*The opinion of the President on the draw on past reserves was notified to hon Members by circulation on 23 March 2022. Please refer to Annex 1.
"},{"date":"25 March 2022","bill":" i. COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill","atbpPreviewText":"null"},{"date":null,"bill":" ii. Gambling Control Bill","atbpPreviewText":"null"},{"date":null,"bill":" iii. Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill","atbpPreviewText":"null"}],"takesSectionVOList":[{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Announcement by Speaker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Hon Members, in line with the announcement by the Government on 24 March 2022 on making a decisive step towards living with COVID-19, revised safe management measures will be implemented in Parliament from today, 4 April.
All Members are now seated within the Chamber, on the same floor. This marks the first time that Members in the 14th Parliament, which opened on 24 August 2020, are able to conduct parliamentary proceedings with all Members seated on the same floor. I have to admit that I am very pleased to see this happen. [Applause.]
I thank all Members, especially Members who have had to be seated a floor away previously, for your forbearance as we maintain our vigilance and stand united in battling COVID-19 together.
We have, indeed, come a long way, but we know there is still some way to go in the journey ahead. Thus, the current seating arrangement in the Chamber is still based on Members being separated into two groups. Similarly, Members will also take your breaks in separate break rooms, according to the group you are in – although we have mixed the groups, so you can make new friends.
Within Parliament House, Members will remain masked at all times, except when asking questions and making speeches in the Chamber. Members seated in the second and third rows will now be able to speak, without their masks, from the rostrums in the second row or from the microphones right in front of your seats.
The seats in the Speaker’s Gallery, right across from me, have been set aside for Members who are close contacts of COVID-19 cases, but who have tested negative for COVID-19. And there is a separate rostrum for such Members seated in the Speaker’s Gallery.
The Public Galleries in Level 3 will now be open to members of the public who wish to follow the proceedings in Parliament House. But, as always, the livestream of parliamentary proceedings is available for the public to watch at their own convenience and from anywhere.
Here in Parliament, we will continue to abide by the latest public health advisories and make adjustments according to the prevailing situation.
Hon Members, we have reached a milestone in our fight against COVID-19 and we can take heart that, in this House, we have remained steadfast in carrying out our duties as parliamentarians, with deep commitment, even in the face of such a crisis. We did not let the virus slow us down and we soldiered on to complete the parliamentary business before us.
This sense of commitment and solidarity with one another and with Singaporeans must remain strong, as we move into the next phase of fresh challenges, but also, of opportunities.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Dampen Inflationary Pressures or to Help Singaporeans Cope Given Higher Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Finance with regard to the spike in pump fuel prices attributable to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the implementation of the carbon tax system and the push towards adoption of electric vehicles, whether the Ministry will be prepared to reduce or provide rebates to the petrol duty imposed on motorists or provide road tax rebates to motorists in the short, mid or long term.
2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider providing all households with ad hoc monthly utility rebates to cushion the inflationary pressure arising from increasing oil prices and supply chain disruptions.
3 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Finance in light of the sharp rise in petrol prices, whether the Government will consider a temporary reduction in the petrol excise taxes.
4 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Finance (a) what intervention measures will the Ministry be prepared to take if oil prices continue to spiral as a result of a prolonged Russia-Ukraine crisis; and (b) whether the Government will look into temporarily lowering the petrol duty to keep the cost of public transport and other services with a heavy reliance on transport affordable for lower-income groups.
5 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider a temporary cut in excise duties for diesel products to mitigate inflation.
6 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Finance in the event of global stagflation, what monetary and fiscal measures will the Government adopt to help (i) businesses, especially SMEs and (ii) low- and middle-income Singaporeans.
7 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Finance what are the potential measures, in the form of reduced petrol duties or road tax rebates, that the Ministry will consider to assist commercial vehicle owners and private hire vehicle owners in helping to cushion the sharp rise in petrol prices amidst ongoing volatility.
8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Finance in the light of the persistent high inflation rate in recent months, whether the Ministry will consider (i) releasing the $100 CDC voucher to each Singapore household by early second quarter of 2022 and (ii) giving a second round of CDC vouchers in 2022 to better assist Singaporeans.
9 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance (a) in the last five years, what is the annual amount of excise duties derived from petrol and diesel sold to end consumers; and (b) whether the Government can reduce excise duties for intermediate grade petrol and diesel in view of high fuel prices today.
10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Finance given the further upward costs pressure as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict (a) whether the Government will consider revising the Households Support Package that was announced in Budget 2022; (b) what are the timelines for the payouts from the various Government packages to support families; and (c) whether the timelines of these payouts can be adjusted in view of the escalating inflationary environment.
11 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) has considered the extent of increases to food prices that is reasonable to expect in view of the cost of gas and energy, and in tandem with the Progressive Wage Model; (b) if so, what is the extent; and (c) whether CAP will be providing a set of guidelines for consumers on when it is appropriate to report opportunistic price hikes by merchants on everyday items, especially those at coffee shops and hawker stalls.
12 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has fuel reserves, futures or other instruments to hedge against a sudden and significant spike in fuel prices; (b) how does the Government intend to help local transport operators mitigate the effects of such spikes in fuel prices, especially SMEs that are unable to shift the cost burden to their customers; and (c) how will Singapore manage these knock-on effects on our supply chains and our reputation as a logistics hub.
13 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry monitors the stall rental and utilities rates imposed by food court and coffee shop operators; (b) if so, how many food court and coffee shop operators have raised charges for stall rental or utilities since the beginning of this year; (c) what is the range of price increases; (d) how can stall operators lodge a complaint against the food court and coffee shop operators for unjustified price increases; and (e) how will the Ministry investigate these complaints.
14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has conducted studies to consider the impact of the insolvency of previous electricity retailers on the cost of living for Singaporeans; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will release the findings of such studies.
15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry is tracking the severity of shrinkflation and how widespread the practice is; and (b) whether this will be one of the business practices considered by the Committee Against Profiteering.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Sir, may the Second Minister for Trade and Industry and I answer Question Nos 1 to 15 in our Ministerial Statements on Inflation and Business Costs to be delivered later at today's Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Government's Study to Enhance Criminal Legal Aid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether he can provide an update on the Government’s study to enhance criminal legal aid and, in particular, to consider the feasibility of setting up a Public Defender’s Office.
\tThe Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, in the same vein, the Minister for Law will be delivering a Ministerial Statement on the establishment of a Public Defender’s Office later in today's Sitting. May we have your permission to address this question through the Ministerial Statement, Sir?
\tMr Speaker: You may.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Rising Interest Rate Outlook on Household Debt Situation in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister in view of the rising global interest rate outlook (a) what are the risks to the household debt situation in Singapore; (b) what is the proportion of mortgages accounting for household debt over the past five years; and (c) what measures are in place to reduce the build-up of highly-leveraged households and the associated vulnerabilities.
18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister in view of the short-term interest rates raised by the US Federal Reserve (a) what is the impact on mortgage rates in Singapore; (b) whether there has been an increase in mortgage delinquency; and (c) what are the plans to educate younger and first-time home buyers on expected higher borrowing costs.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, the household debt situation in Singapore remains healthy, although there is a need for prudence in borrowing as interest rates are expected to rise in the coming years.
The overall debt servicing ability of households has remained manageable, with the median Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) at 43% last year. This is well within the TDSR threshold of 55%, which was tightened last year as part of the Government and MAS’ property cooling measures.
Second, the credit profile of mortgages is still healthy, with the proportion of delinquent mortgages at less than 1%.
Third, household net wealth grew even through the pandemic, with household assets growing faster than household debt. Households’ liquid assets, such as cash and bank deposits, continued to exceed their total liabilities in aggregate.
Most households should still be able to service their mortgages as Singapore’s domestic interest rates pick up alongside global rates from their current lows. MAS’ stress tests suggest that the median household mortgage servicing ratio will remain manageable even under scenarios of significantly higher interest rates or lower incomes. However, there will be a small segment of households with higher leverage, who will be more constrained by interest rate rises. More broadly, all borrowers should exercise caution in their home purchases, to avoid having to cut back on other household expenditures if interest rates rise sharply.
The financial resilience of households to service their mortgages reflects the effects of measures that MAS has put in place over the years.
The interest rate used to calculate loan repayments under TDSR is the higher of 3.5% or the prevailing market rate. This rate is about two percentage points higher than prevailing interest rates for new private property loans, which builds in a buffer for borrowers to service their mortgages across a normal interest rate cycle.
Loan-to-value limits and restrictions on loan tenure have also encouraged greater financial prudence among mortgage borrowers of different profiles. For example, loan tenure restriction limits the duration and, hence, the overall financing that older borrowers can take up, because it is likely that income sources to support mortgage repayment would be more constrained after retirement.
MAS also requires that financial institutions (FIs) provide homebuyers with the information they need to make sound and prudent decisions, before extending them residential mortgages. This includes projections on how a borrower’s monthly mortgage instalments would vary under different interest rate scenarios.
MoneySense, our national financial education programme, also alerts consumers to important financial considerations when committing to a property purchase, including the recurrent, long-term costs involved.
\tMr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, you are taking both Question Nos 17 and 18 together, would that be correct?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Yes, that is correct.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, it is in regard to what the Minister of State mentioned just now about debt servicing being in good condition. It is good to hear that. But, Mr Speaker, may I ask what is the proportion of the segment of those exposed in the population in terms of personal, unsecured loans?
The second supplementary question is in regard to the domestic interest rate outlook. The Federal Reserve Bank of the US is expected to raise their rates quite significantly. The expectations are based on the committee's announcements. There will be sharp rate hikes over the course of the year and into 2023. Given that it would definitely affect the domestic rate situation in Singapore and it would be very fast, it would definitely affect households and businesses in terms of cash outlays, especially so in the current inflation environment that we are seeing now. Can the Minister of State share what is our domestic rate outlook? And I think he mentioned about the projections and scenarios, but what does it mean for households and businesses, in terms of the rapid pace?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. As the hon Member would know, the outlook for Singapore's domestic interest rates is closely tied to global rates. Accordingly, households and businesses should expect a pick-up in domestic rates and its attendant increase in financing costs.
Most Singapore-listed firms continue to hold sufficient liquidity in Q4 2021, with liquid assets, such as cash and cash equivalents, continuing to exceed their shorter-term liabilities. The debt servicing of Singapore-listed firms remains manageable, with most firms having sufficient earnings to cover their interest expenses, even in prescribed stressed scenarios of further increases in interest rates, with cash reserves providing additional buffers in this regard.
That said, the highly-leveraged companies, especially those with lower net profit margins, may find the increase in borrowing cost eroding their cashflow. This would also apply to some of the SMEs which continue to underperform due to COVID-19 restrictions. But the broader economic recovery should provide some reprieve as Singapore opens up and emerges from the pandemic.
To the Member's questions about personal unsecured lending, credit quality has remained generally favourable and stable over the past year, having improved from pre-pandemic levels. As a share of GDP, outstanding credit card balances have come down from 2.5% in Q4 2019, to 2.1% in Q4 2021. Similarly, rollover balances as a share of GDP have inched down from 1.3% in Q4 2019, to 1% in Q4 2021. The charge-off rate decreased further from 6.3% in Q4 2019, to 4.4% in Q4 2021.
In this regard, we urge consumers to be prudent with their new borrowings to reduce vulnerability to further income shocks and the higher interest rate environment.
I would also like to assure the Member that MAS has also helped consumers who need assistance with their outstanding debt. For example, consumers in financial distress can seek help from Credit Counselling Singapore for debt management assistance or by taking up commercial products such as debt consolidation plans that may alleviate their repayment burden.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, would MAS consider, especially for young first-time home buyers, to be appraised, as part of due diligence on the new interest rate trajectory as part of the mortgage loan application so that they will know what is their payment plan based on the current rate and what is the expected rate, especially when we know that most of the purchases had been done in the low-interest environment for the last couple of years and it will dramatically change over the next couple of years?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his question. I think it is a very important question with regard to, particularly, first-time home buyers entering the property market at this juncture where potential interest rates can rise.
First, I think it is quite important that we urge all home buyers to exercise caution in their home purchases and in making these decisions, and also in financial prudence of how much they can borrow and their own balance sheets, given potential rise in interest rates.
We also note that even as interest rates increase after an extended period when it was uncharacteristically low – we had that whole period where interest rates were just uncharacteristically low over time – household income, as I had mentioned in my original answer, is expected to continue to grow alongside the broader economic recovery as we emerge from the pandemic.
Second, the Member would be pleased to know that MoneySense educates the public on property loan issues through a property resource guide on its website and social media posts, where issues covered include the importance of buying within one's means and the features of different types of loans. MoneySense intends to push out more material on the impact of rising interest rates on financial decisions, including on property purchases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Safe Management Measures with Stability after COVID-19 Omicron Virus Wave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health given that the COVID-19 Omicron variant virus wave has passed its peak (a) whether the Government will review the overall safe management measures; (b) whether the SafeEntry measure still serve its purpose; and (c) whether the one-metre distance requirement at eating places can be relaxed.
20 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the overall cost to businesses to maintain Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures just to cater to unvaccinated residents; and (b) whether requiring unvaccinated residents to bear their own medical costs will be sufficient deterrence to residents who choose not to be vaccinated.
The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I address Question Nos 19 and 20 in today's Order Paper and also Parliamentary Questions for oral answer filed by Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Hazel Poa1 for the Sitting on 5 April, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if we will review the safe management measures (SMMs), given that we have passed the peak of the Omicron wave. As the Member is aware, the relaxed rules came into effect on 29 March 2022, which is why we are all seated together today, and we have also transitioned to a Vaccinated Travel Framework on 1 April 2022.
It is a decisive but calibrated move. We did not declare a Freedom Day nor did we declare the pandemic to be over, as some countries did. Taking a cautious step-by-step approach has served us well throughout the pandemic and we will continue to do so.
That said, we were able to make this decisive move as we observed that the number of daily cases had been steadily declining in recent weeks. More importantly, the number of severe cases needing to be hospitalised had also declined. It is in this context that the Multi-MinistryTask Force (MTF) assessed the further easing of our SMMs and resumption of many normal activities to be appropriate.
These relaxations will likely cause an uptick in daily cases, which we should be able to ride through without any major changes to our public health posture. Once cases subside further, we will consider further easing of the SMMs. This can include reviewing distancing rules between tables in F&B settings that Mr Liang Eng Hwa specifically raised, and I want to assure Mr Liang that I am aware that one metre versus 80 centimetres makes a huge difference to F&B establishments. It also makes a huge difference in terms of transmission. So, we have to weigh the costs and benefits.
\t
We will also review TraceTogether, SafeEntry, as well as Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) which various Members have asked about. Let me go through the three measures in turn.
On TraceTogether, and in response to Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, MOH no longer relies on TraceTogether for contact tracing for the general public. Cases who self-tested positive and go on to Protocol 2 do not upload their TraceTogether data, and we rely on them to do the responsible thing to inform their contacts to self-monitor. So, there is really no need to compare the data between self-reporting and TraceTogether because, having vaccinated the vast majority of our population and being determined to live with COVID-19, we have passed that stage of the pandemic where we contact trace every case.
Having said that, agencies that look after more vulnerable sectors, such as schools or preschools, continue to use TraceTogether for contact tracing. Further, the aggregated statistics generated by TraceTogether and SafeEntry can give us a good idea of the settings that are more susceptible to transmission of the COVID-19 virus.
So, on the whole, the costs and benefits of TraceTogether change as we make further progress in living with COVID-19. MTF will, therefore, review its relevance and application to stand it down when it is no longer needed, while maintaining the capability to restart it should we encounter a more dangerous variant of concern.
For SafeEntry and VDS, I will address them together because they are closely related. Today, SafeEntry is the most convenient way to check the vaccination status of an individual entering premises. If we decide to do away with VDS, then there is no need for SafeEntry.
As of now, VDS is still needed. Even as we know that the Omicron variant is less severe than Delta, unvaccinated or non-fully vaccinated persons are still a lot more likely to fall very ill if they are infected. As of now, we have about 3.5% of our adult population that is not fully vaccinated and they account for over one-fifth of cases that require ICU care or die.
While the patient load at our public hospitals has eased, hospitals are still very busy. With the recent easing of SMMs and the resumption of visitors to hospitals starting today, workload will go up for our healthcare workers. The more cautious and correct course of action now is to keep VDS and not to risk having more non-fully vaccinated patients getting infected and needing hospital care and adding workload to our healthcare workers.
Make no mistake. Individuals who choose not to be vaccinated impose a cost, sometimes a significant one, on our hospitals in terms of workload, businesses in operating SafeEntry checks and enforcement agencies in conducting checks. When we are sure that the situation in hospitals is stable and improving, we will review the VDS and consider if we can reduce the number of settings or remove it completely. Then, it will be a matter of individual responsibility of these non-fully vaccinated individuals to take precautions to avoid high transmission settings, or better still, change their mind and get vaccinated.
Finally, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if COVID-19 can be treated like Influenza at some point, as an endemic disease. This is the objective set out by MTF last year and we are making good progress, as a country. I should clarify, however, what \"endemicity\" means. It does not mean we treat COVID-19 as if it is not there. It is, in fact, the opposite, because endemicity means the disease is constantly there, circulating at a rate that is more predictable and not likely to disrupt normal lives. Like Influenza, which kills tens of thousands of people every year, we will need to continue to take precaution and adopt appropriate SMMs in order to manage the risk and damage from COVID-19.
We are still some way to treating COVID-19 as an endemic disease, because the virus is still circulating around the world and evolving. The virus continues to spread widely in other countries, especially among those whose people are not well vaccinated, leading to significant evolutionary pressure. There is, therefore, still a risk of it mutating into something more dangerous, into a variant of concern.
So, while we have eased up the SMMs and reopened our borders, the pandemic crisis is not over. We will have to continue to monitor the local and global situation, do our part to keep our country safe and continue to work together to tackle whatever challenges that may come our way.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Sir, in the Minister's reply, he mentioned that SafeEntry is still needed to protect 3.5% of the eligible population who are not vaccinated. It is now down to 3.5%. So, can I ask the Minister, from an equity standpoint, does it make sense to inconvenience the 96.5% of the population, just so that we can deter the 3.5% unvaccinated from entering the premises? Does it really make a difference in terms of the public health outcomes? Or is it just a move to basically disincentivise those unvaccinated from going there or to nudge them to get vaccinated?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I will answer the Member's questions in a straightforward way. Is it equitable? Actually, not quite. So many of us are doing so much to protect that 3.5%. Is it, therefore, to protect public health outcomes? The answer is yes. As I have explained, hospitals are not out of the woods. I just visited Ng Teng Fong General Hospital this morning. They are very busy.
We can see cases coming down. We feel, generally, safer. We are prepared to gather together without safe distancing, take off our masks when we are outdoors. In the hospitals, it is still a crisis situation. Every day, we have hundreds of people coming to the emergency department. Many of them with chronic illnesses, some infected, but they do not know about it. But that is the outcome of two over years of focusing on COVID-19. The business-as-usual (BAU) workload has built up. Chronic cases have become more serious. So, hospitals are now busy. Healthcare workers need all our support. So, while we understand it is not exactly an equitable situation when you look at businesses, you do not want, at this point, to add workload to our healthcare workers.
So, I will say the fair thing to do – we are just coming down the slope of the transmission wave. Let us go through it a bit more, make sure our hospitals are in a better position, healthcare workers have a breather. Then, I think we consider whether we can remove the VDS.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I hate to belabour this point, but really, I know that the doctors, the healthcare workers have been trying to get the unvaccinated people vaccinated, but to no success. So, I do not see how the number of vaccinated people will go up. The question that many people have asked is, when will all this end? Like what Mr Liang Eng Hwa said, all these are at great inconvenience to the malls, because they have got to have manpower to man the entry and exit points of the malls. It inconveniences the shoppers who have to go into the malls, because now they have fewer entry and exit points.
So, surely, MOH ought to consider the principle of self-responsibility, which is that, those who choose to be unvaccinated have to take the consequences of their action. I mean, if they choose to do so despite all our efforts to persuade them, then they have to take responsibility.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. I agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan. At some point, the rules must be more relaxed. VDS will be stepped down. The cost need not be incurred by businesses, and those who choose not to be vaccinated take the responsibility. It is in my answer actually. I just do not think it is now because have a care for healthcare workers at this point – they are still very busy.
But the Member is right that the vaccinated number is unlikely to go up further. We are at 97% – probably, the highest in the world. How to go up further? Maybe go up marginally, but what we can wait for is for cases to go down further, for hospital situation to be eased; then, we will be in a position to review this and make the right decision.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. And if I may just build off the questions that Members Liang Eng Hwa and Lim Biow Chuan have asked, I wonder if the Ministry is looking at specific milestones or quantitative triggers that would then bring about further easing and the evolution of measures, such as SafeEntry.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. The MTF Co-Chairs have repeatedly been asked when is the next milestone, when is the next date, when is the next KPI to be reached and then we will open up further. We have always tried to avoid that approach that many countries took, that when we reach vaccination at X%, let us open up; on this day, let us open up. Because the virus has, over and over again, proven that it is totally unpredictable.
So, we would really rather not tie our hands that way but we always look at the entire situation, look into all the unforeseen circumstances, look at the hospital situation, cases, severe cases, vaccination rate, take everything into consideration and make a judgement call. And, so far, it has served us well. We tighten up when we have to, to keep everyone safe and we also ease up when we can and letting economic and social activities resume as normally as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health with regard to COVID-19-positive cases, for the past two months (a) how many cases were detected (i) using TraceTogether and SafeEntry and (ii) through declarations by COVID-19-positive patients; and (b) which method is more effective in detecting COVID-19-positive patients."],"footNoteQuestions":["19","20"],"questionNo":"19-20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlining Vaccination-differentiated Safe Management Measures for Coffee Shops and Canteens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider streamlining the Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) for coffee shops and canteens to simplify these measures; (b) how many proposals have been received by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) on the adoption of the new VDS; (c) how long will SFA take to approve the proposals; and (d) how frequently will SFA conduct checks for compliance at approved premises.
22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider (i) easing VDS for dining-in at coffee shops and industrial canteens and (ii) providing financial subsidies to help coffee shops and industrial canteens with compliance costs related to VDS.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take the next two questions together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of the further relaxation of safe management measures (SMMs) from 29 March 2022, coffeeshops and canteens can either choose to accommodate up to five persons dine-in without at-entry Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) checks or accommodate up to 10 persons dine-in with at-entry VDS checks.
When VDS at coffee shops and canteens was first introduced in November 2021, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) received feedback from operators on their difficulties in implementing at-entry VDS checks. The layouts of some coffee shops were not amenable to access controls, and the additional manpower would come at additional costs. Operators suggested to implement time- and/or area-bound VDS at their premises. This was introduced on 7 March 2022.
Operators who now wish to operate at 10-persons dine-in can continue to choose across any of the VDS options to best suit their operating models. Operators will have to submit their plans to SFA and will receive a response within seven working days.
As of 29 March 2022, there are 237 coffee shops and canteens implementing the 10-person VDS. SFA and Safe Distancing Ambassadors will continue to conduct regular checks at coffee shops and canteens to ensure that VDS requirements are strictly adhered to. The Government will also be providing a one-off cash support to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that have been most affected by the COVID-19 restrictions and measures over the past year, including the F&B sector, under the Small Business Recovery Grant.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, will the Ministry consider improving the awareness of VDS in coffee shops and canteens because the concept of time- and area-bound VDS may not be easily understood by the public? Second, will the Ministry consider streamlining the VDS approach for markets, hawker centres as well as coffee shops and canteens?
\t
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: We will definitely do more. But from our experience with the coffee shops and canteens, although there are flexibilities in their operations and implementations, the patrons were quick to recognise how it works. It is quite intuitive; if you have a \"zichar\" stall operating at night and if the operator so wishes, it can go up to 10 persons dine-in with VDS checks because I think the businesses have their motivations aligned with VDS checks. Many of the operators are also making the arrangements publicly known around the area.
On further review of VDS, as explained by the Minister for Health earlier on, it will be aligned with what has been decided by MTF.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Minister, since the one-metre social distancing with mask on is not necessary, will the National Environmental Agency (NEA) consider for pasar malams to resume in the neighbourhood?
\t
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: We will review this further. As we have seen recently, Geylang Serai, for example, has a pasar malam. We will look at such arrangements, over time, as the situation allows.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts at Engaging Different Groups for Best Way Forward for Section 377A of Penal Code","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs how the Government is and will be engaging different groups when considering the best way forward on section 377A of the Penal Code.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. As I mentioned in Parliament on 3 March this year, since the issue of section 377A was last discussed in Parliament in 2007, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have gradually shifted.
There are, currently, two main viewpoints on this issue and many subsidiary viewpoints. As I said in Parliament, there are two main viewpoints. On the one hand, the vast majority of Singaporeans are of the view that heterosexual marriage, between a man and a woman, must remain the bedrock of our society. On the other hand, many Singaporeans, including some of those who believe in the traditional family structure, feel that private consensual sex between men should not be criminalised.
The Government has been and will be speaking with diverse groups of Singaporeans to better understand their viewpoints. We will consider the various views carefully and assess the best way forward that tries to balance the different viewpoints.
Mr Speaker, Ms Hazel Poa has asked a related question for written answer at this Sitting. Since this is an important issue, I would like to invite Ms Hazel Poa, or any other Parliamentarian from her Party, basically Mr Leong Mun Wai, to state her or their Party’s position on section 377A. It will be good to know.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa or Mr Leong Mun Wai?
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): As the Minister has pointed out, there are two different camps with different views on this particular issue. For us, within the Party itself, we also have people with different views. So, this is not an issue that we actually have a consensus on at this moment in time.
\tMr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
\tMr K Shanmugam: There are many different ways of saying \"I don't know\", so I assume that Ms Poa is saying either the Party has no position or they do not know what their position is. Thank you, Sir.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Study into Feasibility of Nuclear Energy to Meet our Energy Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the Energy Market Authority’s Energy 2050 Committee Report (a) how will Singapore prepare itself to generate 10% of the country’s energy needs using nuclear energy in a safe and reliable manner by 2050; and (b) what steps will Singapore take to assure our neighbours that the use of nuclear energy in Singapore will not impact the environment unfavourably with sufficient safeguards.
25 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Trade and Industry since the Government’s pre-feasibility study on nuclear technologies in 2012, what are the technological improvements made in this area that now render the technologies potentially fit and safe for deployment, especially given the high population density in Singapore.
26 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the prospects of next-generation technologies being used to tap on geothermal energy and nuclear energy for Singapore’s future energy supply mix; and (b) what are the challenges that need to be overcomed.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 24, 25 and 26 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mr Speaker, the report released by the Energy 2050 Committee last month sets out several possible pathways for Singapore’s power sector to achieve net-zero by or around 2050, as well as the transformational changes needed to achieve this, and the challenges arising from geopolitical trends and technological advancements. One of these pathways contemplates an energy future where we successfully deploy large-scale low-carbon technologies at lower cost for energy generation. These new technologies may include hydrogen, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. Let me explain how we view these sources of energy and specifically focus on geothermal energy and nuclear energy.
First, geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is an attractive energy source as it, potentially, provides a more consistent supply of energy compared to solar, which is intermittent due to Singapore’s weather and cloud cover. Conventional geothermal systems are also not viable here in Singapore due to the lack of adequate hot water and steam resources at shallow depths. However, due to recent advances in geothermal technology, we could possibly harness geothermal heat from deep underground. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) is conducting exploratory studies to estimate the geothermal resource potential in various parts of Singapore. If found feasible, geothermal energy could be a new source of indigenous clean energy in Singapore.
Second, nuclear energy. The Government concluded a pre-feasibility study in 2012. The study found that conventional large reactor technologies were not suitable for deployment in Singapore. However, since then, new designs are in the process of being developed that have the potential to be much safer than many of the plants in operation today. These include Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and \"Generation IV\" nuclear technologies, which incorporate enhanced safety systems that may not be possible for old generation technologies. Some of the SMRs are also designed to cool safely and passively without requiring external systems or operator actions, especially during emergencies.
Besides nuclear fission, which is the current conventional old technology, there have also been significant interest and advances in nuclear fusion development. Unlike fission, nuclear fusion does not cause chain reactions and will not produce long-lived radioactive waste. Hence, nuclear fusion power plants can, at least theoretically, produce clean electricity to meet our energy needs.
However, many of these advanced geothermal and nuclear technologies are still in the research and development phase, and have not begun commercial operations yet. So, we will need to consider any decision to deploy new energy technologies against its safety, reliability, affordability and environmental sustainability in Singapore’s context. These technologies must meet stringent standards of critical infrastructure resilience in line with the international best practices of developed countries which have experience in ensuring the safety of such power plants.
Given the technical complexity of nuclear energy technologies, we will need to continue building our ability to better understand and assess their safety, security and environmental implications before we consider them for deployment in Singapore. The Government, through the Nuclear Safety Research and Education Programme, is supporting research in relevant areas of nuclear policy, science and engineering, as well as efforts to train a pool of scientists and experts in local and overseas universities.
As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore also actively supports international efforts to strengthen the global nuclear safety and security architecture. We work with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other ASEAN member states in the ASEAN Network of Regulatory Bodies on Atomic Energy (ASEANTOM) and this is to help strengthen regional preparedness to respond to a potential nuclear emergency.
Our future energy mix will depend on advancements in low-carbon technologies, as well as through collaborations and trading of low-carbon energy across borders. The Government will carefully study the recommendations in the Committee’s report and calibrate our plans accordingly as technologies evolve. In the meantime, we will continue to enhance energy efficiency across all sectors and encourage consumers to play their part to conserve energy.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. The Fukushima nuclear plant accident in 2011 is still fresh in the memory of many people's mind. And the war in Ukraine has also reminded many of the nuclear plant disaster in Ukraine in 1986. We understand that a nuclear plant is a lot more efficient and it is cleaner. We also know that the Fukushima nuclear plant adhered to many industry standards across the globe but yet they still had the accident.
So, we want to know from the Minister of State what are the areas and assurance they can give to Singaporeans and also our neighbouring countries that, in our quest for nuclear power, we will not have similar incidents like the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.
Secondly, will our quest for nuclear energy also prompt our neighbouring countries to go for similar technology? If so, how could we work with our neighbouring countries to ensure that such a development is safe and also minimises the impact on the environment?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the hon Member for his questions. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine were constructed in the late 1960s and early 1980s respectively. These are older nuclear power plants that are designed to rely heavily on active systems, such as electricity, to power their coolant plants and to also keep the plants safe during an accident. I mentioned earlier on the difference between fusion technology as well as fission technology. The older technology is effectively fission technology.
The Government concluded in the pre-feasibility study in 2012 that conventional nuclear technologies primarily using fission technology, such as those deployed in Fukushima and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants, are not suitable for Singapore.
However, as I mentioned earlier, there are new kinds of nuclear technology, like nuclear fusion technology, that are being developed globally that will have the potential to be much safer than the older designs that the Member had raised earlier. So, we will continue to monitor the progress of these new technologies that are not yet commercially feasible but that are increasingly becoming so, and we will monitor them closely.
With regard to the geopolitical or international community, Singapore is a responsible member of the international community supporting international efforts to strengthen global nuclear safety and security infrastructure. So, we will work closely with IAEA and other ASEAN member states on, what I mentioned earlier, ASEANTOM, to build up our knowledge on nuclear security, safety and also to contribute towards the strengthening of regional preparedness to respond to a nuclear emergency.
As the world continues to transition from fossil fuel-based generation, countries planning to produce nuclear energy must do so with strong safety and security frameworks, and our study will look primarily at that and also look at new technologies in which we can potentially use in our future energy mix.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Sir, it is, indeed, good news that SMR and the new fusion technology can allow us in Singapore to tap on nuclear energy at very low risk and that it is viable. Sir, the EMA report also mentioned that nuclear energy can supply 10% of our total energy by 2050. Can I further ask the Minister of State, if we are, indeed, embarking on or making this significant move to tap on nuclear energy and will have to build the required capabilities and infrastructure, why are we only looking at tapping 10% and not a higher percentage, given the very significant undertaking?
My second question is how soon can we build up these required specialised capabilities, the R&D set-up and the necessary investments, so that we can be among the early adopters?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, the Energy 2050 Committee arrived at 10% based on a certain set of hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. The Government has not yet set any target for the energy mix in Singapore. The choice for determining the optimal energy mix for Singapore should be evaluated against factors that I mentioned earlier, which are affordability, sustainability and energy security.
\t
On why we need to wait until 2050 and whether we can deploy this sooner, as I mentioned earlier, most of the technology is currently in the research and development phase and has not yet been commercially deployed. Besides, even deploying the technology requires a lot of infrastructure around the technology. This requires specialised expertise that will also need to take time to be developed before you can deploy that in earnest. So, you need the necessary regulations and you need human resource support to ensure that when we deploy such infrastructure, that nuclear safety and security are foremost in our consideration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Encouraging Younger Singaporeans to Take Up Trade Jobs such as Licensed Electricians and Plumbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"27 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is looking into new strategies to encourage younger Singaporeans to take up trade jobs, such as licensed electricians and plumbers, amongst others; and (b) whether it is the Ministry’s assessment that a larger Singapore Core can be built up in such jobs in the short to medium term.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, the approach that we take is to prepare our workforce for jobs in demand as our economy transforms. It would not be realistic to aim to grow the Singapore Core in every single occupation. As all Members are aware, our local workforce is finite, with the ageing cohorts larger than the cohorts that are entering the workforce.
Through the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), sector agencies have worked with industry to map out growth plans for 23 sectors across the entire economy. Sector agencies have also put in place strategies to build up the local talent pipeline for in-demand jobs. To complement these ITMs, MOM launched Jobs Transformation Maps (JTMs) in 2021. These provide detailed job-level insights into the impact of technology on the industry as well as the workforce. With these insights, we are then able to provide a wide range of programmes to help mid-career workers to transition into new jobs and at-risk workers to be reskilled and redeployed into new roles.
Overall, our resident workforce has seen good employment outcomes. As our economy expanded, we have seen a shift towards higher value-added activities and the growth of modern services such as in Financial and Insurance Services, and Professional Services.
Correspondingly, the profile of jobs in the economy has also shifted. From 2011 to 2021, the proportion of resident workers in Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technician (PMET) jobs rose from 52.7% to 62.1%. Non-PMET jobs, which would include some of the trade jobs that the Member talked about, declined in share.
Young resident workers have also done well. The employment rate for residents aged 25 to 29 remained high at 85% in 2021. Unemployment rate for them have remained low at 4.7% in 2021. A higher proportion of resident workers aged 25 to 29 are in PMET jobs – 75.5% in 2021, compared to 67% in 2011. The real median income of full-time employed residents have also grown by 1.5% per annum from 2011 to 2021.
The Government will continue to work closely with industry and tripartite partners to create a wide range of job opportunities and prepare our workers for jobs that are in demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Help Police Protect Public and Guide Individuals at risk of Being Drawn into Knife-related Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent sword and knife-related crimes (a) what are the steps and measures taken to protect the public in terms of awareness and emergency preparedness; and (b) whether there can be a blanket ban on the possession of a knife, razor or other sharp object in any school, public or commercial premises.
29 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are legislative measures to help the Police target and guide individuals who are at risk of being drawn into knife-related crimes due to certain mental or other conditions, to set them on a positive path similar to the recent Knife Crime Prevention Orders piloted in the UK.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will address Oral Question Nos 28 and 29, Written Question No 11, as well as the questions filed by Ms Ng Ling Ling1 and Dr Wan Rizal2 for a future Sitting, please.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Desmond Tan: In the past five years, the number of knife-related crimes involving murder, robbery, rioting and serious hurt has remained relatively constant, averaging about 150 cases annually. About 36% of these crimes occurred in residential areas and 3% happened in educational institution premises. The remaining cases occurred in other public and commercial places.
For urgent incidents, including those involving dangerous weapons, the Police are, generally, able to respond within 15 minutes of the call. The officers will use force, where necessary. This includes situations which require them to protect and save lives, including their own lives, prevent the commission of an offence and arrest subjects.
Where a person refuses to comply with the Police's instructions and poses a threat to the lives of those around him, including the Police officers, the officers may use lethal force to neutralise the threat.
In incidents where firearms have been used, the Police Psychological Services Department works with the Police unit's leadership and para-counsellors to provide stress management interventions to support the officers involved.
MHA, currently, regulates six items under the Arms and Explosives Act, or AEA – sword, spear, spearhead, dagger, bayonet and dangerous bows and arrows. This list of regulated weapons will be expanded to include items, such as knuckledusters and flick knives, when the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act replaces the AEA later this year. Regulated items will be subject to greater control, including the regulation of sales on e-commerce platforms.
We need to be calibrated on the regulatory measures to be imposed. Many items with common daily usage, like knives, can also be used as offensive weapons. We need to be practical and not over-regulate such items.
There are legislative measures to deal with persons with a higher propensity of committing crimes, including knife-related crimes, due to certain psychiatric conditions. For instance, a person who suffers from a mental disorder can be detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.
Where a person has already been convicted of an offence, the Court may impose a Mandatory Treatment Order, or MTO, if his or her psychiatric condition contributed to the offence. The MTO would compel the person to undergo psychiatric treatment for up to 36 months in lieu of imprisonment, which would facilitate the rehabilitation and treatment of the individual involved.
For those who are incarcerated, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) provides intervention for inmates who are at risk of violent re-offending. For example, they are taught how to regulate their emotions and acquire skills to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.
MHA, together with our partner agencies, has also been engaging the public through the SGSecure movement, to build vigilance and preparedness against terrorism. Outreach efforts include sharing advisories, such as \"Run-Hide-Tell\" and \"Press-Tie-Tell\", as well as other emergency preparedness programmes such as the First Aid programme and the use of CPR-AED. These skills are also applicable in non-terrorism related emergencies, such as the recent knife incidents, and will help members of the public avoid or reduce harm to oneself or to others.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
\tMs Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Having had to assure quite a lot of residents at Buangkok Crescent for the recent knife-related crime, many residents have asked me what are the criteria for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to locate a Neighbourhood Police Post in areas of high risks where there are concerns and there are actually incidents that have happened like this. What are SPF's criteria for locating a Neighbourhood Police Post so that they feel like there is more Police presence in the area?
The second question I have is, if Neighbourhood Police Posts cannot be located for good reasons, how much can patrol and surveillance be increased to again assure the residents?
\tMr Desmond Tan: Thank you. The location of the Neighbourhood Police Post would be very dependent on the area of allocation in terms of the residential, commercial and other premises that are within the area. So, in fact, actually, members of the public have very easy access to the Police by dialing 999. In addition to that, we have actually deployed in some areas – where we think they may be more secluded – some mobile self-help stations, Police Beacons, where members of the public can activate the Police at the locations, for example, in the Punggol Park Connector area. So, these are experiments and pilots that we are trying out to try to allow members of the public to have easy access and also to give some form of assurance and confidence to our members of the public about the Police's presence around the neighbourhood.
But as the Member has rightly pointed out, the Police cannot be everywhere all the time. So, I think the community effort to get together to assure and to do the right thing during times of incidents like this, as we have witnessed in the Buangkok incident, in fact, how members of the public have come together, exercised their discretion and put the perpetrator in his place, I think, is a very encouraging effort – the community can play a role as well. The Police will continue to increase patrols in areas where there is potential high crime, where we have received more reports from members of the public, to give better assurance to members of the public as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Just one supplementary question. In particular for MTOs, even without an MTO, would SPS be looking into a tailor-made, customised intervention programme within the prison, for any at-risk individuals? Also, for members of the public who have any information of individuals who may be at risk or susceptible to knife-related crimes, how would one go about highlighting that individual to the Police and for treatment?
Mr Desmond Tan: There are two parts to the question. The first part on SPS, I have mentioned briefly in my speech that the prison services today already have existing rehabilitative programmes for those who are at risk of violent re-offending and these include teaching them how to manage their own emotions and how do they deal with the urge to take offensive actions. Also, in terms of counselling and helping them to address their own issues within the prison terms that they are serving.
For other members of the public or people who are looking for help, there are more than just the prison service, the Police or MHA. We are working with other agencies which are dealing with mental health and mental issues to help address the concerns of some members of the public. MSF has been doing that. This question actually goes beyond MHA's as well as SPF's remit. If the Member wants to have further elaborations on it, I would encourage him to file a further question on how to deal with the mental health issues of the members of the public at large.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for the past three years, what is the annual number of cases recorded for voluntarily causing hurt by means of dangerous weapons; (b) how many of these cases are committed in public; and (c) what is the average response time of the Police in arriving at the crime scene after being alerted of such incidents.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent knife-wielding incidents and subsequent use of firearms by Police officers in the line of duty (a) whether counselling and mental health support will be provided to the officers involved; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the protocols in mitigating such incidents."],"footNoteQuestions":["28","29"],"questionNo":"28-29"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption Rate of Outcome-based Contracting for Public Sector Security Service Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current adoption rate of outcome-based contracting (OBC) for public sector security service buyers; (b) whether the Ministry tracks the adoption rate for private sector security service buyers; (c) whether these adoption rates have met the Ministry’s targets; and (d) what is the plan to further increase the adoption rate of OBC in the public and private sectors.
31 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry is promoting the adoption of outcome-based contracting for the procurement of security services by managing agents appointed by annually-elected MCST Councils, given that short contracting periods remain a key impediment to the adoption of technologically-enabled security solutions at private residential estates; and (b) if so, what more can be done to further promote this.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, I would like to take Question Nos 30 and 31 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Tan: Outcome-based contracting (OBC) is a key strategy under the Security Industry Transformation Map. It will enable security agencies to innovate and deliver more productive solutions that integrate manpower, technology and process improvements. OBC offers the potential for buyers to achieve better security outcomes at lower long-term costs, in particular, for manpower.
To catalyse the adoption of OBC, it has been made mandatory for public agencies to adopt OBC for new security services contracts put out for tender from May 2020 onwards. More than half of the public agencies have since adopted OBC. The remaining agencies will come on board over the next few years.
In a survey conducted by MHA in 2020, the OBC adoption rate among private sector buyers at that time was about 6%. At the same time, in the survey, about seven in 10 indicated they had plans to adopt OBC. Hence, we can expect the adoption rate to increase in the coming years.
MHA will continue to work closely with industry partners in the engagement and training of buyers to assist them in their transition to OBC. For instance, the Singapore Police Force's Centre for Protective Security (CPS) has been conducting webinars and focus group discussions to share the benefits of OBC. This includes firms providing managing agent services to Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) councils of private residences. CPS has also recently launched an OBC resource portal, with useful information on grants, courses and contract templates for premises owners. More case studies and examples will, gradually, be included in due course. For private residences, a resource kit featuring curated cases of successful adoption of OBC has been disseminated to all the MCST councils.
\t
In addition, MHA will continue supporting concurrent engagement initiatives by industry associations and the union, where experiences and best practices on OBC are shared. We also commend the various ground-up efforts to better facilitate adoption of OBC, such as the Association of Certified Security Agencies', or ACSAs', Step-by-Step Guide launched last year and the Security Associations Singapore's development of an online outcome-based tender generator and repository.
These are encouraging efforts that we will continue to work with our partners to ensure higher adoption of OBC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Projected Number of Migrant Domestic Workers Given COVID-19 Disruptions and Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Singapore's ageing population (a) whether there is a need to review the projected number of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) for the next 10 years; and (b) what are the lessons learnt in terms of managing the supply of MDWs.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the demand for caregiving support is expected to increase as our population ages. By 2030, about one in five residents will be aged 65 and above. Employing migrant domestic workers (MDWs) is one of the caregiving options in the eldercare landscape, but other options are also being further developed. It is not a straightforward matter to project the number of MDWs as multiple considerations with regard to caregiving are also being deliberated and expanded on.
To meet the varied needs of seniors and their caregivers, the Government has a wide range of eldercare services, such as home personal and nursing care, day care and community rehabilitation services. MND, MOH and HDB are also piloting assisted living in the Community Care Apartments, which integrate senior-friendly design features with services that can be scaled according to needs. These options complement MDW- and family-caregiving. And to better support families with part-time domestic needs, MOM has also recently announced the expansion of the scope of the Household Services Scheme (HSS) to include basic elder-minding services, in addition to domestic cleaning services.
With these caregiving services further developed, families with caregiving needs will have more options and the growth of MDWs in Singapore may be moderated to some extent. Employers can hire MDWs from 13 approved countries today. As MDWs remain important to caregiving needs, MOM will encourage employment agencies as well as the employers to employ MDWs from diverse sources.
The Government will continue to monitor our population trends closely and regularly review our policies and plans to meet the caregiving needs of our population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol for Students who Test COVID-19-positive with Self-administered Antigen Rapid Tests Prior to School Academic Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the approach taken by schools regarding students diagnosed with COVID-19 through home Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs) prior to a school weighted assessment or school examination; and (b) whether there has been a policy to require such ART-positive students to produce a doctor's medical certificate in order to have a valid reason for being absent from the weighted assessment or school examination.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Education): ART-positive students who are well or with mild symptoms are to adhere to MOH's Protocol 2 and self-isolate at home. After 72 hours, such students may exit self-isolation and resume normal activities with an ART-negative result. Otherwise, vaccinated students or students below 12 years old may automatically exit self-isolation after Day 7. Partially-vaccinated or unvaccinated students aged 12 and above may automatically exit self-isolation after Day 14.
Such students would not be required to produce a medical certificate to cover their absence, even if they have a weighted assessment (WA) or school examination. However, schools may request to have sight of the photo evidence of the ART-positive test result.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Sir, I was approached by a Clementi resident who gave feedback that one of her sons' classmates encountered some difficulty with the school that they went to. My resident told me that because a medical certificate (MC) was not submitted, the son's classmate was informed that the WA might not be deemed absent with valid reason, but instead be deemed absent without valid reason.
Can I ask the Minister of State what avenues are available to students or parents who may, for whatever reason, be encountering such difficulties and how best may they take this up?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Please surface the contact details of your resident's son's classmate to us so that we can check on what has happened. But like I have mentioned, since the streamlined MOH protocol was announced, students' absence is treated as valid without being required to produce an MC. I would also like to say that, I guess a concern might be around the fact that the student might have a WA. So, should a WA be a factor, then when students miss this WA, the practice is actually for them to complete the task as practice papers, because we do not wish for the school-based examinations to be high stakes and to contribute to too much stress.
And students who miss a WA or the school examination for valid reasons, such as being ill because of COVID-19, they would have their results rebased, taking into consideration other WAs or other components of the school examination.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Minister of State for her follow-up reply and my resident's feedback is being submitted to MOE and I can verify this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deadline for Designated Smoking Corners to be Removed from Hawker Centres and Food Establishments ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Poh Li San –
34 To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there is a deadline for all designated smoking corners to be removed from hawker centres and other food establishments; and (b) if not, whether there are plans to enclose these areas and retrofit them with special air filters.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Question No 34, please.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Since 2015, all newly built and redeveloped hawker centres have been smoke-free. As for existing hawker centres, NEA has been engaging local stakeholders, such as the Hawkers' Associations and Town Councils, on the progressive removal of smoking corners when opportune, such as during repair and redecoration works.
NEA has also stopped accepting applications for smoking corners in food retail establishments since June 2017. Existing smoking corners in food retail establishments are allowed to remain until the current licence of the food retail establishment is terminated or cancelled. There are, currently, 21 hawker centres and about 560 food retail establishments with smoking corners, a decrease from the more than 950 smoking corners in June 2017. We expect the number of smoking corners to further reduce over time.
There are, currently, no plans to require designated smoking corners to be enclosed or to be retrofitted with special air filters. We will continue to review the smoking prohibition regulations from time to time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Shutdown of Anti-SMS Spoofing Registry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) why was the anti-SMS spoofing registry shut just about over a month after Government agencies announced their intent to join the registry; (b) whether adequate time was given for the agencies to assess the new decision; (c) what are the ways by which the full-fledged Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry will be superior; (d) how will it put us in line with international practices; and (e) what is the timeline for banks, Government agencies and interested organisations to be fully onboarded.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and its subsidiary, the Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC), have set up a full-fledged Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) which commenced operations on 4 March 2022. It replaced the SMS SenderID Registry pilot, which was started by IMDA and MAS in August 2021 and that pilot was done in collaboration with the UK Mobile Ecosystem Forum (MEF).
Under the previous MEF model, spoofed SMSes that use a registered Sender ID will still be received by consumers until the Sender ID owner confirms that the spoofed SMSes are not legitimate and should be blocked. The new SSIR takes a more proactive approach. It can block spoofed SMSes upfront and provide a greater control over anti-spoof measures that better protect Singaporeans. The pilot with MEF provided useful insights which have helped IMDA to set up SSIR quickly. In addition, SSIR will offer a more affordable pricing model to enable more widespread participation, especially for SMEs that are interested to sign up for the service.
Internationally, Singapore is one of the first few countries to have implemented a national SMS Sender ID Registry to better prevent spoofed SMSes. As of 30 March 2022, 25 organisations, including banks and Government agencies, have joined SSIR. Organisations, such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS), Mobile Network Operators and SMS service providers, are in full support of SSIR, which continues to onboard new organisations interested in protecting their SMS Sender IDs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Will SSIR be made mandatory for banks and Government agencies? What agencies will be exempted and what penalties will be meted out if the required agencies do not join the registry?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, SSIR was set up to protect organisations that wish to register their SMS Sender IDs to prevent spoofing. With the pricing model, we hope that it is affordable, especially for SMEs. Specifically, organisations would pay a one-time set-up fee of $500 and $1,000 for every 10 Sender IDs. This makes it more affordable for smaller companies and organisations, such as SMEs, which would have fewer Sender IDs to register.
Having said that, so far, as of 30 March, there are more than 1,000 protected SMS Sender IDs in the registry already. So, IMDA will monitor the landscape to study if the registration of SMS Sender IDs should be mandatory or if there should be another framework in place.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Reports of Elder Abuse and Neglect during COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"36 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of reports of elder abuse and neglect over the COVID-19 pandemic period; and (b) what are the additional measures and resources that the Ministry has put in place to safeguard the safety and wellness of such vulnerable seniors.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): There has been an increase in the number of cases with elder abuse as the primary presenting issue in Family Service Centres (FSCs), from 232 cases in 2019, to 283 cases in 2020 and 338 cases in 2021. Abuse, neglect or self-neglect cases that are higher risk in nature are typically taken up by MSF's Adult Protective Service, or APS, or by community-based Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) and PAVE Integrated Services for Individual and Family Protection Specialist Centre (ISIFPSC). The number of such cases taken on by these organisations did not increase.
Cases involving vulnerable adults aged 65 and above investigated by APS during the COVID-19 period also did not increase. There were 127 cases in 2019, 96 cases in 2020 and 120 cases in 2021. New cases taken up by FVSCs and PAVE involving elder or vulnerable adult abuse decreased during this period. There were 85 cases in 2019, 71 cases in 2020 and 39 cases in the first nine months of 2021.
MSF stepped up efforts to raise greater awareness of elder abuse and neglect, including through the public education efforts held in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on 15 June each year. These efforts were targeted at the elderly, their caregivers and those within their networks, such as neighbours, volunteers, grassroots leaders and community organisations, with the objective of increasing understanding and empathy for elder abuse survivors and encouraging early reporting and help-seeking behaviours. These public education efforts, which were part of MSF's \"Break the Silence\" campaign, sought to educate members of the public on what they should do if they encounter instances of family violence in general.
In addition, there was reduced visibility of these elders in the community during the pandemic, particularly during the 2020 circuit breaker period. During this time, APS and its partners increased the frequency of check-ins on the more vulnerable clients through a combination of telephone and video calls, and home visits for cases assessed to be more urgent or high-risk in nature. APS and its partners continue to do such house visits and checks on the elders through video calls, sometimes with the help of neighbours, to ensure that they remain safe and well.
\tMSF will continue to work closely with sector partners, hospitals, the Police and the Courts to detect cases of elder abuse, neglect and self-neglect to ensure elderly persons experiencing abuse and neglect receive timely help and support. Addressing family violence, including elder abuse, is a matter of public interest. Family violence should not be tolerated. MSF takes all abuse and neglect seriously and everyone has a role in keeping our seniors safe. We encourage members of the public to call the 24-hour National Anti-Violence Helpline at 1800-777-0000 if they know or suspect that an elderly person is being abused.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister of State. I would like to ask, besides public education of our local community networks, would there also be other ways in which we will be engaging with local community networks or volunteers in terms of educating them so that they may also become a very active part of the wider safety nets that are provided and given to our seniors at risk?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. The awareness is important because we need to train community partners and volunteers to be able to identify the symptoms and signs where family abuse has occurred.
Another thing that can be done is to work on befriending the elderly. I understand that there are many community partners who are in the community who actively engage the elderly through a variety of activities, be they exercise or going for excursions, and all these are potential check-ins on the elderly to make sure that not only is their physical health healthy, their psychological and emotional health is healthy as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applicants for SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"37 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the total number of applicants for the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme in 2020 and 2021; (b) among these, how many (i) have been successful in their application and (ii) found a permanent job after taking part in the programme; and (c) what is their median and average training allowance.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Speaker, company attachments under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme (SGUP) were introduced in July 2020 amidst a weak labour market to provide mid-career jobseekers with opportunities to acquire work experiences, skills and networks while preparing for more permanent jobs in the future. From the launch of the programme till January this year, over 7,200 mid-career local jobseekers have been placed into attachments.
Trainees typically receive a monthly training allowance of between $1,600 and $3,800. This is determined by the host organisation. The Government funds up to 90% of the training allowance. The average and median training allowances of SGUP participants are both around $2,600.
WSG also monitors the number of trainees who found a job within six months after completing or otherwise exiting the programme. As of November 2021, over 3,400 trainees have completed or exited their attachments. Amongst this group, about 2,600, or about 77%, were employed. This is an encouraging sign that the attachments have equipped the trainees with useful skills, experience and industry contacts. For trainees who have not yet secured employment, WSG has proactively reached out to provide them with job search resources and information on job opportunities and upcoming job fairs. Trainees can also take up WSG’s career matching services, which include career coaching, employability workshops and networking sessions to aid their job search.
The Member also asked about the number of applicants. As of January 2022, over 20,800 locals have applied for SGUP positions. SGUP applicants do not just make one application. Instead, they usually make multiple job and attachment applications and they choose the best offer that they can receive. The labour market started showing signs of recovery towards the end of 2020, with the resident unemployment rate improving steadily since the third quarter of 2020 and resident employment rising in 2020 and even more quickly in 2021. It is, therefore, not surprising that the majority of SGUP openings were not filled. This is a positive sign.
SGUP remains a useful programme for employers and jobseekers who may face greater challenges in making a career switch. As announced recently at Budget and MOM’s Committee of Supply, we will retain SGUP as one of our permanent employment facilitation programmes, but they are only available for mature trainees. This will provide more options for mature jobseekers looking to make a career switch.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. Can I just understand correctly? Is the Minister saying that there were 20,000 applications for this SGUP programme but only 7,200 applicants were successful, of which, 3,400 completed the programme? If that is so, of the 20,000 applications, how many are the unique applicants? That means, we want to know what is the success rate of them getting a position under SGUP.
The Minister was saying that only 3,400 have completed the programme. So, it appears that the drop-out rate is quite high. Can the Minister enlighten us why that is so?
\tDr Tan See Leng: Thank you. So, there are three points to consider.
First, at the 20,800-applicant stage, these applicants do not just make one application to SGUP. They make multiple applications. So, when we are able to help them, that number comes down to about 7,200. Out of the 7,200, close to 1,800 have exited the programme. I think they have either moved on, found jobs or decided that they wanted to do something different and not continue with the programme itself.
Out of the 5,000-plus that are left, the 2,600 or 77% that we have successfully placed into jobs that are permanent, the balance 800-plus we are still helping them in terms of working with them closely – as I have alluded to, an entire range of options of matching them with jobs, working with career counselling coaches, networking sessions and job fairs. The balance 2,000 out of that 5,000 that exited, the 2,000 are still in the programme itself and they have not completed the programme. So, I hope that provides the clarity. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Manpower\", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 60, Corrections by Written Statements section.]
In an improving job situation, as we have seen in the last few quarters since the third quarter of 2020, we have, indeed, seen an uptick in terms of vacancies looking for job applicants to fill these vacancies. So, I suspect that that is what has led to the numbers dropping off.
For the mid-career mature trainees, it is still a very important programme for us to continue and we think that the length of time that is taken to help them pivot, transform, upskill is something that is very useful and would take time for them to be comfortable in terms of taking on new roles and new jobs. It is not something that we can rush them into.
So, I hope that the Member understands. It is taken against a larger context of the numbers that we are dealing with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Higher Electricity and Ingredient Prices on Earnings of Hawkers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"38 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what data has the Ministry obtained regarding the quantitative impact on earnings faced by hawkers due to inflation in electricity and ingredient prices and restrictions on dining-in; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider additional support measures to cushion the impact on (i) hawkers and (ii) low-income groups who rely on affordable hawker food.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Some hawkers have shared that they have been affected by the rising prices of electricity and key ingredients, such as cooking oil and eggs, caused by the disruption of global supply chains and food production and the Ukraine war. Hawkers were also affected by the restrictions on dining-in due to COVID-19. However, the footfall of hawker centres has been improving following the easing of safe management measures and is expected to further improve with more employees returning to their workplaces and the opening up of Singapore to travel from overseas visitors under the Vaccinated Travel Framework.
We do not keep track of hawkers’ earnings as they are self-employed persons. Nevertheless, we are constantly monitoring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global situation on hawkers and have been providing various forms of support. To mitigate the impact of COVID-19, the Government provided hawkers with 10 months of rental waiver and six months of subsidies for table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing services in 2020 and 2021, as well as a one-off cash payout of $500 under the Market and Hawker Centre Relief Fund in 2021.
As announced at Budget 2022, the Government will be providing further support under the Small Business Recovery Grant this year. SFA-licensed operators and stallholders in hawker centres, markets, coffee shops, food courts and canteens will receive $1,000 for each local employee receiving mandatory CPF contributions, capped at $10,000. Those without local employees will receive a flat payout of $1,000. Eligible hawkers will be notified by IRAS from June 2022 onwards. This will provide some support to our hawkers during this period of inflationary pressure. Hawkers who continue to face financial difficulties can approach NEA or MSF for assistance.
The Government recognises the impact of rising costs on low-income families. Families who need support for their basic living expenses can approach MSF’s Social Service Offices (SSOs). The SSOs will continue to exercise flexibility when providing ComCare assistance to help households cope with their daily living expenses, such as food costs. The five Community Development Councils (CDCs) will also be launching the CDC Vouchers Scheme again. This is one of the schemes announced at Budget 2022 to support Singaporean families in managing their daily expenses under the 2022 Household Support Package. Each Singaporean household will receive $100 worth of CDC vouchers this year.
The Government will continue to monitor and review the impact of inflationary pressures on businesses’ operating costs and citizens’ cost of living. The Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry will also be delivering a Joint Ministerial Statement on inflation and business costs at this Parliament Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera. Make it short.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her responses. Just a few supplementary questions. The hawkers who operate in privately-run hawker centres usually cannot get the benefit of rental waivers and other levers of control the Government has. Would the Government look more on the problems they face from rising food costs and see how that can be addressed?
Secondly, would the Government consider the suggestion I made in my Adjournment Motion as one form of benefit to lower-income families – to create a food voucher so that they can use at hawker centres as a way of delivering targeted assistance that also benefits the hawkers and does not require them to keep food prices down?
Lastly, given the spike in food prices because of geopolitical events and so on, and these will take some time to stabilise, will the Government consider a freezing of upward revisions to the rentals, at least for a certain period of time until the situation stabilises?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to the last question about rental revision, let me share that we had frozen rental revision for a period when we had the dining restrictions. Actually, when the leases come up for review, the majority – in fact, for the upcoming review from April to June – 96% of the hawker stalls that are up for rental review are either going to experience no rental revision or, actually, a rental reduction. In fact, 58% of those are rental reduction and only about 6% or so, or 14 stalls, would have a rental revision upwards, but that is moderated. So, any rental revision upwards is moderated, capped at about $300, whereas a rental reduction is between $20 and $2,400-odd. [Please refer to “Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment”, Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 60, Corrections by Written Statements section.]
So, in fact, with rental revisions, actually, many of the hawkers are assisted because they are revised to assess market rent which takes into account current market conditions.
With regard to the private sector stallholders, in fact, the Small Business Recovery Grant would also apply to them if they have employees under CPF contributions, for instance. And, in fact, if they are in HDB rental units and so on, there were previously also help given in terms of rental revisions or waivers.
What was the Member's second question? I am sorry.
\tMr Leon Perera: Food vouchers for the lower income to spend at hawker centres.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The CDC Voucher can be used at participating hawker stalls and coffee shops, and so on. Indeed, that is one. Many of us, in our own constituencies, provide our own food vouchers or grocery vouchers.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, you have a clarification?
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health","subTitle":"Seeking clarification on speech by Member","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to seek a clarification from Member Ms He Ting Ru.
She made a speech in this House during the debate on the Budget Statement on 28 February 2022. Unfortunately, she left shortly after her speech and was unable to return to the Chamber for the rest of the Committee of Supply (COS), as I understand she was down with COVID-19. But in her speech, she made this statement and I quote, \"After all, what does it say about us as a society that our senior residents come to us and tell us as a matter of course that they have requested for their medication dosages to be cut down because they cannot afford to pay for the full dosages that doctors have prescribed to them to treat their medical aliments\".
Further down, in the next paragraph of her speech, she also said, and I quote, \"These are real-life scenarios that all of us have seen our residents tackle\".
Sir, I made my speech in last year's COS in this House, announcing that we have revised the annual MediSave limits from $500 to $700 for patients with complex, chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme. So, I would like to seek a clarification from the hon Member. As a Member of Parliament (MP) whom the residents have approached for help, may I seek clarifications from Ms He Ting Ru, what is the outcome of these residents whom she has encountered and provided assistance to?
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Speaker, Point of Order.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I do not think there is anything wrong with seeking a clarification by Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon. The question is, is the Member apprised that this clarification is coming up so that she can prepare for her response? Because if it comes up just like that, I am not sure if she is still holding on to her Budget speech.
Mr Speaker: If she does not have the response now, she can respond later.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you for bringing this point up. These are some of the issues that I have encountered during my Meet-the-People sessions. Unfortunately, because I want to make sure that I get the correct information and details out to the Senior Minister of State, I will respond to him at a subsequent point, after going back and checking.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Sir. I would appreciate the Member coming back to us with details subsequently. I will be happy to also work on the MOH side and see if there are other areas in which these residents may need help through some of the resources that MOH may have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inflation and Business Costs","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry last updated the House on the economic impact of the conflict in Ukraine during the Budget Debate at the end of February. Today, I will give an update on the macroeconomic situation and explain the Government's approach on inflation, fuel duties, and support for households.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry will then speak on energy costs, supply chains and support for businesses, as well as the Committee Against Profiteering. Together, our Ministerial Statements will answer Question Nos 1 to 15 and also Question Nos 14 to 16 and 29 to 30 for Written Answer in today's Order Paper.
Several Members, namely, Mr Christopher de Souza, Dr Wan Rizal1, Mr Liang Eng Hwa2, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Darryl David3 and Mr Alex Yam4 have filed Questions for Oral and Written Answers scheduled for future Sittings on these issues. As today's Ministerial Statements will address these questions, I would invite these Members to seek clarifications on these issues after the Ministerial Statements, if need be. If their questions are sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the Questions for future Sittings.
Sir, the increase in prices we have been experiencing over the last few months is not unique to Singapore. It is happening worldwide. In fact, global prices were already rising last year, and there are a few reasons for this.
Major economies like the US and the Eurozone have pursued expansionary macroeconomic policies and these were to stimulate their economies since the pandemic hit. This contributed to a surge in demand, including for energy, especially after these economies began to ease up on their COVID-19 restrictions.
But supply was unable to catch up with demand. In particular, there were more unexpected gas production outages during this period. The supply constraints were exacerbated by the under-investment in fossil fuel production over the past few years, due in part to the global push for greener sources of power. But these renewable sources of power have not been able to scale up quickly enough.
There have also been continued supply chain pressures due to COVID-19, such as port congestion and freight capacity constraints. These pressures have impacted all industries, some more than others. Furthermore, several major advanced economies face labour tightness, which have driven up labour costs and these have, in turn, passed through to inflation.
All of these factors led to a rise in inflation in the major economies last year. At the start of 2022, there were some initial hopes that global inflationary pressures would ease over the course of the year as the supply situation improved. But with the war in Ukraine, it is now likely that global inflation will be higher for longer. There are several reasons for this.
Global energy supplies will remain tight, given that Russia is one of the world's largest oil and gas exporters. For now, Russian gas is still flowing into Europe. But this may not continue for long. Countries, such as Germany and Austria, which are highly reliant on Russian gas, are already putting in place their first phase of rationing of gas, in anticipation of a disruption of supplies from Russia. The US is releasing a record amount of oil from its emergency reserves and exporting LNG to Europe. But this may not be sufficient to make up for the potential supply loss from Russia. Furthermore, it will take time for any new infrastructure to be built and additional oil and gas production to be brought to market. We must, therefore, expect oil and gas prices to remain high for some time.
The tightness in the energy market will also have downstream impact on other related sectors. For example, many refineries in Germany rely exclusively on piped gas from Russia for their operations. If the Russian gas supply is disrupted, these refineries will have to shut their operations and there will be adverse impact on the downstream production of chemical products, from plastics and fertilisers to fibres and solvents.
Several Members asked about food prices. The war has impacted global food supplies, resulting in higher food prices. Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of agricultural products, such as wheat, corn and barley, as well as fertilisers. In fact, Ukraine is sometimes called the \"bread basket of Europe\". With the war, food exports from these countries will be significantly impacted. Fertiliser shortages will also reduce crop yields elsewhere, resulting in a smaller harvest in the coming year. As a result, prices of a range of agricultural commodities, not just wheat and corn, are now at cyclical highs, pointing to potentially tight stocks this year.
Besides the two key areas of energy and food, production is affected in other areas too. For example, Russia is a significant exporter of important industrial metals like palladium, used in catalytic converters for cars, and nickel, used in steel and batteries. About half the world's neon, which is used in the chip production process, is produced in Ukraine.
In short, the war has contributed to a further spike in inflation experienced around the world. Inflation in Germany and America has already risen to nearly 8%, the highest in 40 years. No one can tell how the war in Ukraine will unfold. We all hope that attempts to de-escalate are successful, and a diplomatic solution can be found at the negotiating table. But we must be prepared for a prolonged conflict, or even further escalation, which will cause further supply disruptions and additional inflationary pressures.
Besides the war, there are other factors contributing to rising prices. The global economy is continuing to grapple with supply chain issues due to COVID-19. The recent lockdowns in Chinese cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai have worsened strains in shipping and supply chains. If there are continued periodic lockdowns in China or other major economies in the coming months, for example, to prevent the spread of a new and more dangerous variant, then we can expect further supply disruptions.
Furthermore, both the pandemic-related disruptions and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have prompted companies to take supply chain risks more seriously. There is renewed momentum to re-shore production, either back to the home countries of multinational corporations, or to more locations across different markets, so as to avoid single points of failure. In other words, the highly efficient, just-in-time global supply chain network is being reconfigured to account for once-unimaginable tail risks. This can help make supply chains more resilient but will add to production and transport costs.
In the longer term, global warming and increased adverse weather events could affect agricultural productivity and reduce food production, putting upward pressure on prices. Over time, the global economy will also have to internalise the cost of carbon in our overall consumption, as part of the green transition.
So, amidst this backdrop, the central banks of several major economies have shifted their position to take a stronger stance against inflation. The US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have raised interest rates to tackle inflation, with the European Central Bank expected to follow suit.
But central banks in these major economies also face a very difficult dilemma. If they were to raise interest rates too sharply to tackle inflation, they will slow down economic activity or even trigger a recession. On the other hand, if they do not raise interest rates sufficiently, they will find it hard to anchor longer-term inflation expectations. They will then risk prices drifting persistently higher and becoming harder to control over time.
This is why some economists have drawn analogies between the current situation and what happened in the 1970s. At that time, there was also excess demand, as the US had pursued expansionary policies to push for economic and employment growth. When the oil crisis hit in 1973, the effect was immediate and dire. Oil prices shot up and inflation rose sharply. It took the US Federal Reserve many years to bring inflation under control and this was eventually achieved only at great cost to the economy.
History does not repeat itself but, as the saying goes, it often rhymes. No doubt, the global economy today is very different from what it was in the 1970s and central banks and market institutions have also evolved greatly in sophistication since then. But the downside risks of higher inflation and slower growth for the global economy have increased significantly. If these downside risks were to materialise, they will have a major impact on Singapore as a small and open economy.
We had earlier anticipated some of these risks and had taken prompt actions through both monetary and fiscal policies. In particular, MAS had pre-emptively raised the rate of appreciation of its exchange rate policy band in October last year and also in an off-cycle move in January this year, to help dampen inflationary pressures. Monetary policy will continue to do its part to ensure medium-term price stability. MAS is watching closely the impact of geopolitical and pandemic-related shocks on the Singapore economy and inflation and will be putting out its monetary policy statement, as scheduled, later this month. Where fiscal policy is concerned, we had taken into account the risks in the global economy and rolled out an expansionary Budget this year. We had also implemented very comprehensive and substantial support packages to help households and businesses cope with higher prices.
Several Members asked whether the Government will consider enhancing the support measures announced in the Budget. The measures in the Budget have just been announced and will be implemented soon. We will need time to allow these measures to take effect and feed through the economy before we monitor their impact, assess the overall situation and then consider what additional steps we might want to take.
Nevertheless, I understand the concerns that many households and businesses have about the current situation and have decided to take the following immediate actions.
First, where possible, I will bring forward the implementation of our Budget measures. In particular, the $100 CDC Vouchers for every Singaporean household will be disbursed by the middle of next month. This is on top of the $100 disbursed four months ago in December last year and will help Singaporeans with their daily expenses.
The Budget also included rebates for Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and utility bills. We will disburse the first tranche of S&CC rebates and U-Save rebates to eligible households this month. This will address a key cost of living component which several Members have asked about. To illustrate, households living in 4-room HDB flats will receive $150 in U-Save rebates this month, and that is equivalent to about a full month's worth of their utility bills, on average. That is the first tranche of the rebates. But the rest of the U-Save and S&CC rebates will be disbursed in the coming quarters – in July and October this year, and in January next year. So, for the whole of Financial Year (FY) 2022, households living in 4-room flats, to give an illustration, will receive about four months of rebates on their utility bills, and that is even accounting for the higher electricity prices, and two-and-a-half months of rebates on their S&CC.
We also have other forms of help for households, including top-ups to the Child Development Account, Edusave Account, or Post-Secondary Education Account of every Singaporean child, as well as the GST Voucher in terms of cash and MediSave top-ups. We will continue to ensure that these are disbursed to Singaporeans in a timely manner. And, Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to distribute a handout, which will provide a schedule of the various support measures that households can expect in FY2022.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A copy of the handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Lawrence Wong: For businesses, I will bring forward the disbursement of the Small Business Recovery Grant. This provides up to $10,000 for SMEs most affected by COVID-19 restrictions over the past year. Most eligible businesses will be able to receive the grant by June. The recent easing up of safe management measures (SMMs) should also provide some additional revenue support for local businesses, especially in the retail and F&B sectors.
Second, we will provide more help for lower-income households, which will be more impacted during this period of higher prices.
In particular, the Social Service Offices, or SSOs, will provide a minimum duration of six months' support for all new ComCare Short- to Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) clients who apply between April and September this year; so, a minimum duration of six months' support for ComCare SMTA. Households which are already on ComCare SMTA can also have their assistance extended for at least another three months if they require further assistance. SSOs will continue to exercise flexibility to provide those in need with financial assistance and support. This includes providing ComCare recipients with more cash assistance during this period to cope with inflationary pressures.
The COVID-19 Recovery Grant is also in place until the end of this year and this will help lower- to middle-income households experiencing job losses or sustained income losses.
And families who need help can also approach their Community Centres, or CCs, and the Self-Help Groups. As announced at Budget 2022, I will top up the CCC ComCare Fund by $5 million over five years and provide a total of $12 million over four years to our Self-Help Groups. These schemes complement our national schemes, bringing more help closer to residents.
Third, we will do more to help the lower-income groups with their public transport fares. We had earlier disbursed Public Transport Vouchers, or PTVs, to every household that received a PTV in the last exercise and that includes over 30,000 ComCare beneficiaries. We will do another round of disbursements this month for these ComCare recipients. So, they will receive $60 of PTVs, which will roughly cover the additional fares paid by a family of four this year arising from the fare increase last December.
Besides these ComCare recipients, PTVs are also available to all households whose monthly income per member does not exceed $1,600. Applications for PTVs are open from now to 31 October this year. Eligible households which had already received the first voucher and who need a second voucher can also apply again.
Lower-income persons with disabilities who require point-to-point services to commute can also apply for the Taxi Subsidy Scheme, which covers up to 80% of the taxi fares that they pay going to school, work or training. This cushions them from the impact of recent fare surcharges introduced by taxi and ride-hailing app operators.
Next, let me respond to the queries raised by several Members on fuel duties and road tax rebates. We collect fuel duties and road taxes for revenue and also to price the negative externalities of vehicle transport, such as the impact on public health and the environment.
Fuel duties collected averaged $920 million a year over the last five years. The revenue from these duties and taxes adds to the pool of resources available for various programmes and subsidies that directly benefit Singaporeans. These include spending on public transport, for which we provide significant capital investments, as well as operating subsidies to ensure an affordable and world-class public transport system.
Given the recent increase in pump prices, I can understand why some Members have asked to reduce or suspend fuel duties, or to provide road tax rebates. But doing so effectively amounts to a subsidy on private transport and will have counter-productive effects. Let me explain.
Fewer than four in 10 households in Singapore own cars and, amongst the lowest quintile, only about one in 10 do. Four in 10 is the overall but, if you look at the lowest quintile, the bottom 20% of households by income, only one in 10 owns cars. Such subsidies on private transport would, therefore, benefit a relatively small but generally better-off group.
Cutting fuel duties also means that some of the subsidies will flow back, in part, to producers and suppliers themselves, not just to consumers, as the pump price may not fall as much as the reduction in duty.
More importantly, such subsidies will reduce the incentive to switch to more energy-efficient modes of transport, which is a critical element in our plans for sustainable living.
I recognise that there are several groups like taxi and private hire car drivers and delivery riders, who are affected by the increases in petrol and diesel prices. Various taxi and private hire car operators have implemented temporary increases in fares to help cushion the higher fuel prices for drivers and to have consumers share the burden. They also have tie-ups with petrol companies to offer fuel at discounted prices to help drivers and riders manage higher fuel costs. And as I mentioned earlier, those whose incomes are impacted and are in need of financial assistance can approach the SSOs, CCs or self-help groups for more help.
Overall, the better way to help Singaporeans cope with the rise in petrol prices, as with inflation in general, is to provide them with the support measures that we have catered for in the Budget. Through these measures, we are extending concrete tangible help directly to Singaporeans to cope with their different areas of needs, including their utility bills, children's education and daily essentials, and we are providing more targeted help for the lower-income groups.
Sir, I have outlined some specific actions we will be taking to help Singaporeans cope with higher prices. We will continue to monitor the external situation and the risks for our economy closely – risks, both in terms of growth and inflation. And where inflation is concerned, we are monitoring this closely, not just the headline figure but also the impact of inflation on different income groups and even the issue of shrinkflation, which Ms He Ting Ru asked about. As the Government has assured this House previously, if the situation worsens, we will not hesitate to take further actions to protect jobs and to help households and businesses deal with the increased costs.
Sir, we are now dealing with a war-induced increase in prices, especially in electricity and fuel. But even without the war, we would, eventually, have to adjust to a secular increase in energy prices, as we seek to decarbonise our economy. Likewise, on the manpower front, we will continue to face a tight labour market, given our rapidly-ageing population.
In short, labour and carbon are permanent – not temporary – constraints for our economy. Therefore, we cannot offset these costs perpetually. Instead, a better approach, a more viable approach is to redouble our economic restructuring and transformation efforts, to become more innovative, productive and energy-efficient. These efforts will help our economy become more resilient to external shocks. And this is also how we sustain continued income growth for Singaporeans, with earnings rising faster than inflation, so that we can retain and grow our purchasing power and achieve higher standards of living.
Sometimes, it does take a crisis to jolt all of us into action because, for many years, to illustrate, the Government had highlighted the importance of digitalisation. But take-up rates for digitalisation schemes were uneven. Then, when COVID-19 struck, businesses had to adjust quickly and, within two years, we managed to achieve much more in our digitalisation efforts than all the combined efforts over the past decade.
In the same way, I hope that the current increase in business costs and energy prices will motivate firms to change their mindsets, processes and practices. The Government has put in place many schemes in this Budget and in previous Budgets, to help companies improve their productivity and energy efficiency. And Minister Tan See Leng will elaborate further on them later. I urge businesses to make full use of this support and to accelerate their restructuring and transformation efforts. Doing so will strengthen their abilities to withstand shocks and position them well for the future.
Mr Speaker, this is not the first time we have had to deal with such challenging external economic conditions. During the oil crises of the 1970s, Singapore's inflation rate peaked as high as 30% year-on-year in the first half of 1974 and around 10% in the second quarter of 1980. These events underscored our vulnerabilities to inflation, as a price-taking small and open economy. And, in response, in the early 1980s, we developed a unique exchange rate-centred monetary policy that helped tame imported inflation.
The Labour Movement played a vital role in stabilising prices with the establishment of NTUC Welcome, which evolved to become the NTUC FairPrice of today. By buying essentials like rice in bulk and passing on the savings to consumers, NTUC not only tackled profiteering among wholesalers, but also helped workers and Singaporeans beat inflation. NTUC FairPrice continues to help mitigate cost of living pressures through various initiatives and discount schemes.
In the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis, we acted quickly to save jobs amidst a global recession, implementing the Jobs Credit Scheme, the precursor to our more recent Jobs Support Scheme. As a result of this and other interventions, our economy rebounded swiftly in 2010.
Of course, all of these crises paled in comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic and also our worst recession, since Independence, in 2020. Our swift and decisive action to protect lives and livelihoods enabled resident employment and incomes to quickly recover to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021 while keeping COVID-19 deaths low.
Now, before we have had the chance to see through the pandemic, we are faced with yet another economic challenge. After many years of relative price stability, the recent surge of inflation has, understandably, come as a shock to many. But when viewed against the global context and our own experience, I hope we can better understand the causes of higher prices and what we can do to manage this together.
We must not let this become a blame game of Government versus people, of sellers versus buyers, of hawkers versus consumers. Or worse, think that if Singapore were to lie low and remain silent on the war in Ukraine, we could somehow all enjoy lower pump prices today.
What we are experiencing today in Singapore is the result of external forces that impact the entire global economy. We cannot do very much to change this. But what we can do is to continue to keep faith with one another, as we have done over the last two years – look out for one another, help those in need and never waver from the conviction that we will always have one another's backs.
Mr Speaker, let me end by assuring all Singaporeans once again: help from Budget 2022 is coming. If the situation worsens and more support is needed, the Government stands ready to do so. There are dark clouds over the horizon. But we will get through this together, as we have always done, as one united people. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarifications on both Statements after this. Minister Tan.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, thank you. Minister Lawrence Wong has given Members an overview of the macroeconomic environment, the outlook for inflation and the support for households.
Even as we work to manage the immediate cost pressures that businesses and households are facing, it is equally important that we strengthen our economic resilience and prepare ourselves for a possibly protracted uncertain operating environment.
Let me elaborate on the external developments that have led to higher energy costs and supply chain disruptions, as well as our immediate and medium-term strategies to enhance the security of our key supplies and strengthen our resilience against external price fluctuations. I will also address Members' questions on support for businesses and on profiteering.
Domestically, around 95% of our electricity is generated from imported natural gas. Our electricity generation companies (gencos), generally, rely on long-term Piped Natural Gas (PNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) contracts to meet their needs. They use spot LNG, on an opportunistic basis, to supplement their long-term contracts. By and large, this has allowed us to keep electricity prices relatively stable and mitigate the impact of global price shocks. However, we cannot fully insulate ourselves from the volatilities in the global energy market.
Since September last year, a confluence of factors has caused the prices of oil and natural gas to spike, and this has spilled over into our domestic energy market.
Increased oil and gas consumption as major economies around the world emerged from the pandemic, seasonally-high energy consumption during the winter months in the northern hemisphere and a series of unexpected gas production outages led to a supply-demand mismatch in global energy markets.
Closer to home, upstream production issues in Indonesia's West Natuna gas field and gas pressure issues from South Sumatra in the fourth quarter of 2021 caused disruptions to our PNG supplies. As a result, some gencos had to purchase more spot LNG at elevated global gas prices to make up for the drop in PNG supplies.
Although some of the demand pressures have abated as winter in the northern hemisphere comes to an end and upstream gas production issues in Indonesian gas fields have been resolved, the gas supply situation continues to remain tight and this is exacerbated and made protracted by the conflict in Ukraine.
As I have shared with the House previously, MTI and EMA have put in place measures to secure our electricity supply and maintain the orderly functioning of the wider energy sector.
Since October last year, we have established a Standby LNG Facility (SLF), which gencos can draw from to generate electricity in the event of disruptions to their natural gas supplies. We also put in place requirements for gencos to contract sufficient fuel to meet their commitment to customers' demands and needs.
These measures bolster our gencos' existing stockpile and they provide additional layers of fuel security to cope with the short-term shocks to global gas supply. However, they are costly and will need to be carefully calibrated to manage the cost impact on consumers.
Third, to maintain power system stability and reliability, we modified market rules to allow EMA to direct gencos to generate electricity using gas from the SLF, if there are potential temporary shortages in energy supply.
These measures have ensured that we have sufficient fuel and electricity supply and stabilised the Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP). The average USEP for the first quarter of this year has stabilised to around $360 per megawatt hour (MWh), around the cost of electricity production. This is compared to an average of $460 per MWh in the fourth quarter of last year.
Since January 2022, EMA has also been working with electricity retailers and gencos to help large consumers to secure retail contracts.
For example, businesses can secure one-month fixed price plans and retail contracts with significant fixed price components through the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS). So far, there has been sufficient supply under TRECS to meet demand.
EMA has also worked with Sembcorp Power and Keppel Electric to offer long-term fixed price plans for business consumers with an average monthly consumption ranging from four MWh to 50 MWh. These plans range from six months to three years.
EMA's efforts ensure that consumers, especially those affected by exiting retailers, can choose from a range of retail contracts to suit their needs. Such longer-term contracts also provide gencos with more certainty of demand, which allow them to contract for the gas that is needed to serve consumers.
Mr Speaker, energy powers our economy and our society. Given the uncertain global energy situation, EMA will be extending all measures, including TRECS, to end June 2022. This will give businesses, especially SMEs, a bit more time to respond to the evolving global energy situation. EMA will continue to monitor the situation and consider extending the measures further or introduce new measures, if necessary.
But as consumers, we must also be prepared mentally to face higher electricity bills over time, especially if the price of oil and gas remains elevated. Singapore is not an energy producer. The Government can and will help to smooth out extreme fluctuations in energy prices, but, over the longer-term, electricity prices will have to reflect the costs of procurement and production.
It is not tenable for the Government to subsidise electricity consumption in Singapore, in order to keep domestic electricity prices lower than the global prices which Singapore must pay for energy in the first place.
Last week, SP Group announced that it would be raising regulated tariff rates for its consumers by approximately 10%. Those on retail contracts have already started to see higher electricity prices when renewing their contracts. These higher electricity prices reflect the increasing costs of electricity production in this challenging climate and may continue to increase, depending on the direction of fuel price movements.
The protracted energy crunch has highlighted the need to make our power system more resilient and less susceptible to fuel supply shocks. Since 2014, we have sought to diversify our fuel sources to safeguard our energy security by building an LNG terminal. This allows us to tap on gas sources further afield. The LNG terminal has sufficient capacity to meet all our natural gas needs should PNG be unavailable.
In the longer term, we will continue to diversify our energy sources. We will quadruple our solar deployment by 2030, to generate at least two gigawatt-peak of electricity by 2030. The Government has taken the lead in accelerating rooftop solar deployment. One example is the SolarNova programme, which aggregates demand for solar systems across the public sector. We will continue to explore ways to maximise Singapore's solar potential.
We also intend to import up to four gigawatt of low-carbon electricity by 2035. Besides decarbonising the power sector, this will also reduce our reliance on natural gas.
Beyond this, we will continue to explore other low-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen, geothermal and, as what Minister of State Alvin Tan alluded to earlier on, even nuclear energy, which may have the potential to improve our energy security and our energy resilience.
These measures will take time to bear fruit, but we will have a more secure and resilient power system over time.
The Minister for Finance has touched on the Government's efforts to help households defray utilities costs. Each of us, as fellow Singaporeans, can also do our part. I urge all of us to conserve energy, just like how we conserve water.
Small lifestyle adjustments, such as switching off appliances when they are not in use, raising the temperatures in an air-conditioned environment by one to two degrees and using the fan instead of air-conditioning where possible, can go a long way in maintaining a sustainable, secure and resilient energy future for all of us.
Let me now address Members' concerns about the security of our supplies of key commodities, such as food and fuel, as well as rising costs.
As the Minister for Finance mentioned, the Government is closely monitoring food prices and will continue to ensure that basic food necessities remain accessible and affordable for everyone. We are also keeping a close watch on global supply chains and our stock levels of essential food items to ensure that Singapore continues to have access to adequate supplies. Thankfully, our supply of essential food products has not been significantly affected by the Ukraine-Russia conflict and we have not had to draw on our food stockpiles. But we will continue to diversify our import sources. We will not rest on our laurels. We will ramp up our stockpiles and supplies from alternative sources, where needed, to ensure that we have continued access to basic food necessities.
I would also like to assure the House that we have put in place measures to ensure that we have adequate fuel supplies, including petroleum. Members will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to share the specifics of this plan for security reasons.
Mr Speaker, many businesses are facing cost pressures and had to raise the prices of their goods and services as a result. For example, pump operators have raised petrol and diesel prices to reflect the rise in crude oil prices over the past months. Some landlords have also passed on increased utility costs to their tenants, including those in food courts and coffee shops.
The Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises, which was issued by the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee (FTIC) last year, sets out guidelines on how landlords can do so.
Often, these increases are understandable as businesses are also facing pressure on their bottom-lines. But, there are also many other businesses that have gone out of their way to hold prices steady and offer discounts to consumers.
For example, NTUC FairPrice has rolled out initiatives to help consumers stretch their dollar, such as by providing a 5% discount on 100 key essential items every Friday. These comprise household staples, such as rice, oil, eggs, milk and vegetables, and they should help to mitigate some of the cost pressures felt by households.
Giant has also committed to keeping the prices of essential items stable and recently expanded coverage to include close to 150 essential products.
I thank these companies for doing so.
Some Members have also expressed concern about profiteering behaviour. I would like to assure the House that the Government keeps a close watch on the prices of essential goods and services and will not hesitate to investigate anti-competitive behaviour.
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) keeps a close watch on the movements in pump prices. So far, movements in pump prices largely mirror the movements in crude oil prices, though they have increased to a smaller extent. As of end-March 2022, crude oil prices were about 40% higher than in January 2022, while the price of petrol and diesel were, on average, about 15% and 30% higher respectively.
We have no evidence to suggest that there is collusion amongst the petrol retailers. CCCS will take firm enforcement action, including imposing financial penalties, on infringing firms, if there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, such as coordinated price increases, and this applies across the board to any industry.
To deter unreasonable pricing, we will also support consumers in being well-informed on alternative options.
The Price Kaki application and the Fuel Kaki website developed by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) allow consumers to easily compare the effective prices of groceries, hawker food items and retail pump prices across different retailers. CASE will also enhance the Price Kaki application to enable users to compare the prices of similar items by their weight and volume. This will help consumers make better purchasing decisions where retailers choose to maintain prices but reduce the quantity of products.
The Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) has also been reconvened ahead of the GST increase. The role of CAP is to investigate feedback on unjustified increases in the prices of essential products and services using the GST increase as an excuse.
CAP Chairman Minister of State Low Yen Ling has shared that the work of the Committee is more complex due to the current inflationary climate. Nevertheless, CAP will review and evaluate all the feedback it receives and engage businesses where necessary. CAP may name and shame businesses that use the GST increase as an excuse to raise prices.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand why Members are concerned about anti-competitive behaviour. Such behaviour artificially inflates costs to households and businesses. We will work closely with our industry partners to diversify our supply chains, investigate anti-competitive behaviour, encourage price transparency and enable free market competition to function as it should. Ultimately, this is the best way to safeguard all of our consumer interests.
Members have asked what the Government can do to help businesses and households cope with the rising costs. I would like to assure Members that we are committed to partnering Singaporeans to ride through this difficult period. At the same time, we must also be prepared for longer-term trends that may put further upward pressure on prices.
The Minister for Finance has touched on some of these trends in his speech. Allow me to elaborate.
First, we will work with a range of stakeholders to carefully manage the various cost drivers faced in the near term. MOF has touched on measures to help households manage the higher costs of living. The Government has also set aside considerable resources to help businesses, especially SMEs, cope with higher costs.
The Small Business Recovery Grant provides $1,000 per local employee and up to $10,000 per firm. The Grant will help eligible firms in sectors most badly affected by COVID-19 restrictions and is also available to SFA-licensed operators and stallholders in markets, hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. All in all, the Grant will provide $175 million of support to small businesses.
IRAS will notify businesses of their eligibility and disburse the grant from June this year.
The $500 million Jobs and Business Support Package, including the extended Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI), will support firms with their investments in workers.
The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme will also support businesses with their manpower costs as they uplift the wages of our low-wage workers. The Minister for Finance announced a $2 billion injection into this scheme at Budget this year.
The extension of enhanced enterprise loan schemes will facilitate SMEs’ continued access to financing and ease their cashflow. These measures were announced at Budget just last month and it reflects our commitment to supporting our businesses through this difficult period. We are closely monitoring the situation and will provide more support for affected sectors, if needed.
As electricity prices rise, being energy-efficient will become increasingly important to managing business costs. We have already put in place several measures to help businesses improve their energy efficiency.
For example, NEA's Energy Efficiency Fund provides grants for manufacturing companies to adopt energy-efficient technologies; BCA's Green Mark Incentive Scheme provides grants for building owners to improve the energy performance of existing buildings; and ESG's Enterprise Sustainability Programme supports local enterprises to optimise energy and carbon use.
We understand that more businesses will be looking at ways to improve their energy efficiency and make their operations greener and more sustainable during this period. The Government will do its part to assist companies in this transition.
We are studying various options, such as expanding the range of supportable solutions or making it easier for businesses to apply for existing grants.
Fuel intensive sectors, such as transport and logistics, have also been hard hit by volatile petrol prices. We encourage our firms to double down on operating more efficiently and sustainably. This includes taking part in industry initiatives to share jobs to optimise asset utilisation, to use fleet management systems to track and monitor fuel consumption. By being more resource-efficient, businesses can better deal with unexpected, exogenous shocks that come our way. It goes a long way to improving our resilience and our energy security.
Second, we will continue to work with industries and firms to transform and improve their overall productivity, so as to sustain real wage growth for Singaporeans.
In the Budget this year, we announced that we are setting aside around $600 million over the next four years under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG). PSG supports companies as they adopt various solutions to improve their productivity.
We have also expanded the coverage of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC) to allow more smaller and micro enterprises to benefit.
MOF has also announced a new $70 million grant to be administered by NTUC to support companies with Company Training Committees (CTCs) to implement their transformation plan, redesign jobs and upskill workers for better workforce productivity.
At the Committee of Supply last month, Minister of State Low Yen Ling also announced the Food Services and Retail Business Revitalisation Package which will provide additional support to our food services and retail companies to improve their productivity, build the companies' capabilities to pivot and transform, hire and train more local workers and stay competitive and relevant. I urge all of our firms that there is no better time than now to tap on these resources, adapt, transform and better position themselves for the future.
Finally, we must and we will continue to strengthen our links with the rest of the world. As a small country, we cannot close ourselves off from the rest of the world just to avoid importing inflation or exposing ourselves to the volatilities in the global markets. Staying connected to global markets is essential to helping our businesses grow beyond our borders, attracting investments into Singapore and creating good jobs for Singaporeans.
This is underpinned by our wide network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), which create opportunities for our businesses in other regions and provide benefits, such as tariff savings, investment protection, amongst others. We will continue to strengthen regional and international economic integration and help our enterprises, especially the SMEs, utilise and benefit from our network of FTAs.
Sir, as a small and open economy, we are not and will not be able to be fully insulated against global shocks. But, make no mistake, we will continue to safeguard the security of our essential supplies, such as energy and food, and refresh our strategies for a more resilient economy.
Two, even when prices do go up, we will do our best to cushion the impact.
Three, we will closely monitor price movements and will not hesitate to take enforcement action against anti-competitive behaviour.
Fourth, last but not least, we will continue to monitor, watch the situation closely and consider providing further assistance, if needed.
The past two years have, indeed, been challenging for all of us. Many businesses have been looking forward to riding the wave of a strong recovery in the global economy as we emerge from this pandemic.
The Ukraine conflict and global inflationary pressures add considerable volatility and stress to what is an already challenging business environment. But let us not be pessimistic about the future. We will need, together as a nation, to strengthen our defences against external shocks. We will need to continue to pivot, transform our businesses to adapt to the changing global environment and we have done this many times before.
Above all, we will need to work together – the people, businesses and the Government – so that we can weather the headwinds and emerge stronger. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I thank the Ministers for addressing this very important topic. I would just like to understand with regard to the extension of the financial support for short- and medium-term assistance that Minister Lawrence Wong talked about earlier. Since the Government is already prepared to provide this extension of support – and I think we can safely be assured that the lowest income amongst us will be hit by the inflationary pressures and we all understand that beyond the actual pain of having to pay more are the anxiety, frustration and uncertainty that could hurt us more, presenting vulnerabilities for people to exploit in our society – what are the downsides of just making this three-month extension to our lowest-income automatic?
Will the Minister consider making these extensions automatic, so that both the recipients and also our civil servants and SSOs can do away with the administrative burden of having to reapply, renew, find justifications and so on, which could go a long way towards reducing the stresses that people are facing at this very difficult time?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we understand the concerns that the lower-income groups face and, as I mentioned just now, we are focused on providing more help to them, particularly during this period when they face the pressures of higher prices. So, we are already going to extend ComCare for a minimum duration of six months for all new ComCare SMTA applicants and extend ComCare SMTA by another three months for those who require further assistance. The question is: why not make that automatic?
The circumstances differ from case-to-case. So, at this stage, rather than making it automatic, for those who need it, they will get it and that is the assurance. And we will streamline the process, make it easy for them to apply, there is no need to re-submit so many different documents all over again, it should not be a burden to them, nor should it create stress. For those who need it, the assurance is that the support will be given to them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got two follow-up questions. One, for Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, is in relation to the Parliamentary Question which I had in terms of the fuel excise duties. Does the $900-plus million that was mentioned relate to all petroleum products or is it only for petrol and diesel which are sold to end-consumers at the pump, since we do have quite a substantial petrochemical industry as a whole?
The second question is, again, in relation to fuel prices, but probably more for Minister Tan See Leng. If we look at Brent crude prices, the last time, it was above US$100 a barrel was sometime in 2012 to 2014. Back then, 95 Petrol was going at about $2.20 to $2.40. But, today, when Brent is above US$100 again, people see that the pump prices are now about $3. So, can the Minister share the structural factors that actually contributed to these higher pump prices, just so that everyone can have a better sense of what are the contributing factors to these 20% to 40% higher pump prices relative to Brent crude prices?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the $920 million I cited refers to fuel duties collected at the pump for petrol and diesel.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: As I shared earlier on, we have been monitoring in terms of the fluctuation of the prices against Brent. We find that it has not gone up excessively. I do not think that it is like \"apple to apple\" comparison between what has happened, I think, in 2014, the target grade and what it is today. Because, obviously, other fixed costs would have gone up – rental, perhaps – also manpower cost, plus it could be even different types of production or procurement costs that are not just tied to Brent. But I think that it would be a lot more precise to compare what was the prevailing quarter and the movements, and to see whether that increase is actually attributable to whether it is signaling or collusion. I think that would give us a much better indication.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Finance Minister.
May I ask the hon Finance Minister why he feels that it is not appropriate to calibrate downwards the petrol tax at this point in time, given the backdrop of the following facts?
First, when the hon Deputy Prime Minister announced the hike in petrol tax in February 2021, he pegged the reasons for increasing it as to promote a green environment, not revenue.
Second, at the time when he announced the tax hike, the Ukraine invasion would not have been foreseeable. But at that point in time, he and the Government officers would have calibrated a certain behaviour pattern in terms of an increase in the fuel price and how much behaviour would have changed from that point onwards. In fact, since the announcement was made, the price was hiked by about 10%.
Third, we all accept that the war drove up the price. In fact, since 24 February 2022, when the invasion happened, to date, the price at the pumps has increased about 5%. So, why could we not calibrate downwards the fuel tax so that we have an optimal behaviour that was planned as at February 2021? That is my first question.
The second question is: if the Minister still does not intend to intervene, then when does he think is a proper time to intervene, having regard to the fact that a number of vehicles are used by fellow Singaporeans for their trades and businesses?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I think I had tried to explain very comprehensively why it is not a good idea to reduce fuel duties. Let me try again in light of Mr Murali Pillai's three questions.
We collect fuel duties for both revenue as well as externality reasons. The revenues generated are not small and they are used for a range of very important things, to subsidise many activities: public transport, whole range of things, amongst others.
So, we should think carefully about giving up these sources of revenue, particularly when we are facing considerable revenue challenges already and we had a long discussion in the Budget debate about all the revenue and fiscal challenges we face. That is number one.
Secondly, as I mentioned just now, there are the considerations of who benefits from this. And as I have highlighted, only four in 10 Singaporean households own cars. In fact, four in 10 is the average. For the bottom 20%, one in 10; for the top 20%, it is six in 10. So, in the end, the ones who benefit more are the better-off when you do something like that. So, is that the best use of subsidies?
Thirdly, we will be moving in the wrong direction because fuel duties price in the negative externalities, as we all understand, to society and to the environment. In a way, you can think of them akin, in part, to a carbon tax on vehicles, because we do not apply carbon tax on fuel. Fuel duties are akin, in part, to carbon tax on vehicles. So, we are already moving on carbon tax: to raise carbon tax, to accelerate our green transition and to achieve our net-zero target.
It will not be consistent as we move on that front to, on the other hand, reduce fuel duties. That is why, on balance, we think the better approach is not to intervene in this way. We are saying we will help people who are affected, we will continue to help them. We have been helping and we will continue to monitor the situation and, for those who need more help and if the situation worsens, we will certainly do more. But the better way of helping is not through a reduction in fuel duties. The better way of helping is to directly help those who are impacted through other means and we have these different means to help those who are impacted, be it households or businesses.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, since the Budget Statement, SP Group has announced that electricity tariff for April to June will rise by almost 10%. With this new development, could the Government consider a special additional tranche of U-Save rebates to help Singaporeans cope with this upcoming electricity hike?
Secondly, I understand from the MOF Budget website that the January 2023 U-Save rebate is part of the Assurance Package (AP) to soften the impact of the upcoming GST hike, while the first three tranches of U-Save in 2022 are part of the Household Support Package (HSP). However, now in this handout, the January 2023 U-Save rebate is listed as part of the support for households. So, can I clarify that the January 2023 U-Save rebate is now part of the HSP and not the AP and, if so, should not there be an additional U-Save rebate for the AP?
Lastly, I just want to clarify, the Second Minister, I think, did not answer my question about whether the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) will address concerns that businesses could use reasons other than the rise in GST as a pretext to make unjustified price increases on essential products and services. Will the Minister please clarify on that?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, when we sized the AP, we already knew that prices were rising. We had anticipated that. We said it in the speech. If you listen to the Budget speech, we highlighted the concerns that Singaporeans had about higher prices then. Prices had already increased because of the tensions in Ukraine. We knew this was coming. So, we did two things. We put in place a HSP of $560 million that will be disbursed this year and we enhanced the AP. And, in fact, we have sized the AP very generously. More than just a GST offset, it also addresses cost of living.
That is why the AP will delay the impact of GST by at least five years, for the majority of Singaporeans. And for the lower-income, 10 years. Now, for GST-offset purposes, five years is very generous. We could have said \"two to three years of offsets are more than enough\", but we sized it deliberately, generously, in order to cushion the impact on Singaporeans, especially the lower-income. And that is why when you combine the HSP and AP together, there is considerable support that will be going out very soon.
And that is what we have tried to do in the brochure, to pull it together to show Singaporeans, in one \"simple-to-understand\" way, all the help that will be coming up in the year ahead. And, to illustrate, for a 4-room household, we are talking about $150 a month of utility rebate this month. Every quarter, there will be another $150, so, $600 altogether. That is enough to cover about four months' worth of their utility bills, even accounting for higher electricity prices. So, that is what we have done.
Now, you say: well, what happens, subsequently, in the next half of the year? What if oil prices go up much higher, electricity prices go up much higher? Well, we will, as I have said, continue to monitor the situation, assess the impact of what we have already announced and will implement, looking at the global situation. And, as I have said just now, if the situation worsens, the Government will do more. But for now, let us roll out and properly implement all that is in the Budget already, which is already giving considerable support to households.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, can I answer Mr Gerald Giam's points?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, the Government's role is to ensure that free market competition can function as it should. We guard against profiteering through a multi-pronged approach that goes beyond CAP, because this includes promoting competition, helping consumers make informed decisions and encouraging a very diversified supply chain. So, earlier on in my speech, I also alluded to the fact that we have got apps, like Price Kaki, Fuel Kaki – and these are developed by CASE – to allow consumers to easily compare the prices of groceries or hawker food items from different sellers.
On top of that, CAP will also work with various agencies and organisations, including the Competition Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), CASE and People's Association (PA), to assess the feedback provided on potential GST profiteering.
CAP will also engage with the relevant businesses, where necessary, to find out the reasons for these price increases. CAP may also make public errant businesses that seek to profiteer on the pretext of GST increase to account for it.
So, today, we have convened CAP ahead of the proposed GST increase to make sure that we are able to pre-empt some of these things.
I think it is also an important point – CAP will, indeed, take a data-driven approach to prioritise its investigations. So, just to put it in perspective, perhaps for the Member's clarity, CCCS monitors market concentration data and shares this data with CAP. Then, CAP will review all feedback provided on unjustified price increases which use GST increase as a cover and investigate. So, I hope that that provides the clarity that is needed to the Member's question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Finance Minister's considerations for not cutting duties on petrol, chief amongst these considerations being that it subsidises private transport, which the less well-off may consume less of. So, I appreciate the considerations.
But diesel undergirds so much of our supply chain and, indeed, the delivery of essential goods and services. And that is the reason why I filed a question specifically on the possibility of cutting the duty on diesel products. I just hope to seek a clarification from the Finance Minister as to the possibility of this.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, whether it is diesel or petrol, fuel duties, aside from the issue of who benefits, also has an important externality consideration and, for that matter, our diesel duties are already not that high, compared to petrol duties. That is the first point.
The second point, from an externality point of view, we do need to have that duty in place in order to, as we all talked about, go greener, wanting to embrace more energy-efficient modes of transport, a point which everyone supported, incidentally, in this House, not too long ago. And then now, at the first sign of price rising, we are wanting to withdraw so quickly?
So, I think let us have some perspective on seeing the broader considerations and challenges. Yes, we have, indeed, an immediate issue of inflation to tackle. But we also want to press ahead with our net-zero plans and our green transition. These duties are there for that purpose, an important purpose. It does not mean we will not do anything to help the affected groups at all, because we will find other ways to help. And we will continue to monitor the well-being, not just of households, but of the different groups that Members have highlighted: taxi drivers, private hire car drivers, delivery drivers. We will continue to monitor closely their incomes, their well-being and, if need be, as I highlighted just now, we will do more to help them, but we will help them directly, more effectively, rather than through a reduction in duties.
Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Sir, I have a question to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the price hike. Can I know who actually decides on a price hike of electricity prices? Is it the Government, EMA or SP Group? I am stating this as a concern because I am also an employee of SP Group. Whenever there is a price hike that is being mentioned, my fellow members and workers at the workplace and facing the public will always be asked, \"How come you have a price hike?\" So, I hope, if that challenge can be left to EMA to announce the price hike, compared to SP Group, that would actually help to eliminate the stress that is faced by my fellow members and workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: I think there is a confluence of the sector agencies that determine the price hike. We are exposed to global energy prices and, when oil prices rise, electricity prices will, of course, rise in tandem. But, collectively, EMA looks at the wheeling charges, looks at multiple components, including the grid charges, fuel price components directly attributable to fuel costs, the procurement of fuel costs, and the non-fuel costs and then, collectively, come up with a calibrated price increase.
So, it is working in conjunction. But, ultimately, EMA determines the price rise. I hope that answers the question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, PSP is of the view that inflation is here to stay. It will be a multi-year uptrend. The earlier and the more contingency plans we have, the better. So far, all our discussion in this Chamber has concentrated on cost.
I have two questions to ask the Minister for Manpower about income and wages. I would like to ask the Manpower Minister: one, are there plans in place to ensure that Singaporeans' incomes and wages will rise with inflation going forward because we expect inflation to be a multi-year phenomenon? Two, because Singaporeans are in constant competition with foreigners, how to ensure Singaporean workers will continue to be competitive vis-a-vis foreign manpower in a rising wage environment?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I think this is an MTI statement, but I think since the Member wishes to clarify, then perhaps I may have the opportunity to just elaborate a bit on this?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. We have been very focused on uplifting the lower-wage workers. In fact, I think the whole crux of this year's Committee of Supply (COS) and pretty much the last two quarters of last year, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad has gone out to talk about the Progressive Wage Model, how we have set up schemes, we have also illustrated the fact that the bottom 20%, in terms of their wage growth over the years, has exceeded the median wage rise for the rest of the salaries in our constant and consistent efforts to ensure that we continue to uplift our low-wage workers.
On top of that, to support businesses, to alleviate the cost of this Progressive Wage Model, the Government has also put aside a significant sum of money to help companies transition by the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme.
That is one big portion of what uplifting is all about. If the Member had sat through the MOM COS, our three focuses this year were uplifting, upgrading and upholding. So, while we uplift them, we also have to upgrade them. So, the significant programmes in terms of upskilling them, reskilling, helping them to pivot, we have, together, on a multi-sectoral, multi-Ministerial level, gotten the industry transformation maps and to match the industry transformation maps with the Job Transformation Map (JTM) which provides a very good guide and compass as to where companies are, in terms of the development forward. And we help them. We have Productivity Solutions Grant, multiple different schemes to help companies to pivot while we train and upgrade our Singaporean Core. So, that is the upgrading part.
Upholding fairness. We ensure that with the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness (TCWF), we are now looking at how we are going to move this into legislation. On top of that, for foreign workforce complementarity, we have also rolled out COMPASS, which is a complementarity assessment framework to allow us to bring in foreign talent in a very nuanced way so that they are able to contribute to our strategic economic priorities, they can address the training of our locals in uplifting and making sure that we are world-class in terms of our workforce.
Those are a whole multitude of measures that we have put in place. Obviously, we are also working in terms of making sure that we strengthen the retirement savings in our CPF account, we continue to press ahead, to nudge our people to upgrade themselves. Through all of our SGUnited programmes, as I have shared earlier on, for the mid-career, for the older workers, we will make the SGUnited programme a permanent fixture of our policy. The entire list of measures that we have done to help our local Singaporeans continue to move ahead, to make sure that their real wages exceed inflationary rates, I think those are the measures that we have. I am not sure what other suggestions or other better solutions PSP has today.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. Just to confirm what the Minister has said. So, the Progressive Wage Credit has taken into consideration future rise in inflation to ensure that Singaporeans' incomes and wages rise with inflation. So, just to confirm that is correct. Secondly, with regard to the COMPASS scheme, I hope tomorrow I will have another opportunity to debate the Minister on the scheme.
Mr Speaker: Would the Minister like to respond?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir. May I remind the Member that we are talking about cost of living, inflation, energy fuel prices and goods. If he would like to file a separate Parliamentary Question on the manpower issues, I am happy and always waiting for him to do so.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask one clarification from both Ministers, with regard to the Statement they have made to say that if inflation were to go up higher, the Government stands ready to help both the residents as well as the businesses. Currently, inflation is already very high. So, the big question is, how high, what is the threshold that you are waiting for before more help can be delivered and what is the help that the businesses and the citizens can expect?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the Government will continue to monitor a range of macroeconomic indicators. We look at our economic growth, for example. We look at inflation. We look at the impact of inflation on different groups. We look at real incomes, for example. And on real incomes, I think it is important to highlight it is not possible for the Government to fix nominal wages, to guarantee that real incomes will always be positive. We do not determine wages. But what we can do is continue to work hard on all the things we are doing to restructure, transform the economy, uplift productivity. Those efforts will pay off and will help us year by year to ensure that incomes rise and, hopefully, continue to rise faster than inflation. That must be our economic strategy.
You cannot make this happen by fiat. You cannot dictate wages, but you can continue to press ahead with restructuring and transformation, which is what we are doing across all our economic agencies.
On the point of how high should inflation have to be before we see more help, I think that is what Dr Lim Wee Kiak is asking. I am not able to give a specific trigger point now. As I have said, we will monitor a range of indicators. Not just the headline of economic growth, inflation, for that matter, unemployment, but also how it impacts different groups and different income groups, different occupations. And then, what is the impact of our current package of measures which has not been implemented? We need to see that properly implemented and feed through the economy as well.
So, there are all these different considerations and that is why we cannot so simply distil it to just one key parameter. But the assurance that we continue to give is, we will monitor this very closely and, should there be a worsening of the situation externally and within Singapore, we will, certainly, stand ready to do more.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I am following up on the question that my residents raised to me. Over the past Meet-the-People sessions online, there were a few residents who are local small SMEs who came to me highlighting about the rise in electricity prices. And I think it is in reference to my Parliamentary Question as well on small SMEs.
So, my question is, with regard to whether MTI or MOF is amenable to a lower-tier TRECS, for example, as we know, the TRECS that we have now is applied to larger SMEs and whether, in the future, there could be a lower tier. My concern is, local SMEs are very important because they employ quite a significant number of workers and we are talking about wages, jobs and unemployment. We need to address the local SMEs which employ a significant number of our local workers. And such a move, if it is amenable to MTI or MOF, in terms of a lower-tier TRECS in the future, whether that is a possibility.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I understand the Member's angst and I feel the same angst for all SMEs.
I think when you look at the tier, indeed, this is exactly what we have tried our level best to do. So, for companies, SMEs or even larger enterprises which do not want to go on a fixed price contract for a longer term, we offer them TRECS. This is on a monthly basis because there are many SMEs that are still hoping that the current high prices are temporary and they are hoping that, with the spot prices, thinking that by the time they reach June or July, they may drop. Therefore, they want to hold off and wait for it to drop before they enter into a longer-term contract. So, the flexibility that we give in providing monthly and then, separately, we went on to talk to, as I have shared just now, Sembawang and Keppel, to provide longer contracts – six months, one year, two years, up to three years – provides a lot more predictability and some level of certainty, albeit not back to what it was before.
I guess the part that we are in this difficult position is, if you are saying that you want to have a separate tier, a lower tier, then that price differential has to be subsidised by someone, right? Perhaps I may be getting it wrong – the Member can clarify. But if the Member is suggesting that the Government steps in to subsidise that component, then I think it will be very difficult because electricity power consumption is one of those things: how do you subsidise that when people will then just keep consuming more? I think that is the difficult part.
So, to the extent that is possible, what we have done is that we have continued to ensure stability, security, consistency of the supply. The pricing part, what we have tried to do is also to negotiate on their behalf to see how, depending on the needs of the different companies, some, because they feel they cannot take a long-term hedge, we then provide on a monthly basis and that is TRECS. For those companies which feel that they need to have this at least on a stable basis for six months, we have also provided the option for that and then up to a year, two years and three years. I think that, today, is a very nuanced approach that we have adopted.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Could I clarify with Minister Lawrence Wong that there will actually be no specific measures that are targeted towards households as well as small businesses that are operating in the transportation sector? Of course, I understand Minister Lawrence Wong's arguments about how broad-based fuel excise taxes are regressive and, of course, I understand the concept – I would like to think I understand the concept – of externalities and I also wish that these Budget measures, when they are brought forward, should be allowed to operate.
That said, CPI was 4.3% but it was 17.2% in the latest figures for the transportation sector. So, households operating vehicles for commercial purposes, while they do benefit from budgetary measures as consumers, they are also facing higher prices as both consumers and producers. So, even if you wish to limit the beneficiaries of transportation-specific relief, I wonder whether there will be some targeted measures either captured by the road taxes that are being paid by these families or in terms of whether they use commercial vehicles for the purposes of business.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I believe Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is referring to businesses that are running on commercial vehicles and, therefore, impacted by the higher pump prices and that would include taxi drivers, private hire car drivers, delivery drivers and the like.
As I mentioned just now, some companies are already making adjustments. They are already raising their fares to help their drivers. For example, some taxi companies are still continuing with rental concessions and there are other companies that are also doing other things to help their delivery drivers. So, these are in place today, which means that the costs are being shared with consumers because the fares go up, delivery rates go up, which means that the costs are shared in part, not just borne solely by these delivery riders but shared with consumers.
And as I mentioned, we have helped to cushion the impact on consumers also through different packages that we have in the Budget. We also have a Small Business Recovery Grant that will be applied to all SMEs who are in the affected sectors, including people who are running logistics, delivery. They would be eligible if they meet the criteria. So, the schemes are there. Companies themselves have adjusted. There is some cost sharing now. As I said earlier, let us monitor the effects of all that we are doing, how it percolates through the economy before we decide on our next steps.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang. Sorry. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): I thank the Finance Minister for the new measures that were just announced and also the response to my Parliamentary Question about the timing of the payouts.
Sir, much of the cost increases are supply-driven. So, the COVID-19-related situation, the supply chain stressors, the war in Ukraine and the wages in which we want to have wage uplift. So, my concern is that there is this series of cost increases and price increases, it will inter-feed into each other and whether that will trigger off an inflationary spiral.
So, I would like to ask the Finance Minister what can the Government do to break this chain of interaction in the prices and the costs and then to counter this momentum of price increases.
My second question is for Minister Tan See Leng. I appreciate the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) to check on unjustifiable profiteering. But we also know that this is not a magic bullet. You still need competition to counter all these profiteering and there must be choices for consumers. So, I would like to ask Minister Tan See Leng whether CAP would focus more on those sectors or businesses that have less choices for consumers, less competition where their businesses have bigger market power. How can we focus on those and, in particular, whether CAP or CCCS has identified any of these sectors?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, just before I reply to Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question, just a quick clarification on my response to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim just now. I said Small Business Recovery Grant is extended to different sectors. Transport, logistics are not eligible. It is for the sectors affected most by SMMs, which mostly are F&B and retail. But the broader point remains, which is, that many of these companies in the transport and logistics sector have made arrangements, fares are going up, they are cost sharing with consumers, who also benefit through the help measures from the Government. So, let us monitor what is happening in this space, the effects of our measures, before we consider next steps. Just a clarification on that point.
On Mr Liang Eng Hwa's point, he is absolutely right that we have to watch carefully the dynamics which he talked about, a wage-price spiral potentially taking place. For now, inflation expectations are well-anchored. And as far as the labour market tightness is concerned, there are some ways in which we can help ease the current situation. For example, the opening up of borders will allow more migrant workers to come in, particularly in some of the hard-pressed sectors like construction, marine and process, and this will help ease the situation.
Secondly, we are continuing to do everything we can on our productivity efforts, as announced in the Budget, and the more we can push on this front to reduce reliance on labour, to go for automation, productivity initiatives, that will also help ease some of our manpower constraints. But the risk of a wage-price spiral taking place is real and that is why it also means we have to be very careful in designing any future Government interventions, because, if we are not careful, the Government spends more and this feeds into wages and then it may inflate prices and wages, and it may cause inflation to be worse.
That is why, as I mentioned just now, the basic strategy and approach are to let whatever we have announced in the Budget, which is already very generous, get implemented properly first, monitor the effects on the economy before we consider next steps, taking into consideration at that time the wider economic situation externally, the economic situation within Singapore and, for that matter, our own fiscal situation. I mean, do not take it for granted that the Government has all the money to do everything because we also have to ensure sound and sustainable public finances at the end of the day.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng, can you wrap up?
Dr Tan See Leng: Sorry, Mr Speaker, because Mr Liang Eng Hwa had two questions. I will be quick.
CAP's focus is on the essential food items commonly consumed by Singaporean households and non-food essentials, such as household products. Earlier on, I had shared that we will also take a data-driven approach to prioritise the investigations and I said that there will be a sharing of data across different agencies itself. I think one thing I want to thank the Member for suggesting is the observation, in terms of some of those very small sort of tight sectors. I think the best way to counter profiteering is really to promote competition, to have a wider range of service and product offerings. So, those are things that we are indeed looking into.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement on Inflation and Business Costs. Now, we will proceed to the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will consider regulating or mitigating the increasing prices of petrol.","2 : To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government expects the upward trend of gas prices to continue into the medium term; and (b) what is the Government’s strategy to manage electricity price increases as well as the overall supply and demand of energy in Singapore.","3 : To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Committee Against Profiteering can provide an update on the number of businesses that have been found to be engaged in profiteering; and (b) what action has been taken against these businesses.","4 : To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) which industries are most severely impacted by the volatility of petrol prices; and (b) with the uncertainty and possible prolonging of the fall-out from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, what further measures will the Ministry take to help the affected businesses and sectors in these industries."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"The Establishment of a Public Defender’s Office","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Law","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in 1956, the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance was passed. It aimed to deliver free civil legal aid to deserving cases. The Ordinance also contained provisions on criminal legal aid. But the latter provisions were not brought into force. That remained the position when we passed the Legal Aid and Advice Act in 1995.
In 2013, I gave a speech at the Association of Muslim Lawyers' Inaugural Lecture, and I announced that the Government had decided to directly fund criminal legal aid and we were studying how best to do it. Philosophically, that was a big change. In the end, we decided to do so through CLAS – the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme – run by the Law Society.
In March 2015, I announced that the Government would fund CLAS; and for CLAS itself, when we got funding included, some changes were made.
First, the means test was redefined, enhanced. It allowed more applicants to qualify for criminal legal aid because the funding was supported by the Government. It directed aid to those who needed it most. Second, an honorarium was paid to CLAS lawyers, to recognise the contribution of volunteers who will take on criminal legal aid cases.
However, it has to be said, the honorarium was very nominal. In 2018 and 2019, we started thinking that we could go further, in providing aid. We began reviewing our criminal legal aid model. We engaged the Law Society and the Criminal Bar for their views. We asked if they would support an expansion of criminal legal aid coverage. The Law Society was, in principle, supportive, as was the criminal bar, but they were concerned about the impact on paid work for lawyers – whether this will take away work from lawyers and whether a lawyer's income will suffer.
They suggested expanding the coverage of offences, instead of increasing the means-test coverage. They did not want us to cover more people, but they were quite happy to consider whether we can cover more offences.
After taking in the feedback, we came to our views. In November 2020, I shared some of our plans. I said that we are not completely satisfied with our current model. I also said that the Government, in principle, prefers the approach of a Public Defender's Office. But there were a few issues to think about. First, we needed to make sure we try and minimise abuse of the system. I gave examples of this from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. But you will find it in every jurisdiction. Second, to manage costs to ensure fiscal sustainability. Third, maintain our lawyers' probono spirit.
I raised these three questions. One, should we change the model we have and go for a full Government-funded legal aid? Two, should we give up our public-private sector partnership model in delivering criminal legal aid? Three, should we expand CLAS beyond the lowest 25% in terms of household income?
These are not easy issues. We undertook a study of the different criminal legal aid models in other countries. We looked at 11 jurisdictions: the UK, New Zealand, the two states of New South Wales and Victoria in Australia, the province of Ontario in Canada, Hong Kong, Republic of South Korea, Germany, Japan and the US, at both the New York state level and the federal level. So, it is not just countries, but also territories.
And we looked more closely at six of them, namely, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, New South Wales, Victoria, Ontario and Hong Kong. These six jurisdictions share similar common law traditions and philosophies with Singapore. They aim to provide criminal legal aid to the most vulnerable persons. I will now set out our observations.
In nine of the 11 jurisdictions surveyed, a Public Defender Scheme is in place. The exceptions are Germany and Ontario. They adopt what is called a judicare model, where the cases are outsourced to the private sector for a fee. Our view is that the Public Defender model has some benefits over the judicare model. The Public Defender Scheme allows development of expertise, because institutional knowledge can be built up. In the judicare model, the assignment of counsel is done ad hoc. Second, the greater economies of scale which can better help manage costs. And third, our study shows that in the Public Defender model, there is a specialised office – the Public Defender's Office. Over time, it is better able to access expert witnesses, medical, forensic, analysts and so on.
Let me now consider how Public Defender schemes are organised overseas. Other than Ontario, all the common law jurisdictions we studied adopt a hybrid model. This means that the state hires in-house lawyers as Public Defenders and also outsources some cases to private lawyers. This model can strengthen the partnership between the private sector and the Government and widen the pool of expertise that can be tapped. This is a model that we are considering. A strong partnership between the Government and the Criminal Bar is, in my view, quite important.
If you look at the state of Victoria in Australia, for example, the Victorian Bar Association has its own probono scheme. They offer advice and representation to persons who cannot obtain legal assistance from any other source. They complement the Public Defenders employed by Victoria Legal Aid.
In Singapore, we have had a very strong partnership with the Law Society and the legal fraternity. They have a very strong probono and public spirit and we want to preserve this cooperative relationship. So, the Victorian model is one way we can do that. I will come back to this later.
Let me now move on to funding. Ten of the 11 jurisdictions we studied are fully funded by government. The only exception is Ontario in Canada. There, the Government co-funds the system with the Law Foundation. The Law Foundation is an organisation set up by the legal fraternity. In any system like this, escalating costs are a major concern where criminal legal aid is fully funded by the state.
There are various reasons for the increase in costs. They include the lack of a robust means and merits assessment framework and safeguards as coverage expands invariably and inevitably. Second, overbilling by private sector lawyers to whom criminal cases have been outsourced to. I shared an example of escalating costs when I spoke about this in 2020. For example, in Hong Kong, S$217 million was spent on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2016, and that was due to continual increases in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year. Other jurisdictions also saw similar increases in spending over the last 10 years.
After a while, it was no longer sustainable and some of these countries have then had to impose very sudden, drastic cuts to funding. The UK had to do it. In 1996, Ontario cut its legal budget by 22% to control costs. There were adverse consequences which remain today, including delays in clearing cases. We need to learn from these experiences and try to avoid going there and then taking the cutbacks and steps to control costs. And we have to structure it in a practical, workable way from the beginning and try and make our criminal legal aid model sustainable.
Let me now touch on some other key lessons that we noted from our study of other jurisdictions. First, it is important to structure the Public Defender agency carefully. Good governance is important. The agency can be a part the Government. At the same time, the Public Defenders must be able to carry out their professional duties and defend the recipients of legal aid, where the cases are meritorious. Some jurisdictions have been able to do this. A second concern, as I have said earlier, is to prevent the abuse of the criminal legal aid system.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an annex to my speech, which I will not go through but will be taken as part of my speech?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr K Shanmugam: The annex contains examples of abuses of criminal legal aid in other jurisdictions. Members may also access this material through the SG Parl MP mobile app. There are two categories of abuses which we need to be aware of.
First, some lawyers, not the majority, in other countries overbill, flout the rules, for their own benefit. Quite egregious. One example is in Ontario, Canada. There was a lawyer who billed around S$160,000 between 2013 and 2016. He said this was for travel expenses, meant for cases where the lawyer had to travel more than 200 kilometres to the court. But a check showed that the lawyer's office was actually quite close to the courts. It is just one example. There are many such examples. We need to try and first, be aware; and second, avoid this sort of abuse. Overbilling, in a variety of ways, is not uncommon in these places.
Second, and not infrequently, unmeritorious applicants who take advantage of legal aid include individuals who are asset-rich or wealthy but find ways to meet the eligibility criteria. There are stories of legal aid recipients who turn up in Rolls Royces and other cars, which they say are not theirs and are held on trust for others.
Third, there are also cases where the applicants fulfil the means and merits tests but are perceived to be morally undeserving of aid. There has been an uproar in other jurisdictions when such cases are covered by government-funded aid. In Victoria, Australia, around S$950,000, nearly a million dollars, was spent to defend a person by the name of Dragan Vasilijkovic. He was prosecuted for war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars.
The first two categories of abuse, we can try and have systems and frameworks to try and detect and deter such practices. The last category is trickier. Legal aid cannot depend on public outrage because once we categorise and the means and merits tests are satisfied – merits, means – and I will come to it – we are going to exclude certain types of cases. But as long as it falls within the categories of cases which would be covered by legal aid, then public outrage, on a case-by-case basis, cannot be the basis on which legal aid is given or not given. We will need to think through and explain our position carefully to the public.
We have considered the lessons from others, as well as the feedback from the Law Society and Criminal Bar. I will now share the next steps for this major change in approach for delivering criminal legal aid in Singapore. We will set up a Public Defender's Office, or PDO, to provide criminal legal aid.
It will be fully funded by the Government. The Government will continue to work with CLAS. They will deal with some criminal cases. This will also help to preserve the probono spirit of the legal fraternity, which has been a key pillar of legal aid. The PDO will be established as a department under MinLaw. This is similar to the Legal Aid Bureau now and the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office. It will be headed by a Chief Public Defender, call him \"CPD\". We will adopt a hybrid model of criminal legal aid. This is similar to some of the common law jurisdictions that I spoke about earlier. It means that the PDO will have full-time lawyers as employees of the PDO and they will take on cases as public defenders. The PDO will scale up over a period of time. The Public Defenders will take on all of PDO's cases in the early years. At a later date, the PDO will begin outsourcing some cases to a panel of qualified lawyers.
The Government will continue to provide some co-funding to CLAS. The details of the funding will be assessed and discussed in light of the PDO being set up. Other details will also have to be worked out, including the cases which PDO will handle and cases which CLAS will handle.
Let me now move on to what types of criminal cases that PDO will cover. We have decided to enhance coverage, both in terms of income and the types of offences covered. Currently, CLAS covers up to the 25th percentile of resident households. Our assessment is that we should increase this to the 35th percentile. So, we plan to increase income coverage from the 25th to the 35th percentile of resident households.
This raises the per capita household income cut-off from $950 to $1,500. This means more needy Singaporeans who require the services of a criminal defence lawyer will be covered.
Second, we will expand the type of offences covered. It is easier to illustrate that by saying what types of offences will not be covered. We will not be covering regulatory offences such as traffic summonses and departmental charges. We will also not be covering offences under nine pieces of legislation whose primary purpose is to deter specific behaviours. These are gambling and betting, organised and syndicated crime, and terrorism.
Offences under these Acts bring about significant negative externalities to society, and public funding, I think, will be difficult to justify being used towards defending such cases.
PDO will also have the discretion to exclude cases if the CPD thinks that the representation may not make a material difference to the case’s outcome. They will have to apply a strong merits test approach. This includes cases involving offences with established sentencing frameworks.
I mentioned earlier that we had consulted the Law Society Council and Criminal Bar. They were concerned that the expansion of Legal Aid would affect the livelihood of lawyers who were providing paid legal services. We have analysed our past data. Of the newly eligible persons who will benefit from expanded coverage, 60% would likely be litigants-in-persons, meaning that the impact on paid work for lawyers should not be substantial.
We have to do the right thing here. Our assessment is that in the main, lawyers’ income should not substantially be affected, and their income will not in the main, depend on people at the 35th percentile and below.
What does this expansion mean in terms of numbers? In FY2020, CLAS covered around 712 cases. We estimate that with these changes, the total caseload for criminal legal aid could increase by another 50%, or may be a little bit more, if the take-up rate for legal aid increases, and of course, this number could increase.
Earlier, I spoke about how other jurisdictions have addressed rising costs. I also talked about how the system could be abused. We will have to be careful about the cases the Government funds using taxpayers’ money. In other jurisdictions, expansions in coverage contributed to higher costs. We will have to be very careful to try and not strain the public purse. We intend to put in place measures to try and ensure that aid is given only in deserving cases and try and ensure that the costs of criminal legal aid remain sustainable.
Let me move on to the staffing of PDO. It will be staffed by lawyers who handle the work. This can include fresh graduates and younger lawyers, mid-career hires who want to do criminal legal aid work and Legal Service officers. These officers will provide the depth of experience and institutional knowledge to build the PDO. They can help ensure quality control.
Sir, in conclusion, the measures I have mentioned stem from the same objective. We want to enhance access to justice for vulnerable individuals in Singapore. We will pass a Bill to codify these proposals and establish the Public Defender’s Office.
We aim to have the office start operations, at least in some modest way, by the end of this year, assuming the Bill gets passed in Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a few questions to the Minister in response to his Ministerial Statement. In view of his concluding remarks as to when PDO will be established, which is towards the end of the year, can I inquire how much funding the office is likely to require? Of course, this is provided that the Bill goes through, but I am quite certain the Ministry would have done some calculation.
The second question is the number of staff PDO intends to raise to begin operations and, eventually, what is the number of staff that will be hired or appointed for the purposes outlined?
The third question relates to the exclusions. The Minister covered, generally, three types of legislation: gambling, organised crime and terrorism. What other legislation will be excluded for consideration in the event a member of the public seeks assistance from the PDO?
Finally, can the Minister please explain the relationship between cases that will be taken up by PDO and CLAS? Will there be fundamental differences which would result in a case being handled by one entity as opposed to the other?
Mr K Shanmugam: Could I ask for the third question again, please?
Mr Pritam Singh: The third question: Minister covered the legislation that will be excluded. I think the Minister mentioned nine pieces of legislation will not be under the remit of this department. The Minister covered three and I am inquiring what the others are.
Mr K Shanmugam: The three headings cover the nine pieces of legislation.
As to the questions on how much funding the office is likely to require, the number of staff to begin operations, these are matters of detail. We have some idea, but I would prefer to deal with it, if necessary, at the Bill stage because there are some discussions going on with the Minister for Finance. So, maybe the Member can ask him as well. And I do not think the Minister for Finance will appreciate me going into those details at this point. Of course, I can tell the Member and then, bind the Minister! But it does not work that way.
On a more serious note, this primarily has to be funded out of MinLaw's budget. We are discussing, both on the staffing and the monetary issues. Obviously, I am not making a Ministerial Statement here without Cabinet clearance on the principles. And we intend to start, as I said, in a very modest way by the end of this year. That means trying to get the Bill drafted, put it in place, try to get it put through, have the people employed – all within the next eight months or so. So, it is quite a rush. So, I would prefer to defer the questions on numbers. But what the House can be certain about is that, at a steady state, with the kind of framework we are thinking of, a fairly robust means test, merits test, we will cover those who need assistance.
As to the relationship between PDO and CLAS, again, that is at the margins. I have said what we will cover and we will have to discuss with CLAS. There will be perhaps cases which may not qualify for our means test, but CLAS may feel would be good to cover. Of course, PDO will only assist Singapore Citizens.
There are some categories that CLAS may perhaps cover, too, but these are things that will need to be discussed in greater detail with the Law Society.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his Ministerial Statement, which is a response to my Parliamentary Question asking for an update on his proposal to set up the Public Defender's Office. I applaud the Government's announcement to set up this Public Defender's Office. This is a shift from the previous position of the Government not to set up the Public Defender's Office. It is a good example of how the Government continually looks at policies and makes the necessary changes to suit the circumstances.
I have two supplementary questions. One is in relation to the staffing of the Public Defender's Office with legal officers. As this House will note, we had moved amendments in the Constitution to create a Legal Service Commission as well as a Judicial Service Commission. As far as the Public Defender's Office is concerned, may I ask the hon Minister which Commission would be superintending over the officers so that they can be properly developed to be capable in delivering their duties without favour, based on expectations set of them?
The second question is in relation to the exclusions. The hon Minister mentioned about nine statutes which he proposes to exclude. Does he propose to also exclude private prosecution? Because as the hon Minister is aware, there is public prosecution, there is private prosecution. May I ask, as a matter of concept, the PDO is not meant to be engaged for private prosecution?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think on the two questions, I will give an answer. But, first, on the comment on declining PDO, I will stand corrected, I am not sure that we expressly declined to have a PDO. But I think, in substance, the Member is correct in that the Government has previously taken the position that criminal legal aid ought not to be funded.
But as I described earlier in my Ministerial Statement, by 2013, we explained that we will do so, and we did so through CLAS. So, this is a further and very significant step forward. That is about nine years now where we have been funding criminal legal aid.
As to the specific questions as to which Commission, I think the right position ought to be that the officers within PDO, qua-PDO, should not be subject to either Commission. Neither the Judicial Service Commission nor the Legal Service Commission. They will be MinLaw officers, in a department under MinLaw and separate from both Commissions. I do not, in principle, completely rule out secondments from either Commission. Those are matters of detail which need to be looked at. But when they exercise their duties qua-PDO officers, they will be assessed primarily by MinLaw.
Second, private prosecutions. Again, I want to be careful about setting things in stone today. But the thinking is that private prosecution should, in principle, not be covered by this.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have four clarifications for the Minister for Law.
First, I would like his confirmation that the setting up of PDO in no way affects the current High Court scheme for the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO). Meaning that the scheme for legal representation of capital cases still remains within the province of the Supreme Court and this scheme in no way changes that. That is the first question.
The second question, the Minister mentioned earlier that the demarcation of work between PDO and CLAS would be worked out. I wonder whether he could comment on whether certain statutes are currently not covered by CLAS – for example, road traffic offences – whether there has been discussion that PDO could accept some of these cases, which tend to affect the people of lower-income. I mean, it stretches the strata of society, so there will be a significant section of the public who would benefit from coverage under the Road Traffic Act.
The third question, on excluded offences again, the Minister mentioned that there might be certain offences not covered because there is some moral reprehensibility about them. I wonder whether it might also include, for example, drink driving cases. Would the Minister be able to comment on that specifically?
And last of all, my question is whether the PDO scheme would also handle appeals.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for the four questions. On the last one, the short answer is yes, it will cover appeals and both sides can appeal.
On the first question on LASCO, I actually did not touch on LASCO at all. I talked about CLAS. On LASCO, I think one has got to see what PDO covers fully, then we have got to see whether LASCO is necessary because, in the end, regardless of which pocket, it all comes from the Government's pocket and, ultimately, from the taxpayer.
So, this is something that we need to discuss with the Supreme Court, what makes sense from a public taxpayer's perspective and the perspective of the person to be defended, and the institutions involved. There may be merit in keeping LASCO. So, these are issues that need to be discussed.
On demarcation of work between PDO and CLAS, as I had indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, this is something that needs to be discussed. Our intention is that regulatory offences should not be covered. Road traffic offences can fall in different categories. Some may be regulatory, some will be much more than regulatory. If they are serious and they have serious consequences and they deal with substantive issues of moral fault, that is something that could possibly be covered. Drink driving, I am not quite sure where it fits in because it seemed to come from the third question. I would prefer to hold my comments on drink driving until we have settled on the list of legislation.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister Chan Chun Sing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) 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":"Adoption of Children Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to repeal and re-enact the Adoption of Children Act 1939 with amendments to provide for the process of the adoption of children and the regulation of practices in the adoption sector and connected matters, and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other written laws\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.18 pm until 5.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.40 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extradition (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill updates the Extradition Act 1968. The Act provides for the extradition of fugitives, in other words, the surrender of a fugitive by one state to another in which he or she is liable to be prosecuted or punished. It is invoked when the fugitive flees from the state that he or she has been charged or sentenced to another state.
As then-Minister for Law and National Development, Mr EW Barker, said when the Act was first passed in Parliament in 1968 – \"It is not in states' interest to afford refuge to criminals from other countries. On the contrary, it is in states' interests to return fugitives for trial and punishment to the state in which the offence was committed or in which the criminal was convicted.\"
It is, therefore, important for us to review the Act to ensure that our extradition framework remains robust. As such, the policy objective of the proposed amendments in the Bill is the modernisation of our extradition regime. This will enhance Singapore's credibility as a responsible international citizen to strengthen our ability to combat crime through international cooperation; ensure that Singapore is better able to facilitate extradition where justified; and secure the return of fugitives who have committed offences in Singapore.
Whilst many of the concepts in the Act remain relevant and applicable today, apart from minor amendments in 1970 and 1998, the Act has remained largely unchanged.
My Ministry conducted an extensive comparative study of various common law and civil law jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, France, Japan and the US, amongst others. To keep in pace with current needs, it is timely to introduce modern concepts, taking into account global developments and international practice.
There are five key amendments in this Bill – two areas of substantive reform and three areas of procedural reform.
There are several other amendments in the Bill which are technical or consequential in nature. I will explain a few of the more material amendments but the Explanatory Note to the Bill describes in some detail the nature of the various provisions in the Bill and I will not elaborate on all of them.
Sir, before I outline the material amendments, it is important to first set out a general overview of Singapore's extradition framework.
There is no general obligation under international law to surrender a fugitive to a foreign state. This is due to the principle of state sovereignty. A mutual arrangement or treaty between states is usually required.
At present, Singapore can extradite:
(a) Fugitives to 40 declared Commonwealth territories under the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth, and I will refer to this as the London Scheme. The territories within the Commonwealth include Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
(b) Singapore can also extradite fugitives to Germany, the US and Hong Kong – jurisdictions with which an extradition treaty or agreement is in force.
(c) State parties to multilateral treaties which Singapore is a party to – such as the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
(d) Finally, Malaysia and Brunei – based on the reciprocal arrangements for the endorsement of arrest warrants.
We have also signed a treaty with Indonesia. When it enters into force, we will be able to extradite fugitives to and from Indonesia on the terms as set out in that treaty.
The proposed amendments seek to strike the right balance between international cooperation and individual liberty. As a responsible global citizen, we must contribute to the fight against crime, by empowering our authorities to facilitate extradition requests, where justified.
However, recognising that extradition is a coercive process, we must also ensure that there are robust safeguards in place. And this Bill seeks to introduce amendments that would enhance: (a) our ability to facilitate extradition requests; and (b) the protection for persons who are wanted by foreign jurisdictions.
Let me start, Sir, with the first substantive reform on the threshold approach.
We will adopt a threshold approach for determining whether an offence is extraditable, also known as an \"extradition offence\". This would be subject to an exclusionary list. Currently, the Act provides for a positive list approach, where only offences which are on the list would be extraditable. At the time the Act was first introduced, the list approach was the norm. The offences listed in our Act were aligned with the negotiated approach in the 1966 London Scheme.
However, since that time, international practice is moving away from the list approach in favour of the threshold approach. For instance, the London Scheme itself was amended to adopt a threshold approach in 2002. Many other common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand and the UK as well as jurisdictions in France, Germany, Japan and the Republic of Korea, have since adopted the threshold approach.
So, in this case, under clause 2 of the Bill, section 2 now provides that an offence is extraditable as long as it has a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment or more and is not on the list of excluded offences. The threshold of a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment or more is commonly adopted internationally. We will exclude some offences which, despite crossing that threshold, are regulatory in nature, and do not warrant the use of state resources for extradition. These are reflected in the list of excluded offences in the new First Schedule to the Act.
Members can have a look at the Schedule and will see offences, such as the prohibition of import or transhipment of fresh fruits and vegetables without a licence under the Control of Plants Act 1993. That is excluded from extradition. Another example – the production of false evidence on the register of trademarks under the Trade Marks Act 1998 and some forms of building control offences or of that nature.
The threshold approach will make it easier to determine when an offence is extraditable. If it attracts a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment, or more, it is extraditable as long as it is not on the list of excluded offences.
We do not expect this amendment to result in an undue increase in incoming extradition requests. From our experience, our extradition partners have made requests in respect of relatively serious offences. The principle of dual criminality, which requires that extraditable offences be punishable under the laws of both Singapore and the requesting state, will also be preserved in this Act. At the same time, we are expanding the safeguards under which a fugitive's extradition may be refused, a point which I will touch on in a moment.
The second substantive reform deals with the expansion of restrictions on surrender.
We are seeking to update and expand restrictions on the surrender of fugitives in the Act. Sir, a request for extradition may be refused in certain circumstances. These are referred to as restrictions on surrender and there are several restrictions under the current Act.
Clause 6 of the Bill inserts four new restrictions under new sections 8 and 9.
First, where the fugitive was convicted in his or her absence. Conviction in the fugitive's absence is, generally, considered a denial of natural justice and leaves the fugitive unable to contest allegations against him or her. This restriction is consistent with our domestic legislation, section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC). This mandatory restriction, however, does not apply if the fugitive had deliberately absented himself or herself, or if there is an opportunity for retrial.
Where the prosecution of the fugitive is barred in the requesting state by its limitation period. For example, if the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence is 15 years, and the extradition of the fugitive is requested 20 years after the offence was committed, then the requesting state would not be able to prosecute the fugitive by virtue of its own limitation period. That being the case, it would not be appropriate for Singapore to facilitate that extradition, since the requesting state would not be able to prosecute the fugitive upon his or her return.
The restrictions also apply where the offence committed is for a military offence which is not punishable under criminal law. As a tool in international criminal cooperation, extradition is meant to combat crimes, as opposed to disciplinary offences within a military organisation. This is also consistent with the London Scheme, as well as the approach which we have taken under our Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000 (MACMA). This is a mandatory restriction.
The next category is where the remaining imprisonment term for the fugitive is de minimus in nature. This applies to a fugitive who has been convicted and sentenced for a crime in the requesting state. This does not apply to a fugitive who has been charged with but not yet convicted and sentenced in the requesting state. Singapore may reject the request if the remaining imprisonment term which the fugitive has to serve is less than six months. This is the default minimal remaining imprisonment term, unless otherwise stated in the relevant extradition treaty between Singapore and the requesting state.
We have introduced this restriction as it may not be appropriate to extradite a fugitive where the remaining imprisonment term may be shorter than the time required to complete the extradition process itself. This, however, is a discretionary restriction because there may be instances where surrender of the fugitive is, nevertheless, warranted, despite having met the requirement for the discretionary restriction.
The updated and expanded restrictions on surrender will provide more robust safeguards for individuals who are subjects of extradition requests.
Let me move on to the first procedural reform and this deals with consent to extradition.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a mechanism for fugitives to consent to their extradition under the new sections 16 and 21. At present, the Act does not allow a fugitive to consent to extradition and all fugitives must undergo the full extradition proceedings. This leads to cases where extradition proceedings continue even though the fugitive has indicated that he or she would not contest the proceedings.
Further, when a Magistrate has committed a fugitive to be surrendered to the requesting state, the fugitive cannot be surrendered until 15 days have elapsed since the committal order, even if the fugitive does not intend to apply for an order for review of the Magistrate's order.
The amendments, therefore, allow a fugitive to indicate to the Magistrate that he or she wishes to consent to his or her surrender at any time after the arrest. A fugitive may also waive his or her right to apply for a review of the Magistrate's order.
This saves state resources and prevents the fugitive from being detained longer than necessary in Singapore as there is no need for a full extradition hearing to be carried out if there is consent. The fugitive will then be surrendered as soon as practicable.
In this case, there are also safeguards. The Court has to ascertain that the fugitive's consent is voluntary and inform the fugitive of the consequences of that consent. A specialty undertaking would be obtained from the requesting state, unless the fugitive waives such an undertaking. This means that the fugitive will only be prosecuted for the offences stated in the extradition request, and not for additional offences. This will ensure the fugitive does not lose an important protection simply because he or she consents to extradition. It also ensures the fugitive understands the full scope of offences for which he or she will be prosecuted for.
This will align Singapore with many other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, that allow fugitives to consent to their extradition.
Next, I will touch on amendments which seek to centralise review procedures for extradition proceedings.
The Bill consolidates the applicable procedures for review of a Magistrate's order. After a fugitive is apprehended, a Magistrate will hear evidence as to whether the fugitive ought to be committed to prison to await surrender to the requesting state. The Magistrate will then make an order to either commit or discharge the fugitive. A fugitive who has been ordered to be detained may apply for an order for review of detention under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
However, the Act does not, at present, provide for the Attorney-General, on behalf of the requesting state, to similarly apply for a review of a Magistrate's decision to release the fugitive. We have, therefore, consolidated the applicable procedures for a review of a Magistrate's order in the new section 17.
First, it incorporates the fugitive's right to apply to the High Court under CPC for an order for review of detention. Second, it introduces a new mechanism to allow the Attorney-General, on behalf of the requesting state, to apply to the High Court to review a Magistrate's decision to release the fugitive.
A review of a Magistrate's order does not require permission of the Court and can be on a question of fact or law.
The High Court may make any order or direction as it thinks fit upon the review, and the High Court’s decision is final. This is to ensure that there will be finality to the proceedings.
We have provided for the possibility of the fugitive being released on bail pending the determination of the High Court's review of the Attorney-General's application. This balances the rights of the individual with the state's international obligations.
The new section 18 provides that either party may refer a question of law of public interest which arose during a review by the High Court to the Court of Appeal. This is based on section 397 of CPC.
Sir, we have made these changes to clarify the extradition process. The ability of the Attorney-General to apply for a review of an order to release the fugitive will also remove the need to process extradition applications afresh or re-arrest the fugitive following his or her discharge. This aligns Singapore's extradition framework with international practice and the provisions of the London Scheme.
Next, let me touch on the amendments which update evidential procedures for extradition proceedings.
In deciding whether a fugitive should be committed to await extradition to the requesting state, the Court must consider whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the extradition. Usually, this evidence is presented by way of affidavits, which can sometimes be voluminous. This includes affidavits of potential witnesses.
Clause 15 of the Bill introduces a record of the case mechanism under a new section 44, which will simplify the procedure for admission of evidence to justify the extradition of a fugitive.
A record of the case summarises the evidence acquired by a requesting state or territory in support of its extradition request. The record of the case must be certified by a judicial or prosecuting authority of the requesting state, who must state that the evidence summarised or contained in the record of the case is available to be produced at the person's trial and sufficient under the law of the requesting state to justify prosecution of the person.
The Court retains discretion in determining the weight to be given to the evidence admitted by way of a record of the case. The record of the case is only permissible if there is a treaty or arrangement allowing for such mechanism to be used. This ensures that there will be reciprocity between Singapore and its extradition partner, and that Singapore will also receive similar treatment when making the extradition request to the foreign party.
The record of the case mechanism facilitates extradition proceedings by simplifying procedures. It is aligned with international practice and is employed by some of our extradition partners, such as Canada and New Zealand.
Sir, before I conclude, let me just briefly touch on some other amendments.
We have clarified that the bail and bond provisions under CPC apply with certain modifications to persons released on bail or bond under the Act. We have also codified the powers of an authorised officer under the Act to search and seize property in the possession of the fugitive at the time of his or her arrest. Such property would be confined to physical items.
Clause 18 of the Bill inserts a new Fourth Schedule to the Act which lists the extradition offences arising from Singapore's international obligations that are currently found in other statutes. This makes the Act self-contained by housing all the extradition offences, which are currently disparate, under a single piece of legislation.
These other statutes implement and give effect to the various multilateral conventions which Singapore is party to, including extradition provisions contained in conventions, such as the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002, which implements Singapore's obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; and the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act 2007, which implements our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Bill consolidates the extradition framework for foreign states and declared Commonwealth territories into a single framework. These frameworks were previously separate due to the historical fact that the provisions were derived from the Extradition Act 1870 for foreign states and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 for declared Commonwealth territories respectively.
Over time, the relevant considerations and safeguards applied similarly across foreign states or Commonwealth territories, regardless of wherefrom the request was made.
We have, therefore, streamlined and combined the frameworks for clarity. The Bill provides for a new Part 3 for “Extradition From Singapore” and a new Part 4 for “Extradition To Singapore”, so, simplifying it into two buckets – to Singapore or from Singapore.
For completeness, Sir, I should add that, aside from minor updating of the language, we have preserved the Part on “Extradition To and From Malaysia”, by way of endorsements of arrest warrants. We recognise that this Part provides a simple and expeditious procedure that has worked well in the past and in practice for the return of fugitive offenders from Singapore to Malaysia and also vice versa.
Mr Speaker, let me now conclude. The amendments in this Bill form a comprehensive update to the Act, taking into account developments in international practice. Extradition is an essential component of international law enforcement and plays a key role in upholding the rule of law. With these amendments, Singapore will enhance its ability to combat crime through international cooperation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy objectives underpinning the proposed amendments to the Extradition Act 1968.
As outlined by the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to update and modernise our domestic extradition regime; ensure that there are mechanisms to ensure that resources of the state and judicial system are not over-used; and cement Singapore’s role as a responsible global citizen. As a result, this Bill proposes to make what I believe to be the most substantial amendments to the Act since it was enacted 54 years ago.
For legal practitioners and Government officers in the know, this is not an easy task. As will be seen from my speech, Singapore’s extradition framework is shaped by Singapore’s complex constitutional history and special relationship with several of our neighbouring states. I, therefore, appreciate the difficulties our legislative drafters faced in their attempt to simplify and modernise the Act. If they were to draft this Act from a clean slate, I suspect it would have been a much easier task to do. In my speech, I will cover five areas.
First, I seek clarification on the definition of “foreign state” that is proposed in the Bill.
Second, I seek clarification on two procedural issues. They are the need to retain the Magistrate’s independent jurisdiction to issue warrants of apprehension against fugitives, instead of doing so only when authorised by the Minister; and the absence of a provision that specifies who can make the applications to invoke the powers of the Court under the Extradition Act to issue warrants for apprehension of fugitives and commit the fugitive to be surrendered to the authorities of the requesting state.
Third, I seek a short clarification on how the threshold approach to determining an extraditable offence would apply in situations where the underlying treaty between Singapore and the foreign country specifies extraditable offences based on categories of offences listed.
Fourth, I seek a clarification on the issue of alignment between this Act and the existing extradition framework dealing with Malaysia and Brunei.
Finally, I wish to explore whether a Singapore Court, in deciding whether or not to make the extradition order, may take into account Singapore’s public interest.
On the first area, I note that it is proposed that the definition of what constitutes a “foreign state” in the current Act be retained. This includes a foreign state which had an extradition treaty with the British Empire at the time when Singapore was part of it, unless the Minister stipulates otherwise in a gazette notification. This is how the 1931 extradition treaty between the US and Singapore came into being. It was entered into between the US and UK when Singapore was a British colony. Singapore’s right to this extradition arose in her capacity as the successor by operation of law which was subsequently recognised by exchange of letters between the respective governments of the states in 1969.
As a result of this definition, there remains uncertainty as to which other foreign states may be held to be able to invoke the extradition processes under the Act. This is a point that Prof S Jayakumar, as an academic, made in 1970 in his published article entitled “Singapore and State Succession”. His point was echoed by NUS law lecturer, Ms Janice Brabyn, in her 1985 published article entitled, “Extradition in Singapore and Malaysia”. In her article, Ms Brabyn listed 14 more states that can potentially fulfil the definition of “Foreign States” arising from treaties entered into between 1898 and 1960 with the UK. They include Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Luxembourg and Switzerland.
In my respectful view, the passage of 54 years since the enactment of the Act constitutes more than enough time for the Government to have ascertained which are the historical treaties that Singapore considers as bilaterally enforceable. This will promote certainty and remove the chance of any dispute on this issue arising in Court, something that Prof Jayakumar was concerned about in his article. He said: “The problem could arise in proceedings to extradite a fugitive to a foreign state on the basis of a pre-Independence Treaty concluded by the UK with that foreign state. The fugitive might challenge the proceedings on the ground that the extradition treaty is not one which 'extends to and is binding on Singapore'.”
May I ask the hon Minister why he is proposing to still retain the original definition of “Foreign State” in these circumstances? Specifically, I wonder if the Minister would consider listing them in a schedule to the Act or by way of subsidiary legislation in the near future.
Turning to the second area, in this Bill, it is proposed that two current mechanisms to commence extradition proceedings in Singapore be retained. Currently, a Magistrate may, by authorisation of the Minister through a notice, issue a warrant of apprehension of a fugitive. In addition, the Magistrate may issue a same warrant through an application made directly to him. My question is: why give the Magistrate the power to issue a warrant independently? Would it not be better to just require any state which wishes to invoke the Extradition Act to make a requisition first to the Minister or the Attorney-General’s Chambers on behalf of the Government through diplomatic channels? I would imagine this is the case for most cases, if not for all.
In my respectful view, it would be preferable for the Minister, or if it is perceived that there is a need to create extra bandwidth, a person or committee appointed by the Minister, to act as a filter to determine the “bona fides” of the requesting state. This is not an easily justiciable question that a Court can decide.
Also, it is specifically provided in the proposed section 12(4) of the Bill that the Minister may direct a warrant issued by the Magistrate without the authorisation of the Minister to be cancelled. Having regard to the separation of powers in our Westminster-style Government, I am concerned about arrogating to the Minister a power to cancel a warrant issued by the Court, which is an independent pillar of our Government. To be fair, this is something which is already in place under the Act now.
Given that the policy intent is for the Minister to be satisfied there is ground to initiate or proceed with extradition proceedings, would it not be better to altogether remove the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to issue warrants against fugitives on his own?
This leads me to the next question as to who can make applications to invoke the powers of the Court under the Extradition Act.
Some provisions in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, or MACMA, as it is often referred to, overlap in purpose with the provisions of the Extradition Act. In both cases, Singapore is being asked to assist foreign states in criminal matters. MACMA deals with evidence needed for overseas criminal proceedings. The Extradition Act deals with persons accused or convicted of crime overseas.
Under section 22 of MACMA, it is specifically provided that it is the Attorney-General (AG) or a person duly appointed by the AG who may apply to the Court for production orders on behalf of the foreign country. Based on my checks, there is no equivalent section in the Extradition Act.
The Attorney-General’s role under the Act is specified only from the point after an order is made by the Magistrate on application for extradition. For example, he may make an application for a review of the order by the General Division of the High Court.
I do accept, in practice, officers of the AGC usually make the applications under the Act. But having regard to the point I made about the general jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue warrants of apprehension against fugitives and the fact that the definition of “Foreign States” may be more expansive than currently thought, it seems to me open for a party which has interest in a matter to apply and invoke the general jurisdiction of the Court, thereby bypassing AGC. Would it not be better to explicitly ensure that no other party other than the Attorney-General or someone appointed by him may invoke the powers of the Act to extradite a fugitive, just like in MACMA?
I now move to the third area, which is the proposed implementation of the threshold approach. As the hon Minister explained, this means that the offences which are punished by a maximum of two years' imprisonment would automatically be considered extradition offences. This is a shift from the current model which maintains a list of offences which will require an update periodically. I support this move. It makes eminent sense.
I must point out we are enabled to make this move now because there has been, in the recent past, a massive rationalisation exercise to ensure that the maximum sentences for offences have been updated.
This move is also calibrated in that the double criminality principle, requiring the offences to be punishable by a maximum punishment of more than two years’ imprisonment in both the requesting and requested states, is retained.
My question is: how are we able to reconcile this approach with respect to treaties which list offences, as opposed to adopting the threshold approach?
Let us take the US, for example. Under the treaty between the US and Singapore, there are 27 categories of offences. Would the US be able to extradite from Singapore a fugitive wanted for an offence that is not in the list but satisfies the threshold requirements?
The next area I wish to deal with concerns Singapore’s special extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei. This involves a considerably simplified process when it comes to extraditing a person in Singapore accused or convicted of an offence under the laws of Malaysia and Brunei. It is laid down in just one section of the Criminal Procedure Code, section 121, which has five subsections, and all in one page.
Under this arrangement, which, by the way, applies to Singapore reciprocally, too, when a warrant is issued by a Malaysian or Brunei Court, the Singapore Court may just endorse the said warrant and, thereafter, it is treated as a warrant issued by a Singapore Court. This simplified process reflects the special relationship between Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei and I fully support it.
Drawing from my personal experience as a former Police officer, I recall in the early 1990s, I was investigating a case of a girl alleged to have been kidnapped from lawful guardianship. The father of the girl provided information that the accused and his daughter were likely to be in Ulu Tiram, Johor. Within a matter of hours, a Malaysian police officer escorted my colleagues and I to the location identified by the father to look for the accused and the victim.
These special arrangements enable Police officers to pursue criminals even across borders as quickly as possible in an effort to bring them to justice.
Turning to the Bill, I note that in the proposed Part 6, it deals only with the arrangement with Malaysia substantially as it is set out in the Bill. The Bill is, however, silent on the extradition arrangement with Brunei.
One of the objectives of the Bill, as I understand, is to collate extradition offences stated in other pieces of legislation into the proposed Fourth Schedule of the Act. In light of that intent, may I please ask why is it not felt that there is a part under the Act to deal with the special arrangement with Brunei?
May I also ask what is the legislative intent in relation to a Magistrate applying the powers under section 121 of CPC to arrest a fugitive in Singapore wanted by the Malaysian authorities? Is he also to have regard to the requirements in Part 6 of the Extradition Act? I ask this because there is no reference in the provisions set out in the Extradition Act and CPC to each other, even though the subject matter is the same.
My final area deals with the applicability of Singapore’s local public interest to extradition applications here and possible clashes with the policy of other countries. I will do this through an illustration.
Article 11 of our Constitution prohibits a person from being punished for an act or omission which is not punishable by law when it was done. This protection against retrospective criminal laws, however, does not apply universally. For example, Pakistan’s Ehtesab Act 1997, which focuses on corruption by politicians and public officers, has retrospective effect.
Let us consider a case of a country seeking to extradite a fugitive from Singapore for an offence of bribery which satisfies all the proposed criteria set out in the Bill. Does a Singapore Court have a discretion, nonetheless, not to order an order which goes against Singapore’s local public interest? Or is the Court supposed to ignore Singapore’s local public interest altogether? Would it be better to have reserved for the Singapore Court a residual discretion to take action that it deems fit, depending on the circumstances of the case?
In this regard, I wish to point out that under section 22(4)(c) of MACMA, it is specifically provided that a Court, before it issues a production order for the benefit of foreign criminal proceedings, should satisfy itself that the issuance of the production order is not contrary to Singapore’s public interest.
I am also aware that under the proposed section 10(2)(d) in the Bill, there is a discretion provided to the Minister not to order a fugitive to be arrested for “any other sufficient cause”. But based on my consideration of the proposed clause, this clause is not intended to apply to Singapore’s public interest in the matter under consideration. Even if it does, my main point is that the Court should be given the judicial discretion to consider Singapore’s public interest, just like in the case for MACMA.
Sir, please allow me to conclude.
I had argued that there should be clarity on the identity of foreign states with whom Singapore has extradition treaties, given the complexities of her constitutional history. I argued that, for Malaysia and Brunei, with whom we have special extradition arrangements, there should be better alignment with this Act. I suggested that the AG be specifically appointed to invoke all the powers under the Act from the outset and not just from the point of review of an order.
Finally, I argued that, as a matter of calibration, a magistrate should not be given a discretion to issue a warrant of apprehension triggering extradition proceedings on his own accord without the Minister's prior authorisation. On the other hand, for a magistrate deciding whether or not to order extradition, I argued the reverse: that he should be given more discretion to apply Singapore's public interest.
In my respectful view, the proposals I have made are in line with the aims of the Bill.
Our role as legislators involves calibration of matters. Careful calibration is needed to achieve certainty, the judicious use of our state and judicial resources and ensuring that Singapore truly fulfils its role as a responsible global citizen in the arena of extradition of fugitives.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, according to MinLaw's press release on 7 March, this Bill seeks to amend the Extradition Act to update and modernise Singapore's statutory regime. It was further stated then that the amendments would \"Cement Singapore's role as a responsible global citizen\".
Sir, at the outset, it should be noted that the Bill preserves the simplified regime between Singapore and Malaysia for extradition based on mutual recognition of arrest warrants. Similar arrangements exist with Brunei as well, and I understand that these have worked well overall.
However, apart from Malaysia and Brunei, the Bill is proposing notable changes to the existing framework for extradition to and from declared Commonwealth countries and foreign states.
Overall, I find the changes in the Bill to be an improvement, being rational and less technical than the current scheme. In particular, I agree with the removal of the distinct parts of the Act covering declared Commonwealth countries and other foreign states in favour of many common provisions that will apply to all treaty countries.
The other change I support is the threshold approach to determine what offences are extraditable instead of the current scheme of looking at a positive list of extraditable crimes. Once the Bill is effective, the threshold for an extraditable offence will be simply set at offences attracting a maximum imprisonment of two years or more, subject to the list of exclusions. There is also a new provision to enable the fugitive to consent to extradition, saving time and cost. I am overall supportive of the Bill.
That said, I have some queries and an observation to make.
My speech today will cover whether the Government's general approach to extradition has changed; clarifications on safeguards for persons in Singapore against unjustifiable extradition requests; and, finally, an observation about why compromises to secure extradition are justifiable.
First, whether there has been any change in the Government's general approach to extradition. At a general level, I would like to clarify whether this Bill is a signal that the Government is changing its traditional somewhat guarded approach towards entering extradition treaties. Four years ago, during MinLaw's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I had raised the COS cut on extradition. The specific case used for discussion was that of Mr David Roach who had committed robbery at a bank at Holland Village. Members may recall that Mr Roach could not be extradited to Singapore when he was in nearby Thailand, but only when he travelled through London on the way back to his home country, Canada.
The then-Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, explained at the COS the Government's general approach to extradition. She said that while the Government was open to entering new extradition treaties, such negotiations were complex. Relevant considerations included whether such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial and whether any divergence in legal systems could be rationalised. She also highlighted that if there were inadequate protections, there would be risks to people in Singapore, including our citizens.
Sir, in this Bill, the provisions relating to extradition from non-Commonwealth countries are being brought closer to those available to Commonwealth countries. May I ask if the Government has evolved its thinking such that Singapore sees an interest in concluding more extradition treaties, including with non-Commonwealth countries?
Next, safeguards for persons in Singapore, including citizens. In terms of safeguards against unjustified extradition requests, the Bill provides more protections by enhancing the restrictions on the surrender of persons. Under clause 6 of the Bill, the new sections 8 to 10 set out the restrictions on the surrender of persons in Singapore to other countries, as well as restrictions on the Minister's powers to authorise the apprehension of fugitives in Singapore. There are, overall, more safeguards in this Bill than currently, such as not extraditing someone if he was convicted in a foreign state in his absence, or if the offence alleged is one which, under Singapore law, would only be an offence under military law. I agree that enhancing safeguards is prudent.
Sir, I have a specific query regarding the protections against extradition for offences that may have taken place many years prior to the request. For extradition from Malaysia and Brunei, my understanding is that there is no time bar. Hence, we read of persons wanted in Singapore who are apprehended in Malaysia three or four decades after the incident. As for countries other than Malaysia and Brunei, some protections already exist in the current Act for the Minister to refuse extradition to Commonwealth countries if there has been a passage of time. These protections are re-enacted and expanded in the Bill to apply to all treaty countries.
There will also now be a specific prohibition in the proposed section 8 against the extradition of a person if his alleged offence is time-barred based on the law of the foreign state – a point which the Minister touched on earlier.
Sir, the issue of the passage of time or time bar appeared to be a live issue in the negotiations of the recently concluded extradition treaty between Singapore and Indonesia.
Historically, we know that there has been strong interest from Indonesia to conclude a treaty with Singapore after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 to 1998. Shortly thereafter, in 1999, then Law Minister, Prof S Jayakumar, told Parliament that the Indonesians had made a request for such a treaty which Singapore was considering. It is widely known that the Indonesian government wishes to prosecute Indonesians who may have embezzled millions of dollars during the crisis and fled here thereafter. I can only assume that some of those who came to Singapore may have acquired Singapore citizenship by now. A prior bilateral extradition treaty was signed around 2007, but it was not implemented due to hurdles in the domestic approval process in Indonesia.
Sir, I recall reading in media reports that there was an 18-year time bar for criminal prosecutions under Indonesian law. In February this year, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean told the House that the new extradition treaty contained a provision to allow for retrospective application to extradite fugitives for crimes committed 18 years ago.
I am still unclear about how this would operate. Eighteen years prior to this year would bring us back to the year 2004. Could the Minister explain how this year's treaty would facilitate the extradition of fugitives who fled here after the Asian Financial Crisis after a passage of 24 years? I am not knowledgeable about the requirements of Indonesian law and the Government's clarification of this will be useful for public understanding.
Earlier, the Minister mentioned in the Second Reading speech that when this year's bilateral treaty with Indonesia is in force, Indonesia and Singapore can extradite fugitives based on the terms of that treaty. Can the Minister confirm whether this Bill will affect those arrangements and, if so, how?
Sir, before I end, I wish to comment on a matter that has arisen in recent public discussions on extradition.
In the case of Mr Roach mentioned earlier, the Singapore Government has secured his extradition from the UK after giving an assurance to the UK government that he would not undergo the punishment of caning. After Mr Roach was duly convicted of robbery in Singapore and sentenced to the mandatory six strokes of the cane, the Government advised the President to exercise her constitutional powers to remit the sentence of caning so as to honour its assurance to the UK government.
Some members of the public did not find this to be a fair outcome as Mr Roach did not suffer the full punishment ordered by the Court. A similar situation had arisen in the earlier case of Mr Michael McCrae, who was extradited from Australia in 2005, to face trial here for murder, which carried the death penalty. In that case, the Singapore Government also had to assure the Australian government that the fugitive would not face the death penalty in order to secure his extradition to Singapore.
Sir, it is not wrong for members of the public to expect that anyone who commits an offence in Singapore faces the punishments prescribed by Singapore law even if he has absconded abroad. Nevertheless, a fundamental principle of sovereignty is that countries need not concern themselves with offences committed in other countries. After all, going after criminals on behalf of another country requires time and expense and burdens the country's legal system. If a country has entered an agreement for mutual extradition, it is entitled to set qualifications to its obligations.
This reality is, no doubt, a compromise on certain principles, but it is, certainly, better than letting offenders escape justice altogether.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill is a welcome reform of our extradition regime. It reduces bureaucracy for a whole slew of parties, including individuals facing possible extradition, jurisdictions requesting the extradition, and judges making decisions on extradition.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the surrender of persons to declared Commonwealth territories. Can the Minister clarify why the surrender of persons to Commonwealth territories is restricted in special ways? For example, section 28 categorises offences against the life of a political figure and their immediate family as non-political offences. What is the significance of this specific carve-out? And why, in general, do additional restrictions apply in cases where Commonwealth territories are the ones requesting the extradition?
My second point today is about Ministerial discretion. Multiple sections in the Bill empower the Minister to exercise his discretion to decide for or against extradition. In section 29, for instance, the Minister may refuse to extradite a person to a Commonwealth territory in multiple cases, including when a person's conviction was obtained in their absence. In section 8(8), the Minister may refuse to extradite a person to a foreign state when their remaining sentence is minimal. Can the Minister share scenarios on how discretion is meant to be exercised for such cases? For section 8(8), when might we choose to extradite someone even though their remaining sentence is minimal? This would seem to run against the intent of the subsection, which is to empower the Government to save resources.
My last point is about the use of summarised evidence. The Bill allows a foreign jurisdiction requesting extradition to provide evidence by, in essence, summarising it. Can the Minister share what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this summary of evidence is sufficient for the Minister to make the required determination under the Act? For instance, section 10 restricts the Minister's powers to order the surrender of persons if the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that the person would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion. What mechanisms are in place to ensure this summary is sufficient for the Minister to ascertain if such substantial grounds exist?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I support the attempt to modernise our extradition regime through the Extradition (Amendment) Bill. I support the streamlining of provisions on extradition requests for declared Commonwealth countries and other non-Commonwealth foreign states into a single framework and also the enhancement of the review procedures for extradition proceedings.
I also welcome the introduction of the threshold approach for determining the extradition offences, which is a major change to the existing list approach. Instead of having to come within specific offences in a list under the existing approach, an offence will now be extraditable under the new threshold approach in this amendment Bill if it attracts a punishment of two or more years of imprisonment, subject to the list of excluded offences. This approach will make for easier applicability and also bring us in line with countries like the UK, Australia, Canada and Malaysia.
The Bill expands also on the restrictions on surrender. In other words, the Bill expands on the list of excluded offences or circumstances which preclude extradition. This also modernises our approach in this respect, adding to the circumstances seen in many extradition treaties.
Mr Speaker, I have a clarification on the prohibition of the situation of a request for extradition for prosecution of offences under military law. Do I understand correctly that the prohibition will apply as long as the fugitive is charged for actions which, if it had happened in Singapore, would constitute an offence under our Singapore Armed Forces Act (SAF Act) and any subsidiary legislation? And so, it should not extend to offences which, if under the requesting country's military laws, the acts leading to the offences might not have come within our SAF Act offences but under another statute, for example, our Enlistment Act offences.
Next, Mr Speaker, I welcome the new provisions under this Bill allowing a fugitive to consent to extradition. I agree that this may save state resources in otherwise having to proceed with a more lengthy extradition proceeding.
However, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether a consent by a fugitive will obviate the need for the Magistrate hearing the case to still examine and ensure that, prima facie, the proposed extradition comes within the requirements of the Extradition Act, regardless of and independent of the reasons or circumstances for him or her choosing to consent.
Next, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether the new requirements on search and seizure under clause 15, which provides for seizure of anything in the possession or control of a fugitive that may be material as evidence, will cover proceeds of fraud or offences relating to fraud, corruption or graft.
The Bill also introduces a record of the case mechanism. This is supposed to simplify existing requirements and procedures for the admission of evidence to support an application for extradition. Such a record of the case summarises the evidence presented by a requesting state or is to be certified by a judicial or prosecuting authority. While it is supposed to simplify and, while I note that the Bill does provide for the Court retaining discretion in determining the weight to be given to the evidence admitted by way of the record of the case, I would like to ask what are the safeguards against abuses, for example, where there are inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise, or any inadequacies with regard to the record of the case.
Next, Mr Speaker, I have a point of clarification on clause 16(8)(c). This clause provides that pursuant to sub-clauses 8(a) to (c), the Magistrate is to commit the person to await the warrant of the Minister for the surrender but otherwise, subject to section 17, is to order that person be released. I am trying to understand this clause. May I know in what circumstances should the Magistrate order that this person be released?
Next, Mr Speaker, before I close, I actually wanted to ask the Minister, given the changes to our extradition laws under this Bill and including the provision allowing consent by fugitives, does the Government expect that the amended law will result in an increased number of people being now eligible for extradition for offences committed in home countries in the past. And if I heard the Minister correctly, I think the indication is no.
On a related note, I would also like to ask the Minister whether following the recent extradition treaty with Indonesia, does the Government expect to handle a spike in the number of fugitives being extradited and also whether it is making plans to handle such an increase in volume.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and clarifications, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of this Bill. Overall, I have heard the Members' comments and some questions as to its operations and processes. But there has been overall support and I will address those questions in turn as best as I can.
Mr Murali Pillai asked why we have proposed to retain the definition of \"foreign state\" in the Extradition Act and whether we could consider listing the foreign states in a Schedule in the Act or by way of subsidiary legislation.
Sir, in every review, we must consider what is outdated, what ought to be changed and what still continues to work well. And, of course, making the changes and retaining those that continue to work well.
The definition of \"foreign state\" is one such instance which continues to work well for our present purposes, with slight adjustments. The definitions that we have retained had been updated previously in 1998.
Mr Murali Pillai mentioned that the definition of \"foreign state\" includes a foreign state which had a treaty with the British Empire at the time when Singapore was part of it and that this could cause uncertainty as to which foreign states may be held to be able to invoke the extradition processes under the Act.
Sir, let me clarify that this is not the case. It has been previously clarified in this House that whilst it is true that before Singapore's Independence, there were extradition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom and other foreign countries in which Singapore was listed in the scope of operations of these treaties, it does not follow that, today, all those arrangements automatically apply to Singapore. In fact, these pre-Independence treaties will only apply where the Government has considered that these treaties are binding on Singapore and where we have published this in subsidiary legislation, as Mr Murali Pillai has suggested. The short answer, therefore, to Mr Murali Pillai's question is that only our pre-Independence treaties with Germany, entered into in 1872, and the US, entered into in 1935, apply to Singapore. The relevant treaties are published as subsidiary legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany (Extradition) Order in Council and the United States of America (Extradition) Order in Council. None of the other pre-Independence extradition treaties entered into by the UK currently applies to Singapore.
Mr Louis Ng asked for clarification as to why there are special restrictions on surrender to declared Commonwealth territories and also why, in general, do additional restrictions apply in cases where Commonwealth countries request extradition. He has also asked about the significance of section 28, which provides that offences against the life or a person of a political figure or a member of the political figure's immediate family, are not offences of a political character. Let me give a brief explanation on how section 28 operates.
The Act contains an existing restriction on surrender in section 9(1), where a fugitive is not liable to be surrendered if the offence is of a political character. Section 28 provides exceptions to this restriction. In other words, the \"political character\" restriction does not apply in respect of an offence against the life or person of a political figure and his or her immediate family for declared Commonwealth territories. The fugitive may be extradited in such a scenario. This specific carve-out to the restriction on surrender is adapted from clause 12(2)(a) of the London Scheme, which, as I earlier mentioned, would only apply for declared Commonwealth territories.
For completeness, the Member also observed that there are additional restrictions that apply to Commonwealth territories and not to foreign states. These additional restrictions are where the offence was committed outside the requesting state and Singapore and is not an extraterritorial offence under the law of the requesting state; and where the person has become immune from prosecution. The reason that these additional restrictions apply for declared Commonwealth territories is because these are aligned with the London Scheme.
That said, it is not the case that where a request of such a nature is made by a non-Commonwealth territory, that such a carve-out to the restriction on surrender for offences of a political character would never apply.
For all foreign states and territories that are not part of the Commonwealth, the bilateral or multilateral treaty in place would be the primary source of our international obligations to each other in relation to extradition. And this also addresses Ms Sylvia Lim's point about what we do with the new treaties, including that with Indonesia. The treaty terms would prevail.
Some of our bilateral and multilateral treaties contain a similar provision. For example, I pointed out earlier that the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings makes it clear that a terrorist bombing offence is not an offence of a political character. Singapore would similarly be obliged not to restrict the surrender of a fugitive to the foreign state or territory in the event the offence was the bombing of a political figure's residence.
On this note, this brings me to Mr Murali Pillai's query on how the shift to the threshold approach for extraditable offences would be reconciled with our bilateral treaties which adopt the list approach. I think several Members also touched on the question of how you might reconcile this in the context of having a treaty and also the impact that this Bill might or might not have.
I mentioned that Singapore's existing extradition treaties would be the primary source for our international obligations to foreign states and territories. Saving provisions have been drafted in the Bill to preserve the status quo in our existing extradition treaties, which means that amendments would, generally, not apply to our extradition treaties.
Where applicable, however, the threshold approach could, in some cases, widen the scope of extraditable offences under our bilateral treaties and arrangements.
However, this is not the case for the example which Mr Murali Pillai cited vis-a-vis our bilateral treaty with the US. The US would not be able to rely on the bilateral treaty to request extradition of a fugitive wanted for an offence that is not within the categories of offences in the treaty.
This would respect the fundamental principle in international law that the ambit of the treaty governs the obligations between the states.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether we could share scenarios on how the Ministerial discretion is meant to be exercised in deciding to accede to or reject an extradition request. I think Mr Dennis Tan also touched on a question of when the Magistrate might order the release of the fugitive.
To deal with this point – for instance, when would the Minister choose to extradite a fugitive even when his or her remaining imprisonment term is minimal – I mentioned earlier in my opening speech that there may be instances where the surrender of the fugitive is, nevertheless, warranted, even if the remaining imprisonment term might be minimal. For example, there might be significant public interest in the requesting state or territory for the return of that fugitive. And in such a scenario, we might decide to accede to the extradition request even if the requirement for the discretionary restriction has been met.
Let me touch on Mr Louis Ng's queries on the use of summarised evidence and the record of the case mechanism, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the summary of evidence is sufficient for the Minister to make the required determinations under the Act.
I had explained earlier that the record of the case mechanism simplifies the procedure for admission of evidence to justify the extradition of a fugitive. For example, it may suffice for a prosecutor of the requesting state to summarise the circumstances of the fugitive's arrest, rather than to include numerous affidavits from each witness and every arresting officer to describe their individual roles and capacities in which the fugitive was apprehended. It provides an alternative means to presenting evidence but does not in any way mean that the bar or the standard of evidence that has to be reached for the threshold for assessment of committal for this fugitive is to be lowered.
There must still be sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case, in other words, on the face of it, that there is sufficient corroborating evidence that the fugitive, indeed, committed such an offence. The Attorney-General's Chambers and my Ministry will ensure that every extradition request is sufficiently substantiated with such evidence before we accede to the extradition request and commence committal proceedings.
At the committal proceedings before a Magistrate, the Magistrate would similarly need to be satisfied of the prima facie evidence requirement, before the person can be committed to prison to await their surrender to the requesting state.
Mr Louis Ng raised, as an example, the restrictions of the Minister's power to order a person's surrender if the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that the person would be prosecuted for reasons of race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion, and what mechanisms would be in place to ensure the summary of evidence is sufficient for the Minister to ascertain that such grounds exist.
Sir, let me explain. Generally, if there is reason to believe that a person is going to be discriminated against, or prosecuted along one of these discrimination grounds, then you are unlikely to find that the evidence submitted by the requesting state would detail this.
On the contrary, if there is a dearth of credible evidence in the extradition request justifying the commission of the alleged offence by the fugitive, this could form a basis and contribute to the grounds for the Minister's belief that the fugitive is being discriminated against or that one of the restrictions on surrender might apply.
For completeness, we would add that Singapore has always required extradition requests from requesting states to also contain undertakings that the fugitive would not be prejudiced or otherwise punished for reason of race, religion, nationality or political opinions. This requirement will remain even with the introduction of the record of the case mechanism.
Mr Murali Pillai asked why the Magistrate's power to issue warrants of arrest by a Notice by the Minister is being retained. Let me explain what this contemplates.
Sir, the reason for the retention of this power is for provisional arrests. Provisional arrest is the procedure that applies for urgent cases where a requested person is deemed to be a flight risk and there is insufficient time for the requesting state to prepare a full extradition request.
As Mr Murali Pillai mentioned, it is preferable, and, indeed, required, for any foreign state or territory to request the extradition of a fugitive through a formal request via diplomatic channels. However, there are, sometimes, cases where there is information that the fugitive is a flight risk and there is an urgent need to detain the fugitive to prevent him or her from fleeing. This allows Singapore to fulfil our international obligations under our treaties.
In such cases, where the overriding concern is to ensure the detention of the fugitive, the quickest way would be for the Magistrate to have the power to issue warrants of arrest without being authorised by a Notice by the Minister. Subsequently, a full extradition request must be submitted by the requesting state within a fixed number of days – the number of days depends itself on the terms of the treaty – and in any event, within a reasonable time.
If, for example, the full extradition request and the supporting documents are not furnished by this time, or the documents are inadequate, or if any of the restrictions on surrender apply, the Minister can then direct the warrant to be cancelled. So, in this case, if after the initial arrest notice has been issued, it subsequently transpires that, upon review of the full set of extradition materials from the requesting state, these thresholds for committal are not met, then, in that scenario, the Minister can ask for the warrant to be cancelled.
To Mr Dennis Tan's point, it is also in that scenario, that if the Magistrate is of the view that the threshold has not been reached, has not been crossed, then, in such a situation, the Magistrate can order a release.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether a Singapore Court has the discretion not to grant an order which goes against Singapore's public policy. Sir, the short answer to this question is no, but let me explain this.
Under the Act, a Magistrate is only entitled to commit the fugitive to prison if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify his or her extradition; or the Magistrate has to release the fugitive in all other circumstances. I made that point earlier.
In other words, as long as there is a prima facie case that would justify the trial of the fugitive, or sufficient evidence that the fugitive had been convicted of that offence, the Magistrate must order the committal of the fugitive.
Having said that, in the event that the extradition request from the requesting state does, indeed, go against Singapore's public policy, the Minister can consider if this would fall within any of the restrictions on surrender, which have been enhanced in this Bill. All of these would be grounds on which to refuse the request for extradition.
Mr Murali Pillai asked who can make applications to invoke the powers of the Court under the Extradition Act.
Since extradition requests are made solely at the government-to-government level, as Mr Murali Pillai alluded to, Court applications under the Extradition Act would be made by officers from the Attorney-General's Chambers.
The new section 50 provides that the Attorney-General may delegate to a public officer any of his or her powers under the Act and, in the Explanatory Statement, Members will see that it is elaborated upon that a public officer so empowered may act for the Attorney-General in Court proceedings.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei and why the reciprocal arrangements with Brunei for the endorsement of arrest warrants are not included in the amended Act; and also asked about the legislative intent in relation to a Magistrate's powers under section 121 of the CPC.
As I have mentioned earlier, aside from minor updating of the language, we have preserved the part on \"Extradition To and From Malaysia\". This is in Part 6 of the amended Act, by way of endorsement of arrest warrants.
In practice, the Singapore and Malaysian authorities have largely relied on the section 121 of the CPC procedure, which, as Mr Murali Pillai mentioned, covers the same subject matter of the reciprocal endorsement of arrest warrants.
Mr Murali Pillai spoke about the special relationship with Malaysia and Brunei and I think his own experience shows that the officers on all three sides are aware of this and use this procedure. It has been simple and expeditious. Our operational agencies and their counterparts have some history and share a good working relationship on the basis of this established procedure.
As I had earlier alluded to, time is often of the essence in such matters where the fugitive is a flight-risk and familiarity with this working process, the good working relationship on the basis of section 121 of CPC is being retained. Therefore, since the section 121 CPC procedure is used more often in practice, we decided that it was not necessary to replicate this procedure for our arrangement with Brunei in the Extradition Act.
On Mr Murali Pillai's ancillary question, a Magistrate's powers under section 121 of CPC are self-contained. In other words, the Magistrate would not need to have regard to Part 6 of the Extradition Act.
Ms Sylvia Lim raised, I think, two points and one comment, if I am not wrong, let me address them.
First, she asked if this represents a shift or a change in approach. The short answer is no. We have always been desirous of looking at countries which have a common desire to work with us to strengthen comity, international collaboration on apprehension of criminals and bilateral cooperation in combating crime. And to the extent that these arrangements are seen to be mutually beneficial, work for us and that we can overcome any issues related to the divergence of our respective legal systems, then we will be prepared to enter into treaties or arrangements with them.
On the second point concerning, I think it was restrictions, time-bar, if I am not wrong, if the position is such that the offence is time-barred in the sense that that foreign state is unable by reason of the time-bar to prosecute that fugitive in the foreign state, then we will not allow the extradition, on the basis that it would have been a futile extradition because you cannot prosecute that fugitive.
But as to why 18 years, that was the request for that treaty and we acceded to 18 years. It could have been some other period of time but this was the consensus agreed upon with Indonesia concerning that treaty.
Mr Dennis Tan asked several other questions, I will just deal with them quickly before I end off.
As far as the point on military law is concerned, if the offence that the requesting state seeks to extradite a fugitive for is only a military offence, then such a scenario would not result in the extradition being permitted. In the course of apprehending the fugitive, there are search and seizure provisions. These are, as I pointed out earlier, for physical items. But if this leads to other evidence, which suggests that there have been, as Mr Dennis Tan puts it, proceeds of a crime and so on, then the relevant investigations will entail on the evidence which follows such proceeds.
I think I have dealt with section 16 as to when the Magistrate will order the release.
Finally, in relation to the question of the spike, I think I have also dealt with that. We do not expect there to be an unusual or heavy spike. But, of course, with the provisions here, we will have to look at what the caseload might turn out to be. I do not think this will be something that is extraordinary or anomalous, but, as I mentioned in my opening speech, our experience has been that states will continue to seek extradition for the most serious of offences, cases in which there is a significance, for which the fugitive is to be apprehended for serious offences. So, on that basis, we do not expect there to be an extraordinary spike given these amendments. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I just have a clarification, please.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Clarification for the Minister on his response regarding the extradition treaty with Indonesia. Basically, can I confirm that he is saying that as far as that is concerned, the terms of the bilateral treaty prevail over the Bill, in that sense? I mean, it is between the two countries to agree.
The second clarification is, as I mentioned in the past, the interest was always to pursue fugitives that fled Indonesia after the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC), which took place about 24 years ago. So, is he saying that the Indonesians are now happy with just going back 18 years and they will just sort out whatever they need to do? Can the Minister clarify that?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think 18 years is the agreed period of time with Indonesia in the treaty. As to how and to what end they want to use that and deal with fugitives arising from the AFC or otherwise, I think that is a call that they make. But on the terms of the treaty, it goes back 18 years.
To the Member's first point, the treaty contains the substantive obligations between the two states. I think I pointed out both in my opening speech as well as my reply to the Member that that is the principle – you look at the treaty and the terms of the treaty and that governs the relationship between the two parties as to the terms on which you extradite or not extradite, as the case might be.
I perhaps want to just clarify one point which I think the Member alluded to earlier in her speech. When I said in my opening speech that there are some cases where you could widen, that might apply, for example, if your treaty is worded in a way which allows you to piggyback on what laws might be amended to. So, if your treaty says all offences which the state might now, or, at some stage, revise their statutes to cover, then, of course, in such a scenario, because it is a moving definition in the extradition treaty, it moves along with any amendments or enhancements that the state might offer, like in this case. So, if what was previously agreed is fixed at just one year imprisonment, you can only extradite for one year, then that would be binding on the parties. But if one says, it is for a period of time, or whatever you might choose at some stage to amend your laws to, then the treaty would follow that provision. So, in that scenario, it might widen, but, otherwise, the principal point is that the treaty obligations between the parties will be binding on the parties.
Mr Speaker: Order. Leader, you might want to move for exempted business.
","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":"Extradition (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications, please?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Member","subTitle":"In response to Senior Minister of State for Health","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I had made a request for Ms He Ting Ru to make her clarification before the next Bill is debated.
Mr Speaker: Oh yes, that is right. I beg your pardon. Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you for allowing me to make this clarification. I have checked my records and notes and referred to a recent case of a resident who came to seek help during my Meet-the-People session earlier this year. I subsequently wrote in to CPF for assistance with this.
Due to his medical conditions, he was prescribed various medications for these chronic conditions which, despite the various subsidies and claims of MediSave available to him, he was unable to avoid paying in full as there remained a residual cash payment that he was required to make. He, therefore, hoped to be able to increase the claimable limits by an additional $500 and this was the request that I conveyed. He also said to me that because of his situation, he previously asked for medications to be deleted because he could not afford it. This is also contained in my letter.
As of now, I cannot say for certain if CPF has responded to this particular appeal as I would need to access my physical records to check if a reply letter has been sent by CPF.
Mr Speaker, this case is a specific example of a resident who made a request to cut back on medications as they believe they cannot afford it, perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the help available or else, a lack of confidence in making the necessary applications and appeals.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for adding more context to the anecdote that she shared in the speech. I note that she has referred this resident of hers, who has issues with out-of-pocket charges, to CPF for further assistance. Might I suggest that, actually, that might not be the correct place for referring the patient for further help.
Let me just give some background. In 2021, after we enhanced MediSave to allow $700 per year of claims, we note that, in our database, about nine in 10 of patients who used MediSave for their Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) or chronic medical conditions actually do not reach the limit. So, this particular resident may well have fallen out of the scheme, or it could be one where the medications are more unique and special.
I raise this because I was a little bit concerned that in the Member's speech, the Member made this claim that the patients choose to cut down on the dosages and I thought that would not be medically sound. Because most doctors would not reduce a dose of medication. They may reduce the duration but, certainly, not the dosage.
In this case, I think if this patient has residual out-of-pocket costs that he or she is unable to bear, may I suggest the Member perhaps may send me the details of this patient. We can take a look and see how we can actually bring the resources that he or she might not be aware of, because there could be alternative medications, there could well be more subsidised medications in our polyclinics. In fact, if this patient is elderly, 75% of our outpatient charges are already subsidised. If the elderly patient is in the Merdeka or Pioneer Generations, he will get at least a further 50% or 25%, depending on whether Pioneer or Merdeka Generation subsidies.
So, I think we will try all our means to help this patient get access to the care that he or she needs. And I would appreciate if Ms He Ting Ru can send me the details of this patient.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sure. Thank you very much for your clarification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Services and Markets Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the financial sector is dynamic and rapidly evolving, driven by innovation, digitalisation and the design of new products and services. The sector has transformed significantly in recent years, in terms of the types of transactions and the persons, institutions and technology conducting these transactions.
We must ensure that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) keeps abreast of these developments and that we equip it with the necessary tools to facilitate the development of these new products and services, while managing the risks involved. There are two key angles in this Bill that will improve MAS' effectiveness in doing this. First, it enhances MAS' regulatory and enforcement framework across the financial sector, besides the rules designed for each segment of the sector.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
We will consolidate some of MAS' powers on similar issues, which are currently spread across various Acts into one single Bill. For instance, the proper management of technology risk and measures to instill proper conduct amongst professionals in the financial sector. Second, it addresses regulatory challenges presented by the digitalisation and transformation of financial markets.
Let me speak briefly on why these are needed and important improvements.
First, the need to enhance sector-wide regulatory effectiveness. MAS presently regulates the financial sector through various Acts, each of which focuses on specific sectors and activities. For example, the Securities and Futures Act regulates the capital markets and its participants, while the Insurance Act deals with the activities of insurance firms and agents, amongst others.
And because the regulatory framework is structured in this manner, certain MAS powers, such as the power to issue prohibition orders, or POs, or the power to impose technology risk management requirements, can be found in the different Acts, sometimes in differing forms.
They may also not be found in all of the MAS-administered Acts. For instance, the current powers to issue POs only apply to persons who provide capital markets services, financial advisory services or insurance services. And this is clearly not comprehensive enough, as it leaves out other traditional sectors, such as banking, as well as newer ones, like payment services.
There are also other powers in the MAS Act which cut across the different sectors within the financial sector. These include: one, those relating to anti-money laundering and the countering of financing of terrorism (AML/CFT); and two, the resolution of financial institutions (FIs) in distress and financial industry dispute resolution schemes. These powers will now be housed under the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Bill, which acts as an omnibus Bill.
Madam, as I mentioned, the second key angle of the Bill is digitalisation, which is fundamentally transforming the financial sector. For example, vastly more financial transactions are now conducted digitally through mobile applications and virtual assets, such as bitcoins and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are becoming more common globally. MAS is committed to facilitating growth opportunities presented by digital finance and the cheaper and more convenient services it often brings for consumers, while guarding against new risks involved.
These digital transformations could disrupt and challenge existing regulatory frameworks, which were designed for more traditional forms of financial transactions and services. For example, digital tokens service providers, or DT service providers, could easily structure their businesses to evade regulation in any one jurisdiction as they operate mainly online. And we could be exposed to reputational risks brought by DT service providers created in Singapore and which provide services relating to virtual assets, such as bitcoin, outside of Singapore. So, this FSM Bill seeks to mitigate such risks by licensing these players and imposing AML/CFT requirements on them. The Bill also enhances MAS' powers to ensure that FIs bolster their security and resilience of digital services.
In short, to continue safeguarding Singapore's financial stability and maintaining public confidence in our financial sector, we must update our regulatory and enforcement framework to plug existing gaps and keep up with new risks emerging from an increasingly integrated, digitised and complex financial market.
MAS has consulted both the industry and the public and received broad support for the FSM Bill. MAS has then incorporated the feedback received into the FSM Bill, where appropriate. Sir, I will now go through each of the four key aspects of the FSM Bill, starting with the power to issue POs.
The FSM Bill provides MAS with broad powers to impose POs against persons who have shown themselves to be unfit to perform key roles, activities and functions in the financial industry. POs are issued in cases of serious misconduct, such as to individuals who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty in respect of their dealings with customers. The issuance of such POs can also deter others from committing similar lapses.
However, there are limitations to MAS' current PO powers. MAS can only issue POs to certain specified persons under the Financial Advisors Act, or FAA, the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) and the Insurance Act (IA), such as trading representatives and insurance agents. However, there are people who work in the financial industry who do not fall within these existing categories. For example, it would not be possible to issue a PO to a bank manager, unless he is also a person to whom POs may be issued under any of the three previously mentioned Acts.
Furthermore, while MAS has been decisive in issuing POs to individuals who have committed serious misconduct, such as in the 1MDB case, its powers have only enabled it to prohibit individuals from carrying out key regulated activities under the three Acts, such as providing financial advisory services. MAS' existing powers do not extend to prohibiting persons from carrying out other activities, including providing payment services or conducting other important functions in the financial industry, such as risk management or compliance and the administration of critical systems.
The FSM Bill broadens the categories of persons who may be subject to POs, rationalises the grounds for issuing POs, from a list of specific criteria to a single fit and proper test, and widens the scope of prohibition to cover functions that are critical to the integrity and functioning of financial institutions. The revised PO powers are broadly aligned with those in Australia, Hong Kong, the UK and the US.
MAS will continue to exercise its PO powers judiciously, taking into account the nature and severity of each misconduct and its actual and potential impact on trust in our financial sector. Existing checks and balances will continue to apply. Before MAS issues a PO to any person, the person has an opportunity to make representations to MAS and, if MAS proceeds with issuing a PO, the person has the right to appeal to the Minister.
Madam, I will next speak on the enhanced regulation of DT service providers for money laundering and terrorist financing, or ML/TF risks. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has strengthened international standards for virtual assets service providers, or VASPs, in June 2019, for this purpose. We have already made amendments to existing legislation to implement these enhanced standards. VASPs are termed as digital token service providers for the purpose of the FSM Bill and I shall refer to them as DT service providers.
Entities that conduct the business of providing DT services in Singapore are subject to current legislation, regardless of where they are established. However, DT service providers created in Singapore, but without providing any DT services in Singapore, are currently unregulated for AML/CFT.
Further, these entities may claim to be headquartered here to take advantage of Singapore's global reputation, and this creates reputational risks for Singapore. This regulatory lacuna is global. Where a DT service provider established in one jurisdiction does not provide services in that jurisdiction, but offers its services digitally to other markets, the gap in the current global regulatory framework leads to no single jurisdiction having sufficient regulatory hold over the DT service provider for its ML/TF controls.
To close this gap, the enhanced FATF standards require DT service providers to be at least licensed or registered in the jurisdiction, or jurisdictions, where they are created.
Persons that provide DT services in Singapore will continue to be regulated under existing MAS administered Acts. The FSM Bill will regulate all persons in Singapore who conduct a business of providing DT services purely outside of Singapore, if they are created in or operate their businesses from Singapore. The FSM Bill will regulate such DT service providers a new class of FIs, primarily for ML/TF risks.
The FSM Bill will introduce licensing requirements and general powers over DT service providers, including powers for MAS to conduct AML/CFT inspections and to render assistance to domestic authorities and MAS' foreign AML/CFT supervisory counterparts.
MAS will also impose other requirements on DT service providers, such that they have a meaningful presence in Singapore and MAS has adequate supervisory oversight over them. The AML/CFT requirements imposed on DT service providers will be aligned with the requirements imposed on digital payment token service providers regulated under the Payment Services Act.
Madam, I will now speak on the harmonised power to impose requirements in technology risk management (TRM). The Bill consolidates existing TRM requirements made under various MAS-administered Acts by introducing powers within the FSM Bill that apply to any FI or class of FIs. The powers will enable MAS to impose requirements in TRM, as well as in the safe and sound use of technology to deliver financial services and to protect data.
As I mentioned earlier, FIs today rely heavily on technology to deliver financial services. However, the current maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of TRM requirements are not commensurate with the potential widespread impact to FIs' customers and the financial industry that could result from such breaches. With the passing of the FSM Bill, the maximum penalty for each breach of a TRM requirement will be raised to $1 million. A technology event which impacts an FI's customers or other industry participants could involve breaches of several TRM requirements. So, this means that an FI could face a much higher than $1 million financial penalty for a serious cyber attack or disruption to essential financial services where multiple breaches of TRM requirements are established, for example, an ATM network disruption or online trading disruption.
The quantum proposed is intended to underscore the critical importance of TRM to FIs' operations and the sound functioning of our financial system. The quantum was derived after considering existing penalty regimes of various other jurisdictions and Singapore Government agencies. For example, a contravention of the relevant provisions in the Telecommunications Act and Personal Data Protection Act can attract a financial penalty of $1 million. In Hong Kong, a breach of data protection requirements can result in a financial penalty of HK$1 million. In addition to the penalty imposed for a breach of TRM requirements, MAS is empowered to take other supervisory actions, such as requiring FIs to set aside additional regulatory capital until MAS is satisfied that adequate technology risk control measures have been put in place to address deficiencies.
Lastly, let me speak on the statutory protection from liability for mediators, adjudicators and employees of an operator of an approved dispute resolution scheme.
Presently, an adjudicator, employee, officer or representative of the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, or FIDREC, which operates an approved financial dispute resolution scheme, is contractually conferred certain protection from claims by a complainant or an FI.
The FSM Bill will provide statutory protection for such persons. This will strengthen the confidence and autonomy of these individuals when they carry out their duties and align the level of protection for them more closely with that of other public dispute resolution bodies in Singapore and internationally.
They will be protected from liability if they acted with reasonable care and in good faith in the course of mediating or adjudicating a dispute. They will, however, continue to be liable for acts involving wilful misconduct, negligence, fraud or corruption.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the FSM Bill will enable and empower MAS to respond more effectively to the opportunities and challenges posed by a dynamic and rapidly evolving financial sector. It will also position Singapore to strengthen our role and reputation as a safe, trusted and innovative global financial centre that creates good jobs and opportunities for our people. Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to declare that I am employed by an MAS-licensed bank in Singapore.
On this Bill, I would like to raise some clarifications and suggestions on managing the regulatory costs or burden on market participants. These are grouped into three main areas – the need for a coherent and consistent regulatory framework, avoiding over-regulation and guarding against unintended burdens on entities or individuals.
The first area is the continuing push for a coherent and consistent regulatory framework. Our regulatory requirements should be easy to understand so that market participants do not have to waste time and costs trying to figure them out, or to \"over-comply\" on the safe side.
I, therefore, applaud the efforts to adopt a financial sector-wide regulatory approach in the consolidation of some of MAS' regulatory powers into this one Bill. My first question is whether this Bill is merely the first step in a broader exercise to rationalise our regulations on a financial sector-wide basis. Will we gradually see the transposition of more pieces of our regulatory fabric into this FSM Bill, if passed? This could allow us to surface and harmonise the possible inconsistencies in related regulations or how they are implemented.
There is one part of this Bill that seems to cut against a financial sector-wide regulatory approach. In Part 9 of the Bill, MAS seeks to introduce a regime to license and regulate digital token service providers based in Singapore but who provide digital token services outside Singapore. As I understand it, digital token service providers who are providing such services in Singapore will continue to be licensed and regulated under the more extensive requirements in the Payment Services Act, the Securities and Futures Act and/or the Financial Advisers Act.
I support the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) recommendation to ensure that virtual asset service providers are at least regulated in their home jurisdiction for money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risks.
At the same time, we should also consider other regulatory aims, such as consumer protection, prudential safety and anti-market manipulation, even for those \"export\" service providers who only provide their digital token services outside of Singapore. Even if a particular digital token service is being provided abroad, Singaporeans and Singapore may still be exposed to that digital token and its risks.
For example, we may wish to subject Singapore token advertisers who advertise outside of Singapore to the same restrictions that had recently been issued to Digital Payment Token service providers regulated under the Payment Services Act. The high level of Internet accessibility and connectivity that Singaporeans enjoy means that we can no longer so clearly separate what is inside and outside of Singapore.
Subjecting regulated digital token service providers to the same rules, regardless of whether they are providing digital token services inside or outside Singapore, would simplify compliance for them. It would avoid the situation where a single digital token service provider is potentially subject to different legislation and regimes. However, that probably turns on the following deeper questions. Has MAS studied crypto and virtual assets sufficiently to rationalise the piecemeal guidance it has issued to respond to specific issues and to articulate its holistic strategy to regulate such assets?
Another question that I have is whether MAS has considered carving out such \"export\" service providers from licensing and regulation under the FSM Act if they are already being regulated in another jurisdiction which enforces the FATF Standards at the minimum, for example, where their services are being provided. This would prevent duplicative compliance costs from having to comply with the multiple regulatory regimes but still meet the FATF's intent to mitigate the risk of regulatory arbitrage.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the second area is to be careful not to over-regulate and stifle the financial industry. Excessive compliance burdens can cause market participants to re-evaluate whether they should continue operating out of Singapore. Such \"offshoring\" not only reduces jobs and opportunities, but also hinders the development of an ecosystem in budding areas like fintech.
Clause 29 of the Bill empowers MAS to impose requirements of TRM on any FI it regulates. Importantly, the maximum penalty for non-compliance with such TRM requirements is proposed to be $1 million plus $100,000 for every day that the offence continues after conviction, to signal the importance of TRM in light of the serious effects of any potential disruption.
This high penalty might have the chilling effect of discouraging FIs from working with fintech startups which typically have small operations and may not be able to invest in layered and complex cybersecurity defences. As we are recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, some have also opined that MAS should take a more supportive and facilitative approach by helping FIs scale up on TRM, instead of threatening FIs with a big stick.
Considering Singapore's aim to nurture a wider fintech ecosystem, including for startups, could MAS perhaps instead consider requiring any prospective licensees to present adequate cybersecurity plans as a condition for granting or renewing licences? This was a suggestion which I had mooted in this House last year. Such cybersecurity plans could include risk management measures, such as security audits of systems and servers and regular bug bounty programmes, to identify gaps ahead of malicious hackers, facilitating job and development opportunities for local white hat hackers and other cybersecurity talents.
Like the Personal Data Protection Commission, MAS could stipulate the existence and extent of such voluntary plans and undertakings as an additional factor to mitigate any penalty that is imposed on a regulated entity if a breach or disruption event occurs.
Finally, the third area is to guard against the unintended effects of our regulation, especially as the market participants find ways to \"shift\" or \"pass on\" the regulatory burden.
Part 3 of the Bill proposes to introduce a single, harmonised power to issue Prohibition Orders, or POs, to persons to prevent them from performing particular functions in Singapore's financial sector. This will replace the MAS' existing powers to issue POs to different individuals on different grounds under different legislation. As a preliminary question, when will this new PO regime be brought into effect? And MAS' consultation response suggests that sufficient notice will be given before the PO provisions are brought into effect, even after this Bill passes into law.
A key change is the broadened categories of persons who may be subject to POs, beyond employees of FIs performing regulated functions and including the service providers of FIs. Importantly, it will be a criminal offence for the FI itself, if it were to employ, or use the services of, a person against whom a PO is made.
Would the defence of taking all reasonable steps to ensure compliance and reasonable belief of compliance allow FIs to simply \"shift\" the regulatory burden to its service providers? It would not seem fair to allow a bigger and better-resourced FI to rely on its service provider's contractual warranties and covenants, and effectively pass the regulatory burden to a smaller service provider who might not primarily operate in the regulated financial sector.
Is MAS intending to create and maintain a public register of POs beyond the current publication of formal regulatory and enforcement actions taken by MAS on its \"Enforcement Actions\" webpage? This would make it easier for all FIs and/or their service providers to comply with the PO regime.
We must also be conscious of the impact caused to individuals who have been, or may in the future be, issued with a PO. Given the expanded scope for which POs may be issued, FIs may require some clarity in the form of MAS' guidance on the specific scope of POs issued in the newly-extended areas. Any ambiguity could create employee deployment issues for FIs and may drive them to terminate or refrain from hiring persons who have been issued with a PO entirely. Is there any data or study on the number of persons who had previously been issued with a PO and who have, thereafter, returned to the financial sector?
As MAS has explicitly noted, POs materially affect individual livelihoods and we must calibrate the impact of POs precisely. While it is important to prevent unfit persons from performing specific roles in the financial sector and to deter others from committing similar misconduct, we should ensure that those who have made mistakes are punished adequately for their errors, and no more. In that vein, can I ask the Minister if an individual's previous PO can be purged from the records after a specific period of time?
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, our continued success as a financial hub will depend on how we balance the strict enforcement of integrity, competence and financial soundness standards with the management of compliance costs. We must constantly revisit this balance to stay ahead of rapid technological and other developments and to keep our lead as a market-leading and trusted financial centre. I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Those of us who have travelled or lived in the US may be aware that if we open a bank or credit card statement and we notice an unrecognised transaction, we would simply call the financial institution, report the incident and, in most instances, the customer service officer will, eventually, remove the error transaction, often after some investigation.
I used to view this as an anomalous luxury, the sort of sociocultural exceptionalism that only a global financial superpower like the US will be able to conjure. But I now understand that, much like the ability to return goods, no questions asked, within a stipulated timeframe or the ability to access long-term fixed-term mortgages, these features of economic life result from regulatory and legislative choices that the US has chosen. Indeed, many other OECD economies have weaved together laws and regulations that afford much more financial protection for the average consumer than we have been able to muster.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the FSM Bill of 2022 brings together a host of hitherto disparate financial sector requirements that fall under MAS into a single piece of legislation. Such consolidation is welcomed, of course, not least because it renders transparent the full scope of rules and regulations MAS oversees.
The omnibus Bill is wide-ranging and touches on matters as diverse as anti-money laundering (AML) and combating financing of terrorism (CFT) provisions, requirements for technology risk management and statutory protection for financial dispute resolution agents.
While I support the Bill, I will focus my remarks on Part 5, which have to do with technology risk management. I will do so through the lens of the consumer and, in particular, consumer protection.
Before I proceed, I declare that I am the Chief Economist Emeritus of a wealth management advisory outfit.
Banking-related fraud is pervasive in Singapore. In 2020, there were 893 reported cases of banking-related phishing activities, costing victims at least $3.3 million. And in the first half of 2021, excluding the $13.7 million loss from the OCBC episode, already 535 cases were reported, tallying at least $2.1 million. The number of scam cases has steadily risen and this trend is unlikely to retreat.
I am certain that many of us have had residents come to us for help with banking scams. For the recent OCBC phishing scam alone, I had two different residents wo reached out to me. The scams had wiped out their life savings. And I felt helpless – not as helpless as they did – but I certainly felt helpless that I could not offer more than to reach out to the banking institutions to share their side of the story, reassure them that the Police were working on resolving their cases and offer to follow up with agencies that they felt were not being responsive. But I could not tell them that Parliament was working to better protect them and others like them with the specific force of law.
As online services become increasingly the norm in Singapore, the opportunities and incentives for bad actors will increase. While banking scams are impossible to completely eradiate, we can better manage the acceptable level of risk. But our legislative efforts have largely been cautionary, by encouraging individuals to exercise the appropriate cyber-hygiene, as if we needed another type of hygiene situation to worry about; or reactive, when the Police force is mostly left with belated attempts to track down and apprehend perpetrators, many of whom will never ever be found, or will fall beyond the reach of our current laws.
The banking sector, to date, has appealed to the viability of self-regulation. Indeed, on paper, some of these additional protections may have helped prevent some instances of fraud, had they been operative. But many were not.
As I shared with this House in February, my Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua and I conducted a simple experiment where we tested PayNow safeguards by transferring sums in excess of $1,000, the stated maximum daily transfer limit allowed without requiring token authentication. As I shared then, we were able to do so without any two-factor authentication (2FA), beyond the PIN. We have since repeated the experiment – all good science must be replicable – and I can confirm that we were still able to breach the stated limits without a token.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, Part 9 of the Bill exhaustively deals with aspects of digital token service providers. However, even the most finely-tuned stipulations will be of limited efficacy if the tokens themselves are not deployed as intended.
Moreover, lapses of this nature are not isolated. Another customer shared about how her mother's credit card limit was breached by almost two times, without any alert or the credit line being frozen.
I have had residents share with me about how, after they had inadvertently released their banking information to the scammer, they realised their mistake and, within the following hour, called the bank to request forfeiting of further transactions. But the long hold times and, ironically, security verification procedures meant that the fraudulent transfers could take place in the interim.
As experts in the financial world, banks and their staff hold a duty of care to their customers. They hold a far greater knowledge of the inner workings of illegal modus operandi – money mules, laundering, impersonation, scam rings – than the average customer. Moreover, they have access to the customer's banking history, which can be used to detect anomalies or deviations in their regular behaviour. Scams and phishing operations have grown so sophisticated that the average layperson – not to mention those who are not comfortable with technology – cannot always be reasonably expected to routinely identify and proactively avoid them.
To be fair, such due diligence is already exercised in limited form today, which means that it is clearly doable. Software-led detection of anomalous transactions has been employed by American credit card companies for decades.
More recent advances in big data and machine learning have refined such techniques even further. These have been deployed to help thwart scam attempts even here. But absent stricter legislative consequences that would spread the costs of breaches and establish a minimum standard of care for retail banking customers, the effects of the inevitable lapses will continue to mainly be borne by the end-user. This still leaves enormous leeway for how banks currently choose to handle scam cases, with very limited recourse for the consumer. As a nation, we have never shied away from complementing regulation with legislation. There is little reason for us to revise this now.
In principle, the Government has already tools to enforce greater discipline on banks to ensure that consumers are better protected. But there are reasons why the banking regulator, MAS, has been a little more reactive than proactive.
First, banking regulation is but one of many, many hats that MAS wears. MAS is, simultaneously, the lender of last resort, banker to the Government, guardian of inflation, executor of exchange rate policy, promoter of financial development, overseer of financial stability and financial sector regulator. Setting aside how such a multiplicity of objectives may occasionally come into conflict, the many objectives make it difficult for a single regulator to monitor and ensure coherence between them.
Second, in its efforts to foster greater financial sector development, MAS may be more comfortable with allowing banks to experiment with innovations. This is not an issue, on its face, but the risk is that the costs of such innovations end up being disproportionately borne by the end user. Admittedly, supporting banking innovation and entrepreneurship requires some degree of regulatory forbearance, but, by the same token, this may, in turn, foster an aversion towards excessive or overzealous enforcement.
Third, the proof of the pudding truly is in the eating. MAS has not always appeared to be aware of the blind spots, or, if it has, it has been reticent to act quickly and decisively.
In the recent OCBC fiasco, MAS only announced possible supervisory actions against the bank, well after the fact, and in the wake of a public outcry over the matter. And despite well-known security vulnerabilities associated with SMS technology, MAS had continued to permit its use for sensitive functions, such as OTPs or requesting information from customers, and has only advocated the removal of clickable links thus far.
Even if we wish for MAS to retain overall oversight responsibility over the financial sector, as implied by the consolidations weaved into this Bill, it is still reasonable to have an independent consumer financial protection arm, operating within the broader ambit of MAS.
The financial protection arm would receive complaints from the public on consumer finance, such as deposits, mortgages, credit cards, an auto and education loans. It would also examine compliance with regulations, from the standpoint of end-user. In this manner, we will have distinct departments addressing concerns raised by the consumer and producer which, in this case, is the banking sector. A Chinese wall could then shield this body from the various prudential supervision departments.
In the past, there was a market and business conduct department, which ostensibly served the, and I quote, \"interests of depositors, investors and policyholders\". This may have since been enfolded into the corporate finance and consumer department. In either case, however, these appear to work more with market professionals and possibly sophisticated investors, rather than the retail consumer, nor does the department appear to be empowered to advocate on behalf of the consumer.
But we can go beyond regulation, even the beefed-up kind I have suggested, to introduce outright consumer financial protection legislation. This can be independent of existing regulatory and consumer education efforts.
Some see regulation and legislation as essentially two sides of the same coin. At risk of seeming pedantic, this is a distinction with a difference. Regulation is a function of Government agencies and the domain of bureaucrats, while legislation is debated, deliberated and realised in this House.
Regulation has one clear advantage over legislation: because it falls under the purview of a governmental agency – in this case, MAS – it does not have to undergo the Bills process, it can be more nimble than full-bore legislation. By the same token, however, codifying essential principles into legislation enshrines the doctrines that we wish to remain inerrant and allows them to remain invariant to the vagaries of specific implementation. Just as important, laws embed the democratic process in the way that regulatory machinations never quite can.
Many other jurisdictions have specific consumer protection laws. In the US, the Fair Credit Billing Act was enacted as far back as 1974 and requires prompt written acknowledgement of billing disputes and the investigation of billing errors by creditors. In 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Act was passed, establishing an independent agency within the Federal Reserve to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products. The United Kingdom Consumer Credit Act provides a number of comparable protections and, in the European Union, the Revised Directive on Payment Services encapsulates a number of regulations governing financial service providers, including requiring strong customer authentication for the majority of electronic payments.
Implementing legislation for stronger consumer protection does not absolve individuals of their responsibility to practise good cyber-hygiene. But, at the very least, it will shift the burden of defending against such unscrupulous behaviour away from resting almost entirely on the shoulders of the household and bring businesses, in particular, banks, into the risk-sharing picture as well.
Back in January, MAS announced a framework for the equitable sharing of losses arising from scams. This is surely welcomed and will provide additional clarity on apportioning fraud-related losses. But the framework is far from comprehensive and does not yet address aspects of consumer protection that go beyond scams. And just as we do not rely solely on mediation mechanisms, such as TADM and TAFEP, to fully govern our labour disputes, we can further support consumer rights in finance with appropriate legislation.
If the experience of the United States is any indication, passing a consumer financial protection law would likely lead to financial institutions taking much more care to detect and pre-emptively stamp out instances of phishing and fraud, since losses cannot be immediately foisted off to the customer. Financial institutions would also be more inclined to pursue unauthorised purchases with the merchant and, these merchants, in turn, would be more careful in accepting potentially fraudulent payments, else they lose their right to accept that mode of payment. Rudimentary small-claims insurance schemes would also emerge, with costs often absorbed by the financial institutions themselves.
Will this increase the cost of doing business? Of course. But the point is that the cost of policing e-commerce fraud and theft was always there; it was simply absorbed almost entirely by the consumer. Such a law would spread the risk among all actors in the economy: the buyer, the seller and the financial intermediary. It is an idea whose time has come.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore has established itself as a leading global financial centre. Global reputation aside, our financial sector provides good jobs for over 170,000 residents and has led to many spin-off benefits in our local economy.
With digitalisation speeding up the pace of Financial Sector transformation, it is important for MAS to continue to refresh our regulations to preserve trust and confidence in Singapore’s financial industry. Given the above, I believe that the new provisions contained in the Financial Services and Markets Bill are timely and sound.
It is on this basis that I would like to seek some clarifications on how this Bill will be implemented for the clarity of the public and those in the industry.
On the Harmonised and Expanded Power of MAS to Issue Prohibition Orders (POs) to bar persons in the financial industry. One, presumably, POs will, generally, be issued only if a person has a former, existing or prospective nexus to the financial industry. As the provision of financial services is complex, with many ecosystems, partners, how will proximity be assessed to define nexus? For example, will staff from a financial institutions' (FIs) service providers such as IT vendors, and ecosystem partners, such as e-commerce platforms, be subjected to a PO?
Two, while the basis for streamlining the disparate grounds for issuing POs under the Security and Futures Act (SFA), Financial Advisors Act (FAA) and Insurance Act (IA) into a single fit-and-proper test under section 188 of the Bill is sound, the effectiveness of such a test hinges on how it will be applied. On this note, can the Minister clarify if there will be a retrospective application of such assessments for persons with past misconduct that might not have been caught under the three statutes, but who may be deemed as not fit and proper under the new test? If so, will prohibitions commence from the point of misconduct?
In addition, Singapore has a considerable number of foreign talents partnering our local workforce to deliver cutting-edge financial products and services. Given this, can the Minister clarify if existing and incoming foreign talent will also be subjected to the same due diligence as that for local staff? If so, will there be clearer guidelines on how background checks will be conducted? The reason for this question is that since the misconduct in critical functions could be non-regulated activities, it, therefore, may not be captured in overseas registries. This could impact the effectiveness of the fit-and-proper test for foreign talents.
Three, this Bill has broadened the scope of MAS to issue POs covering activities beyond MAS-administered Acts. This would now include serious misconduct in activities, such as funds management, risk and technology management per section 7(2) of the Bill, which were previously not covered, and for all roles beyond senior management or material risk takers. This puts the Bill and, therefore, all on notice that everyone has a role to play in managing risks. Can the Minister clarify the severity thresholds of a misconduct and how proportionality of misconduct and the prohibitions will apply, since this can be subjective, given different activities? As the risk of any activity is a collective effort of everyone in the value chain from junior staff to senior management, how will MAS assess culpability of a misconduct across the ranks?
I am encouraged that this Bill has instituted safeguards to balance MAS' increased powers. As a person’s appeal must be referred by the Minister to an Advisory Committee selected from a Panel, can the Minister clarify the considerations for independence of the Committee and/or Panel? I ask this as those in the financial industry often share close networks. And section 14 of the Bill provides for panel members to be eligible for re-appointment. Also, in addition to the right of appeal to the Minister, may a person who has been issued with a PO bring his or her appeal case to Court?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now move to the second key aspect of this Bill related to technology risk management. Given the intense competition from fintechs, FIs have themselves been transforming and digitalising their businesses by a combination of outsourcing as well as adopting cutting-edge technologies, such as Software as a Service. In cases where third party cloud-based solutions, such as Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud, are being adopted, it is known as an industry norm that FIs have no ability to conduct independent audits on such providers despite these services being critical. Given these limitations, how will MAS weigh the accountability on FIs should negligence fall on the part of such providers?
On the enhanced regulation for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), the Bill will plug the gap in regulating entities created in Singapore but providing VA services overseas. I agree that this is important to align our regulations with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to guard against money laundering and terrorism financing risks.
MAS had in response to a recent Parliamentary Question stated that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are currently not regulated by MAS, given that the underlying assets are predominantly art and other collectibles, with MAS taking a technology-neutral stance as it “looks through” to the underlying characteristics. Nevertheless, given the rising popularity of NFTs as a store of money and, hence, its susceptibility to being a vehicle for money laundering, such risks can tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a financial hub if uncurbed. Therefore, will MAS consider having oversight of NFTs in this Bill or other existing legislation soon?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the success of our financial sector is premised upon its integrity and resilience, upheld by sound regulatory oversight. In building a strong local banking system, MAS has adopted a pragmatic approach to manage risks and to foster trust without stifling innovation.
I am confident that this Bill will continue to strengthen oversight of our financial sector. I stand in support of this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would first like to declare my interest as an employee of a financial institution here in Singapore and I also hold a diversified portfolio which includes cryptocurrencies.
One of the key aspects of the Financial Services and Markets Bill relates to enhancing the regulation of virtual asset service providers for money laundering and terrorist financing. In my speech today, I would like to touch on the topic of virtual assets and how this rapidly evolving area of finance is increasingly gaining prominence and relevance globally and, therefore, how Singapore can continue to evolve our approach to stay ahead as a key financial centre of the world.
Two years ago, in late 2020, I spoke about the Payment Services (Amendment) Bill, where I noted then that bitcoin was at a record high of around US$34,000, having risen almost fourfold over the course of 2020, far surpassing the previous high of around $19,800 set around December 2017, just before its precipitous crash in the months after. Many have called bitcoin and cryptocurrencies a massive bubble then and some still do now.
Fast forward to today, bitcoin is now at or around US$46,000 but not without reaching an all-time high of almost $69,000 and a low of $29,000 just within the last 52 weeks alone. Just as how cryptocurrencies are not solely about bitcoin and its rise and fall, virtual assets are not just about cryptocurrencies, and blockchain technology does not just apply to virtual assets. The term \"virtual\" conveys the sense that it is somehow not as real as, say, physical assets. But today, one's digital identity and persona are perhaps even more significant than those in the physical world. Just ask any influencer who spends most of his or her time in the digital world, be it Facebook, Instagram or even TikTok.
Virtual assets are not solely about individuals buying an NFT to display on their personal social media profiles, however. The chairman of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, noted in his recent letter to shareholders that \"BlackRock is studying digital currencies, stablecoins and the underlying technologies to understand how they can help us serve our clients\". This was also the same person who called bitcoin \"an index of money laundering.\"
At the same time, the Ukraine-Russia conflict also saw the Ukraine government conducting fundraising via cryptocurrencies and NFTs and with Russia also supposedly considering accepting bitcoin as payment for its oil and gas exports. The bottom line is that in the modern world, purely virtual creations can, indeed, have value, so long as enough people accept that to be the case.
If 2020 was seen by the industry players as the year cryptocurrencies were institutionalised, then 2022 is perhaps the year when there is growing recognition of the trajectory of growth in the interconnectedness and skill of digital assets and, certainly, its corresponding implications for global financial stability.
So, the first point I would like to raise is that Singapore and, by extension, MAS as the financial regulator, should strive to take a market leadership role and move expeditiously to facilitate the responsible development of the still nascent but rapidly growing virtual assets industry.
By and large, I do agree that MAS has been proactive in studying the development of this industry very early on. Project Ubin, for example, was announced all the way back in November 2016 to explore the use of blockchain and distributed ledger technology. The final phase of the project concluded in July 2020, but, as pointed out by my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year, after expending significant effort and resources to better understand the nature, function and practical operation surrounding the possibility of a digital currency issued by our central bank, the conclusion is that there is no pressing need for its issuance at this time. This was despite several advantages to moving early on the issuance, such as crowding out alternatives, such as unbacked and inherently volatile digital private currencies, through stable, well-designed Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), allow for the application of more innovative monetary policy, especially with regard to disinflation, and help reduce the incidence of counterfeiting and illicit activities.
As noted in the White House factsheet on US President Biden's Executive Order on ensuring responsible development of digital assets, over 100 countries today are exploring or piloting CBDCs. And, in China, after launching the digital Yuan domestically, such digital Yuan payment services were also introduced to visitors of the recent Beijing Winter Olympics. Given the early stages of most central banks' work into CBDCs, this should be one area in which Singapore can demonstrate global leadership in.
A related point is one which I have raised back in 2020 about the progress made in assessing payment service provider applications and the slow pace at which approvals were given. Subsequently, in response to my Parliamentary Question in July 2021, it was noted that since the commencement of the Payment Services Act, MAS had received over 480 licence applications. However, back then, MAS had not issued any licence to Digital Payment Tokens (DPT) service providers. I note several in-principle approvals since then, such as that for DBS, Independent Reserve, FOMO Pay, Coinhako, TripleA, Paxos, BTC and Hodlnaut. At last count though, I still see 163 companies that are currently on the exemption list. What then is holding the MAS back on approvals or rejections given their wealth of experience gained over the last two years?
The world's largest crypto exchange, Binance, announced in December last year that it has withdrawn its licence application to operate here in Singapore and has since shut down its operations here in February. Shortly after, in March last month, the company was awarded a virtual asset licence from Dubai's recently formed virtual asset regulatory authority and will be helping to set up an international virtual asset ecosystem in Dubai and assist with the development of virtual asset regulations. While it is debatable whether it is a loss for Singapore per se, to be clear, I am not calling for licences to be hastily awarded, but we also need to recognise that there are firms still allowed to operate under a transitional exemption, regardless of their merits, until their applications are approved or rejected. Hence, getting their applications approved or rejected expeditiously not only gets rid of potential bad actors, but allows responsible market players to move forward with their business plans, entrench their operations here in Singapore for the long term and contribute to the vibrancy and innovation in the sector here.
In the MAS 2020 Licencing and Registration Report for Capital Markets Intermediaries, I note that MAS is committed to a four-month timeframe for processing corporate licence and registration applications with the mean and median time taken not too far off from the four-month service standard. Similarly, I hope more resources can be devoted to ensuring that we help to support and facilitate the responsible development of the virtual asset industry in Singapore.
Next, I would like to touch on the ban on marketing and advertising by service providers of DPTs as announced by MAS in January this year. I wonder whether an outright ban unique to DPTs is an appropriate means of protecting consumers and consistent with the approach in which MAS regulates the advertising of other investment products and services.
I acknowledge and agree with MAS' view that the trading of cryptocurrencies is highly risky and not suitable for the general public per se. However, single stock investing is also highly risky in my view. Grab and SEA, for example, among Singapore’s largest companies by market cap, saw their share prices decline 40% to 50% in the year-to-date alone, with SEA down 60% to 70% from its 52-week high.
What I am most concerned with, however, are complex derivative products available to retail investors that even I myself struggle to understand, such as Contracts for Difference (CFDs), which, in itself, is an instrument which is banned for sale to retail investors in the United States and Hong Kong. I recall hearing ads for CFDs on the radio just a few months ago and even reading branded content on The Straits Times about how these products can supposedly allow investors to manage trading risks. Ironic in my view, given that it can be a product with 10 times leverage, with risks of a complete wipe-out of the investment within a short period of time and which is significantly riskier than an equivalent unleveraged financial instrument.
I do not think that having a standard boiler plate, “this advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore” and long paragraphs of text in fine print are sufficient measures for financial institutions to absolve themselves of their responsibilities towards retail investors. But perhaps advertising by DPT service providers could also come within the scope of the fair and balanced advertising and other advertising restrictions, as covered under the securities and futures regulations and financial advisers’ regulations, with the rules holistically reviewed and finetuned collectively to ensure that all financial market participants do not merely present a one-sided view of potential investment products in their advertisements.
Importantly, more should be done in terms of continuing financial education and improving the financial literacy of the population at large and to help everyone understand the underlying risks and rewards of their investments, be it in Ethereum or equities.
Lastly, no discussion on cryptocurrencies is complete without an appreciation of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks it presents. To this end, I note that the Bill will align the scope of digital token services to the enhanced Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. MAS has already implemented the so-called “travel rule” since early 2020, and even though many DPT service providers may still be operating under an exemption, many have already progressively requested for originator and beneficiary information to be provided.
However, I note that under the MAS Notice PSN02 Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism – Digital Payment Token Service, value transfers exceeding S$1,500 would require personally identifiable information, such as residential addresses, identity card numbers and so on. Would MAS end up being inundated with transactional data, given the low threshold, and how would MAS manage the risks of having questionable transactions slip through the cracks versus being overwhelmed with data which could end up expending resources to investigate too many suspicious transactions which were flagged out, which could otherwise turn out to be legitimate?
To further clarify, would major payment institutions licensed and regulated under the Payment Services Act be required to be separately licensed once again, now that the FSM Bill will regulate all virtual asset service providers created in Singapore that provide such services outside of Singapore?
At the Singapore FinTech Festival in November last year, MAS Managing Director Ravi Menon spoke about crypto-based activities, noting that “not to get into this game, I think risks Singapore being left behind. Getting early into that game means we can have a headstart and better understand its potential benefits as well as its risks.”
I would argue that we had a head start, but many other financial centres across the world are fast catching up or arguably have already caught up. It is thus important that we remain open-minded and forward-looking in addressing the opportunities and risks in this rapidly evolving area of finance, facilitate the responsible development of the industry here in Singapore while proactively addressing any threats to financial stability. With that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Prof Hoon Hian Teck.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, through their role in financing new ideas, the development of sound financial markets plays a central role in supporting a dynamic economy that is capable of delivering good jobs with good pay. However, fundamental to the development of sound financial markets is the maintenance of integrity of institutions and the personnel supporting these institutions in the face of technological disruptions and extensive cross-border capital flows.
Concerning personnel, the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Bill introduces a harmonised and expanded power to bar persons from holding key roles and conducting certain activities in financial institutions for a period of time in cases of serious misconduct.
Concerning cross-border activities, the FSM Bill will regulate all virtual asset service providers created in Singapore that provide virtual asset services outside of Singapore.
Concerning technology risk management, the FSM Bill sets a maximum penalty amount for breaches to IT systems that lead to disruptions in the provision of financial services.
Finally, the FSM Bill provides statutory protection to mediators, adjudicators and employees of an approved dispute resolution operator in the execution of its duties.
The question is: why does it matter that we have a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that supports integrity of personnel and financial institutions and is resilient to technological disruptions and increased cross-border activities? I suggest that there are two reasons that it matters.
First, a regulatory framework that supports the integrity of personnel and financial institutions leads to trust. The facilitation of financial intermediation that will benefit both customers and investors in the modern economy requires a system of secure property rights that remains appropriate under different circumstances.
In the current era, digital transformation has the potential to disrupt the way businesses are conducted even while it provides new opportunities for customers. While there exist incentives for private enforcement when parties that are engaged in financial transactions have repeated interactions over time, the new digital world of more anonymous transactions may require public enforcement, such as through financial sector-wide regulation encapsulated in the FSM Bill, to protect the rights of parties to a financial contract.
Investments, typically, carry a degree of uncertainty. In order to attract funds to risky ventures, individuals or firms undertaking them have to promise their investors a risk premium. The FSM Bill, in seeking to develop an appropriate financial system to suit current circumstances, enables financiers operating from Singapore to reduce the risk premium required of a borrower by spreading the risk across a larger number of investors.
The problems of adverse selection and moral hazard inherent in financing can be mitigated by the wider availability of information that investors have about borrowers, leading to the wider availability of credit at lower risk premiums. To achieve this, it is necessary that managers and personnel working in the financial industry be trustworthy.
Second, with extensive cross-border capital flows, maintaining a good international reputation delivers important benefits. Having foreign capital and financial institutions in Singapore can help to lower the cost of capital. By promoting competition with the domestic financial sector, it can also improve the allocation of capital to productive uses. In addition, firms that serve overseas customers and investors reap the benefits of economies of scale. Establishing a good reputation shapes the expectations of market participants and increases their confidence in making financial transactions across international borders.
With the end of what is called the first Age of Globalisation that coincided with World War I, there followed a period of disruption to international capital flows and global trade in goods and services. However, there soon emerged a second Age of Globalisation that started roughly in 1960 and has continued to the present. While the emerging geopolitical tensions may, ultimately, lead to a new international economic order, it seems fair to say that our existing law and institutions should still be structured to harness the advantages that financial globalisation can deliver.
The provision in the FSM Bill to regulate all virtual asset service providers created in Singapore that provide virtual asset services outside of Singapore helps us to maintain a strong international reputation as a financial centre.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, financial institutions connect savers to borrowers and are essential to a well-functioning economy. For people to be willing to participate in a financial market, they must perceive it to be safe and secure. Regulators of the financial system must, therefore, make and enforce the rules to protect both customers and investors. The FSM Bill seeks to ensure this through maintaining the integrity of institutions and the personnel supporting these institutions in the face of technological disruptions and extensive cross-border capital flows. I support this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to focus on how the regulation of Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) will be enhanced.
Considering the potential of a virtual asset to be used for money laundering or terrorism financing (ML/TF) due to its anonymous nature, I strongly support the measures to strengthen regulation of this asset class for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT). These steps are necessary. MAS’ future strategies will be informed by the close supervisory interactions with stakeholders in a rapidly evolving sector.
The measures proposed in the Bill should be implemented quickly so that potential investors in our market will not be in a position of jurisdictional arbitrage which may be disadvantageous to the Singapore market. Investors and talent will be drawn to countries seen to be more accepting and supportive of this asset category, such as Estonia, Germany or the United Kingdom.
Presently, entities in the business of VAs here are subject to the Payment Services Act where the VAs are considered digital payment tokens. VAs are subject to the Securities and Futures Act or the Financial Advisers Act where the products are capital market products. The Bill seeks to plug the gap of regulating entities created in Singapore while providing VA services overseas as a new class of financial institutions.
Moving forward, would the Ministry or MAS consider setting up a new category of market licence for VASPs and digital currency exchanges? Their regulatory standards should be comparable to those for licensed securities brokers and automated trading venues. This is in order to build a simple, secure and accessible digital assets ecosystem that will support VA investment in Singapore, while mitigating potential risks.
I propose a risk-based approach for the regulatory framework to identify digital asset services that pose sufficient risk to warrant regulation and where such risks are crucial to address.
Issues, such as the safe custody of assets, know-your-client (KYC) requirements, AML/CFT, market manipulation, accounting and auditing, risk management, conflicts of interest and the acceptance of virtual assets for trading, must be addressed.
MAS should require VA trading platforms to adopt an operational structure and use technology to offer client protection which is equivalent to traditional financial institutions in the securities sector.
On the other hand, the market licence specifically for those service providers should not impose onerous obligations that might cause these businesses to be forced out by larger international operators which have services provided both physically and virtually.
We need to be mindful of ensuring a level playing field for VASPs. For example, any application of the existing financial services regulatory regime to digital asset businesses that would require compulsory professional indemnity insurance should take into account the current lack of availability of such insurance for digital asset service providers. That is, implementation of a regulatory regime where compliance is not possible, has the same effect as an outright ban on these activities.
As virtual asset trading platforms interface directly with the Singaporean public, MAS should, therefore, accept licensing applications from platform operators who are committed to and capable of complying with the expected licensing criteria and continuing conduct requirements. In addition, the licensee must obtain MAS' prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new or incidental product, service or activity, or to make a material change to an existing service or activity.
MAS should require a platform operator to establish and implement written internal policies and governance procedures to ensure compliance with requirements concerning the custody of virtual assets. A platform operator should also have adequate processes in place for handling requests for deposits and withdrawals of clients' virtual assets to guard against loss arising from theft, fraud and other dishonest acts, professional misconduct or omissions.
Singaporean consumers require confidence that they are able to access the products and services they desire at home, via legally regulated and compliant professionals, rather than by seeking out risky services in unregulated locations.
Any regulation of virtual asset service providers should be designed to ensure the following points are considered: minimum capital requirements; audit certificate/external assurance of custodial procedures; segregation of customer and operational funds; annual compliance requirements; being managed by a responsible person with adequate experience; proper segregation of participants' assets and private keys from the marketplace's own assets; appropriate record keeping; maintenance of policies and procedures.
Other considerations. The development of VAs will provide many new opportunities, including those in Singapore's technological sector, which can translate into more high-skilled jobs and growth-oriented investments, if the right balance is struck by the Government in approaching regulation.
There are opportunities for the larger accounting or audit firms, too. Established insurers and their brokers also need to be more open to providing insurance coverage and services for the virtual asset industry. Furthermore, a number of traditional financial institutions are seeking to develop their own cryptocurrencies on private blockchains to enable the instantaneous and cross-border transfer of payments.
To support Singapore Green Plan 2030, I suggest that businesses conducting digital asset \"mining\", or similar activities, should receive some form of tax incentives if they source their own renewable energy for their activities. Such tax incentives will enable Singapore to become a global leader in green crypto-asset mining. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Lastly, our Singapore Police Force must be well-situated to understand law enforcement priorities and strategic objectives in this area. Its collaborative relationship with MAS is a key strength. Our authorities should upgrade their IT analytical tools to better exploit the potential of financial artificial intelligence to detect criminal activity by persons who are not already of interest to law enforcement, and to take advantage of reports on international funds transfers and large cash transactions.
(In English): I support the Bill.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is the fifth most competitive financial centre in the world after New York, London, Shanghai and Hong Kong, according to the 2021 Global Financial Centre Index. Singapore ranked highly in all five areas of competitiveness: business environment, human capital, infrastructure, financial sector development and reputational metrics. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reaffirmed in 2019 Singapore's financial sector oversight to be \"among the best globally\" and noted that MAS has struck a good balance in fostering financial innovation while strengthening regulatory oversight.
The exciting development since 2015 has been in the space of fintech. Singapore has a vibrant fintech ecosystem with over 1,100 fintech firms serving consumers, businesses, and financial institutions across the different asset classes. Global financial institutions have also set up innovation labs in Singapore to tap on the ecosystem here. And fintech investments in Singapore also increased nearly six-fold year-on-year since 2015. I congratulate MAS and our financial services institutions for enabling Singapore to \"punch above our weight\".
It is, therefore, imperative for Singapore, as a leading financial services centre, to be plugged in, into the latest developments, including digital currencies, crypto, digital tokens, NFTs, metaverse and the like. These technologies disrupt but also offer immense opportunities for the industry and the markets at large.
With the proliferation of these technologies, there are risks of money laundering, terrorism funding, corruption and fraud, black market money supply and scams.
In view of the changing landscape in the financial services and market space, it is important that the Singapore financial sector oversight consider the proliferation of fintech and non-traditional financial institutions and service providers and include their activities under MAS' regulatory ambit.
The industry, including the Singapore FinTech Association, welcomes the FSM Bill. They participated in the consultation and are supportive of this Bill and welcome the increase in transparency and accountability of all players, whose activities fall under the prescribed MAS' activities regulated or to be regulated. They would like to request that MAS publish the clarifications from the consultation as frequently asked questions, or FAQs, on the website so that they can all refer to it.
In relation to the proposal to regulate digital token service providers created in Singapore but carrying on a business of providing any type of digital token service outside Singapore, we understand that these digital payment token service providers must be licensed or registered in the jurisdiction where they are created and that \"without imposing this requirement globally, regulatory arbitrage could occur where no single jurisdiction has sufficient regulatory hold over a specific digital payment token service provider\". We do seek clarification as to how a digital token service provider that falls within this category but is, in fact, already licensed and regulated in its overseas jurisdiction of operations, will be regulated by MAS. There is a concern that such double-regulation by two regulators may result in excessive compliance obligations and costs.
In addition, we note that the activity of providing advisory services relating to the offer or sale of digital tokens will be covered by the new legislation. The definition of \"digital tokens\" covers, one, both digital payment tokens, for example, bitcoin and ether; and, two, digital representations of a capital market product, that is, tokenised shares and bonds.
Following from this, digital token service providers created in Singapore but carrying on a business of providing advisory services relating to the offer or sale of digital payment tokens outside Singapore, will need to be licensed in Singapore, pursuant to the FSM Bill.
However, would digital token service providers created in Singapore and undertaking the same business in Singapore need to be licensed in Singapore? I ask this question as the provision of advisory services relating to digital payment tokens is not currently regulated under the Payment Services Act 2019 or under the Financial Advisers Act 2001. These Acts would apply to businesses carrying on the business of providing regulated services in Singapore.
On the other hand, the FSM Bill appears to cover Singapore businesses carrying on the business of providing regulated activities outside Singapore. There appears to be a regulatory gap where a Singapore-incorporated entity carrying on a business of providing advisory services relating to the offer or sale of digital payment tokens outside of Singapore needs to be regulated under the FSM Bill but a Singapore-incorporated entity doing exactly the same activity but carrying on the business in Singapore, need not be licensed. Can MAS please clarify?
Technology will continue to transform the financial services sector, affecting how organisations operate and how consumers conduct banking and financial activities. New advancements in the banking and fintech industries will also impact the type of skills, talents and job roles needed. Skills across the board will need to be upgraded, both on the operations side as well as the governance and compliance side. What are MAS' plans to enhance the skills and competencies of the financial services industry as well as the skills required in the ecosystem, from auditing to risk compliance to legal and insurance?
With the FSM Bill, MAS will have oversight of entities that deal with any potential alternative to the fiat currencies and \"money supply\". This is a welcome move as we have witnessed the speculative nature of bitcoins and cryptocurrencies. How will MAS ensure that the general public in Singapore do not fall prey to scams involving bitcoins and the like?
Bitcoins and cryptocurrencies are built on blockchain technology. Blockchain technology innovation offers the fidelity and security of data records and there are many useful use cases beyond cryptocurrencies and digital tokens for payments, for example, digitised bills of lading, certificates of origin and so on. Implementation of these use cases have the potential of reinventing supply chains and dramatically taking productivity to a different level. It is good to see that MAS continues on the twin pursuit of strong regulatory oversight and excellence in innovation for the sector. Initiatives like DBS' Digital Exchange (DDEX) and SGX's Climate ImpactX are all to be applauded. There will be new skills and new capabilities built in the industry even as we continue to exercise prudence in technology risk management.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Alvin Tan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move that, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Alvin Tan]. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Alvin Tan: Tomorrow, Madam.
Mdm 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":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in view of the very heavy agenda tomorrow, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.00 am tomorrow.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.00 am, tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.27 pm.
39 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government can temporarily reduce public transportation fares or make public transport vouchers available to a wider segment of the population to encourage more to switch to public transportation amid the spike in petrol prices.
Mr S Iswaran: Public transport has remained affordable and accounted for 2% to 3% of household expenditure for the second decile over the last five years. This is made possible by annual Government subsidies of more than $2 billion. On average, we subsidise more than $1 for every journey taken on public transport. Students, senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs) receive up to a further 55% discount off adult fares.
We provide targeted support through Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) to households which may need additional assistance. Under the 2021 PTV Exercise, the Government has made available 600,000 PTVs, valued at $30 each, to needy households. So far, about 300,000 households have already received the PTVs. A second round of direct disbursement will be implemented from April 2022 to provide additional support to low-income households on ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance and Long-Term-Assistance. Households that require PTVs can approach their local community centres/clubs (CCs) from now until 31 October 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Recent Energy and Fuel Price Hikes on Public Transport Costs and Measures to Prevent Flow-through Cost Increases to Commuters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
40 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how has the recent increase in energy and fuel prices affected public transport costs; and (b) whether there are any steps being taken to mitigate the impact of these costs from being passed down to commuters if these prices remain persistently high.
Mr S Iswaran: As with other industries, the increase in fuel prices and electricity tariffs will increase operating costs for public transport operators (PTOs). PTOs adopt various strategies to manage energy costs risks. In addition, the Fuel Equalisation Fund (FEF) was established and maintained for the purpose of mitigating the volatility in energy cost. PTOs can and do apply for the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) approval to draw on their FEF balances in times of high energy cost.
Public transport fares in Singapore are governed by an established fare formula. The PTC will consider various factors, including energy prices, as well as operators’ financials and prevailing economic conditions before arriving at a considered decision at the annual Fare Review Exercise. Commuters who need extra assistance can also apply for Public Transport Vouchers to defray their transport expenses.
43 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of rising inflation for daily necessities, whether there will be a reassessment by the Social Service Offices of the amount of ComCare payouts and a more expeditious review of the eligibility criteria.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: ComCare provides assistance to low-income households for their basic living expenses. The income eligibility criterion for ComCare is not a hard threshold to qualify for assistance. Our Social Service Offices (SSOs) assess applicants’ needs and do exercise flexibility when providing financial assistance.
ComCare Short-to-Medium Term (SMTA) assistance quantum is customised to the needs of different age groups and archetypes. MSF reviews the ComCare assistance quantum every two to three years, taking into account household expenditure data for daily living expenses, including projected inflation. We also consult domain experts in areas, such as nutrition and transport, and obtain views from community stakeholders, such as social workers and low-income families. The next review is already underway and we expect to complete this by the middle of this year.
In the meantime, we are taking other proactive steps to ensure adequate financial assistance for low-income households, in view of recent costs of living concerns. The Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry will be making a joint Ministerial Statement on inflation and business costs. They will reiterate the support measures announced at the recent Budget, and share the immediate steps that the Government will take to help Singaporeans cope with inflationary pressures. MSF has been monitoring the impact of inflation on low-income households and individuals and will be implementing measures to provide more financial support for ComCare recipients who require it, and administrative flexibilities to provide greater stability for eligible beneficiaries. MSF will announce the details of these measures after the joint Ministerial Statement.
These measures will provide low-income households with more time and better support to stabilise their circumstances. We will review these measures to calibrate the level of support in line with the evolving global and domestic economic situation.
The community continues to play an important role in partnering the Government to help those in need. If anyone encounters a neighbour, friend or family member who needs support, I urge them to call the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000, or refer them to the nearest SSO 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":"Rejections of Applications to Renew Social Service Office Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there has been an increase in the rejection of renewals for the various Social Service Office support over the last 24 months; and (b) if so, what were the top three reasons for these rejections.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Social Service Offices (SSOs) administer ComCare, which provides assistance to low-income households for their basic living expenses. ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) is for households that require help to tide over temporary financial difficulty. ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) is for those who are permanently unable to work and have little or no means of income and family support.
MSF tracks the rejection rate of ComCare applications in general and not specifically for renewal requests. The yearly rejection rate for LTA applications has increased slightly from 2% in 2020 to 3% in 2021, while that for SMTA has increased slightly from 30% in 2020 to 34% in 2021. While rejection rates have increased slightly, we are serving more individuals. In 2021, we provided ComCare SMTA and LTA assistance to about 86,300 individuals, compared to about 82,600 individuals in 2020, an increase of 4.5%.
The top three reasons for unsuccessful ComCare applications in 2020 and 2021 were: (a) applicants being assessed to have a stable source of income or financial support that was sufficient to meet their basic living expenses; (b) applicants withdrawing their applications for reasons such as to apply for other assistance schemes, for example, the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, or after learning that they would be ineligible; and (c) applicants not submitting supporting documents despite multiple requests by SSO.
In the past 24 months, in addition to ComCare, MSF also assisted individuals who required temporary financial support due to COVID-19, through the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF), COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG). These schemes have supported about 480,000 individuals as of end 2021.
If a client is ineligible for ComCare assistance, SSOs may assist the family in other ways. For instance, SSO may consider the client for other Government or community assistance schemes or refer the client to other Government agencies or community partners for support in areas like caregiving, medical or employment assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal of Maximum Annual Subsidy Cap under Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund to Support Low-income Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the maximum annual subsidy cap under the Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) set up in 2013 to support patients from low-income backgrounds who need access to consumables, such as adult milk feed and adult diapers; and (b) whether the minimum age criterion of 60 for patients to tap on SMF may be removed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) provides means-tested subsidies for consumables and assistive devices to help frail seniors. It now also covers replacement and customised devices.
SMF provides two tiers of subsidies capped at $1,200 and $2,000 per year for consumables. Over the past three years, more than 80% of clients have not fully utilised their subsidy caps. The average utilisation is below the mid point of the subsidy cap. MOH will continue monitoring utilisation trends to ensure seniors’ needs are met.
In addition, individuals can also apply for other financial support schemes, such as the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG), which provides monthly cash payouts for eligible individuals. Severely disabled Singaporeans may also be supported by schemes, such as CareShield Life or ElderShield and MediSave Care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Long COVID amidst Recovered Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the proportion and number of people who face persistent symptoms after recovering from COVID-19 during the Omicron virus wave as compared to the earlier proportion reported for the Delta virus wave; (b) whether guidelines can be issued to employers and schools on helping those facing these symptoms to better cope with returning to work or school; and (c) whether figures on the number of people living with these persistent symptoms can be regularly collected.
47 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has monitored the incidence of long COVID; (b) whether there has been a difference in long COVID risk across fully vaccinated and non-fully vaccinated patients based on the Singapore experience; and (c) what support is available for persons who are suffering from long COVID or who may be concerned that they have long COVID.
48 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health in view of the large number of COVID-19 cases who have since recovered from an acute infection (a) whether the Ministry will publish its study on the prevalence and effects of long COVID in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will offer dedicated long COVID clinics or services that are equipped to address specific problems faced by this group of patients.
49 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the tracking mechanisms in place to detect people suffering from long COVID; (b) whether there has been any updated study or statistics after August 2021 showing the number of people who have long COVID; (c) whether the ratio of people with long COVID over those who have no symptoms after their initial recovery from COVID-19 has increased since August 2021; and (d) what are the procedures in place to support care and recovery from long COVID.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This will also address Written Question No 36 asked by Ms He Ting Ru for the Sitting on 4 April 2022.
\"Long COVID\" is not a formal medical condition or diagnosis. It is a general reference to varied persistent symptoms experienced by some persons after a COVID-19 infection. Persistent symptoms can also occur after recovery from many other infectious diseases. Persons who had influenza or the common cold may, for example, continue to have fatigue or a prolonged cough.
The underlying reasons for these persistent symptoms after COVID-19 vary widely, as do the symptoms, and are under active research internationally. MOH does not track the absolute number of all patients with persistent symptoms after COVID-19.
Medical experts in Singapore expect a small proportion of patients from the recent Omicron surge to be affected by persistent symptoms. This is because such persistent symptoms are more commonly seen after severe COVID-19, and Omicron has led to fewer cases of severe infections, compared to previous variants of concern. Further, our population is also highly protected from severe COVID-19 through primary and booster vaccinations.
Most of the persistent symptoms, such as cough and fatigue, resolve on their own with time. But individuals with more severe symptoms, such as shortness of breath or chest pain, may require further medical assessment and care, and MOH advises these patients to seek medical attention. There is no single response to these persistent symptoms, and treating physicians would be best placed to assess and advise patients on their management and recovery and on the resumption of work, school and daily activities. As necessary, these persons will be referred for further care and support services based on their condition and medical needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Border Reopening on Private Drivers and Motorcycle Riders Making Trips between Singapore and Malaysia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government can allow private drivers and motorcycle riders from Singapore to enter Malaysia and return to Singapore following Malaysia’s border reopening on 1 April 2022, or otherwise to expand such private commute under the Vaccinated Travel Lane (Land) scheme.
Mr S Iswaran: As announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob on 24 March 2022, Singapore and Malaysia will reopen our land borders for fully vaccinated travellers from 31 March 2022, 2359 hours. All fully vaccinated travellers, and non-fully vaccinated children aged 12 and below, are permitted to enter Singapore without the need to undergo border health measures, such as testing and quarantine. MTI has also issued a press release sharing more details.
In addition to the designated vaccinated travel bus services, fully vaccinated travellers may cross the Causeway and Second Link via private vehicles, such as cars and motorcycles. Singapore and Malaysia are also progressively restoring other modes of transport.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Work-from-home Arrangements on Reduction of Gender Inequalities and Increase in Female Labour Participation Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has conducted local studies on the impact of allowing working from home in (i) reducing gender inequality, (ii) reducing gender stereotypes, (iii) reducing gender wage gap and (iv) increasing the female labour force participation rate respectively; (b) if so, what are the results of the respective studies; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry intends to do so.
Dr Tan See Leng: We have not commissioned any local studies described by the Member. Nevertheless, we welcome interested stakeholders to conduct robust studies on these issues and to share the findings to enrich the discussion.
Even without such studies, MOM, unions and many progressive employers, both locally and globally, already firmly believe in the benefits of flexible work arrangements (FWAs), of which working from home is but one type. FWAs are key enablers in helping workers balance work and personal responsibilities, such as caregiving. As women tend to still play the primary caregiving roles in families, FWAs will certainly help them. But we also need society’s mindsets to shift and encourage more men to also tap on FWAs and more equally share in caregiving responsibilities.
The White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development has laid out our action plans to better support women in the workplace and will positively impact some of the indicators the Member has mentioned. For example, a joint study published in 2020 by MOM and Assoc Prof Jessica Pan from the National University of Singapore found that a large proportion of Singapore’s gender pay gap was attributable to occupational segregation where men tend to be better represented in higher paying occupations. This can occur in part when women either choose not to enter or leave these occupations mid-career to manage personal responsibilities, such as caregiving. As such, FWAs, such as flexi-time and flexi-place arrangements, could enable women to remain and progress in the workforce and help reduce the gender pay gap.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Action against Contractors who Take Deposits for Renovation Works and Do Not Carry Out Tasks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police will take action against contractors who take deposits for renovation works without any intent to carry out such works.
Mr K Shanmugam: Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, contractors who deceive victims into placing deposits for renovation works without any intent to carry out such works may be liable for cheating offences under section 420 of the Penal Code. Where there are offences disclosed, the Police will investigate accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Upcoming Legislation for Fair Employment on Buyers of Outsourced Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Manpower whether the upcoming legislation enshrining the guidelines of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices will include obligations on buyers of outsourced services to prevent them from including clauses in their service agreements that result in unfair or discriminatory working conditions for outsourced workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: All employers should abide by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which require that jobseekers and employees be treated fairly and based on merit. We do not accept employers citing discriminatory requirements by their clients. Such employers will still be in breach of TGFEP. We do not expect that, in enshrining TGFEP into legislation, this position will be changed.
With respect to service buyers, as previously indicated in a reply to a Question for Written Answer, MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will follow up on complaints of their discriminatory practices and engage them. If necessary, MOM will suspend the work pass privileges of the service buyers or their appointed agents.
The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness will focus on workplace fairness in the context of employment relationships. The Committee aims to complete its work by the second half of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Renewal and Enhancement Work Scheduled for North East Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the status of the renewal and enhancement work scheduled for the North East Line which was announced in December 2018; and (b) whether there will be expected delays to the renewal due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA and SBST started on a major renewal project for the North East Line (NEL) in 2019, to refurbish its 25 first-generation trains, as well as to upgrade key components in the track, power, signalling and platform screen door (PSD) systems. Works were expected to complete in the third quarter of 2024.
So far, LTA and SBST have completed the planned upgrading works for the track, power, signalling and PSD systems. As for the refurbishment of trains, the first refurbished train has been put into passenger service in February 2022. However, the overall train refurbishment programme has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to manpower restrictions. LTA will continue to work closely with SBST and the contractor to minimise programme delays in a safe manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rise in Effective Corporate Income Tax Rate that would be Equivalent to Two-percentage Point Hike in GST","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Finance how much will the effective corporate tax rate have to be raised in order to raise the same revenue as a two-percent hike in GST.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The effective tax rate is most useful when looking at the tax burden of a company, after taking into account the design of the corporate tax system, such as further tax deductions, capital allowance and schemes, such as the Partial Tax Exemption (PTE) and Start-Up Tax Exemption (SUTE) schemes. Different companies have different effective tax rates. For the purpose of Ms Hazel Poa’s question relating to overall revenue yield, we have done simulations based on the headline corporate income tax (CIT) rates.
To simulate how much the headline CIT rate has to increase to generate $3.5 billion each year, that is, the revenue generated from the GST increase, we used the data for Years of Assessment (YA) 2019 and 2020, so that the data would not be distorted by the effects of COVID-19, and we applied the current parameters of the corporate tax system, such as the recently revised parameters of the SUTE and PTE schemes. We also removed the effect of temporary measures, such as the CIT rebate in YA 2019 and YA 2020.
If we assume that the tax base remains unchanged, in other words, that firms do not respond to the change in CIT rates, our simulation shows that to generate an additional $3.5 billion every year, we will need to raise the CIT headline rate by at least five percentage points to 22%.
In reality, the above assumption is unlikely to hold. Firms will likely respond to this CIT increase and will move some of their operations out of Singapore, especially since many competitor jurisdictions have lower CIT rates. For example, Thailand’s CIT rate is 20%, Hong Kong’s is 16.5%, Switzerland’s is 14.9% and Ireland’s is 12.5%. A reduction in our tax base means that to raise an additional $3.5 billion from CIT, we will need a headline CIT rate in excess of 22%.
Such an increase in CIT rate will have a major impact on Singapore’s competitiveness. We will find it harder to attract new investments. Ultimately, Singapore and Singaporeans will be the ones who lose out.
MOF will continue to review all revenue sources. When we need to raise more revenue, we will ensure that any increase in taxes is implemented in such a way that is fair and inclusive and does not hurt Singapore’s overall competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Revenue from Possible Hikes in Personal Income Tax for Top 10% Income Bracket","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance what is the amount of tax revenue that can be raised from a four-, six- and eight-percentage point rise in the personal income tax rate for those whose assessable incomes are within the top 10% income bracket in 2019.
Mr Lawrence Wong: During the Debate on the Budget Statement, Mr Leong Mun Wai claimed that a four-percentage point increase in the marginal PIT rates for the top 10% will generate the same amount of revenue as the two-percentage point GST hike. But he is mistaken.
First, Mr Leong Mun Wai has incorrectly applied the personal income tax (PIT) rate to assessable income (AI). The PIT rate should be applied to chargeable income (CI) instead. The CI of an individual is the AI minus any personal reliefs allowed.
Second, it is also not correct to apply a change in PIT rate to the total CI of those in the top 10% to derive the additional PIT revenue. Rather, the additional PIT tax payable or additional revenue generated is computed by applying the revised marginal PIT rates for each CI band to only that portion of CI for each taxpayer, and then summing their revised PIT.
So, for instance, if Mr Leong Mun Wai simply uses a four-percentage point increase and applies it to the total CI of all taxpayers with CI within the top 10%, he is, in fact, increasing all marginal PIT rates in the entire PIT schedule by four-percentage points. This means that the four-percentage point increase in tax rate applies to all taxpayers, not just those whose CI belong to the top 10%. He can get the revenue yield he wants, but only because the additional tax is collected from all taxpayers, not just those in the top 10%.
In Year of Assessment 2020, the top 10% of all taxpayers, whether PIT-paying or not, had a CI of at least $120,000, and the relevant marginal PIT rates are currently 15%~22%.
If we were to raise the marginal PIT rates for the portion of CI in excess of $120,000 by four-percentage points so as to only affect those whose CI are at least $120,000, the relevant marginal PIT rates will be raised from the current 15%~22% to 19%~26%. This will yield at most an estimated additional $1.8 billion per year.
For a six-percentage point increase, the relevant marginal PIT rates will be raised from the current 15%~22% to 21%~28%, and yield, at most, an estimated additional $2.7 billion per year.
For an eight-percentage point increase, the relevant marginal PIT rates will be raised from the current 15%~22% to 23%~30%, and yield at most an estimated additional $3.5 billion per year. Effectively, this will mean a sharp increase in taxes for upper-middle-income earners with CI of at least $120,000.
The above is a static analysis that assumes the tax base remains unchanged. Realistically, individuals will respond to changes in tax rates. A top marginal PIT rate of 30% will be higher than the Asian average of 28%, and well over the top marginal PIT rate of 17% in Hong Kong. Some Singaporeans or foreigners may choose to work elsewhere. Others may choose to arrange their affairs differently, thus increasing tax administration and compliance costs.
In other words, even with an eight-percentage point increase in the marginal PIT rates that affect only the top 10% of taxpayers, we will, very likely, end up generating much less than $3.5 billion in additional taxes per year. The bigger problem is that we will, significantly, undermine our competitiveness for talent, investment and jobs and, ultimately, Singapore and Singaporeans will be worse off.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Public Awareness of Singapore's National Interests with regard to Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Countering Misinformation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is being done to increase public education and enhance awareness of Singapore’s national interests with regard to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Singapore’s relations with the US and China; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered (i) pushing out factual information on the situation through messaging apps and social media and (ii) providing information about independent fact-checking websites which the public can use to counter misinformation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Member asked what is being done to increase public awareness and understanding of Singapore’s national interest in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. He also asked what we are doing to put out accurate information on the conflict.
First, understanding Singapore’s position on the conflict. The Government has taken a strong and unambiguous position, starting with the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in February. Government agencies and their community partners have explained this position on a wide range of platforms – not only on social media and messaging platforms, but also in print and broadcast media, as well as directly to schools, business associations, grassroots organisations, youths and public officers, National Servicemen, as well as the general public. It is of the utmost importance that Singaporeans know the national position, the principles at stake for Singapore, why the Government has taken certain actions as a result and why our position has nothing to do with taking sides.
Most Singaporeans understand and agree. A publicly available poll conducted by Blackbox Research found last month that 95% of Singaporeans supported or sympathised with Ukraine. Almost 70% blamed Russia for the conflict; 60% supported Singapore’s sanctions on Russia; while 35% said they were unsure or had no opinion.
We accept that there are some differences in views and opinions among Singaporeans. That is understandable in any country. The Government will continue to communicate our position clearly as the situation develops and counter whatever misinformation there might be about our position.
But as for pushing out factual information on the conflict itself, this cannot be the Singapore Government’s responsibility. We are in no position to independently verify the truth or otherwise of every report, image, photograph, video or post emanating from or on Ukraine. For the most part, we are dependent on the international media, including our own, to vet this avalanche of information. The National Library Board has published a set of third-party fact-checking resources about the conflict on its website. We urge all Singaporeans to exercise caution and apply a critical eye to all that they read and view on the conflict.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age-appropriate Discussions in Schools on Complex Foreign Policy and Security Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education to what extent are teachers engaging students to discuss with them, in age-appropriate ways, the positions Singapore has taken on complex foreign policy and security issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Singapore’s relations with the US and China and hostile information campaigns targeted at Singapore’s population.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In schools, issues relating to international relations and geopolitics are discussed in subjects like History, Social Studies, General Paper and Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). At the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), students also take modules and courses that help them make sense of key issues affecting Singapore and the world.
In the classroom, teachers use real-world case studies, including recent incidents, to help students understand complex issues concerning security and international relations, and Singapore’s role and perspectives on these issues. For example, in Secondary and Pre-University History, students examine how countries’ relations with each other evolve over time and the role of regional and international organisations like ASEAN and the UN in dealing with conflicts and promoting cooperation. In Secondary Social Studies, students learn about transnational terrorism, cybersecurity challenges and Singapore’s responses to these challenges. In General Paper, teachers engage Pre-University students in discussions anchored on current affairs about foreign policy and security issues from different perspectives, while guiding them to understand Singapore’s context and positions.
Through CCE lessons and talks by invited speakers, Secondary and Pre-University students learn about Singapore's strengths and vulnerabilities as a small country and the key principles of Singapore's foreign policy that keep our nation safe. The commemoration of International Friendship Day and Total Defence Day is another avenue. This year, these sessions will offer insights on the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the importance of a rules-based international order and discuss how Singapore upholds our national sovereignty through diplomacy and strong military defence.
To facilitate such discussions in age-appropriate ways, teachers receive specialised training, including workshops and talks by subject matter experts, such as diplomats, academics and policymakers.
The IHLs, similarly, engage students on contemporary global issues. The LifeSkills curricula in IHLs emphasise the importance of critical thinking, global perspectives and responsibility to the community, nation and the world. Through relevant LifeSkills modules, IHL students engage with educators and peers on current affairs, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and distil insights for Singapore’s context. Beyond this, they have access to external resources that provide insight on Singapore’s place in the world.
Given the proliferation of information, schools and IHLs also equip students with information and media literacy skills. Through the curriculum, students are taught to critically evaluate different sources of information, distinguishing fact from opinion, applying logic and verifying the authority of sources. This is part of wider education efforts to guard against the dangers of fake news and develop in our students the ability to discern misinformation campaigns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Mental Health Patients to Adhere to Treatments while Rehabilitating at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to patients with mental health issues and illnesses (a) how is the Ministry ensuring and helping them to adhere to their medical treatments and therapies while they are rehabilitating at home; and (b) how are these patients supported in their efforts to integrate back into the community.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Post discharge, patients with mental health conditions are supported by post-discharge care teams to help them adhere to treatment and medication and integrate back into the community.
Prior to discharge from acute hospitals, case managers and medical social workers assess the patients’ needs and refer them to community partners for support services or financial assistance where necessary. Case managers also check in and follow up with patients and their caregivers through regular phone calls. Where necessary, home visits will be conducted.
For patients with stable mental health conditions, our polyclinics, 310 general practitioners and community intervention teams are able to provide the necessary support, such as regular check-ins, and ensure adherence to medication and follow up appointments. Patients with stable mental health conditions can also tap on psychiatric day centres, which provide day care and ongoing living skills training for those living in the community with caregivers.
Patients seeking employment can approach various community partners, including MINDSET Learning Hub by the Singapore Association for Mental Health and the Institute of Mental Health’s Job Club, which will do their best to facilitate training and job placements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support or Counselling for Witnesses Traumatised by Acts of Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether there is any psychological support or counselling that is provided to public witnesses who are traumatised by acts of violence, such as those in the recent cases involving knife- and sword-wielding perpetrators.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: For witnesses who are assisting in Police investigations for acts of violence, the Police may refer them to resources, such as mental health helplines, counselling services run by trained professionals or the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for mental health support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Annual Cost for Mental Health Treatment at Public Health Institutions and Proposal for Use of MediSave for such Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average treatment cost of seeking help for mental health issues in a public health institution per year; and (b) whether the use of MediSave for mental health treatment under the Chronic Disease Management Programme can be extended to include more private clinics, given the increase in the need for mental health services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Patients are eligible for up to 75% subsidies when seeking outpatient treatment at the polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics (SOCs), with Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors eligible for an additional 50% and 25% off their subsidised bills respectively.
In CY2020, the average post-subsidy annual bill size for outpatient treatment of mental health conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) in the polyclinics and public SOCs was around $110 and $270 respectively.
Patients can tap on MediSave at up to $500 or $700 per year to pay for their post-subsidy outpatient treatment of CDMP mental health conditions, depending on the complexity of their condition. In 2021, nine in 10 of all patients who withdrew MediSave under the CDMP did not reach their annual $500 or $700 limits.
Patients can tap on MediSave for their mental health treatment at polyclinics as well as more than 90 accredited GPs and private clinics currently. We welcome more clinics to be accredited and trained to make MediSave claims for mental illnesses. Clinics may apply through the Agency for Integrated Care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Itemised Breakdown of COVID-19-related Government Expenditure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the breakdown of $100 billion COVID-19-related expenditure spent over the past two years mentioned in the Minister for Finance’s Budget Speech on 18 February 2022 is already publicly available; (b) whether the breakdown can be provided if not previously available; and (c) whether the object classes pertaining to the COVID-19 expenditure can be made available to the public.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Amid the rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation, MOF has been releasing our COVID-19 spending breakdown on several platforms, using the latest available data at that point in time.
In every annual Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance accounts for the broad categories of expenditure, including the amounts committed for COVID-19 measures, either in the speech or as an annex to the Budget Statement. Financial Year (FY) 2020 and FY2021 saw COVID-19 measures introduced over multiple Budgets (five Budgets in FY2020 and three Budgets in FY2021) to manage the rapidly-evolving COVID-19 situation.
To find the FY2020 breakdown, Mr Leong Mun Wai may refer to the response to the Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed by Ms Foo Mee Har in January 2021 on how the $100 billion set aside to deal with the COVID-19 crisis was spent to support families, workers and businesses. We explained then that, of the $97.3 billion committed in FY2020, $13.8 billion was to support public health efforts, $73.5 billion was to protect livelihoods through support for workers and businesses, and $10 billion was for direct social and household support.
We also provided our updated estimates to the Estimate Committee, which published its report in August 2021. In this public report, Mr Leong Mun Wai would be able to find the committed amounts across the FY2020 Budgets, as well as our revised estimates of COVID-19 spending based on the latest available information at that time, broken down into the specific expenditure items, for example, Jobs Support Scheme, SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and Jobs Growth Incentive. Our revised estimate of overall COVID-19 spending was around $70 billion in FY2020. As explained to the Estimates Committee, the Government had, initially, set aside loan capital in FY2020 in anticipation of a tight credit market. Eventually, the loan capital was not needed, as MAS, using its balance sheet, provided low-interest capital to participating financial institutions for ESG loans.
Since then, actual FY2020 spending was lower than our revised estimate published in August 2021. However, the underutilisation was made up for in the COVID-19 Resilience Package at Budget 2021 and our support packages rolled out over the heightened alerts and Stabilisation Phase from May to December 2021. Based on our latest estimates, we can expect the overall spending on COVID-19 for FY2020 and FY2021 to be broadly similar to the Estimates Committee report in August 2021.
FY2021 has just come to a close. When the actual spending in FY2021 has been finalised and audited around the third quarter of 2022, we will again take stock of the actual COVID-19 spending.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked about the object classes for COVID-19 spending. The Government’s expenditure is broken down into object classes based on the nature of spending. The broad categories of object classes are expenditure on manpower, other operating expenditure, grants and transfers. As the nature of Government spending is not only limited to COVID-19, the same object class serves multiple functions, besides COVID-19 management. For example, many of our public officers have incorporated COVID-19-related duties into their day-to-day responsibilities. It would, therefore, not be meaningful or practicable to break down the COVID-19 expenditure items by object classes.
If Mr Leong Mun Wai is asking for this information to assess the outcomes of the various measures taken to protect lives and livelihoods, he can refer to two reports on MOF’s website. The first interim report was released in February 2021, and the second in February 2022. The more recent report assesses how our COVID-19 measures mitigated the short-term impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the economy and health and also helped prevent the longer-term loss of human capital.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother’s Child Relief for Single Unwed Mother Divorced from Father of Child","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance whether a single unwed mother who gets married to the father of their child and, subsequently, gets a divorce, will be able to qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Working Mother’s Child Relief.
Mr Lawrence Wong: A single unwed mother who marries the biological father of their child will be able to claim Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) for the child concerned, from the Year of Assessment immediately following the year of marriage. She can continue to claim WMCR, even if there is an unfortunate breakdown of the marriage in future, as long as she continues to meet the criteria for WMCR, such as maintaining a child who is a Singaporean as at 31 December in the preceding year.
A single unwed mother who marries the biological father of their child can claim Parenthood Tax Rebate (PTR) after the marriage, so long as they meet the conditions for the PTR, namely, that they marry before the child turns six years old and the child is a Singapore Citizen at the time of marriage or within 12 months thereafter. PTR will be available from the Year of Assessment immediately following the year of marriage. If there is an unfortunate breakdown of the marriage in future, both she and her ex-husband can continue to claim any unutilised PTR amount.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Cost of Implementing Multi-tiered GST for Exemption of Basic Necessities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Finance what is the additional cost of implementing a multi-tiered GST that will allow for the exemption of basic necessities.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As explained during the Budget debate, we have already achieved the effect of multi-tier effective GST rates, with higher effective GST rates for higher-income households. This is achieved by implementing GST with the permanent GST Voucher and the absorption of GST on publicly-subsidised healthcare and education. This is a more effective way of specifically helping the low-income Singaporean households, than exempting certain goods from GST for all who consume them. In fact, various studies have shown that an exemption for a basket of essential goods tends to benefit the well-to-do more, as they spend more on everything, not just luxury items, but basic necessities as well. So, such a move will not help to make our GST system fairer.
We do not have estimates of how much it will cost businesses and IRAS to implement a multi-rate GST system in Singapore. What we do know is that these costs will, ultimately, be passed on to Singaporeans, both as consumers and taxpayers. We also know that our conclusion is well supported by the experiences of other jurisdictions with multi-rate GST systems.
A 2021 study by the European Parliamentary Research Service noted that \"a uniform VAT system, combined with direct instruments, such as direct transfers, would be more efficient\"; that \"differentiated VAT rates, exemptions, and registration thresholds lead to higher compliance costs\"; and that \"as a large proportion of compliance costs are fixed and independent of firm size, SMEs are disproportionately burdened\". It further cautioned on \"the costs of reduced VAT rates that go beyond revenue losses and include, for example, VAT fraud\" which \"are difficult to quantify\"1.
A 2006 study of VAT compliance costs in Sweden estimated that the compliance costs would be reduced, on average, by roughly 30% if a single rate system replaced a multi-rate system2. A 2005 study by the Swedish Government also estimated that borderline cases constitute roughly one-fifth of all dispute cases referred to their tax tribunal. A conservative estimate of the cost of resources in the public and private sector expended on these borderline dispute cases was about 700 million Swedish krona3, or about S$146 million, based on the exchange rate then.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : European Parliamentary Research Service (2021), VAT gap, reduced VAT rates and their impact on compliance costs for businesses and on consumers.","2 : Skatteverket, Report 2006/3b Compliance costs of value added tax in Sweden, http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.906b37c10bd295ff4880002550/rapport200603B, 2006.","3 : Copenhagen Economics (2007), Study on reduced VAT applied to goods and services in the Member States of the European Union, Copenhagen."],"footNoteQuestions":["66"],"questionNo":"66"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Taxes Paid by Those with Assessable Income of More Than $320,000","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many taxpayers have assessable income of more than $320,000 in 2019; and (b) what is the total assessable income and total taxes paid by them in 2019.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Assessable Income (AI) refers to the total income of an individual minus allowable deductions, such as business expenses, employment expenses and donations.
For the Year of Assessment 2020 which, generally, corresponds to income earned in 2019, around 70,000 taxpayers had an AI of more than $320,000. Their total AI was around $42.5 billion, and their total tax payable was $7 billion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Government to Lead the Way to Implement Shorter Work Shifts for Security Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government, as one of the largest buyers of security services, will consider changing the working hours for security officers in all Government tenders from the current 12-hour shifts to eight- to 10-hour shifts, so as to improve the work-life harmony and working conditions of officers deployed at Government sites.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since May 2020, the Government has started to adopt outcome-based contracts for the procurement of security services. Except in cases where public agencies have requirements which cannot avoid the need for manned operations to meet security outcomes, new tenders are, generally, required to specify outcomes rather than dictate a fixed number of headcounts or the number of shift hours to be performed by the security officers. This allows security service providers to provide optimal security solutions that integrate manpower, technology and processes. Security service providers have the flexibility to decide on the duration of each security officer’s shift.
To safeguard the welfare of security officers, their working hours are protected by the Employment Act, which caps overtime work to 72 hours per month. While security service providers were previously granted exemptions to exceed this cap, this has been removed since January 2021.
With the shift towards outcome-based contracting, the jobs of security officers have been redesigned. The Government will continue working with tripartite partners to examine ways to further improve the working conditions of security officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Flexibility in Processing Camera Deployment Requests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider reviewing and allowing flexibility on the internal protocols for requests of camera deployments on a case-by-case basis to address high-rise littering in a timely manner.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In managing high-rise littering cases, NEA will, first, seek to work with the Town Council and community leaders to influence behaviour and cultivate good habits through education before considering surveillance and enforcement. Upon receiving feedback, NEA and the relevant Town Council will issue advisories to residents in the affected stack of flats. Town Councils also display posters jointly produced with the Municipal Services Office at HDB blocks, highlighting the environmental and social impact of high-rise littering.
If the high-rise littering persists, NEA will deploy surveillance cameras, with priority given to blocks with persistent feedback and where the suspect units have been sufficiently narrowed down.
My Ministry will continue to monitor the high-rise littering situation and improve work processes for efficient and swift deployment of surveillance cameras to catch offenders in the act of high-rise littering.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of TraceTogether Data for Criminal Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the introduction of TraceTogether (a) how many criminal investigations have TraceTogether data been used for; (b) what categories under the Seventh Schedule of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act do these investigations come under; and (c) whether the TraceTogether data has, inadvertently, been used for any criminal investigations that do not come under the Seventh Schedule.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police have only requested for TraceTogether data once, for a murder that occurred in May 2020. This request was discussed in Parliament in February 2021, during the Second Reading of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill. TraceTogether data has not been used for any criminal investigations since, neither for offences under the Seventh Schedule nor for offences outside the Seventh Schedule.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Repeat Cases of Non-compliance with Safe Management Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) how many repeat cases of non-compliance of safe management measures have been taken to task since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) whether harsher penalties are being considered for recalcitrant offenders.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between April 2020 and February 2022, enforcement actions were taken against 1,862 individuals and 286 enterprises as repeat offenders for non-compliance with safe management measures.
Harsher enforcement actions, such as higher composition fines or prosecution actions, have been meted out against these repeat and recalcitrant offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Booster Shot Requirements for International Travellers Entering Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is considering COVID-19 booster shot requirements for international travellers entering Singapore to be considered as fully vaccinated, in line with domestic vaccination-differentiated safe management measures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: For purposes of facilitating travel, it will be better to adopt internationally-recognised standards, such as that set by the World Health Organization, to define full vaccinations. Hence, our requirement is that the travellers must have completed a primary series of WHO EUL (Emergency Use Listing) vaccines, with the last dose of the primary series taken at least 14 days before arrival. This is also the definition used when we implemented the Vaccinated Travel Lanes.
Travellers that meet the WHO definition for full vaccination will not need to undergo tests and Stay-Home Notices and can access various venues for 30 days. However, if the traveller is to stay in Singapore beyond 30 days and continue to enjoy vaccinated privileges, they must meet our domestic requirements to be considered fully vaccinated, which includes the three-dose requirement for Sinovac and Sinopharm, and the booster requirement.
To allow travellers to meet our domestic vaccination requirements beyond the grace period, MOH will extend vaccinations and boosters through private healthcare providers, with full cost pricing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Lactation Rooms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has data on the mean and median number of lactation rooms in (i) all buildings and business parks with a gross floor area (GFA) of 10,000 square metres or more and (ii) Government buildings with a GFA of 10,000 square metres or more; and (b) if these data are not available, whether the Ministry will start collecting them.
Mr Desmond Lee: BCA requires all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major addition and alteration works to comply with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment. Under the current edition of the Code, offices, business parks, shopping centres and multi-purpose complexes with a GFA of 10,000 square metres or more are required to provide at least one lactation room. This requirement also applies to mixed-use developments where the non-residential component has a GFA of 10,000 square metres or more. In addition, hospitals, polyclinics, transport stations and recreational developments, such as sports complexes and theme parks, regardless of size, are also required to provide at least one lactation room.
The requirements under the Code have been benchmarked against other jurisdictions and are meant to serve as a baseline. Building owners are encouraged to provide additional accessibility and inclusive features, such as lactation rooms, beyond the minimum requirements. To incentivise this, BCA’s Accessibility Fund provides co-funding of up to 80% to building owners who undertake upgrading works to enhance the accessibility and inclusiveness of their buildings.
Currently, BCA does not collect data on the number of lactation rooms provided in each building. However, BCA is aware of several buildings, such as City Square Mall and Our Tampines Hub, that provide more lactation rooms than required under the Code. BCA is studying how data on accessibility in buildings, including the provision of lactation rooms, can be collected to facilitate our efforts to enhance the accessibility and inclusiveness of the built environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Average Ratio of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the projected average ratio of electric vehicle (EV) charging points to resident cars in every HDB carpark in the next three years; (b) how will the Ministry increase this ratio to accommodate more EV users; and (c) how widely available will the options for daytime quick charge be.
Mr S Iswaran: As mentioned in Committee of Supply (COS) 2022, we will be accelerating our electric vehicle (EV) charging point deployment plans by making every HDB Town an EV-Ready Town by 2025. There will be at least three charging points deployed in each HDB carpark. At the national level, if there is sufficient demand, this tender will enable us to deploy up to an additional 12,000 EV charging points deployed across Singapore by 2025. By 2030, we target to increase this to 60,000 EV charging points. This will be sufficient to cater for up to half of our car population, at an EV to charging point ratio of 5:1.
Beyond HDB carparks, we have also launched the EV Common Charger Grant (ECCG) to encourage more non-landed private residences to install charging points to benefit their residents.
Overnight slow charging is likely to be the most common charging mode across Singapore, given its convenience to drivers and its much lower burden on electrical infrastructure. However, there is also a role for fast EV charging points, especially for certain segments of high mileage vehicles, such as taxis and commercial vehicle fleets. EV-charging operators and businesses have deployed around 420 EV fast-charging points islandwide at public carparks and private premises like private residences, offices, retail malls and petrol stations. We expect more will be deployed as EV adoption increases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tailgating Incidents Prosecuted in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many tailgating incidents have been prosecuted in the past three years; and (b) whether there are any measures that have been taken to deter tailgating incidents on roads.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police, or TP, does not track the number of tailgating incidents, as tailgating is not an offence in and of itself. That said, a motorist who fails to keep a safe distance from the vehicle ahead and, as a result, is involved in an accident, may be charged with the offence of Driving Without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration. The first offence carries a fine not exceeding $1,500, an imprisonment term not exceeding six months, or both. Subsequent offences carry higher penalties. The motorist could also be charged with more serious offences, such as Reckless or Dangerous Driving, depending on the facts of the case.
All motorists are expected to drive in a safe and responsible manner. The Basic Theory of Driving handbook instructs all motorists to maintain a safe following distance. TP conducts regular engagements with the general public and targeted groups, as well as campaigns, such as the Use Your RoadSense campaign, to educate motorists on safe driving habits. TP has also produced road safety advisory videos. These public education efforts are complemented by enforcement actions against motorists who engage in irresponsible or dangerous behaviour that threatens the safety of other road users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Care Services that Received ElderCare Fund Disbursements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health (a) of the 0.33% disbursed from the ElderCare Fund in 2020 that was spent on home care services for FY 2018 as reported in the Elderly Care Endowment Scheme 2020/2021 Annual Report, what are the services which this spending is used on; (b) what are the reasons for this low quantum; and (c) whether the Government will consider tapping on the ElderCare Fund to support informal caregivers with a stipend, in view that they do provide home care to infirm elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2000, the ElderCare Fund was set up to support the financing of operating subsidies for intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) services through the annual interest income generated from the fund. Hence, since its formation, disbursements from the ElderCare Fund have been, primarily, allocated to finance nursing home subsidies. Where the same nursing home provider also provides other subsidised ILTC services, these are also supported.
We wish to highlight that Table 1 on page 2 of the Elderly Care Endowment Scheme 2020/2021 Annual Report contained an erroneous \"FY 2018\" label, when it was meant to refer to disbursements made in Financial Year (FY) 2020, as reflected in the table title and preceding paragraph. We have clarified with Ms Carrie Tan that the question is on disbursements from the ElderCare Fund in FY 2020, instead of FY 2018.
In FY 2020, the interest income from the ElderCare Fund was only sufficient to fund about 20% of the total operating subsidies for ILTC services. The home care services supported by the disbursements included home medical, home nursing, home personal care and home therapy services. The remaining 80% of operating subsidies for ILTC services were funded directly from the Government’s Budget.
As the interest income from the ElderCare Fund is currently still insufficient to fully finance the annual operating subsidies for ILTC services, considering it for other uses beyond ILTC subsidies would be premature at this point.
MOH recognises that informal caregivers play an important role in caring for our elderly. MOH has rolled out the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG), which can be used flexibly to defray the formal or informal caregiving costs for eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability. The HCG quantum will be increased from early-2023, from $200 today to $400 per month for the lower-income, and $250 per month for other HCG beneficiaries.
Other support measures include schemes like the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund to defray the cost of assistive devices and home healthcare items. For severely disabled Singaporeans, other schemes, such as CareShield Life, ElderShield and MediSave Care, may also provide monthly cash payouts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Not Extending MediSave Usage to Health Screenings and Other Preventative Health Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health what are the considerations that currently inhibit the extension of the usage of MediSave for (i) comprehensive health screenings and (ii) other preventative health procedures, such as vaccinations, that are not under the National Adult Immunisation Schedule or smoking cessation programmes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave is, currently, only extended to nationally recommended vaccinations and screenings which are already heavily subsidised or provided free, because they have been reviewed to be safe, cost-effective and appropriate for population-level screening for the selected groups, based on robust scientific evidence. This safeguards the use of MediSave and ensure that Singaporeans have sufficient savings for basic healthcare needs, especially in old age, and to keep MediSave contribution rates reasonable for all. For smoking cessation, individuals seeking support can enrol in the Health Promotion Board’s \"I Quit Programme\", which is free of charge. We will continue to ensure the affordability of appropriate preventive care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Assessment to Determine which Polyclinics and Public Health Preparedness Clinics Prescribe Paxlovid for COVID-19 Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the Ministry determine which polyclinics and Public Health Preparedness Clinics prescribe Paxlovid for COVID-19 treatment; (b) when is the roll-out expected to be completed; and (c) whether the Ministry will cover the cost of Paxlovid for unvaccinated persons who are not medically-exempted from COVID-19 vaccination.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All polyclinics and 20 Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) are currently participating in a pilot programme to prescribe Paxlovid to clinically eligible patients in the community. The 20 PHPCs were selected by Primary Care Networks (PCN) based on their readiness to participate in the programme and are located across the island. We may extend this clinical service to more PHPCs after reviewing the experience and outcomes. Starting from 18 March 2022, eligible patients may be referred to the participating PHPCs or polyclinics for a consultation and prescription of Paxlovid, if appropriate.
Paxlovid can be prescribed for any eligible COVID-19 patient who presents within five days of illness and meets the relevant clinical criteria. MOH has been monitoring the demand closely and maintaining a healthy stock of Paxlovid.
For now, MOH will fully cover the drug cost of Paxlovid use in primary care settings, regardless of vaccination status, as it can reduce the likelihood of high-risk patients developing severe COVID-19 and requiring hospital admission. The charging policy for Paxlovid will be reviewed in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Self-declaration of COVID-19-positive Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to allow for the self-declaration of COVID-19-positive status, with appropriate penalties for false declarations, as a means of relieving the burden on general practitioners (GPs) who are currently facing a surge of patients seeking verification of their COVID-19-positive status from the GPs in order to postpone their booster shots or to be absent from their workplace.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The verification of positive Antigen Rapid Test (ART) results is necessary as part of official record-keeping to ensure that COVID-19 infection records are accurate. This can be done at primary care clinics, Combined Test Centres (CTCs), or Quick Test Centres (QTCs). MOH has also worked with approved telemedicine providers to provide remote supervised self-ART services, so as to offer more accessible options for members of the public who wish to have an official infection record.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Waiting Time for Subsidised Patients between First and Second Specialist Patient Appointments at Public Health Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is a target waiting time for subsidised patients between their first and second specialist patient appointments at the public health institutions; (b) what is the current average waiting time for subsidised patients to be seen for their first and second specialist appointments in public health institutions; and (c) what are the measures taken to achieve the target waiting times, given the increased patient backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The time between the first and second Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) appointments is dependent on many factors. These include a determination by the specialist on the severity of the condition, the clinical need for early monitoring, the need for intervening investigations before the next appointment and the types of treatment and procedures needed at the next appointment.
Hence, MOH does not set a target wait time for patients’ second SOC appointment nor track the time between the first and second SOC appointments. However, if the patient’s condition requires an earlier review, the patient can contact the SOC for advice and the clinical team will work with the patient to determine whether an earlier appointment can be scheduled.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have put in place various measures to continue care for patients requiring SOC care. These measures include prioritising patients with higher medical needs for earlier SOC appointment, providing teleconsultation for suitable patients, providing home-delivery of medications so that patients can be assured of a sufficient supply, regular case reviews by the doctor-in-charge, contacting the patients to check on their progress and offering earlier teleconsultation or in-person consultation at the SOC, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Occupancy Rates at Public and Private Hospitals and Capacity to Admit New Inpatients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health what are the current occupancy rates of public and private hospitals and their capacity to admit new inpatients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There were 9,728 beds in the public hospitals as of end February 2022, with overall average monthly bed occupancy rate of 88.5%.
There were 1,929 beds in the private hospitals as of end February 2022, with overall average monthly bed occupancy rate of 47%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Licensed Nursing Home Beds Needed for Next Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the projections on the number of licensed nursing home beds needed for the next five years; and (b) what is the Government doing to meet these projections.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As at end 2020, there are around 16,300 licensed nursing home beds. Based on our assessment of the needs, we plan to add around 5,000 nursing home beds by 2025.
We increase nursing home capacity in three main ways. First, MOH develops purpose-built nursing homes and appoints operators through competitive Requests for Proposals. Second, MOH provides financial support to eligible operators who wish to increase their existing nursing home capacity through redevelopment. Third, the Government releases suitable land sites and state properties for interested operators to bid for and run nursing homes.
We will continue to monitor nursing home utilisation rates regularly and adjust capacity plans accordingly to address evolving care needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation of Temporary Certificates of Entitlement (TCOEs) for Motorcycles Secured","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in view of the new historic high motorcycle COE price in late February 2022 (a) what is the utilisation rate for temporary Certificates of Entitlement (TCOEs) for motorcycles secured after April 2021; and (b) of which, what is the breakdown of the TCOEs which were utilised by engine capacity of (i) 200 cc and below, (ii) 201 cc to 400 cc and (iii) above 400 cc.
Mr S Iswaran: The utilisation rate for motorcycle temporary Certificates of Entitlement (TCOEs) secured from May 2021 to September 2021, which have all expired by end March 2022, is over 99%. This reflects strong and sustained demand for motorcycles.
The majority of motorcycles registered using these TCOEs are for the mass-market. Motorcycles with engine capacity of 200 cubic centimetres (cc) and below account for about 70% of the registrations; those from 201 cc to 400 cc account for about 20%; and those above 400 cc account for about 10%.
We understand the concerns over high motorcycle COE prices. LTA has been monitoring the market and, recently, introduced two changes to encourage more prudent bidding. First, the bid deposit for Category D COEs has been raised from $200 to $800. The bid deposit forms part of the overall price payable when the COE is used and will only be forfeited if the TCOE is not used to register a motorcycle before it expires. Second, the validity period of Category D TCOEs has been shortened from six to three months. The shortened validity period will allow unutilised COEs to be returned to the total pool more quickly to meet demand.
These changes have been implemented from the second bidding exercise in March 2022. LTA will continue to monitor the situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Hostile Information Campaigns Targeted at Singapore Residents Since Start of Russia-Ukraine Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there have been any hostile information campaigns targeted at Singapore residents since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict; (b) if so, what is the nature of these campaigns; (c) whether the Government is aware of the likely sources of such campaigns; and (d) whether the Government is taking any action to counter them.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has not detected a coordinated hostile information campaign (HIC) targeted specifically at Singapore so far. However, we have detected some social media accounts involved in local online discussions about the Ukraine conflict, with characteristics that suggested that they may be inauthentic. Separately, we have also noticed our population being influenced by news and commentaries from foreign sources.
As MHA has said in media statements, we had surfaced the suspicious accounts to TikTok for its review. TikTok had conducted internal investigations and shared that the accounts did not appear to be of foreign origin.
Actions and misinformation could come in the form of hearsay, rumours, half-truths or misleading statements that may not be easily identifiable as such. They could appear to come from sources that seem local and/or authentic at first glance and, so, are all the more insidious as they behave or are passed off as part of legitimate domestic discourse.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response to Opinion Leaders who Transmit Partly False Information which may Undermine Singapore’s Foreign Policy Positions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how does the Government intend to respond to Singaporean key opinion leaders who express or transmit partly false information that can potentially undermine Singapore’s foreign policy positions.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In this digital age, the spread of misinformation that sows fear, suspicion and discord in a population is a clear and present danger. All of us should exercise discretion and not share anything unless we are certain of its veracity. This responsibility to avoid disseminating misinformation applies, particularly, to public figures and opinion leaders.
A Singaporean public that is well-informed, that recognises the geostrategic forces at play and understands our national interests, is essential for our defence against misinformation and disinformation campaigns. We encourage the public to verify information with official sources and apply a critical mind to what you read and share.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Sanctioned Entities from Circumventing Sanctions Imposed Against Russia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister in light of the financial sanctions that have been imposed against Russia (a) whether Singapore's regulation of cryptocurrencies and decentralised finance (DeFi) will prevent sanctioned individuals and companies from using non-traditional forms of finance to circumvent the sanctions; and (b) if not, whether MAS is looking at introducing or revising our regulation of cryptocurrencies and DeFi shortly.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The financial measures1 imposed by the Singapore Government in relation to Russia apply to all financial institutions (FIs) in Singapore, including digital payment token (DPT) service providers, otherwise known as \"cryptocurrency\" service providers. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires all FIs to ensure compliance with the measures, regardless of whether transactions are facilitated using traditional financial channels or through cryptocurrency exchanges or \"decentralised finance\" protocols. To guard against circumvention, these financial measures specifically prohibit DPT transactions that may be used to facilitate any prohibited activity or transaction. In short, FIs will not enable sanctioned parties to use non-traditional forms of finance to bypass the measures.
Both licensed and exempted DPT service providers must have robust controls to avoid facilitating prohibited transactions. These include procedures to know their customers and the beneficial owners of customers, and to screen these persons and their counterparties. MAS has issued a circular to DPT service providers to underscore the importance of proper implementation of these controls and the need to be vigilant against potential circumvention of the financial measures.
All FIs are required to demonstrate their compliance with the financial measures to MAS and are subject to MAS’ scrutiny and inspection. MAS will take appropriate regulatory actions against FIs found to have breached these financial measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : MAS Notice SNR-N01, \"Financial Measures in Relation to Russia\" which should be read together with MAS Notice SNR-N02, “Financial Measures in Relation to Russia – Non-prohibited Payments and Transactions”"],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Research Initiatives Grant under Grant for Equity Market Singapore and Notable Initiatives Developed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) how much of the Research Initiatives Grant under the Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) announced in 2019 to crowd-source initiatives to propel the development of Singapore’s equity research ecosystem has been awarded; and (b) what are some of the notable initiatives that have been developed through the GEMS Research Initiatives Grant.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Research Initiatives Grant under MAS' Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) scheme provides support for initiatives that seek to enhance Singapore's equity research ecosystem and improve the research coverage of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange.
Since the launch of the Research Initiatives Grant in January 2019, MAS and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) have received 30 enquiries and pilot concepts, many of which were exploratory. Fifteen of them were followed through with draft applications. MAS works with applicants to determine if their proposals address existing market gaps in equity research or trading and whether the proposals have clear implementation plans. It has, to date, approved grant funding for one project and is, currently, reviewing five other grant applications.
The project that was granted funding employs digital tools to help smaller SGX-listed companies improve their investor engagement. The project went live in mid-2021 and has facilitated close to 20 investor outreach events to-date.
MAS continues to welcome proposals that can help enhance equity research and contribute to the growth of our public equity market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Companies Granted Exemption from Holding Licence under Payment Services Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister for entities which are previously granted an exemption from holding a licence under the Payment Services Act (a) what is the breakdown in the number of companies for those (i) whose exemption ceased after the specified period, (ii) those that are rejected by MAS and (iii) those whose applications are withdrawn; and (b) what is the average length of time between the grant of exemption and eventual end of exemption.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Payment Services Act (PS Act) came into effect on 28 January 2020. As part of the transitional arrangements, entities that were engaged in regulated activities before the commencement of the PS Act were exempted from holding a licence if they submitted licence applications before July 2020 for digital payment token (DPT) activities, or January 2021 for the other regulated activities. The exemption from licensing remains in force until the applications are approved or rejected by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) or withdrawn by the applicant.
Since the commencement of the PS Act, MAS has received over 580 licence applications, of which 415 had notified MAS within the specified period and were exempted from licensing. To date, 87 applications have been approved, 11 rejected and 147 withdrawn after engagement with MAS. Around 170 entities remain exempted from licensing, whose applications are pending reviews.
The list of entities exempted from holding a licence and the list of entities that are no longer exempt from holding a licence are available on the MAS website.
MAS closely scrutinises all applications to ensure the quality of the risk management systems and controls of the applicant. Applications that are incomplete or unclear take longer to process. Entities may also withdraw their applications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore and ASEAN's Approach and Efforts to De-escalate Violence in Russia-Ukraine Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how Singapore intends to approach the ongoing violence in Ukraine, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, customary international law and also UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262, to de-escalate the violence and ensure the safety of the civilian population.
5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how ASEAN intends to approach the ongoing violence in Ukraine, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, customary international law and also UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262, to de-escalate the violence and ensure the safety of the civilian population.
6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how does Singapore intend to ensure the upholding of international law of which Russia is a party to, particularly the Geneva Conventions I, IV and Protocol I, as well as the Hague Convention of 1907, in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what efforts are being made to allow negotiations to take place between Russia and Ukraine to de-escalate violence and halt the invasion.
8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how international law will be upheld, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, even as Ukrainian refugees flee Ukraine.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Christopher de Souza has referred to various elements of international norms and laws and asked how Singapore intends to ensure that they are upheld.
International law is essential but conventions and agreements can only achieve their intended objectives if the parties honour them and if they can be enforced. With respect to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while the UN Security Council has the mandate under Article 51 of the UN Charter to take action as it deems necessary \"in order to maintain or restore international peace and security\", this is unlikely to be invoked, given Russia's veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council.
Singapore has taken a clear, consistent and principled position on upholding international law and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, as laid out in the Ministerial Statement in Parliament on 28 February 2022 on Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We co-sponsored and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly Emergency Special Session Resolution ES-11/1 on \"Aggression against Ukraine\" which was adopted by a vote of 141 yeses, five noes and 35 abstentions on 2 March 2022. While UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has complied with the spirit and letter of the resolution. Given the unprecedented gravity of the Russian invasion and Russia's veto of the UN Security Council resolution, Singapore has further imposed sanctions aimed at constraining Russia's capacity to conduct war against Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty.
Specifically, we have imposed a ban on the transfer to Russia of all items in the Military Goods List and all items in the \"Electronics\", \"Computers\" and \"Telecommunications and Information Security\" categories of the Dual-Use Goods List of the Strategic Goods (Control) Order 2021. We have also imposed financial measures targeted at designated Russian banks, entities and activities in Russia, and fund-raising activities benefiting the Russian government. Further details can be found in MFA's Press Statement on Sanctions and Restrictions against Russia in Response to its Invasion of Ukraine dated 5 March 2022.
Singapore has supported humanitarian assistance efforts, with the Singapore Government contributing US$100,000 to assist affected communities in Ukraine via the Singapore Red Cross, which is working through the Ukrainian Red Cross Society and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. We co-sponsored and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly Emergency Special Session Resolution on “Humanitarian Consequences of the Aggression against Ukraine” which was adopted by a vote of 140 yeses, five noes and 38 abstentions on 24 March 2022.
Mr Christopher de Souza has also asked about ASEAN's approach. ASEAN is deeply concerned about the unfolding crisis and worsening humanitarian conditions from Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers have, thus far, issued two statements. First, on 26 February 2022, to call on all relevant parties to exercise maximum restraint, make utmost efforts to pursue dialogue, de-escalate tensions and seek peaceful resolution in accordance with international law and uphold the principles of mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and equal rights of all nations. Second, on 3 March 2022, calling for an immediate ceasefire and the continuation of political dialogue which would lead to sustainable peace in Ukraine.
Lastly, Mr Christopher de Souza has asked about the efforts being made to allow negotiations to take place between Russia and Ukraine. While Singapore is not involved in the ongoing direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, we note that both sides have undertaken several rounds of negotiations since 28 February 2022. We hope that these talks will lead to a peaceful settlement in accordance with the UN Charter and international law.
We will continue to work alongside the international community to support international law, a rules-based international order and a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcomes of Speed Camera Installation to Improve Enforcement Rate against Speeding Offences in Last Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how has the installation of speed cameras helped to improve the enforcement rate against speeding offences in the last two years; (b) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the criteria for deployment of speed cameras; and (c) where a road has been identified to be speed-prone and accident-prone, how do the Traffic Police and LTA work together for the deployment of speed cameras and road modifications.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2020 and 2021, Police speed cameras detected about 67,600 and 63,600 speeding violations respectively. They were lower than the 96,400 speeding violations detected in 2019, due to the lower traffic volume during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Traffic Police deploy speed cameras at speeding-prone and accident-prone locations, where the terrain is suitable. They complement such deployment with regular enforcement actions. The Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority have also been working together to assess how the road infrastructure can be modified. This includes implementing speed calming measures, such as speed regulating strips.
The Member asked if we would consider expanding the criteria for deployment of speed cameras. At this moment, we have no plans to do so. We assess our current deployment and criteria to be adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Indicators on Society's Readiness to Repeal Section 377A of Penal Code","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs following the Court of Appeal’s ruling on retaining section 377A of the Penal Code (a) what are the Government’s indicators to monitor whether society is ready for its repeal; and (b) how are these indicators monitored.
Mr K Shanmugam: This is an issue that should not be viewed solely on the basis of discrete indicators. The Government is speaking with diverse groups of Singaporeans to better understand their viewpoints. We will consider them carefully and assess the best way forward.
Ms Hazel Poa has informed Parliament that she and her Party do not have a position on whether section 377A should be retained or abolished.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Knife-related Crimes Committed in Education Institutions and Public, Commercial and Residential Premises in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs for the past five years, how many knife-related crimes, including those involving the brandishing of swords, razors or similar items have been committed in (i) schools or educational institutions, (ii) public, commercial or work premises and (iii) residential premises.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member's question on the number of knife-related crimes has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 28 and 29 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 4 April 2022. [Please refer to \"Measures to Help Police Protect Public and Guide Individuals at Risk of Being Drawn into Knife-related Crimes \", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Investigation of Driver Who Threatened to Run Down Security Officer outside Red Swastika School in January 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry can provide any updates on the status of the investigation in respect of the driver who had threatened to run down the security officer outside Red Swastika School on 11 January 2022.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police have completed their investigations against the driver for a possible offence of Rash Act Causing Hurt under section 337(a) of the Penal Code 1871. They have referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor for a decision on the appropriate course of action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Only Qualified Personnel Install Electrical Wiring and Appliances and Residual Current Circuit Breakers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures are there to ensure that only qualified personnel install electrical wiring and appliances and residual current circuit breakers; (b) whether there are audits to check on the quality of the installation work; and (c) whether there are periodic inspections and audits of electrical wiring in all buildings, especially those over 20 years old.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates electrical installations in Singapore via the Electricity (Electrical Installations) Regulations. These regulations require all electrical works, such as the installation of electrical wiring and residual current circuit breakers (RCCB), to be undertaken by a licensed electrical worker (LEW). The regulations also require the LEW to ensure that the electrical works meet the industry technical and safety requirements and standards.
After the completion of the electrical installations, the LEW is required to apply to SP Group for inspection and testing of the installations. This is to ensure that they have been installed correctly and are safe and fit for operation, before the electricity supply can be turned on.
For non-domestic premises, the owners/users are required to appoint an LEW to take charge of the electrical installations, which entails seeking a licence for electrical installations above 45kVA, and regular inspections and rectification works, if needed, to ensure the safe operation of the electrical installations. The frequency of inspection is at least once a year, with electrical installations in higher-risk settings or premises being subject to more frequent inspection and certification. For example, electrical installations at construction sites must be inspected monthly, while those in public areas and HDB estates’ common areas must be inspected at least once every six months. These requirements can be found at the following website: https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Handbook/Handbook_for_Application_of_Electrical_Installation_Licence.pdf.
For domestic premises, there is no requirement for owners/users to appoint an LEW to take charge of the electrical wiring after they are installed. Since 1985, the Government has made it mandatory for all new domestic premises and those that undertake rewiring works, including HDB flats, to install a RCCB as part of their electrical wiring installation. The RCCB will cut off electricity supply automatically in the event of an electricity leakage to protect the users. EMA strongly recommends all homeowners to periodically test their RCCB to ensure that they are functioning properly and to engage an LEW to replace them, if needed. EMA conducts periodic educational campaigns on electrical safety with agencies, such as HDB and Enterprise Singapore (ESG). For example, in July 2021, EMA had sent out information leaflets (https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/Handbooks%20and%20educational%20materials/Electrical-Safety-3-Steps-To-Test-Your-RCCB-Brochure.pdf) in utility bills to remind homeowners to test their RCCBs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Long-Term Strategies to Address Rising Costs for Businesses and Cost of Living in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government expects the recent trend of sharp increases in energy prices to continue in the near future; and (b) what are the Government's plans on addressing this issue in terms of the rising cost for businesses and cost of living for Singaporeans.
15 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the top 10 food items or ingredients that have increased in price since the Ukrainian-Russian conflict; (b) whether food stockpiles will be drawn upon amidst higher prices in recent months; and (c) what is the Ministry’s long-term strategy to ensure basic food necessities remain affordable to all.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the prices of imported food commodities such as wheat, flour and sugar, have risen in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict; (b) if so, by how much; and (c) what is being done to mitigate the rise in food prices which will be keenly felt by consumers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: These questions have been addressed by the Ministerial Statements delivered by Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Tan See Leng on 4 April 2022. [Please refer to \"Inflation and Business Costs\", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Statements by Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Participating Merchants under Community Development Council Vouchers Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many merchants have been included in the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme as a participant; (b) how many merchants have been approached in total; (c) whether there is a timeline for the CDC Ambassadors to approach all eligible shops for participation; and (d) whether any criteria have been taken into consideration for inclusion as a participant in the CDC Vouchers Scheme after the merchant has registered their interest.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the launch of the CDC Vouchers Scheme three months ago, more than 14,500 heartland merchants and hawkers are already participating in the scheme.
The CDCs have been engaging the heartland merchants and hawkers since then and will continue to reach out to a broad cross section of heartland merchants and hawkers, ranging from daily necessities to essential goods and services. Ambassadors will also go around the heartlands to share about the CDC Vouchers Scheme and encourage the merchants and hawkers to participate in the scheme.
Those who are interested can register with the CDCs at the website: vouchers.cdc.gov.sg or through their respective Merchants' Associations, Hawkers' Associations, or Business Advisers at SME Centres @ CDC. Ambassadors will visit the heartlands to share about the CDC Vouchers Scheme and encourage merchants and hawkers to participate in the scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Number of Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles under Land Transport Master Plan 2040 and Support Measures to Alleviate Impact of Rising Oil Prices on Drivers, Cabbies and Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 (a) whether there are any existing targets on the number of taxi and private hire vehicles under the plan; (b) if so, how do the current numbers compare against these targets; and (c) whether the Government intends to intervene in the market, such as offering targeted assistance to these drivers to cope with the recent exceptional surge in fuel costs in ensuring that the numbers are on track in meeting the targets.
19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry’s outlook on the impact of rising oil prices on private hire car drivers, cabbies and food delivery riders in the next few months; (b) what is the overall percentage increase in business costs for private hire car drivers in March 2022 compared to the start of the year; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing support packages and nudge platform companies to implement support measures that alleviate the impact of rising oil prices on these drivers.
Mr S Iswaran: The provision of taxi and private hire car (PHC) services are determined by market forces. For instance, in the case of PHCs, platforms dynamically adjust the prices of rides in accordance with demand, with higher charges during peak periods to attract more drivers to take on additional assignments. The Government does not set targets for the number of taxis or PHCs.
The business costs of driving a taxi or PHC mainly comprise: (a) vehicle rental; (b) commissions paid to platform operators; and (c) fuel costs. Typically, the bulk of the costs is rental, while fuel costs make up about 20% of total costs. Compared to the start of 2022, fuel expenditure has risen by 15% for a typical P2P driver who drives for a living. This translates to an increase of about 3% in the overall cost of business.
To help offset the fuel expenditure increase incurred by the average P2P driver, P2P operators have made various moves to raise fares, such as increases to the base fare for PHCs and distance-time rate for taxis, which will be reviewed in end-May. Most taxi operators have also provided rental rebates to their drivers, while some PHC operators have offered commission rebates and/or other incentives.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and work with the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association to help drivers in this challenging period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Safety of Passengers on Rear Decks of Lorries Sold and Monies Paid Out by Automotive Insurers for Accident Claims over Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the most popular lorry models being sold in Singapore in the past five years; and (b) whether there are any previous engagements with the manufacturers of these lorry models on enhancing the safety of passengers on rear decks by strengthening the floor of the lorry to allow for seat belts to be installed.
21 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has data on how much money has been paid out by automotive insurers due to claims arising from lorry accidents over the past five years; (b) if so, what is the annual amount; and (c) whether the Ministry has engaged insurers to study the impact on whether insurance claims and premiums will fall if seat belts are made mandatory on the rear decks of lorries.
Mr S Iswaran: Over the past five years, popular lorry models sold in Singapore included the Toyota Dyna, Nissan Cabstar and Mitsubishi Canter. LTA does not collect information on insurance claims.
LTA has engaged the industry and academia on various occasions, including most recently in December 2021, on proposals to enhance worker transportation safety on lorries, including strengthening the floorboard of the lorries' carriage deck for seat belts.
The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) shared that the retrofitting of seats, seat belts and reinforcements required for the floorboards may compromise the structural integrity of the lorry. In addition, the vehicle's dynamics will be altered and this can affect the lorry's stability when turning. These create new safety risks. There are also liability issues as the OEMs do not support and vouch for the safety of such lorries retrofitted with seatbelts. These findings are consistent with those from the previous tripartite review in 2008 on lorry transportation that retrofitting seat belts in the rear decks of lorries could result in other safety risks. Hence, as fitting seat belts in the rear of lorries could pose new risks, it is unclear that insurance premiums would be lower by doing so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Errant Power-assisted Bicycle and E-scooter Riders Fined in 2021 and Effectiveness of Mandatory Theory Test","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many errant power-assisted bicycle and e-scooter riders are fined by the authorities in 2021; (b) whether there has been a decrease in the number of such errant riders since the implementation of the mandatory theory test; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that all riders will undertake the mandatory theory test.
Mr S Iswaran: In 2021, over 5,000 notices were issued to errant riders for various offences on public paths and roads, such as speeding, reckless riding and riding at locations where they are disallowed. For example, Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) are disallowed on roads. This works out to an average of about 420 notices a month. Since enforcement of the mandatory theory test commenced in January 2022, an average of about 350 notices were issued to errant riders for various offences for the months of January and February. However, given the impact on enforcement resources over the past two years due to the pandemic, these numbers are not conclusive that the number of errant riders has decreased due to the mandatory theory test. LTA will continue to monitor closely to assess the impact more accurately.
LTA has implemented various initiatives to encourage Power Assisted Bicycle (PAB) and e-scooter riders to take and pass the mandatory theory test, such as providing a discounted test fee from June to December 2021; providing materials to help riders prepare for the test; and working with NTUC, food delivery companies and interest groups to raise awareness and ensure riders obtain the theory test certification. As of 15 March 2022, over 31,000 riders have passed the test, a significant number when viewed against the existing population of about 40,000 registered devices. About 120 notices have been issued for riding without valid theory test certification.
Efforts to improve public education and enforcement go hand in hand. Both the Traffic Police and LTA carry out day and night operations to enforce across 9,500 lane-kilometres of roads and close to 6,000 kilometres of footpaths and cycling paths islandwide. LTA also conducts regular joint operations with the Traffic Police on roads and the National Parks Board on paths. Increasingly, we are also augmenting our enforcement capabilities with technology, such as CCTVs, and through public feedback using our MyTransport app. However, enforcement cannot be the only solution. Everyone must play their part in behaving responsibly and graciously, as well as encourage their family members and friends to do so, on our shared roads and paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Noise Measuring Instruments at Speeding Locations Given New Vehicle Noise Standards from 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the impending adoption of the new vehicle noise standards from next year onwards, whether there are plans to deploy noise measuring instruments together with speed cameras in areas where cars often speed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Excessive vehicle noise is caused by a variety of factors, including vehicle design, illegal modifications, poor maintenance and inconsiderate driver behaviour. NEA sets noise emission standards that new vehicles must adhere to upon registration, as well as in-use noise emission standards which ensure that vehicles used on the roads are regularly serviced, well-maintained and do not emit excessive noise.
Compliance with noise emission standards will continue to be assessed during mandatory periodic inspections at authorised inspection centres. NEA, Traffic Police and LTA will also continue to conduct joint enforcement operations for vehicular-related offences on our roads, including violations of the noise emission standards.
Currently, there are no plans to deploy noise measuring instruments along the roads to enforce against vehicles that violate the noise emission standards. Unlike speeding offences, which can be visually captured using speed cameras, it is challenging to attribute the source of noise to a specific vehicle on the road, due to interference from surrounding traffic and other sources. Nonetheless, NEA will continue to monitor new technologies that could strengthen enforcement against vehicles that violate the noise emission standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of Glue Traps to Trap and Remove Rodents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether glue traps for pests and rodents will be banned from use, given the possibility of catching unintended targets after deployment.
25 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider phasing out the practice of glue traps to catch pests and introducing nature-based biocontrols to tackle the problem.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Pest control operators (PCOs) have various means to manage the population of pests and would assess the situation to determine the most appropriate means to ensure effective and safe pest control.
When used responsibly and safely, glue traps are an effective tool for trapping and removing rodents. To minimise the risk of non-target animals being trapped by glue traps, NParks, in consultation with NEA and the Singapore Pest Management Association (SPMA), had issued guidelines to PCOs on the responsible use of glue traps.
NParks, NEA and SPMA will review these guidelines from time to time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prepare and Assist Teachers at ITE to Support Students with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education what measures are there to prepare and assist teachers at the Institute of Technical Education so that they can support students with special needs, such as dyslexia, autism and Down Syndrome.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) are committed to providing a strong system of support for all students, including students with Special Educational Needs (SEN).
ITE educators receive training on the fundamentals of SEN conditions and strategies to engage and teach students with SEN effectively. Educators, including those who work more closely with students with SEN, may also undergo additional training on advanced strategies for learning interventions and behaviour management.
Each of the three ITE Colleges has a Learning Accessibility Office (LAO) comprising Educational Psychologists, Learning Support Specialists, Learning Support Officers and other specialised staff. The LAOs work directly with students with SEN and provide advice to educators on how to effectively support students with SEN, develop intervention plans and monitor students who require closer support. We encourage students with SEN to approach the LAO at their respective ITE College for assistance and support as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies in Schools to Ensure Children Spot Signs of Disinformation and Online Falsehoods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the strategies applied in schools to ensure that our children become discerning readers to spot signs of disinformation and online falsehoods; and (b) what is the age of the children for schools to start imparting this skill to them.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In schools, information and media literacy skills are taught through different subjects from Primary to pre-University levels, to nurture our students to be discerning users and producers of information.
In English, History and Social Studies lessons, students learn to critically evaluate different sources of information, both online and offline, when examining real-world issues in the local or global contexts. From upper Primary levels, teachers use reading and thinking strategies that are age-appropriate to guide students in distinguishing fact from opinion, understanding context, establishing purpose, and verifying the credibility of information. During this process, students cross-check the information and views presented with other sources to determine their reliability and to spot signs of incomplete information and falsehoods. At the pre-University level, teachers build on these skills to guide students to be discerning readers of information as they explore a range of key issues of local, regional and global significance in General Paper.
Students are also taught how to discern online information as part of Cyber Wellness (CW) education within the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) Curriculum implemented progressively from 2021. Starting from Primary level, students are taught to verify the credibility of online information sources to safeguard themselves in cyberspace. At the Secondary and pre-University levels, students deepen their understanding of the factors contributing to the spread of online falsehoods as well as its consequences. Through class discussions on related contemporary issues, such as Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the rise in the number of scam cases, the importance of being discerning of online information is reinforced.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints About Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures in Schools, JCs and Polytechnics in Past Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education in the past six months, how many complaints have been received regarding Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) in Primary and Secondary schools, JCs and Polytechnics respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Access to education is MOE's priority. COVID-19 vaccination is not a requirement for physical attendance in our schools nor for participation in core school activities.
However, MOE also has to put in place appropriate public health measures as part of our management of the COVID-19 pandemic. For higher-risk activities, we would, generally, be in alignment with the prevailing national posture. For example, this includes participation in larger team sports where up to 30 fully vaccinated individuals are allowed to play together.
There has been only a small number of feedback and queries on the enhanced requirement for higher-risk activities. MOE has responded and explained to students and their parents that this is in line with the prevailing national posture to safeguard the health of unvaccinated individuals due to their higher risk of infection.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Global Events on Costs of Daily Necessities and Goods and Support Measures for Needy Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Finance what studies has the Ministry conducted so far to examine how the costs of daily necessities and goods in Singapore will be impacted by recent global events, such as rising commodity prices, rising global inflation, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the COVID-19 pandemic.
30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Finance apart from the Assurance Package for the GST increase, what else will the Government be doing to assist needy Singaporeans to cope with the rising cost of daily necessities and goods which are non-GST related.
Mr Lawrence Wong: This question has been addressed by the joint Ministerial Statement delivered together with Second Minister for Trade and Industry Tan See Leng on 4 April 2022. [Please refer to \"Inflation and Business Costs\", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Statements by Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Implement Use of Clear Masks in Preschool Settings to Enable Infants and Toddlers to Observe Lip Movements of Teachers in Their Language Acquisition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are plans to implement the use of clear masks in preschool settings in respect of infants and toddlers who, in the process of language acquisition, may suffer delays due to an inability to observe the lip movement of teachers and adults.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We recognise that the perception and articulation of speech sounds are important aspects of early language development. While there is limited literature on the effects of mask wearing on language learning and development, studies suggest that mask wearing has a greater impact at the pre-Primary and lower Primary levels, where young children are deprived of language cues from the movement of the preschool educator's lips and facial expression.
To limit the spread of COVID-19 in our preschools and keep children and staff safe, all preschool staff are required to wear masks within the preschool. To support young children's learning and development, preschools have the flexibility to use face masks with a transparent feature that allows the wearer's mouth to be visible. Such face masks are available on the market. In 2021, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) received donations of over 7,000 reusable masks with transparent windows and distributed these to staff and children in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and KidSTART to help children with developmental needs as well as children from low-income families.
In line with the national transition towards COVID-19 resiliency, MOE and ECDA will gradually ease mask-wearing requirements in schools, preschools and Early Intervention centres to better support children's learning and development needs. For a start, from 29 March 2022, selected teachers and students with additional or developmental needs have the flexibility to remove their masks during language and literacy lessons. The mask-off provision is also offered to Government-funded Early Intervention centres running EIPIC. This is a carefully considered move, taking into consideration the high vaccination coverage among educators and children aged five and above, and feedback from educators and parents to better support our students' learning needs while mitigating the risk of spread of COVID-19. We will consider whether to extend this arrangement to more settings at a later stage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Financial Resources for Cancer Patients to Draw on under Recommended Changes by MediShield Life Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health under the changes recommended by the MediShield Life Council to be implemented in September 2022, whether cancer patients will have additional financial resources to draw on to cover the cost of cancer scans, beyond the current annual MediSave withdrawal limit of $600.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From September 2022, as part of the enhancement to MediShield Life, patients receiving cancer drug treatments can separately claim up to an additional $1,200 per year to cover other outpatient costs incurred, such as for scans, as part of the cancer drug treatment. This is above and beyond the claimable limits for cancer drug treatments. For patients undergoing radiotherapy, they can claim the cost of their scans and related services under the radiotherapy limits instead, which range from $300 to $1,800 per treatment. Scans that are done inpatient can continue to be claimed under the inpatient claim limits.
Patients with Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), which cover seven in 10 Singapore Residents, may also claim the cost of their cancer scans from their IP where applicable.
Singaporeans who face difficulties paying for cancer drug treatments and related services after subsidies, insurance and MediSave can apply for MediFund for further assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enabling Polyclinics to Fill Prescriptions made by Private House-call Doctors and Convenient Options for Patients whose Prescriptions Are Not Carried at Pharmacies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will enable polyclinics to fill prescriptions made by private house-call doctors; and (b) if not, besides going to the hospital, what other more convenient options do patients have if pharmacies do not carry their prescription.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Some polyclinics can fill private prescriptions, but not all are able to do so due to limited capacity which may affect wait times and result in crowding. Prescriptions from private house-call providers can be filled at retail pharmacies.
MOH will continue to review and improve the accessibility of care, including working with private healthcare providers, to facilitate accessibility to medications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disability Assessments for ElderShield Payouts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health regarding disability assessments for ElderShield payouts (a) under what conditions will the need for an assessment be waived for a claimant; and (b) whether the frequency of such assessments for very severe cases can be reduced.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our general policy is that ElderShield (ESH) claimants who have been assessed to be permanently severely disabled would not need to be reassessed regularly, unless it is found that there has been a change in their condition.
With the transfer of ESH administration from private insurers to the Government in November 2021, we are performing a once-off disability status refresh. Once ESH claimants are assessed to be permanently severely disabled during this disability status refresh, they would not be required to go for regular reassessment in the future.
In view of the healthcare manpower crunch caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry will extend the deadline for claimants to undergo their disability reassessments by three months. Claimants will continue receiving payouts during this period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver or Review of Termination of Pregnancy Regulations in Cases of Impossibility of Survival of Unborn Child and to Reduce Anguish to Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Termination of Pregnancy Regulations requiring mandatory counselling and a 48-hour time lapse thereafter before termination of a pregnancy under 24 weeks are applicable in cases where the termination of pregnancy is medically certified to be required due to the impossibility of survival of the unborn child; and (b) if so, whether the requirements can be reviewed so as to reduce the anguish caused to the parents.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The pre-abortion counselling by a trained counsellor and a 48-hour time lapse after the counselling session is not required where termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman.
The requirements still apply to women whose babies have been diagnosed with foetal anomalies not compatible with life. In such situations, there may be options presented to the mother, such as proceeding with termination of pregnancy, or delivery upon confirmation of foetal demise, or delivery of a liveborn baby with planned palliative care to the point of neonatal or infant death. The trained counsellor would tailor the counselling session to the individual’s needs and focus on supporting the psychosocial, mental and emotional well-being of the woman.
The 48-hour time lapse balances between avoiding undue delays where the situation may be life threatening to the woman and providing the woman sufficient time to prepare and consider her next steps to make an informed decision. Medical social workers and counsellors may also be activated, when needed, to support the distressed woman during this window.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Profile of Patients Suffering from Long COVID","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what is the number of patients suffering from long COVID broken down by (i) duration, (ii) demographic and (iii) vaccination status; and (b) whether the Ministry tracks the number of such patients who are adversely and severely affected in their ability to work, study or carry out daily activities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed by the reply to Question Nos 46 to 49 on 4 April 2022. [Please refer to \"Incidence of Long COVID amidst Recovered Singaporeans\", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Reached by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Weeks Medical Staff Rostered for Extra Duties in Last Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health in the last six months, what is the number of weeks that medical staff have been rostered for extra duties, broken down by (i) senior doctors, (ii) junior doctors, (iii) nursing staff and (iv) other allied healthcare professionals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In any given week, even before COVID-19, there will be some healthcare workers who are rostered for extra duties, for example, to cover for colleagues who are sick or on vacation leave.
During the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis, the pressure on our healthcare workers has increased tremendously. This was especially so over the last few months because, due to the Omicron variant, all our healthcare workers had put in an exceptional amount of extra effort and hours to take care of patients and keep our healthcare system running.
MOH does not track such data as these are operational arrangements by the healthcare clusters and involve exigencies of service. As we now turn the corner from the current wave of COVID-19, our public healthcare clusters will do our best to allow staff the opportunity to rest and recharge and take vacation days and annual leave whenever possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Number of Reported Incidents of Food-related Anaphylaxis in Children and Assistance for Those from Low-income Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of reported incidents of food-related anaphylaxis in children; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising the costs of EpiPens for low-income families as anaphylaxis can be fatal.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The number of inpatient admissions associated with food-related anaphylaxis amongst patients aged 18 and below has increased from 49 in 2016 to 111 in 2020.
Today, epinephrine injection drawn from vials or ampoules administered by physicians to patients who experience anaphylaxis is subsidised in public healthcare institutions. EpiPen is a brand of portable epinephrine auto-injector that individuals carry with them, in case of exposure to food or substances they are allergic to. It does not currently qualify for drug subsidies. Patients who face difficulty in affording treatment should approach the medical social workers at the public healthcare institutions for further specific assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Recent Data Breach of Local Retail Website and Measures to Ensure Security and Protection of Customer Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the recent data breach of a local retail website (a) what are the reasons for such incidents to occur despite previous repeated warnings by the authorities of such breaches; and (b) what are the measures which the Ministry will consider implementing to ensure that organisations secure their databases and protect their customers' information.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the last three years, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) investigated over 70 data breaches involving retail businesses.
Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations have an obligation to protect their customers' personal data to prevent unauthorised access, collection, use or disclosure. Based on the cases that were brought to the PDPC's attention, the root cause of data breaches is often the lack of basic data protection practices and cybersecurity measures. Some examples include:
(a) Human errors, such as sending emails to the wrong recipient addresses or attaching the wrong documents; and
(b) Cyber incidents and IT-related errors, such as (i) coding issues, (ii) configuration issues, such as the improper configuration of third-party systems, (iii) malware and phishing related incidents, (iv) inadequate security practices, and (v) weakly secured accounts and passwords.
To help organisations strengthen their cybersecurity posture, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has developed various resources, such as cybersecurity toolkits, to guide enterprise leaders and their employees strengthen their cyber defences and prevent data breaches. In addition, enterprises can also apply for the recently launched Cyber Trust and Cyber Essentials mark and be certified for sound cybersecurity practices.
The PDPC also makes various data protection resources available. Last year, the PDPC published the \"Guide to Data Protection Practices for ICT Systems\", which recommended solutions to prevent common issues that cause data breaches. To help Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) recover quickly and ensure compromised data is protected even after a breach, PDPC and the Infocomm Media Development Authority launched the Data Protection Essentials programme (DPE) on 1 April 2022 so that they can acquire baseline data protection and security practices. The DPE offers (a) enhanced security solutions that include backup and encryption, in addition to anti-virus and firewall; and (b) a one-stop professional service where SMEs can tap on a curated panel of providers to put in place baseline data protection and security standards.
In addition to the measures above, organisations are also encouraged to provide proper training and resources to their Data Protection Officers (DPOs) to level up their capabilities. The PDPC's DPO Competency Framework and Training Roadmap helps to guide the DPOs' progression.
While the Government provides the necessary support and guidance to help organisations strengthen their cybersecurity and data protection capabilities, organisations are, ultimately, responsible for safeguarding their customers' personal data. Organisations which breach the PDPA may be subject to financial penalties of up to $1 million. From 1 October 2022, the maximum cap of financial penalties will be increased to 10% of an organisation's annual turnover in Singapore or $1 million, whichever is higher.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Households with Landline Telephone Connection by Housing and Line Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information how many households, broken down by the different categories of housing type, still have a landline telephone connection which is (i) an analogue line and (ii) connected via optical network terminal or other home digital line, respectively.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There are about 1.2 million residential fixed-line telephony service subscriptions in Singapore. Of these, close to one million were subscribed to digital telephony services. Analogue fixed-line telephony subscriptions are declining as telecommunications operators continue to upgrade their networks. The distribution of all fixed-line subscribers by housing types broadly mirrors that of the households. We do not have a further breakdown according to the type of fixed-line service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Negotiations Between Government and Singapore Press Holdings Ltd Before Establishment of SPH Media Trust","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Communications and Information how long and how many rounds of negotiation took place between the Government and Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) before the decision was made on the establishment of SPH Media Trust.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), a proposal by a licensee to transfer its newspaper business to a different entity requires regulatory approval. Accordingly, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPHL) shared its proposal to restructure its media business with MCI prior to their announcement in May 2021. The discussions were not negotiations but for SPHL to explain its proposal and to seek MCI's in-principle approval.
In our assessment, MCI had considered the structural pressures from digital disruption and declining advertising revenues that many international newspaper companies faced. The proposal to restructure and transfer the ownership of the media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) would remove the news media business from the constraints of a listed company and enable significant investments in its transformation and sustainability. Given the above considerations, MCI agreed to SPHL's proposal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Household Income Ceiling for Enhanced CPF Housing Grant for Purchase of HDB Resale Flats for First-time Buyers to Enhance Housing Options for Young Couples","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether the household income ceiling set in 2019 for the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant for purchase of HDB resale flats by first-time buyers may be reviewed upwards to enhance housing options for young couples.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB is committed to helping Singaporeans, particularly first-timers and lower- to middle-income families, own a home. The income ceiling helps to ensure that housing subsidies are prioritised for those who need them most.
In September 2019, the Government introduced the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) to strengthen support for lower- to upper-middle income households looking to buy their first home. Eligible first-timer families with a monthly household income of $9,000 or below may receive an EHG of up to $80,000, when they buy a new or resale flat, regardless of their choice of flat type and location. The EHG quantum is tiered by household income, to provide more support for lower-income households.
Nevertheless, first-timer families whose monthly household incomes are between the EHG qualifying household income of $9,000 and the subsidised housing income ceiling of $14,000, can still qualify for other housing subsidies. New flats sold by HDB are priced with a generous market discount, while those buying a resale flat may enjoy a CPF Housing Grant of up to $50,000 and a Proximity Housing Grant of up to $30,000.
The current housing subsidies provided to first-timer families with monthly household incomes between $9,000 and $14,000 are substantial and continue to provide these families with a variety of affordable housing options. As such, there are no plans to increase the EHG income ceiling at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to monitor the housing market conditions closely to ensure that housing remains affordable and accessible for all Singaporeans, especially those planning to buy their first home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Cases of \"Water Hammering\" in Water Pipes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB monitors reported cases by HDB flat owners of \"water hammering\" in the water pipes; (b) what steps are being taken to minimise such instances of \"water hammering\" at these HDB blocks; and (c) whether HDB will issue requirements for plumbers to follow when installing water and sanitary fittings in HDB units to prevent such occurrences.
Mr Desmond Lee: Water hammering occurs in a piping system when water flowing through the pipe is subject to a sudden change in flow direction or forced to stop abruptly. This results in vibration in the pipes which might generate a banging or high-pitched sound and is more common in cases where the water flow rate is high. Water hammering may occur when the water supply to an appliance, for example, certain models of bidets and washing machines, is shut off abruptly, or due to faulty sanitary fittings within the flat or at the common area. HDB does not track water hammering feedback from residents.
To prevent water hammering, at the upstream design stage for HDB flats, HDB's consultants ensure that the water reticulation system is designed for an optimal water flow rate to each dwelling unit. In common areas, Town Councils should conduct regular checks to ensure that the pressure reducing valves (PRVs) installed along the potable water distribution pipes are functioning well with the correct pressure setting.
PUB also encourages households to install more water-efficient fittings to conserve water, and the lower flow rates may help to reduce the occurrence of water hammering. If water hammering occurs due to faulty sanitary fittings within the unit or at the common area, HDB will advise the flat owner or the Town Council respectively to rectify the issue.
Only licensed plumbers approved by PUB are permitted to carry out maintenance work relating to water services and sanitary fittings in HDB flats. Under SS 636 (Singapore Standard on Code of Practice for Water Services), all licensed plumbers are required to inspect water pipes under the stipulated pressure and flow conditions when maintaining or installing these fittings, to prevent occurrences of water hammering.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Residential Units Transacted in First Two Months of 2022 from Latest Round of Property Cooling Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for National Development in view of the latest round of property cooling measures (a) what is the number of residential units transacted in the first two months of 2022; (b) whether the measures have resulted in a significant drop in such transactions; and (c) whether the measures have achieved its policy intent so far.
Mr Desmond Lee: The property cooling measures introduced in December last year are intended to promote a stable and sustainable property market, housing affordability and financial prudence.
There are early signs that the measures may have moderated the pace of price increase in the housing market. Based on URA’s latest flash estimate of the Property Price Index, prices increased by 0.4% in the first quarter of 2022, compared to 5.0% in the fourth quarter of 2021. For the public housing market, the HDB Resale Price Index reflected a price increase of 2.3% in the first quarter of 2022 based on flash estimates, compared to 3.4% in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The number of residential units transacted in the first two months of 2022 was around 3,400 and 4,500 for private housing and HDB resale flats respectively. Compared to the same period in 2021, the volume of transactions has decreased by 43.1% and 8.1% for private housing and HDB resale flats respectively.
The Government will continue to monitor the property market, with a view to promote a stable and sustainable market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success of CBD Incentive Scheme in Rejuvenating Singapore's City Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the CBD Incentive Scheme to help rejuvenate the CBD has been successful; (b) whether the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the rejuvenation of Singapore's city centre through the increase in conversion of office developments to mixed-use developments; (c) what is the proportion of mixed-use developments in the CBD; and (d) whether the COVID-19 pandemic and work-from-home trends have affected Singapore's urban development and, if so, how.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2019, URA introduced the Central Business District Incentive Scheme (CBDI) to encourage the conversion of existing, older office buildings in the CBD into mixed-use developments, so as to inject a larger live-in population and greater amenity mix to rejuvenate the CBD.
To date, URA has received 12 outline applications under the CBDI, of which eight have been given in-principle approval. When completed, the mixed-use developments would provide a wider diversity of uses, enable better connectivity and create a more intimate, people-friendly environment, so that our CBD will not only be a place to work, but also a vibrant place to live and play in.
COVID-19 has further accelerated the rise of digitalisation and telecommuting, with trends like work-from-home and work-away-from office taking shape. These trends provide a stronger impetus to our existing efforts on decentralisation, to bring jobs and amenities closer to homes, and strengthen the development of regional centres, such as Jurong Lake District, one-north and Paya Lebar Central.
We will continue to monitor the market trends and needs, engage developers and industry professionals and review our plans to ensure that they stay relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Population of Wild Boars and Monkeys and Actions Taken to Manage Increased Sightings in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the population of wild boars and monkeys has increased over the years; and (b) what are the actions taken by NParks to manage the increased sightings of wild boars and monkeys at residential areas.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks adopts a science-based approach to manage the population of wildlife in Singapore, including wild boars and monkeys. This includes conducting population studies and research to better understand the distribution of these species. For example, NParks carries out tracking studies to monitor changes in the wild boar population and to identify hotspots. Based on its findings, the wild boar population in our nature reserves has remained relatively constant. NParks is also conducting a study to analyse the population trends of long-tailed macaques.
NParks' studies inform its measures to manage the population of wild boars and monkeys. For example, to reduce the availability of food sources at wild boar hotspots, NParks carries out habitat modification, such as removing oil palms. NParks also works with public agencies and developers to erect hoardings to prevent wildlife like wild boars from straying into nearby residential areas. To safeguard public safety, NParks carries out population control measures where needed.
NParks also works closely with stakeholders on public education and outreach, to promote human-wildlife co-existence. A key area is to discourage the feeding of wildlife. Intentional feeding or irresponsibly discarding food waste can alter the natural foraging behaviour of wildlife and lead them to rely on humans for food. NParks also works closely with other public agencies, grassroots organisations and Town Councils to engage the community on proper refuse management and to deter illegal wildlife feeding. In addition, NParks works with these stakeholders to develop educational resources and to advise the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings.
All of us need to play our part to live in harmony with wildlife. We can do this by not feeding wildlife, keeping our residential areas clean and appreciating wildlife from a safe distance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registered Companies in Singapore Not Hiring Work Pass Holders for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to registered companies in Singapore that did not hire work pass holders for the past five years (a) what is the number of such registered companies annually; and (b) what is the percentage of such registered companies annually.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over the past five years, there were approximately 160,000 business entities1 that hired at least one worker. Among these business entities, between 45% and 48% did not hire work pass holders. This includes business entities that do not hire lower-wage workers at all. As previously explained in the Report of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers, only 18% of lower-wage workers work in firms that do not hire work pass holders and almost all of such firms are small scale family businesses with fewer than 10 workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Business entities refer to companies, partnerships and sole proprietorships."],"footNoteQuestions":["47"],"questionNo":"47"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties for Employers Not Providing Migrant Domestic Workers with Day Off Once a Month at End 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether any penalties will be imposed on employers for not providing their migrant domestic worker with a day off once a month when it becomes mandatory by the end of 2022; and (b) if so, what are the penalties.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers will be required to provide their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) with at least one rest day a month that cannot be compensated away by end 2022. This will be imposed as a Work Permit Condition under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations.
MOM recognises that some households, such as those with higher caregiving needs, may be concerned with the transition to the mandatory rest day policy. We encourage employers and their MDWs to initiate early conversations on their respective needs and come to a mutual agreement on the rest day arrangement. When the rest day policy comes into effect by end 2022, MDWs who do not receive at least one rest day per month that cannot be compensated away may call MOM's MDW helpline for advice. We will speak to both MDWs and their employers to better understand their respective needs and advise employers to work out alternative care arrangements.
If there are employers who fail to heed our advice to provide their MDWs with mandatory rest days, they may be issued warnings and debarred from hiring MDWs. We have sufficient tools to ensure that employers observe the rest-day requirement and hope not to need to prosecute anyone as that will attract the penalties prescribed under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Employers of Aged, Pregnant or Disabled Employees on Mandated Breaks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are any guidelines or regulations to guide employers who employ aged, pregnant or disabled employees, on allowing mandated breaks for them or to perform their duties or responsibilities while sitting down for periods of time.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council have developed materials and programmes to guide employers to cater to the varying needs of their employees. For example, under the Total WSH programme, employers are taught to consider the health and fitness condition of individual employees, such as the aged, pregnant and disabled, when designing tasks and work schedules. The WSH Guidelines on Fatigue Management and Improving Ergonomics in the Workplace also recommend that employers allow employees to rest for minimally 20 to 30 minutes at regular intervals and provide anti-fatigue mats or sit-stand stools for those required to stand for prolonged periods of time.
For workmen earning up to $4,500 a month and non-workmen earning up to $2,600 a month, Part IV of the Employment Act entitles them to at least one rest break for every six consecutive hours of work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Employment Pass Holders Earning More Than $5,000 in 2019, 2020 and 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower how many Employment Pass holders earned more than S$5,000 in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The data requested by the Member is given in Table 1 below. From December 2019 to December 2021, the number of Employment Pass (EP) holders decreased from 193,700 to 161,700, in part due to COVID-19-related entry restrictions. Over the same period, the share of EP holders earning $5,000 or higher increased from 82% to 87%.
MOM regularly reviews the EP qualifying salary1 to keep pace with local PMET2 wages. This ensures that EP holders are of good calibre and are not hired simply because they are cheaper than locals. Correspondingly, the share of EP holders earning higher wages has increased over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The EP minimum qualifying salary is currently $4,500. From September 2022, the EP minimum qualifying salary will be raised to $5,000. The qualifying salary increases progressively with age for older and more experienced candidates, up to $10,500 for a candidate in their mid-40s.","2 : Refers to Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians."],"footNoteQuestions":["50"],"questionNo":"50"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of S Pass Holders Earning More Than $3,000 in 2019, 2020 and 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower how many S Pass holders earned more than S$3,000 in 2019, 2020, and 2021 respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The data requested by the Member is given in Table 1 below. From December 2019 to December 2021, the number of S Pass holders decreased from 200,000 to 161,800, in part due to COVID-19-related entry restrictions. Over the same period, the share of S Pass holders earning $3,000 or higher increased from 37% to 67%.
MOM regularly reviews the S Pass qualifying salary1 to keep pace with local APT2 wages. This ensures that S Pass holders are of good calibre and are not hired simply because they are cheaper than locals. Correspondingly, the share of S Pass holders earning higher wages has increased over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The S Pass minimum qualifying salary is currently $2,500. From September 2022, the S Pass minimum qualifying salary will be raised to $3,000. The qualifying salary increases progressively with age for older and more experienced candidates, up to $4,500 for a candidate in their mid-40s.","2 : Refers to Associate Professionals and Technicians."],"footNoteQuestions":["51"],"questionNo":"51"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Actions Taken Against Facility Management Firm of Hillview Heights Condominium on Discriminatory Clauses in September 2021 Tender for Security Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can provide an update on any actions taken against the facility management firm of Hillview Heights condominium regarding the discriminatory clauses in a tender for security services that it had put out in September 2021.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM has suspended the work pass privileges of the facility management firm of Hillview Heights Condominium for including discriminatory requirements in their tender document. To avoid future occurrence of such incidents, MOM has also issued an advisory to Hillview Heights Condominium’s Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) to remind them of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP).
MOM takes a serious view of workplace discrimination and will not hesitate to take enforcement actions where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Delivery Platforms Not to Penalise or Remove Incentives for Riders Choosing Not to Work During Inclement Weather","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government will consider mandating that delivery platforms (i) do not penalise or remove incentives for riders who choose not to work in the rain or other adverse weather and (ii) have in place transparent surcharge structures for deliveries during such periods.
Dr Tan See Leng: To strengthen protections for platform workers, MOM convened an Advisory Committee on Platform Workers last year. The Committee has engaged widely and received extensive feedback from various stakeholders. Issues related to safety and transparency in the terms of work are among the feedback received, along with suggestions, such as ensuring that the interests of platform workers are better represented or establishing industry-wide norms through tripartite discussions. The Committee is studying possible solutions carefully and will announce its recommendations 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 Unvaccinated Employees Ceasing Employment in Last Three Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower of the 52,000 unvaccinated employees as of 19 December 2021, how many of these individuals have ceased employment since (i) 1 January 2022, (ii) 1 February 2022 and (iii) 1 March 2022.
Dr Tan See Leng: As of 27 March 2022, 98.4% of the total workforce has been vaccinated whilst the number of local and foreign employees who had not taken any vaccine dose has fallen considerably to 36,900. Data on the number of unvaccinated employees who have ceased employment since the Workforce Vaccination Measures came into effect in January 2022 will only be available in mid-2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the reply given by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) during Question Time at the Sitting on 4 April 2022: (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Out of the 7,200, close to 1,800 have exited the programme. I think they have either moved on, found jobs or decided that they wanted to do something different and not continue with the programme itself. Out of the 5,000-plus that are left, the 2,600 or 77% that we have successfully placed into jobs that are permanent, the balance 800-plus we are still helping them in terms of working with them closely – as I have alluded to, an entire range of options of matching them with jobs, working with career counselling coaches, networking sessions and job fairs. The balance 2,000 out of that 5,000 that exited, the 2,000 are still in the programme itself and they have not completed the programme. So, I hope that provides the clarity. [Please refer to “Number of Applicants for SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme”, Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 60, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Tan See Leng circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question \"Number of Applicants for SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme\" at the Sitting on 4 April 2022. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Out of the 7,200, over 3,400 trainees have completed or exited the attachments as of November 2021, and the remainder were still in the programme at the time. For those who exited the programme early, I think they may have either moved on, found jobs or decided that they wanted to do something different and not continue with the programme itself. Amongst these 3,400 trainees, about 2,600 or 77% were employed, and for the balance of 800-plus trainees, we are still helping them, as I have alluded to, through an entire range of options of matching them with jobs, working with career counselling coaches, networking sessions and job fairs. So, I hope that provides the clarity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the reply given by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) at the Sitting of 4 April 2022: (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): With regard to the last question about rental revision, let me share that we had frozen rental revision for a period when we had the dining restrictions. Actually, when the leases come up for review, the majority – in fact, for the upcoming review from April to June – 96% of the hawker stalls that are up for rental review are either going to experience no rental revision or actually a rental reduction. In fact, 58% of those are actually rental reduction and only about 6% or so, or 14 stalls, would have a rental revision upwards, but that is moderated. So, any rental revision upwards is moderated, capped at about $300, whereas a rental reduction is between $20 and $2,400-odd. [Please refer to “Impact of Higher Electricity and Ingredient Prices on Earnings of Hawkers”, Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 60, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given at the Sitting of 4 April 2022. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): With regard to the last question about rental revision, let me share that we had frozen rental revision for a period when we had the dining restrictions. Actually, when the leases come up for review, the majority – in fact, for the upcoming review from April to June – 94% of the hawker stalls that are up for rental review are either going to experience no rental revision or actually a rental reduction. In fact, 58% of those are actually rental reduction and only about 6% or so, or 14 stalls, would have a rental revision upwards, but that is moderated. So, any rental revision upwards is moderated, capped at about $300, whereas a rental reduction is between $20 and $2,400-odd.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2170,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220404/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"ATBP","file":null},{"annexureID":2188,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220404/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4961,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220404/vernacular-Don Wee FSM 4April2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee FSM 4April2022-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}