definition of residents able to obtain the vaccination, would this generally include LTVP, Employment, Work Pass holders?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, for the second question, it is in my speech. So, I think I have answered the question, in order not to waste time for the House.
On the first question, I would strongly discourage those below 16 to volunteer for vaccination, primarily because the initial clinical trial did not include those below 16. So, if you do take the vaccine, you will be taking a risk. And I am sure my healthcare professionals would not be in a position to give you a vaccine that has not been authorised for use. So, I would say, please, do not get vaccinated if you are below 16.
We are monitoring. The trials are on-going, manufacturers are continuing to trial on the people below 16. When the data is available, and we are able to verify that they are safe and efficacious for those below 16, we would roll it out for those below 16.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank both Ministers for patiently and thoroughly explaining the process to us. I would like to ask one clarification which is related to what I think Minister Lawrence Wong said earlier about, for whatever reason health – emotional, psychological – should individuals choose not to get vaccinated, is there any possibility that they could, therefore, end up being excluded from certain activities, from certain places. I think Minister mentioned that they might have to take more thorough tests but I think this was raised to me by a couple of my residents and they said they might choose not to take the vaccination, \"Will I be stopped, say, for example, going to watch a movie? Will I be stopped from going to school? Will I be stopped from doing certain things if I do not get vaccinated?\"
If Minister could, perhaps, clarify this and give the assurance that, perhaps, the Government will not go down this path? It would be useful, I think, for those who do not get vaccinated to know.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as we have highlighted before, without a vaccination, there will be all the various measures that are in place – whether it is testing, whether it is safe distancing, whether it is, you know, tighter control around a particular venue. These are all the prevailing measures that we are used to. They will continue.
When vaccination comes in, we may relax some of these requirements. Many of us are not vaccinated today except for the healthcare workers. But we can do many activities subject to prevailing guidelines, prevailing safe distancing measures.
The idea is that when you get vaccinated, perhaps some of these measures can be relaxed. And we are studying what are the potential changes and adjustments that we might allow and consider.
So, it is not going to be a situation where we say, \"No, you can't do this.\" But it is more likely to be a situation where vaccination will allow you some benefits in terms of activities, in terms of being exempted from certain requirements. Exactly what these are, as I said earlier, it is under study and when we have the data, evidence, when we are clear about what changes are possible in our guidelines and measures, we will put that out to the public.
Mr Speaker: Minister Gan Kim Yong.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Just to add to Minister Wong's comments. From MOH's point of view, at the moment, that is not the important question to ask. The important question, the important issue is to please get vaccinated. So, do not worry too much about what if you are not vaccinated. Focus on encouraging your constituents, \"Please go ahead and get vaccinated.\" Reassure them that we have gone through thorough assessment on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. We encourage all of you to get vaccinated when your turn comes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Ministers for their Statements. I have clarifications on travel and vaccinations.
I am concerned about the increase in the imported cases. Can the Minister clarify which categories of travellers are excluded from the Pre-Departure PCR Test. I believe he only mentioned Singapore Citizens, PRs and children under six and below? Did all the 12,000 travellers who entered Singapore without a Pre-Departure PCR Test, fall under these categories and, of the 100 imported cases who did not have a Pre-Departure PCR Test, were any of them supposed to have had the test but did not do so?
On vaccinations, since our vaccine programme has already started with healthcare workers, to give the assurance to everybody, including healthcare workers, that the vaccine is safe, should not our senior public servants, including Ministers, already have been vaccinated by now? So, this is not a cheeky question but I believe it will give Singaporeans more assurance to take the vaccine.
And, lastly, is HSA evaluating the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine which was already approved by the UK on 30 December?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the categories of people who do not require to take the Pre-Departure Tests are spelt out publicly – Singaporeans, PRs who are returning home, children. Those are the key categories. So, I have not looked at the data in great detail but, based on the information we have put out, that the 12,000 which I cited, would largely comprise of these visitors or these returnees.
But as I have highlighted and emphasised, whether someone does a Pre-Departure Test or not, so long as they come into Singapore from a high-risk country, we subject them to a quarantine, SHN. It is quite tight and we make sure that these cases, if they were to emerge, are isolated and ring-fenced and do not leak into our local community. That is the more important point. And we have continued to do so.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There was a second question with regard to our senior public servants and the politicians, whether we should take the lead. In fact, we will be taking the lead. As the Prime Minister has said, he will be among the first when his cohort comes. At the same time, we also do not want to be accused of jumping the queue, that we go ahead of the others. Therefore, we have to manage the process to ensure that the first priority is given to the healthcare workers because they are exposed and they are at risk. Every day, they see the patients and care for the patients, they themselves are exposed to potential infection. And therefore, the priority must be given to the healthcare workers first and we are focusing on that. Among the healthcare workers, Prof Leo Yee-Sin who is the CEO of NCID, was among the first batch to get vaccinated. That is how she demonstrates her leadership and confidence in the vaccine.
So, I think when our turn comes, I am sure all my colleagues would be very happy to step forward to get vaccinated.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, first, let me say that I am pro-vaccine. We have learned quite a lot about new strains or mutations across the globe. Look at UK. My question is, does this vaccine we have subscribed to anticipate resistance to future strains or are we to get further vaccinations over and above what we have subscribed to? So, is this a moving target, over and above what we are going to get vaccinated for?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. We will continue to monitor the mutations of the virus. I think the scientists around the world are watching and monitoring carefully. As I mentioned in my speech, mutation happens from time to time. In fact, it happens quite regularly as the virus, basically, is like a photocopying machine so it copies itself and every time it makes copy, it will be slightly different from the version previously. There will be some specks here and there, some dots here and there that are different. That is how photocopying works.
By and large, up to today, there has not been evidence to show significant shift in the severity of the virus or the impact on the effectiveness of the current vaccines that are being approved or reviewed in Singapore. So, we continue to monitor.
It is possible that one day, the virus may mutate and we may need to modify our vaccine in order to respond to the new virus. With the current vaccines that have already been developed, I think it will facilitate the development of the new vaccines if it becomes necessary to respond to new strains of the virus, particularly, with the platform of mRNA, it is much easier for us to replicate, to produce new vaccines in response to variations or mutations in the virus.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the two Ministers for their detailed Statements. Just three supplementary questions for the Minister for Health.
In regard to where the vaccines will be administered, can we take it that they will be administered at polyclinics, public hospitals? Will GP clinics also be involved? Will every effort be made to ensure that the vaccines can be administered in locations that are close to where people are living in diverse locations across the country?
The second question is, will every effort be made to bring the vaccination process to elderly Singaporeans who are in nursing homes, senior care centres and so on, who may not exactly be very ambulatory?
And, thirdly, just to follow up on the question that my colleague Mr Gerald Giam asked, I do not believe it was answered. Is the Government evaluating the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine as well?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. I think there are quite a number of vaccines that we are currently evaluating. I would not be at liberty to go into details of which are the vaccines that we are evaluating.
It also depends on the data that we are able to get. HSA has now adopted a progressive rolling review approach. As and when data is made available, publicly or bilaterally from the manufacturer, we review them and we get ourselves updated as much as possible so that when the application is made by the manufacturer for the vaccine to be registered, we will then be ahead of time to be able to make a quick assessment, rather than to start from scratch. Therefore, we do this rolling review approach in order for us to speed up the approval process.
So, I would say that most of the vaccines that are currently being developed, HSA has been keeping a watch on them, and is assessing and reviewing the data as and when they become available. As and when the vaccine has applied for registration, we will then go into a full swing evaluation. I would not be able to share what are the vaccines that have applied, beyond the three that I have mentioned earlier.
The other question that where would vaccination sites be, I would say that we will generally take into account accessibility and convenience for those who are receiving the vaccination. For the healthcare workers, most of them will receive the vaccination within their healthcare institutions. They have an existing system to vaccinate their staff and we will tap on those.
For the general public, we will set up vaccination centres across the island. We will also tap on the polyclinics that are available, operating today, but bearing in mind that the polyclinics also have their usual patients that they need to attend to. So, we would not be able to squeeze everyone into the polyclinics for vaccination and that is why we also will need vaccination centres.
We will also be working with private General Practitioners (GPs) clinics to help us to administer the vaccine, especially for those who are less mobile and will need to get to a clinic that is nearby. We will work with the private clinics as well.
Having said that, we have to bear in mind that this particular vaccine – the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – is quite challenging to handle. As you are aware, it requires ultra cold-chain, minus 80 degree Celsius and it needs very careful handling during the administration of the vaccine to the individual. It is not so easy to make it available conveniently at all the private clinics. We will need to work with specific clinics and specific chains as well as work with specific, selected vaccination sites so that we are able to construct the infrastructure that is needed for this extra cold-chain storage and administration.
For nursing homes and senior care centres – yes, we will make special arrangements to make sure that we are able to vaccinate them because many of them are not mobile. We are planning to set up mobile vaccination teams that will be deployed to some of these nursing homes and senior care centres to provide vaccination services for them.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements.\tIntroduction of Government Bill. Minister for Communications and Information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Electronic Transactions Act (Chapter 88 of the 2011 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to the Bills of Lading Act (Cap. 384) and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap. 53B)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran) 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":"Payment Services (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (on behalf of the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time.\"
The Payment Services Act, or PS Act, came into force in January last year. Since then, payment services have continued to evolve rapidly, with innovative activities and new business models emerging. One significant development is in the area of digital payment tokens, or DPTs. These are cryptocurrencies – such as Bitcoins – which are not denominated in any currency but can be used as a form of payment.
The speed and cross-border nature of such DPT activities carry higher inherent money laundering and terrorism financing or ML/TF risks. They need to be regulated and service providers need to carry out proper customer due diligence and monitoring of transactions.
Global standards setting bodies, regulators and policy makers around the world are focused on addressing these risks. As a major financial centre and fintech hub, Singapore has played an active role in shaping international standards, including at the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, which sets standards for combating ML/TF.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is therefore enhancing its regulatory framework and updating the PS Act to keep pace with changes to international standards and to better mitigate ML/TF risks related to DPTs.
MAS has conducted a public consultation on the Bill and noted the broad support from respondents. MAS has considered the feedback received and, where appropriate, has taken them into account in finalising the Bill. The Bill makes amendments to the PS Act in three broad areas.
First, mitigating ML/TF risks. Under the PS Act, MAS currently regulates service providers dealing in DPTs and facilitating the exchange of DPTs where the service provider comes into possession of monies or DPTs. These are common business models of DPT service providers that operate in Singapore.
The scope of the PS Act will be expanded under this Bill to confer on MAS powers to regulate service providers of DPTs that facilitate the use of DPTs for payments and may not possess the monies or DPTs involved. The FATF standards term these service providers as virtual asset service providers.
In regulating these virtual assets service providers, the Bill will expand the scope of DPT services in the PS Act to include the following three activities: one, facilitating the transmission of DPTs from one account to another; two, custodial services for DPTs; and three, facilitating the exchange of DPTs where the service provider does not come into possession of the moneys or DPTs involved.
The Bill will require an entity that provides any of these services as a business in Singapore to be licensed and subject to rules and regulations set by MAS in subsidiary legislation. This will help minimise the risk of DPT service providers being exploited by criminals to launder illicit proceeds or hide illicit assets.
The Bill will also pre-emptively address ML/TF risk that is outside of the DPT space. The Bill will broaden the definition of cross-border money transfer service to include facilitating transfers of money between persons in different jurisdictions where money is not accepted or received by the service provider in Singapore. That way, such service providers will come under the regulatory ambit of MAS even if the monies do not flow through Singapore.
The second set of amendments provides MAS with powers to impose measures on DPT service providers to ensure better consumer protection and to maintain financial stability and safeguard the efficacy of monetary policy.
The risks to consumers are not significant currently because of the relatively low usage of DPTs in Singapore today. However, user adoption of DPTs could gain traction quickly as the industry comes out with products to attract customers. We have seen recent development of new forms of DPTs which values are pegged to stable assets to gain users' confidence. It is therefore important for MAS to be able to respond to market developments and address new risks in a timely manner.
The Bill will enable MAS to impose user protection measures on DPT service providers when necessary. This could include, for example, requiring a DPT service provider to segregate customer assets from its own assets. This will augment current powers that allow MAS to require DPT service providers to safeguard customer money from loss in the event of insolvency.
MAS will also be empowered to impose additional measures on certain DPT service providers to maintain stability in Singapore's financial system, safeguard the efficacy of the monetary policy or where it is in the interest of the public to do so. The scope of this new power is necessarily broad so that MAS can respond flexibly and swiftly in the fast-moving DPT landscape. MAS will consult the public and the industry when drafting subsidiary legislation on the specific measures.
Finally, the Bill will make three other miscellaneous amendments to the Act.
Firstly, the PS Act currently accords protection to consumers, whether they are payers or payees, during a domestic money transfer. As financial institutions are sophisticated entities that can protect themselves, the Act carves out the situation where a financial institution is part of the transaction. However, that means that an individual involved in a domestic money transfer transaction with a financial institution is not accorded protection under the Act. The Bill will therefore broaden the scope of protection of the PS Act to carve out only situations where both payer and payee are financial institutions.
Secondly, only major payment institutions providing services like e-money issuance are currently required to safeguard customer money. With the fast-evolving landscape, user protection concerns associated with other types of licensees can also arise. The Bill will thus allow MAS to prescribe, where necessary, additional classes of licensees conducting specific payment services to be subject to the requirement to safeguard customer money.
Thirdly, the PS Act today requires an individual to use reasonable care to ensure that any information he or she provides to MAS under the PS Act is not false or misleading in any material particular. The Bill will clarify that this general duty of care applies to all persons, whether or not the person is an individual.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will enhance the regulatory framework for payment services in line with global regulatory standards and will allow MAS to be nimble and responsive in addressing various risks in the payment landscape. Mr Speaker Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the proposed amendments in this Bill will expand anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations to cover more categories of payment service providers. The list will include those providing services centered on Digital Payment Token (DPT) and those facilitating cross-border money transfers where the money does not pass through Singapore.
I agree with this step. The fight against money laundering and terrorism financing is the fight to make sure that crime does not pay. This mission, by necessity, must include all players of our finance industry.
Before I continue, let me thank MAS for conducting a public consultation which shaped the proposed amendments we see today. Public consultations help us formulate better policies and I hope MAS will continue this good practice.
I have three points of clarification to make on this Bill.
My first point is about anonymity in our payment eco-system. In its public consultation, MAS made clear that this Bill will obligate DPT service providers to conduct customer due diligence to guard against money laundering and terrorism financing.
These requirements mean that short of peer-to-peer trading, there is no way to trade cryptocurrencies in Singapore anonymously. This removes one benefit of cryptocurrency, which is its anonymity.
I will say, first, that I fully agree with the intent of this Bill – bad actors must not be allowed to use Singapore's financial system for their purposes. But cryptocurrency's quest for anonymity is perhaps one we can empathise with. Today's world is plagued by compulsive tracking. You cannot access any digital services without someone storing every little bit of information about where you are, what you do and who you are.
Today's world is also plagued by massive data leakages and malicious hackers. A month does not go by before some company we know spills our private information and order history into the wild.
Having sought the views of the public and the industry, can the Minister share whether MAS has reached a final policy stance on whether it envisions providing any space for anonymised financial transactions in Singapore?
My second point relates to user protection. The Bill provides powers for MAS to enact regulations on licensed DPT service providers. Many of the regulations pertain to the DPT service provider's maintenance of and safeguarding of assets belonging to users.
I support these powers. User protection is essential. It helps keep our financial system stable and it protects the assets of Singaporeans.
As part of its efforts to protect users, will MAS consider introducing other forms of user protection measures? In particular, will MAS consider regulating DPT servicer providers to ensure they do not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct concerning their offerings?
DPTs are fresh, different and interesting. Service providers will likely latch onto these qualities when marketing to unsuspecting consumers. Regulating how DPTs at an earlier point when they are marketed to consumers would complement regulations at a later stage on money management by service providers. After all, it will be harder to defraud or otherwise harm a customer who knows what they are getting themselves into.
My third point relates to the illegal wildlife trade. This Bill expands our regulatory scrutiny of international money transfers and that is a good thing.
In this spirit, I ask that we work more closely with financial institutions to ensure that their internal controls can accurately identify signs of illegal activity, particularly when it comes to illegal wildlife trade. This is not a new idea from me. It is a best practice recommended in a June 2020 report by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), titled \"Money Laundering and the Illegal Wildlife Trade\".
I quote, \"There is a need for both the public sector to share additional information with reporting entities, including feedback on [suspicious transaction reports] filed, and for reporting entities to review whether current internal controls against money laundering from the illegal wildlife trade are in line with identified risks... Where competent authorities have shared information, financial institutions have been able to incorporate this into their transaction monitoring systems and, in turn, provide richer intelligence for [law enforcement authorities].\"
My team spoke to some employees of local financial institutions who monitor transactions. They agreed with this recommendation. Some shared their concerns that they may only receive generic responses from the authorities with regard to the suspicious transaction reports they file. This creates two problems.
One, the employees do not know whether the signals they are looking out for are relevant or not. The feedback from the authorities with regard to the suspicious transaction reports is not specific enough to motivate meaningful operational changes.
Two, the employees have little information on the status or outcomes of Government investigations. This means they struggle to take internal follow-up actions to adjust the risk levels of these clients. Better feedback will help our Government get more relevant reports as well as help financial institutions take strong internal actions against bad actors.
Industry experts say the same thing. At a seminar held by the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) last October, the panelists from the industry noted that there has not been sufficient focus on the financial aspect of tackling the illegal wildlife trade.
Will the Government consider sharing feedback with greater details when financial institutions do provide suspicious transaction reports, including on the illegal wildlife trade? To ensure that its feedback is relevant, will the Government also consider holding discussions with ground staff at financial institutions to assess the efficacy of its existing feedback?
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent years Singapore has built up its reputation as a fintech hub. To preserve that, we have to ensure that our regulations strike the right balance between carefully managing risks and encouraging innovation.
In 2018, Singapore was the second most popular country in the world for ICOs, and as of November 2020, 234 blockchain companies were operating in Singapore. E-money has also received high adoption rates here and our consumers need to be protected. Seventy-seven percent of Singaporeans already used digital wallets, though there is still much room for improvement in the adoption of digital payments, as my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee we will expand on. We have to ensure consumer confidence has not misplaced. Trust in people is earned, not given. Trust in business is also earned and this is where a sound regulatory framework plays a crucial role.
The Payment Services (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction of proactive regulation of the payment space. Sir, I shall focus the remainder of my speech and raising questions and suggestions in relation to the attributes of proportionality and possibility and transparency in relation to the Bill.
I declare my interest as the CEO of a Research Consultancy that undertakes work in the fintech space, among other sectors.
Firstly Sir, I shall speak on the expanded definition of DPT service provider in this Bill. The expanded definition of DPT service provider will capture more activities, but more guidance is needed from MAS as to what constitutes certain activities such as, control, inducing and arranging. The expanded definition of DPT service provider will capture entities who offer token custody services or entities will market or advertise token sales. Such entities will have to be licensed and regulated to the same extent as a token exchange.
While it is laudable that the Payment Services Act or PSA is amended to greater meet the Financial Action Task Force or FATF standards, it maybe onerous for certain payment service providers to meet the same licensing requirement despite posting different or lower levels of risk. Here, I would like to note in passing, that my parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim will be making a similar argument in the context of the moneychangers actor and small businesses.
Sir, the PSA licensing regime currently requires DPT service providers to meet relevant MAS requirements on cyber hygiene, periodic returns, business conduct disclosure and communications as well as annual audit requirements, amongst others. However, a token marketer or token custodian such as, a wallet service provider, for example, may not pose the same risks as a token originator or a token exchange to warrant such regulation by the MAS PSNO requirements.
Specifically, for a token marketer limb E of the proposed inclusion, states that an entity who induces a person to buy or sell a DPT ought to be regulated, although this entity may not come into possession of the DPT at all. While some marketing may be performed by a DPT custodian, other entities such as, for example, a professional public relations company asked to design or execute an ICO campaign or even a blogger writing about hot ICOs, may conceivably be caught in the net. What then is the purpose of requiring such an entity to meet periodic returns and our audit requirements if they are merely in the service of marketing a token and might it be too onerous for such an entity to meet the whole suite of MAS PSNO requirements?
Also, industry feedback suggests that the definition of arranging or inducing an individual to enter into a transaction is vague. Perhaps, the Minister could provide further clarifications on the exact types of activities that fall within the definition of \"arrange\" or \"induce\". On token custodians, there are also concerns from stakeholders in the DPT space that the definition of control in the proposed limbs F through H is somewhat vague. While MAS had clarified that I quote, \"A DPT service provider will have control of a DPT if it has the ability to control access to any DPT or to execute transactions involving the DPT\", further regulatory guidance as to what this control exactly is, would be helpful.
I would also suggest that MAS consider in the fullness of time offering relaxation on MAS requirements, for entities who pose less of a threat. For example, relaxing the audit requirements or periodic returns requirements for a token advertiser.
Next, Sir. Current companies who one, have a capital markets licence, and two, provide a token custody service must still hold a payment service licence with an exception available, if a token's function is merely incidental to the business of that payment service provider. In the prior crypto wave in 2017, companies who dealt in digital tokens were required to hold a capital markets licence if such tokens resembled security or shares. Now, these companies have to also hold a major payment institutional licence or standard payment institutional licence under the PSA, if the tokens that they custodise hold the payment function. Perhaps, more guidance and defining incidentality would be helpful for entities to make an assessment as to whether a token's payment function is merely incidental to its core business function of providing custodial service.
In addition, Sir, it is unclear who the onus is on to determine whether a token is a DPT or not. Whether that falls on the custody service provider to assess whether a token it seeks to custodise is a DPT thus having a payment function warranting a licence application, or whether it falls on the token originator to warrant that its token is not a DPT and thus the custody service providers have no need to apply for a PSA licence. For example, must a wallet service provider conduct its own analysis as to whether a token that it seeks to custodise falls under the definition of a DPT under the PSA or whether it may carry out its custody service, as long as the DPT provider is already a licence entity?
Perhaps, there should be further consideration as to whether the PSA should provide an exemption for custody service providers in the event that the token issuer is already licensed. This is to prevent unnecessary dual licensing.
Secondly, Sir, I would like to speak on how the perception of increased regulatory powers by MAS may spark fears of over-regulation and potentially excessively stifled innovation, especially among smaller players. The amendment Bill before us provides additional powers to the MAS to, firstly, impose user protection measures on certain DPT service providers; and secondly, impose additional measures on any DPT service provider or class of DPT service providers by way of subsidiary legislation.
While consumer protection is an important concern, feedback from the industry, especially smaller firms, suggest that this is a cause for concern by them. For instance, the proposed amended section 21(A) may be too onerous in the view of some in the industry. It should be borne in mind that excessive regulation could curb entrepreneurship in a sunrise industry and crowd out smaller players and start-ups leaving only the bigger players to dominate. This in turn would be bad for entrepreneurship and innovation in the longer term. I would like to ask what steps would be taken by MAS to ensure that smaller companies and new entrants to the industry are able to meet these enhanced regulatory standards.
Thirdly, Sir, the expanded definition of cross-border money transfer services raises questions in terms of its enforceability and benefits for Singapore, in terms of congruence with other competing jurisdictions. This amendment Bill expands the definition of cross-border money transfer service to require licensing of service providers like brokers in Singapore that actively facilitate cross-border money transfers between entities in different countries, although monies are not accepted or received in Singapore.
Under the current PSA, such providers are not covered. While it is laudable that Singapore is taking the lead on cross-border regulation of VASPs and adopting FATF recommendations, there are two concerns. Firstly, this may be difficult to monitor and enforce if the flow of money is from one foreign country to another foreign country. How does the Government intend to monitor and enforce this?
Secondly, while I acknowledge that this amendment is necessary to uphold the reputation of Singapore as a trusted financial hub, it is unclear if other countries are doing the same with regard to monitoring the movement of illicit funds or suspicious transactions with regard to DPTs from Singapore to a third country or vice versa.
While according to an FATF review and I quote, \"Twenty jurisdictions advised that they have extended their regime to include value-added service providers or VASPs conducting operations from their jurisdiction\", the review did not appear to identify the specific jurisdictions or provide specific details about these regimes. Furthermore, the review then noted that such a diversity in approach and I quote, \"may present challenges in identifying which VASPs are regulated by each jurisdiction\".
In respect of other jurisdictions specifically, for instance, there do not appear to be similarly expansive definitions, which have been implemented or proposed with regard to cross-border money transfers in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands, even though these jurisdictions have proposed to enact or have enacted legislation in connection with the FATF guidelines. Hence, I would like to ask if the MAS will, going forward, monitor the extent of international regulation of VASPs in line with the FATF recommendations and calibrate the onerousness of our own regime in line with what is being done internationally, with an eye to our competitiveness.
Fourthly, Sir, I would like to speak about the need for greater transparency and less of a black box approach in the payment service licence application process. The payment service licence process required for firms covered under the PSA is perceived by some industry players as a completely black box. Many companies reportedly find themselves stuck on the waiting list for long periods.
Moving beyond a completely black box approach to a greater degree of transparency, could provide more support to viable businesses to get licence and go to market faster. It may also enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a fintech Hub. While MAS does provide some basic criteria, for example, base capital requirements, fit and proper requirements of shareholders and employees, no entity is familiar with the actual determining factors that make or break a licence application.
Companies may apply for exemption status to continue operating on a small scale for six months while waiting for the licence but cannot scale up during that time. These companies also struggle to account to their investors or shareholders and their future plans and as a result, go into hibernation or may leave the country.
There are 366 firms who applied for exemption from holding a licence under the PSA for specific payment services for a specified period while waiting for their licence. And there are likely even more in the pipeline, namely those who directly applied for the licence without seeking exemptions, those who are still seeking legal advice and have not yet applied, and those who will only apply after this amendment passes. For example, DPT marketers and custodian service providers. There are 439 firms who currently hold the payment licence.
While it is understandable that the full licensing criteria cannot be disclosed due to the risk that some applicants may game the system, as it were, this has to be balanced against the need for some transparency, so as to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a fintech hub.
With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister for information regarding the proportion of successful applicants to total number of applicants and the average duration companies have had to wait for an outcome.
I would also like to ask if the MAS would consider providing:
(a) a clearer fixed timeline and process including an appeal process so applicants know when to expect an outcome;
(b) more resources to help innovative businesses understand and navigate the licencing process. For instance, project innovate by the UK's financial conduct authority targeted support to innovative businesses in navigating the FCAs at the authorisation process. This achieves good results. Firms coming through this programme in the UK are being authorised on average 40% faster than the standard applicant.
I note that the MAS launch the payment Regulatory Evaluation Programme in 2019, meant to assist payment service providers and seeking legal advice from registered Singapore law practises relating to the PSA. This entails a sample questionnaire for potential applicants to approach law firms with, and the list of legal practitioners who can provide advice in relation to the PSA, but it does not provide targeted support like what is being done in the UK. Furthermore, this programme will cease in January 2021, one year after the PSA has come into force and the transitional period has ended; and
(c) I would like to ask if the MAS can provide high-level guidance on the criteria determining approval or rejection of a licence.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.15 pm until 5.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.35 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments in the Payment Services Act of 2019 takes a number of important steps to accommodate new innovations in payment systems and services. The very fact that an amendment is needed so soon just one year after the enactment of the original Act demonstrates the speed by which technological developments can render even the best laid legislation rapidly obsolete or, at the very least, struggling to catch up.
While I understand the premise behind the proposed amendments with regard to scope to essentially ensure adequate regulatory coverage of the Bill to all MAS licensees, I wish to raise three cautionary points, all related to potential unintended consequences.
Before I proceed, I wish to declare that I am the Chief Economist (Emeritus) of a homegrown investment advisory firm, which had previously been involved in payment services.
For changes set forth in clause 4, the applicability of the Bill to payment services providers that hold either moneychanging, standard payment institutions or major payment institution licences, there is also the need to take into account current economic realities. While the latter two groups have, by and large, rode through the pandemic relatively unscathed, this is not the case for moneychangers. I have residents operating such businesses that have reported declines in business of up to 90% and who do not anticipate any improvement to business in the months ahead.
Accordingly, while MAS has plans to grant a six-month exemption for newly regulated entities under this amendment Bill, I wonder if there is scope for an even longer phased-in grace period applying only to moneychangers in light of their extremely challenging business climate at the moment.
Clause 7(e) seeks to widen the scope of digital payment token service providers. Understandably, it attempts to cast a wide net. It is worth cautioning, however, that by defining such providers broadly, a number of very small players may unfortunately be caught in this expanded regulatory net. For instance, stipulating that any service involved in accepting digital payment tokens is unobjectionable if applied to large clearing houses, but it becomes a concern if it is applied to small-time intermediaries collecting payments on behalf of his or her clients.
As another example, a service arranging the transmission of digital payment tokens sounds appropriately targeted at custodians and brokers but may raise awkward questions of whether Cousin Angie by doing her Uncle Victor a favour by storing some of his e-cash in her digital wallet may inadvertently find herself subject to MAS rules, if she also happens to be a licensee.
In the public consultation process, I believe that MAS has indicated that the law's applicability is \"fact dependent\", and I quote here, and it is based on, again quote, \"detailed assessment of activities\" and would generally apply to agents that are already currently subject to licensing. Even so, by no longer limiting the Act's applicability with the term \"major\" to now include \"all licensees\", the language no longer automatically precludes small players. My colleague, Mr Leon Perera has spoken more extensively about the detrimental effects of over-regulating small players, especially insofar as stifling innovations is concerned.
Now, these are not just artificial constructs. In remote villages in developing countries, a local youth may routinely play the intermediary role. Such actions ultimately gave birth to formidable national institutions like M-Pesa in Kenya and Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. While Singapore is not a developing economy, a payment services law that does not consciously allow regulatory forbearance for small and medium enterprises may overburden these emerging firms with compliance to the long shadow of the law and hence stifle their growth.
Relatedly, as far as I can gather, the legislation will treat all digital payment tokens equally. Well, there is merit in not picking a specific privately issued DPT to support, it strikes me as odd that the same treatment is extended even to official DPTs. After all, we currently afford special status to official fiat currency as we should, not least to our local money, the Singapore dollar. And so, as long as there is not any fraud, it is entirely reasonable to privilege an MAS-issued DPT. If so, then it would seem fair to exercise somewhat easier regulatory conditions for institutions transacting in e-Sing dollars.
Finally, on the demand side, a general concern is that digitally sophisticated users of digital tokens, such as hawkers or the elderly, may inadvertently run afoul of MAS rules, perhaps because they may have signed up to terms and conditions that have devolved certain responsibilities or compliance from financial intermediaries to them. This would serve to further undermine their confidence in digital payments where a number have already had negative experiences due to unscrupulous customers that have defrauded them and weakened their overall willingness to actively participate in the digital economy.
Notwithstanding these legislations, Mr Deputy speaker, I offer my support for the proposed amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill, for its extended protection against money laundering and terrorists financing by digital payment token (DPT) service providers, as well as the introduction of the power to impose user protection measures on certain DPT service providers.
However, allow me to raise some considerations in its implementation from a more social perspective, especially to safeguard more vulnerable user segments. The group of users that I am most concerned about are the seniors because of the good, the bad and the unintended developments in the digital payment token service space.
First, the good. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we socialise and interact with each other. From how we work and play to how we make purchases for our daily needs, almost every aspect of our life has been impacted in one way or another. The need to reduce human contact has accelerated the need and pace for digitalisation.
Financial services have been going cashless and moving online with more new types of players beyond the traditional financial institutions with more sophisticated financial products, such as the DPT that is fast innovating and growing. This acceleration, though challenging, is generally good for the economy at large and also helps the public to keep pace with digitalisation.
As such, the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill and the requirement for entities carrying on a business of providing payment services in Singapore, including a DPT service, to be licensed and meet standards for mitigation of risks relating to money laundering and terrorism financing are steps in the right direction to develop the financial services industry and to encourage digital innovation in the fintech space with the necessary safeguards.
The Payment Services (Amendment) Bill further regulates activities across a wider range of digital payment services as well as expands the definition of \"digital payment token services\" to regulate activities of virtual asset service providers like digital exchanges, cryptocurrency firms and e-wallet services. This is timely, especially when the accelerated shift of financial services towards the digital will also likely increase the risks of misuse of such services and scams. The amendments will further ensure responsible and safe innovation in the financial services industry.
While accelerating digitalisation, such as the DPT innovation and development, is good for the economy, it has also exposed an uneven understanding and adoption of technology among segments of the population, especially the seniors. The closure of physical touch points has accelerated banking and payment services online and, overnight, the seniors needed to learn how to transact with banks and merchants digitally.
Research in the seniors' perceptions towards digital payment is sparse and is specific to countries. Nonetheless, taking reference from a report published in November 2018 by AgeUK, those aged 65 and above who are online appear to place a higher emphasis on communication and information-finding and less on transactions, such as internet banking, needless to say sophisticated products like digital payment token transactions.
Closer to home, the 2019 IMDA Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals also highlighted that while there was a considerable increase in Internet usage by seniors aged 60 and above, this same age group registered the lowest proportion for payment activities, such as transferring of funds, using online payment services, Internet fund transfers, peer-to-peer fund transfers and having an eNETS virtual account. Not surprisingly, seniors were also the largest group that did not have the confidence in making online transactions and had the lowest level of trust that their privacy and data will be respected when performing online transactions.
In both these reports, the seniors' lack of trust, privacy concerns and lack of skills and confidence in being able to navigate the online world have been cited as reasons for them not going online and interacting digitally.
The unintended consequences would be that, firstly, the seniors may begin to lag in the adoption of digital payment services and this gap may continue to widen as the acceleration towards digitalisation increases with new innovations in the payment services space. If we do not actively work to include the seniors, they could find themselves excluded from some important financial services or, worse, getting themselves involved in financial transactions or transfers, including cross-border ones, without fully understanding the risks of being used in crimes like money laundering or scams.
We can also expect new digital payment platforms, new service providers and new technologies that will be introduced. The seniors will not only have to contend with a steep learning curve but also with having to choose which platform to use. We need to educate, build trust and confidence towards digital payment services with these seniors. They represent a large untapped market for digital payment token service providers.
Thus, the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill, which expands the definition of \"digital payment token services\" to include marketing activities of the licensee is a welcome one to ensure that the marketing to these seniors, which is a big untapped market, would be done responsibly.
I propose to include safeguards when soliciting the seniors to subscribe to and transact in payment services using digital payment tokens as the underlying mechanics are complex and the risks may not be fully understood or accepted. Some of the safeguards could be in the form of: (a) ensuring that, as part of the marketing and know-your-customer process, MAS to require providers to explicitly highlight the risks involved, especially with digital payment tokens; (b) ensuring that seniors must have gone through a risk assessment by the providers on the understanding of digital payment tokens; (c) lastly, ensuring that providers have algorithms to identify suspicious transactions prior to processing and delaying these suspicious transactions to enable customers, especially the seniors, to have time to think through. This will provide transactional level safeguards that will reduce scams and fraud targeting at the seniors.
Sir, we are in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution and in a digital transformation that is being accelerated by the pandemic situation. As a nation, we need to continue to break new grounds so that we can take advantage of opportunities even in uncertainties and challenges. The Payment Services (Amendment) Bill and the additional requirements to be imposed are steps that will enable Singapore to remain competitive and attractive to the best talents to build the next breakthrough in digital banking and digital payment token services.
But as a society, we must also take steps to ensure that everyone, including the seniors, can participate and benefit from this transformation. I look forward to seeing new digital banking and payment service regulations that will enable an industry to develop products that will make lives of Singaporeans easier and more fulfilling, done in a responsible, inclusive and safe way.
On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, innovation in payments will contribute to domestic economic growth and improve the lives of our Singaporeans by facilitating convenience of transactions at a lower cost. At the same time, such alternatives to physical cash can promote digital financial literacy and economic efficiency.
Sir, before I continue, I would like to declare myself as the Group Head of Audit at DBS Bank.
This amendment Bill, in my view, represents progressive legislation and I commend the focus on identifying potential incremental risks covering broad areas that include financial stability, monetary policy and also financial crime prevention – in particular, anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. There is also some focus on technology risks, which include risks around data.
Apart from seeking the Minister's assurance that there will be a robust requirement of anti-money laundering tools to ensure token purity checks and so on so that tokenised payments are not misused for illicit purposes, it is on the theme of technology and data, which is fundamental to digital payment service providers, that I would like to identify incremental risk areas which I feel are known or reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, warrant more attention and strengthening.
I reflect on recent examples in Singapore that were reported in the media, such as KuCoin, a Singapore-headquartered digital asset exchange and Grab. KuCoin made global headlines with a reported US$280 million digital coins stolen from a cyber hack recently in September 2020. Industry observers noted this to be the third largest crypto hack in history. Similarly, Bloomberg, on 13 September 2020, reported that Grab, our payments' unicorn, had four repeated technology glitches over two years in technology applications relating to exposure of private data. In its September report, the technology magazine CPO headline read, I quote, \"Fourth privacy breach in two years for Grab. Given low fines, does the company have a reason to care?\" Unquote.
Before I go on, I want to emphasise that there is regulatory scrutiny by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Personal Data Protection Commission, which have made considerable efforts to balance the bright future of technology and data with its attendant risks. What I am saying is that the rate of change in this area should spur us on to greater efforts. Today, we already know that no technology security is fool-proof and we now see exponential use of AI, cloud infrastructure, the emergence of 5G and quantum computing. These developments have deep implications on the future of cybersecurity and responsible use of data and demand a corresponding requirement to uplift our population.
This rate of technology change is accompanied by a concern which we need to remember that, payments fintech, on its own, is driven fundamentally by investor valuations. It is well understood that profit margins are thin in the payment services. So, such firms strive to create a data eco-system in the hope of profiting from adjacent businesses. This is where technology risk management could be relegated to a lower priority until a hack happens.
Given this, there are three areas that I would like to propose for the Minister's consideration to encourage firms in the e-payment space to undertake the necessary focus without too much regulatory burden.
Firstly, having differentiated standards for technology and cybersecurity risk where minimum standards are required for those in the Standard Payment Institutions category or otherwise require them to do a structured self-assessment against benchmark standards. This is already being practised in other major financial centres, such as Hong Kong, where its monetary authority has put in place its cyber resilience assessment framework to mitigate hacks, fraud and data leakage risks.
Secondly, providing a simple rating system to help the public make better choices amongst payment service providers. This is no different from how our other regulators do this, such as the Singapore Food Agency providing food hygiene ratings to hawker stalls or the Building Construction Agency providing the Quality Mark and performance scores of developers and contractors to help homebuyers make informed decisions. In this way, ordinary consumers can easily understand and make their own informed assessment when selecting payment providers even as we make more efforts to upskill their digital literacy.
Thirdly, requiring such firms to ensure adequate efforts and resources are devoted to educating and protecting customers in terms of how their data is secured and how it is being used responsibly, including in the digital eco-system. This can help ensure that industry players are culturally attuned from day one and ensure that digital public education is as much the responsibility of industry players as it is the Government's.
As a related point, as we think through these issues, I advocate that we continue to maintain our successful whole-of-Government approach to regulate and ensure that the no material systemic issues fall through the cracks between areas of responsibility.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as digital payments become a way of life in Singapore, it is crucial that our regulatory frameworks continue to keep pace with the behaviours of market participants so as to ensure minimum standards of technology, cybersecurity and data safeguards and to allow us to take a leadership position in the world in defining these standards. We should move boldly, but skillfully execute with a commitment to manage known or foreseeable risks. Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am a bank employee and a Council Member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. I will begin my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I rise in support of the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill.
\t
\tThe Bill provides clear compliance requirements for cryptocurrency businesses that will align our legislation with the enhanced standards adopted by the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The additional requirements are necessary to counter money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with some virtual asset service providers which are not already regulated as financial institutions. The expanded definitions of digital payment token (DPT) service and cross-border money transfer service will also enable MAS to have a more comprehensive oversight.
\tWith the amendments, Singapore will have one of the clearest and most pragmatic regulatory frameworks in the world to manage cryptocurrency services. Digital payment token service providers now have a complete rule book to comply with the MAS’ licensing requirements.
\tWe will be able to position ourselves as a progressive destination for financial investors and service providers in both the digital and traditional asset sectors. Greater regulatory clarity would be attractive to global crypto businesses.
(In English): As virtual asset service providers will need to perform screening, customer due diligence (CDD), collection of Know Your Customer (KYC) information from platform users, transaction monitoring and reporting, and record keeping, there will be greater transparency and trust in the system. Higher public confidence will be beneficial to the developments and innovations in this sector. However, the verification process is quite demanding.
Hence, I would like to ask if MAS can prescribe a centralised or integrated platform for the DPT service providers to research on the transaction details, share information and improve efficiency.
Anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing requires DPT service providers to monitor cross-border value transfers and collect alternative CDD information. Some of these transactions may involve physical goods movement. Collection of transaction information is not that difficult, especially when the criminals have the intention to launder money. It is important for the DPT service providers to comply with the spirit of the regulations and assess if the information furnished makes business sense. Money launderers inflate the transaction values to move their funds, in our case, it will be the DPTs, around. For example, if a pair of Hello Kitty soft toys are valued at $50,000 and the client explains that these are limited edition ones, how does the service provider authenticate the value of these Hello Kitties?
Would MAS prescribe that the service providers must invest in search engines like international maritime bureau (IMB) systems which can track and authenticate shipments, or Bloomberg systems so that the commodity prices can be verified? We must not allow the collation of customer due diligence process to become a box-ticking exercise.
Next, I would like to voice my support for the new user protection measures. It is important to protect individual investors and consumers who may be encouraged to invest in digital tokens. The recent gravity-defying rally of Bitcoin shows that it and other cryptocurrencies are getting more widely accepted as an asset class. At the same time, the crash of XRP is a reminder that, all over the world, governments are trying to figure out how to regulate this sector.
Heavy-handed regulation may stifle innovation. MAS’ risk-based supervisory approach provides greater user assurance and regulatory safeguards for areas with high risks, and unregulated spaces to allow exploration of improvements and more efficient approaches.
I would like to ask the Minister if the current regulatory framework is sufficient to deal with the emergence of new payment instructions that straddle between e-money and DPTs, such as stablecoins. Stablecoins are a new class of cryptocurrencies. They can maintain a stable value relative to another asset or a basket of assets. They could potentially perform the functions of money and can be traded, too.
I seek MAS’ assurance that DPTs will not be allowed to be used as collateral to grant working capital facility to the DPT holders as this is one form of encashment. Would the Ministry require capital adequacy ratios, similar to those for banks, for DPT service providers to protect the DPT depositors?
This amendment Bill is yet another milestone in Singapore’s digital payments landscape in our journey to becoming a Smart Nation. Broader implications include investor protection, consumer protection, data and privacy, systemic risk, monetary risk policy and national security. A few jurisdictions have initiated regulatory reforms to address digital payment tokens as a means of payment. Whether Singapore will accept a token-based payment system on a wider scale remains to be seen. Nonetheless, I am heartened by the Government’s support for innovation in this area. I am confident that the Bill will help strengthen industry-Government partnerships and lead to new investments and businesses here in the years to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The Bill will bring about increased regulations and scrutiny over DPT. In the era of e-payments, and with DPTs gaining popularity worldwide, this is a necessary move. Fintech is an integral component of our Smart Nation vision. Singapore's friendly position on cryptocurrencies will attract tech start-ups and businesses here. This, in turn, creates good employment opportunities. Stepping up on regulations would elevate our status as a global cryptocurrency and blockchain hub.
Regulating DPTs will be welcomed by industry professionals. I believe that after the Bill is passed, we may see an uptick in businesses accepting cryptocurrencies as payment. However, the act of regulating cryptocurrency can be misinterpreted. The layman may perceive the Government endorsing cryptocurrency investments and giving it a stamp of approval.
Many may also question whether regulating DPTs makes it legal tender. Of course, it is not legal tender. Notwithstanding, some businesses in Singapore already accept cryptocurrency payments. What if the cryptocurrency somehow loses its value and status and businesses decide that they no longer want to accept it as a payment form? What if the issuing company for the DPT goes bust? Would not the token lose its value? Businesses must be aware of this. What happens to customers who stocked up on the cryptocurrency, believing that it could always come in handy for real-world transactions? Would the Government monitor the situation and intervene to prevent such situations? And since it is an individual decision, how can the Government moderate this area?
The reverse could also happen. Cryptocurrencies’ value fluctuate greatly. Imagine if one had signed a two-year lease in January 2019 for an apartment, agreeing to pay a quarter bitcoin per month. The value of the bitcoin soared in the later part of that year. This tenant would be paying more and more each month. This will be more than a six-fold increase over the two years. The Government cannot regulate the value of cryptocurrency. But what about businesses that accept cryptocurrency as a payment method, especially for long-term contracts for payment instalments? And if a dispute arises, as in this example, what is the legal redress?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as cryptocurrency becomes more widely accepted, this could also lead to a rise in related scams. These scams are much like the online financial scams that we have seen a rise in Singapore in the past year, only that the funds involved are in cryptocurrency. Unsuspecting victims have been tricked into becoming money mules by scammers. Such victims accept funds into their own bank accounts and deposit a portion into a crypto kiosk.
An increased interest in cryptocurrency would also mean that more amateurs would dabble recklessly in cryptocurrency. This is particularly so in the current climate when people are grappling with job and income losses. They may turn to cryptocurrencies as a get rich quick scheme. This is particularly so with recent news about the bitcoin hitting all-time high prices.
With increased scrutiny on DPT service providers, will the Government police online marketing of cryptocurrencies? There are various irresponsible marketing content on the Internet promising consumers an \"instant way to get rich\". Fraudulent investments would have criminals pitching a new and developing cryptocurrency, such as an ICO, offering large monetary returns for a short-term, small investment. In reality, the investment money is swallowed for personal gain. Excuses about the complexities of cryptocurrency will be used to keep customers in the dark.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my greatest concerns are for seniors. Earlier, Member Ms Ng Ling Ling raised a similar concern. They are often the favourite targets of digital investment fraud. Retirees are always interested in passive ways to grow their income. I already have seniors asking me about investment in cryptocurrencies during my house visits. They are getting familiar with digitalisation and online payment tools. This is a good thing. Credit to campaigns like the Seniors Go Digital movement. However, there are still areas where seniors are not particularly knowledgeable about, which renders them vulnerable. This is especially so if scammers hook them with phrases like \"Government-regulated\". These scams usually start off focusing on the growth rates of various cryptocurrencies, while neglecting to highlight the high degree of volatility. Once they have their interest, they may persuade victims to grant them access to remote-desktop tools or their personal information. Thereafter, they steal their information to commit other cybercrimes, or have them transfer funds to cryptocurrency wallets that the victim does not have access to.
Our concern is not only about the law-abiding citizens, but those who are scammers looking to conceal their ill-gotten gains. Bitcoin transactions are, in fact, transparent and logged into a public ledger which anyone can access. These transactions can be traced right back to the day they are mined, which is helpful for law enforcers. However, reconciling transactions across individual and private ledgers to individuals requires a lot of time and resources.
Would the Government make it mandatory for all licensed crypto exchanges to require customers to be verified? Would only crypto assets that are transparent be eligible for licensing? Do Government agencies have the powers to confiscate ill-gotten gains in digital wallets? Can they freeze cryptocurrency accounts as they could with banks? Will the Government look into equipping our Home Team to prevent and combat not just cryptocurrency money laundering but also frauds and scams?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the subject of cryptocurrency is highly complex and multi-faceted. Its growing popularity will attract blockchain developer talents and those who want to do good with it. Conversely, it can also attract scammers and crooks looking to make a quick buck. The Government will need to consider a public education campaign, so that everyone can benefit from the technology while avoiding the pitfalls. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this amendment.
In Asia, the annual growth of payments is at 15% CAGR, fueled by the adoption and growth of alternative digital payments mechanisms with a strong push to reduce the use of cash. Asia-Pacific dominates the global payments revenue pool. Customers are also seeking payment solutions that will reduce their pain points, especially for cross-border transactions and one-stop solutions that are well-integrated throughout the entire payments value chain.
Banks have historically enjoyed a defensible moat of consumer trust. However, this moat is gradually eroding. A US digital payments survey indicates that consumers are more comfortable entrusting their financial transactions to non-banking entities. And as this landscape continues to evolve and customer patterns shift, what can we do to ensure consumers continue to be protected?
We must have a keen understanding of how valuable customer data is to businesses. More than 80% of the total payment revenues are captured at the end of the value chain where the customer relationship is. As important the customer is to the business, how we protect the consumer is also of paramount importance. In the world of cloud computing, payments as a service, banking as a service and the rise of APIs, customer data is often traded and analysed to offer more curated services and products for value capture. We need to ensure that deviations from the additional requirements can be audited, detected and enforced.
Trust is a key attribute for a successful financial eco-system and digital payment plays a significant role. Every entity in the eco-system plays a role of shared responsibility. Most if not all the additional requirements stated in section 21A are meant to build trust within the Singapore digital payment eco-system. I welcome these additional requirements.
Today, many new digital companies have an outreach of millions of B2B and B2C customers. They are well positioned to provide financial services traditionally provided by incumbent banks. These digital companies either partner with banks to build their networks or directly compete with them. Banks are also quickly evolving to build partnerships and develop their own customer-centric eco-systems.
Over the last three years, transaction fee growth for payments has been muted because of the competitive pressures that have continued to depress margins. Margins can be as low as 0.2%. This means that when additional requirements are implemented, additional regulatory and compliance cost will be passed on to the consumer, increasing business cost. We must be cognisant of the competitive and ever-evolving digital payment landscape.
For our survival and relevance to the world, we must ensure that there is fairness, accountability and transparency and yet have the agility to safeguard the reputation and competitiveness of the Singapore financial eco-system – to be a home for future global fintech champions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as an employee of a financial institution in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the last I checked, Bitcoin was at a record high of around US$31,000, having risen almost fourfold over the course of 2020, far surpassing the previous highs of around US$19,800 set in December 2017, just before its precipitous crash in the months after.
Many have called Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies a massive bubble, but fast forward to today, as alluded by other Members of this House, industry players see 2020 as a year where Bitcoin was perhaps being institutionalised.
Conventional asset managers such as Ruffer and MassMutual now have Bitcoins as part of their asset allocation. PayPal is enabling cryptocurrency as a funding source for digital commerce and our very own DBS and SGX have launched the DBS Digital Exchange in December 2020 to welcome the mainstream adoption of digital assets and currency trading.
This is a further testimony to how banks and institutional investors, both local and abroad, are trying to keep up with the times to ensure that they remain relevant in the financial service offerings. Indeed, the recent approval of the new digital banking licences in December is indicative that Singapore is taking a leap forward in attempting to become even more competitive as a global financial hub.
Against this backdrop, it is heartening to note that the MAS is also very quick to update the Payment Services Act 2019 so as to strengthen the regulatory frameworks, especially with regards to anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing.
In keeping with the spirit of progress, we should also consider the progress made in assessing payment service provider applications and the pace at which approvals are given. Now, I note that while the Act came into force on 28 January 2020, there remains about 361 companies that are still on the exemption list and awaiting the outcome of their PSA licence application.
I understand that the MAS has a list of admission criteria but these are not meant to be exhaustive.
Will the Minister provide greater clarity as to the factors and their respective weightings in MAS' considerations in granting or rejecting PSA licensees? More importantly, what is the number of applicants at the various stages of approval and what is holding back MAS from approving or rejecting these applications? Is the team overseeing the approvals adequately staffed to support the timely developments in this arena?
On that note, I would also like to seek clarifications on some of the proposed amendments to the Payment Services Act.
The first is with regard to user protection measures. Section 21 of the amendment gives MAS the power to impose user protection measures. However, there is no clarity for now as to what these measures might be at the moment, although MAS will consult the public and the industry on any implementation of such measures. MAS has also highlighted in an April 2020 FAQ paper that it does not intend to provide any regulatory safeguards for investments in digital payments, the safety and soundness of DPT service providers or the proper processing of DPT transactions.
In light of concerns surrounding business failures and cybersecurity, I believe a clear framework should be adopted and put in place as a pre-emptive measure, which aims to imbue users with greater confidence in the payment service infrastructure in Singapore. A wider adoption of digitalisation can only be built up when consumers have adequate trust that the system works and that adequate circuit breakers or minimal fail safes are present to mitigate any damage. An example of which is the deposit insurance scheme in the case of monies in banks.
A balance has to be struck, however, as mentioned by my colleague Leon Perera. There is the perception that increased regulatory powers by MAS may spark fears of over-regulation and excessively stifle innovation. In this regard, both end users and companies could benefit from greater regulatory and operational clarity sooner rather than later.
The second point I would like to highlight is with regards to the potential upward revision of the current limits on e-wallet users. Under the current Payment Services Act, e-wallet users can hold no more than $5,000 in their accounts while they can transact no more than $30,000 each year. According to MAS, these limits are in place to safeguard the risk of excess monetary outflows from bank deposits to non-bank e-money.
With the signing of the new trade agreement with the UK, MAS has said that it would review these payment limits.
I would like to ask when is the review expected to be concluded and, with the expected passing of the Payment Services Act's amendments, could the review then being expedited? Because a higher limit would mean that firms can potentially offer more services to their customers, which in turn, encourages wider adoption and usage of digital payments in line with our hope for developing a Smart Nation.
Finally, and more broadly, I would like to touch on the fact that despite the great strides we have made in advancing technological adoption, it appears that cash is still king in Singapore. With COVID-19, we have been forced to adopt digital contact tracing, which, much like digital payments, make use of the scanning of QR codes. I am sure Members would agree with me that the scanning of SafeEntry QR codes is now second nature to Singapore residents.
Yet the uptake for digital payment remains low as compared to a country like, say, China, where the authorities had to intervene to ensure that merchants still accept cash as a mode of payment – quite the opposite of Singapore's experience today, with \"Cash Only\" signs still quite commonplace at small businesses in Singapore.
I note that the SG Digital Office was established in May 2020 under IMDA, but beyond Hawkers Go Digital or Seniors Go Digital, we could perhaps ask ourselves, why is it that the uptake of digital payment still remains low in Singapore and if more can be done to encourage the uptake of digital payment in the near future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the payment industry is a rapidly developing one with huge potential for growth and I am heartened that we are riding this wave in the hopes that we will remain competitive for many years to come. At the same time, of course, let us not forget that the older generation might not be as proficient technologically and we should push for progress while also being cognisant of not leaving anyone behind.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare that I am a bank employee.
I applaud the new amendments which will build consumer confidence in the use of digital payments while encouraging a robust e-payment eco-system.
The Government's position on regulating digital tokens, specifically cryptocurrency, has garnered a significant amount of interest. Cryptocurrencies are now required to be protected and each cryptocurrency transaction must be processed properly. This will certainly be a good step. It is also good news for technology start-ups which view cryptocurrencies, particularly Initial Coin Offerings or ICOs, as a quick way to fund their innovations. The Government's move to take an active stance to regulate and safeguard customers' virtual assets will encourage more to partake in new technology businesses.
I wish to raise my concerns on a few topics: first, cybersecurity issues about cryptocurrency; second, social engineering problems; third, manipulation of crypto exchanges and issuance of digital tokens.
Even with licensing and regulations, crypto exchanges are fraught with risks and liabilities. Any financial activity that takes place through cyberspace would be a target for cybercriminals. All activities involving cryptocurrencies occur online. Crypto exchanges are hot targets for hackers and losses by the millions have captured headlines in the past five years. Although the security systems designed to protect the exchanges and customers have been enhanced over the years, the plunder by hackers continued through the past year.
Half of crypto-related hacks are reportedly from DeFi protocols and exchanges.
I would like to ask what is the Government's stand on De-Fi or decentralised finance?
These are financial services using smart contracts, which are automated enforceable agreements that do not need intermediaries like a bank or a lawyer. They just use online blockchain technology instead. The concept has grown in popularity in the past year but they are also controversial because they are attractive to criminal hackers.
Cryptocurrencies, too, are subject to cyberattack methodologies like phishing and data breaches. Hackers can exploit cross-site scripting issues to change a customer's withdrawal address and draw money from the customer's account into their own – according to a Forbes article about the risks of crypto exchanges. As both accounts are legitimate, these activities would resemble normal transactions and it may take some time before the illegal activity is flagged. By then, it may be too late for any action.
Two-factor authentication, or 2FA, is widely considered the gold standard for protecting online accounts. Yet, in the case of a server-side vulnerability in a crypto exchange, hackers can bypass 2FA checks entirely through remote code execution, or RCE. A research revealed in December 2017 that nearly 90% of all RCE attacks are driven by crypto-mining. So, 2FA would avoid account takeover through password theft, but a customer is still vulnerable to inadequate systemic protection measures.
I wish to ask, under the amendments, if a hack is to occur and millions of funds are lost, how will customers be compensated and what penalties will be issued? Should we perhaps look into the feasibility of deposit insurance for providers of digital payments and crypto services?
Fortunately, there are ways to identify crypto exchanges which are relatively secure and safe to work with. When cryptocurrency was largely unregulated, customers were required to do their own extensive research, which often requires deep reading and technical knowledge. With enhanced regulations for the industry, I hope the Government is also taking into consideration security factors when granting or renewing the licenses.
For example, crypto exchanges must present adequate security measures before they are licensed. These would include security audits of smart contracts and front-end application servers and regular bug bounty programmes to stay ahead of hackers. I hope this will open up more opportunities for local white hackers and cybersecurity talents to hone their skills and land good jobs and development opportunities in the industry.
Besides cyberattacks, frauds and social engineering are challenges to contend with, as with any online financial activities and transactions. The past year saw an uptick in victims being scammed or unwittingly involved in Ponzi schemes. Moreover, online criminals have devised all kinds of complex methodologies to attack crypto exchanges from multiple fronts, not only targeting the exchanges but also customers and third-party service providers associated with the exchanges.
A recent example was a cyberattack on several cryptocurrency websites after employees at a hosting company were targeted and socially engineered to give access to the targeted websites. Although no funds were lost, the hacker was believed to have obtained personal information and documents from the user database. These included sensitive information like government-issued IDs, addresses and passwords. Service providers who failed to protect consumer's data must be penalised under the Personal Data Protection Act.
Unrelated to cybersecurity, but also having an insidious impact on the stability of crypto exchanges, is crypto market manipulation. Back in 2019, allegations on cryptocurrency exchanges manipulating data to attract traders to their platforms had rocked the industry. A series of crackdowns alleviated this problem, but it is still present to a lesser degree. Meanwhile, sophisticated traders who have purchased large amounts of cryptocurrency may manipulate the market across several exchanges in parallel. This is commonly cited as the equivalent as the \"pump-and-dump\" securities fraud in the stock market. Although reputable exchanges tend to be regulated with anti-manipulation protocols in place, manipulation across multiple exchanges is difficult to detect.
As all these variables continue to plague the crypto exchanges, I am particularly concerned about the inevitable surge in interest from newcomers once the new regulations come into effect. They may be lulled into a false sense of security and invest recklessly. We may also see a rise in cybercrimes if victims fail to adopt all the necessary precautions to protect their assets. We can license and regulate, but the volatility of the industry means that reviewing the laws must be an on-going and frequent process. Anyone who wants to participate must continuously educate themselves and stay abreast with news on the technology.
I am pleased to note that there are several crypto and blockchain courses available in Singapore and some are under SkillsFuture.
Given the complexity of cryptocurrency investment, some may prefer to turn to corporate finance advisers, who have shown increasing interest in offering clients exposure to cryptocurrency. My question is, what is MAS' response to advisers in Singapore who want to include these products in their clients' portfolios? To what extent are they allowed to facilitate crypto transactions for clients, and would they require a special licence for such activities? It would be good to know if there is proper credentialing for financial advisers who want to market cryptocurrency to customers as an investment.
I now move to my last topic on token issuance. A more stable and well-regulated fintech industry will be a boost for technology start-ups particularly for those who wish to get funding via Initial Coin Offerings or ICO. I wish to clarify whether under the new amendments, would issuers of tokens require a licence? How long or complex is the typical process for a company to get into the business of issuing tokens? Ultimately, we want to strike a fine balance between accessibility and security. We want to encourage our tech entrepreneurs to leverage on a vibrant fintech economy, while maintaining stability and security through anti-money laundering and cybersecurity regulations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, developed economies are moving ahead with digital token assets and we must not be left behind in the dust. Moreover, well-regulated developments in the industry will serve to stimulate other areas like technology advancements and cybersecurity, which in turn, creates employment. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken on the Bill and for their support of its introduction. There were quite a number of comments about protecting consumers, protecting seniors, educating the public on the risk of DPTs or digital payment tokens. But there are also others who commented that we should not over-regulate and we have to encourage entrepreneurship.
This is in essence what this Bill is about, to strike that balance, and in that process, take a risk-differentiated approach.
When we passed this Bill, I did so in January 2019, and we explained this. It is fundamentally the entire architecture of the Payment Services Act to have different classes of licences, differentiated approach and adopt the principle of taking a risk-based approach.
Let me address Members' questions. There are quite a number of them. Let me try my best.
First, let me deal with the risks that the Bill mainly seeks to address – money laundering, terrorism financing and other illegal activities.
Mr Louis Ng suggested sharing more information and feedback with financial institutions to improve the efficacy of suspicious transaction reporting. Mr Louis Ng asked his question in the context of identifying illegal wildlife trade, but really, the broader purpose is to counter all illegal activities in general.
Financial institutions are required to report suspicious transactions to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office in the Singapore Police Force. Relevant agencies have shared case studies and red flag indicators on risks with financial institutions to help them better detect and report these illicit activities. Agencies also provide feedback to financial institutions to sharpen their efforts in reporting suspicious transactions. So, the efforts as suggested by Mr Ng is on-going.
Mr Don Wee also asked if there could be a centralised platform for DPT service providers to research on transaction details, share information and improve efficiency. We agree with this suggestion, the principle of it. MAS has been working with the industry and relevant associations, on the sharing of emerging risks and typologies, and best practices to collectively raise Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism or AML/CFT standards, and improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
Mr Louis Ng asked if there is a space for anonymised financial transactions. Usually, that is cash, that is the most anonymised. But if it is digital, indeed, in this digitised world, everything we do, from buying something online to even surfing the net, we leave a digital trail that is in someone's possession. Yet, we willingly do so. And usually the data is used to push to you the next advertisement that you should take note of.
For financial transactions, where there are real concerns of money laundering or terrorism financing, it is all the more necessary to have regulations that require the keeping of data and records. Hence, MAS imposes stringent AML/CFT requirements on licensed DPT service providers in Singapore to mitigate against the risks of abuse of our financial centre by bad actors.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also raised questions on whether these service providers would be required to identify and verify their customers. In line with the Financial Action Task Force or FATF standards, DPT service providers must conduct know-your-customer measures for this purpose. Payment service providers are also required to retain the necessary information on customers and transactions to maintain proper audit trails and facilitate investigations by law enforcement agencies.
Mr Don Wee asked if MAS requires DPT service providers to use search engines, like in the maritime sector, to authenticate shipments. MAS expects DPT service providers to apply a risk-based AML/CFT approach that is appropriate for the risks of their business and nature of transactions. Hence, MAS does not prescribe the use of specific systems. However, DPT service providers should take enhanced risk measures such as ascertaining the purpose of the transaction or source of funds using relevant sources of information when they encounter higher risk situations.
Mr Leon Perera raised several questions. He raised various instances where DPT service providers need not be subject to perhaps the full suite of regulatory measures. These are valid concerns and indeed, we, as I explained earlier, that is why we take a risk-based, modular approach for the Payment Services Act. And in fact, that defines the entire architecture of this Act.
For example, it is not the intent of the Payment Services Act to capture entities that conduct general marketing or advertising activities. Whether an entity is caught by the Act, is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. The exact rules will be spelled out in subsidiary legislation or guidelines on licensing for licensees; and we will consult the public and the industry as MAS do so.
I want to assure Mr Leon Perera that our rules are aligned to the FATF as well as international best practices. This includes the regulation of cross-border remittance of monies. We are active in this space internationally and we keep abreast of the developments and certainly not running ahead of international best practices. So, whatever the legislation we are proposing, US, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, several EU members have already passed similar legislation to regulate their DPT service providers.
On monitoring cross-border flows that Mr Leon Perera asked, our rules require licensees to keep transaction records and we have supervisory oversight to review them. So, monitoring and enforcement is more ex post than ex ante. And of course, we rely on active cooperation with foreign counterparts and sharing of intelligence.
Also, as mentioned by Mr Leon Perera, MAS has carved out from regulation, any payment service that is solely incidental to carrying on a business that is already regulated under the Securities and Futures Act. And this is to avoid double regulation.
On the need to provide clearer definition of the word \"incidental\", it is already defined in the Payment Services Act, which is that a payment service is incidental if it is \"to support the other business and provided by the person in connection with carrying on of the other business\". If necessary, MAS can issue further guidance on this, as we receive more feedback from the industry.
Next, I will address crypto-related developments which were brought up by Mr Saktiandi and Mr Don Wee, specifically on stablecoins and decentralised finance or DeFi. These services are still nascent in Singapore but it can change quickly. MAS has therefore issued a consultation paper to review if further changes are needed to address risks associated with stablecoins. DeFi is currently the most common form of DPT services which will be captured with the expanded scope introduced today. But if there is a need to evolve our regulatory regime further in future, we will be ready.
Next are questions on technology and cybersecurity risks, as well as data privacy standards.
Mr Derrick Goh proposed differentiated technology and cybersecurity requirements for payment institutions, and in particular, for standard payment institutions to perform self-assessment of their technology and cyber risks.
The underlying principle behind Mr Goh's suggestion is that MAS should take a risk-based approach when applying technology and cyber security requirements on different types of financial institutions and we agree with this underlying principle.
Payment service providers must meet MAS' standards on technology risk management and cyber hygiene practices. Examples of these regulatory requirements include establishing robust security controls to mitigate the risk of malware infection and data loss, and ensuring strong user authentication for systems that are used to access customer information. New entrants who are not able to meet these standards will not be allowed to commence business. MAS imposes more stringent requirements on payment service providers as they become significant players in the payment industry.
Payment service providers are expected to independently perform risk assessment against these MAS requirements. However, as part of our on-going supervision, it is still necessary for MAS to periodically assess the cyber resilience of payment service providers by reviewing the effectiveness of their processes and controls.
The amendments under the Bill will allow MAS to impose additional requirements on DPT service providers to protect customers' data, precisely for the reasons raised by Members. For instance, MAS can impose stricter controls and processes to protect data from unauthorised use, in addition to the Personal Data Protection Act.
Mr Derrick Goh suggested a ratings system for payment service providers. But unlike the food and property development industries, payment service providers are licensed and subject to on-going supervision by MAS. I would thus encourage consumers to ensure that the payment service providers they engage, such as the platform they use to buy or sell DPTs, are licensed by MAS.
Mr Saktiandi also asked if cyberattacks lead to massive losses, how will customers be compensated and what are the penalties. In such an event, MAS will oversee the payment service provider’s dispute resolution process to ensure that they handle customer claims fairly and promptly. Further, if the entity is found to have breached MAS’ cyber hygiene requirements, it can be subject to fines of up to $100,000 on conviction.
The next set of risks raised by Members – Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Saktiandi – pertain to fraud and scams.
The first set of actions to prevent this is to have a rigorous, robust, regulatory regime. MAS grants licences only to entities that have in place proper governance and risk management processes.
Further, MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department or CAD will take enforcement actions against entities that operate illegally or fail to comply with regulatory requirements.
In response to Mr Yip Hon Weng’s specific questions, our enforcement agencies have the power to investigate, seize and confiscate assets in their pursuit of DPT-related scam and fraud cases. For example, two persons were convicted in 2020 for promoting an illegal pyramid scheme involving a purported fraudulent digital token called \"OneCoin\". The CAD has also, to-date, removed or blocked more than 150 advertisements and websites promoting suspicious investments featuring or involving DPTs.
Next, investment risks. Members are concerned that today’s enhancements could give consumers a false sense of security and encourage them to jump into DPT-related investments. Some Members may recall we had this same debate, when we first tabled the Payment Services Bill in this House in January 2019, except the tables were then turned. Then, there were requests that MAS regulate DPTs more strictly. I explained that we were not ready to do so, because DPTs were still at a nascent stage of development and we should be mindful that more regulation may have a legitimising effect.
Compared to January 2019, while the usage of DPTs in Singapore remains low today, recent developments, such as stablecoins, can spur greater adoption of DPTs within a short time. So, it is timely to have new powers to be able to tighten the regulation, notwithstanding the concern of a legitimising effect.
The fact is DPTs remain unsuitable for most retail investors. Placing funds in DPTs like bitcoins comes with very high risk. Today’s amendments introduce additional user protection powers in the Payment Services Act, but it is not possible for laws to protect against investment losses.
Ultimately, investors need to exercise extreme caution. They should seek to understand the product, its characteristics and risks before committing their money.
Ms Ng Ling Ling is especially concerned about seniors and rightfully so. She suggested risk disclosures and suitability assessments for seniors. Mr Louis Ng also asked if there are measures to prevent false marketing to mislead customers.
MAS requires licensed DPT service providers to clearly disclose to their customers that they should buy DPTs only if they are familiar with the product and are prepared to accept the risk of losing all the money put into the DPTs.
If DPT service providers make a statement that suggests that investment in DPT is protected under the Payment Services Act, MAS will require them to immediately correct or remove the statement, and they will be subject to enforcement actions.
In response to Mr Saktiandi’s question, any entity which facilitates DPT transactions as described in the Payment Services Act today or in the amendments under today’s Bill, including persons facilitating transactions, will be required to obtain a licence. Financial advice received in relation to DPTs may be separately regulated under the Financial Advisers Act. However, potential investors should be aware that not all advice they receive in relation to DPT investments is regulated by MAS. Only advice concerning investment products are regulated under the Financial Advisers Act.
Investors should check with their financial institutions if the particular DPT investment they are considering is a regulated investment product and understand the risks of dealing in unregulated investment products.
Where the digital tokens are used by issuers as a way to raise capital from the public, the issuers will be subject to the full set of regulatory requirements applicable for securities issuance —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister Ong, if I may ask you to give way to Leader for the purposes of Exempted Business.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Leader.
","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":"[(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":"Payment Services (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Thank you, Leader and Deputy Speaker. Let me repeat.
Where the digital tokens are used by issuers as a way to raise capital from the public, the issuers will be subject to the full set of regulatory requirements applicable for securities issuance, such as the need to issue a prospectus.
Let me address another question by Mr Leon Perera as well as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. They voiced the concern of small players and licence holders being caught under the consumer protection requirements. But this is where we also need to strike a balance. We want to encourage entrepreneurship but, at the same time, need to protect consumers especially given the current circumstances that DPTs can become more popular, companies can come up with products that are more attractive. And, today, what we are doing, we believe, is an appropriate and calibrated response.
As suggested by several Members, MAS will continue to educate the public on DPTs, through the national financial education programme, MoneySense. We will also explore ways to better reach out to seniors, such as through mainstream media channels, working with agencies such as IMDA and SkillsFuture Singapore, and through the communities. MAS and the CAD have also rolled out consumer education initiatives to raise public awareness of the risks of putting their money in DPTs.
Since 2017, several advisories have been issued to warn the public of the risks and of common tactics used by scammers, to cheat people of their money or make use of them to carry out money laundering activities. We will continue our efforts, together with the industry and the community.
Let me address one more comment on what Mr Louis Chua raised. He said that digital payment uptake is not fast enough. But, actually, digital payment uptake in Singapore is quite rapid. We can see many merchants taking up, individuals using, and this is after years of work putting in place infrastructure such as the FAST and PayNow system, which makes things a lot more convenient. And then, the Singapore Quick Response Code (SGQR), a unified point-of-sale system. So, all these helped create a very strong momentum of digital payment uptake.
But when it comes to hawkers in coffeeshops, they are actually one of the hardest to convert. But we will continue to work on them. There are improvements that we can make including on the software, on the user interface as well as the user experience. This is something that MAS will continue to work with agencies, such as IMDA, to continue to push the process.
Finally, Members asked about the risks to consumers and businesses who accept or hold DPTs for payments or as collateral for lending to DPT owners. As DPTs have little or no intrinsic value, and their market value is highly volatile, they have not taken off in a big way as an accepted payment mode in Singapore. And it is actually quite a sensible outcome.
Mr Don Wee asked for an assurance that DPTs should not be used as collateral to grant working capital loans. Businesses and lenders must understand the nature of DPTs, and those that wish to accept DPTs either as payments or collateral for lending to DPT owners would thus have to bear the risk of value depreciation.
MAS conducts thematic checks on banks’ collateral management practices to ensure that they maintain prudent credit risk management. There are, in fact, many alternatives to facilitate the normal conduct of business.
Mr Saktiandi suggested a scheme similar to deposit insurance, to safeguard customers against potential losses. Mr Don Wee asked whether capital adequacy ratios would be imposed on DPT service providers.
Banks take in deposits and on-lend these funds. They play a critical intermediating role in the economy and are, therefore, subject to stringent prudential regulation and supervision, including deposit insurance and capital adequacy ratios.
DPT service providers are not banks, do not perform similar economic functions or pose similar systemic risks. We should use alternate means in our regulatory toolbox to deal with risks associated with DPT, which is what the Payment Services Act seeks to do. That is why the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill today provides MAS the powers to require DPT service providers to put in place consumer protection safeguards.
Today, under the Payment Services Act, major payment institutions are required to safeguard customer monies by depositing them in a separate trust account, or obtaining either an undertaking or guarantee from a bank in Singapore. Such safeguards currently do not apply to DPT service providers. With the provisions made, MAS will review the need to impose safeguarding measures on DPT service providers.
To ensure all our regulations are not so onerous that we stifle entrepreneurship, let me reiterate the basic architecture of the Payment Services Act, which is that it is risk-based, three different licences, three different tiers, with requirements calibrated to the risk they pose, and taking a modular approach.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised some questions. I want to assure him that the intent of the Act is to regulate entities that are carrying out payment services as a business and not for individuals. I also want to assure Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that DPT service provided in respect of a central bank DPT function is also carved out in the Act currently.
The new user protection powers introduced under section 21A of the Act is to empower MAS to impose user protection requirements when needed. It will not be implemented immediately, as I have explained. The adoption of DPTs remains small in Singapore and it remains that we are regulating for ML/TF.
If MAS was to exercise the powers, the industry can be assured that we will keep to the principle of the Payment Services Act – risk-based, modular. As such, it is likely that requirements will be imposed for major payment institutions first and if we do not detect the same concern for standard payment institutions.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about moneychangers and he highlighted that business is affected, and indeed so. But it is really not due to this legislation. Because of COVID-19, tourism has been affected badly, that has affected moneychangers' business quite adversely as well. Also, they are affected by technology, as there are now alternatives to remittances.
We have a six to 12 months' grace period for existing players to transit into the new regulatory framework, so this applies also to moneychangers. So, new applicants that are seeking to enter the market will not enjoy this six months' grace period, which I think is reasonable.
Several moneychangers have made requests to MAS to temporarily cease their licences due to poor business. Several requested for further extensions beyond the six months and MAS will consider their request on a case-by-case basis.
As for higher limit on the stock and flow cap of e-money, as raised by Mr Louis Chua, we will continue to study the issue. These caps are actually enshrined in the main Act, so if there are any changes to remove the caps, we will have to consult and come back to the House to make the necessary changes.
On Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Chua's request for a success rate of application for DPT service provider licences, it is too early to provide a representative success rate currently. MAS has received over 300 applications so far. Many require very close consultations, even hand-holding and guidance due to their unfamiliarity with AML requirements and the applicability of the Payment Services Act to their business. So, everyone is learning in this very fast moving and evolving space and MAS will continue to review how best to speed up the process and strike a good balance between encouraging entrepreneurship and regulation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the regulatory issues for payment services are multi-faceted and dynamic as the industry continues to innovate and evolve. MAS seeks to ensure that its regulatory regime is aligned with international standards and that it has the necessary tools to respond quickly to market developments. With that Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: No 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 Ong Ye Kung]. (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":"Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time\".
Singapore has consistently been ranked as one of the safest countries in the world. In the most recent Gallup Global Law and Order Report 2020, we were ranked first, for the sixth year running. People feel safe walking alone at night, violent crimes involving weapons are few and far between; and attacks involving guns and explosives are extremely rare.
This did not happen by chance. Our highly safe and secure environment is, in large part, attributable to the stringent laws that we have in place to regulate dangerous activities involving articles such as guns, explosives and other weapons, and the criminalising of unlawful actions involving these items.
The Arms and Explosives Act or AEA, in short, is the primary Act for regulating the handling of guns, explosives, explosive precursors, certain other weapons like swords, daggers and spears, and noxious substances. For simplicity, I shall refer to these items collectively henceforth as \"GEW\" – Guns, Explosives, Weapons. In addition, for drafting reasons, from here on, by \"weapons\", I shall be referring only to those weapons scheduled in the AEA or the Bill like swords, spears and daggers, and not guns or explosives which I shall treat as separate items.
Four other Acts, namely, the Arms Offences Act, Explosives Substances Act, Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, and Dangerous Fireworks Act, also deal with GEW-related crimes.
We cannot take our safety and security situation for granted.
First, the threat of an extremist attack remains very real. There have been serious incidents in countries with strict gun and weapon laws. Many of these incidents were not carried out by military organisations or state-sponsored activists, but individuals with extremist views and sentiments, using guns or knives.
Among others, the series of religiously-motivated terrorist attacks and the beheading of a school teacher in France late last year as well as the Christchurch mass shootings in 2019 by a gunman, where 51 individuals lost their lives and 40 were injured.
We must not presume that these attacks cannot happen here in Singapore. Recently, 37 individuals were investigated by ISD and the Police for inciting violence, stoking communal unrest and making derogatory remarks against Muslims. One of them was eventually arrested under the Internal Security Act. He had bought foldable knives in Singapore, which he claimed he would use for attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh.
Second, technology is posing an increasing challenge to effective enforcement against GEW-related crimes. The Internet has significantly facilitated the trafficking and manufacture of GEW. One can easily get online and access materials and instructions to manufacture GEW. There are lethal forms of GEW that can be purchased over the Internet.
Third, we need to optimise our enforcement resources to better regulate a growing industry. The AEA was last amended in 2007 to introduce regulation for explosive precursors. Since then, the total number of GEW licences has more than doubled, from around 2,000 in 2010 to more than 4,000 in 2020. Every licence requires resources to vet the licensee and to conduct inspections. The Police, who are currently the regulators under the AEA, need to be able to regulate this growing pool of licensees effectively. Otherwise, there is a risk of lapses going undetected, potentially resulting in disastrous safety or security consequences, such as the recent explosion that happened in Beirut which killed more than 200 people.
The Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Bill before this House seeks to replace the Arms and Explosives Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Dangerous Fireworks Act, and make consequential amendments to other GEW-related Acts. The Bill reinforces the Government's position that any handling of GEW is a privilege that is conditioned on the overriding need to ensure that we meet the objective of public safety and security, and that strict controls are required to achieve this objective.
In particular, the Bill will strive to achieve two objectives. First, to strengthen our levers to promote safe and secure GEW handling and further minimise the risks posed by GEW, and second, to ensure a more calibrated and coherent enforcement framework for these items.
We have, in the process, consulted industry stakeholders to explain the amendments and also obtained their feedback.
Let me now explain some of the key amendments.
We intend to achieve our first objective of strengthening levers to promote safe, secure and responsible GEW handling and further minimise the risks posed by GEW in two ways.
First, by further tightening controls over high-risk GEW. Today, the maximum fines for unlicensed activities involving explosive precursors (EPs) are $100,000 for entities and $50,000 for individuals. However, the maximum fine for arms and explosives is only $10,000, even though the degree of harm that can be caused is comparable to that of EPs. The Bill therefore raises the maximum fines for guns and explosives to match those for EPs.
In addition, the Bill allows the Minister for Home Affairs to prescribe items as prohibited GEW, offences related to which will attract even higher fines of up to $100,000 for persons and $200,000 for entities. These are items which are identified as particularly dangerous or may be more readily concealed and would be particularly suited to unlawful use. For example, certain types of automatic gun commonly used by terrorists, which are highly dangerous and clearly have no legitimate use. No licence will be granted for the handling of these items.
Next, the Bill criminalises the unauthorised possession of digital blueprints of guns. Today, a person could easily find on the Internet, materials for gun making and manufacture a fully workable gun using a 3D printer and a gun blueprint taken from the Internet. As a case in point, in 2019, a shooter in Germany had brought along guns with components that were manufactured using 3D printing. Those guns were eventually not used in carrying out the attacks, but were his back-up arsenal.
Clause 13 provides that a person who wants to make a 3D-printed gun or major part of a gun by an additive manufacturing process using a 3D printer or electronic milling machine will need a licence. Without a licence, the mere possession of a digital blueprint of a gun or gun part will be an offence. In this context, \"possession\" includes the scenario where a person in Singapore physically possesses a storage device containing such a blueprint, as well as the scenario where a person in Singapore stores a blueprint outside Singapore, such as in an overseas cloud storage device.
To be clear, the intent is not to target persons who genuinely have no knowledge and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that he or she possessed the digital blueprint for making a gun. For example, a person who merely browses out of curiosity and finds on the Internet a gun blueprint, and the blueprint is only temporarily stored in the browser cache.
Next, we have the threat posed by drones laden with GEW. This is a real and serious threat. In 2018, explosives-laden drones were used during an attack on Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuela President, when he was making a public speech. Several members of the Bolivarian National Guard were injured.
GEW-laden drones can circumvent conventional physical security measures, such as physical fences and CCTVs. Clause 5 addresses the threat by making it clear that a person who has control over or operates a vehicle or vessel carrying GEW, even if via remote control, is treated as possessing the GEW.
The Bill reinforces the 2015 amendment to the Air Navigation Act, which makes it an offence if a person operates an unmanned aircraft and the unmanned aircraft carries a prohibited item, which can be any weapon.
The Bill also introduces powers for the Licensing Officers to authorise third parties to do low-risk compliance checks, to allow the regulator to focus on high-risk GEW.
Currently, all licensing compliance checks are performed by Police officers regardless of the risk posed by the GEW. There is scope to use our limited Police resources more optimally. Our intent is to delegate checks on low-risk items, such as weapons and air guns, to qualified persons. Clause 80 therefore allows the Licensing Officer or LO in short, with the approval of the Minister for Home Affairs, to appoint Compliance Officers to exercise certain powers of the LO, such as the powers of inspection.
Next, while the vast majority of the GEW industry are compliant, we continue to encounter episodes of lapse among licensees. Some happened because the licensees wanted to save costs, or wanted to make compliance more convenient for themselves. In so doing, they compromised safety and security. Any lapse or breach involving GEW can result in catastrophic consequences. MHA has identified areas where we can further improve compliance and enhance regulatory effectiveness.
First, the Bill requires specific periodic reporting of GEWs by licensees and allows for inspections by regulators. There are risks to the community when guns, explosives or lethal weapons are not accounted for.
Clauses 59, 60 and 61 require licensees to update the Licensing Officer on changes to their management and to periodically report on their conduct of the regulated activities. Clauses 70 to 72 grant the Licensing Officer and authorised officers additional powers, such as the powers of inspection and powers to order the production of documents, to determine whether information given to the regulators is correct or whether regulatory action needs to be taken.
Second, the Bill expands the scope of regulation to cover GEW-related activities and items more comprehensively, in a calibrated manner.
In particular, the Bill introduces a class licensing regime for low or moderate-risk users and activities.
Currently, the AEA requires all persons conducting GEW-related activities to be either individually licensed, or to be exempted, which means they will fall outside the Act. But there are certain low or moderate-risk GEW-related activities which warrant some regulatory control, just not to the extent of individual licensing.
For example, students who handle air guns as part of their co-curricular activities (CCAs) in schools, generally do so in the campus, in the compound, which is a relatively secure setting, but some safety and security measures are still needed to prevent misuse or mishandling.
Therefore, clauses 56 to 58 introduce a class licence system that will work in lieu of individual licences. Under these clauses, a person who meets certain criteria, which will be set out in subsidiary legislation, such as being a member of a school air gun club, is automatically treated as licensed and allowed to carry out a GEW regulated activity, subject to the conditions. With class licensing, the person need not be put through security clearance and need not apply or renew for individual licence.
Conversely, under clause 66, the Licensing Officer has the power to suspend or disapply the class licence with respect to a specific class licensee if the LO is satisfied that, inter alia, the class licensee has contravened class licence conditions, is convicted of an offence in a GEW-related Act, or if it is in the public interest or national security of Singapore to do so.
To elaborate, public interest grounds include considerations relating to public order as well as public security and safety. For example, if an air gun class licensee is found to be a gang member, Police can then disapply this person from continuing to handle GEW.
Next, the Bill also revises our regulatory approach towards weapons and gun accessories.
Today, \"arms\", as defined under the AEA, covers guns and major gun parts and five specified weapons, that is, swords, bayonets, daggers, spears and spearheads. This definition has two issues.
First, the controls and penalties are not calibrated according to the risk posed by the item. The specified weapons pose lower risks than guns and major gun parts. But the way “arms” is defined now, means that these lower-risk items require the same controls, and offences involving these items carry the same penalties as offences involving guns.
Second, other weapons which may pose equal or higher risk as the five specified weapons, such as machetes, are not regulated.
Our policy intent is to have a regime that comprehensively controls GEW, and in a manner which is commensurate with their risk. Clauses 29 to 35 create and set out a distinct set of controls, offences and penalties for the specified weapons, to reflect the lower risk they pose vis-à-vis guns and major gun parts.
The expanded list of specified weapons to be regulated is reflected in the First Schedule, and will include other dangerous weapons like throwing stars and knuckledusters, which are very unlikely to have common day-to-day uses.
In addition, the Bill expands the scope of regulation to cover gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and silencers, which can be used to enhance the performance of guns. However, the penalties for gun accessories are lower than those for guns as they pose a lower risk.
The Bill also allows shooting range operations to be regulated, to ensure safety at the range. Today, operating a shooting range is not an activity that needs to be licensed. However, we want to be able to ensure that safety and security measures at shooting ranges are adequate. For example, the Licensing Officer may need to impose requirements for the deployment of a range safety officer or installation of robust perimeter fencing. Clause 19 therefore makes it an offence to operate a shooting range or paintball range without a licence.
The Bill also confers on the Licensing Officer, or LO, greater operational flexibility, to act swiftly where necessary to deal with new dangers or where there are increased risks.
First, the LO may change the licensing conditions during the tenure of the licence. Today, the LO cannot do so. If the LO needs to impose tighter conditions on the licensee, for example, to deal with changes in the operating environment, the LO must first revoke and then reissue the license. Also, the LO cannot impose tighter conditions on an errant licensee whose breach may not warrant licence suspension or revocation. Clause 54 allows the LO to add, delete or modify conditions during the tenure of a licence, subject to due process.
Second, there will be a new power for the Minister for Home Affairs to issue security directions. Sometimes, a security situation requires a more expedient response than what modifying licensing conditions allows, given the need to provide for due process when licensing conditions are changed.
If there is imminent threat to life or property, for instance, clause 64 allows the Minister to direct licensees, class licensees and even exempted persons to immediately put in place enhanced measures, or temporarily suspend, cease or scale down their activities for a period of time. This is called a security direction. It is non-appealable and is time-limited to six months. Non-compliance is an offence.
The other key objective of this Bill is to ensure a more calibrated and coherent enforcement framework for GEW.
In developing this Bill, we took the opportunity to rationalise the offences and penalties across the various GEW-related laws to achieve greater coherence, consistency and clarity.
There are currently some inconsistencies in penalties for offences with similar offence elements.
For example, section 3 of the Arms Offences Act, or AOA, criminalises unlawful possession of arms or ammunition and the penalties include caning. Section 13 of the AEA similarly criminalises unlicensed possession of arms, but the penalties are lighter and they do not include caning.
In addition, certain offences have similar penalties, even though the egregiousness of the offences differ. For example, under the AEA, the offence of conducting an activity without a licence attracts similar penalties as a breach of licensing conditions, even though the latter is considered less severe.
Moving forward, regulatory breaches like non-compliance with licence conditions or unlicensed activities will be criminalised under the Bill, whereas actions with criminal intent will be offences under the other Acts and will carry heavier punishments.
To this end, clauses 93 and 94 amend the AOA and the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, or CESOWA, in short, to clarify that offences made out under these Acts involve criminal intent and therefore attract heavier punishments and penalties, thus distinguishing them from offences under the AEA.
The Bill also repeals the Explosive Substances Act, as there are similar offences relating to explosive substances in the CESOWA, such as possession and use of explosive substances with criminal intent.
Even as penalties are being raised, the penalties are also calibrated to match the egregiousness of the offence. For example, the penalty for the offence of unlicensed possession of explosives for individuals is higher than that for breach of licensing conditions involving explosives, as the former is considered more egregious. This is a fairer approach, to ensure that the penalties are proportional to the offence, while maintaining our tough stance against misuse of GEW.
The Bill also streamlines the regulatory approach for dangerous fireworks.
Currently, dangerous fireworks are prohibited under the Dangerous Fireworks Act, or DFA. However, fireworks are explosives as well, and ought to be regulated as such under a single law. Clause 98 therefore repeals the DFA. All activities involving fireworks including discharge, transportation and storage will be regulated as explosives under this Bill.
Last but not least, the Bill contains provisions that put on firmer footing some existing practices which remain relevant in our new security environment. One of these practices is the current security clearance regime, and which the Bill will apply to licensees and their management, and certain key personnel engaging in regulated activities, called special workers.
Screening requirements, which serve to mitigate the risks associated with GEW, are presently imposed through the \"fit and proper\" criteria for licensees, or mandated through the licensing conditions for the workers. This has shortcomings as there is no consistency and direct link between the validity of security clearances and the authorisation to engage in the regulated activities.
To lend greater clarity to the industry, clauses 41 to 46 set out the security clearance process and considerations for granting, suspending or revoking the security clearance of an individual. For example, the individual’s physical or mental health and participation in criminal activity are material factors in screening.
The Bill will also make clear the obligations of the licensee and the worker. In particular, clause 47 makes it an offence if a licensee allows a worker who is not security cleared to handle GEW.
At the same time, a special worker of a licensee, who handles GEW knowingly, or with reckless disregard, that his or her security clearance is not valid, will be committing an offence.
To guard against persons who are not licensees but may have significant influence over an entity engaged in GEW regulated activities, clause 48 makes it an offence if a licensee fails to inform the LO within seven days of a person becoming a close associate.
Let me conclude. I cannot emphasise enough that the safety and security that we currently enjoy in Singapore should never be taken for granted. In this regard, the Bill seeks to ensure that our regulatory framework remains robust to deter and prevent the misuse and mishandling of GEW, which can have very serious consequences for our safety and security, while respecting the need to allow legitimate uses for some GEW. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12 noon tomorrow.\" – [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":"Providing More Help for Those Undergoing In-vitro Fertilisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I have shared stories about my children numerous times in this House. Being a parent to Ella, Katie and Poppy has been one of the greatest joys for my wife Amy and I.
I share so many stories of them because I am so grateful that I have three happy, healthy children. I am grateful for all the lessons they have taught me and they have undoubtedly made me a better person. I love and treasure them so much and I want to share the joys of being a parent with everyone.
Sir, beyond all these, I am simply grateful that I am able to have kids. Amy and I fought very hard to have children. There was a point in our lives when we could not have kids.
The story I have shared less is that we were able to have our three children only with the help of in-vitro fertilisation, or IVF.
Going through IVF was like being on an emotional roller coaster ride. It was a journey filled with pain and anguish, excitement and disappointment, and hope and happiness at times. It was financially, physically and emotionally draining.
We were only able to have a child at our seventh IVF attempt.
When we were undergoing IVF, I was taking home a salary of about $2,000 a month. We had to pour all our income and savings towards having a child.
Like us, many couples have struggled to conceive. KK Women's and Children's Hospital says 15% of couples are unable to conceive within 12 months of trying for a baby. This number is also increasing. There were over 7,700 assisted reproduction procedures carried out in 2017, up from about 5,500 in 2013 – a 40% increase in just four years.
Fertility is an existential problem in Singapore and the Government has done much, such as expanding the Baby Bonus Scheme, to provide more support to couples in their decision to have children and to lighten the financial costs of raising children.
But I do not think we are doing enough for those who want but struggle to have children. I met several such couples at a dialogue session I organised last November through the Singapore IVF Support Group. The couples spoke candidly about the many challenges they faced and I thank them for sharing their personal stories and passionate recommendations with me. Today, I will share their stories with you and offer four proposals on how the Government can help couples like them.
My first proposal is for the Government to subsidise more cycles of IVF. For most couples, IVF is a story of trying and trying again because only about 18% of attempts succeed. This is not a cheap procedure. Each cycle, each roll of the dice, can cost up to $15,000 at our public hospitals. The Government does help with subsidies for six cycles. Starting from the seventh cycle, you pay the full unsubsidised amount. This is a painful reality for many couples.
One couple I met are Josephine and Winston. They have gone through nine IVF cycles, paying about $20,000 out-of-pocket and $15,000 via MediSave already. Today, they are still without a child and will continue to try. It will cost them.
Another couple I met are Cheryl and Keith. They were luckier. By their sixth cycle, the very last subsidised IVF cycle, they managed to conceive and are now happy parents to a bubbly one-year-old. But they now find themselves in an agonising position of wanting a second child. They wonder: can we really afford to go through IVF unsubsidised?
I should pause here and clarify that nobody chooses to do a seventh cycle of IVF unless they have to. Each cycle involves mood-changing medication, weeks of daily painful injections and multiple visits to the doctor.
We can and we should do more. I am not proposing that we extend subsidies to unlimited cycles of IVF. I propose that we extend subsidies to the seventh and eighth IVF cycles. If needed, we can reduce the subsidies for these cycles to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable.
Sir, I should add that the Government has previously increased the number of subsidised cycles. This was done about seven years ago and it is time for us to review this again. If the argument is that most couples have a successful pregnancy before or during their sixth cycle, then extending subsidies to the seventh and eighth cycle would not cost the Government much. Why not, then? We should remember that this additional subsidy is meant for couples, such as Josephine, Winston, Cheryl and Keith, who have clearly shown, through years of trying, that they are serious about wanting to become parents. They deserve our support.
My second proposal is to introduce subsidies for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, and allow the balance to be paid out of MediSave, subject to a limit. PGD is sometimes conducted during IVF cycles and it is important in two ways. One, for couples with a family history of genetic disorders, it ensures that the embryo does not inherit serious medical conditions. Two, PGD increases the likelihood of a pregnancy being successful. Studies done by researchers at the University of Valencia and at Japanese hospitals found that PGD significantly reduced miscarriages and increased the chances of pregnancy. This, of course, means happier outcomes for couples. It might also mean lower costs for the Government, as fewer IVF cycles may be needed before a successful pregnancy.
Yet, for all its benefits, not a single dollar of subsidy or MediSave is available for PGD. PGD can be expensive. For Amelia and Geoffrey, paying $18,000 for PGD was the only way to prevent their second child from inheriting a rare genetic disease that can lead to liver failure. Another couple, Sophia and John, had already faced three miscarriages. They found that a genetic condition was at fault and had to pay $10,000 for PGD to prevent more miscarriages and to avoid birth defects.
I hope the numbers are as big a shock for Members of this House as they were for these couples. These are huge sums of money.
Sir, my proposal is that we extend the current IVF subsidy structure to PGD. For Singaporean couples, this means a 75% subsidy for PGD for subsidised IVF cycles. PGD is needed only by a small percentage of couples. So, overall subsidy costs for the Government are likely to be limited. We should also allow PGD to be paid using MediSave, subject to a cap, so that MediSave does not get exhausted by such procedures. This is already the case for IVF treatments. Couples deserve their chance to have healthy children and we should support them.
My third proposal is to remove the quota on fresh and frozen cycles for subsidised IVF treatment. Currently, the Government's subsidy of six IVF cycles comes with a condition: three of the cycles must be \"fresh\" and the other three must be \"frozen\". I will spare this House the scientific nitty-gritty of what \"fresh\" and \"frozen\" mean. But suffice to say, expert opinion is split and the medical literature is inconclusive about whether one is clearly better than the other. Indeed, Minister Gan himself said last October, \"The success rates for fresh and frozen eggs are largely comparable.\"
Sir, I think this quota adds unnecessary stress on couples undergoing IVF. Some couples may need one fresh cycle and five frozen cycles while others may need five fresh cycles and one frozen cycle. Giving couples more flexibility might help reduce the stress and anxiety these couples face and lowering their stress and anxiety levels might help increase their success rate. I propose we drop the three-fresh, three-frozen quota for IVF subsidies. We simply provide subsidies for a given number of cycles, which can be either fresh or frozen.
My final recommendation is about time. Financial subsidies are important but providing people with precious time is also important. I propose we introduce fertility leave for both husbands and wives to take time off work for IVF treatments. IVF is an extremely stressful journey. This is particularly true for working women who have to juggle their career alongside the side effects and time commitments of their IVF treatments.
Sir, I asked over 160 people who worked while they were undergoing IVF. More than half found it difficult to take time off work for IVF-related treatments. The existing 14 days of sick leave is insufficient for them. Some end up taking no-pay leave and this is a strain on their already tight budgets due to IVF.
As for men, I believe we want to be with our wife during these tough times. When I spoke with Amelia and Geoffrey, Geoffrey told me that he wished he could take more time to accompany Amelia to her IVF appointments. But he cannot take medical leave to accompany his wife to these appointments.
So, the reality is that even on the sacred topic of making a baby, many Singaporeans are dependent on the goodwill of their employers, and this is not right. I propose that we allow husbands and wives to take several days of fertility leave per year. To ensure the leave is taken for its intended purpose, we can consider requiring employees to furnish MCs from fertility clinics and allow fertility clinics to provide men with MCs when they accompany their wife for their IVF appointments.
In addition to allowing Singaporean women to more easily access IVF treatments, fertility leave also has two additional positive side effects. First, it could help with our fertility rates. South Korea, a country with fertility rates nearly identical to ours, introduced fertility treatment leave as part of their efforts to raise fertility rates. Second, it makes clear that fertility treatments like IVF are not the concern of women alone. The emotional support of their husbands is essential. Just like parenting, conception should be a two-person job.
Sir, let me end by saying that the Government has done a lot in expanding access to and affordability of assisted conception treatments. Over the years, we have introduced the co-funding scheme for IVF treatments, increased the co-funding to more cycles and also increased the co-funding limits. We have also lifted the age limit of 45 years old for women to undergo IVF and extended IVF subsidies to women who are 40 years or older.
I also raised the issue of pre-implantation genetic screenings, or PGS, previously and I am glad the Government has started a pilot for this. It is also positive news that the Government is considering allowing IVF subsidies to be applied at private fertility treatment centres and is reviewing Government support for PGD and PGS. These are all welcome developments. But we can and we should do more.
In summary, my proposals are, one, increase the number of subsidised IVF cycles from six to eight; two, introduce subsidies for PGD; three, remove the three-fresh, three-frozen quota for IVF subsidies; and, four, introduce fertility leave for all employees.
These proposals will help more couples undergoing IVF and, most importantly, reduce their stress levels as they embark on this stressful but potentially rewarding IVF journey – potentially rewarding for the couples and also for Singapore as we try hard to increase our total fertility rate.
Sir, I will say again that parenthood has been one of the best journeys of my life. Ella, Katie and Poppy bring us immeasurable joy every single day and, of course, to be honest, immeasurable pain at times as well. My three little ones are, fortunately and unfortunately, as stubborn as me.
I have more stories to share. Recently, Poppy gave me a kiss in the morning and said, \"I love you, daddy\" and went back to sleep. I love these warm fuzzy feeling moments.
I love the silly moments, too. I sometimes find photos Katie has taken of herself on my phone without me knowing and some selfies she took together with me while I was asleep. Those are the only photos on my phone when my centre parting is not perfectly dead-centre.
And I love the proud moments. Ella will pick up snails and caterpillars and move them off the pavement so nobody will step on them. As they said, \"Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar.\"
Sir, I hope everyone will have the chance to experience these moments and to share these stories about their loved ones.
The road here was a difficult one. For Amy and I, as well as Josephine, Winston, Cheryl, Keith, Amelia, Geoffrey, Sophia and John, and many, many other couples, parenthood is a castle with high walls. We must do everything we can to open the gates to those who come knocking.
I know I am asking for the Government to give out more money, increase our expenditure at a time when our budgets are tight. But what we are offering fellow Singaporeans is a chance to become a parent and that is truly priceless.
Let me end with a quote, as always.
\"Nothing brings us more elated joy or paralysing fear. Nothing is so wonderful and daunting, heart-breaking and soul-lifting, taxing and exhilarating as raising a child. And certainly nothing will stretch us, inspire us and motivate us to better ourselves quite like being the one that little person looks up to.\"
I should also end by saying that I am not speaking up to get more subsidies so that I can have more children. Sir, my castle is full. I am terribly outnumbered with a queen and three princesses. This castle is permanently closed.
But, Sir, I know what others are going through and I hope we do more for them so that more couples can enjoy the gift of parenthood.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for his passionate speech and for raising the proposals on how greater support can be provided to couples who undergo IVF. We share his concern on the importance of supporting couples with parenthood aspirations. This has always been a whole-of-Government priority for us and we will continue to work towards providing better support for couples in this journey.
First, let me share some of the efforts made over the years to ensure greater affordability of assisted reproduction technology, or ART, for Singaporeans. The ART co-funding scheme, which was first introduced in 2008, aims to provide co-funding for ART treatments performed at public assisted reproduction, or AR centres – namely SGH, NUH or KKH – for couples where at least one spouse is a Singapore Citizen, or SC.
Since then, enhancements have been made progressively to better support couples with parenthood aspirations. In 2013, the co-funding quantum for SC-SC couples at our public AR centres was raised from 50% for up to three fresh cycles with a cap of $3,000 per cycle to 75% with a cap of $6,300 per cycle to help defray further costs. At that time, co-funding of 75% for up to three frozen cycles, capped at $1,200 per cycle, was also introduced. Couples were hence able to benefit from co-funding of three fresh and three frozen cycles, or a total of six cycles.
In April 2018, the co-funding cap per fresh cycle was further increased from $6,300 to $7,700 while the cap per frozen cycle was increased from $1,200 to $2,200. With effect from 1 January 2020, we further enhanced Government co-funding to allow up to two of the six existing co-funded ART cycles to occur after the women turned 40 as long as they have attempted assisted reproduction or intra-uterine insemination, or IUI, procedures before age 40.
Patients can also use MediSave to help offset the out-of-pocket payment at both public and private AR centres. Patients can withdraw up to a lifetime limit of $15,000 from their own or their husband's MediSave Account to pay for assisted conception procedures, or ACPs, which include ART and IUI. There is no cap on the number of cycles and patients may use up to $6,000 for the first cycle, $5,000 for the second cycle and $4,000 for the third and subsequent cycles. These withdrawal limits are designed to strike a balance between supporting couples with their costs of treatment today and helping them conserve funds for their healthcare needs in retirement.
After co-funding and MediSave usage for the first cycle, eight in 10 eligible SC couples would incur no out-of-pocket expense while nine in 10 eligible SC couples could expect to pay no more than $500. Couples who find themselves unable to cope with unexpectedly large bills – for instance, as a result of complications – even after co-funding, may appeal to use MediSave beyond the current limits to pay for treatment. Such appeals will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I trust Mr Ng would appreciate that as much as we would like to help as many couples with their parenthood aspirations, we also need to balance the need to meaningfully and responsibly allocate public funds on this. As we work on improving the affordability of ART, we must continue our evidence-based approach to guide our co-funding eligibility criteria. Clinical evidence has shown that the success rate for ART carried out beyond age 40 decreases significantly, with the probability of pregnancy complications also increasing with maternal age.
Success rates are 26.6% for women below 30, 24.6% for women from 30 to 34, 17.1% for women from 35 to 39, and 6.7% for women 40 and above. While the success rate is low in women aged 40 years and above, we acknowledge that there are still successful cases. It is not just a matter of Government funding but the strain of couples to keep trying. Hence, we must continue to encourage couples to marry and start families early in order to maximise the chances of conception. For those who have challenges, we will continue to build a support eco-system for them, but co-funding needs to be feasible and take into account clinical efficacy.
Mr Ng has requested to introduce co-funding for more ART cycles beyond the existing limit of six cycles. Currently, the number of co-funded ART cycles is set at three fresh and three frozen cycles based on clinical evidence, which shows that the success rate of ART decreases with age as each successive cycle progresses.
I appreciate Mr Ng's suggestion and understand where he is coming from. At the same time, we should continue to stay grounded by the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of ART for successive cycles to ensure that Government funding is used in a cost-effective way. It may be useful to note that amongst the women who successfully achieve pregnancy, these women undergo an average of two AR cycles before doing so.
I accept though that this is an emotional process and couples may want to keep trying. Couples can, nevertheless, continue to tap on their MediSave up to the $15,000 lifetime limit. We will monitor the clinical evidence and review the criteria if new data suggests improved outcomes.
Mr Ng also suggested to provide co-funding for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, of up to 75% within the six ART cycles.
PGD is currently offered to patients at risk of transmitting serious inheritable diseases that are due to single gene mutations or chromosomal structural rearrangements at around $10,000 to $19,000 per cycle. A pilot study on PGD conducted by NUH has found some evidence that PGD is able to lower the risk of serious disease in the child as well as increase the likelihood of carrying the child to term. PGD, indeed, appears to have benefits which could lead to better outcomes. However, the cost of the procedure is high.
We note Mr Ng's argument that subsidising PGD may mean lower costs for the Government as fewer IVF cycles may be needed before a successful pregnancy. MOH is working to mainstream PGD as a clinical service for couples who need it and is studying whether it is cost-effective to be eligible for subsidies. We will also look at the proposal to allow PGD to be paid using MediSave. We will release more details on this review when ready. Meanwhile, patients continue to be supported by co-funding of other associated costs, such as for AR treatments.
One other suggestion raised by Mr Ng was to provide flexibility for couples to choose between fresh and frozen cycles for the six co-funded ART cycles. Co-funding for three fresh and three frozen cycles is a considered approach that allows couples to freeze and store excess embryos produced from fresh cycles and to follow up with a frozen treatment cycle subsequently.
Co-funding had, in the past, been limited to three fresh cycles only as previous assessments showed that fresh cycles had significantly higher success rates than frozen cycles. However, we understand that, from a clinical perspective, going for more fresh cycles can potentially increase the risks of ovarian hyper stimulation, which is a known complication of fresh cycles.
As the success rates for frozen ART cycles improved over the years and were close to that of fresh cycles in 2009 and 2010, the decision was hence made to extend co-funding to three frozen cycles instead of introducing more fresh cycles to encourage couples to use their frozen embryos left over from previous fresh cycles so that they will not need to go through fresh cycles again just to be eligible for co-funding.
Co-funding a permutation of three fresh and three frozen cycles is expected to be more cost-effective than six fresh cycles as the charges for a frozen cycle is lower than that of a fresh cycle and the success rates of both options are expected to be comparable.
Nevertheless, I agree with Mr Ng that some couples might have different preferences and needs and may, for instance, wish to utilise more frozen cycles instead of fresh cycles. MOH recognises this and is able to cater to such situations. Couples may approach MOH to request to tap on their unutilised co-funding for fresh or frozen cycles.
For example, a patient who has utilised one fresh cycle and three frozen cycles can request for co-funding for an additional frozen cycle since there are two unutilised fresh cycles remaining. The co-funding would be capped based on the limit for frozen cycles and the patient would then have one remaining fresh cycle.
Similarly, a patient who has utilised one frozen cycle and three fresh cycles can utilise their co-funding for an additional fresh cycle since there are two unutilised frozen cycles remaining. The co-funding would also be capped based on the limit for frozen cycles and the patient would then have one remaining unutilised frozen cycle.
Basically, this means that co-funding can be extended to a maximum of six cycles, with a maximum of three cycles co-funded up to the cap for fresh cycles.
Mr Ng has proposed gender-neutral fertility leave for the couple undergoing assisted conception procedures based on the issuance of a Medical Certificate.
Today, women who are undergoing ACPs are entitled to hospitalisation leave, given their medically-invasive nature. This allows them to take time off work to attend the treatments and get proper rest after. Some doctors also provide husbands who accompany their wives for oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer with memos, which certain employers recognise by extending a day off. We encourage employers to be sensitive to the needs of couples who may need to make use of these existing provisions.
I am sympathetic to calls for more gender-neutral leave but I also recognise that any enhancement to leave provisions for fertility must strike a balance between meeting the needs of employees and employers' operational constraints. In extending or introducing leave schemes, we should avoid inadvertently affecting the employability of individuals who use it.
What is clear though is that all parties can benefit from greater flexibility at the workplace. I encourage employers to be understanding and supportive of their employees, both women as well as their husbands, who are undergoing ART. This could include allowing employees time-off or allowing husbands to work from home to be by their wife's side as she recuperates.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr Ng for his candour in sharing his personal story. Parenthood indeed brings immeasurable joy, as the experiences Mr Ng shared about his \"castle\" show us.
However, some unfortunately face difficulties in achieving the hopes of becoming parents. We understand how emotional and challenging the journey can be.
I would like to reiterate the Government's commitment towards supporting Singaporean couples in their pursuit for parenthood. The suite of measures that have been rolled out over the years bears testament to how policies are continually reviewed to keep pace with new clinical evidence and achieve more effective outcomes. While we may not be able to meet the demands of each and every couple, we will continue to do our part in providing the best support we can and adopt a balanced, evidence-based approach to serve our citizens better.
Once again, I thank Mr Ng for his suggestions and hope that we can continue to work together on this front.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng, you have got less than three minutes for clarifications and that includes Ms Rahayu Mahzam's reply.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Okay, I will keep it really short. Just two clarifications.
One, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing that they are going to review subsidies for PGD. Can I just ask how long this review will take and when we can expect the results? Two, just wondering whether we will review the number of subsidised IVF cycles again? Again, as I have shared, it was seven years ago that we reviewed it. Is there an upcoming review for this?
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Mr Ng, the review is still ongoing. We do not have the information that can be released at this juncture. We will update, as and when an outcome arises from review.
In respect to the number of cycles, as I explained, the basis on which the number of cycles for which subsidies and co-funding are given is pegged to clinical evidence. At this juncture, there is no new clinical evidence. If something comes up and it is something that we can review, we will consider the proposals that you have made.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.54 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fraudulent Payments to Hawkers via Cashless Payment Modes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many hawkers have been affected by fraudulent transactions via cashless payments since the start of the Hawkers Go Digital Programme; (b) how can victims seek recourse without knowing the identities of the delinquent customers; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the training for hawkers to better equip them with the knowledge about such scams.
Mr S Iswaran: Since the Hawkers Go Digital programme began in June 2020, more than 900,000 e-payment transactions have been processed each month. To date, the Singapore Police Force (SPF)’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has not received any reports or complaints relating to fraudulent e-payment transactions from stallholders. However, we have noted news reports, where stallholders cited instances of dishonest customers using fraudulent screenshots or immediately cancelling their transactions after showing the pre-payment page to the stallholders.
The SG Digital Office (SDO) and SPF take a serious view on this matter and will continue to monitor the overall situation closely. Any persons found to be involved in scams and frauds will be dealt with firmly in accordance with the law. Depending on the facts of the case, scammers may be charged under one of the cheating-related provisions under Sections 415 to 420 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum imprisonment term of between three to ten years.
SDO will also continue to work with NETS and participating payment schemes to further strengthen the security features and functions of their e-payment systems to safeguard against fraudulent transactions.
Currently, stallholders can use the NETSBiz mobile application which has been installed on their devices to verify and track e-payments transactions in real-time. The App also has voice notifications in English and Mandarin when a transaction has been successfully processed. During onboarding by SDO’s Digital Ambassadors and NETS personnel, stallholders are taught how to use the NETS BizApp, including its payment verification features.
In addition to technical solutions, SDO and NETS are stepping up efforts to educate stallholders and raise their awareness of online scams and how they can be prevented. Customers must also ensure good practices are being followed including, for instance, by reminding stallholders to check the payment notifications.
We all have a part to play in this effort and encourage members of the public to stay vigilant and report suspected scams and fraudulent transactions promptly to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Awareness amongst Elderly on Risks and Scams on Internet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will the Ministry raise awareness among the elderly about the risks and threats which make them susceptible to frauds and scams on the Internet; and (b) what measures are there to ensure that the elderly who are unable to pick up new IT skills despite undergoing courses are not alienated from our society.
Mr S Iswaran: It is imperative to enable our seniors to participate meaningfully and safely in an increasingly digitalised world. The SG Digital Office (SDO) is at the forefront of our efforts to help seniors go online confidently, and protect themselves against threats and scams. During the engagement sessions with Digital Ambassadors, seniors are educated about cyber risks and threats, and how to keep themselves safe. For example, seniors are advised not to disclose One-Time-Passwords to anyone when using digital banking services, and to use strong passwords for their online accounts. These tips and advisories were developed jointly with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Media Literacy Council. We will also continue to work with relevant agencies to identify new topics as the online ecosystem evolves.
SDO’s efforts are complemented by SPF, the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and CSA’s public education initiatives to raise awareness of online scams. The Police work with Residents’ Committees and grassroots volunteers to alert residents, including senior citizens, about scams over WhatsApp and at community events. In August 2020, NCPC launched their latest anti-scam public education campaign, 'Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.', which focuses on sharing real-life examples of scams to educate the public, including the elderly, on how to spot the tell-tale signs of various scams. CSA also recently ran a series of webinars jointly with IMDA and SPF to provide seniors with tips to guard against online scams.
We recognise that some seniors may still find it challenging to go digital, and may need physical touchpoints or counters to support them with their daily needs. This is why the SDO has set up 55 SG Digital community hubs at community centres (CCs) and libraries island-wide to provide in-person support for seniors to pick up digital skills for communication, access government digital services and make e-payments. Seniors can also seek such support at selected CCs through PA’s Tech Connect initiative, or visit Integrated Public Service Centres to obtain help with Government services. Government communications to seniors are also made available in the four official languages. To widen our reach, we also feature government announcements on Digital Display Panels in HDB lifts and lift landings.
As digitalisation is here to stay, the Government will work with private and community service providers to help seniors, and others who are digitally less savvy, navigate the transition and foster an inclusive digital future for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"QR Code Scams in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many QR code scams have been reported; (b) how are the authorities stepping up on action against such crimes; and (c) what are the Ministry's efforts to increase awareness of QR code scams, in particular among the seniors.
Mr K Shanmugam: We are aware of two types of scam involving QR codes.
The first type involves deceptive QR codes to divert victims to malicious websites for the phishing of personal data or for fraudulent payments. For example, in China, scammers print deceptive QR codes on stickers and paste them over genuine QR codes on bikeshare bicycles. Users who scan these deceptive QR codes will be deceived into making payment to the scammers instead of the bikeshare operators. We are also aware of scammers deploying deceptive QR codes on spoofed websites to con users, who are expecting to download a legitimate app, into installing malware on their device instead. While we have seen reports of such scams in other jurisdictions, there have been no cases reported in Singapore so far.
The second type are scams where QR codes are merely the medium through which the scam is perpetrated, and deceptive QR codes are not used. For example, we have seen victims of internet love scams and China official impersonation scams in Singapore knowingly scan legitimate QR codes to initiate fund transfers to the scammer’s bank account or a cryptocurrency address. We have received about 210 such reports in the past three years.
Most banks have put in place measures to safeguard e-payments with QR codes. For instance, consumers have to activate their payment app of choice before they can scan QR codes for the e-payment, and have an opportunity to verify the payees’ particulars before authorising the e-payment. This minimises the possibility that they will unwittingly authorise the e-payment to a scammer upon scanning a deceptive QR code. We will continue to work with the banks to study additional measures that can be put in place.
But the key in the fight against scams is a discerning public. To increase awareness of scams, the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) launched a new anti-scam public education campaign, ‘Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.’, in August 2020. The campaign focuses on sharing real-life scam examples to educate the public on how to spot the tell-tale signs of various scams. Police also work with Residents’ Committees and grassroots volunteers to spread scam alerts to residents, including senior citizens, via WhatsApp and at community events like block parties, roadshows, festive events and Community Safety & Security Programmes. The NCPC spreads awareness of online scams through their bi-weekly WhatsApp broadcasts and social media platforms. Police and NCPC will continue to monitor the scam situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Rule Where Cyclists Have to Dismount when Using Zebra Crossings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will make it mandatory for cyclists to dismount when using zebra crossings for the safety and well-being of both cyclists and motorists.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2019, the Government introduced a requirement for all active mobility device users to \"slow down, stop and look\" at road crossings. This is stipulated in legislation.
This requirement is based on the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s review. During their public consultation, they found broad consensus that the requirement was sufficient for ensuring safety. There were concerns regarding the suggestion to require cyclists to dismount at crossings, because this would introduce additional safety concerns for users carrying pillion riders or loads, and create inconvenience for elderly users.
All path and road users, whether pedestrians, active mobility device users or motorists, should stop and keep a lookout when using or approaching crossings. LTA will continue to work with the Traffic Police to raise awareness on safe behaviour at road crossings, through public education campaigns and the Safe Riding Programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resources and Training for Teachers to Ensure Minimal Disruption to Education Outcomes with Blended Online and Classroom Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education what additional resources and training will be given to teachers to ensure that the move to blended learning in the curriculum can be done with minimal disruption on education outcomes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Blended Learning enriches our students’ educational experience by enabling them to benefit from multiple modes of learning. This includes the integration of Home-Based Learning (HBL) as a regular part of students’ schooling experience so that they have more opportunities to learn in an independent, self-directed manner.
MOE has implemented a professional development (PD) programme to enable our teachers to design effective Blended Learning experiences for their students. Teachers can access online learning modules, such as those on bridging in-school and home-based learning, and learn how to monitor students’ learning progress during HBL through online workshops with Master Teachers. Teachers can also participate in Networked Learning Communities where they can learn from one another and collaborate on delivering Blended Learning. Besides PD support, MOE also provides teachers with a growing set of curriculum resources on the Singapore Student Learning Space for their use or adaptation in delivering HBL.
MOE has provided schools with a resource guide to support their implementation of Blended Learning, while leaving room for each school to customise their approach. For example, schools are guided on how often to have HBL, and how to decide what learning outcomes can be learned effectively in a self-directed way. Schools that require more guidance can consult MOE directly.
Taken together, these measures will help raise our overall capacity as a system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Number of Community Care Apartments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the Ministry's plans to increase the number of community care apartments should the pilot be successful; and (b) whether the Ministry will incorporate some of the services offered by the community care apartments into the regular HDB housing estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: Jointly developed by the Ministry of National Development, Ministry of Health and Housing & Development Board, the Community Care Apartments integrate senior-friendly design features with care services that can be scaled according to individual care needs, with the aim of better supporting our seniors to age in place. The first pilot at Bukit Batok will be launched for sale in the February 2021 HDB Build-To-Order exercise.
There are plans for the Community Care Apartments to be piloted at additional site(s) if the take-up rate and public response for the first pilot at Bukit Batok is good. As this is a new concept, we will conduct an evaluation of the initial pilot(s) before developing longer-term plans.
The services offered within the Community Care Apartments generally mirror what is available in the community today. For example, seniors who are well can access a suite of active ageing programmes and volunteering opportunities for them to stay active and connected to the community. Seniors with poor social support can access befriending or buddying services, and those with higher care needs will be referred to appropriate home and centre-based care services.
A service that is unique to the Community Care Apartments would be the Shared Caregiving Service which provides residents with round-the-clock assistance with activities of daily living, medication reminders and simple errands. The Government will monitor the take-up of this service and how it benefits residents within the Community Care Apartments, before assessing its suitability for the broader community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity for Citizens as More Apps are Launched","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the increasing number of phone apps launched by Government and commercial organisations, including financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies, healthcare institutions, telecommunications and transport providers, and retailers (a) what measures are in place to (i) ensure that these apps meet quality and cybersecurity standards to minimise the risk of hackers exploiting programming bugs (ii) protect the privacy of users and (iii) ensure that non-app users are not discriminated against through differentiated charges or deprivation of benefits; and (b) how can the right to receive written and printed communications from both public and private organisations be protected.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government has put in place measures to strengthen consumer protection and support individuals to participate in the Digital Economy as more services move online, and regularly reviews its policies.
Mobile applications launched by the Government adhere to secure coding standards in the Government Instruction Manual. The applications also go through strict and robust cybersecurity processes and validation, including security penetration testing to identify and rectify vulnerabilities. Selected applications with high user traffic are also placed on the Government Bug Bounty Programme, where they will be subject to security penetration testing by external researchers in the cybersecurity community and industry.
While the Government does not directly regulate the development of applications launched by the private sector, applications developed by organisations in Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) sectors such as banking and finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and transport, need to abide by sectoral and corporate guidelines on cybersecurity processes and measures. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) actively supports and partners CII owners and sector leads to build up their capabilities to adhere to these guidelines.
Public sector and private sector organisations are also required to abide by data protection requirements prescribed under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA) and the Government Instruction Manual for the former; and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) for the latter. Both the PSGA and the PDPA hold individuals accountable for the egregious mishandling of personal data. Those found guilty of recklessly or intentionally disclosing the data without authorisation, misusing the data for gain, or re-identifying anonymised data without authorisation may be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or to both.
To support private sector organisations in complying with their data protection obligations, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has published guides specifically to help IT managers, architects and developers to build data protection measures into software and applications at the onset. These include the \"Data Protection by Design for ICT Systems\" and the \"People Centric Approach to Notice, Consent and Disclosure\", which were co-created with start-ups and real-world business examples. The PDPC will continue to help organisations build data protection capabilities through training programmes and resources such as guidelines, tools, and templates.
Individuals also have an important role to play in protecting themselves against mobile cybersecurity threats and data misuse by only downloading applications from the official Play Store and App Store and reviewing security permissions required by applications.
Individuals should have the option to receive communications and to transact through channels other than an application. The Government is studying the matter and will actively address these concerns in partnership with the private and people sectors, and update regulations where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment for Forest Areas like Clementi Forest that are Earmarked for Potential Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether there will be a review of the status of Clementi Forest and other forests earmarked for potential development.
Mr Desmond Lee: The site commonly referred to as \"Clementi Forest\" has been zoned \"Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)\" 23 years ago, since the Master Plan 1998, and safeguarded for residential use. However, there is no immediate need to develop the site for housing. We will, however, retain the zoning of the site, while giving our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing, if the need arises.
In land-scarce and densely-populated Singapore, we will continue to have to balance the needs of development and conservation. As part of our long-term planning process, we set aside land early to meet the aspirations of future generations. In doing so, we endeavour to balance the demands and trade-offs across a variety of land use needs, including that of housing, green spaces, infrastructure and workplaces.
Where possible, we have reviewed our plans to retain green spaces. Some of these areas could have been used for industry. For instance, the Mandai Mangroves and Mudflats were initially planned for factory use. Yet, after careful study, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its ecological value. Similarly, other green spaces such as Thomson Nature Park and Windsor Nature Park could have been developed for housing. Yet, they are currently retained as green buffers to our Nature Reserves instead.
Today, we have safeguarded approximately 7,800 hectares of our land for Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, Nature Parks and other green spaces, such as parks and park connectors. These comprise key representative ecosystems and habitats for Singapore’s native biodiversity. Not all of these Nature Reserves and Nature Parks were untouched habitats. For example, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and the upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park were once prawn farming areas. These areas were abandoned, acquired by the Government, and have over time become green spaces inhabited by indigenous flora and fauna. Similarly, Clementi Forest was an abandoned rubber plantation. Today, it has become a secondary forest.
We will extend our network with an additional 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years, and continue to protect and enhance existing green spaces. After weighing the alternatives and trade-offs, there will be areas that we cannot avoid developing. Nonetheless, for these sites, possible environmental impacts will still be carefully managed, and natural elements will be integrated within developments where possible.
Singapore’s land-use requirements will continue to evolve. For example, as more singles aspire to have a home of their own, and more families become nuclear households, the demand for HDB flats is likely to remain strong. At the same time, as our economy transforms and work patterns shift, there may be changes to how we plan for office and industrial spaces. Likewise, as we move towards a more car-lite city, road space may be freed up for other purposes.
The Government will continue to regularly review our plans in partnership with the public, to ensure that it supports the changing needs and aspirations of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Next Phase of Rail Corridor plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the next phase of the Rail Corridor plan; (b) when will the northern stretch be completed; and (c) whether these new stretches will have seamless connections to nearby HDB towns like Bukit Panjang.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Rail Corridor, spanning 24 kilometres north to south of Singapore, is a unique opportunity for us to enhance this former railway line into a continuous green corridor, to enjoy the rich biodiversity and heritage that our City in Nature has to offer.
Since 2018, we have been carrying out works along the southern and central stretches of the Rail Corridor – from Spooner Road to Hillview Road – to make it an inclusive community space for users of all ages and abilities.
Following the completion of trail improvement works along various stretches of the Corridor, visitors can now enjoy close to 5 kilometres of re-opened trails between Jalan Kilang Barat and Commonwealth Drive, and between Buona Vista and the conserved Bukit Timah Railway Station, with a short detour at Holland Road where ongoing works are expected to complete in early 2021. Other stretches along Rail Corridor South and Central will progressively reopen when works are completed. By 1Q 2021, the public can look forward to a continuous trail from Spooner Road to Hillview Road.
The northern stretch of the Rail Corridor between Hillview Road and Kranji Road is accessible to the public today. Trail improvement works along some sections will commence from early 2021. The Rail Corridor is linked to nearby towns such as Bukit Batok, Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang via the Western Adventure Loop, which is designed for walking and cycling. Residents can also look forward to new access paths from surrounding estates into the Rail Corridor. More details will be released when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations Preventing Employment of Stateless Person in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are any regulations preventing the employment of a stateless person in Singapore and, if so, whether such regulations can be removed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There are no regulations preventing the employment of a stateless person in Singapore.
Stateless persons who are Permanent Residents (PRs) can freely seek employment in Singapore similar to other PRs. Other stateless persons who are not PRs would be issued with a Special Pass by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to authorize their stay in Singapore. With the Special Pass, the stateless person or their employer can apply to MOM if they wish to seek employment. MOM would then issue the stateless person with a Letter of Consent (LOC) to work in Singapore. The validity of the LOC is tied to the validity of the Special Pass, and there is no need for the stateless person to reapply when they change employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Stateless Persons who Require Social and Financial Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what avenues are available for stateless persons who require social and financial assistance for their families' healthcare and educational needs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: \tThe majority of stateless persons in Singapore are Permanent Residents (PRs), with the rest possessing special passes. For healthcare and education benefits, stateless persons who are PRs would be treated no differently from other PRs.
Government subsidies and financial assistance programmes at public healthcare institutions are generally targeted at Singapore Citizens (SCs) and PRs. However, we recognise that stateless persons who are not PRs may also require financial support in certain healthcare settings. For instance, lower-income stateless individuals staying in government-funded nursing homes or disability homes can receive subsidies for their care. Medisave can also be used for immediate family members who are not SCs or PRs, including stateless persons who are not PRs. This would allow SCs or PRs who are the spouses, parents or children of stateless persons to help lessen the out-of-pocket payment required for the medical bills of their stateless family member.
For education, admission to mainstream schools and publicly-funded tertiary institutions is subject to students meeting the admissions criteria and availability of places. Stateless students who are Singapore PRs will be charged PR fees, while other stateless students will be charged International Students fees in our schools and tertiary institutions. Government financial assistance schemes for education are for SC students only. However, schools and tertiary institutions have tapped on non-government resources, including donations, to offer some financial assistance to PRs and International Students, including stateless children.
ComCare financial assistance is targeted at Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents with family ties to Singaporeans. When a stateless person who is not a PR seeks financial assistance, the Social Service Office (SSO) will assess his or her needs, and can exercise flexibility to provide ComCare on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the stateless person is elderly, has been living and working in Singapore for a long time, and is now unable to work and has no family support. If the non-PR stateless person has healthcare needs, such as medical bills or arrears, or educational needs, such as school or examination fees, the SSO would refer them to community partners for assistance. The community plays a key role in helping vulnerable groups, including stateless persons and their families, to improve their well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Homeless People with Health Problems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the findings of a study by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, \"Homeless in Singapore: Results from a Nationwide Street Count\", how does the Ministry plan to support homeless people with health problems.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Homeless persons include people without access to housing as well as rough sleepers who have homes but face difficulty returning for various social reasons such as hoarding, or conflict with family members or co-tenants. Homeless persons often grapple with various issues such as unemployment and conflicts with families. Some may also have health problems. MSF works closely with various community partners and many government agencies through the PEERS Network, which stands for Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers Network, to assist them. Together, we actively reach out to, befriend and engage homeless people and support them based on their needs. Those who are willing to seek assistance will be referred to the appropriate help agencies, such as Family Service Centres (FSCs) for social work support to reconcile with family members, and Social Service Offices (SSOs) for financial assistance.
At FSCs and SSOs, our officers will refer clients who need medical help to the appropriate healthcare institutions and make arrangements for them to be accompanied to the medical appointments. FSCs and SSOs also work with medical professionals to develop integrated care plans for such clients to receive the necessary medical services and support in the community. Clients who are eligible can receive subsidies for medical services at participating clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Those who face difficulty with their healthcare bills may qualify for MediFund assistance. ComCare clients will receive assistance with their medical bills at polyclinics and restructured hospitals.
MSF has also collaborated with our PEERS partners to set up Safe Sound Sleeping Places, or S3Ps, to provide homeless persons with a safe environment to rest for the night. S3Ps are typically sited in premises of religious organisations and provide safe overnight stays. They complement Transitional Shelters and Senior Group Homes for seniors, which are funded by MSF.
At Transitional Shelters, operators provide shelter and onsite social work intervention to homeless persons, with the goal to help them to secure long-term stable housing. There are also housing options in the community such as Senior Group Homes which provide assisted living in public rental flats for frail seniors.
MSF and our PEERS partners will continue to strive to ensure the health and well-being of homeless people. If members of the public encounter any homeless people, they can play a part by calling the ComCare hotline at 1800 222 0000, or refer them to the nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Standard PPEs to be Made Moisture Permeable","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to healthcare workers feeling unwell while using personal protective equipment (PPE), whether there are plans for the standard PPE to be made moisture permeable to prevent healthcare workers from suffering thermal strain.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Personal protective equipment (PPE) acts as a barrier against potentially infectious contaminants such as blood, body fluids, or respiratory secretions.
To effectively protect the wearer from potentially infectious contaminants, PPE will need to meet certain standards e.g. N95 respirators and surgical masks need to be fluid resistant amongst other parameters, and medical gowns will require a certain degree of liquid barrier performance based on Association of the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standards.
To ensure that staff do not suffer from thermal strain or fatigue from prolonged PPE use, healthcare institutions and community care sites have put in place mitigating measures such as exempting pregnant staff and staff with underlying medical conditions from the COVID-wards and other areas where they will be required to be in full PPE for long hours.
In addition, the duration of working shifts has been adjusted to ensure that healthcare workers do not have to wear PPE for long hours. Healthcare workers are also encouraged to have sufficient rest, get hydrated at regular intervals, and to speak up should they feel unwell.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Green Mark Certification for Community Clubs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) to date, how may Community Clubs (CCs) have attained the BCA Green Mark \"Gold\" and \"Platinum\" certifications respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will increase funding to support CCs upgrading to BCA Green Mark \"Platinum\" certifications.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): The implementation of Green Mark certification for CCs is guided by Financial Circular Minute No M14/2014 dated 24 November 2014 that states the following:
All new public sector buildings with more than 5,000,m2 air-conditioned floor area are to attain Green Mark Platinum rating.
All existing public sector buildings with more than 5,000m2 gross floor area and less than 10,000m2 air conditioned floor area are to attain the Green Mark Gold rating by 2020.
All existing public sector buildings with more than 10,000m2 air conditioned floor area are to attain the Green Mark GoldPlus rating by 2020.
Based on the above guidelines, a total of 61 CCs would require to be Green Mark certified. As at end December 2020, 25 CCs have achieved the required certification, while the remaining 36 will attain their certification progressively. The breakdown is presented in the table below:
The current target for existing buildings to attain Green Mark Gold or GoldPlus is to achieve a balance between cost prudency and benefits. It is acknowledged that there could be substantial re-construction to existing buildings, especially the older ones to implement the requirements for Green Mark Platinum. Appropriate budget would be allocated to support the implementation when the targets are changed.
PA works closely with the Grassroot Leaders and Advisers during the upgrading of CCs to priorities the needs and allocate the approved budget accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental and Financial Support for Youth Care-givers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what provisions does the Ministry have in place for youth care-givers who are currently schooling; (b) whether the Ministry periodically monitors the mental and financial well-being of youth caregivers in school; (c) if so, how frequently does the Ministry monitor the youth concerned as well as provide social and support; and (d) whether the Ministry provides additional aftercare support for youth care-givers after their dependant has passed on.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: While we do not have available data on the number of youths who take on caregiving duties for elderly family members, we recognise that there are such individuals who have to juggle multiple demands, including studies and part-time jobs, besides their caregiving responsibilities. The emotional, mental and physical toll on caregivers of any age is often heavy, and we encourage them to seek support and help if they have difficulty coping.
MOH launched the Caregiver Support Action Plan in 2019 to better support caregivers in areas such as care navigation, respite care, financial support, and caregiver empowerment and training. For example, there are more touchpoints for caregivers to readily access information and referral services. The Home Caregiving Grant also provides additional support for long-term caregiving needs in the community. Youth caregivers or their families who need additional financial support may also approach our Social Service Offices.
Apart from making respite care services available, the Government is also mindful of caregivers’ emotional needs. The day-to-day demands of caregiving can be very challenging, and the caregiver may face additional stresses if their dependants face adverse health events or pass on. Social Service Agencies such as the Singapore Association for Mental Health, TOUCH Community Services and Fei Yue Community Services provide helplines and counselling services that caregivers can access. Caregivers can also reach out to their local Caregiver Community Outreach Team via the Agency for Integrated Care, for peer support. There are also services that cater to youths, such as Limitless’ Helpline that allows correspondence by phone or text, and Fei Yue’s online counselling service.
Caregivers may be studying in mainstream schools and Institutes of Higher Learning, or IHLs. In schools, teachers and school personnel care about students’ well-being and keep a lookout for those facing challenges. Caregivers who are students may approach their teachers or trained professionals within these education institutions to seek practical and emotional support. In mainstream schools, the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, which will be implemented from 2021, will also help students learn to care for their mental well-being, and to know when and how to seek help. The IHLs also have similar curricular and co-curricular mental wellness programmes.
Beyond schools, the Youth Mental Well-being Network was formed in February 2020 to involve the wider community. Over 1,000 youths, parents, caregivers, and social sector and mental health professionals have come together to discuss and implement initiatives to enhance youth mental well-being. The areas of interest range from enhancing youths’ emotional resilience to strengthening support among peers, and within the family, workplace and community. This Network is supported by MOH, MOE and MSF, in collaboration with MCCY and NYC.
Even as the family remains the main source of support, we, as a society, can do our part by reaching out to caregivers in our midst. It is not easy for youths to juggle their studies and caregiving responsibilities. For those who know of youth caregivers with difficult circumstances, please help to spread the word on relevant schemes, hotlines or approach SSAs for help. Together, we can make Singapore a kinder and more empathetic society, helping and supporting those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Research on Local Youths' Perception on Recreational Drugs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any research has been done on local youths' perception on recreational drugs and the penalties for associated offences; and (b) what is the Ministry doing to address a potential disconnect between youths and the national attitude on use of recreational drugs.
Mr K Shanmugam: Results from public surveys show that the majority of youths are aware of the harms of drugs and support taking a tough stance against drugs, although to a lesser degree than the rest of the population.
A 2018 public perception survey found that among youth respondents aged 13 to 30 years old, 96% felt that drug-taking should remain illegal in Singapore. This was slightly lower than the 98% of older respondents above the age of 30. 94% of youths agreed that drug-taking has a negative impact on society, compared to 98% for older respondents. 90% and 76% of youths agreed that imprisonment and caning are appropriate punishments for drug traffickers respectively. This compares with 94% and 81% for older respondents.
In another survey conducted in 2019 by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), about 83% of youths disagreed that it was alright to try drugs as long as one does not get addicted, as compared to 87% of those above the age of 30. Youths’ support for Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance towards drugs was 79%, compared to 84% for those above the age of 30.
While we are heartened that the majority of the youths surveyed view drugs negatively, there are indications that more youths are adopting more liberal views. They are more exposed through the internet and social media platforms, to the liberal drug views and policies of other jurisdictions, such as harm reduction strategies, decriminalisation of drug abuse, and even the legalisation of cannabis.
Over the years, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has put in place many preventive drug education, or PDE, programmes to reach out to youths. Schools have been a key touchpoint. CNB officers have been giving talks about drugs at school assemblies. In January 2019, CNB launched an exhibition incorporating augmented reality for secondary school students, to give them a more immersive understanding on the harms of drugs. The exhibition has reached out to more than 3,000 students so far and has received good feedback.
CNB has also worked with MOE to offer the After-School Engagement, or ASE programme, as part of the MOE GEAR-UP programme to support students from disadvantaged families.1 The ASE programme provides a platform for students to learn about drug abuse and its consequences, through activities such as sharing by former drug abusers.
CNB also works with the Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force to engage full-time national servicemen.
In April 2020, CNB commissioned a \"Mythbusters\" series that debunks misconceptions about different drugs. Through the use of explainer video clips, infographics and quizzes on CNB’s Facebook and Instagram pages, the series addresses myths about drugs from an evidence-based, science-driven angle.
CNB has also been working closely with NCADA. NCADA launched a media campaign in March 2020, built around Singapore’s first interactive film titled \"HIGH\", directed by local filmmaker Royston Tan. The film garnered 165,000 unique views on its microsite by the end of the campaign in July 2020. The film was screened at various Institutes of Higher Learning in January 2020, reaching approximately 5,000 students. Each film preview was followed by a Safe Zone Discussion, an interactive platform for students to share their thoughts on the film, on drug abuse and anti-drug advocacy.
CNB engages influencers and the community to reinforce and spread the anti-drug message. For instance, Mr Aaron Aziz, a popular television celebrity, has been very active as an influencer for the Dadah Itu Haram campaign, helping to spread anti-drug messages both in person, and on his social media platforms. CNB and NCADA engage community partners and volunteers through the United Against Drugs Coalition and Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy Network, or A3 Network.2 So far, CNB has recruited 207 youth advocates under the A3 Network.
We will continue to strengthen our PDE efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : GEAR-UP is a series of consolidated after-school engagement programmes offered by MOE, together with other Government agencies and community partners to build an ecosystem of support around disadvantaged students and their families.","2 : The UADC is an anti-drug alliance that rallies support from local organisations to raise awareness of drug abuse in our society through their outreach platforms. The A3 Network unites passionate individuals from different walks of life to educate and empower them to advocate for a drug-free Singapore."],"footNoteQuestions":["59"],"questionNo":"59"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives for Landscape Maintenance Subsector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the progress on the Landscape Sector Transformation Plan (LSTP) since its launch in May 2019; (b) what is the status of LSTP initiatives for the landscape maintenance subsector; (c) what is the number and breakdown by Progressive Wage Model job levels of resident landscape maintenance employees from 2016 to 2020; and (d) what are the median basic and gross wages of these employees for the same period.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since the launch of the 10-year Landscape Sector Transformation Plan (LSTP) in May 2019, NParks has worked with stakeholders in the landscape industry and Institutes of Higher Learning to push forward in digitalising, mechanising and professionalising the landscape sector. For example, companies have tapped on NParks’ Landscape Productivity Grant to purchase equipment that improves the productivity of landscape maintenance works. NParks has also worked with ITE to revise the ITE landscaping course curriculum to impart a wider range of skills, including digital skills. NParks and ITE have also launched a Student-Run Park initiative at Bedok Town Park to provide students with first-hand experience in landscape design, horticulture, and arboriculture. Companies have also begun to tap on ITE’s new Work-Study Diploma in Arboriculture and Horticulture, which started in 2019.
NParks estimates that there are about 3,000 resident landscape maintenance employees. In terms of Progressive Wage Model job levels, over 80% of these employees are landscape workers, about 10% are landscape technicians, 3% are assistant landscape supervisors, and 5% are landscape supervisors. The number and breakdown of employees has remained stable over the last few years. Between 2016 and 2019 (the latest year for which data is available), the median monthly basic and gross wages of full-time resident landscape maintenance employees have risen from $1,300 to $1,460 and $1,300 to $1,500, respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation Process for Complaints Lodged by Prison Inmates on Mistreatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the investigation process for complaints lodged by prison inmates on mistreatment in prison; (b) how many of such complaints has the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) received in the past five years; (c) of these, how many are repeated complaints and how many have been found to be justified; (d) in the justified cases, what action has the SPS taken; (e) what independent avenues are there for prison inmates to lodge such complaints; and (f) whether the Government has considered setting up independent oversight mechanisms to investigate and redress complaints.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are a number of ways by which inmates can raise their complaints. They can raise their complaints to the superintendent of the institution or any SPS officer. They can do so through their families, friends, Members of Parliament or lawyers, who can in turn raise the matter to SPS or MHA HQ.
Inmates may also lodge complaints and share their concerns directly with the Board of Visiting Justices and the Board of Visitors. These Board members conduct unannounced inspections of prison institutions. They are prominent members of society who have made significant contributions in their profession, the public service, social services or in the community.
After each inspection, the Board members will note down the feedback received during the visit, as well as any other comments and recommendations that they may have. The report is sent to the superintendent of the inspected institution to follow up. The superintendent is required to look into every issue, and provide a written reply to the Board members. The reports from the Board members and the superintendents’ findings are sent to SPS’s senior management and MHA HQ for review.
Any complaint of mistreatment of an inmate by a prison officer is treated especially seriously and is investigated by a team of provost officers and assessed by SPS’s senior management. The provost officers will take statements from the complainant, witnesses, as well as the accused party, and review all available evidence, for instance, CCTV footage. Thereafter, they will submit their findings to SPS’s senior management. Board members can also review SPS’s investigation findings, including the evidence, and interview inmates as part of addressing their complaints.
If SPS officers are found to have acted unprofessionally, disciplinary action will be taken, including dismissal. If investigations indicate a potential criminal offence being committed, the case will be referred to the Police, or another appropriate law enforcement agency such as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau if graft is suspected.
Between 2016 and 2020, SPS received an average of 12 complaints per year on mistreatment of inmates, such as unauthorised use of force, threat or verbal abuse. This included three cases of repeated complaints. Of all the complaints on mistreatment of inmates received in the last five years, two were eventually found to be substantiated, involving the unauthorised use of force on inmates by SPS officers. In the first case, an officer had grabbed the triceps of three inmates and stepped on their toes on a few occasions. The matter came to light when one of the inmates reported the matter to another SPS officer and the case was investigated. All three inmates were sent for a medical examination and one was found to have sustained two small bruises on his arm. No injuries were found on the other two inmates. A fine was imposed on the offending officer. In the second case, an officer was found to have slapped an inmate once when the inmate put up a struggle against him after being defiant and refusing to comply with repeated instructions. The officer himself reported the incident to his supervisor, admitting to the act. No injuries were found on the inmate during his medical examination. A fine was similarly imposed on the officer.
MHA also has an Independent Review Panel, IRP, to look into serious cases of misconduct by all Home Team officers; this is not restricted to SPS. Cases that the IRP reviews include those which have resulted in death or serious injury, and those which obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. IRP members include retired judges, former senior Home Team officers, and other persons of standing in society.
An IRP Case Committee will convene to look into each case referred to the IRP. Each Committee comprises at least three persons selected from the IRP, with not more than one former Home Team officer. It will provide its opinion to the Minister for Home Affairs on whether the investigation was conducted thoroughly and fairly, and whether they agree with the investigation outcome. The IRP has been convened for Police and CNB cases, but so far, not for SPS cases.
SPS takes every complaint very seriously. It does not condone any mistreatment of inmates and takes firm and strict disciplinary action against any officer found to have done so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Reported Bullying Cases in Schools between 2012 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education from 2012 to 2020 (a) what has been the number of reported bullying cases in schools; and (b) how effective has a no-tolerance policy for bullying been in reducing the number of incidents in schools.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE takes a serious view of bullying and works with schools to send a clear message to all students that any form of bullying is not acceptable. Since 2012, the number of incidents reported each year to schools has remained low, at about two incidents per 1000 primary students and five incidents per 1000 secondary students.
Schools articulate the zero-tolerance stance for bullying through stating clear school rules and consequences for bullying, conducting regular briefings to staff and students to raise awareness of bullying, and investigating cases and taking action promptly. Appropriate disciplinary action is taken to guide perpetrators and restore relationships with those whom they have hurt. Counselling support is also provided to victims. Parents are involved to reinforce the same values and expectations of their children’s behaviour.
The zero-tolerance stance, coupled with an educative and restorative approach to bullying management, has kept the bullying incidences low. However, bullying cases are getting more complex, extending into the online space and often involve unresolved conflicts. There may also be concerns that there may be cases of bullying that go unreported and victims continue to suffer. MOE will thus strengthen support for schools in three areas. First, the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education Curriculum will place a strong emphasis on guiding students to be kind and caring, both online and offline. Next, schools will establish a peer support culture whereby every student understands that bullying is wrong and learns how to help and support those who have been bullied. In addition, MOE will deepen schools’ capacity to foster positive class culture, investigate and address bullying, and work with parents and the community to educate our young.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Catering to Needs of Students with Physical Disabilities in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether all schools are able to cater for students with physical disabilities; and (b) if not, whether a child with physical disabilities will therefore be limited by the choice of his or her school based on whether or not a school can cater to their particular needs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: All primary and secondary schools are equipped with basic handicapped facilities for students with physical disabilities such as handicapped toilets. Over the years, many schools have also been provided with lifts to enhance accessibility as part of their upgrading, and MOE will be implementing a lift installation programme to cover all remaining older school buildings that lack lifts.
In addition to providing schools with basic barrier-free accessibility, we will also ensure a good spread of schools island-wide with full barrier-free accessibility. There are currently 64 primary schools, 34 secondary schools and 4 Junior Colleges/Centralised Institute island-wide with full barrier-free accessibility for students with physical disabilities. A list of these schools is available on the MOE website and in the information guides distributed to all parents for Primary 1 Registration and Secondary 1 Posting. This list of schools will steadily increase as all new schools and schools undergoing major upgrading will also be outfitted with lifts and slope ramps to achieve full barrier-free accessibility.
Apart from infrastructural facilities, MOE has also made available assistive learning provisions, such as adjustable furniture, to help students with physical disabilities in their learning. In addition, MOE collaborates with Social Service Agencies to provide transition and support services for such students, including assessing and advising students on educational accommodations and how they can better access school activities.
MOE will continue to ensure that students with physical disabilities in our schools are well supported in their learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Caregiver Training Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health regarding the Caregiver Training Grant (a) whether there has been an increasing number of care-givers tapping on the care-giver training grant given our ageing population and increasing care-giving needs; (b) whether there is a need to increase the annual grant cap of $200; and (c) whether there are plans to increase touch points for training provision given that care-givers are usually very time challenged.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Caregivers Training Grant (CTG) provides an annual subsidy of $200 for caregivers to attend approved courses to improve their caregiving skills. Since its launch, we have seen a general increase in utilisation, from around 7,000 caregivers in 2013 to nearly 9,000 in 2019. In particular, recipients of the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant (FDW Grant), which had a mandatory training requirement for foreign domestic workers, made up the bulk of CTG applications.
In October 2019, the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) replaced the FDW Grant. The HCG provides financial support which can be used flexibly to defray caregiving expenses for persons with permanent moderate disability, and it is not tied to any training requirement. Since then, and given the ongoing COVID-19 situation, we have seen a drop in the number of caregivers tapping on CTG. From Jan to Nov 2020, around 2,000 caregivers have utilised the CTG. We encourage caregivers to make full use of their annual CTG allowance, to improve their skills and knowledge.
Caregivers can easily access training opportunities through the multiple touchpoints currently. Specifically, there are more than 200 different approved courses offered by more than 50 CTG training providers. These courses are conducted via different modes, e.g. in the care recipient’s home, at a training centre or online, and allow caregivers to learn at their own convenience. Caregivers may find out more from AIC’s e-course catalogue. We welcome new CTG training providers, as well as new course types and models to cater to the varied needs of caregivers and their care recipients.
Currently, caregiver training remains affordable with the help of the CTG. Over 70% of the CTG approved courses cost $200 and below. This means that with the CTG, caregivers need only pay the minimum co-payment of $10 for these courses. We will continue to review various aspects of training support to ensure that caregivers can be better equipped in their role.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Household Expenditure Defrayed by Home Caregiving Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what percentage of average household expenditure does the Home Caregiving Grant help to defray; and (b) whether there are plans to review the quantum given rising costs of living.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In October 2019, the Ministry of Health introduced the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) to provide additional support for long-term caregiving needs in the community. The HCG provides a monthly $200 cash grant to defray the costs of caregiving for eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability. The HCG replaced the Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant of $120 per month, which could only be used to defray the cost of hiring an FDW. The HCG can be used flexibly for caregiving expenses, for example, to hire an FDW, for the use of eldercare services, or for transport to medical appointments.
The HCG is one of many financial support measures that can help to defray caregiving costs and other expenses. Other support measures include means-tested subsidies for long-term care services and subsidies for assistive devices and home healthcare items via the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund. For severely disabled Singaporeans, other schemes such as CareShield Life and MediSave Care also provide monthly cash payouts. Families who need further help with caregiving expenses can approach the AIC Link or the Social Service Office for further assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions on Foreign Companies to Develop Singapore Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what specific conditions are imposed on foreign companies which receive tax incentives to invest in Singapore to develop their Singaporean employees; and (b) whether the Government tracks the growth of the Singaporean Core of such companies over time.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our economic schemes, including tax incentives, are means to encourage companies to upgrade their capabilities and expand their operations in Singapore to promote economic growth and create good job opportunities for Singaporeans. Companies, local or foreign, that are keen to qualify for the incentives must be prepared to make significant investments in Singapore. They are also required to meet a stringent set of quantitative and qualitative criteria which include job creation, total business expenditure, fixed asset investment and a deep commitment to grow capabilities in Singapore.
Over the years, we have attracted many local and multinational companies to grow their businesses in Singapore and create job opportunities for Singaporeans. In addition, the government partners these companies on several initiatives on knowledge transfer and skills training, such as the Singapore Industry Scholarship, Industry Postgraduate Programme and SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative.
Our range of economic and manpower development schemes reinforce each other to support companies and workers. It is therefore not meaningful to attribute specific employment outcomes to any one specific scheme. A well-functioning dynamic labour market also means there will be a healthy churn of Singaporeans moving in and out of specific firms to others with better paying jobs. In turn, it is also not meaningful to just look at the number of Singaporeans in any particular set of companies – be it local or foreign companies; or those who received more incentives and those who receive less incentives.
The overall effect of our economic and manpower schemes is that we are able to constantly create new and better paying jobs for the current and future generations of Singaporeans. This is manifested in the overall employment and wage outcomes for all Singaporeans. To this end, the healthy employment and wage outcomes of Singaporeans over the years give us confidence that we are heading in the right direction.
Let me also share some examples of how Singaporeans have benefited through these efforts. One example is Mr Samson Tan, who joined the inaugural batch of Salesforce-NUS EDB Industrial Postgraduate Programme in 2019 to investigate novel techniques to increase the robustness of language AI systems to linguistic variation and adversarial attacks. Through the programme, he has gained exposure to industry practices and the application of AI in commercial production. Today, he continues to research on the ethical use of AI at Salesforce while concurrently pursuing his PhD at NUS. Over time, we hope to build a pool of postgraduate manpower like Samson with relevant experience in commercial-driven research, who are ready to take on more complex R&D roles in the industry.
Our programmes go beyond just formal training, but deliberate efforts to develop local leaders to hold critical functions and leadership roles. Let me share another example - Mr James Lim started out as an Engineering and Facility Manager in global medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, twenty years ago. Since then, he has received many opportunities to gain new skillsets and experiences in various facets of the company’s business – from R&D to plant operations, and subsequently to lead as the Director of Operations for Asia Pacific. In 2012, James was appointed as Becton Dickinson’s President for Greater Asia, a post he holds till today.
There are many other stories like that of Samson and James. We are constantly engaged and working with companies to develop our local workforce and leadership, and to draw long-term benefits for our people from our investment promotion efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Community Gardens to be Built as Standard Communal Facilities in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development whether community gardens will be built as part of the standard communal facilities and features in BTO developments and Neighbourhood Renewal Programmes to foster community bonding and enhance food security resilience.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 2009, HDB has provided spaces and built infrastructure such as planter beds or boxes on the roof gardens of multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) in Build-To-Order (BTO) developments. These roof-top spaces can be converted into community gardens if there is interest from residents. Community gardens can also be set up in suitable spaces on the ground level.
HDB will continue to plan for more spaces for community gardens within new housing estates. For instance, Tengah, the newest HDB town, will include farmways to make community gardening and farming an important feature as part of the overall concept of a Forest Town.
For existing estates, Town Councils can choose to implement community gardens under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). Before finalising the scope of NRP works, Town Councils will engage and consult local residents on the facilities they would like to see in their precincts. Based on HDB’s records, about half of the NRP projects implemented to-date have incorporated community gardens as part of the improvement works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Common Design Standards to Guide All Statutory Boards for Public Housing Construction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to implement changes in designs and standards across the different Statutory Boards by standardising the design for common use parts especially for concrete panels in public housing.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) encourages the use of standardised designs through the Buildability Framework to improve construction productivity. Currently, all projects with Gross Floor Area of 5,000 sqm and above are required to meet a minimum buildable design score for the approval of their building plans.
BCA also works with agencies to encourage them to adopt standardised designs of building components, where possible. For example, for public housing projects, HDB seeks to strike a balance between standardising common components for better cost effectiveness, and enabling some variation in design to give a unique identity and character to each project. This is done by adopting standardised designs for components such as water tanks and refuse chutes, or partially standardised designs for components such as walls and slabs which can be easily adopted across different projects with minor modifications. To enable projects to have their own unique identity, HDB allows the designs of architectural facade precast panels across projects to be varied, but standardises the components within each individual project so as to achieve economies of scale. HDB will continue to regularly review standardisation and design guidelines to keep pace with industry trends and changing expectations of stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Medical Insurance Coverage for Work Permit Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is an increasing trend of employers of work permit holders being required to pay medical bills above what will be covered under their work permit holders’ insurance policies; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry intends to increase the current medical insurance coverage of at least $15,000 per year.
Mrs Josephine Teo: About 95% of all hospitalisation bills incurred by Work Permit and S Pass holders fall below $15,000, the current minimum medical insurance coverage required of their employers. This has been so for the past three years.
As outlined in MOM’s Addendum to the President’s Address, we are developing an insurance programme to help employers manage unexpected large medical expenses of their migrant workers. Although this may mean higher premiums, it will also give employers greater peace of mind. We aim to keep the cost impact manageable for employers and will provide an update in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of CPF Members who have Opted out of CPF Life and Placed Savings in Commercial Products Instead","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower given that CPF Board has provided its members the option of being exempted from CPF Life participation if they can find a comparable commercial annuity product (a) how many CPF members have already withdrawn their CPF retirement savings and chosen a commercial product that pays out the same or a higher monthly payout for life; and (b) how does CPF Board assess the veracity of claims made by such commercial products.
Mrs Josephine Teo: CPF members can apply to the CPF Board to be exempted from setting aside their CPF Retirement Sum from age 55 if they are receiving lifelong monthly payouts from qualifying private annuities bought using cash. The Board approves such exemptions if they result in the members being no worse off in terms of their retirement adequacy. As at November 2020, 129 CPF members are fully exempted from setting aside their retirement sum on such grounds.
The criteria for a qualifying private annuity are as follows:
(a) First, the annuity must be issued by MAS-registered providers and satisfy the stringent requirements under the Insurance Act.
(b) Second, for full exemption, the payouts must be for life and at least equal to the member’s cohort Full Retirement Sum (FRS) payouts under the CPF LIFE Standard Plan. For this purpose, only the guaranteed component of the private annuity payouts is considered.
(c) Third, if the private annuity is subsequently terminated, surrendered or revoked, the surrender value of the annuity must be refunded to the CPF Retirement Account, up to the member’s cohort FRS with accrued interest. The refunded monies will then be streamed out to the member either through the Retirement Sum Scheme or CPF LIFE.
Under CPF LIFE, members enjoy the current floor interest rate of 4% per annum which is reviewed annually. With extra interest, members can earn up to 6% interest per annum. Private annuity providers are unlikely to be able to match such returns, and thus will not be able to offer as high a payout for the same premium. This explains why the number of members who have applied for exemptions, and the number whose applications were approved, are very low. Qualifying annuity providers are subject to regular audit to ensure the terms of the products used for exemption have not been altered. Nonetheless, for members who have concerns about the certainty of payouts, they may wish to avoid such commercial products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health and Life Insurance for Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) in what way has the Ministry consulted with persons with disabilities (PWDs) and their representative organisations in developing guidelines for private insurers on prohibiting discrimination against PWDs when providing health and life insurance; (b) whether the Ministry has (i) collected statistics on the number of PWDs who have purchased health or life insurance from private insurers or (ii) conducted any study on the coverage and pricing of health and life insurance for PWDs and, if not, whether the Ministry intends to do so; and (c) whether psychosocial disabilities and mental health conditions will be included as prohibited grounds of discrimination under the proposed guidelines.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): We have two national insurance schemes – MediShield Life that provides basic health insurance coverage for life, and CareShield Life that covers basic financial support for severely disabled policyholders. Both are applicable to persons with disabilities (PWDs).
Private insurers also offer PWDs a variety of life and health insurance products. They have different underwriting practices and risk orientations, and so the coverage of private insurance products varies. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have been working together with the insurance industry to ensure that PWDs are not discriminated against.
In particular, MAS and MSF have been formulating guidelines for insurers to adopt fair and responsible practices towards PWDs and those with mental health conditions. Under the proposed guidelines, insurance applications from PWDs should be subject to the same underwriting policy and process applied to those without disabilities. Any differential treatment should be based on an objective assessment of information relevant to the risks to be insured, rather than the fact of a disability per se.
In practical terms, this means that insurers should not turn away an insurance application merely on the basis that the applicant has a disability. Whether an application is accepted, or any difference in premium is charged, must rest on actuarial data or reliable information that is pertinent to the risks being insured.
This reflects established and fair principles in insurance. Insurers must carefully consider the risks presented by each policyholder, and charge premiums that reflect the risk for each relative to those of others in the insurance pool. It avoids policyholders with lower risks having to pay higher premiums in order to subsidise those with higher risks.
These principles are also in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and with the rules in other jurisdictions such as the UK, Germany, Australia and Hong Kong.
MAS and MSF have been engaging individuals and groups representing PWDs as well as industry practitioners in formulating the guidelines. MAS has requested the Life Insurance Association Singapore (LIA) and General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) to evaluate data on PWDs who have purchased health or life insurance from private insurers, to ensure that customers have been treated fairly. MAS has also asked LIA and GIA to work with relevant partners to ensure that PWDs and those with mental health conditions, as well as their care-givers, receive adequate guidance and assistance on the purchase of insurance.
The guidelines will be issued for public consultation soon. The guidelines are expected to be finalised by June this year after incorporating relevant public feedback. Like all our public consultation exercises, we welcome inputs and suggestions.
I want to emphasise again, however, that these guidelines are for private insurance products, which come on top of our two national insurance schemes which are available to PWDs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Disclosure Obligations and Corporate Governance Transparency for Singapore Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister in light of the report by the Securities Investors Association Singapore and the Centre of Governance, Institution and Organisations at the National University of Singapore Business School, that Singapore companies are less transparent on corporate governance issues as compared to Malaysia and Thailand, what steps will be taken to improve disclosure obligations and transparency in corporate governance for Singapore companies.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singapore has generally fared well in studies of corporate governance. For instance, the Asian Corporate Governance Association in collaboration with CLSA Ltd. publishes a widely-followed corporate governance ranking covering 12 markets in the Asia-Pacific, including Hong Kong, Australia, and Japan. In the last two rounds of assessment in 2016 and 2018, Singapore has ranked among the top three.
The recent study by the Securities Investors Association Singapore (SIAS), the NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO) and the ASEAN CSR Network (ACN) is a good initiative, but with quite a narrow scope. It focuses on disclosure practices relating to the anti-corruption policy and strategy, of the fifty largest companies listed on five ASEAN exchanges. The report found that SGX-listed companies performed less well in disclosing matters such as their policies on political contributions and whether their anti-corruption policies extended to their agents or representatives. These are relevant issues in all markets, but I’m sure members would recognise that they are more salient in some markets than others.
MAS and SGX RegCo take all aspects of corporate governance seriously, and are taking a number of initiatives in these specific areas too.
First, SGX RegCo recommends that companies disclose their anti-corruption policy and safeguards on their websites so that the information is easily accessible to all stakeholders.
Second, SGX RegCo has proposed to require listed companies to disclose whether and how they have complied with best practices on whistleblowing, such as the procedures for a whistleblower to make a report and protection from reprisal. The proposal had undergone consultation. SGX RegCo is reviewing the feedback received, and will be announcing the outcome of its consultation in the coming months.
Third, and more broadly, the Corporate Governance Advisory Council (CGAC) will be conducting a survey of listed companies’ compliance with the Singapore Code of Corporate Governance as well as the quality of corporate governance related disclosures. The findings of the survey will be used to improve listed companies’ corporate governance practices and disclosures.
Overall, our standards of corporate governance are relatively good and well-regarded, but where there are specific gaps, MAS and SGX RegCo will address them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Green Link Determining (GLIDE) Traffic System for All Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any plans to implement the green link determining (GLIDE) traffic system for all roads and to align standalone pedestrian crossings to the same GLIDE traffic system.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All traffic lights at junctions and standalone pedestrian crossings have been connected to the Green Link Determining (GLIDE) system.
GLIDE adjusts traffic signal timings dynamically to balance traffic demands between motorists and pedestrians. However, it is an old system with its limitations, as it measures traffic volume using detectors installed under the road surface at traffic junctions, which may not be sufficient. Our intention is to upgrade the technology and more details will be announced when ready.
76 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education whether there are plans to move schools located in areas with low population densities to estates with higher densities.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE plans schools based on the needs of the current and projected populations in each residential area, especially for primary schools given the young age of the students.
Relocating schools to newer housing estates with a higher population density of school-going children is one option we consider in school planning, to improve the geographical spread and access to schools. For example, we recently announced the relocation of two schools to new housing estates. Yusof Ishak Secondary will be relocating from Bukit Batok to Punggol, and Angsana Primary will be relocating from Tampines Avenue 2 to the new Tampines North estate.
However, relocation also means disruption to the existing students as well as for potential future students from its vicinity who would have more limited choice of schools. There are also significant infrastructure and financial costs, which requires us to look at whether there is sustained demand for school places at the new site over the medium to long term, as well as whether there are other schools with available vacancies within a reasonable distance to meet the demand there. For these reasons, while MOE is prepared to consider re-location of schools, it is generally carried out fairly sparingly.
MOE will continue to monitor closely the needs in housing areas with high population of school-going children and adjust its plans to ensure that there are sufficient school places for school-going children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Public Rental Scheme Applications Rejected in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, how many applications for HDB's Public Rental Scheme (PRS) were rejected annually; and (b) how many of these rejected applications were subsequently successful on appeal.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB’s public rental flats are heavily subsidised and are therefore allocated to households who are in need and do not have other housing options within their means.
From 2015 to 2019, HDB received an average of 7,400 requests regarding rental flats a year. An average of 2,400 requests per year were successful; the remaining requests included enquiries on eligibility conditions, incomplete requests, and rejected requests. The common reasons for rejection include being able to buy a flat, having family members who can house them, and not meeting the citizenship criterion. HDB does not track the number of rejected requests that were subsequently successful on appeal.
HDB carefully assesses every request to understand each household’s circumstances and budget. HDB does not reject requests based on income alone, and will assist households with a rental flat if they have no other housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in Car Parks of Public and Private Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to mandate the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the car parks of public and private residential properties.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have about 1,800 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points today, and we plan to increase this to 28,000 by 2030.
Given rapidly advancing battery technology, and imminent cost parity between EVs and internal combustion engine vehicles, LTA is reviewing our EV charging infrastructure plans to better support EV growth in Singapore.
This will include exploring the expansion of the charging network in public car parks, and provision of charging facilities in private car parks. In this context, we are studying a range of options, including whether we should mandate the installation of charging points in public and private residential carparks.
83 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education whether food nutrition and healthy eating habits are taught in Primary schools and, if so, at what level.
Mr Lawrence Wong: At Lower Primary, students are taught the importance of healthy eating and how to eat the right type and amount of food. They learn that eating a variety of food provides the different nutrients they need and that they should eat two servings of fruits and two servings of vegetables every day. At Upper Primary, students are taught how to achieve caloric balance through healthy eating and an active lifestyle, and about eating disorders. These lessons are built into the Physical Education (PE) curriculum for all primary schools.
To translate these lessons into healthy eating habits, various activities are planned. For example, through a series of PE Journals from Primary One to Six titled 'An Active and Healthy Me', students complete tasks such as recording their food consumption in a week, reading food labels, and planning healthy meals and physical activities with their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Diagnosed with Dyslexia in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education in each of the last three years, how many children have been diagnosed with dyslexia at the pre-school, Primary and Secondary levels respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In keeping with international practice, we do not diagnose for dyslexia at pre-school. Instead, during the pre-school years, we focus on supporting pre-schoolers’ emerging learning needs rather than testing them for reading disabilities.
At Primary One, all students are screened so that those with weak language and literacy skills receive early intervention through the Learning Support Programme (LSP). Dyslexia typically shows up as difficulties in reading despite adequate language exposure and good reading instruction. Hence those whose literacy difficulties persist despite LSP receive further screening for dyslexia identification.
Based on 2016 to 2019 data, about 3.5% of Primary 3 students were reported as having dyslexia. In Secondary 1, about an additional 1% of the cohort were reported with dyslexia. The proportion of students with dyslexia in Singapore is within the international prevalence of between 3% and 10%.
As dyslexia ranges from mild to severe, the type of support provided depends on the student’s level of need. We have a range of school-based programmes and support, as well as MOE-subsidised remediation by the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcomes and Disbursals of Construction Productivity and Capability Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the outcomes of the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF); (b) what is the amount of funds disbursed to date; (c) what is the productivity growth of the construction sector from 2010 to date; (d) what are the examples of how the Fund has helped these firms to improve their workforce quality; and (e) what lessons are learnt from the 10 years of implementing this Fund.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Construction Productivity and Capability Fund, or CPCF, has helped to raise productivity and increase capabilities in the Built Environment (BE) sector. Our target is to increase site productivity by 20 to 30%, compared to 2010 levels, by 2020.
Since 2010, we have disbursed close to two-thirds of the $850 million set aside for the CPCF. Through CPCF funding, we have supported over 10,000 BE firms to adopt productive technologies, build capabilities and develop their workforce. For example, under the Productivity Innovation Project scheme, we have co-funded up to 70% of the qualifying costs of productive technologies such as Design for Manufacturing & Assembly (DfMA). We are on track to achieve our target of 70% DfMA adoption by 2025 under the Construction Industry Transformation Map. Site productivity had also improved by 17.6% by 2019, compared to 2010 levels.
To attract more locals to join the BE sector, we have a suite of scholarship and sponsorship programmes under the CPCF for students to pursue relevant BE-related disciplines at the University, Polytechnic and ITE levels. The scholarship and sponsorship fees are co-funded by firms who provide job placements for the scholarship or sponsorship recipients upon graduation. Since 2010, we have awarded more than 3,200 scholarships and sponsorships to local students.
We have continually reviewed our programmes and refreshed them to keep up with industry needs and advancements in technology, so as to better support the industry. For example, we have progressively raised the productivity outcomes that firms need to achieve in order to qualify for funding under CPCF schemes. The equipment and training courses that are supportable under CPCF have also been continually updated over the years. In terms of support for digitalisation, we have moved from funding firms just using Building Information Modelling (BIM) software to those collaborating digitally across multiple stages of the building lifecycle through Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD). These investments that our firms have made with CPCF funding support enabled them to cope better during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, consultancy firms were able to continue working from remote locations during the Circuit Breaker period last year.
Our transformation of the BE sector is an ongoing effort, and we need to press on, working closely with industry, to emerge stronger from COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Planning for Childcare Centres within a Constituency and Ensuring Adequacy of Childcare Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the planning parameters for building childcare centres within a constituency; (b) what measures are in place to ensure sufficient childcare places in new estates; and (c) what assistance is available to parents who are unable to enrol their children at childcare centres near their homes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: \tECDA closely monitors the current and projected demand for child care across Planning Areas and housing precincts in Singapore, taking into consideration factors such as population size, demographics, enrolment trends, and existing preschool supply. To meet the child care needs of young families, ECDA then works closely with agencies such as HDB, to develop new preschools in tandem with new public housing developments; and URA, to set aside space for preschools in private housing developments through the Government Land Sales programme. Where additional capacity is required to meet demand, ECDA also facilitates the development of preschools in community and commercial premises, as well as in vacant state land.
The national supply of infant and child care places has increased significantly by almost 50% since 2015 to 180,000 places, to meet rising demand. Of the new preschool places added, many are in areas with more young families. For example, in the two newer planning areas, Punggol and Sengkang, there has been a 90% increase in the number of infant and child care places since 2015. The Government remains committed to ensuring that every child who needs a preschool place will be able to have one. ECDA will develop another 20,000 new infant and child care places by 2023, mainly in planning areas with upcoming HDB developments for new families.
To help parents find a preschool place, in 2019, ECDA launched the Preschool Search Portal (PSP) – an online self-help search portal which allows parents to search for preschools based on proximity, vacancy and quality, and indicate their interest to their preferred preschools. ECDA has also made the PSP accessible via the LifeSG app. For families who remain unable to find preschool places via these channels, they can approach ECDA which will try to facilitate placements as far as possible in centres with vacancies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of Usage of EZ-Link Card to All Private and Public Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether EZ-Link card payments at the Electronic Parking System (EPS) carparks or Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries can be integrated with the older In-vehicle Units; (b) whether the usage of the EZ-Link card can be expanded to all private and public car parks; and (c) whether the maximum stored value in EZ-Link cards be raised to allow wider usage.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2006, we launched the Contactless e-Purse Application Standard (CEPAS) technology for smart cards. CEPAS is an open standard, allowing any card issuer to participate, and both EZ-Link and NETS have been issuing CEPAS cards.
In 2009, the in-vehicle unit (IUs) for Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) was also upgraded to be compatible with CEPAS cards. 85% of the vehicle population today use this IU. The remaining 15% either have no IUs or use the 1st generation IUs which can only use the NETS CashCard. For these motorists, they can continue to use the NETS CashCard, opt to upgrade their IUs, or sign up for electronic payment of ERP charges using their credit or debit cards.
As for carpark acceptance, all publicly-owned carparks by URA and HDB that adopt the Electronic Parking System (EPS) can accept both EZ-Link and NETS issued CEPAS cards. As for the remaining carparks, the owners decide which payment modes to accept, taking into account factors such as cost of upgrading the carpark system and motorist experience. So there is a proportion of carparks that accepts only CEPAS cards issued by NETS. There are about 460 of them, out of 3,300 carparks that have implemented EPS.
Today, the maximum stored value in EZ-Link cards is $500. The determination of this quantum is a business decision by EZ-Link. A high stored value can expose both the user and the issuer to high risks. On average, EZ-Link cardholders top up around $20 per transaction on their cards. Cardholders who make frequent transactions on their EZ-Link cards can register for EZ-Link’s free automatic top-up service using any Mastercard or Visa cards.
88 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the last three quarters of 2020, how many COEs have been renewed for five and 10 years respectively; and (b) whether LTA will consider allowing renewal of five-year COEs more than once, adhering to the price in the first round of renewal to prevent speculative activities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the last three quarters of 2020, 13,637 Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) were renewed for five years and 13,281 COEs were renewed for 10 years.
If we allow COEs to be renewed for five years more than once, then there will be fewer COEs being recycled for bidding, and this will tilt the current balance in addressing the needs of existing and prospective car owners.
It is a balance that we must continue to strike carefully. The current rule of a single five-year renewal came about because when the system was first implemented, all COEs were meant to be valid for 10 years. But there were existing owners who felt that their vehicles may not last another 10 years, so an exception was made to provide a one-off five-year renewal option, on the condition that their vehicles must be deregistered at the end of five years.
Most owners have de-registered their vehicles as required but understandably, some owners feel differently after five years. Allowing this group of owners to renew their COEs for another five years means allowing them to pay for a 10-year COE in two instalments, which is also unfair to those who decided to pay the entire amount upfront.
Taking all these factors into consideration, LTA has preferred to keep to the existing rule.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regular Monitoring of Height and Weight of Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is a standard protocol determining how the height and weight of children are regularly monitored in schools; (b) if so, how is this exercise conducted; and (c) how is the information presented to the children and their parents.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Schools measure the height and weight of all students twice annually to monitor their physical development in accordance to a Body Mass Index (BMI)-for-age chart1. Following the measurements, students outside the healthy range for physical growth are supported by the school to focus on behavioural modifications for gradual improvement in BMI. Parents are informed to support their children to practise healthy habits at home. Severely overweight and severely underweight students2 are referred to the Health Promotion Board’s Student Health Centre (SHC) for medical assessment and lifestyle counselling.
All students are taught good eating habits and regular participation in physical activities during Physical Education (PE) lessons to encourage active and healthy living. Schools can reflect students’ physical development status as part of the annual Physical Fitness Test report or twice a year in the Holistic Development Profile report to communicate to students and parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : BMI-for-age chart was developed from a study on school children in Singapore (2002) as the reference population.","2 : Refers to students with BMI-for-age ≥ 95th percentile and students with BMI-for-age < 3rd percentile respectively."],"footNoteQuestions":["89"],"questionNo":"89"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"How Grades are Determined in Performance Management and Stack Ranking for Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education with regard to the current performance management system of stack ranking (a) how is a C-, D and E ranking grade determined for teachers; and (b) whether the way the grades are determined differs from school to school.
91 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education what are the penalties teachers face when they get C-, D and E ranking grades respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In alignment with the rest of Civil Service, MOE adopts a system of relative ranking, where a teacher’s performance is not just assessed by his own supervisor, but also cross-ranked with his peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. This helps to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.
The system allows us to consistently identify and recognise stronger performing officers, while at the same time provide development opportunities to weaker performers who are given C-, D and E grades, to help them improve their performance.
We have also put in place a number of measures to help our schools and School Leaders implement the performance management guidelines to strike an appropriate balance between consistency and still allowing for some flexibility and discretionary judgement to cater to specific circumstances in each school. MOE HR regularly updates and engages all School Leaders on the key HR policies and issues which include performance management policies, good practices and expected standards of performance assessment. These sessions ensure common understanding and useful sharing of good practices. They also allow better understanding of the intent behind the performance management guidelines and the typical situations where flexibility would be accorded. In addition, Cluster Superintendents are present at the school annual ranking exercises to provide close guidance to the School Leaders on the performance management process and guidelines.
The performance of teachers has an impact on their remuneration and career development. Teachers with at least a C- grade will be eligible for Performance Bonuses. Promotion would naturally require a higher performance requirement, especially for the more senior grades.
As part of performance management, supervisors are required to counsel underperforming teachers to help them improve their performance. Teachers who fail to improve despite the support given are placed under the Performance Review Process framework for further guidance and counselling. Officers who continue to underperform, despite the additional counselling and guidance given, will have their services terminated. This is broadly similar to how it is done for other underperforming officers in the Civil Service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Do Not Offer Employee Assistance Programmes to Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of companies that do not offer Employee Assistance Programmes (EAP) to their staff; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to increase the EAP adoption rate given that it is a key intervention stated under the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Awareness and understanding of mental health concerns at workplaces has been growing although there are no recent studies on the current level of provision of the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) to their staff. The most recent study conducted by the National Council of Social Service was in 2017, which found that less than 5% of the employers surveyed offered the EAP to their staff. Nevertheless, the Tripartite Partners unanimously agree that it is important to include the provision of EAP in the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces, which was released in November 2020. The aim is for more employers to adopt this progressive practice to provide employees an avenue to speak to a professional on their work and non-work related challenges.
EAP adoption requires collective efforts by key stakeholders. This is why we work with partners such as the Health Promotion Board, Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, the Institute of Human Resource Professionals, unions and industry associations to educate employers on EAP services. For instance, WSH Council raises awareness on the need to take care of mental well-being at workplaces and promotes the Tripartite Advisory and EAP through talks conducted under its Total WSH Programme. We welcome the efforts of NTUC and its affiliated unions to also engage employers and promote its adoption.
93 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is a trend of workplace fatalities happening among sub-contractors; and (b) what else can be done to help companies strengthen their workplace safety practices other than conducting a voluntary safety time-out exercise.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To stem workplace fatalities, it is important that all parties, including sub-contractors, remain vigilant and pay close attention to safety at work. Ministry of Manpower data shows that smaller construction firms, or firms with 50 or fewer employees, many of which are sub-contractors, do have a higher fatal injury rate than larger firms. Nonetheless, the overall construction fatal injury rate has declined steadily from 5.4 per 100,000 workers in 2015, to 2.9 in 2019. In 2020, the fatal injury rate declined further to 2.1, although this was in part due to Covid-19 work stoppages.
To ensure safety messages are filtered down to smaller construction firms, including the sub-contractors, the WSH Council, together with industry associations such as the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) and Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore (STAS), have organised regular mass engagement sessions including forums, dialogues and site visits as well as one-on-one outreach efforts to promulgate the importance of safe work practices. Frequent Safety Time Outs are conducted with support from SCAL and developers to ensure that WSH practices remain robust.
The WSH 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee had recommended a holistic set of measures to help companies improve their workplace safety practices. One of the recommendations was to publish more details of construction firms’ safety track record, including that of sub-contractors. MOM will be doing so early this year. This will allow developers to make more informed contracting decisions, and motivate main contractors and sub-contractors to step up their workplace safety practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Undue Influence of Pharmaceutical Companies' Marketing Incentives on Healthcare Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry ensure that healthcare providers (HCPs) are not unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies' marketing efforts or incentives when recommending or prescribing drugs to their patients; (b) whether the Ministry monitors compliance with the Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (SAPI) Code of Conduct; (c) whether there have been any violations of this Code of Conduct; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider introducing a centralised reporting system for pharmaceutical companies' payments and transfers of value to HCPs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Healthcare professionals are required under professional standards to act in the interest of their patients and not be unduly influenced by such third parties. For example, in the Singapore Medical Council’s (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG), where financial interests or business relationships compete with a doctor’s professional duty towards patients, the doctor must prioritise the patients’ interests and not let business and financial considerations influence the objectivity of their clinical judgement.
Larger healthcare institutions, such as hospitals, institute organisational policies relating to sponsorships from and relationships with pharmaceutical companies, to ensure that employees maintain the highest standard of integrity, retain clinical objectivity in patient care, and are transparent in their conduct. MOH and its Statutory Boards have similar governance frameworks to safeguard against conflicts of interest for healthcare professionals.
In addition, Pharmaceutical companies work within the Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (SAPI) to promote ethical practices and self-regulation amongst its members through their acceptance and adherence to the SAPI code of conduct. SAPI also updates healthcare professionals, institutions and associations on significant changes to the code, and seeks their support to implement these changes. SAPI is a private association, and MOH does not monitor compliance to the SAPI Code and does not have information regarding violations of the code.
Safe and appropriate prescribing of medication without undue influence requires effective collaboration between MOH healthcare professionals, institutions and industry associations. To that end, MOH has been working with our licensed healthcare institutions to develop an agreed set of common best practices to guide healthcare institutions in accepting external sponsorships. These guidelines will first be implemented in our public healthcare institutions in the first quarter of 2021, and will eventually be converted to a Code of Practice that applies to both the public and private healthcare sectors.
Given these efforts, MOH is not currently considering a centralised reporting system for pharmaceutical companies’ payments and transfers of value to healthcare professionals. Instead, we will continue to work with healthcare institutions to ensure that their employees act in accordance with professional obligations and organisational policies. We welcome any feedback on improper practices and such reports will be investigated accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcing Ban on Smoking Near Windows","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in the Ministry's review on how to enforce a ban on smoking near windows and at balconies of HDB flats and private apartments, whether the Ministry has studied how the Government collects evidence and enforces section 27A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act where a person cannot be naked in a private place while being exposed to public view.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Protecting Singaporeans against secondhand tobacco smoke is and has been my Ministry’s priority. Today, the smoking prohibition has been extended to more than 32,000 places, including covered common areas right up to the doorstep of homes.
The proposal to impose a ban on smoking near windows and at balconies of HDB flats and private apartments had been discussed earlier in this House. A ban is not the silver bullet to this issue. Privacy concerns aside, there are practical challenges of investigating and enforcing against smoking in homes.
We are aware of how Police conducts investigation into offences of a person being naked in a private place while exposed to public view, and it cannot be compared to the case of enforcing against smoking near windows and at balconies of homes. For example, one can smell smoke even without having sight of the smoker, nor the ability to pin-point where the smoke is coming from. But to impose a fine on the smoker, we need evidence to show the act of smoking, not merely the smell of the smoke. It will be challenging to track down the smoker or obtain evidence of an act of smoking being committed without rather intrusive methods given the current technology, affecting even the privacy of innocent neighbors. And such efforts may still be futile if the smoker hides behind a pillar, frosted glass windows or curtains to avoid detection. In contrast, a complainant would more easily pinpoint the location and capture evidence of a nude person exposing himself or herself to public view, to assist with investigation. The frequency and nature of these two acts are different and should not be compared directly.
Despite the challenges, we are working with government agencies and the community to focus on encouraging individuals to practise greater social responsibility and facilitating conversations between neighbours.
Furthermore, we are monitoring best practices globally and developments in technology and legislation. We will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts in protecting the public from secondhand tobacco smoke, and consider reasonable and practical solutions as they emerge to further strengthen these efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Responsibility of Employers of Tipper Truck Drivers Issued Fines for Failure to Ensure Proper Cover while Transporting Earth and Sand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many tipper truck drivers have been issued fines for failure to ensure the adequacy of cover while transporting earth and sand; (b) what is the reason for not holding the company which owns the trucks responsible instead of the drivers employed; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to review this and have a uniform standard cover for all owners of all such trucks and the relevant standard operating procedure for all to comply with.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Between January 2020 to November 2020, the National Environment Agency (NEA) took enforcement action against about 27 drivers for transporting materials such as earth and sand without adequate cover or for causing spillage.
As drivers are in direct control of trucks during transportation trips, it is their duty to check that the flap covers are not torn, trucks are not overloaded, and that loads are secured and adequately covered, as well as to drive in a careful manner. Hence, enforcement action is taken against the driver, rather than the transport company, if the transported materials are not adequately covered or cause spillage. Nonetheless, transport companies are required to ensure that their truck fleets are installed with suitable flap covers and the covers are functioning well.
NEA does not intend to require a uniform flap cover, which may not be applicable for all types of trucks. In addition, requiring a uniform flap cover may not solve the problem of spillage if there is improper use or lack of adequate checks before driving off. NEA has engaged commercial transport companies, through circulars and reminders, on the importance of providing proper flap covers for their trucks and to inspect their fleets regularly for faulty or torn flap covers. I urge companies to remind their drivers to conduct the basic checks of ensuring that the flap covers adequately cover the transported materials before they drive off, and to remain vigilant on the road. NEA will continue to enforce against drivers who inadvertently cause spillage or fail to cover the materials properly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Fertility Rate amongst Long Term Visit Pass Holders Married to Singaporeans Compared to Singaporean Women between 2010 and 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Prime Minister between 2010 and 2019, what is the total fertility rate (TFR) amongst Long Term Visit Pass holders who are married to Singaporeans as compared to the TFR amongst Singaporean women.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Like other countries, Singapore monitors resident TFR because it measures how well the resident population, which comprises Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, is replacing itself through births. Resident TFR remained at 1.14 in 2019, the same as the year before.
The Government does not compute the TFR of LTVP holders who are married to Singaporeans separately from the resident TFR, because it is difficult to compute it in a meaningful way.
A meaningful computation of TFR will require the population included in the computation to be measured over the full childbearing age range. However, many LTVP spouses go on to become Permanent Residents and Singapore Citizens, before the end of their childbearing years. Therefore, we are unable to meaningfully compute the LTVP TFR, given the degree of change in the LTVP population, and because only a small proportion of LTVP spouses tends to be at the end of their childbearing years.
In addition, resident TFR already accounts for births to LTVP holders who are married to Singaporeans. Resident TFR for any given year is calculated based on the residency status of parents, where the numerator corresponds to resident births and the denominator corresponds to all females who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, or are Non-Residents married to men who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. Births to at least one resident parent will contribute towards the resident TFR.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recognition of Qualifications Issued by Private Educational Institutions for Purposes of Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister given the long history of the operation of private educational institutions (PEIs) such as MDIS and SIM, why are qualifications directly issued by these PEIs not currently recognised by government agencies as valid qualifications for the purposes of employment.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service currently recognises qualifications issued by a range of institutions for the purpose of employment in the Service, including local tertiary institutions, registered private educational institutions (PEIs) and overseas institutions. We do recognise and take into consideration the qualifications issued by private educational institutions such as MDIS and SIM.
Educational qualifications are only one of multiple factors that we use to assess an applicant’s suitability for a job. The Civil Service is also assessing candidates on the competencies required for the different jobs in the Service. For example, to assess applicants' competencies in relation to HR and finance jobs, the Public Service Division (PSD) and Accountant-General's Department have worked with professional institutions such as the Institute for Human Resource Professionals and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, respectively, to develop and deploy competency assessment tools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of PMET-level Job Vacancies in Public Sector Filled by Mid-career Hires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister in each year of the past three years (a) how many PMET-level job vacancies in the public sector were filled; (b) how many of these are filled by mid-career hires from the private sector; and (c) of these mid-career external hires, what proportion has no prior public sector experience.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Some 2,500, 2,600, and 3,200 PMET vacancies in the Civil Service were filled each year in 2018, 2019 and 2020 to-date1 respectively. Of these placements, there has been an increase in the proportion of mid-career hires from the private sector from 27% in 2018 to 39% in 2020. Of these mid-career hires from the private sector, the proportion of hires who did not have prior public sector experience also increased from 48% in 2018 to 68% in 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The data for 2020 is updated as at end-November 2020."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Life Insurance Policies Surrendered on Per Year Basis and Regulating Sale of Life Insurance Policies to Protect Policyholders' Long-Term Interests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister (a) over the past three years, what has been the percentage of life insurance policies that have been surrendered on a per year basis; and (b) whether MAS intends to regulate the secondary market involving the sale of life insurance policies so as to protect the policy holders’ long-term interests and to prevent them from prematurely surrendering their life policies for reasons other than the inability to make premium payments.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The percentage of life insurance policies surrendered averaged 1.1% per year during 2017 to 2019. In the first three quarters of 2020, the percentage of policies surrendered was about 0.7%.
Policyholders who surrender their policies may not be able to find a policy with similar coverage at the same cost once it has been terminated. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has put out financial education messages targeted at policyholders on the risks or disadvantages associated with surrendering or selling their life insurance policies. For policyholders who are unable to pay premiums, insurers have been providing them some support, such as offering grace period for payment and premium loans.
There are also situations where holding on to a life insurance policy no longer makes financial sense. For example, when the insurance coverage is no longer required because the policyholder does not have a dependent anymore, or where the policyholder has more important alternate uses for the cash value in the policy. Under these circumstances, the policyholder may sell his policy in a secondary market for a higher cash value to a third party company, who in turn sells it to investors.
These third party companies are currently not regulated in Singapore. This is similar to other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Japan. While they are regulated in the US and UK, the focus is on the protection of investors who purchase the re-sold policies rather than the policyholders. We will continue to monitor the market for potential risks, and will introduce regulatory safeguards if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Target SME Awareness and Accessibility under Green and Sustainability-linked Loan Grant Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister what specific measures will be implemented to target SME awareness and accessibility for the planned Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Schemes which will be rolled out in 2021.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS' Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) aims to support companies of all sizes, including SMEs1.
MAS will defray up to $100,000 of the expenses incurred by borrowers in engaging independent service providers to verify the green and sustainability credentials of such loans.
While the GSLS supports the adoption of such loans, MAS recognises that the cost, time and effort of procuring the necessary sustainability advisory and assessment services may not be commensurate with the loan quantum, particularly for smaller SMEs. The GSLS therefore has another track that encourages banks to develop green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks, which will have to include eligibility criteria that are verified against internationally-recognised green and sustainability-linked loan principles. This removes the need for SMEs to develop their own customised frameworks before obtaining a green or sustainability-linked loan, and reduces the friction SMEs face in accessing such loans.
Under this track, MAS provides greater funding support to banks when they develop loan frameworks that are targeted at SMEs. Expenses incurred by banks to develop, verify and report on the green and sustainability credentials of loan frameworks targeted at SMEs will be defrayed by 90%, as compared with 60% of expenses for other green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks.
HSBC and OCBC have launched such green and sustainability-linked loan frameworks for SMEs. MAS expects to support more banks in developing such frameworks under the GSLS.
To promote awareness and encourage take-up of the GSLS, MAS is partnering Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and banks to reach out to SMEs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Green loans are loans whose proceeds can only be used for green equipment or projects. Sustainability-linked loans do not restrict use of proceeds; instead, borrowers commit to sustainability performance targets, and are awarded a reduction in the loan interest rate if their sustainability targets are met."],"footNoteQuestions":["5"],"questionNo":"5"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration for More Structured Channels to Place Youth Offenders in Positive Networks as Part of Aftercare and Steps to Guide Parents to Support Children Upon Release from Prison","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider more structured channels to place youth offenders in positive networks as part of aftercare so as to better support reintegration efforts and what steps are taken to guide parents to support their children upon their release from prison.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) recognises the importance of positive networks in supporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth offenders. From the moment the youth offenders are admitted to prison, they are engaged in various programmes that prepare them for their eventual release. Examples include the National Youth Achievement Award (NYAA) programme, Throughcare Volunteer Framework (TVF) and Befriending Programme (BP). Volunteers and staff from various community partners befriend and work with the youth offenders under these programmes. After the youth offenders are released, these volunteers and community partners continue to engage them, to ensure that they continue to have access to positive social and support networks.
The NYAA programme was introduced to youth offenders in prison in 2000. It encourages young people to develop self-reliance, perseverance and a sense of responsibility to themselves and to society. The 2020 NYAA programme involved volunteers from the Singapore Adventurers' Club, Tzu Chi Foundation, Singapore Kindness Movement and Sports Singapore. Participants build friendships with the volunteers during their incarceration, and continue to have access to these positive social networks after release.
SPS introduced the TVF in 2019. Under the TVF, SPS brings in various community partners and volunteers to support offenders, including youth offenders. Offenders are matched with religious or secular volunteers, who will support them throughout their incarceration and also after they are released. The TVF currently has seven Social Service Agencies (SSAs) on board, with an estimated 700 volunteers.
Youth offenders who are assessed to require social support can also be emplaced on the BP. Under the BP, volunteers provide one-on-one support and guidance to youth offenders via letter writing and face-to-face visits. Such support continues even after their release. In addition, SPS regularly invites ex-offenders who have successfully reformed to share their stories and experiences with youth offenders, to inspire hope and change amongst them.
SPS also actively involves the families of youth offenders in their reintegration journey. When in prison, all youth offenders sentenced to Reformative Training (RT) are required to undergo the Family Programme. Non-RT youth offenders will attend the Family Programme if the duration of their incarceration allows. Through the programme, knowledge and skills such as conflict resolution, emotion regulation and self-control techniques are imparted to the offenders and their families. Opportunities are provided for them to maintain ties and build stronger bonds with one another. When out in the community, RT inmates are assigned a Reintegration Officer and a Case Manager, to facilitate their transition from incare to a community setting. The Reintegration Officer is a Prison Officer and the Case Manager is from a Social Service Agency. They work hand in hand with the RT youth offenders, as well as the parents, to develop the youth offenders' reintegration plan and review their rehabilitation progress.
SPS will continue to work with community partners to expand support networks, and strengthen collaborations with schools and employers to provide even more opportunities for youth offenders in their reintegration journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sexual Assault Cases Handled by OneSafe Centre in Last Three Years and Plans to Review Requirement and Timeframe for Forensic and Medical Examinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last three years what is the annual number of sexual assault cases that have been handled by the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination Centre (OneSafe Centre) as a percentage of the total number of sexual assault cases handled by the police; and (b) whether there are any plans to review the 72-hour time frame for sexual assault forensic examinations.
8 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the rationale for requiring a parent’s/guardian’s signature for sexual assault victims under the age of 21 years old to undergo the necessary forensic and medical examinations; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider (i) lowering the age threshold to 16, in line with the age of consent for sexual activity or (ii) permitting signatures from prescribed third parties to encourage the reporting of sexual assault offences.
Mr K Shanmugam: Ms Raeesah Khan had asked for information related to sexual assault cases and forensic medical examinations.
Forensic medical examinations of victims are required in cases of rape and sexual assault by penetration - serious sexual crimes. Such examinations are generally conducted for victims whose cases are reported within 72 hours of the assault. Scientifically, the 72-hour time frame is the most effective window to recover forensic evidence, as recommended by the World Health Organisation. For cases beyond 72 hours, Police may order the forensic medical examinations to be conducted if there is reason to believe that evidence can still be recovered through the examination.
From 2017 to 2019, there were 70 such examinations at the OneSAFE Centre. Victims of serious sexual crimes have also been examined at hospitals. Sometimes, examinations might not be conducted because of the facts and circumstances, for example, if the offence is dated and forensic evidence cannot be recovered.
The victim's consent is required before conducting a forensic medical examination because such examinations are highly intrusive. As victims under 21 years old are considered minors under common law, in such cases, Police and the public healthcare institutions will seek consent from both the victim and the victim’s parent or guardian.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been reviewing the minimum age of consent to these examinations, among other issues.
","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 Maintenance Order Applications Received by Family Justice Court in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Law (a) for the past five years, what has been the number of maintenance order applications received by the Family Justice Court, broken down by applicants who are (i) still married and (ii) divorced respectively; and (b) what is the demographic breakdown by spousal income of (i) married applicants and (ii) divorced applicants.
Mr K Shanmugam: Applications for maintenance orders in the Family Justice Courts (“FJC”) can broadly be categorised into three groups:
(a)\tapplications for fresh maintenance orders, made for the first time, where no other maintenance order exists;
(b)\tapplications to vary or discharge existing maintenance orders; and
(c)\tapplications to enforce existing maintenance orders.
The applications can be made: (a) by women or incapacitated men for themselves; or (b) for the maintenance of a child.
The number of applications for fresh maintenance orders in the last five years is shown in Table 1, with a breakdown according to the marital status of the applicant at the point of application. For cases involving maintenance of a child, the applicant need not be the spouse / former spouse, but can be the child’s guardian or the adult sibling. Hence, the marital status reflected is not necessarily indicative of the marriage in question. The number of applications for fresh maintenance orders has declined over the last five years.
Ms Tan also asked for the demographic breakdown by spousal income of married and divorced applicants. As applications for maintenance orders may be made by a range of persons – spouse, former spouse and child’s guardian, it would be more accurate to provide the income of the respondent.
Data on the respondents' income, based on non-mandatory fields completed by applicants when the application is made, is only available from 2017. The statistics on the applications for fresh maintenance orders, by applicants who were married and who were divorced, broken down by the respondents' income, are in Table 2. There is no discernible trend from the data.
10 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law regarding investigations into deaths due to unnatural or unknown causes in the last two years (a) in how many and what proportion of such cases has a Coroner’s Inquiry not been held; (b) what are the matters taken into account by the coroner under section 25(3)(f) of the Coroners Act in deciding that it is not necessary in the public interest to hold an Inquiry under section 25(2)(b) of the Act; and (c) how often has the Public Prosecutor intervened to require an Inquiry in cases where the coroner had decided that an Inquiry is not necessary.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2019 and 2020 (as at 24 December 2020), there were 1,961 investigations into unnatural deaths which were reported to the Coroner. Out of these 1,961 investigations, a Coroner's Inquiry (“CI”) was not held for 1,413 (or 72%) investigations.
Section 25(1) of the Coroners Act sets out the types of cases where the Coroner must hold a CI. In other types of cases, Section 25(2) allows the Coroner to decide not to hold a CI, if the Coroner is satisfied that (a) the death was due to natural causes and it is unnecessary to do so, or (b) in the circumstances it is not necessary in the public interest to do so.
Section 25(3) states that in deciding whether to hold a CI, the Coroner may have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of a death that appears to have been unnatural or violent, whether or not it appears to have been due to the action or inaction of any other person; (b) the extent to which the drawing of attention to the circumstances of the death may be likely to reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in similar circumstances; (c) the desire of any member of the immediate family of the deceased that a CI should be conducted; (d) whether or not the death occurred outside Singapore or was caused by matters arising outside Singapore; (e) whether or not an inquiry or investigation into the death has been or will be conducted by a coroner or a corresponding authority of a foreign country; and (f) any other matter the Coroner thinks fit.
An example of a matter which may be taken into account by the Coroner under Section 25(3)(f) would be the desire of the family members of the deceased for no CI to be conducted.
A Coroner who decides not to hold a CI under Section 25(2) shall report the facts to the Public Prosecutor with the Coroner's reasons for not holding a CI. Where the Coroner does not hold a CI, the Coroner will still issue detailed written findings to explain the cause of death and the manner by which the person came by his or her death.
The Public Prosecutor may require the Coroner to hold a CI, if the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that a CI is necessary or desirable. In 2019 and 2020 (as at 24 December 2020), there were no cases where the Public Prosecutor required the Coroner to hold a CI, after the Coroner had decided not to hold a CI under Section 25(2).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Victim Impact Statement Adduced by Prosecution to Address Sentencing Court in Sexual Offences Cases in Past Five Years and Plans to Review Criminal Sentencing for Sexual Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Law (a) over the past five years, in how many cases of sexual offences was a victim impact statement adduced by the prosecution to address the sentencing court; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to conduct a review of criminal sentencing for sexual offences and the weight given to the harm suffered by victims.
Mr K Shanmugam: In all sexual assault cases, the Prosecution will make sentencing submissions on the harm caused to the victim. These submissions will take into account all the relevant evidence, such as the accounts of the victim and other witnesses, as well as medical and psychological reports.
In some cases, the Prosecution will additionally tender a victim impact statement (“VIS”) if the Prosecution thinks that this would be of assistance to the Court. Based on available data:
(a) From 2017 to 2019, a VIS was tendered in 28 State Court cases involving one or more sexual offences.
(b) From 2015 to 2019, a VIS was tendered in 23 High Court cases involving one or more sexual offences.
Typically, the impact of the crime on the victim is evident from the evidence put before the Court and the victim's testimony at trial. The number of cases where a VIS was tendered is therefore not a good indicator of the number of cases where the Courts were aware of the harm suffered by the victims.
The harm suffered by victims is an important factor in sentencing for sexual offences. The Courts have stressed that every act of rape invariably inflicts immeasurable harm on a victim, and seriously violates the victim's dignity. In addition, where there are especially serious physical or mental consequences resulting from the rape, such as a psychiatric disorder, or deliberate infliction of special trauma, such as repeated rape during one attack or further degradation of the victim such as forced oral sex, these are taken into consideration as aggravating factors. The Courts have also issued several sentencing frameworks for sexual offences which give significant weight to the harm caused to the victim: the greater the harm caused, the harsher the sentence ought to be.
As previously indicated, the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs are conducting a review of, among others, the penalties for sexual offences. The outcome of this review will be announced in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility Criteria for Women Aged 40 and Above to Receive Government Co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will be revising the eligibility criteria for women aged 40 and above to receive Government co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology procedures.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Clinical evidence shows that the rates of conception for a woman who undergoes Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatment decreases with age, and are significantly lower after 40. Therefore, Government co-funding for ART is directed towards couples where the woman is below age 40 on their first attempt, to encourage couples to start their families and seek treatment early.
To better support couples through this process, the ART co-funding scheme was enhanced in January 2020 to allow couples who have undergone assisted reproduction or intra-uterine insemination procedures before the wife turned age 40, to carry out up to two of the six co-funded ART cycles at age 40 or later. We will continue to monitor the clinical evidence and update the eligibility criteria where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Promote Mental Wellness among Elderly in Isolation Wards with Difficulty Utilising Technology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what is being done to promote mental wellness among the elderly in isolation wards who have difficulty utilising technology especially when they get admitted to hospitals repeatedly due to aging issues.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patients are only admitted to isolation rooms if there is a need to reduce the risk of infection spread to others. This includes patients with pneumonia, are suspect COVID-19 cases or are carriers of Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDROs). The medical team will review the need for isolation and will de-isolate the patient once it is no longer necessary to do so.
\tHospital staff regularly monitor patients in isolation rooms and will identify those who are at higher risk or exhibiting signs of emotional or mental distress, especially the elderly patients, to enable timely assessment and intervention.
\tMost elderly patients are able to stay in touch with their family through phones or other forms of technology. For those who are unable to do so, hospital staff will assist them to make regular contacts with their family through phone calls or videoconferencing.
To minimise the mental health impact of isolation wards, hospitals ensure that they are also sufficiently engaged with access to various forms of media (e.g. television, radio and newspapers). Where clinical conditions allow, the ward staff will also engage the elderly patients in conversations or simple activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Testing Staff of Social Services Agencies for COVID-19 on Regular Basis Prior before Obtaining Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider testing staff of Social Service Agencies (SSAs) on a regular basis before they obtain their COVID-19 vaccination since they interact with the elderly who visit the SSAs on a daily basis.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Regular surveillance testing is one component of a broader set of measures to reduce the risk of transmission. The other components include strict infection prevention and control, safe distancing, visitor management and immediate testing of staff who show symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Symptomatic staff are also instructed not to return to work until they have recovered from their infection. A risk-based approach is adopted for surveillance testing, where services for more vulnerable seniors are prioritised. Given that seniors living in residential settings are frail and cared for in close confines, staff of residential care homes are regularly tested.
We take a more calibrated approach to test staff of non-residential care settings and social services, as they serve seniors in the community who are generally less frail. For this group of staff, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) conducted a one-time swab test in June 2020. We will review the need for regular surveillance testing in non-residential care settings if community infection rates increase.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Vaccination for Singaporeans and Long-term Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health regarding the free and voluntary COVID-19 vaccination (a) how will the Government define long-term residents; (b) what is the estimated number of Singaporeans and long-term residents living in Singapore; and (c) what is the expected cost to provide free vaccines to all Singaporeans and long-term residents.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question has been addressed via a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Health, in his capacity as Co-Chair of the Multi-Ministry Task Force, on 4 January 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fast Lanes for Essential Travel between Singapore and China and Plans to Establish new Fast Lanes with Other Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the establishment of Fast Lanes for Essential Travel (a) how many Singapore and China residents have made essential business or official trips between the two countries since the establishment of the Singapore-China Fast Lane six months ago; (b) whether there are plans to further establish new Fast Lanes between Singapore and other countries in 2021; and (c) which countries are under consideration for the establishment of Fast Lanes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been addressed via a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Education, in his capacity as Co-Chair of the Multi-Ministry Task Force, on 4 January 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Imposing Closer Scrutiny on Travellers Arriving from UK and Europe Given Outbreak of New COVID-19 Strain","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Multi-Ministry Taskforce will impose closer scrutiny on travellers arriving from the UK and Europe, given the outbreak of the new COVID-19 strain there; and (b) whether there are any data to show that the current COVID-19 vaccines are effective against this new strain.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question has been addressed via Ministerial Statements by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education, in their capacity as Co-Chairs of the Multi-Ministry Task Force, on 4 January 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Travellers Entering Singapore Since 1 July 2020 without Pre-departure COVID-19 PCR Test Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) how many travellers, including Singapore residents and children aged 6 and below, have entered Singapore since 1 July 2020 without a pre-departure COVID-19 PCR test taken within 72 hours prior to their departure for Singapore; (b) how many eventually tested COVID-19 positive upon arrival in Singapore; and (c) how does the Government manage the risk of incoming arrivals aged 6 and below transmitting the virus locally since they are not tested.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question has been responded to via a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Education, in his capacity as Co-Chair of the Multi-Ministry Task Force, on 4 January 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for Outpatient Appointments at Specialist Clinics at Restructured Hospitals in Each Month of 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average waiting time for patients seeking to make outpatient appointments at specialist clinics at restructured hospitals in each month of 2020; and (b) what are the measures put in place to ensure any backlogs due to the COVID-19 pandemic are cleared as quickly as possible.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From January to November 2020, the median appointment waiting time for subsidised patients at the public hospitals' Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOC) ranged from 24 days to 35 days (see Table 1). The waiting time has trended downwards from the height of Circuit-Breaker period of 35 days in May to 25 days in November.
Throughout the year, the hospitals have adopted various measures to improve access while balancing the healthcare resources to manage COVID-19 and safe management measures at the SOC. These measures include prioritising those with higher medical needs for earlier SOC appointment, providing tele-consultation for suitable patients, providing home-delivery of medications so that patients can be assured of sufficient supply of medications, regular case review by the doctor-in-charge and contacting the patients to check on their progress and offering earlier teleconsultation or in-person consultation at the SOC if needed. Referring polyclinics will also assist to refer patients to hospitals with shorter appointment waiting time.
MOH is closely monitoring the appointment waiting time for patients and working with the hospitals to implement measures to enable more timely access to SOC care. MOH would like to thank all patients for their kind understanding during this exceptional period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Livestream of Parliamentary Proceedings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) when will the livestream of parliamentary proceedings for the public commence; and (b) how will the public be able to access the livestream of parliamentary proceedings.
Mr S Iswaran: The live-streaming of parliamentary proceedings commences with the sitting on 4 January 2021. The live-stream is publicly accessible on the Ministry of Communications and Information's YouTube channel.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Historical Video Feeds for Previous Parliamentary Sittings Available Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether a full archive of historical video feeds for previous Parliamentary sittings will be made publicly available online.
Mr S Iswaran: The Hansard remains the official record of all parliamentary proceedings, and is available permanently, including online. The video footage of parliamentary proceedings is archived online for six months on the CNA website. Similarly, video footage that is live-streamed on the Ministry of Communications and Information's YouTube channel will also remain available for six months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Hawker Centres Still Allowing Smoking in Designated Yellow Box Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how many hawker centres still allow smoking in designated yellow box areas and what is the longer term plan for such an arrangement in these hawker centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As of December 2020, there are 27 hawker centres with smoking corners.
My Ministry's long-term plan is to transit our hawker centres into smoke-free public community dining places. This will protect patrons from second-hand tobacco smoke and create a more pleasant dining environment.
Since 2015, my Ministry has required all newly built and renovated hawker centres to be smoke-free. As of December 2020, 87 out of the 114 hawker centres in Singapore are smoke-free. For the remaining 27 hawker centres with smoking corners, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will engage local stakeholders such as the Hawkers' Associations on the progressive removal of smoking corners when opportune, such as upon repairs and redecoration works.
Since October 2020, hawker centres undergoing the Toilet Improvement Programme (TIP) can qualify for increased funding if their smoking corners are rescinded. I urge Town Councils to apply for the TIP to upgrade the hawker centre toilets and rescind smoking corners at the same time, so that patrons can enjoy a pleasant dining environment at hawker centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Number of PMET Jobs Created for Singaporeans from Recent Alibaba, Tencent and ByteDance Investments and Benefits Accorded to These Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the expected number of PMET jobs to be created for Singaporeans from the Alibaba, Tencent and ByteDance investments committed recently; and (b) what benefits have been accorded to these companies such as tax concession, subsidies and grants, residency and citizenship rights.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In 2020, Tencent announced plans to set up its regional hub for Southeast Asia in Singapore, while Alibaba and Bytedance took on additional commercial space to support their expansion. These recent investments were not awarded incentives by our economic agencies.
\tThese recent investments are projected to create at least 1,000 new PMET jobs over the next five years. Many of these jobs will be in both new and established roles Singaporeans are equipped for such as data science, data analysis and business development.
24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the calculation of the post-tax-and-transfer Gini coefficient, whether the tax/transfer correction is a general formula or is applied uniquely to every household; and (b) whether the data used to calculate post-tax/transfer household income is based on actual income tax and CPF statements, or based on assumptions about the average taxes/transfers that will accrue to households in each decile of the income distribution.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Gini coefficient for each year is computed on the basis of a sample of households surveyed in the Comprehensive Labour Force Survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower in that year, or the Censuses of Population and General Household Surveys conducted by the Department of Statistics in the years ending with '0' and '5' respectively.
The Gini coefficient that accounts for Government transfers and taxes is calculated using data on individual household members' income, transfers and taxes where possible. The individual-level data are based on data collected by agencies such as IRAS and CPFB where available.
For transfers and taxes where data at the individual-level are not available, they are estimated at the household-level. For instance, the Goods and Services Tax for each of the sampled households is estimated based on data from the Household Expenditure Survey, taking into account the characteristics of the household such as dwelling type, household income from work, age of household members and household size.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inculcating Responsible Consumption Values amongst Students in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are existing programmes by the Ministry for schools to inculcate responsible consumption values amongst students; and (b) whether the Ministry has any framework to measure the learning outcomes of responsible consumption.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Responsible consumption is a key aspect of environmental education in schools. Students learn how their actions and habits, such as the consumption of resources, can impact the environment. This is done through both the curriculum and co-curriculum across the different levels.
At the primary level, students learn about Singapore's natural environment and the importance of conserving natural resources in Science and Social Studies. They go on to learn about global warming, deforestation and sustainable resource management in Science and Geography at the secondary level. Sustainable consumption of food, goods and services is given greater emphasis in the revised Upper Secondary Nutrition and Food Science and Lower Secondary Food and Consumer Education syllabuses. Through Economics, Geography and Science subjects at the pre-university level, students deepen their understanding of the impact of climate change and the depletion of resources on countries' growth, as well as trade-offs countries make to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Students also discuss sustainability issues in General Paper lessons.
Our students are provided opportunities to apply what they have learnt through daily routines in school, and participation in Values-in-Action and co-curricular activities, such as Green or Environmental Clubs which promote reducing food waste, recycling and upcycling.
Many schools adopt the Singapore Green Awards (SGA) framework developed by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) to audit their efforts in promoting responsible consumption. In 2019, SEC awarded SGA to more than 200 MOE schools, recognising their contribution towards environmental protection.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Schools without Teachers Receiving C-, D and E Grades in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, how many and what percentage of schools do not have any teachers receiving the C-, D and E grades.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Over the last five years, virtually all our schools have teachers with C-, D, E grades. The only exceptions are a few new schools in their first year with relatively few teachers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of SkillsFuture Credits Utilised to Date and Redemption Rate per Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Education (a) to date, what is the percentage of SkillsFuture credits utilised; (b) what is the redemption rate per age group (25-45, 46-65, 66 and above); (c) how will the Ministry encourage Singaporeans in the lowest redemption group to tap upon their SkillsFuture credits for learning.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As of end-August 2020, about 600,000 or 23.5% of eligible Singaporeans had utilised their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC).
The latest available data for the breakdown by age groups is as of end-2019. The percentage of older Singaporeans (aged 60 and above) who had used their SFC was about 16%. For Singaporeans in the other age groups (i.e. 25 to 39 years old, and 40 to 59 years old), it was around 22%. Overall, about 540,000 or 20% of eligible Singaporeans had utilised their SFC by the end of 2019.
SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) works with various partners to run community outreach initiatives like the SkillsFuture Advice workshops or webinars, which help to raise awareness of SkillsFuture initiatives like the SkillsFuture Credit. To provide more personalised guidance to Singaporeans, SSG also works with Government agencies, unions and self-help groups to provide Skills and Training Advisory services at job fairs, workshops, community events and other touchpoints. These services seek to signpost Singaporeans towards courses that support their desired career and job outcomes.
Specific to older Singaporeans, SSG also works with partner agencies to ensure that there is a suitable range of SkillsFuture Credit-eligible courses to cater to their upskilling needs. This includes IT courses offered by the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA) Silver Infocomm Junction and courses supported by the National Silver Academy, as well as courses in mother tongue languages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median T-scores of PSLE Students Broken Down by Household Income Quintile and Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Performance of Children from Lower Income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year from 2011 to 2020, what are the median T-scores of students who sat for the PSLE, broken down by household income quintile; and (b) whether school closures due to COVID-19 disproportionately impacted the academic performance of children from lower income households.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of Education (MOE) does not collect data on household income of students, except for Singapore citizen students who apply for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), where the income criterion is set at about the bottom quintile of the national household income. These students on MOE FAS score a wide range of PSLE T-scores. Over the past decade, including for 2020, their median PSLE T-score has been stable at around 164. Likewise, the median PSLE T-score of the entire PSLE cohort has remained stable at around 207 over the past decade.
During the implementation of Circuit Breaker in April 2020, teaching and learning continued via Home-based Learning. Schools reached out to students without access to digital devices and internet access, including those from low-income families. Over 20,000 digital devices and 1,600 internet dongles were loaned out to ensure that students were able to continue learning.
To further support students' learning, schools invited and welcomed students to use the school facilities with teacher supervision during the Circuit Breaker, and established channels and processes for students to ask teachers for coaching and help with their assignments. Teachers monitored the well-being of vulnerable students and engaged them via various platforms such as regular phone calls and video calls.
When in-person classes gradually resumed, teachers took stock of students' learning progress and provided those who needed additional support with the necessary remediation and consultation. These efforts have contributed to ensuring that even our most vulnerable students were able to continue learning during the period of school closure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Cases Reported in Last 10 Years to MUIS for Contravention of Section 139 of Administration of Muslim Law Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) in the last 10 years, how many cases have been reported to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) for contravention of Section 139 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act; (b) how many of these reported cases have been investigated; and (c) how many individuals have been charged and convicted.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: It is critical that we do not allow false doctrines to be propagated within our community, especially if they threaten our socio-religious peace and harmony, and our way of life in Singapore.
In the last 10 years, MUIS has received five complaints about individuals allegedly promulgating false doctrines. Any purported evidence of deviant teaching received by MUIS is presented to the Fatwa Committee to assess whether the allegations of false doctrine are true. MUIS and the Fatwa Committee investigated and addressed all of the complaints through the combination of issuing fatwas, counselling, and public education.
We ensure that such false doctrines do not take root in our community, through a number of ways. Section 139 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act imposes criminal sanctions on those who promulgate false doctrines. However, any attempt to apply legislation to religious matters must be carefully considered. As this is a religious matter, the Office of the Mufti and the Fatwa Committee are first consulted in dealing with such matters. Thus far, the religious authorities have advised that other approaches be adopted first, such as beginning with counselling, depending on the severity of the situation. If the perpetrators responsible for sharing false doctrines are registered under Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS), the Asatizah Recognition Board may cancel their ARS recognition. The Office of the Mufti will continually remind Muslims in Singapore against erroneous teachings and misinformation through Friday sermons as well as coverage in mainstream news (both print, broadcast and digital). MUIS also publishes fatwas on the MUIS' website (https://www.muis.gov.sg/officeofthemufti/Fatwa).
Since 2017, MUIS has also made the ARS mandatory for all asatizah who wish to teach, so the public can be confident that recognised asatizah have the requisite religious knowledge. In order to qualify under the ARS, asatizah must not teach or publicly expound any doctrine or perform any ceremony or act relating to the Muslim religion in a manner contrary to Muslim law. All ARS asatizah are also required to regularly upgrade and update their religious knowledge, and their suitability for accreditation is periodically reviewed. If they are unfit to be asatizah, such as if they breach the Code of Ethics, their ARS status will be suspended or cancelled. Therefore, Muslims should seek religious guidance only from ARS-recognised asatizah; the list of which can also be found on the MUIS website (https://www.muis.gov.sg/ARS-and-IECP/ARS/ARS-certified-Teachers).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Re-evaluate Motorcycle COE Regime to Address High COE Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to re-evaluate the motorcycle COE regime to address the high COE prices in view of the fact that a significant number of motorcycle owners use their vehicles for purposes of their livelihoods; (b) what is the rationale for the low bid deposit for motorcycle COEs of S$200; and (c) whether this will lead to market speculation of motorcycle COEs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The quota premium is dependent on supply and demand for Certificates of Entitlement (COEs). As the Vehicle Growth Rate for motorcycles has been 0% per annum since 2018, the supply of Category D COEs depends on the number of motorcycles deregistered in the preceding months. Based on the current distribution rule, the COEs from deregistration in a particular month are recycled for bidding over the next quarter.
For the last six months, bidding was disrupted from April to June 2020 due to COVID-19. To even out the supply of COEs, LTA therefore made an adjustment to the distribution rule, by returning one-third of the COEs accumulated to the bidding exercises from July to September 2020, and distributing the rest from October 2020 to June 2021.
Over the last six bidding exercises, Category D COE Quota Premiums (QPs) have held quite steady at around $7,250 to $7,700, although higher than pre-COVID-19 levels. For the temporary COEs secured in July 2020, which have a six-month validity, close to 90% have already been used to register a motorcycle as of 1 December 2020, which suggests that these are genuine demand and not speculative or manipulative bidding.
We are mindful that many lower income Singaporeans require a motorcycle to go about their work. That is why the bid deposit is set lower at $200 for Category D COEs. If we raise the $200 bid deposit, this will raise costs for dealers, which may mean higher prices for buyers. Motorcycles are also subject to much lower Additional Registration Fees, road tax and Electronic Road Pricing charges compared to cars.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Stay-Home Notices for Non-Singapore Airlines Flight Crews But Not for Singapore-based Airlines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport why are Stay-Home Notices (SHNs) required of flight crews from non-Singapore airlines but not for Singapore-based airlines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Air crew of Singapore-based airlines are subjected to stringent COVID-19 preventive measures.
For example, while serving on board, they will wear masks and face shields, and refrain from interacting with passengers. Where it is necessary to stay over at the overseas destination, they take dedicated transport to their hotels, wear location trackers and must remain in their hotel room until their departure flight.
In addition, all air crew of Singapore-based airlines who are returning from higher-risk countries and regions must undergo a COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) swab test when they are back in Singapore. In light of the recent COVID-19 cases involving SIA air crew, we have enhanced the measures, such as more frequent testing for air crew who have layovers in higher risk countries after they have returned to Singapore and requiring them to self-isolate for a few days. We are also exploring including air crew as a priority group for vaccinations.
This treatment is consistent with those of frontline workers like doctors and nurses, who do not have to serve stay-at-home notices (SHNs) after performing their duties in view of the preventive measures taken to protect them while they are on duty.
If foreign-based airlines can comply with these preventive measures, their air crew will be subject to the same rules. If not, they will have to serve SHNs for the duration of their stay in Singapore, regardless of which countries they flew in from.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Public Education Efforts for Pedestrians, Cyclists and PMD Riders on Safe Riding/Use of Footpaths, Cycling Paths or Park Connectors and Their Effectiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past year, whether there has been any new public education efforts for pedestrians, cyclists and PMD riders on safe riding/use of footpaths, cycling paths or park connectors; and (b) if so, what are these efforts and their effectiveness.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past year, LTA rolled out public education campaigns to educate users on the safe usage of footpaths and cycling paths.
This complements existing efforts such as community and school engagements and the Safe Riding Programme, which educate active mobility users on safe riding practices, proper use of active mobility infrastructure, rules and code of conduct. Over 82,000 participants have attended the Safe Riding Programme since 2018.
We will continue to carry out such public education efforts, with the support of our Active Mobility volunteers. These efforts have helped reduce the number of public path accidents between pedestrians and active mobility users, which fell by almost half over the past year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies into Whether Migrant Workers Unable to Go for Meal Breaks Offsite During Working Hours Are Receiving Adequate and Proper Food and Enforcement Actions Taken against Employers for Non-provision","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether studies have been or are being done to look into whether migrant workers who are unable to go for meal breaks outside of their worksite during working hours are receiving adequate and proper food; and (b) whether any enforcement actions have been taken against employers who do not provide adequate food for this group of workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) agrees that it is important that migrant workers receive adequate food. There is a range of practices for migrant workers taking their lunch at worksites; they could cook and bring their meal, purchase cooked meals at the worksite canteen, or be given a catered packed lunch by their employers.
MOM actively puts out its feelers on the ground to look after the welfare of migrant workers. These include (i) deploying Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) to dormitories regularly to engage the migrant workers about their overall welfare; (ii) working with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that engage with migrant workers; and (iii) providing a mobile application \"FWMOMCare\" for migrant workers to report issues, such as salary disputes and healthcare concerns, to MOM.
MOM has not picked up many complaints about food adequacy. The occasional feedback received about food, such as the food not meeting the workers’ cultural or dietary needs, are quickly resolved when MOM brings the matter to the attention of the employer.
MOM will continue to get feedback from migrant workers and stakeholders. Migrant workers who face issues with access to adequate and proper food or other well-being concerns should report their cases to MOM. MOM will address the issues raised with employers. In serious cases, MOM will take appropriate enforcement action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Active Licensed Crane Operators by Singapore Citizens and PRs, Number of Locals Trained Every Year and Challenges Preventing Singaporeans from Taking Up Vocation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of active licensed crane operators in Singapore (a) what is their current number; (b) of these, how many are Singapore citizens and permanent residents respectively; (c) how many new local operators are being trained on average every year; and (d) what are the deterrents and challenges which prevent more Singaporeans from taking up this vocation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: \tThere are 4,703 active licensed crane operators in Singapore, of whom 90% are local.
The number of local operators trained by BCA Academy has increased in recent years, from 103 in 2018, to 135 in 2019 and 204 in 2020.
Besides wages that commensurate the skill and work demands, job seekers also look for opportunities to progress in the careers. In this regard, employers can highlight the potential for crane operators to upgrade to sophisticated and higher capacity cranes. BCA has also an Industry Transformation Map for the construction sector, to upgrade jobs, including crane operations. Besides BCA Academy, P-One, a BCA Approved Training and Testing Centre, offers crane training courses recognized by MOM for issuance of crane licenses (crawler, mobile and tower cranes). Interested locals can enjoy WSG subsidies and use their SkillsFuture credits to attend these courses.
35 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower whether she can provide an update on the employment profile of all companies on the Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist in terms of (i) the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners (ii) the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners for employees drawing less than $5,000 in gross monthly salary (iii) the ratio of the largest group of foreigners to total employees (iv) the nationality of the companies’ human resource head and (v) the availability of succession plans.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Firms are placed on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) Watchlist if they have a higher share of foreign Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) as compared to their industry peers, or a high concentration of a single foreign nationality source. This proportion varies by sector. For example, sectors that serve a more international market tend to have a higher share of foreign PMETs in their workforce. The FCF watchlist is also a dynamic one, and snapshots of the firms’ employee profiles are not generally used for comparisons.
While having a higher share of foreign PMETs does not necessarily mean that these firms have flouted any rules, placing them on the FCF Watchlist enables us to scrutinise all of their EP applications closely and to help them to improve their local hiring. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) engages firms on the FCF Watchlist to help them improve their Human Resource (HR) practices. In most instances, employers have been responsive. They have adjusted their hiring processes to reach out to more local candidates and put in place programmes, such as knowledge transfer and training plans, to develop their local talent pipeline.
This approach has served us well. Since 2016, firms on the FCF Watchlist have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total, and many of them make sufficient improvements in their workforce profile to exit the FCF Watchlist within a year. For the minority who are uncooperative, their work pass privileges are suspended.
Today, about 90% of the 48,000 HR professionals in Singapore are locals. In any case, hiring decisions are not made by HR heads alone. Senior management and line managers are also involved. The identification of companies to be put on the FCF Watchlist therefore depends on the actual employee profile, rather than assumed preferences of any particular group. More importantly, regardless of who makes the hiring decisions, all employers in Singapore must comply with not just the letter but the spirit of our laws and regulations on fair hiring, and adopt good HR practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Foreign Domestic Worker Levies Paid by Employers Due to COVID-19-related Travel Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider a waiver of levies paid by employers that are either unable to receive their identified foreign domestic workers (FDWs) or FDWs that have requested that they be repatriated prior to the completion of contract due to COVID-19-related restrictions that prohibit travel between Singapore and the FDW's home country.
Mrs Josephine Teo: An employer will not incur the monthly levy for a new foreign domestic worker (FDW) who is unable to enter Singapore due to travel restrictions. An employer of an FDW who is on home leave and unable to re-enter Singapore because of travel restrictions may request for a levy waiver from MOM. For an FDW who wishes to be repatriated, employers should secure the repatriation flight prior to the cancellation of the work permit. Flights to the common FDW source countries are currently available although flights to some destinations are less frequent. Once the work permit is cancelled, the employer's levy obligation ceases. If there are last minute flight cancellations or changes by the airline, the employers may approach the Ministry of Manpower for an extension of the FDW's Special Pass. Levies are not payable for FDWs on Special Passes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Setting Up of Referral Process for Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices with Oversight of Workplace Harassment Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the setting up of a referral process for the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to have oversight of all workplace harassment cases has been completed; (b) if so, how many reports of workplace harassment have been received since the referral process was set up; (c) what is the breakdown of cases by the type of workplace harassment; and (d) whether there are any ongoing programmes to improve awareness about TAFEP as a reporting avenue for victims of workplace harassment.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In 2019, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) established itself as the main centre for employers and employees to seek recourse and also resources for workplace harassment. TAFEP works with other community and tripartite partners and encourages them to refer cases of workplace harassment to TAFEP.
Depending on the cases, TAFEP works with the victim and employer to adjust work arrangements and provide closure to the victim. In more severe cases that might be considered offences under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) or the Penal Code, TAFEP advises the victim to lodge a police report, and provides the necessary support such as guidance on civil remedies, as well as social and emotional support at organisations such as the Family Service Centres, Health Promotion Board and SOS Singapore. As it is important for companies to give proper redress to staff grievances and address unacceptable practices quickly, TAFEP also works with employers to put in place proper grievance handling procedures.
Between January 2019 and October 2020, TAFEP handled around 80 cases of workplace harassment. About one in five were related to sexual harassment, while others were related to verbal abuse, bullying and physical abuse at the workplace.
TAFEP has stepped up its publicity outreach on workplace harassment and avenues for recourse for affected individuals through digital and social media platforms. TAFEP will continue to work in partnership with the relevant agencies and organisations including NTUC and SNEF to build a safe and conducive work environment for all employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Nursing Mothers in Phase 3 of Re-opening and Beyond in Set-up of Lactation Rooms in Private Workplaces Under Work Life Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how can companies be encouraged to support nursing mothers in Phase 3 of the re-opening and beyond in the set-up of lactation rooms in private workplaces since applications for the Work Life Grant that could have been used for that purpose has closed since 18 August 2020; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the guidelines that allow nursing mothers either more flexibility to work from home or for employers to provide appropriate lactation rooms.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, owners of specific building types that are frequented by the general public are required to provide at least one lactation room. These include offices and business parks. All new buildings as well as existing buildings undergoing addition and alteration works that need building plan approvals from the Building Construction Authority (BCA) have to comply with the Code.
To meet the needs of workers, including nursing mothers, for flexible work arrangements (FWAs), MOM will continue to support the implementation of FWAs, including work-from-home (WFH). In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of FWA. During COVID-19, WFH was further normalised with many more employers implementing them.
Tripartite partners will also be progressively implementing the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony that were submitted last year, such as developing an FWA implementation guide and sector-specific Communities of Practice on FWAs. These will support companies to implement and sustain FWAs in the new normal and beyond.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals Received for Waiver of Minimum Occupation Period for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many appeals have been received for waiver of the minimum occupation period for HDB flats; (b) of these, how many have been successful; (c) what are the common reasons for the appeals; and (d) whether HDB will review the policy while balancing the social objective needs.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing Development Board (HDB) does not actively track the number of unique appeals from flat owners who wish to sell their flat before fulfilling their minimum occupation period (MOP), as the data may include duplicate and repeated requests. In the last five years, HDB has given approval to about 5,000 households to sell their flat on the open market before meeting their MOP. The reasons for such exceptions include financial hardship, divorce, or the demise of the owner. For comparison, over the same period, there were about 112,000 resale transactions.
The MOP remains important to ensure that flat owners purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flats themselves, instead of quickly reselling the flats for profit. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs. It also deters the speculative purchase of HDB flats, and thus helps to keep HDB flats affordable. HDB will continue to assess appeals for a waiver of the MOP on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Used by National Parks Board to Evaluate Tender Proposals for Landscape Maintenance Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for National Development what criteria does the National Parks Board use to evaluate tender proposals for its landscape maintenance contracts to ensure that the focus is on service outcomes instead of lowest bidding price.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks evaluates tender proposals for its landscape maintenance contracts based on the quality and price of the proposals. The quality criterion takes into account the tenderers' ability to deliver service outcomes through adopting landscape maintenance best practices, and ensuring safety, and rapid incident response and handling.
NParks has been steadily increasing the weightage of the quality criterion in its tender evaluations of landscape maintenance contracts over the last ten years, from 20% to the current 40%. This reflects an increasing emphasis on service outcomes, while striking a balance with the budget available to do the work.
NParks also requires tenderers to be registered in the Landscape Company Register (LCR) for at least two consecutive years when bidding for its landscape maintenance contracts. Companies on the LCR are required to fulfil the conditions of the Progressive Wage Model for the landscape sector, including training their employees appropriately for their job scopes. This requirement further ensures that tenderers train their employees sufficiently to deliver good service outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Last Update to Price Schedule of Rates Released for Each Procurement by National Parks Board","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked ask the Minister for National Development with respect to the Price Schedule of Rates (PSOR) that the National Parks Board releases for each procurement (a) when was it last updated; and (b) whether the hourly rate of $7 for the supply of labour for manual work will be revised to take into account factors such as the Progressive Work Model basic wage for landscape workers, employer's CPF contribution, statutory benefits and transport costs for personnel and equipment.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks regularly reviews and updates its Price Schedule of Rates (PSOR). The most recent update to the PSOR was in September 2020.
The rates for PSOR work items, including the hourly rate for the supply of labour for manual work, are pegged to prevailing market prices. These are based on quotations from companies, which would take into consideration costs such as Progressive Wage Model wages for landscape workers, employer's CPF contribution, statutory benefits and transport costs for personnel and equipment, where applicable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Done with Animal Experts to Educate Community on Response to Wildlife Sightings and Ways to Reduce Unintentional Access to Food in Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development what is being done to work with animal experts to educate the community on how to respond to a wildlife sighting and how to play their part to reduce or prevent the number of sightings in residential areas, especially in reducing unintentional access to food in residential properties.
Mr Desmond Lee: Feeding by humans encourages wildlife to venture out of their natural habitat and is the main reason for the increased sightings in residential areas. The unintentional provision of food, arising from improper refuse management or littering, can also attract wildlife to residential areas.
NParks works closely with other public agencies, as well as non-governmental organisations and academic institutions with the relevant expertise, to educate the community on these issues. For example, NParks works with stakeholders to develop educational resources, signs, and outreach initiatives to advise the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings, and to raise public awareness on the negative impact of feeding wildlife. In addition, NParks partners with the National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore Food Agency (SFA), Town Councils, and Resident and Neighbourhood Committees, to educate the community on proper refuse management.
NParks also monitors feeding hotspots and will take enforcement action where necessary. It works with agencies and Town Councils to encourage proper food waste management at food establishments and to enforce against littering.
All of us need to play our part to contribute to harmonious co-existence with wildlife. We can do this by not feeding wildlife, keeping our residential areas clean, and appreciating wildlife from a safe distance. Members of the public may also call the 24-hour Animal Response Centre helpline at 1800-476-1600 to report wildlife feeding activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Ensure Physically Challenged Are Not Unduly Inconvenienced by COVID-19-related Entry and Exit Controls at Facilities and Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development what measures are in place to ensure that the physically challenged are not unduly inconvenienced by COVID-19-related entry and exit controls at facilities and buildings.
Mr Desmond Lee: Building owners and occupiers must ensure that accessibility requirements under BCA's Code on Accessibility continue to be met when implementing COVID-19-related entry and exit controls. These include providing at least one accessible entrance to the building, as well as an accessible route connecting the entrance to features that cater to the needs of the physically challenged (e.g. lifts, accessible toilets). Should there be feedback on accessibility issues arising from COVID-19-related controls, agencies will work with building owners and occupiers to improve accessibility and/or explore solutions to reduce inconvenience to physically challenged visitors using these buildings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Liberalising Use of Under-utilised Upper Levels of Multi-storey Carparks for Childcare Centres and Activity Centres for Senior Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider liberalising the use of under-utilised upper levels of multi-storey carparks for childcare centres and activity centres for senior citizens.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB works closely with the relevant government agencies to plan for and provide Social Communal Facilities (SCF) such as Child Care Centres and Senior Activity Centres in new public housing developments. Apart from the facilities that are built upfront, HDB also safeguards space within HDB void decks or multi-storey car parks (MSCP) that can be readily converted for SCF use if and when the need arises.
If more space is needed for SCFs, HDB will work with agencies to consider using the upper levels of MSCPs. However, these spaces may have technical and operational constraints. For instance, we take into consideration factors such as (but not limited to):
1. Demand for parking;
2. Planning agencies' requirements for the SCF;
3. Safety considerations as well as regulatory authorities’ requirements around structural loading, fire safety and accessibility; and
4. Potential for dis-amenities to residents.
As each site may have unique considerations, such requests are assessed 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":"Rectification of Misaligned or Damaged Perimeter Drains due to Ground Movement and Settlement in Mature HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB is minded to undertake or fund the rectification works of misaligned or damaged perimeter drains due to ground movement and settlement at mature HDB estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: Misalignment or damage to the perimeter drains is a result of natural deterioration and the subsidence of the underlying soil over time.
The maintenance and repair of the drains in the common areas comes under the responsibility of the respective Town Councils.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Private Residential Property Purchase Transactions and Rental Transactions Entered Into by Singaporeans in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in respect of private residential property purchase transactions and rental transactions entered into by Singaporeans, what is (i) the respective number and (ii) respective percentage share of these transactions for those aged between 35 and 39 years old, 30 to 34 years old, 25 to 29 years old and below 25 years old for each of the years over the last 10 years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Of the private residential purchase transactions (including ECs) by Singapore Citizens (SCs) over the past 10 years, the breakdown by age of the purchaser is shown in Table 1 below.
Of the private residential rental transactions (including ECs) of whole units by SCs over the past 10 years, the breakdown by age of the tenant is shown in Table 2 below.
47 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in respect of HDB resale transactions in the last five years, what is the median and average discount or premium for flats transacted by minority ethnic groups versus the Chinese ethnic group, based on resale transactions within the same year and block.
Mr Desmond Lee: The price of a resale flat is negotiated between the buyer and seller, and is influenced by various factors, such as market conditions, flat location, lease length and whether the buyer or seller has an urgent need to complete the transaction. This means that resale prices across ethnic groups can vary widely, and do not make for a meaningful comparison. For example, in 2019, the median resale price of 3-room flats for Chinese flat sellers was higher than those for Malay or Indian/Other flat sellers in some estates (e.g. Sengkang), but lower in others (e.g. Woodlands).
Even among resale transactions within the same year and block, flats may differ in terms of their storey height, flat condition, and other factors that can affect the final resale price. Hence, it is similarly not meaningful to compare resale prices within the same year and block across different ethnic groups. In many cases, such comparisons are also not feasible, as many blocks may see few or no resale transactions in a given year, for a particular flat type or ethnic group.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Environmental Impact Assessments by Independent, Third-party Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are reviewed by independent, third-party organisations; and (b) whether an individual or organisation can contest an EIA on reasonable grounds.
Mr Desmond Lee: Development proposals require planning approval before they are allowed to proceed. As part of the approval process, developers may be required to conduct various detailed technical studies, including Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for projects that are close to sensitive nature areas.
The environmental consultants that carry out the EIAs have an interest to maintain their professional standing by conducting objective and thorough studies.
The EIAs are thoroughly reviewed by the relevant planning and technical agencies. The agencies will assess the findings in the context of the proposed development, including considering adjustments to the scale or scope of works to mitigate potential impacts, and scrutinising the detailed environmental management plan. Unless there are specific security considerations, the EIA reports will be made publicly available, so that anyone can read the reports and provide their feedback on the findings and recommendations, if they so wish. Developers may also be required by the planning and technical agencies to engage the relevant community stakeholders and nature groups.
All feedback received as part of this process is reviewed by the developer, as well as the planning and technical agencies. Where necessary, the developer will have to make relevant adjustments to the original plan, before approval is granted for the project to proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Non-IT-savvy Elderly and Vulnerable Without SingPass Applying for Build-To-Order and Sale of Balance Flats Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development for the elderly and vulnerable without SingPass or who are not IT savvy, what assistance does HDB give to help them apply for Build-To-Order and Sale of Balance Flats as these applications have to be done online.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat applications for new and resale flats are submitted online at HDB InfoWEB. This has brought about much convenience to home seekers. Applicants without internet access may seek support from their family members, friends or community.
For those who need further assistance, such as seniors who have no access to computer devices or who do not know how to use digital devices and are without support, they may call the HDB Sales/Resale Customer Service Line at 1800-8663066 for help. If face-to-face engagement is required, we will invite them to HDB Hub for in-person assistance by our service ambassadors, while keeping to the safe management measures amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of HDB's Plans to Install 5,500 Solar Panels in HDB Blocks by End-2020 and Its Target for 2021 and Beyond","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the progress on HDB’s plans to install 5,500 solar panels in HDB blocks by end-2020; and (b) what is the Ministry’s target for HDB solar panel installation for 2021 and beyond.
Mr Desmond Lee: To date, we have called or awarded tenders for a total solar capacity of about 280 Megawatt-peak (MWp), covering over 5,700 HDB blocks by 2020. This surpasses our previous solar target of 220 MWp for 5,500 blocks by 2020. About half of these solar panels have been installed, with the rest to be progressively installed in batches over the next two to three years. The solar energy generated by the 280 MWp solar panels is equivalent to powering 70,300 4-room flats, and potentially reduce carbon emissions by 168,000 tonnes per year, which in turn, helps to mitigate the effects of climate change.
In addition, last year we had announced a new solar target of 540 MWp on HDB blocks by 2030, more than double the previous target. The 540 MWp target could potentially generate 648 GWh of clean energy annually. This will contribute towards the national solar target of at least 2 GWp by 2030.
We will continue to call more tenders for the installation of solar panels on HDB rooftops in the coming years, as well as employ higher efficiency panels to optimise the use of HDB rooftop space, in order to achieve the higher target.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Inclusion of Retractable Laundry Rack in HDB Flats under EASE (Direct Application) Scheme Ahead of Scheduled Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans for the retractable laundry rack in HDB flats to be included under the EASE (Direct Application) scheme in advance of scheduled Home Improvement Programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme aims to improve the safety and comfort of seniors living in HDB flats. Currently, EASE offers seniors three types of improvements to their flats, namely grab bars, ramps and slip-resistant treatment to existing floor tiles of bathrooms/ toilets. The installation work is relatively light and can be typically completed within hours.
The installation of the retractable laundry rack, on the other hand, requires elaborate engineering work and support structures such as the use of gondolas to carry out work on the external façade of the flat. Therefore, it is more efficient and cost-effective, and less disruptive to all residents in the block, for such racks to be installed in all flats of the block at the same time, instead of carrying out the works as and when there is a request.
In addition, including the retractable laundry rack under EASE (Direct Application) will also result in maintenance challenges for Town Councils, as only some flats in the block will have the retractable laundry rack installed.
As such, for flats completed between 1987 and 1997, HDB will continue to progressively replace pipe socket laundry pole holders with the retractable laundry rack through the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). As there are about 230,000 eligible flats, HIP has to be carried out in batches.
In addition, there are some older flats which were previously upgraded under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), and are still using the pipe socket laundry pole holders. We are studying the possibility of replacing the pipe socket holders in these flats with other clothes drying rack solutions.
In the meantime, residents in flats with pipe socket laundry holders can consider other clothes drying solutions, such as indoor free-standing racks, which are easily available in the market in a range of options to suit their needs and preferences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Council for Estate Agencies’ Real Estate Salespersons Examinations' Average Annual Passing Rate of 30% for 2011-2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the Council for Estate Agencies’ Real Estate Salespersons Examinations, (a) whether the average annual passing rate of 30% for the years 2011-2019 was due to a deliberate passing mark imposed by the examining body or any other authority; (b) whether the Government will consider reviewing whether such a mark is appropriately set; (c) whether an upward adjustment may be necessary; and (d) what are the reasons for its conclusions.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) sets the passing mark for the Real Estate Salesperson (RES) examination at 60 (which is published on the CEA website), but it does not set a passing rate for the examination.
Property transactions are significant financial commitments that Singaporeans make. The RES examination ensures that real estate salespersons have the necessary knowledge and skill to guide and advise consumers. This helps to protect the interests of consumers. While CEA regularly reviews the RES examination and passing mark, it is important to ensure that the examinations are of sufficiently high standard.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4202,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210104/vernacular-Don Wee Payment 4Jan2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Payment 4Jan2021-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}