1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) is aware of SingPost’s projected revenue as a result of the increase in postage rate for standard regular mails announced on 19 September 2023; (b) if so, what is the projected amount; (c) whether SingPost requires IMDA’s approval before postage rates are increased; and (d) whether the recent decision to increase postage rate for standard regular mails could have been considered earlier.
2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether IMDA will take into account the profit of S$38.8 million registered by SingPost in FY2022/23 when working with the company to review its decision to increase postal rates.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 on today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, from 9 October 2023, the postage rate for standard letter mail will increase by 20 cents to 51 cents. The impact will be felt mostly by corporate entities rather than households, as they account for 80% of all letter mail sent in Singapore. In fact, the average consumer sends less than one letter a month. Nonetheless, all households will receive a booklet of 10 stamps of 51-cent each, which is enough to cover the increase in postage fees for the average household for about a year.
This is the first substantive increase in postage since 2014. In the 10 years since, the postal landscape has changed dramatically. For example, letter mail volumes have dropped by about half.
As a Public Postal Licensee, SingPost has an obligation to deliver letters to every addressable place in Singapore. It is also a publicly listed company that engages in non-regulated businesses, such as logistics services and properties, locally and overseas.
While the overall business of SingPost remains profitable in financial year (FY) 2022, more than 90% of these profits were attributable to its logistics business and largely contributed by its overseas investments. SingPost’s core business in Singapore is post and parcel, which incurred operating losses of $16 million. This is due to the global decline in letter mail, as well as intense competition from logistics companies and e-commerce players growing their own parcel delivery capabilities. As a result, per letter delivery costs have risen considerably.
The Infocomm Media Development Agency (IMDA) approved SingPost’s request to raise postage rates to better reflect the cost of delivering letters. After the increase, postage rates in Singapore remain comparable to countries like Japan, which is about 78 Singapore cents, and the United States (US), which is about 86 Singapore cents.
As noted by several analysts, there is no guarantee that the increase in postage rates will improve the financial position of SingPost. The boost to revenues may not compensate for the accelerated decline of letter volumes if customers opt for more e-substitution. As part of the postage rate increase, SingPost is also expected to invest in transforming its domestic post and parcel business so it remains efficient and provide high-quality service. Nonetheless, this is a move that could put SingPost on a more sustainable path to fulfil its obligations as a Public Postal Licensee.
\tMr Speaker: Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I declare that I am working in an investment firm that has a stake in SingPost. I asked this Parliamentary Question (PQ) based on my residents' concerns and feedback on the issue.
Some of my residents work as property agents or in organisations like charitable organisations, small businesses, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that still depend on domestic postage as a primary mode of advertising and marketing. They have, therefore, expressed concerns that the postage hike will affect their livelihoods, especially when there are also price hikes in other areas. In addition to the 10 stamps that the Ministry will provide to each household to soften the impact of the increased postage rates, would the Ministry consider some form of targeted help for those who will be particularly affected, like those I mentioned earlier?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the average consumer sends less than one letter per month, so, the impact on consumers will be small, as I had shared earlier in my PQ reply. The bulk of the mail and letters, 80% domestic mail are by corporate entities, most of which are larger corporates like banks and financial institutions, but a significant portion is also by SMEs that the Member has mentioned.
To mitigate this, SingPost will continue to provide appropriate bulk discounts to businesses and provide other customised support for this group of consumers and businesses. SingPost will also continue to honour all first and second local stamp purchased before the rate increase. So, to give assurance to the Member's residents who are using these stamps, they will be honoured even after the postal rate increase.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Two follow-ups from me. Given how large corporations and, more pertinently, the Government, are the primary users of the postal mail, one is left to wonder whether this price hike does not amount to a tax of the Government on itself and, if so, is there actually a more efficient approach to pass through such cost increases? My second question has to do with the fact that cross-subsidisation, as the Senior Minister of State knows, occurs in all businesses. So, given overall net profits, is this the best time for the hike or would a delay be more optimal?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. Allow me to be clear in the first instance. There are two reviews that are ongoing.
First, the Government is carrying out a fundamental review on the future of post and the longer-term considerations around this sector, as well as changes to the postal landscape in the coming years. As shared earlier, there is a global decline in mail volumes. In Singapore, the decline has been accelerating in the last few years with the advent of digital technologies and, certainly, over the COVID-19 period. We are doing a fundamental review on the future of the postal service. In doing so, we want to ensure that the postal service is sustainable for Singapore, sustainable for operators and sustainable for consumers. This may require us to relook existing assumptions, such as letter delivery standards. So, that is one review.
The second review is by SingPost – I just wanted this to be clear. SingPost has committed to reviewing its costs and operations as part of its business transformation. The Government will work closely with SingPost in its review to ensure that it continues to meet its public postal obligations, while safeguarding the interests of the public and postal workers.
So, there are two reviews.
To the Member's first question, there is a technical clarification. Most of the mail volume in Singapore is not by the Government. The Government contributes to a very small proportion of the total mail volume in Singapore.
Second, on the Member's question about cross-subsidisation, we have to understand that it is not sustainable for a publicly listed company to sustain a loss-making business, especially for SingPost where the bulk of its revenue is from outside of Singapore and more than 90% of its profits are from unregulated businesses. A shareholder of the company will justifiably ask whether this cross-subsidisation is both ways. When the business is doing well outside of Singapore, it is expected to support the not-so-profitable businesses in Singapore. But what happens if it is the other way round? What if its businesses in other countries are loss-making? Is there an expectation for us to backstop those losses?
So, we have to make clear that this is not the regulatory framework which we are operating under. The revenue, the profits, are ringfenced for the domestic regulated segment; they are not supposed to offset losses in its other businesses and vice versa.
To give some context to the Member, SingPost just celebrated its 165 years of service in Singapore. It is a century-old business and a century-old sector, but the changes to its business model have been quite dramatic in recent years with digital technologies and, certainly, mail volume saw a huge decline during the COVID-19 period.
So, we are reviewing the fundamental assumptions around the postal service for the long haul to make it more sustainable and fairer.
While I talked about e-substitution, there is important business correspondence that will still require the basic mail service, although volumes are getting smaller and smaller. Many Singaporeans have shared with me that it is heartwarming to receive a post card from loved ones overseas or even when a child sends a post card to Santa Claus. So, there is a need for the postal service. But how do we design a system that is fairer and sustainable for the long haul and where there is commercial incentive for the operator to continue to reinvest in infrastructure, in technology, in automation and, importantly, in jobs and the upgrading of its workers?
So, that is at the heart of the review that the Government is doing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Cost of Producing NEWater and Desalinated Water, and Support for Businesses facing New Water Recycling Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will the recent recycling requirements on large water users affect business costs; and (b) whether the Government will be providing any additional support to help affected businesses amidst rising costs.
4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there has been a change in the cost of producing NEWater and desalinated water since 2017; (b) what is the difference between the current marginal cost and long-run marginal cost of producing water in Singapore; and (c) whether the Government considers that there will be a need to increase water prices within the next five years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 on the Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: You may. Go ahead.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Singapore, the water price is pegged to the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water. This includes the cost of building and upgrading water infrastructure. Pricing water on this basis allows the Public Utilities Board (PUB), Singapore's national water agency, to finance its long-term investments sustainably to meet future water demand and safeguard Singapore’s water security.
The cost of producing and supplying water has increased substantially since the last price revision in 2017. Average electricity tariffs have increased by 37%. Operating expenses for chemicals needed for water production have grown by 33% due to global supply chain disruption and higher transportation cost. Maintenance expenses have risen by 18% due to higher costs for contracted services. Construction costs have also gone up by 35%.
Together, these cost pressures have led to an increase in PUB’s operating expenditure by around 30% since the last water price revision in 2017.
PUB has undertaken various measures to moderate the impact of these cost drivers. These include leveraging energy-efficient technologies to reduce energy consumption, harnessing engineering solutions to offset higher construction costs and optimising and digitalising processes to reduce chemical and maintenance expenses.
PUB’s efforts have borne some fruit. For example, at the new Tuas Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP), PUB avoided the construction of a long deep-sea outfall costing $650 million by adopting membrane bio-reactor technology to treat used water to an adequate standard for near-shore discharge. TWRP will also generate 80% of the energy it requires for used water treatment, compared to only 25% for the conventional Ulu Pandan and Jurong WRPs it will replace, through enhanced primary treatment of used water and synergies from co-locating with the Integrated Waste Management Facility.
Despite such cost-saving measures, the cost of producing and supplying water, and collecting and treating our used water, remains significantly higher than the current water price. An increase in water price is thus necessary to catch up with rising costs. This is why the Government has announced the revision of water price by 50 cents per cubic metre in two phases, over 2024 and 2025, with a smaller increase in the first phase after due consideration for the current inflationary pressures.
The Government will continue to review the water price regularly to ensure that water is right-priced.
With the full increase in water price by 2025, three-quarters of households will see an increase of less than $10 per month in their water bill. As announced by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) last week, the Government will provide financial support to mitigate the impact of the water price increase and other cost of living concerns, especially for lower- and middle-income households. This includes additional U-Save rebates of $20 per quarter in 2024 and 2025 for all Singaporean HDB households. The additional rebates will, on average, fully offset the increase in utility bills for 1- to 2-room HDB households and offset about 80% of the increase in utility bills for 3- to 4-room HDB households during this period. With these rebates, 3- and 4-room households will see increases of only about $2 per month in their utility bills.
\tBesides right-pricing water to safeguard our water security, it is also important that we manage the growth in our water demand. This is especially so in the non-domestic sector, which will account for about two-thirds of our water demand by 2065.
Ms Poh Li San asked about water recycling requirements for companies which are large water users and Government support for them. From January next year, PUB will mandate minimum water efficiency requirements on new projects in water-intensive industries, with high potential for water recycling. By recycling water, companies can recover the cost of their investments over time and enjoy cost savings in the longer term through reduced water usage. Based on our estimates, the payback period for installing such recycling infrastructure ranges from two to four years for wafer fabrication companies and less than one year for the electronics and biomedical companies.
To better support businesses, PUB has also recently enhanced its Water Efficiency Fund, which businesses can tap on to implement water recycling, adopt innovative technologies for water conservation and conduct studies to identify water-saving opportunities in their operations. This includes an increased funding cap of up to $5 million to support large-scale recycling projects in water-intensive industries. PUB also works with businesses with high water consumption to identify ways to reduce consumption through their Water Efficiency Management Plans, or WEMP.
Everyone – individuals, households, community and businesses – has a part to play in conserving and using water wisely. With right pricing and sustainable growth in water demand, we can continue to ensure a sustainable water system and safeguard water security for Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Given that the subsidies are for new equipment, how can the Government further support businesses that have already invested in equipment and these equipment typically last 10 to 20 years, and also prevent these cost increases from being passed down to consumers?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. First, let me also say that in addition to the fact that three-quarters of households will see a less than $10 per month increase in their utility bills without the U-Save rebate by 2025, actually 75% or three-quarters of businesses will also see a less than $25 per month increase in their utility bills as a result of the price revision. Obviously, it varies from business to business and it will impact the more water-intensive industries more. But in that sense, for the water-intensive users, companies that use more water, it is to their benefit and they are incentivised to look into water conservation projects and improve their water efficiency. Therefore, we have upped our Water Efficiency Fund in order for them to implement such water recycling projects.
In fact, from next year, there will be mandatory water recycling requirements, say, for wafer fabrication plants, a minimum 50% water recycling rate and, for the biomedical and electronics industries, specific waterwaste streams must be recycled.
In addition to that, as the Member has said, there will probably be some existing infrastructure. Indeed, the Water Efficiency Fund is also available for innovative technologies to be implemented, for instance, in order to conserve or save water usage as well as, of course, to audit and identify where else there are opportunities for water savings.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First supplementary question: I agree with the Senior Minister of State that right pricing is important. So, is it possible to reduce the water price increase for households by introducing a progressive, multi-band pricing system to replace the current two-band system? This is fairer because, as the Senior Minister of State has said, most of the future increases in water consumption will come from the larger users in the non-household sector.
Second supplementary question: can the Senior Minister of State confirm that the current water pricing formula has already taken into account fully the cost of producing water from our local sources? If so, can Singaporeans expect that, barring unforeseen changes in ingredient costs, including energy, the water price will not shoot up drastically after the expiry of the Johor Water Supply Agreement in 2061?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to right pricing, first, I am happy to note that the Member said that he agrees with us that we need to right price water. But perhaps the Member's concept would differ from what we mean by \"right pricing\". When we say \"right pricing\", we mean we want to reflect the scarcity value of water, that every drop of water is precious and, therefore, the price of water is pegged to the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water. And that will also take into account investments in additional facilities, additional water infrastructure, as well as renewing existing water infrastructure.
As to the Member's question about tiered pricing – I think that is what the Member is saying – beyond the threshold of 40 cubic metres and above, as I have said, when we say \"right price\" water, we want to reflect the scarcity value of water, that water is precious from the very first drop. So, in order to do that and encourage consumers to save water and use water wisely, we need to price it properly. And that is the price of the next drop, the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water. Therefore, everybody, whether it is individuals, households, businesses and communities, ought to pay the right price for water and that is why we do not have additional bands.
Having said that, an average household uses about 15 cubic metres of water monthly. For a four-person household, it is maybe about 18 cubic metres. We have a higher tariff for those who use above 40 cubic metres. The percentage of households that would be affected by this higher tariff is less than 4%. The higher tariff is in place to encourage and incentivise households to use water wisely and conserve water.
With regard to the Member's second question on whether the cost of producing water, say, from the local catchment has been fully priced, as I have said, the price of water is pegged to the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water. And to ensure water security, we have a blend of water, not just from local catchment, imported water, but also desalinated and NEWater. That has to be taken into account. When I say the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water, as I have said, we also take into account long-term investments to meet future water demand and that will take into account the fact that water demand will increase and we will have to invest in additional capacities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just two questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, in 2018, water prices were raised by 30%. The latest announcement by the Government sees them go up by another 18%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State why such a short interregnum, as compared to the pre-2018 increase, before which prices are going up again for water? Is there any scope, policy space, for the Government to delay this increase with a view towards the profits generated by the authorities vis-a-vis water and the supply of water?
My second question is with regard to the household water consumption patterns. I understand they have been on the down over the past few years, although it saw an uptick during the COVID-19 pandemic – and, understandably so, because most people were at home. With this as a backdrop, can I query the relevance of the water conservation tax as opposed to the Government's implementation of more water-efficient features for households, which is a more effective policy tool to encourage lower consumption of water and achieve the outcome that the Ministry is looking at with regard to ensuring that every Singaporean sees the first drop of water as a very scarce resource?
So, is there space for the Government to reconsider the utility of its water conservation tax? Is it achieving the policy purpose that is intended? Or are water-efficient features actually a more likely source of realising water savings from household consumers?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to the first question about the earlier increase of 30% in 2017 and the current increase of 18%, as I have explained earlier in my reply, the latest revision in water price which would actually only take effect from 1 April 2024 and not now – is really due to external cost pressures. And I have listed the increase in costs: due to electricity cost, which increased by 37%, and construction cost which increased by 35%. The electricity cost increase is just from tariff increase. Actual increases could be higher, depending on when we contracted our energy contracts and so on. And then, there are maintenance cost increases due to increased manpower as well as chemical costs.
So, that is the reason why the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water has exceeded our current water price and there is a need to have a price revision in order to ensure that PUB can continue to sustainably cover its operating costs as well as continue to make investments in water infrastructure to ensure reliable water supply as well as water security. And we will continue to review our water price regularly, taking into account, of course, costs and other factors.
The Member was talking about profits. Let me clarify that, actually, if we look at the financial statements of PUB, in 2020, net operating income was positive, $10 million. But in FY2021, net operating income, before Government grants, was negative $109 million and it has actually widened to negative $264 million. After Government grants, it has become positive. But if we look at the revenue, the net income generated, whatever is generated, is actually ploughed back, reinvested, to fund the operating expenditure of the water system and, as I have said, in terms of ongoing investments, as well as additional investments. In fact, it is not enough.
By way of illustration, if you accrue the net income after Government grants for fiscal years 2018 to 2022, it is $1.5 billion. Some people talk about $2.4 billion and so on, of net surplus. Between 2018 and 2022, it is $1.5 billion, but that is really needed, as I have said, to fund the operating expenditure as well as investments. But it is not enough. In fact, the capital investments required then to meet future demand was $3 billion.
Therefore, PUB has had to, in addition, borrow from the market and issue bonds. For instance, last year, in 2022, we issued $800 million in green bonds. We borrowed from the market for long-term infrastructure projects. So, there is no profit; everything is actually reinvested or used.
With regard to whether it is better to use water efficiency features to incentivise water conservation efforts instead of the water conservation tax, first of all, the water conservation tax, is a tax, as the Member has rightly noted, to reflect the scarcity value as well as to incentivise consumers to use water wisely. But the water tariff, together with the water conservation tax, is actually part of the price of water, which reflects the cost of producing and supplying the next drop of water. So, it is actually part of the water price. Then, the waterborne tax is a tax contribution to the used water system.
Speaker, maybe I would just add, too – because I did not reply to water efficiency features – I would say that both are needed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, in the Senior Minister of State's reply, she mentioned that the non-domestic sector accounts for two-thirds of the overall water demand. And if we were to have further new demand, we are going to continue to tap on the more expensive sources of water, for example, desalination and recycled water.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: should we really look at this non-domestic sector and do a review, or even if need be, rationalise, so that we will not continue to have this kind of demand, where we will consume more of our strategic resource, like water?
Perhaps, some industries are consuming too much that does not make sense for us. And for some of the new investments, when we look at them, do they make sense for us, from a water resource standpoint?
So, is the Government doing an exercise on that as well, to review the mix of our industry, whether it makes sense for us from a water resource standpoint?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me say that water-intensive industries or large users or consumers of water do not necessarily use water inefficiently. It may be because of the nature of the industry and the processes needed, like our wafer fabrication factories for instance, where water is needed. But it does not mean that they are not using water efficiently.
Having said that, indeed, we continue to work with the industries. The mix of industries is something that the economic agencies, together with us, will have to continue to study. In addition to that, within each industry, PUB also works with them to look at how we can help them to improve their water efficiency, as well as, where it is possible, to recycle water as much as possible.
That is why for new projects in wafer fabrication, we are mandating 50% minimum water recycling requirements next year. And for the other industries, we will continue to work with them and see what we can do, in terms of technologies and projects. And that is also the reason why our Water Efficiency Fund funding cap has gone up to $5 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Impact of Recent Announcement of Increase in Pricing Cap for School Bus Fares","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the expected impact of the recent announcement by the Ministry to allow an increase in the pricing cap of school bus fares of up to 13%; and (b) how can families of affected students, especially those with higher special education needs, be assisted.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, school bus fares are determined through a competitive bidding process, with a fixed pricing cap during the contract period. However, the recent increases in operating costs and manpower shortage have made it more challenging for school bus operators to sustain their operations. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is, thus, allowing school bus operators to increase the pricing cap of school bus fares for mainstream schools under existing contracts by up to 13%, with effect from 1 January 2024. This is part of the larger effort to keep the school bus sector sustainable and minimise the risk of disruptions and inconvenience to parents and our students.
In January 2023, school bus subsidy under the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme was raised from 60% of monthly school bus fares to 65%, to take into account rising school bus fares. In situations where the low-income families need more help, schools have been and will continue to provide additional financial support. For special education (SPED) schools, eligible students taking school bus services can apply for the Enabling Transport Subsidy administered by SG Enable. The subsidy was increased from 1 July 2022 to help defray the cost of school bus fares. SPED schools also provide further support to students who may require additional help.
We will continue to regularly review our support schemes and make further adjustments if needed.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. I am very heartened that financial assistance is being given to the students who need help. Some students, especially those in primary school and those throughout the school years in SPED schools, have little choice but to use the school bus services, and some bus operators, due to manpower shortages and business cost increases, have already exited the industry. That has created quite a lot of issues on the ground.
I wonder if there is any way that MOE, beyond the current measures, can provide additional studies and support to deeply understand these issues on the ground, and see if, creatively, we can co-create some solutions to further help the students, the school leaders and the families.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for her concern for our students. Indeed, we want to make sure that our students, who have no choice but to take the school bus, are able to afford the school bus fares. For those who require more assistance beyond what is in the baseline support, we welcome them to approach the schools and we will be very willing to provide them with the support.
MOE has also been in discussions with the school bus associations to better understand their operating models as well as their business challenges. Some of the measures that we have introduced in recent months will take time for the school bus sector to stabilise and consolidate. We will continue to work closely with the bus operators, so that there will be sufficient operators available to meet the needs of our schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Patients Provided with Outdated Information on Eligibility for On-panel Benefits for Hospitalisation Expense Claims under Integrated Shield Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether data is available since 2021 on how many cases have been raised to the authorities involving disputes on whether a hospital has provided inaccurate or outdated information at the material time on whether a patient qualifies for on-panel benefits when claiming for hospitalisation expenses under an Integrated Shield Plan; and (b) what avenues for redress and dispute resolution are available to affected individuals.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track such data. However, we are aware of a few cases where medical providers have conveyed information that may have led patients into thinking that their medical bill would qualify for panel benefits or be fully covered by insurance.
Affected patients are encouraged to resolve their concerns directly with the medical provider first. Failing which, they may consider filing their dispute with the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP), which helps to resolve clinical matters pertaining to Integrated Shield Plan (IP) claims or seek mediation with the healthcare institutions facilitated by MOH Holdings' Healthcare Mediation Unit.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank MOH for the answer. I have got two supplementary questions. As illustration, I have a Clementi resident who sought treatment at a private hospital. The hospital website said at the material time that the doctor and the doctor's clinic were covered on their insurance company's panel. The doctor affirmed that it would be covered on the insurance company's panel.
After the treatment, the insurance company said it was not covered and it was not on the panel. Yet, six months later, my resident showed me, on my resident's handphone, that the private hospital still reflected that doctor and that clinic as being on the panel. When my resident appealed to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), they recommended that he contact the insurance company. When my resident appealed to MOH, he was referred back to the doctor and the insurance firm. In the meantime, the private hospital sent debt collectors after my resident.
Can I ask the Ministry who can consumers best seek help from in these situations? Is there a \"no wrong door\" policy to guide consumers, because consumers sometimes worry whether every door seems the wrong one in such situations?
Secondly, can I also ask what recourse is there if the hospital provided outdated information, the consumer acted on the outdated information and thereby suffered financial disadvantage? Are there lessons which can be learnt from the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 regime, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) that could be applied to this as well?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank Dr Tan for sharing his resident's situation and for raising the supplementary questions. I can appreciate his concern in this case.
The Member had asked about the agency to refer to and the recourse available to the consumers. For disputes involving miscommunication between the patients and medical providers, the patients may consider writing in to MOH Holdings Healthcare Mediation Unit for mediation services, if they are not able to resolve the matter with the provider.
And if they are then still not able to resolve that through mediation, the other possible avenues include recourse through the Consumers Association of Singapore as well as the Small Claims Tribunals.
The case that Dr Tan has surfaced is, indeed, an unfortunate one. It is a situation where there was a misunderstanding on the doctor's part and also a miscommunication on the hospital's part. This is a good opportunity to remind all stakeholders to play their part in helping patients make informed decisions about their panel benefits.
The hospitals that wish to inform patients of the doctor's panel status should ensure that information that they have provided is updated and the doctors should also inform patients of any changes in their panel status as soon as possible. The insurance company and their agents should also remind policyholders to first check the panel status of the doctor before going for the treatment and explain the implications of the insurance coverage.
When everyone plays their part, situations like this could be avoided. So, I appreciate the Member's concerns. But in this case, it was really one of those few cases that we have seen where there was a misunderstanding and miscommunication. If everybody had followed according to what they were supposed to have done, this situation could, indeed, have been prevented.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"E-bike Models Approved to Date","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many e-bike models have been approved to date and of these how many are additional new models that have been approved since January 2023; (b) in the past three years, how many e-bikes have been registered; (c) how many e-bikes are detected to be illegal; (d) how many riders are caught for not riding at approved places; and (e) how many accidents have been recorded.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): As of 31 August 2023, 66 power-assisted bicycle (PAB) models have been approved, of which 17 were approved since January 2023. Between 2020 and 2022, about 26,300 PABs were registered with the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
In the same period, 3,000 non-compliant or unregistered PABs were detected; 10,900 riders were caught riding PABs on pedestrian-only paths, footpaths and expressways, on which PABs are disallowed; and there were 380 accidents involving PABs on roads and 50 off-road accidents recorded.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. With the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) rising month after month and breaking records, more Singaporeans, understandably, will turn to e-bikes for their mobility solutions. So, would the Ministry of Transport (MOT) consider working with the e-bike suppliers to broaden the models available for Singaporeans to choose?
Two, what are MOT's plans to discourage and deter more illegal e-bikes to be used on the road? There are many e-bike fire incidents in different parts of Singapore, including in the Nanyang area.
Thirdly, what are MOT's plans to build more pathways and cycling paths to enable e-bike riders to ride safely on the pavement, rather than on the road? We understand that MOT has announced some plans to build cycling paths, but we are asking MOT whether it can intensify and accelerate the progress.
\t
\t
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, since 2016, we have already approved 66 PAB models. In fact, the numbers have been increasing, especially in recent years. Just this year, in the first eight months, we have approved 17 PAB models.
As the demand grows, the retailers would be incentivised to import more models – models that are certified to be safe for use on paths and roads.
As to ensuring that riders ride safely and properly on approved paths, public education and enforcement are carried out. For the offences that have been detected, the culprits were fined accordingly. We hope this will give the signal to riders to understand the law, abide by the law and, most importantly, look out for other users, whether on the path or on the road.
PABs are allowed on the roads, as well as on cycling paths. Yes, some riders would find it safer to be on cycling paths. That is why we are aggressively rolling out the islandwide cycling network. Currently, we are at over 500 kilometres. The plan is to build 1,300 kilometres by 2030.
We have just recently called a tender to construct cycling paths in the western region and that includes the Member's Nanyang area. The first phase of the cycling paths will be progressively completed from 2024 and there are plans to roll out subsequent phases in the coming years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Duration Between Identification of Mosquito Breeding Site and Issuance of Fine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the average duration between the time a mosquito breeding site is found and a fine is issued; (b) whether there have been instances where fines were found to have been issued to the wrong households upon appeal; and (c) if so, how many of such cases were there in the past three years.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): For the last three years, the National Environment Agency (NEA) took, on average, about five months to issue a fine after detection of the breeding site. More time is needed for cases that require further investigation and verification of the individual to be held accountable and issued with a fine. Surges in the number of cases over the past few years, especially years with large dengue outbreaks, have led to longer processing times. My Ministry is currently reviewing the enforcement process with a view to reducing the time taken to issue a fine.
From 2020 to date, NEA has issued fines to about 22,400 households for mosquito breeding offences. Of these, there were four instances, or 0.02% of the total, where fines were issued to the wrong household due to administrative errors. These cases were rectified immediately when they were made known to NEA through feedback or appeals. NEA will continue to monitor and improve its processes to avoid such errors.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask two supplementary questions, please. The reason why I am asking this Parliamentary Question (PQ) and these consequent supplementary questions is because I have been getting a number of residents complaining about letters coming in close to six months later, or a bit lengthier in some sense. One resident told me that it is their first offence as well and they would not get fined again, but then found out eventually, six months later, that they got a fine in the letter box. My Toa Payoh residents found this a bit worrying – six months after the fact. And also, the fines are substantial and can be quite significant for some of the low-income residents in my constituency.
The first supplementary question, Mr Speaker is: can the letters be sent earlier? I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has highlighted that the Ministry is trying to work to reduce the timeframe. If the Ministry can hasten that a bit, it will be very useful. It can help in some ways, especially when the offence is initiated earlier.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give some details on how first offenders are treated in such cases, especially the first offenders, because they are not familiar with this?
Second, can there be instances where the letters can be handed over physically? The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were four cases where wrong addresses were given to those who were fined. I think these are instances where the owner of the breeding sites is on the ground floor of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) block, for example, where the locations of the breeding sites could not be ascertained clearly. I think there were some instances of that and whether we can avoid that, by handing over the letters physically in such cases and to check the ownership of the breeding sites. I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share a bit on that.
\t
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: NEA's key priority is to make sure that dengue transmission is stopped. So, resources are devoted to detect and destroy breeding habitats. The follow-through will be issuance of fines. In fact, residents should be \"happier\", if they receive the fines later, so they have more time to respond to that.
But nevertheless, during dengue outbreak periods, there will be a lot more inspections and potentially more breeding grounds detected and, therefore, more fines and more administrative work to be done. But we are committed to improving the processes so that residents do not have to wait too long to receive the fine.
The current practice is that when a breeding habitat is detected, a notification slip is given to the household. If the owner is not at home, the slip will be left at the household. The slip will inform them that enforcement may be taken if the sample is verified to contain a vector. This slip will be issued when there are larvae found within the premises. With this slip, it is very clear, in black and white, that there has been detection. There is no practice where first-time offenders will not be fined. There is no such practice. NEA will remind its officers not to give this wrong impression that first timers will be let off more easily because dengue can cause fatality and we need everyone to play their part to keep mosquitoes at bay and to remove any potential breeding grounds.
Mr Saktiandi's second question is on the wrong address. So, if the owner is at home, the slip will be given. But sometimes, there could be challenges or arguments as in, let us say, a pot along the common corridor. It may not necessarily belong to the unit closest to it. That is where the resident who receives the notice can appeal and NEA will investigate and ascertain who is the rightful owner and the rightful party to be responsible for upkeeping the area. NEA will review all appeals properly on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situation and to exercise leniency where it is necessary.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Speaker, I just want to seek clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The reason why I asked is because, for first offenders, they get it six months later, thinking that they were not supposed to be fined. So, I think the long duration exacerbated the concerns of the resident.
So, my clarification is with regard to the notification slip. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if the notification slip will be placed into the letter box or under the HDB flat unit's door? So, in what ways will the notifications be delivered? I am wondering whether there would be instances where the notification slips would be sent to the wrong addresses or may have actually flown away or disappeared if it is hung on the door.
\t
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I need to confirm this, but I am quite sure it is not in the letter box, because NEA would not have access to the letter boxes. So, in cases where the household is not occupied at the point in time, I believe it is placed under the door.
There could be cases where a household member returns home, may not understand what the slip is about and ignores it or throws it away. That is possible. Hence, the rightful party may not know that inspection was conducted and some breeding was found.
But the slip will provide a contact number for the household to call, to ask for more details, verification or provide information that will help NEA in its investigations or to refute that the item where the breeding was found does not belong to them. So, there is a channel for members of the public to get in touch with NEA to assist in its investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Financial Assistance Provided to Low-Income Families Given Minimum Income Standard Report 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the findings in the Minimum Income Standard Report 2023, whether the Ministry will consider (i) adjusting the financial assistance rendered to low-income families and (ii) conducting its own study to determine the level of living wage required to support a basic standard of living using various Government data beyond what is publicly available.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) regularly reviews the assistance coverage and payout quanta of ComCare schemes to ensure adequate assistance for lower-income families to meet their basic living needs. We last increased the assistance quantum for the ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance and Long-Term Assistance in August 2022.
During these reviews, MSF references data and information from different sources. These include price data from the Department of Statistics (DOS), views from domain experts and community stakeholders, as well as academic studies and research commissioned by MSF.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply.
The Minimum Income Standard Report 2023 (MIS) stated that the minimum income standard budget for a household with two school-going children is $6,693 per month or about $1,600 per capita. According to the report, this means it is equivalent to the 30th percentile of all working households in Singapore.
Since MSF is giving ComCare assistance to the lowest 20th percentile of households, would MSF think that the $800 dollars per capita income, as a criterion to provide financial assistance, is too high or too low?
At the same time, I think the Ministry has also sent out a press release to say that according to Government analysis, the proposed monthly income stated in the MIS report is about $1,680 per capita and it is similar to the monthly expenditure of $1,650 per capita of all families and children. So, there is a big discrepancy. They are saying that in the MIS study, the income is based on the 30th percentile of household income, whereas MSF and other Ministries are saying that it is equivalent to about 50% of household income in Singapore.
So, if MSF disagrees with this report, which is internationally conducted in many countries, why would MSF not consider doing their own report, using the data that is available to MSF, to refute this or to convince Singaporeans better?
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I might want to, just perhaps, remind the Member of two points in my main reply. The first statement in my main reply reads, \"We regularly review assistance coverage to ensure adequate assistance for lower-income families to meet their basic living needs.\"
The second point, in the last statement of my short reply, I mentioned that we reference different sources: price data from DOS, views from domain experts, community stakeholders as well as academic studies and research studies that have been commissioned by us in MSF.
\t
I thank the Member for raising the spotlight on this MIS study. I just want to quote what the MIS study report stated, and I quote, \"It is not just about basic needs like housing, food, clothing but also what it takes to enable a sense of belonging, respect, security, independence.\"
So, quite clearly, even the MIS report itself has defined what they have found as going beyond basic needs. Hence, what they are describing is really about what is aspirational, what perhaps one, or families, would like to have.
On this premise, now that we have set it clear, I would also like to raise a few points about the MIS study.
The study's methodology – 300 participants, small group discussions – is highly dependent on respondent profile and group dynamics. So, I understand that many respondents themselves in the study are not from lower-income households. And, when in a group, group dynamics is real and, oftentimes, minority participants may find it hard to articulate their views. I shall leave it at that.
Also, another assumption that has been made in the study is that lower-income households or lower-income families receive the same amount of financial help as median-income households. This is clearly not correct. Lower-income families qualify for and receive more financial help than median households. This is a fact that bears repeating, and I shall say it again. Lower-income households qualify for and receive more financial help than median households. This is not something that has been recognised by the MIS study.
The last point I will make: the Member mentioned $6,693 translated into per capita is $1,680 per person – quite a nice number. Under the MIS study, that is perhaps closer, as the Member rightly pointed out, to the average monthly expenditure of $1,650 per person for all families with children – rather than reflecting basic needs. So, this is in line with the spirit of the MIS study, because they are going beyond what are basic needs. They are measuring something that is aspirational, something that is perhaps more than basic.
As I mentioned in my main reply, what we cater for in ComCare, in our subsidies and in our financial assistance schemes cater for basic needs. We do need to look at the entirety of what is given or what is provided to the families – not just what the Government gives in terms of financial assistance but also what the community, the corporates give. As I mentioned in the earlier reply in yesterday's Sitting, how we take a \"many helping hands\" approach in making sure that those with less among us are well catered for.
Finally, the last point, I think the Member made reference to a press release. Indeed, a fuller exposition was set out in a joint press release by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MSF. This was released on 14 September. I refer Members to this press release for a fuller exposition.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Speaker, I am not the author of the study, so I want to qualify that. But nevertheless, I think that I have read the study in some detail and some elements in which Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has mentioned – about how they are aspirational – strike many Singaporeans as not entirely so.
For example, one of the things that was pointed out by the joint Ministry response was that perfume may seem like a bit of an aspirational good. But of course, many Singaporeans will understand as well that in a hot and humid climate like our own, being presentable, smelling normal, would be something that many jobseekers would require in order to have some dignity when they go for job interviews or when they go to work.
I am also somewhat puzzled because, yesterday, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua mentioned how ComCare seems to have expanded their notion of needs to relative needs, such as mobile phone plans and the like.
So, my question is whether the Ministry will be able to explain some of these seemingly large discrepancies between that $6,000 or so for a four-family member household versus what ComCare currently has, which is significantly lower.
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also thank him for making me go through an exercise to jog my memory about what I said yesterday. I remember saying in my reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on ComCare that, actually, we assess our basket of products and services that are needed in a basic package for our ComCare families from time to time. And we have included mobile data plans because they provide for digital connectivity which, in turn, provides for human connection, which is a basic need we assessed. And that is consistent with what I have said today.
And I knew about this idea about discretionary items and perfumes, but I am also not aware of how perfumes would add to how we will present ourselves better in our climate which is hot and humid. My point really is, I agree with the Member that we do need to be presentable. But because I knew that I was going to be taking this PQ today, I made two calls this morning to two of my rental flat residents. Both are single mothers; both are in this category of residents that we are discussing about. And I do understand that this is not statistically significant. These are perhaps anecdotes, but these are anecdotes that I thought are instructive. I have sought their permission to share this with the House.
I asked them, perfume, jewellery, overseas holidays; what do these items mean to you? How would you describe them? Both of them told me in separate phone conversations without coordination, they tell me almost similar words, and I quote them, \"Boss, these are good to have lah.\" I followed up and I asked, \"So, ideally how would you like to be able to afford these items?\" I provided some multiple-choice question (MCQ) options, \"Is it through gainful employment or perhaps would you want that to be part of Government assistance?\" Again, both of them told me, without coordinating their replies, \"Boss, get a job. Earn money. Work hard for these things lor.\"
So, my takeaway earlier from these two conversations is this. Let us not underestimate the agency, the strength and the dignity of our lower-income families and the ability to turn things around and to break the cycle of poverty – with them clearly in the loop, with them clearly holding on to the levers of their own lives.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: I just want to clarify one point. Because the MIS report stated that an elderly person above 65 years old needs $1,500 a month to survive well. So, in MSF's view, what is the minimum amount to ensure basic needs for a 65-year-old elderly staying alone to survive? What is the amount?
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I do not have an exact number with me right now but suffice to say we do review this. We do revisit the question of what is needed or what is sufficient for different archetypes, from time to time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just a follow-up to the \tSenior Parliamentary Secretary's replies. I refer to individuals in a family context, for example, full-time caregivers who have to look after family members who cannot work and their ability to go out and work in itself is limited. Does MSF look at assisting these families with a higher short-, medium- or long-term assistance payout?
\t
\tMr Eric Chua: I thank the Leader of Opposition for his \tsupplementary question. I think the short answer is yes. MSF officers do look at the comprehensive situation of each family, each individual, each household, before rendering the appropriate assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Locally Incorporated Tech Companies to Choose Singapore Exchange over Foreign Stock Markets for IPOs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister what are the plans under consideration to (i) encourage locally incorporated tech companies to choose the Singapore Exchange (SGX) over foreign stock markets for their Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), especially if they have been backed by local agencies during the start-up phase and (ii) to attract more investors with risk appetite for investing in start-ups to invest in new IPOs or tech companies currently listed on the SGX.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I will address the questions by Ms He Ting Ru in today’s Order Paper as well as the written Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Desmond Choo for yesterday’s Sitting as they pertain to initiatives in progress to strengthen the attractiveness of Singapore’s equity markets.
The challenge of sustaining a vibrant and attractive cash equities market is not unique to Singapore. Globally, the number of initial public offerings (IPOs) and proceeds raised has been declining since 2021. This was driven by the trend of companies staying private for longer and, more recently, against the backdrop of a challenging global macro-environment and interest rate environment. In the first half of 2023, global IPO proceeds fell by 36%, while Asia Pacific IPO proceeds were down by 40%.
Many stock exchanges are also dealing with the trend of local companies looking to list on large overseas markets like the United States (US). For instance, the United Kingdom (UK)’s largest chip design firm ARM Holdings recently listed in the US. Israel has a vibrant startup ecosystem. Yet, many of its companies list in the US due to its deep and liquid capital market and investor base. Nearer to home, Hong Kong is also looking to retain and attract more IPOs amidst the more challenging macro-economic environment.
Against this backdrop, we have shared in this House, most recently in November 2022, the initiatives that Government agencies and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) have established in recent years to support the attractiveness of our equities market. We have set up the S$1.5 billion Anchor Fund @ 65, which is a co-investment fund by the Government and Temasek, and the S$500 million EDBI Growth IPO Fund, to invest in high-growth enterprises at the late stage or at IPO. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has enhanced its grant scheme to defray listing costs and develop Singapore’s equity research ecosystem.
SGX has also been actively seeking cross-border partnerships with the regional exchanges to enhance its attractiveness as a gateway for Singapore companies and international investors to access regional capital markets and opportunities. In May this year, to expand access and connectivity to regional capital markets, SGX launched a Thailand-Singapore Depository Receipt or DR Connect, to broaden access to capital and to markets.
Overall, our initiatives aim to provide a more enabling environment for companies to consider listing on SGX.
At the same time, Mr Speaker, Sir, we recognise that there are limits to how these measures can directly influence listing decisions. Companies considering possible public listings have several commercial objectives in mind. In some cases, these considerations may prompt them to explore listing venues outside of Singapore. First, they may decide to list in jurisdictions where they can secure the best valuations for their shareholders. For quite a number of companies, a US listing is attractive due to the US’ deeper pool of investors and liquidity. Second, companies may list in jurisdictions that give them better exposure to their own target markets. For example, a company planning to expand its business in China may choose to list in either Hong Kong or China, or both.
If we take an overly prescriptive approach by making Government support to promising startups conditional on a local listing, we may end up imposing a rule that may be at odds with the growth plans of the company or the founder. Similarly, global investors who are in Singapore will ultimately determine how to allocate their capital based on their strategies and how they view the market. So, again, if we prescribe that they must invest certain amounts in only locally listed companies, we will effectively constrain their investment mandates and end up losing a larger pool of investors who adopt a regional or a global view.
Let me next respond to Mr Desmond Choo’s question on SGX’s role in helping small and medium enterprises (SMEs) raise capital from overseas markets. One way is to make sure we have good sources of SME financing available to meet our SMEs' needs. And apart from a well-developed banking system that provides a range of financing options for our SMEs, SGX has Catalist, a second board that caters to the fundraising needs of growth-stage companies or enterprises and currently has over 200 SMEs listed on it.
In addition, MAS has a grant scheme which defrays listing costs for issuers listing on Catalist. In 2021, MAS increased the grant cap under this scheme from S$200,000 to S$300,000, to further help SMEs who choose to list on Catalist, to alleviate their listing costs.
Apart from accessing public markets, private equity and venture capital, or PE/VC in short, have in recent years been an increasingly important source of growth capital for promising startups. More PE/VC managers have established their presence in Singapore and are coming in at earlier stages, which broadens the range of financing for our startups.
MAS recognises the value of an attractive equities market as part of our overall financial services ecosystem. That is why the Government and SGX have in place a range of initiatives to better position our equities market. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and review and update our measures, where necessary, to adapt to the shifts in global capital markets.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have a couple of supplementary questions.
First, I do not think the question was asking for the grants to be conditional upon making these firms list in Singapore on SGX or Catalist, as appropriate. Rather, it was just to get a sense of how many of these firms are receiving grants or support from the various agencies and how many of them eventually decide to exit via an IPO strategy and then, subsequently, decide upon careful consideration that they want to list elsewhere, as the Minister of State shared in his reply.
And does MAS then track the reasons why and what are the tensions between having a tech firm or just any startup decide to base themselves in Singapore, avail themselves of our grants and then, subsequently say, \"Oh, actually, we rather have access to funds elsewhere\" or \"we rather try to access the capital markets elsewhere\"?
So, I think having MAS to actually understand these tensions and the reasons why it is a good idea to be here but not a good idea to raise funds here and whether or not MAS does any studies to find out. Once you find out the reasons why, it will eventually become easier to amend or to support our regulatory environment and regime to address some of the concerns that these startups will have, with the ultimate aim of making our SGX and our equities and capital market regime here in Singapore more active and, of course, deepen that pool in the market here.
A related supplementary question is: does SGX and various agencies track the number of locally incorporated and home-grown tech startups which eventually, on a yearly basis, decide to list and go for an IPO here in Singapore? If so, can the Minister of State share the data?
\t
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her supplementary questions. I think her idea is to help and we are all aligned if we want to enhance our equities market.
To the first question, we do not collect that data. That is the simple answer to the question. As I mentioned earlier on in my reply, we are doing all that we can to help to boost the equities market, but there is also a limit. Because, ultimately, firms will have major commercial considerations, including valuations, including market, as well as including whether they can secure the best kinds of valuations elsewhere as well as whether they want to list in the market where they are closer to the particular target market.
So, I think that is the question. If you ask any of the companies or firms, they will tell you that it is primarily a commercial decision. Of course, we will do what we can. But, ultimately, it is a commercial decision.
On a broader perspective, I would like to share with the House also that in line with our Industry Transformation Map 2025, particularly on the financial sector, we are constantly looking at ways in which to enhance and deepen our financial sector. The financial sector is not focused on just having an equities market. We have a very vibrant foreign exchange market, we have a very vibrant wealth management market, we are into green finance, we are into fintech and others also. So, it is a dynamic, deep and also very diversified financial market.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to declare my interest as somebody working in a financial institution.
Just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. I understand the Minister of State's point about it being a commercial decision for private companies to choose where they want to list. But I was just wondering: what is the Government's position, as to a ruling, such as that in Indonesia, whereby I believe the local companies can seek a dual listing, but they must also list on the local exchange?
The second supplementary question is: on top of listings, there is also the broader issue of delisting in the local market. And it is something which has been a challenge for the last couple of years, where the number of delistings has been more than the listings. As a result, there are concerns as to whether or not this issue of perceived weaker valuations and lower liquidity could continue to result in a bit of downward spiral. So, just wondering in terms of the delisting part, what is the Government's approach towards addressing some of these issues?
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Louis Chua for his supplementary questions. I will try to answer the second question first, which is regarding our delisting. Since 2014, there has been a trend where the number of delistings has surpassed the number of IPOs. As of April 2023, the total number of listed companies on SGX stood at 650.
As I mentioned in my main reply, there are a variety of different reasons why companies would list on a particular exchange, and also a variety of reasons why they would delist. That is based upon maybe how they view the market, whether they want to list overseas, or they look at prevailing options. It could be different funding sources. They might want to go back to private, for example. So, there is a whole different variety of why they would want to do so. As I mentioned earlier on also, I think it is important for us to try to play a part but there is also a limit to what we can do to encourage listings.
I do not have an answer, but I think the short answer to the Member's first question is that we just take a very different approach to Indonesia's.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Technical Issues Associated with Issuance of HDB Flat Eligibility Letters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many applicants were affected by the technical issues associated with the timely issuance of HDB Flat Eligibility letters since its implementation in May 2023; (b) what were the reasons for these issues; and (c) whether the problem has been fully resolved.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, in the past, home buyers applied for their flat, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grants, and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing loan at different stages of their flat buying journey. To bring more convenience and help home buyers make more informed decisions, HDB streamlined the flat buying process by integrating the different eligibility assessments into a single application called the HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter. The HFE letter provides home buyers with upfront and holistic assessments of their eligibility to buy an HDB flat, receive CPF housing grants and take up an HDB housing loan, before they commence their flat buying journey.
Since the HFE letter was implemented on 9 May 2023, HDB has processed more than 50,000 HFE applications. For the May Build-To-Order (BTO) Sales launch, there were system errors and high application volume. HDB redeployed more officers to assist home buyers with flat applications that could not be completed successfully online. At the same time, the HFE system was not yet able to handle some complexities in integrating eligibility assessments with data from various agencies, resulting in a higher-than-expected proportion of cases requiring manual intervention. Hence, some home buyers experienced longer processing times for their HFE applications. HDB is working hard to process the outstanding applications as quickly as possible and we seek home buyers’ patience and understanding.
In the lead-up to the October 2023 BTO launch, HDB has carried out additional system enhancements to ensure a smoother flat buying process. We encourage prospective home buyers to apply for the HFE letter early, at least a month before HDB sales exercises. To facilitate expeditious processing, home buyers should submit the required information and supporting documents for their HFE letter application.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some questions for the Senior Minister of State.
One, I do not think the question has been answered vis-a-vis how many applications were affected by the technical issues. I think the Minister of State replied to say there were 50,000 applications, but that does not answer the question.
The second supplementary question deals with the response to a press query by CNA on this matter and it was stated that the issue affecting the HFE matter has been resolved. Can I confirm that there would be no issues of that nature for the October exercise?
And with regard to those applications arising from the May 2023 exercise, how many people are still awaiting positive response to their HFE application? By \"positive response\", I mean a response to the HFE application.
\t
\tMs Sim Ann: In reply to Mr Pritam Singh's supplementary questions, in terms of determining how many people were affected, we do know that applicants experienced longer waiting times. But to measure how many people were affected, it is quite difficult to define it. So, we look at it in terms of the number of people who have reached out to HDB for assistance because they could not complete their applications.
So, let us look at them in terms of two categories.
Those who have applications for resale flats – those buyers who urgently require HFE applications to be completed in order to do their resale transactions but were not able to do so and have urgent needs, those that have reached out to HDB have been helped.
As for the May sales launch, to HDB's knowledge, because they have made transitional arrangements requiring only an indication and intention to buy as well as a preliminary HFE check, this transitional arrangement has not resulted in buyers missing out on the May sales launch.
For the upcoming, in fact, it is the current launch, which runs from 4 October to 10 October, HDB's commitment is to ensure that those who have submitted the HFE applications as well as the supporting documents prior to end of August would receive their HFE outcomes in time to take part in the launch.
Can I have the third question again, please?
\tMr Pritam Singh: In the main, my supplementary questions were really framed with regard to the clarification that HDB gave to the public via CNA.
The Senior Minister of State spoke of what it means by a delay.
According to the HDB statement, it said, \"It takes up to 21 working days for HFE applications to be processed.
So, I think the gist of my supplementary question is: how many applications went beyond those 21 days? That should be a very simple criterion in terms of understanding what problems were faced by HDB because that is what has already occurred.
There is another deeper query: in terms of moving forward, are we going to see a repetition of this matter or has the problem been fully resolved, as stated by the HDB's press release?
I note the Senior Minister of State's qualification with regard to BTO sales launches and resale exercises. Can I just confirm, in so far as HFE applications for resale flats are concerned, is there actually no problem and there would be no issue in getting the HFE within 21 days of application?
\tMr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann. We are approaching the end of Question Time. So, try to keep your answer short.
\tMs Sim Ann: Okay. Thank you, Speaker. The 21 days that Mr Pritam Singh has referred to is a service standard. So, for the applications that he is referring to, we have about 31% of our HFE applications that were processed within the service standard of 21 days.
I should add that there is the issue of whether it meets 21 days' service standard, but there is also the impact – whether or not the delay resulted in, for instance, applicant's not being able to take part in the launch. As I have mentioned, because HDB has also been expediting the processing and they have also made accommodations at their end, to HDB's knowledge, applicants were not made to miss out on the May BTO launch, even if they received their HFE outcomes after the 21 days.
So, I just wanted to clarify that. And for the resale applications, for those who have encountered difficulties and have reached out to HDB for help, they have all been helped.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Free Trade Zones Act to enhance the regulation and control of goods that flow through our Free Trade Zones (FTZs). Specifically, the Bill introduces three key areas of amendments to the FTZ Act.
The first is a new licensing regime on the operators of our FTZs. The second relates to new regulations on cargo handlers and other cargo agents. And the third involves amendments to the enforcement powers of the Director-General (DG) and officers of customs under the revised Act. Before I go into the specifics of each amendment, let me explain why we are making these changes.
Sir, trade is the lifeblood of Singapore's economy. We have thrived economically as a nation by situating ourselves as a trading hub and crucial node in global supply chains. Today, Singapore is the second busiest container port in the world and the largest transshipment hub, handling about a fifth of the world's container transshipment traffic.
In 2022, our port handled a container throughput of over 37 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs), mostly for transshipment. Our airport handled another two million tonnes of air cargo, a significant proportion of which is also transshipment cargo.
Our geographical location and connectivity give us a natural advantage as a trading hub. But what helps to further strengthen our attractiveness as a hub is our FTZs which facilitate transshipment activities and support more efficient and resilient global supply chains through a hub-and-spoke model.
There are, currently, 10 FTZs in Singapore, located mainly at our sea and air terminals. Businesses that operate within the FTZs enjoy exemption from customs duties and taxes on re-exports, simplified customs procedures, access to streamlined logistics and transportation services, as well as other services to facilitate their trade operations. These are pro-business elements we want to preserve when we amend the legislation.
There has been growing concerns of FTZs around the world being misused for illicit activities, such as weapons proliferation, environmental crimes and trade-based money laundering. Illegal actors will try to disguise their actions as legitimate trade, for example, by falsely declaring cargo manifest data, or by swapping out legitimate goods with contraband before re-exporting.
Singapore Customs has been taking proactive measures to combat and deter illicit activities within our FTZs.
For instance, Customs regularly conducts surprise inspections on businesses operating within the FTZs. Enforcement actions are taken against those found to be engaging in illicit trade.
To better target suspicious firms, Customs also works closely with our FTZ authorities, as well as local and international partners, to share actionable intelligence and operational support to strengthen our ability to detect illicit activities and enforce against illegal actors.
The aim of the legislative amendments is to update and strengthen our FTZ regime to keep pace with evolving threats and the increasing sophistication of illegal actors. We are proposing changes in this Bill to further enhance the regulation and control of goods that flow through our FTZs.
Mr Speaker, the first key amendment introduces a licensing regime for FTZ operators.
In the past, our FTZs were operated by public bodies that were appointed by the Minister for Finance. As these entities have since been privatised, a licensing regime is more fit-for-purpose. Through the licensing regime, we will be able to specify and enforce the necessary requirements to ensure the overall security of our FTZs and improve our regulation of the flow of goods and persons within the FTZ.
For example, FTZ operators will be required to put in place necessary security structures like CCTVs and fences and provide assistance to officers of customs in the performance of their official duties. Our FTZ authorities have already put many of these measures in place today and the proposed amendments will formalise these requirements in legislation. FTZ operators will also need to screen persons who intend to operate in the FTZ and manage the sub-leasing of premises in the FTZ. They will also need to report and disclose relevant information on suspicious or dangerous goods or persons within the FTZs to the DG of Customs.
The second key amendment of the Bill seeks to regulate the cargo handlers and cargo agents operating within the FTZ. While cargo handlers and agents will not be subject to a licensing regime, the proposed amendments seek to clearly lay out their responsibilities in terms of securing the goods under their charge and data provision.
Specifically, cargo handlers will be responsible for monitoring and managing the movement of goods handled at their premises within the FTZs and ensuring their premises are secure. They will need to report goods that may have contravened our laws. Cargo handlers and cargo agents will also need to provide specified information contained in a bill of lading or airway bill in advance of their entry or transshipment of their goods through Singapore.
Currently, only information relating to goods that are imported, exported or controlled goods that are transshipped, is required to be submitted as part of the permit application process. With this amendment, information on all transshipment goods will need to be submitted.
These amendments will give us better visibility of goods that are being transshipped through Singapore before arriving at their final destination. Customs can monitor the flows of goods for signs of illicit activity and take the necessary action, in close partnership with other international authorities.
The third set of amendments sets out the enforcement powers of the DG and officers of Customs and the regulatory actions they may undertake.
The DG of Customs will be allowed to grant, renew, suspend or revoke licences. He or she will also be empowered to impose or modify licensing conditions and order the removal of dangerous goods, as well as the detainment of goods for Customs' inspection.
The Bill will also introduce powers for officers of Customs to enter any area within the FTZ and inspect or remove goods within the FTZ. They will also be empowered to request for information for the purposes of investigation, witness examination, arrest of any person without warrant and search of any arrested person. These powers are necessary to allow Customs, as the FTZ regulator, to ensure the compliance of FTZ operators, cargo handlers, cargo agents and other entities and persons operating within the FTZs.
The remaining amendments to the Bill are operational and administrative in nature, such as amendments to the penalty framework to address non-compliance with the licensing framework and to allow for compoundable offences in lieu of prosecution.
The proposed amendments in this Bill have been carefully calibrated, in consultation with industry and relevant stakeholders, to improve Customs' ability to detect illicit activities, while keeping our regime efficient and pro-business for companies. They are also in line with international best practices, including those established by the World Customs Organization.
Sir, our status as a transshipment hub puts Singapore firmly on the world map. Our connectivity brings goods and people through Singapore, strengthens global supply chains, boosts our economy and creates good jobs for Singaporeans.
As the busiest transshipment hub in the world, a significant amount of cargo comes through us daily. The vast majority is legitimate, but there will be a small minority who seek to flout the rules. We will facilitate trade, but we do not want to be misused by bad actors for their illegal means.
The amendments in this Bill are targeted at these players, while keeping a business-friendly operating environment for genuine users.
Companies that do legitimate trade through Singapore will benefit from a sound, reputable and pro-business regime.
In turn, Singapore continues to remain competitive as the top port-of-call for transshipments and a trusted global trading hub. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, our 10 FTZs in Singapore are the lesser-known ingredients to our continued economic prosperity. They are governed by the Free Trade Zones Act 1966, which we enacted shortly after our Independence in order to facilitate the entrepot trade which we had become known for.
Since Singapore's early days as a British colony, its geographical location at the centre of major trade routes attracted traders to ship their goods here with the aim of re-exporting them elsewhere.
I note that the FTZs Act has not been substantially amended many times since it was first enacted in 1966. May I ask the Minister to provide further details on why we are suddenly looking at amending it now rather than doing it much earlier?
I note the Senior Minister of State's speech highlighting that it is meant to update and strengthen the FTZ regime. But could the Senior Minister of State provide further details as to why it was not done much earlier?
One of the main changes appears to be that the FTZs will no longer be managed by authorities that are answerable to the Minister but, instead, by FTZ operators who will be licensed by the DG of Customs.
However, I understand that the same three authorities – Jurong Port, PSA Corporation and Changi Airport Group – will continue to manage the 10 FTZs as FTZ operators. Is this amendment more of form than substance, or is it the case that, with this change, the Ministry will look to license other FTZ operators?
It is also unclear if this seemingly unnecessary change will bring about an increase in regulatory or compliance costs. For example, will the existing operators have to pay more to apply for and maintain their licence as FTZ operators? My concern is that they could seek to pass these cost increases on to the businesses and companies which operate in the FTZs, which may erode the more business-friendly conditions within these FTZs.
More importantly, how do our FTZs measure up in terms of competitiveness against the \"free zones\" operated by other major trading countries, especially those in the region? Based on a study by the World Customs Organization, it appears to be getting harder to differentiate between the regulation and operation of the \"free zones\" in various countries. What can we do to maintain our advantage as the transshipment hub of choice for traders and shippers?
The amended Act will also require FTZ cargo handlers to disclose certain cargo information to the licensed FTZ operator in a prescribed form, manner and timeline. In turn, the FTZ operator owes a duty to disclose the same information to the DG of Customs in order to facilitate enforcement of the Act.
While I understand that the form and manner of such reporting are to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, will we be adopting the harmonised digital solutions and data standards which the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has been working with other foreign ports to develop?
May I also ask what is the expected timeline for the enactment of such subsidiary legislation? Have any exercises been undertaken to consult the current industry practice on such data submissions and have they been completed? When will these reporting obligations be expected to come into force?
Finally, I note that the Bill introduces new sections 14Q to 14Z setting out the powers of enforcement of customs officers, among other things. For example, a customs officer may enter an FTZ to monitor compliance with the Act, search the FTZ, detain goods for inspection, require persons to provide information and documents, just to name a few.
Does this mean that the customs officers did not have these powers before this? How then have we ensured that our FTZs are free of money laundering, terrorist financing or any other illicit activities over the years? Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed to the FTZs Act are meant to provide better oversight for the flow of goods through our nation's FTZs, essentially, by devolving a number of functions away from authorities appointed by the Minister to licensed FTZ operators and cargo handlers may be seen as a devolution of operational responsibilities to a more decentralised regime, which could have the benefit of also simultaneously being more efficient.
These changes are also, according to the Ministry's public consultation documents, meant to enable better \"detection, deterrence and prevention of money laundering\" and associated terrorist financing.
To this end, these objectives to improve efficiency as well as safety are sound and should be supported.
My comments will briefly touch on some aspects of the Bill before moving on to discuss broader considerations about how FTZs operate in Singapore. I will then try to close with reflections on the evolving nature of FTZs in our global economy.
Section 10 confers powers to the DG to prohibit a person from entering or residing in an FTZ. This vests significant discretionary power to the DG and there is some ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of its scope and application. What conditions does the Ministry expect such prohibitions to be exercised? One could imagine cases where a fugitive or would-be fugitive seeks refuge in the zone, in which case, certainly, national laws and regulations would naturally apply. Would the Ministry consider requiring the DG to publish the underlying rationale for any prohibitions imposed when exercised? By doing so, the DG can provide greater transparency on when it uses its discretionary powers.
The new section 14N compels FTZ operators and cargo handlers to submit reports on suspicious goods. This is reasonable, but the process of submitting such reports appears to place the onus on the agents. There does not appear to be any routine reporting, for instance, unless specifically asked to do so by the DG. This provides incentive for operators and handlers that hope to avoid taking on additional regulatory burdens to remain somewhat conservative in their assessment of when goods may justify reporting.
As far as I can gather, the Bill does not provide guidance on, say, red flags or other thresholds associated with potentially suspicious goods. It may be, therefore, useful to include in a Schedule, in an annex, for instance, predetermined frameworks on what the Ministry believes to be appropriate thresholds or red flags. A sufficiently clear and comprehensive set of guidelines will allow operators to continue applying flexibility in determining what falls within or without the threshold, but ensure that all appropriate cases are flagged for possible investigation. Such an action also removes the possibility of excess discretion that the Ministry might not wish to confer.
Section 14P(6) stipulates that a decision by the DG to suspend or revoke an operational licence or to impose a regulatory action takes effect from the date on which the notice is served, or any other date as specified in the notice. While I appreciate that such snap suspensions can serve a purpose when seeking to arrest illegal or illicit activity without triggering suspicion, such actions could have detrimental effects on regular business operations. I have had residents meet with me, to be fair, in other contexts, where their operational licences were suspended with relatively limited buffer for them to rectify violations, or even while good faith negotiations over addressing highlighted problems appeared to be ongoing.
Will the Ministry confirm that, as a matter of course, the FTZ operators will be offered a brief but essential window of opportunity for compliance to written notices under section 14P(3)? For instance, the DG can specify the time for a notice under section 14P(6) to take effect, say, 14 days after the date of service of notice on the licensee, which would be consistent with section 14P(3)(c). Of course, this will only apply to section 14P1(a) through (c), since national security should supersede business disruptions. Nevertheless, this modification, I believe, would provide some grace period for otherwise legitimate business operations.
More generally, apart from the DG having the legal power to take measures or engage in necessary actions to ensure compliance by operators, it remains unclear how such compliance may be ascertained. Similarly, at the licensee level, the systems and procedures that licensees are required to implement to monitor the security and movement of goods within the FTZ are also not spelt out.
Sir, while I understand that legislation cannot be expected to detail all possible monitoring and enforcement procedures to ensure compliance with regulation as well as the law, it is worth noting that one major impetus for the proposed revisions is precisely to address the possibility of money laundering and terrorist financing. But it remains to be asked how will the Bill truly advance this goal?
This is my second point. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and, as we have seen in recent times, in the context of real estate, for instance, a surfeit of laws will remain ineffectual so long as compliance is insufficiently observed. Even in the context of free zones, multiple reports have swirled around alleged illicit activities within \"Le Freeport\", which raises questions of how rigorous the process of due diligence and compliance with regulation truly is.
Some of these activities have included tax evasion, storage of looted goods, besides money laundering and terrorist financing.
One is left to wonder then how the Ministry believes that this devolution to licensed FTZ operators and cargo handlers will improve the practice of due diligence as well as regulatory compliance. For instance, in the past, how many contraventions of the Act have been raised to Customs over the past five years and have these instances been flagged by the operators themselves or was it because of tip-offs that were received by the authorities?
How many FTZ operators and agents operate within our FTZs and, if this is a large number, will this dilute the quality of monitoring and reporting since small operators, in particular, can hardly be expected to sustain the sort of compliance regime that larger ones are able to muster?
Relatedly, how many FTZ operators and handlers currently operate in our FTZs and how many are expected to be licensed by the Government under the new legislation?
Sir, my third point considers the role of FTZs in a 21st century economy. In principle, traditional FTZs offer a host of benefits. By exempting tariffs, they facilitate the unfettered flow of goods and services which are especially critical for transshipment activities. They also attract cross-border finance, since many typically offer an initial tax holiday, which can embed technological know-how and encourage the development of an otherwise infant industry. And their concentration of industries in one region often promotes the exchange of information and ideas which can promote economies of both scale and scope. Historically, our economic model has relied on entrepôt trade and foreign direct investment. And so, we have benefited as a country significantly from the presence of FTZs.
This is all well and good, but it is important for us to understand how the economic landscape is also shifting beneath us.
International trade in goods never quite recovered after the collapse in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, at least as a share of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), prompting some to declare that globalisation has reached its peak and others to even pronounce that we are now in the new phase of \"deglobalisation\".
While I do not, to be clear, share this unvarnished, pessimistic view, it is undeniably true that world merchandise trade has essentially gone sideways since the mid-2000s and may have even declined as a share of output in some cases. Staking our future on the trend of continued international integration strikes me as risky at best, and foolhardy at worst.
Similarly, agreements on an international minimum corporate tax, base erosion profit shifting (BEPS), while progressing at a slower pace, nevertheless remain on track for roll-out over the next few years, which will similarly weaken some of the advantages that Singapore has enjoyed in terms of attracting global capital through crude tax competition. In any case, modern Singapore, as a major global wealth centre, is now seldom starved of investment financing, making the benefits of tax-free FTZs somewhat less compelling.
This, essentially, leaves the main advantage of FTZs, going forward, as being that of enhancing the benefits of agglomeration. But the exchange of knowledge and information occurs largely digitally these days and, even if we continue to believe in the merits of in-person exchanges, such spillovers are by no means bound by the artificial boundaries that constitute an FTZ. Indeed, we would surely want the entire nation to be a free-trade zone for ideas as well as active inquiry.
To this end, one may wonder whether the continued focus on FTZs as key engines of the economy – while unobjectionable on its face – may be missing the bigger picture, which would require our entire nation to be open to flows of data, information, knowledge and ideas – of course, within the boundaries of the law.
Importantly, it is insufficient to cater to such flows only from the perspective of quantitative metrics – ensuring that we have, for instance, a rapid and reliable digital infrastructure, a supportive environment for technology adoption, and adequate exposure for our companies and workers to modern innovations, all of which we do well, but also from a more subtle but just as important qualitative perspective. This means fostering and welcoming open debate over ideas, even uncomfortable ones. This means encouraging out-of-the-box thinking and training our workforce to be adaptable and flexible.
I understand that these all fall truly outside the scope of the FTZ Bill, but we should not forget the ultimate purpose of legislative efforts of this nature.
Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. While I believe that the changes proposed in the Bill – meant to provide for safety and efficiency – remain important ones to pursue, it remains unclear how the provisions in the Bill will truly succeed in meeting them. Moreover, the changing nature of FTZs in the global economy may yet relegate our work here to a back seat, at least from the perspective of long-term economic performance.
Hence, while I support the Bill, nagging questions over whether it will truly make substantial headway in fulfilling the objectives it purports to achieve, nevertheless remain.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, trade is the lifeblood of Singapore. As a critical trading hub, it is incumbent upon us to meet the highest international standards, whilst simultaneously reduce the impediments to trade. The amendments in this Bill are designed to fortify our FTZ regime, allowing for enhanced oversight of goods within these zones, while preserving the efficiency that characterises our trade networks. Notwithstanding, I would like to seek a few clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the various entities designated to oversee the 10 FTZs, as they are private entities, what are the stipulated conditions and criteria for their appointment? What mechanisms are in place for potential revocation? Are there plans to establish more FTZs in the future?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the delegation of greater powers to the DG by the Minister is a point of concern. In cases where the DG had acted ultra vires or unreasonably, will cases of appeal be reviewed by the Minister?
Third, the accuracy of data submission within the FTZs is of paramount importance. Can we get insights into the mechanisms that will be employed to ensure the accuracy of this data? Equally crucial is how this data will be safeguarded by customs authorities. Can the Ministry of Finance (MOF) share more information about this issue?
Fourth, will there be a provision allowing for appeals against penalties imposed in cases where licensing conditions are breached or where actions conflict with the Act?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter of data confidentiality merits attention. Will data collected within FTZs be disclosed to foreign law enforcement agencies, such as INTERPOL, without the explicit consent of the individuals or entities involved? Notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on the Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill.
Singapore's FTZs at our ports and airport are an important node of business and trade for the Singapore economy to thrive and prosper safely without any hindrance and threat. Singapore's Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Investment Guarantee Agreements and the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements also allow for smooth trade with many countries in the world.
In particular, this piece of legislation is of utmost importance for both small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as larger companies, as it is all about the ease of doing business in Singapore. It also gives a very clear and loud message to the investor community that Singapore means business in the proper operation of its ports of entry for goods and services.
In my speech, I would like to highlight three key items: importance of this legislation to global trade, the benefits that our businesses get from the legislative changes and, lastly, some concerns from an SME standpoint in their participation after the changes in these amendments are accepted.
FTZs in Singapore were first established in the 1960s to facilitate trade in dutiable goods. The FTZs Bill was last amended in Parliament in 2014. According to the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, FTZs are vulnerable to trade-based money laundering through the misrepresentation of the price, quantity or quality of imports and exports, phantom shipments and falsification of invoices. Much has happened in the last nine years and it is timely to update this legislation, keeping in line with recent developments in global trade.
Sir, let me now turn to the key thrusts of the Bill.
In my view, this amendment removes legal uncertainty by creating security measures that ensure that goods passing through Singapore follow very stringent checks enforced by FTZ authorities. I believe this amendment also provides a stronger framework for preventing money laundering and financing for terrorism.
Three specific points.
First, licensing of FTZ operators. The amendment allows many administrative responsibilities to shift to licensed FTZ operators for more efficient movement of goods. The new tenets that allow operators and cargo holders to delegate authority are reflective of current industry practices. The amendment seeks to strike a balance, enabling both better oversight of goods flow and ensuring efficient movement of goods.
Second, the proposed amendment provides more powers to the officers of the Customs and Excise Department to investigate and arrest any parties suspected of illegal activity. In providing clear definition of criminal offences, it allows the DG and staff to enforce the law with increased penalties for offences.
Lastly, this amendment also allows for a smoother transmission of information and documents, while providing greater flexibility to staff.
I also want to highlight that the staff working in FTZs play a key role in the detection, deterrence and prevention of money laundering and financial crime. To help the staff to better appreciate the magnitude of the risks, we will need to, on a continuous basis, develop training roadmaps and programmes which would be conducted by the private operators for the staff performing various functions in the FTZs.
On to some concerns regarding the SME community.
SMEs will require a longer period to adjust to the main tenets of the new amendments. SMEs simply lack the capabilities and resources to take a more active role in enforcement and administration, which would make it difficult for them to take advantage of the new powers for FTZ licensed operators and cargo handlers.
SMEs will also need to understand the legal powers vested in FTZ authorities and their needs-based information-gathering procedures. As a vibrant trading hub, much of the work being done at the FTZs is round the clock, and SMEs may not have the scale to manage their lean workforce while balancing additional training needs.
Perhaps the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on the plans in place to assist our SMEs to help implement these changes.
The revised legislation also stands to benefit many businesses. The new amendment allows more delegation of authority by FTZ operators and cargo holders. This may benefit the SMEs as well as large businesses, as they can outsource certain tasks.
There is also a very clear list of what constitutes an offence under the Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill – what is permitted and prohibited, the gravity of each offence and also sentencing considerations.
The legislative changes also create a safer environment for new market players, as goods passing through Singapore’s FTZs will require stringent checks done by FTZ authorities.
Also, for SMEs aiming for a global presence, the free trade principles of this amendment will safeguard their operations and increase their brand presence internationally. This may also push them to adopt more digital technologies faster.
In conclusion, Sir, strong, well-managed FTZs are important to allow our country to remain competitive regionally and internationally. These amendments will reinforce the high standards of compliance that will not only maintain Singapore’s strong standing as a trade hub but also attract foreign investments that have confidence in our due diligence.
Sir, it is evident to me that these amendments will facilitate further development of our FTZs and, hence, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, FTZs are a core part of Singapore’s trade strategy, facilitating entrepot trade and transshipment and building on and reinforcing our international air and sea hub positioning.
FTZs have proliferated with speed in the past few decades and become an integral part of the global supply and value chains. Depending on your sources, there are now over 3,500 to over 5,000 FTZs in more than 135 countries around the world, boosting economic opportunities, foreign direct investments and job creation, in particular, by offering exemptions from duty and taxes and simplified administrative procedures and less regulations.
But the same characteristics that make FTZs attractive to legitimate businesses also attract abuse by illicit actors and there has been, for some time now, heightened concerns of FTZs being exploited for illicit trade, including weapons proliferation, as well as trade-based money laundering operations, tax evasion and terrorist financing.
Customs and the private sector have expressed the need for better Customs procedures and controls in FTZs, leading to the development of best practices, such as the Practical Guidance on Free Zones released by the World Customs Organization in 2020/2021.
As such, the update to the FTZ Act is timely. The proposed amendments have sought to align with international best practices, taking into account industry practices here and provide good clarity regarding regulations covering the control of the FTZs and the division of responsibilities of the various players, including Customs, the FTZ operators who will now be licensed, the FTZ cargo handlers and shipping agents.
This is key as the multiple actors involved in operating and governing the FTZ requires clarity about responsibilities and effective coordination, including information sharing. For instance, the requirement for advanced data submission by shipping agents to cargo handlers and, in turn, by cargo handlers and FTZ operators to Customs, will provide greater oversight of goods, persons and operations within the FTZs.
Licensed FTZ operators and cargo handlers are also obligated to report to Customs suspicious activities and goods in their possession, custody, charge or control that are brought or intended to be brought into Singapore or are manufactured in an FTZ and brought or intended to be brought into Singapore, in contravention of the Act or any other written law, akin to how the financial sector – as we spoke about a lot yesterday – is obligated to report suspicious transactions.
The amendments also establish the jurisdiction that the Government and Customs have to enforce controls and the penalty framework.
Lastly, better cooperation among all actors in and around the FTZ and internationally, including the provision for data sharing, will be a great help in combatting illicit activity. So, the amendments are all sound and I support them.
But I do have a few clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.
First, while there is a need to increase oversight and controls, there needs to be balance in ensuring that the controls do not create an overly onerous burden that affects the efficiency of our FTZs, which remain vital to our entrepot hub strategy.
Further, the best controls, if poorly implemented, will also affect the competitiveness of FTZs. This is especially true, given the diversity and volume of activities in our FTZs.
It is, therefore, important to take a risk-based approach and to leverage data, technology and IT integration.
I will say with conviction that FTZs will remain core to our overall trade and economic strategy, which will, for sure, change as globalisation changes – but trade is not going away.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether and how the revised FTZ regime increases our business costs and whether it will reduce the competitiveness of our FTZs, especially in the context of other countries raising their game. For example, China has recently moved to open its FTZs.
My second clarification has to do with the need for proportionate penalties and sanctions for anyone contravening the provisions of the Act. Is there an intent to review the provisions to see if the financial penalties, currently capped at $10,000, are adequate? Equally, it is important that any illicit actors caught are prosecuted to the fullest to deter others from exploiting our FTZs.
Thirdly, the root cause of poorly implemented controls and oversight is often the lack of awareness and understanding of FTZ-related risks and vulnerabilities at all levels, including on topics, such as trade-based money laundering. From the businesses in the FTZs to the relevant authorities and operators to financial institutions and banking regulators, this lack of understanding not only renders the zone vulnerable to illicit activity, but also impedes the ability to take a risk-based approach to management, enforcement and supervision efforts.
There is a need for a strong focus on adequate training programmes to ensure better understanding and identification of risks and an understanding of the requirements and processes under the new regime. What are the steps being taken to step up such training?
Finally, I would be also interested to hear the Senior Minister of State’s view on whether the proposed revisions to the FTZ regime will be sufficient to deal with the threats and vulnerabilities that we have identified. I am sure there are other measures being looked at that did not factor in these acts. What other preventive measures are being put in place to counter these threats? Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, many countries have set up FTZs to boost business activity and reap the benefits of free trade. These zones have been instrumental in the evolution of trade for the integrated supply chains of the global economy.
According to an FIAS report, FTZs continue to benefit the country's economy. It has been proven that it is effective in generating employment, increasing the volume and diversity of exports, serving as an essential tool for attracting foreign direct investments and enhancing commercial linkages for export.
However, FTZs may also facilitate illegal and criminal activities, such as trade in counterfeit and pirated products.
FTZ is not a new concept. For centuries, governments have sought different ways to facilitate trade in their ports. One of the earliest was called free ports. These are designated areas open to commercial vessels where their cargo destined for re-export is exempt from customs duties.
Today, many FTZs are managed by private operators and regulated by Government authorities. A study concluded that the growth in private involvement in the FTZs has been beneficial, as privately-owned zones tend to offer better facilities and amenities and are more responsive to tenants' needs and provide a more comprehensive range of property management services.
However, we must be cognisant that lightly regulated zones are attractive to parties engaged in illegal and criminal activities. It is known that FTZs have facilitated trade in counterfeit and pirated products, as well as smuggling and money laundering. These areas have often provided bad actors with a relatively safe environment to carry out illicit activities.
As such, governments will need to control these zones adequately, especially those operated by private entities, as they are focused on expanding zone occupancy and providing profitable services to these businesses. There is also a need to establish a more direct interest, enhance law enforcement oversight and increase the capacity and authority in monitoring zone operations.
As most zones are operated via a hybrid and collaborative model between government and private parties, we need to further enhance and tighten the processes to ensure that it is strengthened against such exploitation.
FTZ cargo handlers play a critical role in the supply chain and FTZs. By regulating the FTZ cargo handlers to comply with the FTZ Act, we can further strengthen service standards, security and assist authorities in detaining goods for inspection and reporting goods that have contravened any written law. It is reasonable to screen any person who intends to operate in the FTZ, enhance the management of FTZ tenants and better manage sub-leasing premises in the FTZ.
As the volume of cargo that FTZ operators handle is immense, the authorities must be given accurate and timely cargo information. This is standard industry practice and will provide greater oversight of goods, persons and operations within the FTZ.
I have a few questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, given the new FTZ requirements, how will this affect the overall business costs and competitiveness of our FTZs? What are the other areas that can be further improved to enhance the competitiveness of our FTZs?
Second, with the new data submission regime, what are the measures taken to ensure that the FTZ operators meet proper data management and cybersecurity requirements?
Third, given the evolving operating environment, how are the authorities updated on the latest threats?
In addition, given the collateral consequences of specific threats, what steps are taken to ensure that these threats do not enter Singapore in the first place? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill seeks to refine and strengthen the operations and oversight of our FTZs. Our FTZs are the lifeblood of our entrepot trade.
The Bill's primary goal to enhance the security, transparency and efficiency of our FTZs resonates deeply. By striving to remain up-to-date with international best practices and increasing the level of oversight in our FTZs, this Bill reflects Singapore's unwavering commitment to trade with integrity and enhance global cooperation. This Bill proactively addresses potential vulnerabilities.
Having said that, I would like to highlight four concerns.
The first is regarding the potential economic implications. Singapore has always been renowned for its competitive edge in global trade, with our FTZs being a testament to our strategic prowess. While the enhanced regulations for FTZ operators may streamline processes in the long term, the immediate implication for businesses is a possible rise in costs.
Specifically, the need to construct and maintain dedicated structures, ensure heightened security measures and provide a steady stream of data to Customs can be daunting, both logistically and financially.
The new regime also emphasises the importance of FTZ operators disseminating information on the FTZ Bill's requirements. While essential, it demands a significant administrative apparatus. This is an operational dimension where efficiency is paramount. There is a potential risk that businesses might grapple with not just costs, but also operational delays. This could result in significant opportunity costs.
Additionally, the introduction of the advanced data submission requirement is undoubtedly poised to offer greater oversight. But the pertinent question is: how will it impact the velocity of trade? Efficient trade necessitates swift decisions and rapid movements. Any delays could render our FTZs less attractive, especially when time-sensitive goods are involved. It is crucial that as we endeavour to make our trade zones more secure and compliant with international standards, we must ensure that these changes do not place an undue burden on our businesses, which could inadvertently stymie our growth.
Hence, how do we anticipate businesses absorbing these costs? Will the revised FTZ regime inadvertently increase business and operational time costs and, by doing so, diminish the competitiveness of our FTZs? Will the Government introduce fiscal support measures to enable businesses to adhere to this amendment Bill and improve competitiveness?
Secondly, I acknowledge the highlighted threats and risks, such as illicit trade and potential money laundering, that this Bill aims to mitigate. However, these threats are not novel. They have loomed over international trade for quite some time. So, what are the considerations for amending the FTZ Act only now?
Thirdly, a point I would like to delve deeper into is the proposed penalty framework within the Bill. A robust and effective regulatory system is defined not just by its preventive measures, but also by its punitive ones. Will this penalty framework employ a structured, tiered approach, with penalties corresponding to the severity of non-compliance? It is crucial for our businesses to have a clear understanding of the repercussions, ensuring they can operate with certainty. The clarity, fairness and consistency of this framework will be paramount in securing the trust and cooperation of businesses within the FTZs, also aiming to guide entities towards compliant behaviour.
Lastly, while the proposed revisions are a commendable step towards bolstering the security and efficiency of our FTZs, are these revisions comprehensive and robust enough to truly thwart the threats cited? And beyond these amendments, what are other preventive measures that we, as a nation, are putting in place to counter such threats? It is not just about reactive measures, but about building a proactive shield that safeguards our trade reputation, ensuring that Singapore remains a beacon of trade integrity.
To conclude, the Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill stands as a testament to Singapore's approach to trade. These queries hope to strike the right balance between safeguarding our trade zones from potential challenges and ensuring a thriving, business-friendly environment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support of the Bill and for their suggestions.
Indeed, as hon Members have pointed out, facilitating trade is critical to Singapore's survival as a small and open economy and our FTZs play an important role in supporting this. It is why we are making the amendments in this Bill. They will keep our regime updated and responsive to the evolving threats, so that we remain a trusted and competitive trading hub.
Members raised questions around four themes: one, whether the proposed amendments are necessary and adequate to deal with evolving threats faced by our FTZs; two, whether the revised FTZ regime will affect business costs, lead to operational delays in cargo flows and affect our overall competitiveness; three, the accuracy of and safeguards around the data collected; and four, how FTZ operators are licensed and regulated.
Sir, I will address them in turn.
First, on the adequacy of the legislative amendments to combat and prevent illegitimate trade, as raised by Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Enhancing our FTZ regime is a constant endeavour. Even as we enhance the regulatory regime with this Bill, we must expect criminals to find new ways to circumvent the rules. We have to remain vigilant and continuously strengthen our regulatory framework to detect and deter illicit trade.
Customs will continue to review the adequacy of its regulations, take action to address gaps and ensure that we have a robust regime in place.
Not every enhancement to our regulatory regime requires legislative amendments. Some can be operational in nature, for instance, improving sense-making and detection capabilities and stepping up enforcement efforts, which are what Singapore Customs has been doing over the years.
For example, Singapore Customs develops and refines risk profiles and indicators on an ongoing basis to more accurately identify suspicious goods before they enter Singapore. Red flags are already made known to industry partners today, both through Singapore Customs' website and through direct engagements. We will continue to do this.
In recent years, Singapore Customs has also started using data analytics and artificial intelligence to improve its targeting and enforcement efforts.
In addition, Singapore Customs maintains strong partnerships with our other enforcement agencies and international counterparts and organisations, including the World Customs Organization, to share intelligence and best practices. Such capability-building and international partnerships supplement our legislation and enforcement framework, forming a multi-pronged approach to detecting and deterring illicit activities within our FTZs.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Edward Chia asked why we are amending the Act now.
Sir, we need to keep our regulatory regime updated, as the risk of illicit trade grows and criminals become more sophisticated. Stronger levers will supplement Customs' broader efforts that I have just described, to build a trusted and competitive trade facilitation regime.
Let me now address the second theme that Members have raised: the impact of the revised regime on business costs, operational efficiency and our overall competitiveness.
The proposed amendments seek to strike the right balance between better governance and preserving our pro-business environment.
Most of the new requirements introduced in the Bill are practices currently performed by the FTZ authorities, such as ensuring the security of the FTZ and reporting any goods that contravene the law. The proposed amendments seek to consolidate, standardise and codify these requirements under the FTZ Act, to ensure consistent implementation across FTZs and a more robust regulatory regime.
We do not expect the new data submission requirements to be disruptive to trade. This is because the additional data that we are requesting from cargo agents are existing fields in the bill of lading and airway bill. They are standard information already provided today for the voyage and transport of goods. The submission timelines under the FTZ regime are also aligned with current industry norms. We will facilitate transmission of the data collected by the cargo agents to Customs via existing systems where possible.
In proposing these amendments, we have consulted key industry stakeholders to ensure that these changes are designed and implemented in such a way to minimise the cost and compliance burden for companies, including our SMEs. Implementation of the provisions under the revised Act will be phased in from early 2024. As part of this, clauses 25 and 27 of the Bill provide for a six-month transitional period to allow companies time to adjust.
Let me now move on to the third theme, which relates to the collection and safeguarding of cargo data.
The proposed amendments will empower Singapore Customs to collect specified cargo data in advance of vessel arrival in Singapore. This will strengthen the ability of Customs to detect suspicious goods prior to their entry into Singapore and facilitate the conduct of timely interventions by our public agencies.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we can ensure that the data provided is accurate. Indeed, criminals will not declare accurate data about their illegal goods. This is where Singapore Customs’ sense-making and intelligence capabilities come into play – to detect discrepancies in the data submitted to pick out suspicious shipments and perform additional checks.
Mr Yip and Mr Huang also asked how the data collected would be treated and managed, including cybersecurity requirements and other safeguards. The transmission of cargo data to Singapore Customs will need to abide by the data management and cybersecurity standards set by the Government, such as those under the Cybersecurity Act. All cargo data collected by Customs will be subject to the data confidentiality provisions in the new section 16A of the FTZ Act, which are consistent with our other laws pertaining to data protection and secrecy.
In short, data collected cannot be disclosed without prior written consent of the related parties. This also applies to requests by foreign law enforcement authorities. Exceptions pertain only for specific circumstances, for example, to enable officers of Customs to investigate suspected offences, or to enable our public agencies to collect, compile and analyse such data for the purposes of national security.
The fourth and final theme relates to the proposed licensing regime for the FTZ operators, the new powers granted to the DG and officers of Customs, and the Government’s approach to enforcement.
Mr Saktiandi asked if the powers granted to the officers of Customs are new and, if so, how Customs officers are empowered to carry out enforcement in the past. Currently, officers of Customs carry out inspections and enforcement within our FTZs by drawing on the powers granted to them under the Customs Act (CA) and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (RIEA). The proposed amendments will help to set out and clarify powers that relate specifically to FTZs and consolidate these under the FTZ Act.
Mr Yip and Mr Saktiandi sought clarifications about the proposed licensing regime and provisions for revocation or appeals where necessary. To qualify for an FTZ operator licence, the entity will need to demonstrate its ability to effectively operate an FTZ. Singapore Customs will also take other relevant considerations into account, such as whether the entity has obtained the necessary approvals from other Government agencies, for example, from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore or the Maritime and Port Authority.
The FTZ operator licence will be valid for five years, after which, it can be renewed. This is a key lever for Singapore Customs, the FTZ regulator, to ensure that licence holders meet the required standards for the proper and efficient functioning of the FTZ. I wish to assure Mr Saktiandi that licence fees will be reasonable and will not impose a significant cost burden on the FTZ operators.
Licensees who wilfully and repeatedly fail to comply with the licensing conditions or provisions of the FTZ Act may have their licence suspended or revoked. Other instances of non-compliance may attract penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, or both. The penalty imposed will depend on the specific offence and will be tiered according to the severity of the offence.
To Mr Yip’s question on whether there will be an avenue of appeal, the short answer is yes. Appeals against any penalties imposed are provided for in section 18 of the FTZ Act. The appellant could appeal to the DG. If the appellant is aggrieved by the DG’s decision, he or she may appeal to the Minister.
Mr Speaker, I wish to address one point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised during his speech, where he gave an academic description of globalisation and the impact on supply chains. Sir, I do not agree with the way he has characterised how global trade will change. We recognise that there is a change in global supply chains, the reconfiguration of the global supply chains and trade flows. That part is obvious and that part we agree. But what I do not fully agree with Assoc Prof Lim is that because of these changes, trade flows will no longer be important, global trade will no longer be important and, therefore, FTZs will no longer be important.
I think that is not quite in line with what we have seen, based on industry feedback, and also if we hear the speeches from the other Members in this House, including those with practical business experience, that is not what they are saying. They believe that FTZs continue to play an important role in supporting our position as a trade hub. And when we look at PSA's container volumes this year compared to last year, it is not going down. In fact, this year, our container volumes for PSA continues to grow.
That is why we need to invest for the future. We are putting in resources, building Tuas Port and expanding our container handling capacity. We are building T5 at Changi Airport and getting ready to be able to handle more passengers and more cargo.
All this is because we know that even though globalisation may affect global supply chains, the world still needs trade. If we position ourselves as a trusted competitive trade hub, we can still capture a slice of the pie.
I also wish to clarify one example that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned in his speech – Le Freeport. He gave this as an example of how lack of compliance would affect its status as an FTZ. Sir, I wish to clarify that Le Freeport, despite its name, is not an FTZ. It is a high-security warehouse facility located near Changi Airport that is modelled after similar institutions in Geneva and Luxembourg. Le Freeport Singapore offers climate-controlled storage solutions for both businesses and individuals, enabling storage of valuable assets, such as art, wine and precious metals. But it is not an FTZ.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. Our trade facilitation regime today is highly competitive. The World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (2023), which ranks countries’ performance on trade logistics, placed Singapore first in almost all categories, including customs and border management, trade-related infrastructure and timeliness of shipments. This is not a given. Maintaining our status as a trusted hub for global trade takes constant, proactive effort by our agencies, with support from our tripartite partners. Our industry, our unions, our workers, everyone has been working very hard to contribute to this outcome.
This Bill is part of that effort. The proposed amendments seek to enhance the regulation and control of goods that flow through our FTZs. They will strengthen Customs’ ability to detect and deter illegal actors from misusing our FTZs, while maintaining a business-friendly operating environment that minimises compliance cost and facilitates efficient transshipment of goods.
Today, we seek to formalise these amendments into law and, in doing so, put Singapore on a stronger footing to combat illicit trade and remain a critical node in global trade flows. This will help Singapore to safeguard our position as a global trade hub in the years ahead. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Sir, let me clarify two points. One has to do with Le Freeport. Just to be clear, and I am willing to stand corrected, but based on what I have checked, Le Freeport is located within a duty-free zone that is in the Changi Airport Logistics Hub. And I believe that the Changi Airport Logistics Hub is one of the nine free trade zones that are within Singapore. Again, I am willing to stand corrected on this.
On the second matter, the Senior Minister of State has stated that free trade remains an important part of our future economy and he cited a number that is based on the fact that our ports have, in fact, had a record volume of flows. This is heartening and I do not wish to convey the impression that I think that trade is unimportant. The point that I was trying to make was, firstly, unless the Senior Minister of State wishes to correct this point, unless he challenges the fact that trade, merchandise trade, as a share of global GDP has stagnated for about 15 years, the reality is that we have reached a kind of a peak in terms of the amount of trade relative to GDP. This does not mean that trade will not continue to grow as GDP grows. Trade will continue to grow.
But I think the point I was trying to make is that the future of free trade zones is not a growth industry, but rather one that is a mature industry and where we should focus on is much more on other areas, such as information flows.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think, first, we have to get our facts correct. Le Freeport is not a free trade zone. It is not a free trade zone. I hope that clears up what is factually true and what is factually not true.
Second, this point about whether FTZs are going to be an area of growth or a mature sector, I think that is perhaps an area where we could agree to disagree. Assoc Prof Lim may have his opinion, I would have my opinion. We may not agree, but I respect that he has a different view.
I do not agree, Sir, with the characterisation that we no longer need FTZs or that trade is no longer going to be important to Singapore, for two reasons. First, as I explained in my earlier response, the world is going through a reconfiguration of supply chains. That part we agree. Globalisation is not going to proceed in the same way as what it has been in the past few decades.
However, the world still needs to trade. Cargo still needs to flow. There will still be supply chains. It is just that the supply chains will be configured differently.
The key for us is not whether trade is important or not important. The key for us is, if this is going to continue, how do we then adjust our strategy and prepare ourselves to be ready to tap on this new landscape so that if the trade flows reconfigure, can Singapore still remain a key node in global supply chains? This would then have an impact on whether in Singapore, this would be a growth area or this would be a stagnant area. That is how I view it.
So, how do we prepare ourselves, Sir? By investing for the future. I think the hardware part is clear: we need the capacity, T5, Tuas Port. I mentioned this. But even more important than the hardware, we need the operating systems, we need the workers to be ready, we need the workers to be trained. This is the part where Singapore is also able to, because of our strong tripartite partnership, build a strong, competitive ecosystem that will allow us to differentiate ourselves from the competitors.
So, if you look at COVID-19, where many airports and ports were disrupted, we kept our airport and ports open. We allowed supply chains to continue, we supported global supply chains to continue. In fact, Singapore was used as a catch-up port by many of the shipping lines. Now that COVID-19 is behind us, this trusted reputation that we have built up during the crisis is now paying some dividends. People are now looking at Singapore and saying that \"this is a place that we can rely on, this is a trusted hub\".
So, I see what we are doing here – the FTZ Bill – as an enhancement of that strategy because we are cautiously optimistic about the future of trade in Singapore and the importance of connectivity to our economy.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Societies (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Societies Act governs the registration of societies. It ensures that groups that may be used for unlawful purposes, pose a threat to safety and security, or whose activities are contrary to our national interests, are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore.
To ensure that the Societies Act remains relevant and can continue to meet its intent, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has proposed a set of amendments to: (a) strengthen the regulation of societies to safeguard national interests and security; and (b) provide better clarity to the public on the registration requirements.
We had conducted engagement sessions with selected societies in 2022 and 2023, as well as a public consultation exercise in 2022 via the REACH platform. The feedback was supportive of the proposed amendments. Let me now go through the provisions of the Bill.
First, we aim to strengthen the registration process. Currently, applications to register societies can be processed via two routes.
The Normal Route is for applications that fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act. These societies are involved in issues which are more sensitive, such as politics, religion, race, language and nationality. Such applications go through vetting and assessment by the Registrar of Societies, which may involve several rounds of clarifications with the applicant. The Registrar has the authority to reject applications submitted via the Normal Route.
We also have the Automatic Route. This was introduced in 2004, for applications that do not fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act. It is meant for societies involved in issues which are less sensitive. For these applications, the Societies Act currently states that the Registrar shall, without making any further inquiry, register these societies on the date the Registrar receives the application, so long as the formal requirements for registration are met.
In the last five years, we received about 1,400 applications. About half of them were submitted via the Automatic Route. This differentiated approach in processing applications has allowed MHA to focus its attention on assessing the more sensitive applications. That said, there are two gaps.
First, there were instances when the Registrar needed information to ascertain whether applications under the Automatic Route indeed did not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule of the Societies Act. However, the current law does not allow the Registrar to seek clarifications of such applications.
Second, even if an application does not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule, it could still be of concern. However, the Registrar currently has no authority to reject such applications. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, amends section 4A of the Societies Act to: remove the obligation on the Registrar to register a society under the Automatic Route without making an inquiry. This will allow the Registrar to make inquiries of applications submitted via the Automatic Route; and empower the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route, if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered: (a) is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; or (b) would be contrary to Singapore’s national security or interest.
Let me give Members a hypothetical example of the current gaps and how these amendments will address the gaps.
Suppose a group of individuals, with antecedents of concern, wished to set up a society to advocate for the interest of a racial group. However, they know that if they were to set up a society promoting the interests of a particular race, they would have to do so via the Normal Route, where the Registrar would be able to scrutinise their application, such as asking questions to clarify the objectives of the society and queries on their leadership composition. To avoid being questioned, this group tries to set up a society with an innocuous aim, such as a history interest group. Such an application could then be submitted via the Automatic Route, which currently, will be approved immediately.
The proposed amendments in the Bill would allow the Registrar to make inquiries on all applications submitted, for both Automatic and Normal Routes.
Clause 4 of the Bill adds a new section to allow appeals to the Minister for Home Affairs for rejected applications via the Automatic Route, similar to the existing appeal mechanism for applications via the Normal Route. If an appeal is rejected by the Minister, the applicants can launch a judicial review, no different from today. We expect the majority of applications for registration of societies to still go through the Automatic Route without the need for any clarifications.
Our next set of amendments seeks to clarify the Registrar’s powers for applications submitted via the Normal Route. Currently, under the Normal Route, the Registrar may request an applicant to insert clauses into their constitution, prior to allowing the registration of the society. This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant a licence, permit, approval or exemption, also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions.
For instance, to preserve Singapore’s multi-religious and multiracial harmony, the Registrar may request an applicant of a society that is involved in issues of race and religion to insert a clause that the society \"shall not engage in any activities that may undermine racial or religious harmony in Singapore\", as a condition for registration.
Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 4(3A) to make it explicit that the Registrar has powers to require the rules of specified societies to be amended as a condition for registration. The Registrar can refuse to register the society if the society does not comply. Section 4(3A) does not list the grounds for which the Registrar will direct a specified society to amend its rules. However, this does not mean that the Registrar can require a society to include unreasonable rules into its Constitution, failing which the Registrar will reject an application.
The Registrar’s decisions must still have a nexus to the purpose of the Societies Act, which is to ensure that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or poses a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore or which will be contrary to our national interests will not be established in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, I will now touch on amendments affecting registered societies.
Currently, under section 11 of the Societies Act, societies need to seek the Registrar’s approval to change their name or amend the rules in their constitution. The Societies Act is silent on the grounds on which the Registrar can refuse to approve such applications. To provide clarity to societies, clause 8 of the Bill amends section 11 to include the grounds on which the Registrar may refuse to approve a change of name or an amendment of provisions in the societies’ constitution. For example, the Registrar can refuse to approve a change in name if the new name is likely to mislead members of the public as to the true character or purpose of the society.
The Registrar can refuse to approve a change in the constitution if it would be contrary to Singapore’s national interest or prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. For avoidance of doubt, the Registrar will not be limited to the grounds stated in the Act.
Under section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act, the Minister can currently declare a person to be unfit to be an officer of a society by reason of any conviction for a criminal offence, for example, where the officer is convicted for dishonesty, such as fraud, scam, cheating or misuse of monies, as well as offences under the Societies Act. An \"officer\" here refers to committee members and does not include members of the society.
For ease of administration, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act to allow the Registrar, instead of the Minister, to declare a person as unfit to be an officer of a society. The Minister will be the appellate authority. A person who is declared to be unfit by the Registrar can apply to the Minister for permission to act as an officer of a society.
Currently, section 2 of the Societies Act defines the place of business of a registered society as \"the place where the records and books of account of a society is kept\". This is too narrow in today’s context where virtual offices and storage of documents on the cloud are common. Instead of place of business, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Societies Act to refer to \"registered address\" instead, defined as the address of the society that is kept and maintained with the Registrar. Consequential amendments will be made throughout the Societies Act.
The next set of amendments are on the offences.
The last review of the penalties in the Societies Act was done in 2004, 19 years ago. We are increasing the fine quantum for all the offences in the Societies Act to keep up with inflation and to ensure that the fine quantum continues to have a deterrent effect. In addition, we have updated the offences of providing false information to the Registrar.
Currently, sections 10 and 29 of the Societies Act penalise the failure to provide information and the provision of false information to the Registrar. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill update these provisions to align with the language used in newer Acts, such as the Debt Collection Act.
In particular, on the provision of false information to the Registrar, the fault element of the offender is presently not mentioned in sections 10 and 29. This means that even if a person provided false or inaccurate information by mistake, he would be in breach.
MHA's view is that only those who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly provide false or inaccurate information should be liable. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill, therefore, amend the fault element of these offences accordingly.
Clause 15 of the Bill introduces a new section 30A to allow the Registrar to compound offences in the Societies Act as an alternative to charging offenders in Court.
The Bill also includes amendments to facilitate the administration and regulation of societies.
First, we are proposing amendments to allow for electronic transmission of documents. These are in clauses 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 16 of the Bill.
Second, currently, application fees are to be paid upon approval of applications before the society is registered. MHA intends to charge the fee upon submission of an application, as costs will have to be incurred to assess the application, regardless of whether the registration is approved. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill give effect to this.
Third, societies which are charities presently have to file their annual submissions to two separate authorities, the Registry of Societies and Charities Unit. To reduce the administrative burden on societies which are also charities, a one-stop service will be established which allows such societies to file their annual submissions only once. Clause 17 of the Bill introduces new sections to allow the Registrar to prescribe different forms for them. The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later.
Mr Speaker, the amendments that MHA has proposed aim to strengthen and modernise the regulatory framework governing societies. I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make just two short points in my speech.
I start by highlighting Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Under Article 14(1)(c) of the Constitution, all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
However, this is not an untrammelled right. Article 14(2) specifically provides that Parliament may impose restrictions by law as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore, public order or morality. Further, Article 14(3) allows Parliament to impose, by law, restrictions relating to labour or education.
The Societies Act 1966 is a piece of legislation that Parliament passed to impose the restrictions contemplated in Article 14(2). We can appreciate, therefore, that the Act performs an important gatekeeping function.
Indeed, in 2004, when the Act was last amended, the hon Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs then, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, stated as follows in this House and I quote, \"The Societies Act plays a gate-keeping role in ensuring that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or pose a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore, or which will be contrary to our national interests are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore.\"
The operative provision is section 4 of the Act which vests with the Registrar the power to refuse the registration of a specified society in enumerated circumstances. These include situations where, in the opinion of the Registrar, the specified society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace as contemplated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.
Save for the enumerated circumstances, it is provided in section 4(1) of the Act that the Registrar shall register the society upon certain conditions being fulfilled.
The current arrangement makes good sense as it gives primacy to the constitutional right of Singaporeans to form associations, save in certain circumstances. At the same time, there is clarity on the basis upon which the Registrar can reject a society’s application. This was specifically acknowledged by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in the same speech. He said and I quote, \"In the first instance, the Registrar will have the discretion to look at applications. But his discretion is not an unfettered one… He bases his discretion on the Act itself. Section 4 of the Act sets out the premises upon which he can reject a society's application.\"
Under clause 3(a) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Registrar is vested with a discretion instead. The word \"shall\" is proposed to be replaced with \"may\".
On the face of it, it is proposed that the Registrar is to be given a certain measure of discretion to decide whether or not to register a specified society. On the face of it, the ambit of discretion is not specifically spelt out, save that it is subject to several circumstances set out in section 4 where the Registrar has the specific power to refuse registration of specified societies.
May I ask the hon Minister of State how would such a proposed amendment be aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose behind section 4 of the Act as spelt out by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in 2004?
In a similar vein, I seek the hon Minister of State's explanation on the proposal to vest in the Registrar the power to not register a specified society unless the rules of the society include or exclude provisions that the Registrar may direct. This is set out in clause 3(c) of the Bill.
Again, having regard to the constitutional provisions that I have highlighted earlier in my speech, may I ask what the ambit of this power will be? And I understand from the hon Minister of State's speech that it is meant to be used where national interests are engaged. But interestingly, unlike the power when you are dealing with amendments of rules, which is spelt out in clause 8(c) of the Bill, the grounds in respect of which the Registrar may invoke a direction to amend the rules is absent, when it comes to requiring the applicant to amend the rules at the point of application before the society is even registered. So, there is a dichotomy in the approach.
May I ask the hon Minister of State whether it is contemplated that the power would always be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution? Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the automatic registration regime was the main amendment introduced in the Societies (Amendment) Bill in 2004.
That was, in turn, derived from a recommendation by the Remaking Singapore Committee, chaired by then Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, to adopt a differentiated approach by listing down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval. Those outside the list would be \"automatically\" approved and registered.
The Committee added a caveat that the registrations of such societies could still be revoked if they were subsequently found to use the society for unlawful purposes.
MHA then consulted the public on this and public feedback was generally supportive. MHA then finetuned the feedback received and finalised the scheme.
Under the 2004 Societies (Amendment) Bill, the \"automatic regime\" required the Registrar of Societies to register these societies on the date the application is received without making further inquiries, as long as the payment of the prescribed fee and other formalities are met.
During the Second Reading of the Bill in 2004, the then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, said that the amendments would \"make it easier for many societies to be registered\" and that \"the changes are in line with the Government's move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship.\" He called this automatic regime a \"forward-looking approach\".
The Bill before us today reverses some of the liberalisations to the Societies Act in 2004. It seeks to allow the Registrar to require further information to ascertain whether the society does, indeed, qualify for registration via the Automatic Route.
The Bill also allows the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered, is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore or would be contrary to Singapore's national interests or security. This effectively removes the automatic registration process in all but name, as every registration, even for societies that are not specified in the Schedule, will, henceforth, be subject to additional scrutiny. Thus, if the 2004 amendments were a \"forward-looking approach\", this Bill appears to be a backward-looking approach.
Why are the amendments to the automatic registration route now necessary? What has changed between 2004, when they were introduced, and now?
Section 24(1) of the Act already empowers the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. If there is need for an addition to the list of specified societies listed in the Schedule, the Minister is already empowered under section 33A to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette. If the society engages in illegal activities, it can be dealt with through a whole host of laws to safeguard national security and racial and religious harmony.
The Minister of State has cited hypothetical examples. Does she have real examples of society applications submitted since 2004 under the Automatic Route where one or both of the \"two gaps\" she mentioned were breached? What instances were there of registrations of non-specified societies that posed a national security threat and should not have been registered and how did the Registrar deal with those cases?
How many applications to form societies were rejected or refused registration by the Registrar in the past five years and what were the reasons for their rejection or refusal of registration?
Since 2004, we have seen a proliferation of access to the worldwide web, social media, smartphones and artificial intelligence. There is no shortage of data for the authorities to conduct background checks on applicants, even without asking them for more information.
Additionally, questionnaires can be built into the online application form and the applicants' answers to these questions could be used to flag out societies that are not eligible for the automatic registration route. The applicant can then be immediately notified to select the normal registration route before submitting their application.
If all these gates fail and the society gets registered through misrepresentation, the Minister can dissolve the society under section 24(1).
Groups nowadays can easily organise themselves over closed chatgroups and will likely avoid going through the hassle of registering a society if it is made more onerous. It will impose a greater burden on law-abiding groups who diligently register their societies.
By placing more hurdles for groups seeking to organise formally, the unintended effect could be to drive them and their activities underground. When this happens, the Registry of Societies will lose regulatory oversight of their financial conduct, which is one area where regulation is necessary in the public interest. Can the Minister of State assure the House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face longer waiting periods for approval than under the current regime?
Finally, why do societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights, or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule? The inclusion of these types of societies in the Schedule means that they cannot be registered under the Automatic Route.
Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said in 2004 that \"such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause.\" Is this still the Government's position and, more importantly, is that the only reason? I look forward to the Minister of State's answers to my questions.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, social groups play a critical role in fostering social cohesion among Singaporeans. They serve as platforms for the development of strong bonds and community relations, uniting individuals from various social and cultural backgrounds. By forming a society, these groups establish a common identity among members who share a specific objective or purpose. Societies provide a setting for members to engage in discussions or activities related to particular interests or issues in Singapore.
I appreciate MHA's effort in simplifying the process for registration of societies in the past. However, despite existing regulations governing the registration of societies, the evolving societal dynamics and complex international environment have made it more challenging to manage the risks and threats associated with social groups.
Societies can be vulnerable to, and potentially engage in, unlawful activities or be subject to undue foreign influence. Hence, I support the proposed Societies (Amendment) Bill, aimed at strengthening safeguards against such threats.
I would like to focus my speech on three clarifications: one, the Automatic Route's comprehensive vetting process; two, the criteria for special appeals to the Minister for Home Affair; and three, strategies for safeguarding against undue foreign influence on societies that focus on sensitive issues like politics, race and religion.
Firstly, in the amendment Bill, clause 4 amends section 4A to empower the Registrar to refuse to register a society that is not specified in a Schedule, or a non‑specified society, if the Registrar is satisfied that the non‑specified society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace.
With the amendment, non-specified societies that apply via the Automatic Route are subject to inquiries by the Registrar to ascertain if they, indeed, qualify for registration via the Automatic Route. It is essential to strike a balance between enabling the formation of societies and ensuring that these groups do not pose risks to national security or public order. I believe that the proposed amendment aims to serve this very purpose. However, I seek to understand the methodology that the Registrar will employ to make these judgements. How comprehensive will the vetting process be and what measures will be put in place to ensure that societies with potential risks are effectively identified?
Additionally, I would like to clarify with MHA on the specific criteria that will be employed to assess whether societies are engaged in unlawful activities that will be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This will offer greater clarity to the public, as well as existing and prospective societies, on the conditions that must be met to ensure compliance.
Secondly, clause 4 of the Bill also amends section 4A to provide the right of appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs from the decision of the Registrar not to register or to refuse a non-specified society. This provides a means for groups to be able to seek redress if they feel that they have a strong case for registration. This appeal process ensures opportunity for due process and serves as an important check-and-balance mechanism. On this issue, I would like to ask MHA how many appeals have been reviewed over the years by the Minister for both scheduled and non-specified societies, and on what grounds are the appeals granted by the Minister.
Lastly, it is worth noting the susceptibility of registered societies in Singapore to foreign influence interests through covert operations. We are reminded that in today's globalised world, the reach of foreign powers is not limited by borders and this makes the regulations of our societies even more imperative.
I hope to understand how MHA intends to combat that in this amendment Bill. While clause 9 of the amendment Bill, which modifies section 11A, clearly empowers the Registrar to mandate rule changes for specified societies as a condition for registration, I am concerned if this is sufficient to manage potential risks.
This formal compliance might appease the authorities on paper, but there remains the risk that the society in question could continue to pursue unlawful objectives. Therefore, I seek clarification from MHA on the mechanisms in place to ensure that undue foreign influence does not infiltrate specified societies discussing or promoting issues related to sensitive issues.
Additionally, will non-specified societies be directed or asked to modify their constitutions if they are identified as engaging in causes that seem to discuss or promote issues that are not aligned with a specific policy or the national interest of Singapore?
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot overlook the delicate balance that must be maintained between allowing societies and interest groups to grow and safeguarding national security. Internal security is of paramount importance to safeguard Singapore against social divisions that destabilise and tear apart any social fabric.
As I have raised earlier, we must ensure that our legal frameworks are robust enough to protect our community groups from being exploited for unlawful purposes. As such, the registration of our societies, whether specified under the Schedule of the Societies Act or not, should advance objectives in promoting communal harmony and the interest of all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to first declare my interests as a past and current serving office-bearer of several societies. More relevant and presently, I am the President of Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud and Honorary Secretary of Singapore Psychiatric Association. And I also have memberships in a few other registered societies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I read the Societies (Amendment) Bill with much interest and, if I may, there is a certain duality that exists within the Bill.
The first of this duality is that it firmly entrenches our determination as a country to maintain public peace, welfare and good order, and protect what is in our national interest. It also suggests and reinforces that we make no apologies in protecting our Singapore society against undesirable and offensive influences that could fracture us along naturally occurring differences, such as religious and racial identities, or against ideas that are rooted in illegal activities or arising from foreign interference.
I am also heartened that the Bill's reach goes wide enough to be able to hold accountable persons who, directly or by proxy, allow any unlawful assembly, induce membership, publish materials and procure subscription and aid for the purposes of such unlawful societies.
I think these rules are necessary and the spirit of the amendments keeps pace with our desire to protect society against such detrimental activities.
The second of this duality, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Bill, notwithstanding the increase of maximum punishments and fines and clarifications on the powers of the Registrar of Societies, provides latitude for societies to flourish and for like-minded individuals to share their common perspectives and come together to advocate, to promote, to discuss and to deepen understanding of a wide set of issues and interests. These can range from issues relating to ethnicity, to religion, to nationality or language, to political inclinations, to civil liberties and rights, to the environment and even to animal welfare.
In this regard, the importance of societies within our society cannot be understated. Societies are like ingredients to the recipe of what Singapore is and could become. And beyond political affiliations in this House, I can say with a degree of confidence that many hon Members of the House are, or previously have been, members of societies and ground-up initiatives as well.
The nature of the establishment of any one society necessarily involves a group of people invested in a particular topic or issue enough to want to make formal a cause to call their collective own. It tells of a tale of a determined advocacy and of a meeting of intellectual minds and of a sense of belonging via a common thread, theme and identity.
By extension, this adds much richness and diversity to Singapore because societies, directly or indirectly, develop a rootedness to the local community, allow for outlets of philanthropy and groom the next generation of community leadership.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for youths especially, societies give opportunity to cultivate new ideas, address contemporary issues of interest and advocate for emerging concerns relevant to them and their future.
The thing about new ideas though, especially those without precedent and appearing as foreign and unfamiliar at the onset, is that they may well be seen as an affront initially to the current norm and equilibrium. New ideas could be viewed with much doubt, cynicism or even distrust by the establishment.
I hope that while the Ministry maintains its firm hand on the powers accorded by the Bill to be decisive when it comes to issues of national interest and security, that it also tempers the weight of this responsibility with an even-handed approach to some novelty, creativity, youthful exuberance and unusual ideas so that Singapore society can flourish from the diversity in our societies.
Beyond looking at the current laws and regulations, one must also recognise that the texture and grain of societies registered in any one era of our history tell us, to some extent, the matters of interest, influence and advocacy of the larger Singapore society then.
On 1 October 2023, via a simple search online on the Registry of Societies, I found that more than half, about 4,420 out of a total of 8,321 societies currently registered, are relatively new and were registered only at the turn of the century from 1 January 2001 onwards.
However, it is noteworthy that almost one in 10 registered societies today, or about 798 of them, had already existed pre-Independence more than 58 years ago.
Even as the Ministry is able to exercise its powers and authority, I would urge that the Ministry consider with some nuance, discernment and concern any dissolution of societies that have a long history, track record and legacy alongside Singapore's history.
It may well be that the cause remains as true, important and relevant today as it did pre-Independence, and it is just that the current prevailing interest, strength in leadership or continuity remain a temporary but periodic challenge for that particular society.
Rather than reinventing new organisations at every turn, I urge some discretion to give time and support for such societies, steeped in history and legacy, to recalibrate its identity and reinvigorate itself anew rather than be dissolved. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): The Societies (Amendment) Bill encompasses, among others, Malay/Muslim community organisations which have existed for a long time and did a lot of good for the community since the 1960s. Apart from LBKM, there are also other organisations like Alwehdah, Jamiyah, PERDAUS, PPIS and 4PM which have served for decades in community matters.
These organisations have their own emphasis and focus based on their areas of expertise and specialisation. Although their specific focus area may be different, just like the interdependent bamboo and riverbank, these organisations have shown a desire to work together to address the concerns of the community and the nation.
These organisations have a strong link to Singapore's history and have sculpted, shaped and influenced the lives of our community in Singapore together.
It is normal that many youths want to try out new interests and, sometimes, these interests seem to go against the cultural norms of the day. Although the sculpture may appear different, the style, nonetheless, remains the same: these youths have a deep desire and commitment to serve and uplift society.
At the same time, I also call on youths and professionals to contribute to prominent organisations, and it is not something that is old-fashioned or backward; far from it.
In fact, lately, the torch of leadership in some organisations have already been passed on to the next generation of leaders. They still value legacy and history and have gained confidence and benefited from the knowledge and experience of past leaders.
Some members of these organisations have stepped forward and seized the opportunity to participate in national conversations, such as the National Youth Council and the National Council of Social Services, as well as in the international arena, such as the ASEAN Youth Fellowship.
I hope the Government can balance the need to be firm when enforcing the regulations through this Societies (Amendment) Bill. I fully support the use of tough and expeditious methods to prevent organisations from being corrupt and unlawful or from having divisive elements.
At the same time, I also hope that the Government can recognise the tremendous legacy, history and contributions of organisations that have been working hard over the decades to do good for the people of Singapore.
New and contemporary ideas may sometimes cause misunderstanding initially due to differences in perspective, but if these ideas essentially stem from a desire to uplift society together, I think we should allow such ideas to be explored.
Sooner or later, changes and new ideas will become inevitable. In fact, a sign of a maturing society is when it gives due attention to renewal and recalibration after careful consideration.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am in firm support of our stance to protect fiercely our national security and interests. I am also of the view that civil society needs space to flourish and grow as well, because the nature of interests, texture of advocacy and the tenor of the times will certainly shift as the years go by.
And as these shift, tension will surely exist now and then between new, seemingly disruptive ideas and the prevailing social norm. These may be seen as presenting a challenge to the existing good order of things initially. My hope is that the Ministry considers these factors with perspective and discernment where they apply. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Societies (Amendment) Bill.
This Bill strengthens the regulatory framework, expands the power of the regulator and provides clarity on the registration and administration of societies.
The proposed changes will enable societies to function effectively while remaining vigilant to the vulnerabilities and threats that may affect the society, its members and beneficiaries. These regulatory measures are necessary to ensure public safety and security.
It is important to note that the need for regulation and oversight of registered societies goes beyond enforcing laws and norms. They act as preventive measures, deterring potential wrongdoers from engaging in harmful activities. By providing clear guidelines and enforcing consequences, regulations create a culture of accountability, discouraging individuals from taking advantage of others or exploiting loopholes for personal gain.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to declare my involvement in societies as a board member, office-bearer and an advisor.
Sir, societies are valuable partners in our social service sector. Societies complement the Government's service delivery, foster civic engagement and play a crucial role in addressing social and economic issues, such as poverty, healthcare, housing and education. Their programmes and services can assist, improve the quality of life for vulnerable populations, reduce inequality and discrimination and promote social inclusion. We need to recognise and celebrate their contribution.
It is, however, also important to remember the increasing threats connected with societies and it is reasonable that the Government provide some level of regulation and oversight of societies. This regulation and oversight must, however, be proportionate to the need.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits of this expansion, I do have some clarifications and suggestions.
I note that the proposed amendments will require the Registry of Societies to give reasons for rejecting a society’s application to change its rules, name and place of business. The provision of clear and informative reasons will assist societies to better understand and comply with required rules and regulations.
The provision of separate registration routes reflects a risk-based approach. It assures societies ease of registration and also allows societies the option of opting for automatic registration based on their mandate and objectives. Considering that some societies may be of higher risk and some may represent little or no risk at all, the proposed changes will strengthen the Registrar's capacity to examine the registration of societies that may pose harm to public safety.
Apart from making further enquiry or requiring new societies to include specific rules in their constitution, may I suggest that selected societies be required to include a detailed description of their governing body or management committee and the stipulated duties of its members at the point of registration and for this information to be evaluated and audited. An example of a similar requirement can be found in the New Zealand Incorporated Societies Act 2022. That Act defines six specific duties for officers, including to act in good faith and in the best interests of the society and exercise reasonable care and diligence.
On that, may I check if the Ministry would consider introducing explicit whistle-blower protection programmes to inform members, volunteers and beneficiaries or the public to report suspicious activities without fear of retaliation?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is commendable that Singapore has comprehensive guidelines and adopts best practices, including those suggested by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This was explained yesterday at the Ministerial Statement on Singapore's Anti-money Laundering Regime. However, considering the complexity of fulfilling required financial obligations, may I suggest that those societies classified to be at higher risk of exploitation by bad actors be given additional support and guidance? May I also suggest including the requirement for key members to undergo mandatory training on rules, countering threats and vulnerabilities before setting up a society? This would also allow members to consider novel financial regulations, such as the use of smart contracts on blockchain platforms to automatically release funds or utilising blockchain technology to maintain an immutable ledger of financial transactions and activities.
Apart from financial issues, I am concerned about young people and vulnerable individuals joining a society and being groomed into engaging in undesirable or criminal activities. There is also the danger of members being victimised. This is a real threat, considering the proliferation of fake news, the ease of connectivity online and potentially negative influence arising from online gatherings. A society can be formed with all good intent, yet, over time, have their meetings infiltrated or influenced by new, sometimes anonymous, members and end up discussing or promoting dangerous or extreme topics of ideologies.
Another area of concern is related to technology and the formation of online groups on various digital platforms. It is harder to monitor and establish the underlying intention of such groups.
In view of the potential threats and challenges, would the Ministry consider providing online or other options to allow societies to ask questions and seek guidance and support about their compliance obligations?
Sir, legislation is just one aspect of control and we need to constantly educate the public for them to be aware of risks that may come from joining a society and engaging in activities organised by a society and from bad actors who may infiltrate a society. To promote responsible engagement and giving, it is important to share information with the public. Would the Ministry consider developing public awareness campaigns to educate volunteers and the public about the importance of supporting ethical and compliant society?
I am pleased to note that members of the public can search the database for registered societies. However, to access further details about the society, they need to purchase that information. Has consideration been given to the development of a free-access database that can provide greater information to the public? By providing a tool to search for information on societies, the public can make informed decisions and play a role in monitoring and reporting suspicious activities.
Sir, the changes suggested in this Bill affirm Singapore’s commitment to maintaining its global reputation for order and security.
I believe the amendments are a positive step, and regulations can help create a more just, ethical and inclusive society that benefits not only its members but the larger community.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Societies Act stands as an important measure in safeguarding the interests of Singapore. This Act, in its previous iterations and at present, ensures that groups with the potential for unlawful activities, threats to national security or activities contrary to our nation's interests, do not gain traction or growth within our borders. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must consider if allowing the Registrar to include or exclude specific clauses into a society's constitution before it is registered might be seen as excessive Government intervention in its internal workings. Furthermore, if the members of the would-be society find itself in disagreement with the clauses prescribed by the Registrar, what recourse do they have against the Registrar's decision? Likewise, in the event of a registration being denied, what avenues exist for societies to appeal such decisions? Is there also a timeline for appeals?
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we delve into the provision detailing the grounds that the Registrar can consider when evaluating applications for amendments in rules and names, as well as addressing concerns regarding foreign interference, several queries come to mind. Will the Bill provide a comprehensive list of considerations for societies to reference? Could there potentially be a reference guide or illustrative examples, akin to a \"blacklist,\" to assist applicants in navigating this process with clarity?
Moreover, when the Bill references matters \"contrary to Singapore's national security or interest\", I wish to clarify whether this encompasses political societies or those with political affiliations. Would this entail the application of the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act, or FICA, concerning the registration of such societies? In addition, how will this Bill regulate societies with foreign affiliations, particularly those with undisclosed intentions? Will societies be mandated to declare such affiliations before they are allowed to be registered?
Furthermore, it is critical to scrutinise transnational societies whose principal bank accounts may be situated in territories or countries that are known for being tax havens, such as the Cayman Islands, Bahamas or the British Virgin Islands. This heightened scrutiny is warranted to prevent potential cases of money laundering and tax evasion.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we turn our attention to groups that are organised in virtual spaces, within chat groups and on the Internet, a set of unique challenges arises. Earlier, Member Assoc Prof Razwana Begum mentioned this as well. Are there plans to expressly address these societies under the Act? If so, what conditions will be set forth for their registration? Particularly, when these societies operate on a secure or private platforms provided by companies that are not governed by Singapore's laws, ensuring compliance in the digital realm becomes a complex undertaking.
It is important to address how the respective agencies plan to police this expansive digital landscape, given the evolving nature of technology. Laws, no matter how well-crafted, are only effective if they can be enforced. On this note, I would also like to inquire about the nature and extent of cooperation that Singapore has established or intends to establish with companies that provide digital services and products that allow online societies to form, specifically regarding the objectives of this Bill. Examples may be Telegram, Facebook groups and WhatsApp. Cooperation on a global scale is imperative to effectively address the challenges posed by societies operating in the digital sphere.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my last point is on administrative concerns. As we explore the proposal allowing societies that are also registered charities to submit their annual reports through a \"one-stop\" service, it brings to mind practical considerations. Will the Ministry establish an entirely new portal for this purpose or will it be seamlessly integrated with the existing MHA iROSES system?
Today, there are entities, such as religious organisations, that have the option to register both as societies and as charities. Is there an intention to streamline this process? Additionally, how do we educate the public about the appropriate steps to take in such cases?
Last but not least, it is essential to recognise that the workload on the Registrar of Societies, or ROS, will inevitably increase. This raises important questions about whether ROS will need to recalibrate its processes, potentially requiring additional manpower. How will ROS collaborate with the Police to share the workload and ensure seamless distribution of information?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill was conceived to establish a framework for the regulation of societal activities, an imperative stemming from the historical context of combating illegal societies. As we reflect upon its implications in the present day, we are compelled to redefine our perspective on the types of societies that necessitate regulation in today's landscape, with the paramount goal of safeguarding our national security.
In this digital age, we must re-evaluate our approach to society regulation, acknowledging that many of these entities operate predominantly in virtual spaces, transcending national boundaries in an era of globalisation and digitalisation. Some may not readily disclose their true agendas, underscoring the need for a regulatory framework that empowers the Government to act swiftly and effectively when necessary. This involves not only implementing the necessary regulations, but also having the resources to monitor, as well as the levers to enforce the rules. Only through this holistic approach can we adequately address the challenges posed by societies in today's dynamic and interconnected world. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
The Registry of Societies' website says that the earliest piece of legislation relating to societies was the Dangerous Societies Suppression Ordinance in 1869. It had the aim of eliminating secret societies in the Straits Settlement.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
But since then, the types of societies we see has expanded, as small ground-up initiatives and small groups come together and formalise – a society being seen as a simpler and more straightforward framework of governance and reporting, than say a private limited entity.
Based on a simple search in the past year between October 2022 and 2023, we have seen over 100 societies registered, serving various sectors, such as the community, hobbyists, arts and sports. Many form a dynamic part of our social fabric.
I have three brief points on the Bill.
Firstly, the amendments relating to the automatic registration route, which will now permit the Registrar to seek further information and reject an application in the event where the society, if registered, is, and I quote, \"likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or contrary to Singapore's national interests or security.\"
Sir, the Automatic Route allows for expediency and administrative ease. It will appear to some that, given the amendments, perhaps we should have just one route that is non-automatic and the Registrar can ask the relevant questions if necessary. While it is, of course, critical for the system to have sufficient checks and balances and hold malicious actors accountable, and I agree with the overall ethos of the Bill, it is also important to communicate with potential applicants and ensure that their applications are not being pre-emptively concluded.
I understand that in the last five years, an average of five applications were rejected yearly. I would thus like to ask the Minister of State about the scope and interpretation of \"purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order\" and any key principles of those which are likely to be rejected and hope that this can be outlined for greater clarity.
Secondly, the Bill specifies the Registrar's ability to request certain societies to amend their rules as a condition for registration. Failure to do so can impede an application. Section 11A of the Societies Act outlines the grounds on which the Registrar considers for an application to change the rules – I understand that this would be similar to my previous point – would be contrary to Singapore's national interests or security, would be prejudicial to public peace, welfare, good order or contrary to the Act. However, these are fairly broad and it would be helpful if the Minister of State could provide greater clarity on the criteria. How far will the Government intervene in recommending the language or the rules to be included?
Thirdly, as we continue our digitalisation pursuit. I am also heartened to note the amendments which cater for the electronic transmission of service documents. Such amendments relate to enhancing convenience and bring greater accessibility. Further, I appreciate the implementation of a one-stop portal for societies, which are also charities, to submit their annual submissions in streamlining the process. Does the Ministry have a timeline, as many are looking forward to this one-stop portal? Organisations, such as the Singapore Cancer Society, Silver Ribbon Singapore and Cornerstone Community Services, are societies with charitable and social purposes that do a lot for our community here in Singapore.
Sir, one final point of clarity to ask the Ministry regarding office-bearers. It is important for societies to be governed well by their office-bearers. Are there any opportunities for office-bearers to receive governance training or any minimum age and experience required to be an office-bearer of a society?
On a small note, I also note that individuals with prior convictions may not be permitted to hold office in societies. Given our push in advocating for second chances – and many of us have seen the hard work and determination of ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf and want to support others in turn, for example, as a desistor – what possibilities are there and channels for such individuals to become leaders of such groups, for a fair assessment of their suitability?
To conclude, Sir, many such organisations first start off as an informal smaller ground-up initiative and later put forth an application under this Act, because a form of formal recognition as a legal entity is helpful before they can access grants and funding for their organisation to be sustainable in the long term. Choosing to register as a legal entity, in this case, as a society, is no easy step as many of the members are volunteers with full-time jobs. It is crucial to ensure that the process is simple, efficient and friendly to encourage a thriving people-sector, where like-minded people passionate about causes, such as the environment, mental health and youth empowerment, can exchange ideas, advocate for their concerns and take action.
I hope more can be done on a wider level to support groups, such as these, who choose to take the step of registration, including potentially considering a new type of legal entity, for such cause-based ground-up initiatives. Notwithstanding the above, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Please allow me to address their questions.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the Registrar of Societies would assess whether an application, submitted via the Automatic Route, would pose risks to national security or public order, or be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This assessment looks at many factors, such as the background of the applicants, the proposed activities of the society and the nature of their foreign affiliations. Where needed, MHA will consult other agencies.
Ms Ng asked whether non-specified societies will be directed to modify their constitutions if they are identified as engaging in causes that seem to discuss or promote issues aligned with a specific policy objective. The answer is yes, and the current law already allows us to do it.
Currently, under section 11A(2) of the Societies Act, the Registrar already has powers to direct a non-specified society to amend its constitution, if it is in the Registrar’s opinion that the amendments are needed to safeguard national interest, or public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore.
Ms Ng and Mr Yip spoke about the appeals for societies whose applications are rejected. Questions on how many appeals have been reviewed over the years by the Minister for specified and non-specified societies and on what grounds the appeals are granted by the Minister were asked.
Currently, non-specified societies are automatically registered and cannot be rejected. All appeals received by the Minister are for specified societies rejected through the Normal Route.
Over the past three years, we received four statutory appeals to the Minister. In assessing statutory appeals, the Minister will have to weigh the views of the applicants against the Registrar's. The grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific. Let me repeat that: the grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific.
Mr Gerald Giam asked why we need to amend the Automatic Route. MHA reviews its laws and regulations regularly to ensure that they remain up-to-date. These amendments are part of our regular review.
I would like to reiterate that there will still be two routes to register a society and, even with amendments to the Automatic Route, MHA expects the majority of the applications via the Automatic Route to be approved without having to make further inquiries. I can also assure this House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face a longer waiting period for approvals than under the current regime.
Mr Giam asked if there were any applications that were approved via the Automatic Route that should not have been approved because they posed a threat. There were no applications that were automatically approved that we thought should not have been approved.
However, we have come across three applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route that triggered some concerns, as the applicants had some antecedents. For operational reasons, we seek Members’ understanding that we are not able to share more about these three applications and, for their own reasons which we do not know, the applicants did not pursue their applications.
Mr Giam also asked, instead of amending the Automatic Route, why not expand the Schedule to include more categories? We will still need to allow the Registrar to ask questions as we need to be able to assess whether the application does, indeed, fall outside the categories in the Schedule. Sometimes, the Registrar may not be able to assess based purely on the details submitted in the application.
Mr Giam suggested that questionnaires be built into the application form to help identify societies whether they should be submitted via the Normal or Automatic Route. This is already the process today. Applicants have to answer a set of questions as part of the application process. Based on their replies, the system will route to either the Automatic or the Normal Route.
However, as mentioned, there could be instances where the Registrar may need to make enquiries to ascertain whether the declarations were done correctly, for example, when the objectives in their draft constitution indicate a function covered in the Schedule, but yet their declaration indicated otherwise. In such a situation, the amendments would allow the Registrar to ask questions.
Mr Giam asked for examples of applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route but should have been submitted via the Normal Route. This happens once in a while. Applicants make incorrect declarations, though without ill-intent, that result in their applications sent via the wrong route. Let me give an actual example, but with the name redacted.
Currently, pugilistic or martial arts fall within the categories in the Schedule. Hence, applications for societies that deal with pugilistic or martial arts have to be submitted via the Normal Route. An applicant clicked \"no\" on the question pertaining to whether it is a martial arts group, thinking that it is a sports group. However, ROS reviewed the application and found that its constitution listed martial arts as an activity. ROS then moved it to the Normal Route instead.
Mr Murali Pillai highlighted the change from \"shall\" to \"may\" in section 4(1) of the Societies Act. Currently, section 4 of the Societies Act provides that the Registrar shall register a specified society upon application and payment of the prescribed fee unless one of the grounds for refusal in section 4 applies.
Currently, the prescribed fee is paid only upon approval of application. Hence, upon payment of the fees, the Registrar must – shall – register the society.
We are amending the Societies Act to state that the prescribed fee is be paid upon application, instead of upon approval. This means that, after the payment of fees, the Registrar might still refuse to register the society based on one of the grounds in section 4. Therefore, it is inaccurate to mandate that the Registrar must register the society upon payment of the prescribed fee.
To be clear, if none of the grounds for refusal in section 4 is made out, the Registrar will not refuse to register the society. Hence, the amendment remains aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose of section 4, as stated by then Senior Minister of State Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in 2004.
Mr Murali also asked about the ambit of the Registrar’s powers to mandate the inclusion or exclusion of provisions of the constitution of a specified society before registration. He further asked how this power will be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution.
To clarify, as mentioned in my opening speech, this is not a new power. This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant approval also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions. The amendment to the Societies Act simply makes this power explicit.
The Registrar’s discretion is not unfettered; his decisions must still have a nexus to Singapore’s security, public order or morality. Hence, even with the amendments, the Registrar’s powers must still be exercised in line with Article 14 of the Constitution.
To answer Mr Yip Hong Weng’s question on the recourse if there are disagreements on the rules being inserted, applicants can write to the Registry of Societies and we will consider each case on a case-by-case basis. If the Registrar refuses to approve their application due to their refusal to insert the rules, then the applicants can also appeal to the Minister within 30 days under section 4(4) of the Societies Act.
Mr Giam asked why societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule. These are sensitive issues and need to be appropriately handled by the society in order for it not to become a socially divisive one. In some cases, they could also be a channel for foreign influence into sensitive domestic affairs. Hence, societies that cover these areas should apply via the Normal Route. I would like to highlight that about 50% of applications go through the Normal Route – 50% of all applications to register a society go through the Normal Route – and the vast majority are approved.
Mr Yip asked for clarity on the list of considerations for amendments of rule and name. This is provided for in the amendments under clause 8 of the Bill, which listed the grounds of which the application to change name and rules will be rejected. Societies can also refer to the \"Frequently Asked Questions\" on the Registry of Societies' website for guidelines on amendments of rules and names.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum noted that the Bill would provide clarity on the reasons why applications to change names and rules are rejected. I wish to clarify that the amendments in clause 8 of the Bill list the grounds on which the Registrar can reject applications to change names or rules. It does not legally require the Registrar to provide reasons for rejecting the applications to change names or rules. Having said that, ROS will engage the applicants and advise, where appropriate, as long as it does not involve the disclosure of sensitive information.
We had several questions on the grounds of rejection.
Mr Giam asked how many applications to form societies were rejected in the past five years and what were the grounds for their rejection. On the grounds of rejecting an application for registration, Ms Nadia Samdin asked when the Registrar would consider an application to be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order.
Ms Nadia also asked when the Registrar would refuse an application to amend the rules of a society on the grounds that it is contrary to national interests or security, prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or contrary to the Societies Act. Mr Murali also asked questions in a similar vein on how the powers based on these grounds would be exercised.
In the past five years, 53 applications were rejected. This is 3.7% of all applications received during this period. The grounds for rejection for those via the Normal Route are as stated in sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Societies Act. For example, an application may be rejected if the society was likely to be used for unlawful purposes, or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or that it would be contrary to national security or interest for the society to be registered.
The Registrar considers many factors in assessing whether an application should be rejected based on the grounds in the Societies Act and in the Bill. Let me give some examples.
Applications for registration may be refused where doing so is necessary to: prevent social segregation or religious and racial disharmony; safeguard Singapore against foreign interference; or protect public safety or Singapore’s security in general.
Applications to amend rules may be rejected if the rules would lead to a breach of the Societies Act or the Societies Regulations. For example, section 12 of the Societies Act prohibits a person from acting as an officer of a society if he has been declared unfit to hold office. If the amended rules would have the effect of permitting a disqualified person to act as an officer, the Registrar may reject the application.
Ms Ng and Mr Yip asked how this Bill will combat foreign interference through registered societies. We already have laws to protect against foreign interference through entities in Singapore, including registered societies and companies. In particular, FICA, which was passed in Parliament in 2021, will allow the Government to designate an entity, such as a registered society, as a politically significant person. Once designated, the entity will be subject to countermeasures, such as being required to disclose political donations and foreign affiliations. If there is a higher risk of foreign interference, the Government can also issue stepped-up countermeasures to impose stricter safeguards, such as disallowing foreign political donations, and foreigners from holding leadership positions.
On religious organisations, we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019, to require religious groups to disclose foreign donations and affiliations and to be subject to local leadership requirements. We can also impose additional safeguards on religious groups if there is a greater threat of foreign influence.
Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that \"selected societies\" be required to provide more details on their governing body at the point of registration. I would like to reassure her that the Registrar can and will ask for more information, over and above what societies submit in the application forms, if the Registrar assesses a need to.
Dr Syed Harun recognised that the Bill strikes a balance between public safety and interests, while allowing the space for expression in the local communities. He also urged MHA to be discerning when making decisions on dissolving societies that have a long track record. I would like to reassure Dr Syed Harun that we will continue to strive to maintain a good balance in considering whether to dissolve a society.
Mr Yip asked about the one-stop service portal for charities. The intent of the portal is that it would provide a seamless integration between the charities unit and Registry of Societies systems. Ideally, charities which are also societies will go to one system for their Annual Returns submission. The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later.
Mr Yip also asked if groups that are organised in virtual spaces within chat groups and on the Internet will be addressed under the Societies Act and the conditions for their registrations. In the Societies Act, a society includes any club, company, partnership or association of 10 or more persons, whatever its nature or object, except for groups that are already governed by other Acts, such as companies under the Companies Act.
Hence, groups that form in virtual spaces meet the technical definition of a society. That said, we have to take a practical approach: groups that are transient and informal do not fall under the ambit of the Societies Act.
Mr Giam asked if the amended Automatic Route would deter legitimate groups from registering as a society. I would like to share that groups can, indeed, maintain themselves as virtual groups or informal groups. However, without a legal entity, these groups cannot do things, such as open a bank account in the name of their group or rent a property in the name of their group for their activities. And this will likely constrain their ability to attract members.
Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that more resources and information, such as providing mandatory training on rules, countering threats and vulnerabilities, be given to societies which are at higher risks of being exploited by bad actors. She also mentioned the formation of online groups on various digital platforms and asked for support to guide them on their compliance obligations. The relevant domain agencies would provide such information. For example, there are available resources for societies to consider, such as the Terrorist Financing Risk Mitigation Toolkit developed by the Charities Unit. That said, we will take up Assoc Prof Razwana’s suggestion on how we can provide links to these resources on the ROS website. ROS is working on revamping their website and I have asked the team to incorporate Assoc Prof Razwana’s suggestion.
Assoc Prof Razwana also asked MHA to consider introducing explicit whistle-blower protection programmes to encourage and facilitate the reporting of “suspicious” activities. At this point, we do not think such measures are necessary. Individuals can already report “suspicious” activities to the Police and their identities can be protected. In particular, under section 127(1) of the Evidence Act, Police officers cannot be compelled to disclose where they got the information from as to the commission of any offence.
Assoc Prof Razwana raised concerns that vulnerable individuals, such as the young, may be susceptible to influence to engage in undesirable or criminal activities when joining a society and asked if there was any support to educate the public. Such education efforts would be undertaken by the domain agencies rather than the ROS. That said, if Assoc Prof Razwana has any specific area of concern, I will bring it back and convey her feedback to the relevant agency.
Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that the public have free access to information on societies. We are not contemplating this at this time as there are costs involved in maintaining a database and, for extraction of information, we currently impose charges to recover costs. For example, $10 will be charged for the online purchase of a society’s constitution.
Finally, we would like to thank Mr Yip for his concerns on the workload for ROS and the Singapore Police Force. We have established work processes between the two Departments and relevant information is exchanged where needed. We work together as one Home Team. That said, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Minister of State? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her detailed responses to my questions and for citing a real example where an applicant wrongly classified their route and ROS moved it to the Normal Route. Does this example not show that it is already possible for ROS to change the route of registration without this amendment to the Act?
Secondly, the Automatic Route was introduced by the Government in 2004. The Remaking Singapore Committee chaired by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan proposed this idea in 2003. Why was it deemed okay then but not now? And would the Minister of State agree that this is a reversal of some of the liberalisations introduced in 2004?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. On the first point, indeed, if the application, technically, were to belong to the specified route, as in it is part of the list of the Schedule of Specified societies, the Registrar can move the application to the Normal Route. But there could be instances where it is not clear that the application falls within that Schedule of societies. Therefore, we will need to empower the Registrar to be able to ask questions and be able to then move the application to the Normal Route, if necessary.
On the second point, indeed, MHA had proposed and created the Automatic Route in 2004. That said, we will always have to review the current landscape and look at whether or not the current Act still allows us to stay relevant.
For instance, as many Members have cited, we have seen geopolitical tensions; we have seen the possibility of foreign interference through various entities. We will have to make sure that we have the levers and that societies are not used for purposes that are prejudicial to good order, security, peace and harmony in Singapore.
Therefore, we find it necessary, where there are questions as to the intentions of certain societies, to make available the levers and empower the Registrar to be able to ask questions to make sure that the societies are registered under the correct route. I, therefore, see the amendments we are proposing today as actually forward-looking.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Minister of State Sun? None.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [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":"Flexible Work Arrangements for All","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many of our fellow Singaporeans, including Parliamentarians and political appointment holders alike, we have all witnessed first-hand in the last few years, how transformational flexible work arrangements (FWAs) can be for the better of both employers and employees. That is the reason why it has been one of the key proposals which I have been championing since I entered Parliament more than three years ago.
At the debate on the President’s Address during the Opening of Parliament, I spoke about how a key area of reform to build a stronger and more resilient Singapore society is in relation to support for families. While I recognised then that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will support employers to offer FWAs, I called on the Government to give employees the legislative right to FWAs, rather than non-legally binding advisories, and for the Government to lead by example.
More recently, during the 2023 MOM Committee of Supply (COS) debates, I shared in my speech that we had an opportunity to experience what it could look like to have FWAs, but I hope that my worst fears of a return to pre-COVID-19 workplace norms in Singapore will not come true.
I thus had a bit of a rude shock when in August this year, one of our Sengkang residents shared with me her own troubling experience with requesting for FWAs. The gist of it is that she is a mother of two, with one of her children requiring special attention. When she asked if she could retain her current FWA to better care for her children, her boss quipped that her kids are not even dying. If they were, then the company can consider giving more flexibility.
While I recognise that such bosses could be a minority and it may be line manager-specific and may not be representative of the firm’s approach to FWAs, I find such attitudes and the whole \"if you are not in the office, how do I know that you are working” mindset very troubling.
Through this Adjournment Motion, I wish to reiterate my call for the Government to legislate the right to FWAs for all workers and go beyond guidelines, advisories and moral suasion.
To begin with, the desire for work-life balance is a key consideration that weighs heavily on the minds of our workers, with over 50% of Singaporeans preferring work-life balance over a higher salary or job role, according to polls done by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in October 2022. In line with global trends, a LinkedIn report released in 2023 also noted that organisational support to balance work and personal life is one of the key priorities for employees in Singapore.
So, how do we balance things out?
A potential game-changer shone through the COVID-19 storm cloud as a silver lining, with companies adopting FWAs as part of their business continuity plans to tide them through the pandemic. By now, FWAs need no introduction and could take a myriad of forms, including the ability to work from home on a regular or hybrid basis, compressed work schedules, flexi-time, such as agreed start and finish times within agreed limits, and even informal flexibility on an as-needed basis. These may then be implemented according to the varying needs of the different employees and employers.
Post-pandemic, FWAs continue to be desired by our workers as they can better manage their professional and personal lives. In a 2022 white paper by Randstad, 42% of Singaporean respondents would not accept a job that does not provide FWAs, while in a 2023 report by Indeed, 85% of workers in Singapore desire flexibility at work, significantly above the global average of 66%. Additionally, 34% of workers also revealed that they would quit their jobs if the flexibility provided to them is revoked, while another 31% are not sure about it, yet they, too, might end up quitting.
It is thus clear that FWAs are a key aspect of talent attraction and retention at the workplace today and FWAs benefit all workers.
However, a fair number of employers are now summoning their employees back to the office post-pandemic. According to another Randstad survey in August 2022, 60% of respondents reported that their employers allowed them to work flexible hours, while 52% of them are allowed to work remotely. This is despite an overwhelming 94% of respondents who valued work-life balance.
A CNA commentary published in February 2023 suggested as much, with the title being, “After all this talk about flexible work, why are employers insisting on returning to the office full-time?”
Based on statistics from MOM’s Conditions of Employment 2022 report published in May 2023, it appears that the lifting of safe management measures meant the lifting of FWAs for a not insignificant proportion of firms, where the proportion of firms offering at least one scheduled FWA fell from 90.5% in 2021 to 71.4% in 2022, while the number of firms that did not offer any FWAs at all jumped from 9.5% in 2021 to 28.6% in 2022.
While MOM is hopeful that \"the provision of FWAs is likely to continue to remain high, above pre-COVID-19 levels\", only 50.3% of firms indicated that they are likely to continue to provide FWAs in the next 12 months, with 33.5% somewhat likely and 16.2% of firms not likely to do so, suggesting that the proportion of firms offering FWAs will, in all likelihood, continue to decline post-COVID-19.
To be fair, the trends are not unique to Singapore and can also be seen in certain firms overseas. A 2022 Microsoft survey indicated that 50% of the business leaders surveyed plan to, or have, required employees to return to the office full-time. After all, business leaders have a myriad of reasons, stemming from inertia and a conservative mindset, for dragging their feet when it comes to the adoption of FWAs in the post-pandemic workforce.
Such resistance by some still persists despite several studies showing that FWAs have been effective in driving up workplace productivity and improving employee well-being and motivation.
MOM's press release on 22 April 2022 presents such a dilemma, where even though the Ministry hopes for FWAs to be a permanent feature of the workplace, its own recommendations in paragraph 4(c) stated that and I quote, \"FWAs are not an entitlement and the requirements of the job take precedence\".
I can only imagine many employers saying what my National Service Encik would say when it comes to so-called \"welfare\" requests, \"this is a privilege, not an entitlement!\".
If we need another reason to legislate FWAs, we need to look no further than the other aspect of productivity, where our total fertility rate (TFR) is now at a record low of 1.04 for 2022. If COVID-19 is described as the crisis of a generation, then our TFR issue is, to my mind, the crisis of many generations, given the steady and worrying decline in our TFR which could spell an existential crisis for Singapore and Singaporeans.
According to a CNA and YouGov poll published this year, 39% of respondents did not want to have a child as it would have an impact on their career and lifestyle. Many of the respondents that CNA spoke to also lamented that the sheer stress and workload from their job inhibit them from childbearing.
We may have enhanced the Baby Bonus Scheme by a couple of thousand dollars, raised unpaid infant care leave while increasing the number of voluntary paternity leave by two weeks, while, ironically, reducing the Working Mother's Child Relief and making no changes to maternity leave which was last changed 15 years ago in 2008.
But I am not sure these new measures fundamentally address the tension between one's career and one's parental responsibilities. I acknowledge the concerns the Government has around legislating for more leave provisions. But we need to balance not just the short-term implications on the way companies have to redesign work processes, but also the long-term implications on our nation should the issue persist.
Take childcare leave, for example, which many Members have also spoken about. It stands at six days a year, regardless of the number of children one has. Yet, based on the Early Childhood Development Agency's guidelines, preschools can have up to six days of annual closure and three-and-a-half-days on the eve of any of the five stipulated public holidays. A Sengkang resident of mine further shared that there are eight full days and one-half day closure for the childcare centre she sends her kids to.
So, without even having our children fall sick, the existing childcare leave provisions are not even sufficient to deal with the scheduled school closures!
And to this point, I am sure many parents with young children will agree with me that they fall sick too often. And as much as parents want to be socially responsible, not everyone has the flexibility at work to look after their children when they fall sick.
Looking through my own records, I visited the paediatrician 20 times in just the last nine months!
With medical leave durations ranging from three to five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs?
If the Government believes for some reason that giving parents a couple more days of childcare leave per year to look after their children means employers will be facing severe difficulties, to the extent that their manpower costs and operations will be adversely impacted, as described by Minister Sun Xueling last month, then FWAs could be the key enabler to bridge the gap between employers and employees' needs. This could then help to cultivate an environment that enables parents to look after both their career and their children and reduce the tension that parents face today.
Single parents, especially, would benefit immensely from having greater flexibility at the workplace. They bear a heavier burden as they must single-handedly juggle between their care and work commitments. Therefore, FWAs, such as flexi-shifts and telecommuting, would certainly help to alleviate the burden that our single parents face, by allowing them to flexibly plan their work schedule, thus allowing them to find time for their children.
But regardless, we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results. We need to take bold and decisive steps and provide greater financial and non-financial support to Singaporean families, recognising that the stresses on families and the TFR crisis of generations, if not urgently addressed today, would have significant long-term socio-economic costs on Singapore.
Besides parents, caregivers face the Herculean task of caring for their loved ones while trying to earn a living. According to a 2023 study of 200 family caregivers by the Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, the average caregiver holds a full-time job and, on top of that, spends another 6.7 hours per day on caregiving!
A Duke-NUS study in 2021 also pointed out that the disruptions to one's work due to their caregiving needs correlated with increased stress and depression among caregivers.
In addition to seeking employers' understanding of the heavy burden that caregiving carries, the ability for caregivers to better plan and flexibly attend to their work commitments would help to reduce the stress that they face. Furthermore, it would reduce any work disruptions as they attend to their caregiving responsibilities.
This is especially important not solely because of our record low TFR, but it is also important because we are facing a rapidly ageing population and we, too, need to be allowed to care for our ageing parents and be there for them, just as how they were there for us when we were children, too. The same 2023 study also suggested that the average caregiver is a married female aged between 45 and 60.
In my speech on the White Paper on Singapore's Women Development, I noted that Government policies play a vital role in rethinking and redefining long-held beliefs about gender roles in our society. While the labour force participation rate for women has increased over the years to 47% in 2022, this is still in contrast to that for males at 77% in 2022.
FWAs would certainly help to facilitate a paradigm shift in how gender roles are defined by enabling more women to join the workforce or to restart their careers. Moreover, with the increased ability to manage both work and family responsibilities and, hopefully, prevalence of more men taking on greater caregiving responsibilities, this could, in turn, further reduce the stigma of men as caregivers and normalise societal attitudes towards entrenched gender roles.
However, clear action must be taken to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their caregiving and family duties and for workers' performance to be assessed fairly, regardless of whether they take up FWAs or not. This would play a big role in helping to address fears of workers, particularly women at this point in time, on the downside they may face in taking up FWAs to take up caregiving responsibilities.
Although such deeply entrenched gender roles certainly require a reformation of our collective mindset, enhancing Government policies, such as safeguarding the right to request for FWA, would help to give us a leg-up in our journey towards gender equality.
Besides parents and caregivers, persons with disabilities (PWDs) do stand to benefit from FWAs, especially telecommuting. For example, while efforts have been made to improve the accessibility of our physical infrastructure, it is significantly more convenient for our mobility-impaired workers to work from home, as they might require more time and effort in commuting to the workplace.
However, according to the Disabled People's Association, individuals with disabilities have also commented that they fear accessibilities that have been mainstreamed during the pandemic, such as work-from-home accommodations and other hybrid accommodations, such as online meetings, will fade as Singapore recovers from the pandemic.
While I note that there are schemes, such as the ODP Job Redesign Grant which helps employers to redesign their workplaces to make it accessible, the right to request for FWAs would help to elevate the careers of many of our workers with disabilities, whilst empowering more of the 65.7% of PWDs who are outside of the labour force to kickstart their own careers.
Despite the sheer demand for FWAs among employees and the multitude of benefits that it brings to all workers and, in particular, certain groups of workers, such as parents, caregivers and PWDs, there is no legal imperative for employers to offer them, as compliance with the tripartite standard on FWAs is completely voluntary.
Nevertheless, I understand that work has since started on crafting the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements, whereby employers must \"fairly and properly\" consider employee requests for FWAs when it is launched in 2024. While such a move is certainly welcomed, are there any ramifications for employers if they do not adhere to the guidelines?
Back to the case of my resident which I shared briefly at the start of my speech, she shared that while she was looking for another job that would allow her the flexibility to care for her children, many of the job vacancies she saw required her to be in the office five days a week and she felt that even those that were flexible, expressed concern that she was leaving her prior employer because of family commitments. \"I was surprised we were going back to pre-COVID days\", she said.
While we should educate and encourage employers to fairly and properly consider employee requests for FWAs, it is incumbent on us, as legislators, to protect our fellow citizens against errant employers, through legislation.
We have adopted moral suasion before. The Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements was published some nine years ago back in 2014, and I quote, \"The Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy seeks to promote flexible work arrangements (FWAs) as a progressive employment practice in Singapore\". Yet, whether it is called a tripartite advisory or the upcoming tripartite guideline, it was not until COVID-19 did we really see FWAs take off.
There have been many jurisdictions that have since passed legislation governing the right to request for FWAs or provide for a legal framework to support the rights of employees under FWAs. This includes the UK with its Flexible Working Act; Australia with its \"Secure Jobs, Better Pay\" Act; and, closer to home, the Philippines with its Telecommuting Act and Thailand with its \"Work from Home Bill\", among others.
Even if, ultimately, the employer decides in a fair and transparent manner that this is simply not possible for various reasons, such circumstances can be addressed through the necessary legislative protections for both employers and, especially, employees.
If it truly is the case where all of us – the Government, legislators, employers and employees – are on the same page, in terms of wanting to enhance the agility of our workforce and strengthen our social and economic resilience as a nation, then let us not shy away from making the right decision on legislating for FWAs for all workers. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, let me say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Through this Adjournment Motion, I would like to call on the Government to enact legislation to provide for FWAs for all employees and to go beyond the use of general guidelines, announcements and moral admonitions in the implementation process.
During COVID-19, we have had the opportunity to experience FWAs. But I am afraid we are returning to the unhealthy work norm before COVID-19.
In 2021, the proportion of companies offering at least one FWA fell from 90.5% to 71.4% in 2022.
Over the next 12 months, as COVID-19 passes, I believe the proportion of companies offering FWAs will continue to decline.
If we need a reason to legalise FWAs, our fertility rate is the best testimony.
In 2022, our birth rate fell to a new low of 1.04. Moreover, as our population ages, we also need to make it easier for Singaporeans to take care of both their work and families.
FWAs will benefit all employees and employers, especially parents of young children and employees with caregiving responsibilities and PWDs.
If the Government, legislators, employers and employees share the same vision of making our society and economy more resilient and our workforce more nimble, we must face FWAs squarely and make an informed decision to legalise FWAs.
(In English): Mr Speaker, let us take bold and decisive steps to enshrine FWAs in law and send a strong signal to the world that our economy, workplace and workforce are ready for the future economy.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Chua for agreeing with the Government and the tripartite partners that FWAs are important for helping employees better manage work and family demands.
Many Members of this House also recognise this and have given useful suggestions over the years on how we could support greater adoption of FWAs, including ex-Member of Parliament Dr Lily Neo and Members of Parliament, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and many more. And I think some of them were already in Parliament before Mr Louis Chua was here.
For more than a decade, the Labour Movement has also championed for FWAs to better support working caregivers and to help caregivers return to work. In fact, this is one of the recommendations in NTUC's renewed Workers' Compact which was released last week.
Clearly, FWAs are an important issue that many of us are concerned about, as it affects all of us.
During the pandemic, many of us also had to explore alternative ways of working and many more employers and employees have realised that FWAs can bring about benefits, if done sensibly.
Workplace flexibility has become an increasingly important factor influencing employees' decisions on whether to stay in their jobs. In 2022, a survey by Randstad Singapore found that over four in 10 local employees said that they would consider changing their jobs for better flexibility.
Many enlightened employers are thus thinking hard about how they can make FWAs work for their companies, to recruit talent and to retain talent. We are seeing good progress. The proportion of employers offering FWAs on a sustained, regular basis in 2022 was 71%, much higher than 53% in 2019.
To support FWAs, the Government has been working closely with the tripartite partners to introduce various initiatives. As early as 2007, former President Mdm Halimah Yacob, who was then-Deputy Secretary-General of NTUC, chaired the Tripartite Workgroup on Enhancing Employment Choices for Women, which developed some of our earliest measures to support FWAs at the workplace. The importance of FWAs as a progressive employment practice was further elevated in 2017 when the Tripartite Standard on FWAs was launched. The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) have also been running monthly workshops to guide employers in implementing FWAs.
While different stakeholders may have different perspectives, we share a common desire to make workplaces more inclusive and help employees achieve better work-life harmony. From various initiatives, such as the Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony in 2019 and the Alliance for Action on Work-Life Harmony in 2021, we have heard consistent feedback on the importance of building organisational and HR capabilities to support the adoption of FWAs.
The tripartite partners have since broadened our partnerships with more stakeholders with the relevant expertise. For example, we have partnered the Institute of Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) to develop implementation resources, such as a Playbook for Hybrid Workplaces, as well as sector-specific resources. Companies can also tap on the Productivity Solutions Grant to redesign jobs and make FWAs part of the company’s strategy to improve overall productivity.
While we step up efforts to make FWAs more accessible, we need to resist the simplistic tendency to think that all forms of FWAs can be implemented for every job. After all, every worker and every team’s needs differ and the nature of work differs across sectors. Let us take a broader view of FWAs. Apart from work-from-home, FWAs also include options, such as staggered work hours, flexi-shift, part-time work and others.
For FWAs to be sustainable, we also need to consider the impact on individual productivity and team productivity. More international literature on the business impact of FWAs has emerged recently and they have found that the impact of FWAs on productivity differs across sectors and job roles. The key is to make sure that we identify the right forms of FWAs for different job needs and ensure that communication between management and employees, and within teams, remains strong. There is just no one-size-fits-all approach for this.
FWAs, if implemented well, can help companies retain and attract workers amidst a tight labour market. Turning FWAs into something rigid could be detrimental to businesses, and even to workers themselves. We have seen that happen elsewhere, such as in Apple and Amazon in the United States.
We encourage employers to see how FWAs can benefit their businesses as a competitive advantage, facilitate employer-employee communication so that mutually beneficial arrangements can be found and, most importantly, maintain workplace trust.
It is in this spirit that we are introducing the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests in 2024, which will set norms and expectations on how employees can make requests for FWAs and use them responsibly, and how employers can manage requests for FWAs properly and fairly.
The tripartite workgroup will study international practices and consult widely with employers, HR practitioners and employees in the upcoming months as we formulate the Guidelines. The workgroup will also develop recommendations on how to equip employers, HR, line managers and employees with the necessary skills to implement FWAs in an effective and sustainable manner.
We believe this is the right approach to take and will help more workers access the FWAs that they require in a sustained manner. Even for jurisdictions that Members of this House often compare us to, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the objective is not to guarantee that every worker will have FWAs, but rather, to establish a process for employers and employees to shape the right balance of workplace flexibility. And while they have introduced legislation to achieve this objective, it is not yet clear to us that this is the best approach to take.
As an op-ed by SNEF Council Members Dr Bicky Bhangu and Ms Rachel Eng have cautioned, we have to be mindful of the risk of creating a more acrimonious workplace culture, if both parties can easily take their FWA disputes to Court or tribunal, instead of working out mutually suitable arrangements amicably. In the case of the UK, which implemented a right-to-request FWA legislation since 2003, the actual take-up of FWAs did not change significantly in the past decade, with the exception of telecommuting during the pandemic.
Even as we rally tripartite efforts to make FWAs more accessible at the workplace, FWAs, on their own, are not the silver bullet to achieving the larger goal of work-life harmony. It is merely one aspect of a more supportive ecosystem that we seek to build in helping employees manage both their work and family responsibilities. Other initiatives, such as subsidised care services and caregiver support networks, are also important. The Government will work with employers and other community partners to strengthen these.
Each of us also has a role to play in showing understanding and support to our co-workers who may need FWAs so that they can give their best both at work and to their families. At the same time, those who take up FWAs should do so responsibly to maintain trust with employers and fellow co-workers. This will help to create the truly inclusive workplace culture that we all hope to build.
Mr Speaker, we take pride that, in Singapore, employees and employers seek to understand each other’s perspectives and co-create solutions to resolve issues. If we want to help employees have access to FWAs, we need a practical, enabling approach that addresses barriers at each workplace. The Government will continue to work closely with the Tripartite Partners and other stakeholders to make FWAs a win-win for all.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 5.38 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Verification Checks to Ensure Compliance with Age Restriction for Entry into Arcades","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will consider (i) implementing age verification checks in arcades to ensure compliance with the entry restrictions of those under 16 years old and (ii) collaborating with the Ministry of Education to educate students on the underlying rationale of such restrictions; (b) whether data on the number of school-going youths who frequent arcades and their average expenditure is available; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider mandating the disclosure of data on the probability of winning top-tier prizes in chance-based arcade games.
Mr K Shanmugam: To reduce the risk of truancy during school hours, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) requires amusement centre operators to conduct verification checks to ensure that persons below 16 years old are not admitted on a school day, except between 6.30 pm and 11.59 pm. The operators are also required to display signs at prominent locations within their premises to notify customers of the entry restrictions.
These requirements are imposed as licensing conditions under their Public Entertainment Licence. Operators who fail to comply may be subject to regulatory action under the Public Entertainments Act.
MHA does not track the number of students who patronise amusement centres, or the amount spent at the centres.
We have observed that, increasingly, games being offered in amusement centres have elements of chance, and high-value prizes are being offered. This may increase the risk of gambling inducement, in particular, with vulnerable persons, such as youths.
To reduce this risk, from 1 March 2024, MHA will restrict the value of prizes for amusement centre games to less than $100. We will also prohibit operators of amusement centres from offering cash, cash equivalents, credit or merchant vouchers as prizes, as well as the sell-back of prizes to the operators.
We do not intend to require operators to display the odds of winning the games. Doing so may impose undue regulatory burden on the operators, which may not be proportionate to the gambling risks of such games. In addition, many of the games, such as \"coin pushers\", do not have clearly defined odds.
MHA will continue to monitor and review the safeguards against gambling inducement risks in such games.
As suggested by the Member, we will work with the Ministry of Education to remind students about the entry restrictions into amusement centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of CPF Education Loan Scheme for Payment of Non-degree or Diploma Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the CPF Education Loan Scheme to fund certification courses that lead to formal certifications and qualifications which are not degrees and diplomas obtained from the current list of approved institutions; and (b) whether this can be extended to non-degree courses offered by accredited foreign universities.
Dr Tan See Leng: The primary purpose of CPF is to support members’ retirement, healthcare and housing needs. When the CPF was expanded to support education in 1989, it was designed as a loan scheme and confined to basic tertiary education at local approved educational institutions. After graduating or leaving their course of study, students have to repay in cash the amount withdrawn plus interest into the lender’s Ordinary Account so as to restore lenders’ CPF savings for their retirement needs. This cautious approach is to safeguard the primary purpose of CPF.
With increasing life expectancy, we need to ensure that CPF members have sufficient savings for retirement, healthcare and housing. Therefore, we have no plans to open up the CPF Education Loan Scheme for other courses beyond basic tertiary education at local approved educational institutions.
Singaporeans should consider other financing options available to members, such as study or education loans offered by financial institutions. For those who are interested in shorter training courses, SkillsFuture Singapore provides course fee subsidies of up to 70% for eligible courses delivered by approved training providers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Framework for Training of Doctors to Administer Aesthetic Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry ensure that doctors are adequately trained to administer aesthetic procedures safely; and (b) whether it will review the qualification framework for doctors providing such a service.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) developed the Guidelines on Aesthetic Practices for Doctors (Aesthetic Guidelines) in 2008 and updated them in 2016. The guidelines regulate aesthetic practice by stipulating the types of aesthetic procedures that doctors are permitted to perform and the required competencies and qualifications to perform these procedures. These requirements are advised by the Aesthetic Practice Oversight Committee appointed by the SMC.
In addition, all doctors are expected to abide by the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG), such as by practising within their own competence. The Ministry reviews the compliance of doctors to the Aesthetic Guidelines and ECEG during the audits of licensed healthcare institutions.
The Ministry and SMC work together to periodically review the Aesthetic Guidelines, with the next review scheduled to complete in 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment Rates to Healthier SG Programme Based on Demographic Factors, such as Gender and Race","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are differences in enrolment rates to the Healthier SG programme among eligible Singaporeans and PRs based on demographic factors, such as gender and race; and (b) if so, what are the differences.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since the launch of Healthier SG in July this year, we have enrolled 15% of the eligible population.
Among the ethnic groups, enrolment among Chinese was 16%, which is higher than the national average of 15%, with Malays and Indians at 11%. There was no significant difference in enrolment across genders.
The Ministry of Health is working with various community groups, including the People’s Association, Singapore Indian Development Association and M3 (a collaboration among MENDAKI, MUIS and MESRA), to promote enrolment into Healthier SG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Irresponsible and Drink-driving in view of Hike in Road Accidents in 1H 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs having regard to the significant increase in the number of road traffic accidents and fatalities in the first half of 2023 as compared to the same period in 2022 (a) whether the strategy of strengthening deterrence against irresponsible driving put in place in 2019 is working; and (b) what specific steps are taken to address the increase in drink-driving accidents and the disproportional representation of elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists amongst those who suffered injuries or died in road traffic accidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: Member Mr Melvin Yong raised a similar question for the Sitting on 3 October 2023. In our reply, we explained the reasons for the increase in road traffic fatalities in the first half of 2023. The reasons for the increase in overall traffic accidents are similar.
A longer period of monitoring will be required to make any meaningful assessment of whether the amendments to the Road Traffic Act in 2019 have been effective.
Nonetheless, the increase in the number of accidents and fatalities is a concern. To address this, the Traffic Police (TP) have stepped up their three-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement. We had also outlined in our reply to Mr Melvin Yong, some of the measures TP will put in place to address these trends.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspections to Ensure Workers in Dormitories Consume Catered Food within Four Hours from Time It was Cooked","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment for each year in the past five years, how many inspections has the Ministry conducted to ensure that workers living in dormitories consume catered food not more than four hours from the time it was cooked at the caterer's kitchen.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires all food catered from licensed caterers to bear a time-stamp that indicates the date and time by which the food should be consumed. Under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA), dormitory operators licensed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) must ensure that catered food is procured from licensed caterers and take reasonable measures to ensure that food delivered is protected from contamination until it is collected by the workers.
MOM conducts inspections on licensed dormitories for FEDA compliance at least once per year. Any FEDA-related lapses identified during the inspections are expected to be rectified immediately. Workers with food-related issues can approach MOM’s Forward Assurance and Support Team officers or report the issues via FWMOMCare mobile application. Food safety issues that are specific to licensed caterers will be further investigated by SFA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of AOG Technics' Alleged Supply of Bogus Aircraft Engine Parts on Singapore Airlines' Fleet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport with regard to AOG Technics' alleged supply of bogus jet-engine parts (a) whether any of Singapore Airlines fleet or its aircraft maintenance and repair units are affected; and (b) if so, what measures are being implemented to address this problem.\n \n
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) informed all Singapore carriers and their maintenance organisations on 25 August 2023 when the issue of AOG Technics having supplied aircraft engine parts with falsified paperwork first surfaced. CAAS also required Singapore carriers and their maintenance organisations to check for parts that may have originated from AOG Technics.
There have been no reports from Singapore carriers or their maintenance organisations of parts acquired from AOG Technics in their inventory. CAAS is closely monitoring the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Operation Status of Women’s Clinic in Department of Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Clinic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the women’s clinic in the Department of Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Clinic is still under suspension; (b) if yes, why has it not been reopened; and (c) whether the clinic will be reopened as soon as practicable to allow a women-only space for sexual health screenings and treatment.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Department of Sexually Transmitted Infections Control (DSC) Clinic suspended its Women’s Clinic in February 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, to create isolation facilities for patients.
However, due to the attrition of female healthcare workers at the DSC Clinic, it became difficult to maintain a dedicated Women’s Clinic at DSC Clinic. Whilst the Women’s Clinic is not in operation, the full suite of the clinic’s services remains available. This includes a women-only care team comprising of female doctors and nurses. Female patients can request for the women-only care team at the point of registration.
The DSC Clinic will continue to explore the feasibility of resuming the Women’s Clinic in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Private Housing Units to be Launched with Co-living Concept","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government has data on the projected number of tenders and private housing units that will be launched with co-living concepts in the next five years; and (b) whether the Government is considering extending such concepts to the public housing market.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government does not have data on the projected number of tenders and private housing units that will be launched with co-living concepts in the next five years.
During Our Housing Conversations, we engaged Singaporeans on potential new public and private housing typologies. The feedback from participants on co-living as a new housing typology was mixed. While some participants supported co-living as a possible new public housing typology for singles, others were ambivalent. We will have to study the feasibility and market acceptability of these new ideas before we decide whether to implement them.
21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how will the Government enhance awareness among youths about the risks and consequences associated with becoming money mules; (b) besides talks and crime exhibits, what other initiatives are being conducted in schools to raise awareness; and (c) what collaborative measures can be taken between Government agencies and financial institutions to deter youths from engaging in such activities, such as raising red flags if an individual opens bank accounts across different banks in a short period of time.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police conduct public education events to raise awareness among youths on the consequences of crime, including of being a money mule. Among others, the Criminal Behavioural Analysis Competition 2023: Youths Against Scams in July 2023 engaged and educated youths on the preventive actions they can take to protect themselves from falling prey to scams and advised them not to facilitate scam operations.
The Police also collaborate with the Ministry of Education on school talks and other events. For example, the Anti-Scam and Cybersecurity Makeathon in April 2023 encouraged students to come up with ideas to combat scams and improve cybersecurity and help spread anti-scam and cybersecurity messages to their friends and family.
The Corruption, Drug Trafficking, and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA) was amended earlier this year. It will enable the Police to take firmer enforcement action against money mules when it comes into effect.
The Police and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have been working with banks to inform their customers, including youths, on the amendments, to deter them from becoming money mules, for example, by enhancing the current advisory that is provided to customers when they open a new bank account. The enhanced advisory will reinforce the message that customers may be liable if their accounts are used by others for criminal activities, in line with the latest CDSA amendments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Requests and Successful Appeals for Priority Allocation of New HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development from July 2022 to date (a) how many requests has HDB received for priority allocation of new HDB flats; (b) how many of such appeals have been acceded to; and (c) what are the main reasons for acceding to those appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) allocates Build-To-Order (BTO) flats through a computerised balloting system. The ballot system is designed to allocate flats efficiently while ensuring fairness to all flat applicants.
HDB also provides additional support to households with more pressing housing needs. For example, eligible married couples and parents with young children will receive three ballot chances when they apply under the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples) applicant category. Priority schemes, such as the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents) and the Senior Priority Scheme, also provide support to different buyer groups.
As such, HDB accedes to requests for priority flat allocation on an exceptional basis and only to home seekers who face very extenuating circumstances and require special assistance. From July 2022 to August 2023, HDB received about 8,400 appeals for priority flat allocation. After carefully assessing each household’s unique circumstances and finances, HDB acceded to about 130 appeals, most of which involved home seekers who faced severe financial hardship and had no other housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disputes between Co-tenants of Joint Singles Scheme over Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many disputes has HDB been made aware of between co-tenants under the Joint Singles Scheme over the last three years; and (b) whether HDB will consider allocating the share of rental each co-tenant has to pay under the terms of the lease, rather than holding them jointly and severally liable for the entire amount.\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the last three years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received feedback from about 270 households under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) per year, on average, regarding disputes between flatmates. This figure remains low, at about 2% of the total number of JSS households.
Currently, HDB charges rent to JSS tenants on a household basis as they are joint users of the same space. Nevertheless, we recognise that rent can be a point of contention, especially when one person does not pay his or her share.
We have been piloting the JSS Operator-Run (JSS-OR) typology since December 2021, under which tenants are charged rent on an individual basis so that rent is not a source of conflict. There is also an on-site operator to mediate among tenants if disagreements arise.
With the experience from JSS-OR sites, we will review whether to expand this individual charging model to JSS households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migrant Workers' Complaints Received by Manpower Ministry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year in the past five years, how many complaints from workers have been received (i) by the Ministry’s Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers and (ii) via the FWMOMCare mobile application respectively; and (b) what are the top five complaints received.
Dr Tan See Leng: With Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) on the ground and the introduction of the FWMOMCare mobile application, migrant workers have easier access to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This has allowed MOM to be more effective in assuring and addressing their concerns.
Migrant workers contact MOM for various reasons and request for information and assistance. Each feedback and request is followed up by MOM, but we do not track complaints as a category. The common issues raised by migrant workers that require intervention by MOM are illegal employment, criminal kickbacks, false declaration of salary, employment agency’s failure to refund agency fees and illegal deployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Encourage Separating Compostables from Recyclables and Trash","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry has any plans to introduce a three-bin system to further separate compostables from recyclables and trash so that incinerated organic food waste will not continue to contribute to the Semakau Landfill, which is projected to reach capacity by 2035.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Resource Sustainability Act was introduced in 2019 to address the three priority waste streams, including food waste. Large commercial and industrial food waste generators, including hotels, shopping malls and food manufacturers, will be required to segregate food waste for treatment and submit food waste reports to the National Environment Agency.
These requirements, which will be implemented for new buildings from 1 January 2024, help ensure that food waste from large food waste generators is diverted for treatment or converted into useful products, such as compost and animal feed, instead of being incinerated.
We have also piloted the use of segregated food waste to generate biogas to boost electricity generation. This will be scaled up at Tuas Nexus, which is expected to commence operations in phases from 2026 onwards.
Currently, while we do not have plans to require households to segregate their food waste, we continue to support ground-up initiatives to manage food waste in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Reports Relating to Buskers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past five years, how many Police reports relating to buskers have been made; and (b) whether the Ministry reviews such reports to assess if there are patterns of Police reports being made for purposes of harassing or to unfairly disadvantage the business of other buskers.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not track the number of reports that relate to buskers.
Where a Police report is made, the Police will make an assessment of the case and respond accordingly if there are law and order concerns.
If a person makes a report which they know or believe to be false, with the intent to cause the Police to use their lawful powers to the annoyance of another, they may be liable for an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code 1871.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Past Reserves to Fund Projects to Mitigate Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is currently considering the use of past Reserves to fund any projects to mitigate climate change; and (b) if so, what are these projects.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government is undertaking a range of measures to address climate change. These comprise both mitigation measures, which seek to limit climate change; and adaptation measures, which seek to adapt to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels.
The Government has no plans at the moment to fund mitigation projects using past Reserves. We will set aside the necessary resources in the annual Budgets to green our economy and society and to achieve our net-zero targets.
As for adaptation measures, the Government is studying long-term solutions to protect our coastline and land mass. These include land reclamation projects, building of infrastructure, such as polders and seawalls, and the installation of equipment like pumps and localised flood barriers.
The Government plans to employ a combination of funding methods to finance these measures. This includes funding from the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, through long-term borrowing via SINGA bonds and through the use of past Reserves to fund land reclamation costs. The Government will continue to study how best to finance these measures in a way that is fiscally sustainable and equitable across generations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Ensure Public Rental Housing Flats are in Sufficiently Good Living Condition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development what steps are being taken to ensure that public rental housing flats are in sufficiently good physical condition for habitation.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) physically inspects our rental flats and carries out repairs and maintenance promptly when tenants give feedback. While tenants are responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the rental flat as set out in the tenancy agreement, the cost of repairs and maintenance is generally borne fully by HDB, on a goodwill basis.
For rental flats that are vacated and returned to HDB, HDB will carry out sprucing up works, such as cleaning and painting, installing new locks and repairing or replacing any defective fittings. The flats are inspected after the works are completed, before they are let out to new tenants.
HDB also carries out periodic upgrading programmes for rental flats. Most rental blocks have been upgraded in tandem with upgrading programmes, such as the Home Improvement Programme. As part of HDB’s broader rejuvenation plans, older rental blocks may also be redeveloped while HDB continues to build new rental flats. This allows us to refresh our rental flat stock and offer tenants opportunities to move to newer rental flats or buy a sold flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of 24/7 On-demand Audible Traffic Signals to More Town Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA intends to activate 24/7 on-demand audible traffic signals beyond the 325 pedestrian crossings identified at 10 town centres; (b) how many noise disamenity complaints has LTA received from residents living in close proximity to audible traffic signals; and (c) whether LTA has considered integrating traffic signals with third party applications to enable persons with visual impairment (PwVIs) to safely cross roads.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Since 2004, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has implemented audible traffic signals to assist Persons with Visual Impairments (PwVIs) to navigate and commute independently. Presently, 1,300 pedestrian crossings are equipped with audible traffic signals that operate from 7.00 am to 9.00 pm. It does not operate in the late-night hours to reduce noise disamenity to nearby residents. Over the last five years, LTA received, on average, eight feedback a year on noise disamenity due to audible traffic signals. These were resolved by reducing the volume of the audio devices.
As part of the Enabling Masterplan 2030 to further enhance the mobility of PwVIs, LTA announced in April this year that 325 pedestrian crossings across 10 town centres will be installed with 24/7 on-demand audible traffic signals by 2025. To-date, the installation has been completed at 62 pedestrian crossings in towns, such as Bedok, Tampines and Jurong West. LTA is on track to complete installation at the remaining pedestrian crossings by 2025. LTA, together with the Ministry of Social and Family Development, will monitor the usefulness of the feature and assess whether to implement more of them.
LTA is also studying the technological feasibility of integrating traffic signals with third party applications to enhance the mobility of PwVIs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inflation Impact on Assets Resulting from Billion-dollar Money Laundering Case Currently under Investigation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any studies will be initiated to look into the inflation impact caused by the alleged billion-dollar money laundering activities that are being investigated, either in relation to the real estate or other assets that have been seized; and (b) if not, why not.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This query relates to the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore’s anti-money laundering framework. The Ministerial Statement on Singapore’s Anti-money Laundering Regime at the Sitting on 3 October 2023 has addressed this query. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"White-collar Crimes, Scams and Cybercrime as Proportion of All Cases Reported to Police","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs from January to June 2023, in respect of white collar crimes, scam and cybercrime cases (a) what is the percentage of (i) the number of such crimes against the total number of crimes reported to the Police; and (ii) the number of Police officers deployed to investigate such crimes against the total number of investigation officers; and (b) if the respective percentages reveal a disparity, how does the Police ensure sufficient resources are available to combat white-collar crimes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between January and June 2023, there were 34,605 crimes reported to the Police. Of these, about 75% were attributed to white-collar crimes, scams and cybercrimes.
The Police do not track the number of officers deployed to investigate such crimes. Nevertheless, it would be accurate to say that we are operating on a very lean force and our Police officers are very stretched.
We have always had one of the lowest Police officers to population ratios in the world. However, in the last few years, the number of white-collar crimes, cybercrimes and especially scams, has increased exponentially. The number of reported scam cases, for example, has increased by more than 400% over the last five years. During this period, the number of people involved in scams which the Police have had to arrest, has increased by close to 100%. These trends do not look like they are reversing anytime soon.
However, the number of Police investigators has increased only slightly over this period, by about 7%. It is not sustainable. The performance and effectiveness of the force may deteriorate. There may be more investigation mistakes and slip-ups, and more things may fall through the cracks.
Our investigation officers have to deal with a huge range of crime cases and not just white-collar crimes, scams and cybercrimes. They operate under intense pressure, to solve the cases and arrest the perpetrators before the leads go cold, while having to juggle many ongoing investigations, prosecutions and arrest operations, all at the same time. The number and complexity of such cases have increased, with well-resourced criminals running sophisticated operations with extensive networks, often transnational. They are adept at using technology to swiftly move funds, often across borders, and to cover their tracks. This compounds the challenges for our investigation officers.
The recent money laundering case is a good example. Minister Josephine Teo spoke about the scale and complexity of the case. Just to conduct the initial raids and initiate investigations against the suspects and to seize their assets, we had to muster more than 400 Police officers. The suspects do not number only the 10 arrested; many more are being investigated and we are looking for others who are outside Singapore. More assets are being uncovered and seized. Many Police officers are going to be involved in the coming years in the investigations and the Court proceedings.
Burnout among our Police officers is a concern. Just like all of us, they need adequate time to rest and re-charge and take care of their families. We need to support them, also so that they can keep up their high levels of performance and continue to keep Singapore as one of the safest places in the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Who Are Able to Set Aside CPF Full Retirement Sum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each year over the last five years, what is the number of Singaporeans who are able to set aside their CPF Full Retirement Sum (FRS) fully in cash and in a mixture of property and cash respectively; and (b) what is the number of Singaporeans who are unable to set aside their FRS.
Dr Tan See Leng: The proportion of active Central Provident Fund (CPF) members turning age 55 who have set aside their Full Retirement Sum (FRS) fully in cash increased from about four in 10 in 2018 to about five in 10 in 2022. The number of such members are about: 17,000 in 2018; 18,000 in 2019; 18,500 in 2020; 19,100 in 2021; and 19,700 in 2022.
About two in 10 active CPF members turning age 55 each year between 2018 to 2022 have set aside their FRS in a mixture of property and cash, instead of fully in cash. The number of such members are about: 6,900 in 2018; 6,800 in 2019; 6,900 in 2020; 7,100 in 2021; and 7,000 in 2022.
About three in 10 of active CPF members who turned 55 in 2022 had not set aside the FRS in cash or in cash and property. This corresponds to about 13,400 members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Use of Additional Funds Received by National Research Foundation and Increase in Disbursements for Its Manpower Horizontal Programme in FY2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) how does the National Research Foundation plan to expend the additional S$0.9 billion received by the National Research Fund in FY2023, given the relatively small increment of S$34 million in total disbursement to approved organisations from FY2022 to FY2023; and (b) what accounted for the 11-fold increase in disbursements for the Manpower Horizontal Programme in FY2023 and whether this rate of increase is expected to persist.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): The Government is committed to fund investments in Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) through economic cycles. Resources are regularly allocated to ensure sustained and assured funding for ongoing and new RIE programmes over the long term. This includes RIE programmes supported by the National Research Fund, such as the Competitive Research Programme and the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) Programmes, where funding is disbursed over a number of years.
The top-up of S$0.9 billion to the National Research Fund was made in FY2022, for the year ended 31 March 2023. The increase in disbursements from RIE2025 was partially offset by the decrease in disbursements from a previous RIE tranche, resulting in a relatively small increment for total disbursements from FY2021 to FY2022. Nevertheless, the total disbursement in FY2022 was S$0.66 billion and we expect to be on track to spend the total budget committed towards our RIE programmes.
The 11-fold increase in disbursements for Manpower Horizontal from S$1.2 million in FY2021 to S$13.8 million in FY2022 was mainly due to the RIE SGUnited Jobs programme, which contributed to about 80% of the increase in disbursements. The RIE SGUnited Jobs programme provided two-year RIE-related training opportunities at NUS, NTU and A*STAR for jobseekers during COVID-19. It was open to hiring in FY2020 and FY2021, with most of the trainee claims disbursed in FY2022. As hiring ceased in FY2021, disbursements related to the programme will taper off as well, after all claims have been checked and paid.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Entitlement of Prisoners Serving Less Than 12 Months' Sentence to Vote in General Elections and Presidential Elections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister whether prisoners serving a sentence of less than 12 months are entitled to vote in the General Elections and Presidential Elections.\n\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Persons serving a sentence of less than 12 months in prison are unable to vote in elections as it is currently not feasible for voting facilities to be provided to persons detained in prisons due to safety, security and operational concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Notification by Returning Officer of Receipt of Postal Ballots from Overseas Voters in 2023 Presidential Election","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Elections Department (ELD) notified overseas voters in the 2023 Presidential Election that their votes were received by the Returning Officer and accepted for counting; (b) if not, why not; (c) whether those whose votes were not accepted for counting will be considered as non-voters and struck off the electoral roll; and (d) whether ELD will consider alternative methods of returning postal ballots in future, given that only 60% of ballots received in this election were accepted for counting.\n\n\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Elections Department (ELD) will notify overseas postal voters via email that their return envelopes have been received by the Returning Officer (RO). Voters may also check the status of their return envelope via ELD’s Voter Services. ELD does not currently inform voters if their postal ballot papers have been accepted for counting and will study if this can be implemented in future elections.
An overseas voter who has successfully registered as a postal voter and has downloaded his or her postal ballot paper will not be considered as a non-voter. This remains the case even if the RO does not subsequently receive the return envelope.
ELD’s preliminary analysis showed that the majority of postal ballot papers which reached the RO in time but could not be accepted for counting for Presidential Election 2023 was because the return envelopes had postmarks which were late, that is, later than 31 August 2023, or had faint, illegible or missing postmarks.
While ELD will review whether other improvements to the postal voting process could be made, it remained important for overseas postal voters to mail their return envelopes early and to affix stamps if they are residing in certain regions/countries, so that the return envelopes have the best chance of reaching Singapore by the deadline to be accepted for counting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons Learnt in Implementation of Overseas Voting and Nursing Home Voting Procedures in 2023 Presidential Election","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the lessons learnt in the implementation of overseas voting and nursing home voting procedures in the 2023 Presidential Election; and (b) whether any changes will be made.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Elections Department (ELD) is currently reviewing the two new initiatives, namely, overseas postal voting and special voting arrangements for nursing homes, introduced at Presidential Election 2023.
For postal voting, the initial findings are similar to what ELD had observed in its trial before the election, which are that postal services in some countries may not postmark the business reply return envelopes and that the return envelopes should be mailed early. ELD had thus earlier emailed registered postal voters to advise them to affix postage stamps on their return envelopes, especially if they reside in certain regions/countries, and to mail their return envelopes early to ensure that they reach the Returning Officer within 10 days after Polling Day.
On the pilot special voting arrangements at nursing homes, the initiative has enabled voters with mobility challenges to cast their votes without leaving the nursing home and, when necessary, to vote from their beds. However, election officials did face challenges, including managing voters who may lack the mental capacity to vote.
ELD will consider the various findings and feedback and announce the next steps ahead of the next election.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Disclosure of Quanta of Commissions Paid or Earned to Promote Better Transparency in Financial Services Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore is minded to direct the mandatory disclosure of the quanta of commissions paid or earned by regulated financial institutions, financial advisers and introducers for the procurement of business or custom from the clients of the financial institutions and financial advisers, even in the absence of requests for the same information, to promote better transparency. \n
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): It is mandatory for financial institutions, such as licensed financial advisers, banks and insurers who provide financial advisory services, collectively, \"financial advisers\", to disclose to customers, at the point of sale, the commissions and distribution costs associated with the sales of investment products and life insurance policies respectively.
In the case of introducers, it is also mandatory to state whether they are being remunerated by financial advisers. If asked, they must also disclose the remuneration amount. The Monetary Authority of Singapore is working with the Attorney-General's Chambers to effect legislative amendments to require introducers to disclose the remuneration amount without being asked.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Liability of Investors for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty and Other Taxes for Owning Multiple Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to investment products purporting to offer fractional ownership of Singapore residential properties (a) what is the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) treatment of the investment vehicle; and (b) whether the investors are liable for ABSD and other taxes associated with owning more than one property.\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: Stamp duty is a tax on documents that effect a transfer of interest in immovable property and unlisted stocks or shares in Singapore.
Buyers directly acquiring residential property in Singapore will have to pay Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD) of up to 6% and Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) of up to 65%, based on their ABSD profile.
On the other hand, those who acquire shares in a Property Holding Entity (PHE)1, pay Share Duty and Additional Conveyance Duties (ACD), if the relevant thresholds are met for the latter. ACD for acquisitions comprises BSD of up to 6% and ABSD at a flat rate of 65%.
Whether property-related investment products are subject to stamp duty ultimately depends on how the specific product and transaction are structured. If an investor does not receive any beneficial interest or ownership of the underlying property, such as when the investment only entitles the investor to a part of the income generated by the property but not ownership of the property itself, then the investor will not be liable for stamp duty. Investors should consider both tax and non-tax consequences when making their investment decisions.
The Government will continue to monitor the property market closely and adjust our policies as necessary to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : A PHE is an entity that has at least 50%, that is, asset ratio, of its total tangible assets comprising prescribed immovable residential properties in Singapore."],"footNoteQuestions":["5"],"questionNo":"5"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Building Owners and MCSTs with EV Charging Stations to Implement Additional Fire Prevention and Mitigation Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are plans to require all building owners and MCSTs that have electric vehicle (EV) charging stations installed within their buildings to implement additional fire prevention and mitigation measures, in light of the increase in the number of EVs and EV charging stations.
Mr K Shanmugam: Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations are assessed to be of a low fire risk due to the high safety standards imposed by the Land Transport Authority. These standards are stipulated under Technical Reference 25, which takes reference from international safety standards, and also mandates regular maintenance, electrical safety inspection and testing of EV charging stations.
Permitted EV charging stations are designed with automatic internal electricity cut-off should there be a malfunction during the charging process. In addition, the Singapore Civil Defence Force’s Fire Code requires at least one emergency main isolation shut-off switch to be provided within 15 metres of an EV charging station. This can be used to fully shut off the main electrical supply to the charging station in the case of a fire, to facilitate firefighting operations.
Within buildings, EV charging stations are usually installed in car parks. There are existing fire safety provisions in the Fire Code to address the fire risk of car parks, such as fire compartmentation of the car parks from other areas, to prevent fire spread and ensure adequate ventilation for smoke dispersal. Sprinklers are required in basement car parks and car parks of large shopping malls and high-rise buildings. Should there be a fire involving an EV or a charging station, these provisions will reduce the impact of the fire before the arrival of first responders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Renewal of Existing Leases for Places of Worship Land under Revised Land and Pricing Allocation Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether religious organisations applying to renew existing leases for places of worship (PW) land without being subject to the ballot system under the revised land and pricing allocation framework announced in May 2023 should nonetheless be required to satisfy the same qualification criteria as religious organisations applying to be allocated PW land through the ballot system so as to ensure that existing religious organisations continue to run programmes that benefit the community they are located at.
Mr K Shanmugam: The intent of the prequalification criteria for the balloting of Place of Worship (PW) land is to prioritise the allocation of new PW sites to religious organisations (ROs) that contribute to the community and demonstrate a need for the land.
While the same does not apply to ROs which are renewing their leases, lease renewal applications for PW land are assessed by agencies taking into consideration whether the use of the land is in line with planning intention and whether the RO continues to serve the needs of the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Regional Power Grid Trials Commenced in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government can provide updates on the regional power grid trials which commenced in 2022; (b) whether the Government intends to implement full-fledged plans following the trials; and (c) whether there are plans to draw more electricity from the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore power integration project beyond the current level of 100 megawatts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From the commencement of the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP) on 23 June 2022 till the end of August 2023, about 270 gigawatt hours of electricity have been imported to Singapore from Lao PDR. At the Fourth LTMS Ministerial Meeting on 24 August 2023, all four countries agreed to continue trading up to 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The countries will also discuss enhancing LTMS-PIP, including trading capacities beyond 100 MW. LTMS-PIP shows that it is feasible and mutually beneficial for countries in our region to collaborate on cross-border electricity trading. The Project will accelerate our collective efforts towards the realisation of the ASEAN Power Grid and serve as a pathfinder towards enhanced interconnectivity, energy security and sustainability in our region.
Beyond LTMS-PIP, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has an ongoing Request for Proposal (RFP) for importing large-scale low-carbon electricity into Singapore. In March 2023, EMA issued its Conditional Approval (CA) for a proposal to import one gigawatt (GW) of electricity from Cambodia. In September 2023, EMA issued CAs to five projects to import a total of another two GW of low-carbon electricity from Indonesia into Singapore. If the projects are realised, they will bring us closer to our target of importing up to four GWs of low-carbon electricity by 2035. We will continue to award CAs to proposals that meet our requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Deciding Deployment of Use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Singapore's Energy Mix","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government has a timeline for deciding whether to deploy the use of small modular nuclear reactors in Singapore’s energy mix.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Market Authority (EMA) closely monitors developments on alternative sources of energy, including nuclear energy. EMA is aware that some countries are now developing advanced reactor designs, such as small modular reactors. However, most of these designs are still undergoing research and development and have not begun commercial operations.
The Government has not made any decision regarding the deployment of nuclear energy in Singapore. Such a decision will require detailed studies of the safety, reliability, affordability and environmental sustainability of nuclear energy in our local context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offences under Part 3B of Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) over the past five years, how many offences under Part 3B of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 have been prosecuted in Court; and (b) what were the (i) average and (ii) highest fines meted out by the Court in those cases.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Part 3B of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act provides for offences in relation to the obstruction of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore’s investigation of potential unfair business practices. To date, no supplier has been prosecuted in Court for an offence under Part 3B of the Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Increases in Public Transport Fares and Higher COE Prices on Inflation in 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the extent to which increases in public transport fares and higher COE prices are projected to affect inflation in 2024; and (b) what further measures is the Government taking to contain inflationary pressure caused by such cost increases to mitigate its impact on living and business costs in 2024.\n\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Public transport fares1 account for 1.6% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All Items inflation basket and 2.5% of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Core Inflation basket, which excludes private transport costs. Meanwhile, car prices, which include Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums, account for 7.4% of the CPI-All Items inflation basket.
The recently announced 7% increase in public transport fares is expected to contribute 0.17 percentage point to the MAS Core Inflation rate in 2024. We are unable to project COE prices next year and, hence, their impact on inflation.
The Government will continue to ensure that public transport remains affordable. We currently subsidise public transport services by more than $2 billion every year, or more than $1 for every journey. On top of this, the Public Transport Council has been able to moderate the fare increase this year due to an additional Government subsidy of about $300 million in 2024. At the same time, the Government will make available Public Transport Vouchers worth $50 each to help lower-income resident households cope with the fare increase.
In addition to these public transport-related measures, the Government has enhanced cost-of-living support for all Singaporean households as part of the $1.1 billion Support Package announced in September. These include additional cash payments, CDC Vouchers and U-Save Rebates. This builds on existing support provided to households at Budget 2023, such as the enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher scheme and the Assurance Package. The Government is also helping businesses to manage rising costs. For instance, the Enterprise Financing Scheme was enhanced in Budget 2023 to help ease the cashflow and financing constraints of businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Public transport fares here refer to bus and train fares."],"footNoteQuestions":["11"],"questionNo":"11"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Siting Proposed Brickland MRT Station at Current Planned Location","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the considerations for siting the proposed Brickland MRT station at its current planned location; and (b) whether the station can be sited along Brickland Road to improve the connectivity for residents who stay along Brickland Road.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The location for NS3A Station, working name \"Brickland\", was chosen following robust engineering studies and consultations with other technical agencies, such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Housing and Development Board. The station will serve approximately 13,000 existing households from Keat Hong, Bukit Batok West, Pavilion Park and Tengah town’s Brickland district, as well as nearby educational institutions and future housing developments.
As NS3A is an in-fill station, its location was subject to the constraints of the existing North-South Line track. In particular, stations have to be located along tracks that are level and straight; an in-fill station was not planned for when the stretch of North-South Line tracks near Brickland Road was built in the 1980s. Hence, locating NS3A near Brickland Road will require the realignment of long stretches of curved and sloped tracks, disrupting train operations and causing greater disamenities to residents.
Besides NS3A, residents in the area will also be served by the upcoming Jurong Region Line. The Land Transport Authority will also review bus services to boost last-mile connectivity to the stations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Wage Growth of Workers Employed by Public Transport Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, what is the median wage growth for (i) Professionals, Managers and Executives, (ii) non- Professionals, Managers and Executives and (iii) senior management employed by public transport operators; (b) whether the Ministry will consider making this data publicly available in future fare review exercises; and (c) what is the reason for using the national wage index rather than the wage index specifically for the public transport operators.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): I thank the Member for her question. I have addressed it in my reply at the Parliament Sitting on 3 October 2023. [Please refer to \"Impact of Deferring Public Transport Fare Increments\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, 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":"Adequacy of Existing Flood Prevention Measures for Underground MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the existing flood prevention measures for underground MRT stations; and (b) whether these measures need to be enhanced, considering the more frequent rainfall in Singapore due to climate change.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The design of MRT infrastructure has taken into consideration climate change scenarios, such as increases in sea levels, rainfall, ambient temperature and wind strength, based on findings from the National Climate Change Study by the Centre for Climate Research Singapore. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) also periodically reviews the design of existing infrastructure to ensure that they comply with international standards and best practices.
Underground MRT stations are designed in compliance with Public Utilities Board’s Code of Practice (COP) for Surface Water Drainage, which sets out the drainage and flood protection requirements for all developments. For instance, new underground MRT stations have elevated entrances to guard against flooding. The COP is reviewed regularly to ensure that its requirements remain robust in light of urbanisation and increasing weather uncertainties due to climate change.
For existing stations that do not meet the latest requirements, LTA has also put in place further mitigation measures, such as flood barriers, to reduce flood risk. These protective facilities are maintained regularly by operators to ensure that they are in working order.
The operators also regularly conduct refresher training on flood barrier installation for operational staff and conduct periodic flood incident response drills at various underground MRT stations. In addition, LTA audits flood incident response plans to assess operators’ readiness to respond to station flooding incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COEs Registered During Month and Sold and Registered to New Owner within First, Second or Third Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport for each month over the last three years, how many COEs registered during the month were later sold and registered to a new owner within the first, second or third year from its registration, broken down by the year within which it was sold and the COE category.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Out of approximately 67,000 vehicles registered in 2020, about 12,000, 4,000 and 4,000 vehicles were transferred within the first, second and third year of being registered respectively. In the first year of registration, the majority of transfers are for Category D motorcycles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recruitment, Deployment and Retention of Staff to Run ComLink Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many staff are currently deployed to run the ComLink programme; and (b) what is being done to help improve recruitment and retention of such staff.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: ComLink was first started in 2019 with four staff partnering local community partners at four pilot sites. In 2021, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) announced that it would be expanded nationwide. As of 25 September 2023, there were about 110 staff deployed in our Social Service Offices to run the ComLink programme, with the support of around 1,400 volunteer befrienders and local community partners in various Housing and Development Board towns.
Turnover among ComLink staff is comparable with other roles in MSF. We have a steady pipeline of candidates in recruitment, where we tap on open recruitment platforms, career fairs and Public Service officers keen for a career change. We will continue to support our staff as they work hard to support and journey with our ComLink families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Size, Annual Income and Expenditure of Rare Disease Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current size, annual income and annual expenditure of the Rare Disease Fund (RDF); (b) whether RDF only uses its investment income to support patients who require RDF-listed medications and, if so, why; and (c) why have medications approved by the Health Sciences Authority to treat spinal muscular atrophy, such as Zolgensma and risdiplam, not been listed in RDF.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Rare Disease Fund (RDF) is a charity fund where the Government matches donations 3-for-1. As at end-FY2022, the size of RDF was $143 million. For FY2023, the RDF’s projected investment income and expenditure for existing RDF beneficiaries are $4.8 million and $2.4 million respectively. Expenditure is often lower than income because new treatments are only listed for RDF coverage if the projected investment income is adequate to support all known patients requiring that treatment.
While RDF predominantly operates as an endowed fund that relies on investment income to support beneficiaries on lifelong, high-cost treatments, its coverage was recently expanded to include Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products (CTGTPs) which are higher-cost one-off treatments. For CTGTPs, donors can specify that the principal sum of their donations can be drawn down.
The RDF Committee will evaluate each CTGTP application on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the circumstances of each patient and fund availability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Proper Informed Consent Taken from Parents of Children Undergoing Medical Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health what steps are currently taken to ensure that proper informed consent is taken from parents of children undergoing medical procedures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The 2016 Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) set out the components of informed consent for medical procedures involving minors. The relevant principles in ECEG are consistent with international best practice standards, including having parents or legal guardians being adequately informed about the risks and benefits involved in a particular procedure. At the same time, ECEG also makes clear that if a parent or legal guardian objects to a procedure that is medically necessary, the doctor must act in the best interest of the child and not the parent or legal guardian.
Separately, each licensed provider under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 must also establish and implement an appropriate system to obtain informed consent that is in line with prevailing laws and ECEG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis of Means-testing Assessment for Medical Subsidies Provided to Elderly Persons Living with Their Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the means-testing assessment for medical subsidies provided to elderly persons living with their families can be based on the elderly person's own individual assets, savings or income, instead of being based on household income and taking into consideration the period of time for which the elderly persons have lived with their families and the total household expenses of the families.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Healthcare subsidies are means-tested using per capita household income (PCHI) to account for the overall financial resources of the household to support the household members. This helps to ensure subsidies are targeted at those who need them the most.
Elderly or retired persons living with their family may be means-tested into a higher PCHI tier. This is because the PCHI framework recognises that such seniors are likely to have access to financial support from family members in the same household. At the same time, these family members may also receive higher subsidies compared to those who have no elderly dependants, as the PCHI framework similarly recognises that they are supporting their elderly household members.
We recognise that PCHI may not adequately proxy the family circumstances of some patients. Those who face difficulties in paying for their healthcare expenses after subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave may apply for discretionary financial assistance, such as MediFund, at public healthcare institutions, where a broader set of factors beyond PCHI, would be considered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Scale Down Free COVID-19 Vaccinations under National Vaccination Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health given the current green status of the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON Green), whether there are plans to (i) scale down free COVID-19 vaccinations under the National Vaccination Programme and (ii) repurpose underutilised vaccination centres.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: It is important to note that the COVID-19 virus is not a mild disease. We are able to live with it as an endemic disease because we have become more resilient due to vaccinations and safe recovery from infection. However, protection will wane and it is important to keep up vaccinations to maintain our resilience, especially for vulnerable individuals and seniors.
Nevertheless, demand for vaccine have been falling and the scale of our vaccination operations will need to adapt to this reality, while retaining the ability to scale up capacity should the need arise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Wait Time for Medication to be Dispensed to Newly Admitted Patients at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average wait time for medication to be dispensed to newly admitted patients at public hospitals; (b) how does this compare with the average wait time in the past five years; (c) whether senior nurses are empowered to provide painkillers that are available over the counter to newly admitted patients at public hospitals rather than relying on doctors; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We do not track the time taken for medications to be dispensed to newly admitted patients at public hospitals. Patients will be triaged and managed by healthcare staff in a timely manner, according to the urgency of their conditions. Medications will be dispensed and administered expeditiously, after the doctors have reviewed and assessed the patients and sent the medication orders.
This first assessment by a doctor is important to establish present diagnoses as well as medical history of newly admitted patients, taking into account existing medications, allergies, potential side effects and drug interactions before prescribing appropriate medications as part of the treatment plan. Working in collaboration with doctors, trained Advanced Practice Nurses who are certified collaborative prescribers are empowered to prescribe medications for the patients within their care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Healthier SG Ambassadors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Healthier SG ambassadors are currently deployed nationwide; (b) what are the targets and key performance indicators set for the ambassadors; (c) what is the plan for increasing the number of ambassadors; and (d) how can they be best deployed to drive enrolments in Healthier SG.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The primary mode of enrolment to Healthier SG is via SMS invites. Healthier SG ambassadors are deployed to assist our elderly residents who may be less tech-savvy or without smart devices. Over 500 Healthier SG ambassadors are deployed across 136 locations, including community clubs, polyclinics and Joint Testing and Vaccination Centres. They are also deployed at Healthier SG roadshows and community events. Besides assisting seniors in enrolling with their preferred Healthier SG clinic, the ambassadors address queries on Healthier SG and direct residents to social activities in their precinct.
As we progressively complete our roadshows and more seniors progressively enrol in the months ahead, the Healthier SG ambassadors will be redeployed to focus on community outreach activities, polyclinics and selected community clubs. These will include constituency-level health and sports events.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Frequency of Breakdowns of Sigma Brand Lifts since Lifting of Tender Restriction in 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development of the 3,218 Sigma brand lifts that have been installed in public housing estates since the lifting of the tender restriction on Sigma Elevator Pte Ltd in 2020 (a) whether HDB has data on the number of Sigma brand lifts that have broken down to date; and (b) whether HDB will consider imposing a tender restriction again if the frequency of reported lift breakdowns is considered high.
Mr Desmond Lee: The tender restriction on Sigma Elevator Pte Ltd (Sigma) was lifted in October 2020 as the performance of Sigma's lifts had improved and was comparable to other lifts in public housing estates. Since the lifting of the tender restriction, the performance of Sigma’s lifts has continued to be stable and comparable to other lift brands.
In the Housing and Development Board (HDB)’s tenders for supply and installation of new lifts, lift performance is a critical evaluation criterion. Tenderers with a higher lift fault rate will be given a lower score during the evaluation. In addition, tenderers will be disqualified from the tender if the track record and performance of the lifts do not meet the criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Privacy of Direct Neighbours of HDB Flat Owners with Corridor-facing CCTVs within Their Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development what measures are currently being taken to protect the privacy of direct neighbours of HDB flat owners who install corridor-facing CCTVs within their units.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners should ensure that their closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) installed do not face the door or windows of other flats, to respect their neighbours’ privacy. Should there be feedback on CCTVs within a flat facing the door or windows of another flat, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will work closely with grassroots leaders and community partners to advise the flat owner to adjust the angle of the CCTVs.
Neighbours may also resolve CCTV-related disputes through direct discussions with their neighbours, mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or, as a last resort, file a claim before the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment on Effectiveness of Non-slip Flooring Installed under EASE Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any assessment on the effectiveness of the non-slip flooring installed under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme in preventing falls; (b) if so, what are the findings of the assessment; (c) what is the average lifespan of the non-slip flooring installed under the EASE programme; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider including a provision under EASE 2.0 programme for the refurbishment and servicing of non-slip flooring installed under the EASE programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The British Pendulum Number (BPN) is an objective measure of the level of slip resistance that a surface provides. A higher level of slip resistance leads to a lower risk of falling. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has conducted tests to confirm that the slip-resistant treatment to toilet flooring under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme is effective in providing slip resistance. After treatment, the flooring will achieve a BPN of 45 to 54, which exceeds the level of slip resistance (BPN of 35 to 44) stipulated under the Singapore Standard SS485:2001 for toilet flooring in wet conditions.
The average lifespan of the slip-resistant treatment is three to five years, with proper usage and regular cleaning. The accumulation of excessive dirt or soap residue may reduce the effectiveness of the treatment over time.
Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of their treated toilet flooring. They may engage a contractor to carry out another round of slip-resistant treatment when the slip resistance of their toilet flooring is no longer effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Public Rental Housing Units to be Built","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year in the next five years, how many public rental housing units will be built; and (b) how many and what percentage of these will be in (i) integrated blocks and (ii) dedicated public rental housing blocks.
Mr Desmond Lee: About 900 public rental flats are currently under construction and will be completed in the next five years.
About one-third will be in integrated blocks with both sold and rental flats, while the remaining will be in dedicated public rental blocks. We will continue building rental flats in integrated blocks where possible, across Standard, Plus and Prime projects, to ensure that our neighbourhoods remain inclusive.
27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what is the projected number and proportion of HDB BTO units that will be launched under the Standard, Plus and Prime flat classifications in the next (i) five years, (ii) 10 years and (iii) 20 years.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is committed to ensuring a steady supply of new flats to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans. As Singapore develops, we will increasingly have to build within or near to existing estates and in more central areas. We remain committed to keeping home ownership affordable, maintaining a good social mix in every town and region and ensuring that our public housing system remains fair.
A new Build-To-Order (BTO) classification – Standard, Plus and Prime – will be introduced in the second half of 2024. Standard flats will be offered across Singapore and will come with standard HDB subsidies and restrictions. Plus flats are in choicer locations within each region and will come with more subsidies, but tighter restrictions than Standard flats. Prime flats are in the choicest locations and will come with the most subsidies, but also the tightest restrictions.
There will be more projects with good locational attributes, which may be categorised as Prime and Plus. Nevertheless, Standard flats will continue to form the majority of flats offered. HDB will announce the classification of the flats on offer at each sales launch.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Cancellation of Bookings for Facilities in ActiveSG App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the ActiveSG app can be modified to allow users to cancel confirmed bookings of facilities.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The ActiveSG app does not allow users to cancel confirmed bookings of facilities. This helps to minimise hoarding and last-minute cancellation of bookings and ensures that more Singaporeans can access public sports facilities.
We assure users of ActiveSG facilities that should they not be able to use the booked facility due to unforeseen circumstances, such as illness or inclement weather, they can write in to ActiveSG and will either be granted a replacement booking or offered a refund by writing in to ActiveSG. As soon as ActiveSG is notified of the cancellation, it will release the slot for public booking.
Our public sports facilities have been well-utilised during periods of peak demand, with few unused bookings. We will continue to monitor users’ experiences in booking and using ActiveSG sports facilities to better serve the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Political Affiliations of Individuals under Consideration for Appointment as Grassroots Leaders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether grassroots leaders are required to declare their political affiliations, if any, prior to their appointments; and (b) whether the People's Association considers the political affiliations of individuals when appointing grassroots leaders.\n\n
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Grassroots leaders are not required to declare their political affiliations to the \tPeople's Association.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Areas of Discrimination Not Covered under Upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the areas of discrimination that will not be covered under the new Workplace Fairness Legislation; (b) how can employees be encouraged to report workplace biases in workplaces without transparent performance appraisals and no clear policies and procedures about biased behaviours at the hiring, employment or dismissal stages; and (c) how can the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management help to mend workplace relationships and allay whistle-blowers' concern that their careers will be jeopardised.
Dr Tan See Leng: To be clear, all forms of discrimination not covered by the legislation will remain protected under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP).
The new workplace fairness legislation will be a significant milestone for Singapore. In our consultations, we have heard concerns that legislation that is too wide would have a negative impact on employer-employee relationships. If the workplace becomes too cautious and litigious, relationships could suffer and this is not in the long-term interest of employers and employees. This proposed scope of the Workplace Fairness Legislation was determined after careful deliberations by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness so that workers are protected while the views of employers are also taken into account.
The proposed legislation will be scoped to cover the common and familiar forms of workplace discrimination, which are (a) age, (b) nationality, (c) sex, marital status, pregnancy status, caregiving responsibilities, (d) race, language, religion, (e) disability and mental health conditions. These five protected characteristics cover more than 95% of discrimination cases reported to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). These support key policy objectives to encourage employment of women, caregivers, mature workers, persons with disabilities, among others.
Workplace discrimination may have been committed if employers made an adverse employment decision based on an employee’s protected characteristic. Employees may refer to the TGFEP and other materials by the Tripartite Partners for illustrations of what constitutes workplace discrimination and, just as importantly, what does not. More guides and materials will be published alongside the passing of the new legislation, and the tripartite partners will also strengthen the education of employers and workers. If employees are unsure if they have experienced workplace discrimination, they can approach their unions or TAFEP for advice and assistance.
Some employees may hesitate to report workplace discrimination for fear of retaliation. As such, the proposed legislation will include provisions to protect the identity of employees who report workplace discrimination and to protect them from retaliation by employers.
Even as we develop this new legislation, we want to maintain a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious. Mediation of workplace discrimination claims at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) will continue to be the primary focus, with emphasis on educating employers on fair employment practices and mending the employment relationship. Parties could explore monetary or non-monetary remedies, such as the employer reinstating an employment offer or the employer providing an apology. As a neutral party, TADM will assist both parties to arrive at fair and mutually agreed outcomes.
We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to build fairer and more harmonious workplaces in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Paid Annual Leave Provided to Employees of Differing Salary Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years, on average how many days of paid annual leave are provided to workers earning (i) up to $1,000 per month, (ii) $1,000 to $2,000 per month, (iii) $2,000 to $5,000 per month and (iv) above $5,000 per month.
Dr Tan See Leng: The average paid annual leave days provided to full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 are shown in the table below:
32 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower given the finding of the recent study by NTU and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy that only 65% of active CPF members who turned 55 in 2021 have either saved enough for the CPF Basic Retirement Sum and owned a property, or had saved the Full Retirement Sum, what steps will the Ministry take, together with employers, to increase the awareness of adequate retirement planning amongst employees, especially older workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: To help Singaporeans attain basic retirement adequacy, we, first and foremost, need to ensure that our economy continues to be competitive and create good jobs. We uplift lower-wage workers through Workfare and Progressive Wage moves. Singaporeans can be assured that they will be able to meet their basic retirement needs as long as they work and contribute consistently to the Central Provident Fund (CPF). About seven in 10 active CPF members who turned age 55 in 2022 set aside the CPF Basic Retirement Sum or more. This would improve to about eight in 10 for CPF members who turn age 55 in 2027.
As our life expectancy improves, more seniors are able and wish to continue working. We will support them by increasing the statutory retirement and re-employment ages to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030, up from 63 and 68 today. This will enable our seniors to work longer if they wish to and further strengthen their retirement adequacy.
Retirement planning is, ultimately, a personal responsibility. To help Singaporeans in this journey, CPF Board, MoneySENSE1 as well as MoneySENSE’s ground outreach arm, the Institute of Financial Literacy (IFL), conduct outreach and provide resources on retirement planning.
For example, CPF members reaching the age of 55 will be invited to a one-to-one CPF Retirement Planning Service, which offers personalised guidance, so that they can make informed decisions on how best to prepare for retirement with their CPF savings. CPF Board also regularly engages and educates members on retirement planning through its social media platforms, electronic direct mailers and face-to-face community events/talks. There is also an annual CPF Board Retirement Planning Campaign to inspire Singaporeans to start planning for their retirement.
IFL provides free one-to-one financial health clinics and retirement planning workshops covering topics, such as money management, managing CPF savings and estate planning. To reach employees, IFL has been partnering employers to deliver workplace financial literacy programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : MoneySENSE, Singapore’s national financial education programme, aims to help Singaporeans manage their money well and make sound financial decisions. Its efforts are guided by the MoneySENSE Council, which is co-chaired by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Ministry of Manpower."],"footNoteQuestions":["32"],"questionNo":"32"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"International Labour Organization's Committee of Experts on Application of Conventions and Recommendations' Request for Information on Submissions to Parliament","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government has complied with the comments of the International Labour Organization’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on their direct request published in the 111st International Labour Conference Session (2023) to provide information on its submissions to Parliament on various Protocols and Recommendations, including the Forced Labour (Supplementary Measures) Recommendation, 2014 (No 203).
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower is studying the International Labour Organization’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations’ direct request and will respond to it in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}