1 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the Ministry's position on the dating platform TheSugarBook which targets young females and whether the Ministry will be taking steps to address the possible harm and exploitation that such young females could be subjected to.
2 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what measures are in place to protect teenagers and young persons from online platforms, such as TheSugarBook, that aim to capitalise on their emotional or financial vulnerabilities and exploit them sexually.
3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether online platforms, such as TheSugarBook, are legal in Singapore and what actions will be taken to ensure vice activities do not proliferate through such a channel.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, Sir, sugar dating platforms like The SugarBook commoditise and devalue relationships under the cover of a \"mutually beneficial arrangement\". Relationships become transactional: an exchange of money and gifts in return for companionship and \"other\" services.
But what is of greater concern is that the site targets young people who are in their late teens and early 20s, even while they are still students at polytechnics or universities, exposing them to the risks of being exploited and abused. These transactions are fundamentally imbalanced in favour of older and wealthier people. Young women, for instance, may feel pressurised to comply with their wishes or demands and risk physical or sexual harm if they reject them.
The Police will keep a close eye on The SugarBook, as well as the individuals who use its services. For instance, if there is any procurement of sexual services for payment, the Police will take enforcement action under the Women’s Charter, including possibly against the website and its owners.
While we collectively object to such websites, the more effective and enduring solution lies in increasing the awareness of young people to such dangers, so that they exercise discretion and good judgement when navigating the online world. Students in the Ministry of Education's schools are taught to establish boundaries for personal safety, discern risks and exercise sound judgement when going onto online platforms and managing relationships, both online and offline. In addition, during Cyber Wellness lessons, they learn about safe and responsible use of technology and cover topics, such as danger with cyber contacts. They will also link up with our universities and polytechnics to help raise awareness of such risks. At the same time, parents play a critical role in guiding their children and helping them to stay away from undesirable online content.
At the end of the day, while we recognise that these websites undermine families and society, our best defence is for society, communities and our families to reinforce values that anchor us so that we do not to succumb to such influences.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for his answer. I am very heartened by the Ministry's views. I just have two supplementary questions. First, building on what the Minister has said that the Police and the Ministry will take a closer look at these sites, I hope that this can be done very proactively and decisively, when it is very clear that what the Ministry is advocating is not adhered to. My second question is a broader question, which is how do we balance the need between freedom of young adults to do as they wish, whilst curbing the platforms of these activities which are not aligned to our social norms.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank Mr Seah for his concerns, well-expressed. I give the Member the assurance that as we had responded to in the Parliamentary Question answer, we will keep an eye on the site and other like sites, and take action if laws are violated. In terms of finding the right balance between the freedom of people, including young people to make moral choices within the realm of what is legally permissible, and acting as a regulator to curb sites both online and, of course, in the real-world platforms to protect, we need to strike the right balance.
Certain sites, for example, Ashley Madison, if the Member recalls, in 2013, the Info-communications Media Development Authority's predecessor, the Media Development Authority, acted decisively to ban the site because the site explicitly advocated, through its portal, extramarital affairs and infidelity. They had proposed to set up the site in Singapore and for the founder to fly in and launch the site. That ran right up against our core values on protecting the family and preserving family values. So, we acted decisively then.
But the Member would know that in the online realm, it is very broad. There are many aspects of the online world that are very troubling. And yet, locking and banning every such site, whatever its subject matter may be, is not the most enduring way in which to protect Singaporeans, including young Singaporeans, from such risks.
The key is to put in a lot of effort educating children from young and continuing well into the teenage years and beyond, so that they are aware of these risks. The key is that families, individuals, communities and society as a whole need to continuously recognise the values that hold us together. With that kind of internalisation of values, we put each and every individual in as best a position as possible when making his or her moral decisions.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Minister for clarifying the Ministry's position on this. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, I understand the Minister's point, but on this particular website TheSugarBook, it was featured in a mainstream teenager magazine just earlier this year. I would like to ask what is the Ministry's position on this. The concern is whether by being featured in such mainstream teenager magazines, the wrong signal will be sent that this is a mainstream channel or platform for teenagers to make use of. This is also taking into consideration that we collectively object to such websites.
The second question is: the more important thing is to address the root cause. I would like to ask the Ministry whether there will be any effort to be taken to understand the reasons why young people are taking to such websites as one of the options to finance whatever their endeavours are, including studies. So, whether the Ministry will be taking a proactive effort to reach out and help these young people so that they become less susceptible to such lures?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member that we need to work with all aspects of society, including the private sector, to see whether it is appropriate for them to be advocating or advertising for such platforms and activities. This is an ongoing conversation. As I had said earlier in my reply, we will keep a very close eye on TheSugarBook and other like sites.
In terms of the root cause, this is something that we continually study. People, including young people, make moral choices based on the internal sense of what is right, what is wrong, what is white, what is black and what is grey. What is important is that from a young age and all through life, we give individuals the opportunity to be exposed to good moral values. The role of family is critical and that is why the Ministry of Social and Family Development provides programmes in which parents can pick up and strengthen parenting skills. We work very closely with schools on such curriculum. We have social networks, such as Family Service Centres and other voluntary welfare organisations that partner us in supporting families that run into crises. For example, when the children present certain behavioural issues, it is a whole-of-community effort.
I thank the Member for her concern. We will continue to keep an eye on such developments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Maintenance Applications Submitted to Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past five years, what is number of maintenance applications submitted to the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents; (b) whether there has been any significant increase or decrease in the number of applications made over the years; and (c) what percentage of the applications are resolved by mediation.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Family and Social Development): Mr Speaker, there were 262 new maintenance applications submitted to the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents in the last five years. There is no clear trend in the number of applications. It has ranged from a low of 36 in 2015 to a high of 70 in 2016.
Applicants who file maintenance applications have to attend mediation before their case is heard by the Tribunal. In 2017, our mediators resolved half, that is, about 51%, of the maintenance applications filed, an increase from 39% in 2013.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer to the question. First, I would like to declare that I am a mediator with the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents (TMP). I would like to seek specific information on numbers that have applied and where there had been settlement.
Also, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could give comments on the effectiveness of the process in place, including mediation, in resolving the issues raised at TMP. Further, whether there is any scope of review of the role of TMP, perhaps in providing and enhancing services to the families, for example, in counselling or allowing for financial planning classes for the families.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank Mdm Rahayu for the supplementary questions. Looking at the details and numbers, as I had said earlier, we cannot see any trend. Nevertheless, from 2013 to 2017, numbers have gone down. In 2013, it was 63 new applications; 2014 saw 55 new applications; 2015 saw 36 new applications; 2016 saw 70 new applications and 2017 saw 38 new applications. So, as a whole, we feel that the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents (CMP) has been able to help in facilitating to resolve the issues amicably. The number of applications at TMP has dropped since 2011. We feel that this can be attributed largely to the CMP's success in resolving maintenance disputes through conciliation.
Since 2011, CMP has resolved eight out of the 10 cases, with 90% of these cases being resolved within three months. We feel that with better upfront conciliation, fewer applications are being filed at TMP. The applications fell from 63 in 2013 to 38 in 2017. It is not only about conciliation or about how we can help them. If along the way, we find that there are efforts that we can carry out at the Social Service Offices level by community agencies, we will do our best to refer. We want to promote filial piety; we want families to be able to support one another. And the community can play a part in this.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. As the one who, together with the Work Group, led the changes to the last amendment to this Bill, I am heartened to see that the conciliation rate has increased significantly.
What I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is whether, given that these are encouraging results and, indeed, we want more conciliations rather than going through the Tribunal per se, that more efforts, more focus, even more attention and more publicity be given. We do know that there are strains for many families in this day and age, and every family that we can help, first publicise this avenue and how conciliations can result in success. I will urge the Ministry to consider putting more efforts into this.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we will certainly take in Mr Seah's suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Flash Floods and Adequacy of Drainage System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the flood prevention systems will be able to prevent flash floods similar to those that occurred on 8 January 2018 after the completion of the drainage upgrades in 2019; (b) what are the guiding principles used to determine the drainage capacity needed in an area; and (c) whether these include balancing the potential collateral damage versus the investment cost.
6 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with regard to the flash flood on 8 January 2018 at Bedok North Avenue 4 (a) whether the ongoing enhancement drainage works at Bedok Canal was one of the reasons that limits the water capacity that can be stored or discharged through the canal during heavy downpours and high tides; (b) if so, what are the interim measures to prevent potential flash floods at this area until enhancement works are completed in 2019; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure the public living and working near any canals are alerted before possible water overflow occurs.
7 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what current mechanisms are in place to notify motorists of impending flash floods in order to redirect traffic from affected areas; and (b) whether such mechanisms can be further enhanced to achieve broader and more effective notifications.
8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what caused the heavy flooding at the nine locations in the eastern part of Singapore on 8 January 2018; (b) whether each location has a history of flooding; (c) whether existing drainage works is a cause; (d) what measures have been taken to assist members of the public who were affected by the flooding; and (e) what measures will be taken to prevent similar flooding.
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how does PUB ensure that existing drains and canals are kept free of debris that have the potential to create constrictions or bottlenecks, so as to alleviate flooding.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 5 to 9 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On the morning of 8 January 2018, the prevailing Northeast Monsoon, aggravated by the development of a Sumatra squall, gave rise to intense rainfall across several parts of Singapore. The highest recorded total rainfall on that morning was 118.8 millimetres. This means that about half of Singapore's average monthly rainfall in January fell in just over four hours.
Eight of the nine locations that experienced flash floods that morning are low-lying and, therefore, susceptible to flash floods. Two of these, Tampines Road, opposite Jalan Teliti, and Arumugam Road, have a history of flash floods. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) is already carrying out drainage improvement works in these eight locations to enable the drains there to discharge more water in a shorter time when completed.
During drainage improvement works, PUB ensures that the drainage capacity of the area is maintained at the original level before works commence. Drainage works did not cause the flash floods in these locations.
For the ninth location at Tampines Avenue 12, apart from intense rainfall which exceeded the drain's design capacity, a temporary construction access road built by the contractor had obstructed the earth drain in an adjacent worksite. This aggravated the flash flood. PUB has worked with the developer to improve the drainage at the earth drain and this will help to improve the situation at Tampines Avenue 12 in an event of an intense storm. The longer-term measure is the permanent drainage system which will be built in tandem with the upcoming development project at the adjacent worksite.
The flash floods were caused by the intense rainfall temporarily exceeding the existing design capacity of the drains. Although the flood waters affected only certain stretches of the roads, and subsided within 15 to 60 minutes, we acknowledge that members of the public were inconvenienced and a number of cars were stalled.
When flash floods occur, we urge members of the public to exercise caution and avoid traversing in submerged areas even if they appear safe. Flash floods are usually of short duration and it is better to take a detour or wait for them to pass before continuing the journey. To aid the public, PUB, together with Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority (LTA), will help divert vehicles at the earliest possible.
Let me go back to drain design. PUB takes into account terrain, the extent and type of developments in the area, catchment area served by the drain, as well as the design rainfall intensity over the catchment. This is standard international practice. However, with climate change, we can expect more intense rainfalls to be the norm in the future. A study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found that flood risks from rainfall changes will increase in the next two to three decades, due to global warming from greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere. The need for adaptation is significant, even in countries with good infrastructure, such as Singapore.
To prepare for this, PUB has raised the drainage design standards since 2011, so that our drains can handle up to 45% higher rainfall intensities. These new standards were endorsed in 2012 by a Drainage Expert Panel comprising local and international specialists.
Since 2012, PUB has commenced and completed drainage improvement works at 327 locations. There are another 73 locations undergoing similar works, with 22 more planned this year. The Government has invested $1.2 billion on these works and has set aside another $500 million for the next two to three years.
However, it is not feasible to build our drains to accommodate every extreme rainfall event as this would require massive land take and much higher costs. Let me just take one example. Bedok Canal, which serves some of the affected areas, is being widened at a cost of $128 million to expand its width from 38 metres to 44 metres, wide enough to accommodate an expressway of 10 lanes, five lanes each way. Even with this widening, we cannot guarantee that there will be no floods in future, as rainfall events of even higher intensity could still occur that exceed the design capacity. This is especially so with climate change. To deal with the most extreme historical rainfall events, the Bedok Canal would need to be widened to at least 62 metres, displacing the Bedok Park Connector and community spaces adjacent to the canal, and possibly even affecting the surrounding residential areas.
This will look like a 16-lane expressway. Given competing needs for other land uses, such as housing, parks and roadsides, we have to be practical in our drainage expansion in Singapore. We have to design with practical considerations and not for extreme conditions all the time for all places. Building our drains for extreme conditions would mean that much of the capacity would be extremely costly but not needed most of the time. We will, however, ensure our critical infrastructure is well-protected from such extreme rainfalls. This is achieved through the \"source-pathway-receptor\" approach which was developed based on the recommendation of the Drainage Expert Panel to implement a holistic range of interventions.
Let me elaborate on the \"source-pathway-receptor\" approach. Under this approach, other than improving the pathways, or the drains, we also manage the source, which refers to where the rain falls. Measures include detention tanks to slow down surface runoff and reduce the amount of storm water entering the drains during peak rainfall. For instance, the Stamford Detention Tank and the Stamford Diversion Canal are constructed to protect Orchard Road against floods. These are still under construction. Built beneath a nursery and coach bay of the Tyersall Learning Forest, the Stamford Detention Tank will temporarily hold excess storm water from the drains. After the rain subsides, the storm water will be pumped back into the drains for subsequent discharge into Marina Reservoir.
For areas that are most at risk of flooding, PUB stipulates that buildings must have receptor features, such as higher platform levels, crest protection and flood barriers to prevent floodwaters from damaging them.
Apart from structural interventions, PUB places equal emphasis on non-structural measures, such as the maintenance of drains. PUB and the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Department of Public Cleanliness carry out regular inspections to remove debris, litter and leaves from the drains. We encourage everyone to keep our environment litter-free. Any obstruction in the drain reduces its capacity and impedes water flow, which could lead to or aggravate a flash flood. We urge developers and contractors to ensure that the drains in and around their work sites function well. Members of the public are encouraged to provide feedback on drain conditions through PUB's MyWaters app or the Municipal Services Office's (MSO's) OneService App or call PUB's 24-hour Call Centre.
Mr Speaker, as flash floods cannot be completely eliminated, PUB seeks to help members of the public better cope with a flash flood by warning them and providing alerts and timely situation updates. Members of the public can subscribe to NEA's and PUB's short message service (SMS) alerts or mobile apps for updates on impending heavy rain and the water level in drains at designated locations.
While PUB strives to give early warning to the public, the weather systems in our equatorial region pose a forecasting challenge. These weather systems comprise mainly convective thunderstorms which tend to be localised, develop rather suddenly, and are of short duration. This limits the lead time of our warnings of heavy rain and consequently of the flash floods.
During flash floods, members of the public can stay updated through radio broadcasts, PUB's Facebook and Twitter pages, mobile apps as well as LTA's Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS).
Our approach to flood management is a comprehensive one that seeks to alleviate flood risks while minimising disruption to the public. We will continue to take all necessary steps to enhance flood resilience in Singapore and keep the public informed of flash flood incidents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his answer to the question. Just one supplementary question. In respect of the measures for the eight out of nine locations in the eastern part of Singapore that the Minister mentioned will be taken or undergoing, how soon will these measures be completed?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Before I answer that question, I would like Members to recognise that PUB must also manage extremities of weather in both directions. We have to take care of intense drought, prolonged drought, that challenges or may affect our water supply. At the same time, we have to take care of extreme weather, such as rain of higher intensity and frequency, which will bring about floods.
Therefore, when we talk about floods, we must also remember to ask questions about the other extreme. What should we do and how much resources do we have for both extremities?
Climate change actually has brought extreme weather conditions in many parts of the world. Many of us would have read that Paris has just experienced one of the worst floods because of the rising Seine River, prolonged rain for two weeks that recently has closed even the Louvre Museum. At the same time, down south, Cape Town is experiencing drought condition for three years, just like us. But they were not ready. They did not put in the right things at the right time and now may run out of water within two to three months. Cape Town is now racing to look at solutions to solve their water problem.
Therefore, when we look at our problems, we have to look at conditions of what we need to do and how fast we can do what, and which we should put priorities on. We have 8,000 kilometres (km) of drains, canals and rivers. If you put this end to end, from the surface of the earth, it will go through the centre of the earth with 2,000 km to spare. That is how long our drains, canals and rivers are.
So, we have to be cautious about making commitments that everything will be settled quickly. We also have to ensure that drains are not the only ones that will solve the problem. We have to ensure at the source or the receptor of where this rainfall happens, the developers and the people who own this part of land, must also play their part.
So, it is not easy to answer just because the drains will be ready by this time, the flash floods will be gone. For example, right now, there are about 500 submissions for plans to do retention tanks for those developments above 0.2 hectares. Of this, only 158 have been completed. Now, together with the drain and the receptor, source and completion of all the projects there, we will have a better chance of avoiding the flash floods. But like I said, it is impossible to totally eliminate them because this will occur. It is more important for us to give as much timely warning as possible to our public to ensure that they do not traverse these flash floods, which will usually go away within 50 minutes to 60 minutes. Perhaps, take a detour.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to my question. May I ask the Minister how does his Ministry propose to exercise oversight over the developers and the construction companies, so that their activities would not block the drains and canals and keep them free of debris?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Contractors, in preparing the site, have to submit to PUB their plans for diverting drains, for keeping the original drain design, for taking away the water from the site intact so that rainfalls or the design capacity of the drain will not affect the surrounding areas. This has worked most of the time.
Where we have found flash floods occurring in areas where we know do not frequently occur or rarely occur, it is usually because the contractors have not implemented what they are supposed to do or implemented something else in order to make their worksite either accessible or easier to work on. When this happens, as in the recent case of Tampines Avenue 12, we will take action against the contractor, bring them to Court and fine them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Indiscriminate Parking of Shared Bicycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar –
10 To ask the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to make it a requirement for bicycle-sharing companies to collectively invest in and construct bicycle docking stations, particularly around housing estates, to mitigate the current problem of having their shared bicycles strewn around untidily or causing obstruction.
11 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether enforcement action will be taken against hirers of rental bicycles who dump the bicycles in an indiscriminate manner.
12 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the geo-fencing and incentive/disincentive elements in the bike-sharing operators' mobile applications have addressed the indiscriminate parking of bicycles; (b) what more can be done to compel the operators to make more investments to unilaterally clear indiscriminately parked bicycles expeditiously; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising agencies, such as Town Councils and commercial establishments, to remove or report such bicycles.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Question No 10, Sir.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 10 to 12 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been working with the other agencies to provide more parking spaces and step up enforcement. Since enforcement commenced in May 2017, LTA has issued more than 2,100 removal notices and collected about $180,000 in fines and administrative fees from the Bicycle Sharing Operators (BSOs). In October 2017, LTA, the National Parks Board (NParks) and Town Councils signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BSOs, which sets out guidelines on the responsible operation of bicycle-sharing services in public spaces.
LTA will also be proposing legislative amendments later this month to put in place a licensing framework for BSOs. As part of the proposed licensing framework, BSOs will be required to remove indiscriminately parked bicycles on public land within a stipulated time period. BSOs will also be required to adopt schemes that will disincentivise users for indiscriminate parking. This may involve high-accuracy geo-fencing. More details of the licensing framework will be announced when ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Minister of State what is stopping the Ministry of Transport from taking enforcement actions against hirers of bicycles from being prosecuted because of the way they dump the bicycles?
If we fine litterbugs from throwing cigarette butts, why should we not fine bicycle users for throwing their bicycles on the roadside, or expressways, flyovers, drains? Surely, these are worse litterers. They create such an eyesore for members of the public, so the entire public is put to inconvenience because of the indiscriminate littering of bicycles by some inconsiderate users.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Lim for the supplementary question and I understand the frustration faced by the public. LTA currently adopts a five-pronged approach to managing disamenities of dockless bicycle sharing.
First, we are providing more public bicycle parking spaces. In fact, all Government agencies and Town Councils allow shared bicycles to be parked in all public bicycle parking areas. There are currently about 174,000 bicycle parking lots available, and we plan to add another 50,000 by 2020.
Secondly, through educating and guiding proper parking behaviour. LTA has been working with the BSOs to educate shared bicycle users, and we have developed educational materials on proper bicycle etiquette.
Thirdly, to shape user behaviour. Some BSOs have implemented GPS geo-fencing, and users that park bicycles within a geo-fenced parking zone are given incentives. There are also BSOs which have implemented Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) geo stations and charge a towing fee to users who do not park properly.
Fourthly, of course, we do step up enforcement actions. Currently, what we do is to fine a BSO which fails to retrieve indiscriminately parked bicycles. In fact, the fine ranges from $100 for the first offence, $200 for the second offence and $500 for subsequent offences.
Next, like I had mentioned in my reply, we did sign an MOU together with the BSOs, NParks and Town Councils. The MOU aims to encourage responsible operation of bike-sharing services in public spaces.
With regard to penalising users, under the current Street Works Act, users who indiscriminately park their bicycles on public streets and cause obstruction and inconvenience can be fined up to $2,000. However, there are challenges. It is difficult to catch users in the act of parking bicycles indiscriminately. I would like to share with Mr Lim that at this moment, we do not have users who have been caught so far.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Can I just check how many times have each of the BSOs been issued fines for neglecting the shared bicycles that are strewn all over the place, and are there plans to tighten this penalty mechanism imposed on the BSOs?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Based on the number of notices issued and bicycles impounded from the period May 2017 to 21 January 2018, there was a total of 2,171 removal notices issued, and the number of bicycles impounded adds up to 341. The total fines collected by LTA amounted to about $180,000. These do not include those issued by the Town Councils or NParks.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like a bit more information on this licensing regime that the Minister spoke about. Because it does appear that in spite of these fines that have been given to the BSOs, there is still a long way to go in terms of ensuring that the bicycles are not causing disamenity to members of the public.
Can I ask the Senior Minister of State is there a regime which LTA imposes on the BSOs to clear bicycles expeditiously? I think there is currently a four-hour timeline where they have to remove the bicycles. However, many of them still cannot make that timeline. In relation to my Parliamentary Question, even though Town Councils have signed the MOU with LTA, the reality is Town Council officers or property officers do not have that much leeway of time to go around looking for these bicycles and then monitoring whether they are cleared within four hours or not.
Is LTA going to look at the prospect of requiring the BSOs to intensify their efforts to pick up illegally or indiscriminately parked bikes? Because they are profit-making entities after all.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Indeed, I agree with Mr Pritam Singh that the BSOs are not performing up to the desired outcomes that LTA would want them to. This is the reason why we will be proposing legislative amendments to put in place a licensing framework for BSOs. I will be sharing more of this when it is ready.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State a question. I think part of the issue is about the demand and supply, probably because of the cost of the bicycle. How is LTA monitoring and managing this with the BSOs in terms of the growth rate with which they are putting the bicycles out?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Miss Cheryl Chan for the supplementary question. LTA does have regular meetings with BSOs to discuss issues relating to their daily operations as well as the problem of indiscriminate parking. At the same time, we do discuss with the BSOs with regard to the optimum fleet size that will meet the requirements of Singaporeans. I would like to reassure Miss Cheryl Chan that we will continue to do so with the BSOs. At the same time, when we do propose the legislative amendments, this will set out the regulatory framework, the licensing framework, to control the operations of the BSOs.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. Can the Senior Minister of State assure the House and residents affected that in this study of the upcoming framework, his Ministry will study expedited requirements to remove a bicycle, especially in areas where access is critical? I raise this because my residents have encountered these shared bikes blocking fire exits, wheelchair ramps and other essential parts of the estate, and they are worried that the companies are socialising the costs while privatising the profits.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Dr Tan for the supplementary question. This is exactly the intent of the legislative amendments and the framework that we will be coming up with. We will be consulting the stakeholders as well as the industry. And we will keep all these in mind during the discussion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State why are we just focusing on giving fines to the BSOs? Surely, the BSOs should be able to review the data of the last user of the bicycle who left his bicycle in an indiscriminate manner. Would the Senior of State not agree with me that we would be better able to shape user behaviour if we impose a fine on those users who park their bicycles in a manner that obstruct fire exits and wheelchair ramps?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I totally agree with Mr Lim. In fact, that is the intention. With the new legislative framework, we do want the BSOs to impose some form of disincentive with regard to renting out of the bicycles. I would just like to remind all Members of the House that while there may be interim inconveniences and disamenities, I would like to reiterate that there are actually many benefits of the bike-sharing scheme, not just the disamenities that we are currently facing, which may be transient in nature. Benefits include transport flexibility in terms of first- and last-mile connectivity. There will be reductions in vehicle emissions if we are able to bring the population of car ownership down. In addition to that, there are also health benefits of cycling. It will also reduce congestion and fuel consumption. More importantly, it complements our vision of a car-lite society.
I was particularly thrilled by a column that I read yesterday, an opinion of the day by one of our young journalists in The Straits Times. She shared her initial apprehension and scepticism of the bike-sharing scheme but later found the experience pleasing and enjoyable, and I would like to quote her:
\"When the bike-sharing scheme started in Singapore about a year ago, some turned up their noses at this new sharing economy service and doubted it would last. After all, photos of bikes upended in the middle of a desolated field or abandoned in the storm drain triggered widespread outrage.
But writing here as a car-less commuter who often feels defeated by the merciless crush of people on public transport, I am all for bike-sharing as it has given commuting a new lease of life and transformed the way I experience my city.\"
So, I would like to urge all Members of the House and fellow Singaporeans to give the bike-sharing scheme a chance to evolve into a safe and convenient mode of transport in our daily lives. However, for this to become a reality, we need the support of everyone ‒ the authorities, the BSOs and, more importantly, you, the users of the bike-sharing scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Scrapping Off-peak Monthly Travel Pass for Persons with Disabilities and Senior Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the take-up rate for the Off-peak Monthly Travel Pass for persons with disabilities and senior citizens; (b) why was it discontinued without prior notice; and (c) whether there are plans to provide cheaper off-peak or weekend travel options to encourage senior citizens to stay active.
14 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason for scrapping the $40 monthly unlimited off-peak travel pass for senior citizens; (b) how many seniors are affected by the scrapping of the pass; and (c) what percentage of seniors have switched to buying the $60 Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Pass.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, senior citizens and persons with disabilities enjoy concessionary fares that are 25% off adult card fares at all times. Regular commuters among this group can also buy the monthly concession pass at half the price of the regular adult monthly pass.
The off-peak pass was introduced in July 2015 as a trial to see if we can get regular commuters to shift from peak to off-peak travel. However, the result has been disappointing. It has shifted less than 200 of the pass users to off-peak travel.
As the scheme has clearly not been effective, the Public Transport Council (PTC) recommended discontinuing it starting this year. Instead, under a new scheme, all commuters can enjoy a fare discount of up to 50 cents throughout the rail network if they tap in before 7.45 am. Senior citizens and persons with disabilities enjoy this discount on top of their regular 25% discounts. The new scheme was launched with wide publicity. PTC, the Land Transport Authority and the public transport operators have placed posters at all Mass Rapid Transit stations and buses since the middle of December last year. More than half of the senior citizens and persons with disabilities off-peak pass users have switched to buy the monthly concession pass in January this year.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. The fact that there was quite a lot of discussion on the ground on this means that it affects these 200 users. I would like to ask whether there is a study to see whether these 200 commuters who used the old scheme were worse off or adversely affected under the new scheme. Secondly, if they need help, is there any other help that is available, such as transport vouchers or anything else?
\tMr Speaker: Minister, can you also clarify whether you are taking both Question Nos 13 and 14 together?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Yes. I do not have the data that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has asked for, except to say that when we design a public scheme, it must benefit as wide a number of people as possible. After all, we are spending taxpayers' money. When the scheme was formulated, I suppose we were optimistic that there would be many who will benefit and make the switch. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be so. I think it is the right decision on the part of PTC to recommend disbanding this but, instead, bring out a new scheme, which is what we are enjoying today, which will benefit hundreds and thousands of commuters.
Of the handful who probably are adversely affected, how best to do it? Well, my favourite Member of Parliament (MPs) has good solutions. Good local MPs can always come up with local solutions. When we know a particular resident has been inconvenienced because of this, and yet despite the various 25% discount and so on, still could not afford their transport fares, as a local MP, we do chip in, if I discover such cases. I am quite sure Er Dr Lee will know how to do it.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister. Just a question about the experimental effect because it seems like people have switched from the off-peak pass to the all-day pass. Will this increase senior citizens travelling in peak periods and, therefore, actually defeating the purpose of the experiment in the first place?\t
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I doubt it. But we would not know until it starts. So, we will analyse the impact of these various new schemes that have just been brought in. It is just a few weeks in the run and we will see whether we need to refine the scheme as we go along.
Last week, I was reading about the death of the famous founder of IKEA. He is a legend and there are many stories about him. I remember his Chief Executive Officer always related an anecdote where, in a board meeting, the founder questioned him, \"What are the mistakes you have done?\" Meaning that, in life, we must always experiment, try out things. If you never did, you never tried out anything, then that is your biggest mistake.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Just a quick question. Why not give the senior citizens the flexibility of choice between the off-peak pass and the all-day pass? Maybe an experiment?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: We will see. But now that we have tried this experiment and found that the off-peak pass has failed miserably, why do we want to do it again? So, yes, while I encourage making mistakes, trying out new things, but when we have discovered something does not work and we keep on banging our head against the wall, why do we do that? We will get a headache.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate and Affordability of After-school Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the current capacity and take-up rate of after-school student care centres; (b) how does the Ministry continuously ensure that student care remains affordable; and (c) whether there are plans to set minimum operating standards for after-school care.
\tThe Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Speaker, over the last six years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has increased the number of school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) from 50 to 162. Their enrolment has increased from 3,000 in 2012 to 21,000 today, or 9% of all primary school students. Where there is demand for school-based student care services, schools will work closely with the service providers to expand their capacity at a pace that does not compromise quality. MOE is on track to have SCCs in all our primary schools by end 2020.
There are also SCCs outside of schools that provide after-school care for students. Currently, there are 261 community-based SCCs registered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), with a total enrolment of about 11,000 students, and with some spare capacity. Together, MOE and MSF monitor the capacities and enrolment of both school-based and community-based SCCs closely.
To ensure affordability for children from lower-income families, the ComCare Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme provides needy families with assistance to offset their monthly SCC fees. With the assistance, eligible students can pay as little as $5 per month. MSF regularly reviews the ComCare SCFA scheme to ensure that student care remains affordable for lower-income families.
All registered SCCs are required to comply with requirements covering areas like supervision, safety, health and hygiene. In addition, for school-based SCCs, the service providers are selected via a stringent and competitive procurement process and have to meet contractual requirements for quality in areas, such as programmes, staff training, level of care and environment. Schools maintain close oversight of SCC operations to ensure that quality is maintained.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Just one point of clarification. There has been feedback from parents, especially in schools whereby there are younger parents and more children, that some schools have to prioritise the after-school student care for the lower primary students. This has caused some inconvenience, especially when they have two or more children in school and one of them has to go into the private space. Can I check with the Minister if the plan is to cater capacity for all levels of primary school students?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The size of the waitlist for primary schools varies for different schools. But on average, the number of waitlisted students is low. Where there is excess demand, schools will work with the SCC operators to see how we can expand the number of classrooms to cater for this enrolment demand.
Having said that, it is with the caveat that this expansion does not compromise the quality of student care. As I have said in the reply earlier, MOE has expanded the student care facilities quite tremendously in the last few years. So, while we cater to the quantity of students needing the care, we want to ensure that the quality is built up correspondingly as well.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): May I ask the Minister whether there are plans to have a standard framework for after-school care centres, similar to what we have for childcare centres, which is the SPARK certification framework, to ensure that there are certain standards of operation, as well as standards pertaining to the personnel who take care of these student care centres?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, the SCC programmes are well-planned. In the midst of building up these student care centres, we ensure the quality and, therefore, the overall standards, whether it is environment, hygiene, even some of the programmes. To uplift the quality of SCC staff, MOE, MSF and Workforce Development Agency ‒ now, Workforce Singapore ‒ have introduced a 40-hour training programme for new and untrained SCC staff. This course is currently undertaken by Ngee Ann Polytechnic and was launched in 2015. So far, it has trained about 622 staff to date. With these training programmes, we hope to uplift and upkeep standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Co-payment Activities in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) whether the Ministry monitors the number of student activities in schools that involve co-payment by students; and (b) of such activities, what proportion is (i) compulsory, (ii) on an opt-out basis and (iii) on an opt-in basis but with 50% or more of eligible students participating.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, to enhance the learning experience of our students, our schools have discretion to go beyond the core curriculum to provide richer learning experiences for different segments of students. We do not actively monitor whether such activities involve co-payment from students, nor do we stop schools from making collections for these activities, as we believe that families should play a part in supporting their children in education as part of their familial responsibility.
However, we regularly remind schools that such payments should not be excessive and should be affordable to parents. Students can also opt to pay for these activities using their Edusave accounts. For students from less advantaged backgrounds, schools can further subsidise or even fully pay the cost of their participation using specific funds provided by the Ministry of Education (MOE), such as the School-based Financial Assistance Grant and the Opportunity Fund. Most importantly, no Singaporean student will be deprived of an educational opportunity because of his or her family's financial circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. Would the Ministry, at some point, as part of the ongoing review of students' socio-economic circumstances, consider conducting such a study in schools, so as to see if students may inadvertently be discouraged from such activities by perceptions that the activities might not be accessible?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member Dr Tan Wu Meng for the supplementary question. I also want to take the opportunity to assure the House that schools are sufficiently resourced to run quality programmes. Our staff and teachers in schools are well-trained to observe and, in a way, sensitively, identify students' well-being and, based on their attendance and attention span, whether there are any issues troubling them.
I mentioned briefly that there are two funds that the schools can tap on – the Financial Assistance Grant and also the Opportunity Fund. The staff in the school will be able to tap on these funds to help the students whether to make the co-payment, if required, or tap on the Financial Assistance Grant to pay for textbooks, uniforms and so on. All these will be done very sensitively.
Just to give an update, in the last two years, 60% of the Opportunity Funds are used to pay for students' additional learning opportunities. So, I really want to assure the Member and the House that no Singaporean student will be denied access to quality education because of their families' financial circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Petrochemical Companies' Governance Processes after Recent Case of Theft of Fuel from Pulau Bukom","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the recent theft of large quantities of fuel from Pulau Bukom (a) whether the petrochemical companies' security and governance processes require tightening, especially in sensitive areas, such as Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island; and (b) how is the Ministry working with the petrochemical companies to ensure that hazardous and flammable materials do not fall into the wrong hands.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Police's investigation is ongoing and it will be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
Generally, petrochemical companies which store large amounts of petroleum and flammable materials must obtain a licence from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
The licence is renewed annually and applicants must put in place security measures to prevent unauthorised access to, and unauthorised activities involving the petroleum and flammable materials. Licences that involve volatile petroleum and flammable materials are deemed to be of higher risk and are subjected to site inspections to assess the adequacy of their physical security measures. These include companies on Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island.
Licensees are also required to immediately notify the SCDF of any loss or theft of petroleum and flammable materials from their premises and put in place measures to prevent recurrence. Beyond physical security measures, companies storing petroleum and flammable materials have a duty to establish robust internal governance and oversight to safeguard their petroleum and flammable materials.
The Police and SCDF will continue to engage these companies through regular platforms, like the Jurong Island Safety and Security Watch Group, to share best practices, trends and lessons from past incidents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\t
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her comprehensive reply. Just a couple of clarifications.
First, understandable that while investigations are ongoing, the Minister could not share more, but is there any reason to believe that the processes have not been thorough on the part of the companies that require the Police to enhance and tighten those processes?
Secondly, because of the large quantities that had been stolen, are there any reasons to believe that any other companies will require similar tightening processes?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I shared earlier in my response that the licensees are regularly inspected. In the case of Shell Bukom, they were, in fact, last inspected in December 2017. At that time, they were found to have met with the compliance requirements of the licensing conditions.
The matter is before the Courts, so I cannot say very much more, except that the investigations seek to reveal how the thefts occurred, and this may or may not have anything to do with the adequacy of the security measures. So, the best thing for us to do is to let the Police complete their work and then we can have a meaningful discussion on what more can be done to prevent such recurrence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Signatures at Public Place for Parliamentary Petitions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police will favourably consider an application to collect signatures for the purposes of a Parliamentary petition on any given matter in a public place; and (b) how and at which public venues other than Speakers' Corner can citizens legally make arrangements to sign a Parliamentary petition as the Parliamentary Standing Orders require a physical signature.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Such events can be held at the Speakers' Corner. And those who wish to hold such events outside the Speakers’ Corner will have to apply for a permit. A Police permit is not required for public assemblies at the Speakers' Corner which meets the conditions set out in the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2016.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have just one supplementary question. Can he please share details on how the Police exercises its discretion in requiring some calls for signatures for the purposes of a petition to go ahead without a permit, while requiring a permit in other instances, and I am referring to episodes outside of the Speakers' Corner.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I think in those cases, it is fact-sensitive. It depends. If there are particular incidents which the Member would like clarification on, it is best to file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) on this, so that we can look deeply into the issue and give a comprehensive response.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: I note the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I think the specific issue was with reference to an article in The Straits Times on 20 January 2018 referring to a public petition that was conducted for the purposes of the Sungei Road Flea Market. It was organised without a permit, and the Police did not intervene in that case. So, the point of the supplementary question really was to understand how the Police assesses when a permit is required and when it is not required.
\tMr Amrin Amin: On when the permit is or when the permit is not required is clearly set out in the Act provisions. As I mentioned, the Police will generally act on information received and conduct investigations before deciding on what actions to take. If there are specific cases – the Member mentioned about the issue of the Sungei Road Flea Market – it is best that he files a separate PQ so that we can look into the incident and give him a comprehensive response.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Competency-based Remuneration at Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Health (a) whether all the public healthcare institutions have adopted skills, experience and competency-based remuneration rather than one based primarily on academic qualification; and (b) whether there is a willingness by these institutions to have a timeline to break away from the existing glass ceiling, with human resource policies driven by skills recognition, especially for new recruits, instead of academic qualifications alone.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Public healthcare institutions are progressively moving beyond academic qualifications to skills and competencies in the recruitment, remuneration and promotion of staff. Academic qualifications are commonly used as a reference for new recruits who usually have little or no work experience. For mid-career recruits, their relevant experience is taken into account when determining their salaries. Beyond the entry grade, salary and career progression are now mostly performance- and competency-based. For example, nurses' remuneration and promotion depend primarily on their job performance and acquisition of specialised skills, rather than their previous academic attainment or grades.
To further strengthen the competency-based human resource system, the Ministry of Health is partnering SkillsFuture Singapore to develop the Skills Frameworks for Healthcare for the healthcare workforce, including nurses, allied health professionals, pharmacy technicians and support care staff. The Skills Framework will articulate the roles, skills, competencies and training required for each job role. We also hope to work with the unions to implement the Skills Framework when it is ready by the end of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding Confidentiality of Patient Information with National Electronic Health Record","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Lim Wee Kiak –
20 To ask the Minister for Health with the introduction of the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) (a) how will the Ministry safeguard the confidentiality of the records as data leaks can affect a patient's employability and career prospects; (b) what security measures will be put in place to ensure that not every employee in a clinic has access to the records; and (c) what measures are put in place to prevent data breaches.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Question No 20.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, data security and protection are key considerations in the design and operation of the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system. This is achieved through a combination of legislative measures, data management policies, system features and public education.
All access to the NEHR system will be governed and authorised by the Ministry of Health (MOH). For example, when a general practitioner (GP) applies for an account to the NEHR, the application will be subjected to MOH’s review and approval before access is granted. Access to individual health records through the NEHR is meant for purposes of direct patient care. Beyond that, any access to individual health records, such as for purposes of coroner’s investigation, will only be granted if it is enabled by the relevant legislation. NEHR information will not be revealed to third parties like insurers and employers.
To deter unauthorised access, a two-factor authentication system has been incorporated, together with features to detect suspicious access and usage. In addition, all access to the NEHR is captured in audit logs and patients will be able to view a record of accesses made to their NEHR records so that they can report unauthorised access.
When suspicious access is detected or reported, we will carry out investigations and those found to have misused the system will be dealt with under the law, in accordance with the penalties under the Cybersecurity and Computer Misuse Act and the proposed Healthcare Services Act.
Mr Speaker, to protect against cyberattacks, the NEHR system has a multi-layered cybersecurity defence. Security penetration tests and independent cybersecurity audits are conducted regularly. While measures have been put in place, we need to continue to remain vigilant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determination of Retirement Adequacy and Implication for Workfare Income Supplement Payouts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how is retirement adequacy determined and what are the cost indicators that are used to determine it; (b) how many Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) recipients who are above 55 years old are assessed to have retirement adequacy; and (c) whether the WIS has helped low-wage workers to have retirement adequacy.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Sums provide a measure of retirement adequacy and they take into account retiree household expenditure patterns, as recommended by the CPF Advisory Panel. The Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) for the cohort turning 55 this year is $85,500 and that amount will provide a lifelong monthly payout of $720 to $770 from the age of 65.
In 2016, 58% of active CPF members at age 55 met the BRS. Ten percent of this group were Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme recipients.
Of the remaining 42% of active CPF members at age 55, 55% were WIS recipients. From that perspective, the WIS Scheme is going towards those who need it more for building up retirement adequacy. On average, these members received a total of $5,500 in WIS top-ups to their CPF up to age 55. For members who do not have the BRS at age 55, they can continue to work over the next 10 years and make up for this shortfall in their BRS through CPF contributions and WIS top-ups.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Second Minister for her reply. Every retiree will be concerned with inflation. Most low-wage workers may, at best, opt only for the BRS plan which gives a stagnant payout. What can the Government do to protect the real value of their savings against an inflation for this group of people to ensure that the payout will be sufficient to meet their basic retirement needs?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. In fact, we are not depending on the WIS Scheme alone to help low-wage workers build up retirement adequacy. Aside from WIS, we have taken various steps to help low-wage workers. This includes higher interest rates of up to 6% on the first $30,000 of CPF balances for members age 55 and above. We have also liberalised our CPF transfer rules to enable members who have met their BRS to support their spouses and parents with lower balances through CPF transfers. So, in other words, if you are a WIS recipient, you can also get help from other members of the family.
In 2016, we introduced the Silver Support scheme to supplement the retirement incomes of the bottom 20% of the elderly who earned lower wages through life and currently have little or no family support.
Overall, it is an approach that encourages individual effort, as well as family support, supplemented by Government top-ups and schemes which strengthen social protection.
As to the Member’s concern about inflation, under the CPF LIFE Scheme, CPF members, not just those who do not meet the BRS, can opt for the CPF LIFE Escalating Plan. What that would enable them to do is to accept a lower monthly payout when they start but, over time, to have the payouts increase to meet their spending needs. The CPF LIFE Escalating Plan started on 1 January 2018.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): A supplementary question for Second Minister: what advice would she have for younger freelancers to start preparing for retirement adequacy before they reach 55 years old?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: It is a very good question. I believe Mr Ang, together with colleagues from the Ministry of Manpower, are part of a tripartite workgroup that have been looking into this issue for the past eight to nine months, if I am not wrong. In fact, I am very much looking forward to the recommendations from the tripartite workgroup. But since the Member has asked the question, I would like to point out that, today, freelancers or self-employed persons can also make use of the CPF scheme to help build up their healthcare and retirement adequacy.
For healthcare adequacy, they are already required to make annual contributions to their CPF MediSave accounts. There is no such requirement for freelancers to contribute to their Ordinary Accounts or to their Special Accounts. But there is nothing to prevent them from making their own cash top-ups to the Special Account and to enjoy the benefits of doing so, for example, the very attractive interest rates.
What more can we do? I think we can have a meaningful discussion once the tripartite workgroup provides its recommendations. I believe we would not have to wait much longer for that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Silver Support Scheme Beneficiaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) as of December 2017, what is the number of residents placed under the Silver Support Scheme (SSS); and (b) what is the number of SSS recipients who are also receiving financial aid from the Social Services Offices.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) was introduced in 2016 to support the bottom 20% of elderly Singaporeans aged 65 and above, with a smaller degree of support extended to up to the next 10% of seniors. The scheme is targeted at seniors who had low incomes through life and who currently have relatively little or no family support. It complements the comprehensive range of Government schemes that help seniors with various needs, such as housing, healthcare and retirement.
Over 152,000 seniors received Silver Support payouts in 2017. Of these, around 6,100 were also recipients of ComCare financial assistance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, just a supplementary question. Some SSS recipients who are also Social Services Office (SSO) recipients shared with me that their financial aid from SSO was reduced by a corresponding monthly amount equal to their SSS payout. So, I would just like to ask the Second Minister, do the officers of SSS and SSO work together to determine the final quantum of financial aid paid out to these selected recipients?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. It really depends on what kind of support they are getting from the SSO.
For example, if they are receiving ComCare long-term assistance, then, in fact, it would not affect their eligibility for a Silver Support payout and vice versa. But there are recipients of ComCare Support who are receiving the support for only an interim period, for the short term. This is temporary relief. As a result, the SSO will take into account all of the incomes that they have, including what they may be receiving under SSS. So, it really depends on the individual circumstances.
The best way, if Mr Png has encountered specific residents with such a question, is that they can refer the question to the SSO, who would be quite happy to explain to the ComCare recipient the circumstances that are unique to him and how the payouts are determined.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Increase Frequency of Tree Inspections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent cases of falling trees (a) whether NParks will consider increasing the frequency of tree inspections, particularly in high density population areas; and (b) what action does NParks recommend pedestrians and motorists take when they become victims of fallen trees.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the National Parks Board (NParks) already does more frequent checks for trees located in areas with high human and vehicular traffic. More specifically, NParks has increased its tree inspection frequency to address unpredictable and severe weather conditions. For example, trees along expressways and major roads used to be inspected every 12 to 18 months. Since 2012, trees in these locations have been inspected every six to 12 months. Since 2016, NParks has also instituted an annual second-level inspection for older trees of more than four metres in girth.
Besides increasing the frequency of inspections, NParks has introduced other measures to prevent tree fall incidents. First, NParks prunes trees to improve their structure and balance, especially before monsoon seasons. Second, NParks is developing new modelling techniques to understand the impact of adverse environmental conditions like strong winds and heavy rainfall on the structural integrity of trees. These ongoing studies will inform future improvements in tree risk management. With these checks and measures, the number of tree failure incidents in 2017 was the lowest on record at 406, having declined by 60% since 2012.
NParks is also supporting other stakeholders, like the Housing Development Board and JTC, which manage trees in Singapore by providing technical training on tree health and maintenance.
If members of the public are affected by a fallen tree, they can use the OneService mobile app to report the incident or call the NParks hotline. NParks and the relevant agencies will do whatever they can to render assistance to those affected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Sharp Increase in Popping Floor Tiles at Some HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development what are the causes of the recent sharp rises in the popping and cracking of floor tiles at some HDB flats and how does HDB assist residents faced with such situations.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, tiles, like all fittings, fixtures and finishes in a flat, are subject to wear and tear over time. They may dislodge due to various reasons, such as differential thermal expansion and contraction of tiles, or the natural deterioration of the bond between the tiles and the screed surface. All these can cause a loss of adhesion between the tiles and the screed surface, and the dislodgement of tiles.
We have observed a higher number of reported dislodged tiles cases in the first half of January 2018. This was likely due to the unusually cold weather over a prolonged period and temperature fluctuations. The weather changes could have caused the tiles and the substrate to contract and expand at different rates, resulting in the loss of adhesion between the tiles and the substrate. This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore and has also occurred in countries, such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. Among the cases reported in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, close to half involved tiles installed by the flat owners during their own renovations.
Flat owners are responsible for maintenance of their own flats, including repairs for general wear and tear. In private developments, developers generally only rectify dislodged tiles during the one-year defects liability period (DLP). Some developers may offer repair for dislodged tiles for a slightly longer period, for example, three years, but those are generally done on a goodwill basis.
HDB’s practice has been more generous. Besides helping flat owners repair dislodged tiles originally provided by HDB during the one-year DLP, it also offers goodwill repairs for such dislodged tiles for up to 15 years. For cases beyond 15 years, flat owners will need to do their own replacement of tiles. Nonetheless, HDB will do its best to assist, for example, by helping the owners with the removal and disposal of the affected tiles and, if necessary, laying protective sheets over the affected areas.
HDB has also worked with the Renovation Contractors and Materials Suppliers Association to compile a list of contractors whom residents can choose to engage on a private basis. These are contractors who are able to repair the dislodged tiles at reasonable rates.
Grassroots organisations and Community Development Councils (CDCs) can also make use of existing local schemes to assist local residents who need financial help in this regard.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, I want to thank HDB for extending the Goodwill Repair Scheme to flats up to 15 years. In all fairness, this is a generous goodwill offer.
I have two further questions for the Second Minister. I do have higher reported cases as well in the first two weeks of January. In fact, it was more than 30 cases reported. I do notice that certain clusters of flats have more cases. I want to ask the Second Minister if, indeed, it is a batch problem, whether it is a problem with quality or workmanship. Therefore, if that is the case, would HDB be flexible to extend that goodwill repair to those cases, even though it is after 15 years?
Secondly, I hope the Second Minister can understand that when residents see the tiles popping up on the floor, it can be quite a traumatic experience. And the next shocking truth is, of course, to know the costs of repair, which can range from $5,000 to $10,000. For a three- to four-room flat, with a household income of $2,000 to $4,000 a month, that is a major outlay. If they are not lucky enough to have the tiles pop up before 15 years, they have to go and find ways to find cash to pay for it.
So, would the HDB look at other ways to assist residents who are faced with such problems, because we do not want them to resort to licensed or unlicensed moneylending to fix the tiles. Can HDB facilitate some kind of financing scheme, very much like how other agencies have done, like the small and medium enterprises financing or the Study Loan where we work with the financial institutions to do it?
\tMr Speaker: Can the Member keep it succinct, please.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: Given that HDB does have the flat as a collateral, would the Second Minister consider this?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the first question, if the Member can flag out the specific blocks, we will get HDB to look at the causes or look at the popping tiles and see what might have caused it and we will then follow up appropriately.
On second question, as I said earlier, if local residents face financial difficulties in dealing with popping tiles beyond the 15-year period, then they can approach their local CDCs and their local Grassroots Advisors to see if there are schemes that can assist them. There are some CDCs that already have such schemes in place and these have been of great help to residents.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[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":"Criminal Reference on City Harvest Church Matter","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Home Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this Statement.
The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) made a Reference to the Court of Appeal on the City Harvest Church Case. Two questions were asked. On 1 February 2018, last week, the Court of Appeal released its decision on the Reference.
I want to set out the Government's position, now that the Court of Appeal has said what the law is.
The key question is related to the liability of company directors, governing board members, key officers of charities and officers of societies. When they commit criminal breach of trust (CBT) or property which belongs to the organisation, what happens?
The Court of Appeal ruled that such officers are liable to be punished under section 406 of the Penal Code that provides for a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that these officers do not come within the term, the meaning of a professional “agent”, and therefore, they were not liable for the more serious penalties under section 409 of the Penal Code for CBT. Section 409 provides for a maximum of life imprisonment.
The Government's policy is clear. If you are a senior officer, director in the organisation, you are in a position of greater trust. You have considerable authority to make decisions in relation to the organisation’s assets. If you abuse that trust, you should be more culpable and should be liable for more severe punishments, compared with an ordinary employee. That is really common sense and there can be no question about that.
For the last 40 years, the law, as applied by the Courts, reflected this principle. In 1976, the High Court ruled so in the case of Tay Choo Wah. It said that directors are liable for the aggravated offence provided under section 409. After that decision, the position was clear, settled law. The law was applied in that way for over 40 years, by Courts in other cases. There are at least 16 decisions – reported – applying this principle and there must be many other unreported decisions.
In April last year, however, the position changed. The High Court ruled that directors cannot be liable under section 409. That was contrary to the decision in 1976 and the way the Courts have applied section 409 over these 40 years.
The Government asked AGC what should be done, what further steps ought to be taken after the High Court's ruling. AGC advised that a clarification should be sought from the Court of Appeal by way of a Reference. We now have two conflicting positions from the High Court. One, Tay Choo Wah and the line of cases that applied Tay Choo Wah. And second, the City Harvest Church case where the Court disagreed with Tay Choo Wah. The Court of Appeal gave its decision, as I said earlier, last Thursday in response to the two questions of law submitted by AGC.
The Court of Appeal's decision means that there is now a lacuna in the law. As it stands today, ordinary employees can be charged under section 408 of the Penal Code. That provides for more serious penalties for CBT compared with section 408. It is punishable by mandatory imprisonment for up to 15 years, and an optional fine. Directors, however, can only be charged under section 406 – which provides for a lesser punishment up to seven years’ jail or fine or both. The Court of Appeal itself acknowledged this gap in the law and it said that there was no \"good policy reason\" to ignore the “heightened culpability” of directors and key officers of charities, societies and companies who commit CBT. The Court of Appeal also pointed out that the obligation of the Court is to set out the legal position correctly on what the law says, and to leave it to Parliament to amend the law as it deems fit.
It is now up to Parliament to amend the law, and that we should do soon. We will ensure that legislation provides for higher penalties for directors and other senior officers who commit CBT. We hope to make the amendment, together with the other wide-ranging amendments to the Penal Code, which I have spoken about.
To the House, let me make one final comment – we are aware that many have expressed their dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Expressing one’s unhappiness with Court decisions is fine, but it should not sink to the level of abuse, insults and contempt. We have seen comments online that the judges let off those who are rich; that some judges were lenient because they were Christians, and so on.
That is not right. Judges should not be personally attacked and their integrity impugned, just because people do not agree with their decision. There may be unhappiness. People are entitled to disagree with their decision. But let us not attack the judges.
The Government believes that the sentences are too low but the sentences reflect the law, as it stands, after the High Court's decision last year and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Courts decide these matters. All of us have to respect the decision, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister for the clarifications. As rightly pointed out, I also personally received a lot of feedback. On the ground, people are commenting that the Court let those who are rich go lightly and also those who can get off for religious reasons. The worst is they also commented that, for this particular case, it was handled by a so-called lawyer who is also a Member of Parliament (MP) from the People's Action Party (PAP). So, may I know what is the Minister's stand on this and a clarification on his comments? Also, what can the Government do about all these comments and also how should we proceed from here?
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for the question. I think Mr Edwin Tong would not be entirely happy to be called \"a so-called lawyer and MP\". I think he is a qualified lawyer and a Senior Counsel. I said earlier that it is entirely legitimate to express one's unhappiness about Court decisions. But some statements have, indeed, gone too far, abusing the judges personally, ascribing improper ulterior motives to their decision. And it is, really, a clear case of abusing the anonymity of the Net or anonymity to the extent that it exists. Just because you do not agree with the judges does not mean that you have the right to abuse them and challenge their integrity. People who abuse judges, challenge their integrity will be prosecuted if a case for contempt can be made out. I will set out later some factors which will be relevant in this context.
The Courts should not be pressured by public opinion. They should be free to decide in accordance with what they believe the law to be. Criminal cases must be tried in a Court of law, not in the court of public opinion.
A few years ago, I already expected that there would be more and more of such scurrilous attacks on the judiciary. If left alone, they will become the norm. That is why we legislated into law the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act. One of those opposing it, I think, it was Mr Leon Perera who asked me in this House why the need for this law. This is one relatively small illustration. If we do nothing, it will get much worse and become unsolvable. We do not want to end up like the United Kingdom (UK) where the press freely attacks the judiciary. You get newspaper headlines screaming banner headlines labelling judges as \"enemies of the people\", \"you fools\" because the courts have the temerity to decide in a way that the media did not like. If we are not careful, we will easily go down that route.
Let me give Members a current example. There is a public Facebook group with a Chinese name which I understand can be translated as a \"policy discussion forum\". I was informed that a copy of a news article was posted on 2 February, last week, on this Facebook. The article had appeared in the Chinese news daily Wanbao on the same day. It was a report on the City Harvest Church matter. The title of the news article, the banner headlines had, however, been faked in the Facebook post. The original title translated was, and I quote, \"Outdated laws saved the accused from harsher penalties\". Someone appeared to have faked the title into, and I quote, \"PAP lawyer saved the accused from harsher penalties\", making it look as if a mass circulation newspaper had done so, probably to give more credence to the headline.
AGC takes the view that the suggestion from the fake title is that the PAP MP was responsible for an unfair, unjust outcome and the Courts have let off the defendants lightly because of him. AGC's view is that this is a case of contempt by scandalising the Courts. I do not want to go into the meanings of the fake title because the matter is with AGC and it will be dealt with in accordance with the law. Whatever the meaning of the statement and regardless of whether or not it is in contempt, one can see that this sort of attack based on deliberate faking is quite unacceptable. I cannot see how any reasonable person will justify such faking as a legitimate expression of free speech.
I have asked the Police to take a serious view of those who scandalise the Court. Not only for this case. If there are other comments which cross the threshold and are in contempt of the Court, our approach is that action will be taken. That has been so before the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, or AOJP, and it remains so after the AOJP.
In coming to a decision whether to prosecute for scandalising the Courts, the factors will include assessing who said it, how seriously is the statement likely to be taken, how wide was the publication, other relevant factors. That has always been the case, even before the AOJP. AGC will assess the various statements that have come to their notice in this context.
And quite apart from whether the fake headlines scandalised the Court, there is another point.
Defendants are entitled to get a lawyer of their choice. Rule of law, a civilised system of having trials in Court depends, amongst other things, on lawyers being able to act for defendants, whatever offences the defendants are accused of. As I have said before several times, even a child rapist is entitled to his day in Court and to be defended. It does not mean that we or the lawyer defending the person approves of child rape. But the defendant has a right to choose a lawyer to defend him, and we must not take that away from him. Lawyers should not be made to feel that they will be hounded online if they take up cases.
Let me share a personal example with Members from when I was in practice. I am probably in the unique position in Singapore of someone who has both acted for the three Prime Ministers of Singapore and also of having acted against all three of them. In 1995, Prime Minister Goh, Senior Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Lee, as they were then, sued the International Herald Tribune (IHT) for libel. The IHT came to me. The conversation as to whether I would act for them took about two minutes. I told them they must know I was a PAP MP, and were they comfortable that they would get the best possible advice from me, given my position? They knew that I was a PAP MP. They said it was okay with them, if it was okay with me. It was okay with me. I did not see any need to clear with the Party or anyone connected to the Party or Government.
By taking on the case, I was simply doing my professional duty. I did not need to take on the brief. I was very busy with other work but I thought the IHT had a right to counsel of its choice. They were faced, obviously, with particularly formidable plaintiffs who could get counsel of their choice, and so, I should help the IHT.
The import of my acting for the IHT, when it went to Court, did not escape Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. In Court, after his evidence was over and before he stepped out of the witness box, he said he had to point out the situation. He said that I was close to the three of them, meaning the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. I was a PAP MP. The decision by the IHT, despite the situation, to instruct me was, and I quote \"the highest tribute to the integrity of the counsel\" and \"possibly reflected also on the integrity of the Government\".
Over the years, I also acted for various others whose conduct will not be approved of by the general public and some of whom were impecunious and could not pay fees. I acted for them whenever I could, based on certain principles which I do not need to go into here.
The fake headline that I referred to earlier in the Facebook page is part of a mob mentality, to hound the lawyers, to intimidate them into not acting in cases which the mob disapproves of. It is quite shameful. Supposing no action is taken when public Facebook pages do this, then what is there to prevent the media itself from publishing such articles in the future? By action here, I do not necessarily just mean contempt action. If we accept such faking as normal, then you can see that the line between that and the current position of the UK almost disappears. You will then get in the mainstream media the headlines I earlier spoke about – about judges, abusing them and other similar sorts of things. We should not get there and it will be a sad day for Singapore if we do get there. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I would like to ask the Minister this: the Court of Appeal noted that the review of the law is long overdue. Why did the Government not amend the law earlier?
Mr K Shanmugam: I said earlier that since 1976, the position has been settled, clear law from the time the Tay Choo Wah\tcase was decided. I mentioned that there are at least 16 reported decisions in the books confirming that decision over the years. There must be many others which are unreported. So, the position has been consistently applied by the Courts over 40 years. No doubts or uncertainty were expressed by our Courts; prosecution, defence, everyone proceeded on that basis. There was no suggestion that the law was in need of any review. There was, therefore, no reason for Parliament to review the position or amend the law. Parliament does not legislate in vain.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang):\tI would like to thank the Minister for the Ministerial Statement and I am very happy to note that the law is under review. One key fact of this whole City Harvest case is that a key beneficiary, which is, the wife of Kong Hee, was not charged for any offence. In reviewing the law, would the Ministry also look at whether to put in some penalties where the beneficiary of a CBT case can also be charged under the law?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think one has to be careful about this. A beneficiary who receives proceeds without the appropriate knowledge does not automatically become a criminal. Supposing the person took the money and donated it to another charity, does the recipient commit a criminal offence?
I think we need to be careful. The law, as drafted, is wide enough to deal with people who act with criminal intention, conduct, misuse property. There is a lacuna in that section 409 does not apply to directors, senior officers in the way the Court of Appeal has construed it, and we should fix that lacuna. But knowing receipt of property to the extent that it needs to be criminalised, you will find it in the law.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang):\tI thank the Minister for the clarifications. Will this case have a big impact on future cases, especially between now and the time the law is changed?
Mr K Shanmugam: For the cases involving directors, or similar sorts of senior officers, where the cases are already before the Courts, obviously, you will now have to apply the law as determined by the Court of Appeal. For the cases which are being investigated, where AGC is considering the charges, again obviously, the AGC would have to take into account the decision by the Court of Appeal. If there are any charges to be brought in respect of actions that have taken place before any legislative changes, I am sure AGC will take into account what the appropriate charge is. It does not automatically mean that any changes will not apply. I do not want to go into those things but I think we identified a lacuna. I mean, it has been identified for us. And we need to deal with it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: I have additional clarifications. I also hear comments. Since it has been practised for so long, it has been consistently practised, why did the Court suddenly change the precedent? We should follow the precedent and change should be thereafter.
Mr Speaker: Order. Can I just remind Members, we are not here to question the specific decisions of the Court.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will send the copy of the judgment to Mr Gan offline because it is 150 pages or more. The judges explained their thinking.
In summary, they feel that when the law was drafted, when section 409 was drafted, it was some time ago. It could not have been the intention of the drafters to deal with the directors, because Company Law had not been developed to the extent that it has now. And therefore, it could not have been within the minds and the drafting intention. Therefore, you would need new provisions which deal with it. There are different approaches to interpretation. The other approach is to say, \"Well, you take those words and you apply it as circumstances evolve\". They also explained why they did not want to do that here. That is in two lines; I am probably not doing full justice to it but that is the sense.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. If I may just remind Members, do read the Standing Orders with regard to comments, especially Standing Orders 21(1)(h) and 59, in future, on any discussions relating to issues like this.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2018 puts into legal effect the income tax changes introduced in Budget 2017, as well as other amendments arising from the regular review of our tax incentive regime. Let me draw Members’ attention to the two key legislative changes contained in the Bill.
The first change is to exclude Intellectual Property Income from Pioneer Service Companies, and Development and Expansion Incentive. To encourage the use of intellectual property (IP) arising from taxpayer’s research and development (R&D) activities, the Minister for Finance had announced in Budget 2017 that an IP Development Incentive (IDI) will be introduced. Accordingly, IP income will be removed from the scope of the Pioneer Service Companies (PSCs) and Development and Expansion Incentive (DEI) schemes, which currently provide for tax exemption or concessionary tax rates respectively on income from qualifying activities, which may include IP income. Clauses 2, 5 and 9 amend sections 3 and 19M, and introduce section 19A to give legislative effect to this change.
The second change is to enhance the Integrated Investment Allowance (IIA). The IIA scheme provides additional allowance to a taxpayer who has incurred fixed capital expenditure on qualifying equipment used abroad by an overseas company for approved projects. Currently, to qualify for the allowance, the overseas company is required to use the qualifying equipment wholly for the approved projects. As announced in Budget 2017, this will be liberalised to only require the qualifying equipment to be primarily used for the approved project by the overseas company. In addition, the IIA scheme will be extended till 31 December 2022. Clauses 10 to 13 give legislative effect to this change.
The remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either administrative or technical in nature.
Mr Speaker, the proposed changes to the Economic Expansion Incentives Act (EEIA) seek to encourage economic activities in Singapore. These changes also reflect the Government’s commitment to keep Singapore competitive and relevant as a place for investment as our external economic conditions change. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the amendment of the Economic Expansion Incentives Bill. Timely changes in tax incentives would enable Singapore to maintain its global competitiveness and attract even more multinational companies (MNCs) into Singapore to contribute to our national economy. Today, I would like to share my views regarding the proposed amendments from two perspectives – that of the business community, as well as of taxpayers.
MNCs and local enterprises are the two large engines which steer Singapore’s economic development. MNCs which come to Singapore, besides directly creating employment opportunities, also spur the development of related industries. Some local companies have leveraged the opportunities of collaborating with MNCs to improve the technology content of their products and services and have gradually become world-class companies. This win-win collaborative model is the outcome businesses look forward to most.
After going through the Bill, I would like to focus on one new content in particular: the new section 97ZHA states that after companies have successfully applied for the IIA, in the event that they fail to comply with any term or condition as specified, or the outcome indicators, not only will the tax incentive be terminated, the Government can also recover this particular investment allowance already given. This amendment is very timely.
Recently, the Government has mentioned many times that Government expenditure would steadily increase, and that we need to explore new sources of income and curb expenditure. One of the ways is to strengthen the supervision of tax incentives and guard against abuse. The amended Bill would enable stronger auditing and oversight of the tax incentives. This is good for our taxpayers. Also, I would like to ask the Minister if the current amendment to the Bill was spurred by an increase in the number of errant cases in recent years.
Of greater concern to businesses is that the value-add effect on local companies brought about by such tax incentives to attract foreign investment seems to have waned. Quite a number of businesses have told me that they miss the Local Industry Upgrading Programme (LIUP) which was phased out in 2010. The programme, extremely useful then in promoting win-win collaboration between foreign investors and local enterprises, continues to be well-regarded today.
In the earlier years, foreign companies which invested in the traditional sectors here could generate significant opportunities and value-add for related or supporting local companies both downstream and upstream and create direct and indirect employment opportunities for Singaporeans.
However, in recent years, most of the MNCs attracted to Singapore are in the emerging sectors which establish their regional headquarters or R&D centres here. The activities which can create value-add for local companies, such as product design, manufacturing, industry supply chain and distribution are, however, located in other countries in the region. It is no longer easy for local enterprises to take the local advantage in becoming service providers for the MNCs like before.
Therefore, our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) should step up venturing overseas, in line with the Government policy to encourage businesses to internationalise. They can then continue to service the MNCs which have established production bases in the region.
I also urge the Government agencies under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), namely, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG), to continue to work closely with local industries. We hope that EDB, whilst continuing to attract high quality foreign investors into Singapore, would also make capability upgrading of local enterprises a key objective – to provide MNCs and local enterprises with a win-win collaborative model to become the driving force of Singapore’s future economic development.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. It is encouraging that the Government continues to support companies through tax reliefs. However, I would like to seek some clarifications and offer some suggestions.
First, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Act by inserting a new definition of \"Intellectual Property Income\". This is defined as \"any intellectual property income prescribed by the Minister under section 102\". Section 102 of the Act, amongst other things, empowers the Minister to make regulations that may be necessary or expedient for purposes of carrying out provisions of the Act.
Can the Minister clarify why the meaning of IP Income is not specifically defined within the Bill? What are the assessment criteria that will be considered by the Minister in prescribing a particular income as IP Income? Will this be based on quantitative or qualitative data?
The reason I am asking is because greater transparency and less ambiguity in the legislation itself will only enable Pioneer Service Companies and Development and Expansion Companies to better understand what constitutes IP Income and, correspondingly, whether their activities will fall under the tax incentive scheme.
I understand that EDB does publish guidelines from time to time on its website, such as guidelines related to the Pioneer Certificate Incentive (PC) and DEI. However, if the principle behind the Act and this Bill is to encourage companies to grow capabilities, develop high-value and substantive economic activities, through tax reliefs, then it is crucial for companies to have a clear understanding of what the parameters are for them to qualify for tax reliefs. A clear understanding will allow companies to better plan their business and growth strategies.
I raised a related point in 2016 during the previous iteration of the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill on the need to have clearer qualifying criteria for PC and DEI. Then, Minister Lim Hng Kiang replied that it is a balance between clarity, transparency and ensuring we remain flexible and responsive to the increasingly complex economic environment. I understand the Minister's point, but I have two follow-up queries.
One, I think responsiveness can be achieved through the mechanism of legislative amendments, which allows the Government to continually review the incentives and schemes to maintain their relevance. This possibly explains why we are legislating amendments to the Act via this Bill within a relatively short period of time from the last amendment in March 2016.
Two, flexibility may also be achieved through the actual operative provisions in the Bill, instead of relying on broad definitions of a key term. To my mind, it is a tenuous argument to rely on flexibility to justify why the definition of an important term, such as IP Income, should be left to the Minister to prescribe. Hence, will the Minister consider including a specific clear definition of IP Income within the Bill?
Second, can the Minister clarify how the amendments relating to the exclusion of IP income as stated in clause 5 of the Bill fit into the new IP regime administered by EDB, named IDI announced during the 2017 Singapore Budget?
I note that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) published a table stating that IDI incorporates the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting reports (BEPS)-compliant modified nexus approach and it is meant to encourage the exploitation of IP arising from R&D activities. Can the Minister clarify how the IDI works in practice with the legislative amendments in this Bill?
On the point of BEPS, I understand from a Facebook feedback by Mr Gregg Fong that as a result of the BEPS framework, tax authorities globally have put in place more stringent rules to ensure taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes. Therefore, it is unwise to assume that tax incentives remain attractive for MNCs in this post-BEPS era, and now, more so than ever, tax incentives need to make business sense for MNCs and economic sense for Singapore.
In this context, the queries raised by Mr Fong are: how do these Bill amendments and the existing broader tax incentive schemes fit in with Singapore's broader strategic goals? Mr Fong pointed out that, historically, the initial intention of tax incentives was to attract top MNCs to invest in Singapore, and this worked very well. The tax incentives were then gradually tweaked as Singapore’s economy grew.
Can the Minister explain how the current amendments adjust the tax incentives such that they remain relevant and are aligned with Singapore's current strategic goals? And can the Minister clarify what these amendments will mean for companies which did invest and are continually investing in Singapore?
Also, do the existing tax incentive schemes and these amendments ensure fair employment opportunities for Singaporeans in managerial positions? Can the Minister provide data over the past three years on the relationship between the number of foreign MNCs with a regional office in Singapore which are enjoying such tax incentives and the percentage of Singaporeans in managerial positions in these MNCs?
Mr Fong clarified that this query is not coming from a place of an anti-foreigner sentiment, but it is taking a practical approach as, logically, MNCs would enjoy significant costs savings, from such tax incentive schemes and general manpower costs savings, if they are able to upskill Singaporeans over a period of time and transfer these skills from expatriate foreigners to Singaporeans.
Third, on a broader practical level, how do these legislative amendments and various schemes and incentives from Government agencies, such as EDB and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, all work together from the perspective of an SME which wishes to take advantage of these available tools?
From the Minister's reply in 2016, I understand that for the current PC Incentive scheme, between 2011 and 2015, only two out of 71 PCs were awarded to SMEs, of which only one was a local SME. The explanation then was that PC application requires companies to commit to economic contributions of a substantive scale. Hence, it is natural that bigger companies qualify.
Keeping in mind that the principle behind this Bill and the Act is to put in place tax incentives to encourage innovation, I wish to ask whether there are ways in which our SMEs can benefit from these amendments. Smaller companies are able to respond and react to market conditions and remain agile and flexible. Thus, it appears that SMEs, by their very nature, are better placed to embrace innovation and position their businesses to adapt to changes rapidly, in line with the principles of the Bill. If we are structuring the tax incentives to largely allow for bigger companies to meet the criteria, can the Minister clarify how this is in line with the principles of the Bill? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications and suggestions for the Minister's consideration, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, good afternoon, and to all hon Members.
The Economic Expansion Incentives Act, which was introduced by the Government in recent years, was meant to encourage companies to continue introducing high value-added activities in Singapore. As mentioned by Minister Lim Hng Kiang, between 2011 and 2015, similar companies had been awarded final certificates, of which, only two were SMEs, which is of concern to me.
The overarching objective of such incentive schemes was not just to serve as an encouragement to the targeted industries and companies, but also to encourage companies to stay relevant in this fast-changing knowledge-based and technology-driven economy and being able to provide economic value to Singapore.
The technologies developed should be able to make them more competitive and simultaneously create new higher value-added skilled jobs for our local workforce. This will, in turn, enable the workforce to move upstream, thereby creating higher value at work and increase productivity. This symbiotic relationship between the industry and the Government is highly commendable.
The proposed six amendments to the Economic Expansion Act are reasonable in my opinion. The removal of the prescribed IP Income from the tax incentives scheme of both Pioneer Service Companies and Development and Expansion Companies under Part III section 19A and Part IIIB section 19M are questionable. However, I believe it is apt as Singapore's economic landscape has moved from a labour-intensive to a knowledge-intensive one, with a high skills-based platform.
Thus, after many years of investing and working with the industry, it is reasonable to expect that IP should be one of the main activities of the affected companies. Thus, it is also reasonable to consider income from IP as a source of revenue in the current context in Singapore.
While this change may be able to get absorbed by larger companies like the PSCs and larger-sized SMEs, I am very concerned over smaller ones which have not been able to capitalise on incentive schemes. I believe there are pockets of local SMEs which are stuck in their business activities in the old and traditional way. While they may not be seen as high-tech, but they do serve the need of the larger Singapore labour workforce by providing jobs. Thus, I would like to suggest that the incentive as previously prescribed should be extended to the smaller SMEs and perhaps, more should be done to assist them to move up the ladder in implementing technology in their business activities. As an example, I would like to highlight the cleaning industry and the small public works contractor industry.
Mr Speaker, disruptions seem to be a constant parameter in our lives. Smaller SMEs are hardest hit with the constant disruption which is prevailing at smaller intervals, from financial technology (fintech) to augment the reality. Smaller SMEs find it harder to cope as they do not have the muscle and capacity to spend in R&D work, less IP work. And when they do, it will be a strain on their business operations. Hence, the extension of the prevailing scheme to smaller SMEs will go a long way. I plead with the Government to consider and review this. With that, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestion I made, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Lim Hng Kiang.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Azmoon Ahmad for their support of the Bill.
As all three of them mentioned, these amendments are very important, and we have to see how these amendments fit in with our overall strategic goal for Singapore, which is to encourage companies to continue to undertake investment, expand their capabilities and create new jobs. To do so, our economic agencies require a suite of tools to engage our companies and, therefore, our Government regularly reviews our incentives and schemes, be it tax incentives or non-tax incentives, to ensure that they continue to be relevant and effective as our economic and operating environment continues to evolve.
To be in line with international standards and, in particular, to align ourselves with BEPS guidelines, this Bill will, therefore, amend the legislation to exclude IP income from PSC and DEI companies. Companies that are committed to undertake substantive economic investments and create good job opportunities in Singapore can continue to benefit from the PSC and DEI schemes.
Meanwhile, we will continue to encourage the use of IPs arising from a taxpayer’s R&D activities under the new IDI. Taxpayers can apply for IDI regardless of whether they are currently on PSC and DEI or not. As for IDI itself, the Government is currently in consultation with companies and the incentive will be legislated in the Income Tax Act consequently.
Secondly, in response to Mr Louis Ng’s point about the definition of IP Income, I agree that companies need clarity to plan their businesses and to execute their growth strategies. In this regard, the Government has proactively reached out to the companies and consulted them on the draft legislation. This, among other things, includes the definition of IP Income, which will be made clear in the subsidiary legislation. As I mentioned in the earlier debate in 2016, it is better and more effective for us to define IP Income in the subsidiary legislation than in the main legislation so that the objective is still achieved. You have transparency, clarity and, at the same time, you have more responsiveness and flexibility by doing so in subsidiary legislation.
So, these amendments in this Bill will help to provide our companies that have invested in or are continuing to invest in Singapore with more certainty. This is because our incentives have been reviewed by the international community and they meet international tax standards ahead of many other countries and jurisdictions, which are still in the midst of reviewing their tax regimes. We remain committed to being a competitive location for anchoring substantive economic activities and will continue to monitor global developments.
On Mr Louis Ng’s point about fair employment practices, we support that and we agree that companies recognise the commercial value of having such practices in place. This is because by hiring fairly and based on merit, companies would have access to a wider talent pool and reap the benefits from increased productivity. The Singapore Government, of course, helps our companies to develop the career of Singaporeans in their employment. In our engagements with companies, we work with them to develop training and career development programmes for their employees, for example, the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) is one such schemes that employers registered or incorporated in Singapore can leverage to create and enhance in-house leadership development programmes. These programmes, which are company-centric and sector-specific, can also be implemented through collaborations with external training providers.
Mr Thomas Chua has accurately pointed out the value of having both MNCs and local enterprises in our ecosystem to drive our economic growth. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Azmoon Ahmad have asked how SMEs can benefit from these amendments. In general, our tax incentives, including the ones in EEIA, are open to application by all companies, regardless of size, as long as they are able to commit to making significant contributions to our economy. In this instance, with the liberalisation of IIA, SMEs can enjoy more flexibility in their business arrangements with their foreign counterparts.
I would also like to clarify one of the points that Mr Thomas Chua mentioned regarding LIUP. I would like to clarify that LIUP was not phased out but was rather subsumed under the Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT) scheme. As Members would remember, the LIUP scheme essentially caters to the relationship of our local SMEs who are suppliers to the multinational or the large companies. But we think the relationship can go beyond that of just a supplier relationship and, therefore, we have expanded the LIUP scheme to the PACT scheme which encompasses different forms of collaborations and partnerships, beyond just a supplier relationship.
The second point that Mr Thomas Chua mentioned about the new section 97ZHA, it has always been our practice that if the companies do not adequately meet up to their commitments set out in the incentives, we will withdraw the incentives and recover the incentives made to them. So, this is nothing new. This section is just to regularise our practice. The Government will continue to recover the IIA awarded if the company fails any conditions or breaches the legislative amendments. I would like to highlight that there are no errant cases in the last five years for IIA and the current amendments are, therefore, not reactionary in nature, but are being made for legislative clarity.
Mr Speaker, the Government will continue to review our incentives and schemes regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and support capability development and the needs of companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lim Hng Kiang.] (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":"Cybersecurity Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Digitalisation has opened up new possibilities to enhance our modern lives, but they have also exposed us to cybersecurity threats. In recent years, we have not only seen an increasing number of cyberattacks worldwide, but also a wider range of targets, including individuals, large organisations like Equifax, and Government agencies.
Singapore remains an attractive target to attackers because of our high dependence on Internet-based transactions. In 2017 alone, we saw attacks against our Government agencies, universities, financial institutions, both large and small enterprises, and individuals who had their computers locked by ransomware.
Protection against cyberattacks needs to start with organisations and individuals taking responsibility for the cybersecurity of their own computer systems. However, it is also important for us to work collectively, especially in protecting our essential services, against cyberattacks. As we have seen in other countries, such cyberattacks can have a debilitating impact on the economy and society: (a) last year, the United Kingdom's (UK’s) National Health Service (NHS) had to cancel at least 6,900 appointments due to the WannaCry ransomware attack; (b) in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, the power grids were hacked twice by cyberattackers in 2015 and 2016, leading to power disruptions that affected over 200,000 citizens during winter; and (c) in 2015, a massive cyberattack that reportedly intended to destroy important national communication channels took the French television (TV) network, TV5Monde, off the air for several hours.
Computer systems directly involved in the provision of essential services are termed Critical Information Infrastructure (CII). There is an urgent need for the Government to be more actively involved with the CII owners in defending against cyberattacks.
We have identified CII in 11 sectors: Energy; Water; Banking and Finance; Healthcare; Transport which includes Land, Maritime, and Aviation; Infocomm, Media and Security and Emergency Services, and Government.
Even with efforts to protect CII, we cannot expect to detect and foil every cyberattack. This is why it is also necessary to investigate cybersecurity threats and incidents, and to mitigate the consequences of successful attacks.
Currently, section 15A of the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA) empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to issue a certificate to authorise or direct a person or an entity to take measures to comply with requirements necessary to prevent, detect or counter a threat to any class of computers or computer services, if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing, detecting or countering any threat to the national security, essential services, defence or foreign relations of Singapore. However, CMCA, which mainly deals with cybercrimes, such as the unauthorised access of computer material, does not provide a regulatory framework for the routine and proactive protection of CII.
Therefore, the Cybersecurity Bill seeks to establish a legal framework for the oversight and maintenance of national cybersecurity in Singapore, with an emphasis on the proactive protection of CII against cyberattacks. The Bill has three key objectives: (a) to strengthen the protection of CII against cyberattacks; (b) to authorise the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents; and (c) to establish a licensing framework for cybersecurity service providers.
Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill set out a framework for CSA to request for cybersecurity information on CII and during investigations of cybersecurity threats and incidents. The Bill protects such information by requiring specified persons who obtain it when performing their functions or discharging their duties to keep it confidential, and by specifying the circumstances where it can be disclosed.
The Cybersecurity Bill does not provide powers to prosecute cybercriminals. CMCA and other relevant legislation will continue to govern the investigation and the prosecution of cybercrime perpetrators and the detection and apprehension of such offenders.
The Bill is intended to apply concurrently with other laws and regulations enacted in Singapore, including existing sectoral laws. In formulating this Bill, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and CSA studied cybersecurity legislation which other countries, such as Germany, Estonia, the United States (US), Thailand and Vietnam, have implemented or are considering. These laws cover areas, such as imposing obligations on CII owners to protect their CII, requiring cybersecurity audits to be conducted, making the reporting of cybersecurity incidents mandatory, encouraging companies to share cybersecurity information with the Government, prevention of cybersecurity attacks and, finally, industry regulations. Our Bill is in line with these international developments.
We also consulted industry associations, cybersecurity professionals, sector regulators, potential key CII stakeholders and the general public. In response to requests for more time to provide feedback, we extended our public consultation to six weeks. Respondents were generally supportive of the Bill. They shared the Government’s concerns on cybersecurity threats and the impact of cyberattacks on Singapore. Respondents also provided useful feedback that allowed us to identify aspects of the Bill that could be refined when drafting the Bill, including simplifying the licensing framework. I would like to thank all respondents for their feedback and suggestions.
Sir, allow me now to go through the key proposals of the Bill.
Clause 4 of the Bill allows the Minister-in-charge of Cybersecurity to appoint a Commissioner of Cybersecurity to administer the Bill. This appointment will be held by the Chief Executive of CSA. Today, CSA works with sector regulators to coordinate cybersecurity efforts to protect CII within their respective sectors. The sectors have varying levels of cybersecurity readiness, and sector regulators have varying legislative powers to regulate CII within their sectors on cybersecurity matters. The Cybersecurity Bill will provide CSA with the necessary powers to proactively protect our CII and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents.
Clause 4 allows the Minister to appoint Assistant Commissioners (ACs) to assist the Commissioner to oversee and enforce cybersecurity requirements on the CII owners. The intention is to appoint senior officers from sector regulators as ACs to perform this role in respect of CII in their respective sectors. This is because such officers understand the unique contexts and complexities of their sectors and will be best placed to advise the Commissioner on the necessary requirements so as to strike a balance between their sectors’ operational needs and national cybersecurity considerations.
Clause 7 allows the Commissioner to designate as a CII, any computer or computer system that is necessary for the continuous delivery of an essential service set out in the First Schedule, and the loss or compromise of the computer or computer systems will have a debilitating effect on the availability of the essential service. This clause also requires the Commissioner to inform the CII owner how he can submit representations against the designation.
CSA has worked closely with sector regulators to identify the list of essential services as set out in the First Schedule. An essential service is defined in clause 2 as any service essential to the national security, defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order of Singapore. New essential services may be added from time to time to the First Schedule by the Minister exercising powers under the Bill if necessary.
The Bill will require CII owners to comply with statutory obligations to ensure the cybersecurity of their CII. All owners of CII, whether from the public or private sector, will be subjected to the same statutory obligations under the Bill. These obligations include furnishing primarily technical information relating to CII (clause 10); complying with codes of practice and standards of performance (clause 11); complying with written directions (clause 12); informing the Commissioner of the change in the ownership of CII (clause 13); reporting cybersecurity incidents in respect of CII (clause 14); conducting cybersecurity audits and risk assessments of CII (clause 15); and finally, participating in cybersecurity exercises (clause 16).
No action under the Bill will be taken against CII owners for cybersecurity breaches so long as they comply with their obligations thereunder. Non-compliance with CII-related obligations under Part 3 of the Bill will be an offence. The maximum penalty is $100,000, or two years’ imprisonment, or both.
CII owners who disagree with particular decisions of the Commissioner, such as the CII designation, may appeal to the Minister. This is provided for in clause 17.
To strengthen CSA’s ability to prevent and respond effectively to cybersecurity threats and incidents, Part 4 of the Bill empowers the Commissioner to investigate cybersecurity threats and incidents. These powers in clauses 19 and 20 are calibrated according to the severity of the cybersecurity threat or incident and measures required for response. The Commissioner may authorise incident response officers to exercise these investigation powers. In addition, the Minister has powers to require cybersecurity measures under clause 23 for the purpose of countering serious and imminent threats.
The key intent is to provide for powers to respond to cybersecurity threats or incidents affecting CII. But because of the interconnected nature of computer systems, the powers will also be used for investigating major cybersecurity threats and incidents on computer systems that are not CII, for example, large-scale cyberattacks affecting multiple sectors. It is not our intent to use these powers to respond to each and every cybersecurity threat or incident in Singapore, as computer owners are ultimately responsible for the cybersecurity of their own computers.
Clause 19 allows the Commissioner to request persons to furnish specified information that is necessary for the investigation of cybersecurity threats or incidents, for the purpose of: (a) assessing their impact or potential impact; (b) preventing any or further harm arising from the same cybersecurity incident; and (c) preventing a further cybersecurity incident.
The maximum penalty under clause 19 is $5,000 or six months’ imprisonment or both, for offences, such as willfully misstating information or refusing to provide required information without reasonable excuse.
Clause 20 allows the Commissioner to authorise incident response officers to exercise more intrusive investigative powers as are necessary to investigate and prevent serious cybersecurity threats or incidents. For example, the Commissioner may require the owner of a computer to scan the computer for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Clause 20(3) prescribes a set of criteria for determining what constitutes a \"serious\" cybersecurity threat or incident, such as when it creates a risk of significant harm being caused to a CII.
The Commissioner may, under clause 20(5), take possession of any computer or equipment without the owner’s consent for the purpose of further examination and analysis, if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) this is necessary for the purpose of the investigation; (b) there is no less disruptive method of achieving the purpose of the investigation; and (c) after consultation with the owner, and after considering his business and operational needs, the benefit from doing so outweighs the detriment caused to him.
Such powers are necessary given the potential impact from serious cybersecurity threats and incidents, which can disrupt our essential services, potentially cause physical damage and harm, and affect our economy and our way of life. The Bill clearly spells out how these powers may be exercised. These powers are calibrated and there are safeguards built into the Bill, such as what I have just described.
The maximum penalty under clause 20(7) is $25,000 fine or two years’ imprisonment or both, for offences, such as failure without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction or requirement of an incident response officer, under clause 20(2)(b) or (c).
Clause 23 allows the Minister to authorise or direct any person or organisation to take measures for the purpose of countering serious and imminent threats. Clause 23 is a re-enactment with slight modifications of section 15A of CMCA. This section will be repealed. CMCA will correspondingly be renamed as the Computer Misuse Act, or CMA in short, at the same time that the Cybersecurity Bill is passed. The offences and penalties under clause 23 are the same as those under section 15A of CMCA.
The Bill recognises that information disclosed to CSA under the Bill is often confidential. Information disclosed to CSA may be used to determine if a computer system is a CII (clause 8), technical information relating to a CII (clause 10), or information given pursuant to an investigation into a cybersecurity threat or incident (clause 19 or 20).
Therefore, under clause 43, the Commissioner and other specified persons must preserve the secrecy of information that may come to their knowledge as a result of performing their functions or discharging their duties under the Bill. Such information includes matters relating to a computer system, as well as the identity of persons who furnished the information. It will be a criminal offence under clause 43(4) if specified persons fail to preserve the secrecy of such information or unlawfully discloses such information. The maximum penalty is $10,000, or one year’s imprisonment, or both.
However, clause 43 provides for the sharing of information in certain circumstances, such as for the purposes of prosecution under the Bill, or to disclose to the Police any information which discloses the commission of an offence under CMA.
We recognise other persons may have information on whether CII owners are complying with their obligations specified in Part 3 of the Bill, and we want to encourage the disclosure of such information to the Commissioner. Clause 45 provides for the protection of these informers in relation to proceedings for an offence under Part 3 of the Bill.
As cybersecurity risks become more widespread, the demand for credible cybersecurity services will grow. Some cybersecurity services can be sensitive because the service providers performing them can have significant access into their clients’ computer systems and networks and gain a deep understanding of the cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Such services, if abused, can compromise and disrupt the clients’ operations even after the service provider’s job has been completed. Furthermore, there is asymmetry of information; many organisations, especially smaller ones, may not know which cybersecurity service providers are ethical or offer reliable services.
Part 5 of the Bill provides for a licensing framework for cybersecurity service providers that service the Singapore market. For a start, the licensing framework will be a light touch in view that this is a new initiative and there is a need to strike a good balance between industry development and cybersecurity needs. Only providers of two types of cybersecurity services will be licensed, namely, penetration testing and managed security operations centre (SOC) monitoring. These providers have access to sensitive information from their clients, and the services are also relatively mainstream in our market and, hence, have a significant impact on the overall cybersecurity landscape.
Clause 24 requires providers of licensable cybersecurity services that are specified in the Second Schedule to apply for a licence. It will be an offence to provide such services without a licence. The maximum penalty is a $50,000 fine, or two years’ imprisonment, or both.
We do not intend to require companies to be licensed for providing licensable cybersecurity services to their related companies. In addition, the term \"cybersecurity service\", as defined in clause 2, only covers a service provided by a person for a reward to another person, and excludes a service provided in-house to an employer.
Financial penalties may be imposed under clause 32 for non-compliance with licensing conditions or for other regulatory breaches that are not an offence, such as the failure to keep and retain proper records. The maximum penalty is $10,000 for each non-compliance but not exceeding, in the aggregate, $50,000.
The licensing officer is required under clause 33 to give licensees an opportunity to submit representations before the imposition of financial penalties. Under clause 35, cybersecurity service providers may appeal to the Minister against specific decisions of the licensing officer, such as the refusal to grant a licence and licensing conditions.
Sir, the Government cannot achieve a more secure cyberspace alone. We will partner public and private sector stakeholders in the journey to strengthen the protection of CII. CSA will adopt a deliberate process for the designation of CII across the different sectors, in consultation with their owners and the relevant sector regulators where possible. CSA will also implement programmes to help the sector regulators assist CII owners in getting ready to fulfil their obligations under the Bill.
We will also engage the industry further on the licensing conditions for licensed cybersecurity service providers under clause 27 of the Bill. The licensing framework will be operationalised at a later stage, after the rest of the Bill.
Sir, the Cybersecurity Bill is one part of Singapore's Cybersecurity Strategy to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity posture. With cyber threats growing globally, this Bill is timely to empower CSA to safeguard essential services from disruptions by cyberattacks, prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents, and to establish a licensing framework to improve the credibility of cybersecurity services in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Bill. I first have to declare my interest. I work for a firm that provides cybersecurity and risk services.
Mr Speaker, the Cybersecurity Bill is timely, given its focus to strengthen the defences of our essential services and CII from cybersecurity threats from both private and state players.
We have seen growing evidence of how countries are being threatened by digital sabotage which targets essential services to cause disruption to the economy, as well as to confuse and demoralise citizens.
The Ukraine experience, as the Minister has shared earlier on, was one that is almost becoming a cyber-hacking \"testbed\" for other foreign state actors. On 23 December 2015, the control centres of three Ukrainian electricity distribution companies were taken control of, where malicious hackers opened breakers which caused more than 200,000 households to lose power. Nearly a year later, on 17 December 2016, a single transmission substation in northern Kiev lost power. These instances of sabotage took place on the tail of a political revolution in Kiev and the annexation of Crimea.
While similar attacks have not shown to be highly-motivated acts of sabotage in Singapore, in September last year, CSA had reported that several critical sectors were subjected to cyberattacks, and that the Singapore Government had been subjected to a malware attack by state-sponsored hackers. We have been fortunate that the recent Wannacry, Meltdown and Spectre malware attacks have not disrupted our essential services.
Nonetheless, these attacks are a clear and present danger to a compact nation like Singapore, where a politically or militarily motivated actor can use cyber warfare to sabotage our critical infrastructure and economy. Current international laws have not been effective to address cross-border hacking and state-sponsored attacks. In most cases, agencies have had difficulty to pin down hacking incidents to individuals or governments.
I believe the Cybersecurity Bill is a good start for Singapore to ensure that our essential services and sectors are well-protected and defended to prevent criminals or state players from threatening our economy and our way of life.
I welcome that this Bill looks into proactive measures to have owners of CIIs to be more accountable for reporting and the security readiness of their CIIs. It is important that relevant stake players provide timely reports of attacks and I fully support that the CSA drive industry-wide knowledge sharing and push for effective cyber defence measures.
Countries, such as Germany, Japan and the US, have already enacted cybersecurity legislation. In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Thailand and Vietnam are also considering similar legislation. Thus, this Bill is a timely reflection of our commitment to securing our nation and our status as a top-tier international hub and financial hub.
From the view of the industry, one of the key concerns will be whether the cost of compliance and the costs of systems upgrades will be significant. Consumers will also be concerned if these additional costs will be passed on to them, as many of these CII owners provide essential services, such as transport, water, electricity and communications.
We must strike a balance to protect our national and citizens' interests but yet be clear on what security standards and architectures that CIIs need to comply with, so that the costs incurred in upgrades and security operations will not overburden industry and consumers. The cyber arms race is not about to recede and will only intensify and hackers will continue to try to find weaknesses in systems to exploit. In this regard, I would like to make some suggestions.
One, it will be ideal if CSA can take the lead, together with the sector regulators, to set industry-wide leading practices, shared services and threat intelligence, so that CII players can achieve security readiness in a cost-efficient manner and yet be effective in deterring and responding to security threats.
Two, this Bill will drive greater accountability from the CII owners, and failure to comply with this new law will be criminal in nature. I support the need to make the owners of the CIIs accountable, but I hope that CSA be very clear on the benchmarks or, if appropriate, security architectures that CII owners need to comply with upfront. This will also help the relevant CIIs to plan their security roadmap effectively and better understand the investments they need to make. Otherwise, the industry risks putting in piecemeal measures that could be costly. It would also not be good if CII owners take a reactive approach to only wait for audit results and taking action only when told that they need to comply to them from time to time. Under the law, they will only be criminally penalised when they have not complied with a directive from the Commissioner. This may be too late if an incident happens. So, will the Ministry be providing the CIIs with specific benchmarks they need to achieve or a checklist of cybersecurity measures that need to be in place?
Three, I would like also to suggest that the Ministry and the sector regulators consider funding R&D for cybersecurity technology and operations centrally or within sectors. The involvement of CSA and sector regulators can catalyse CII operators to share findings and insights to accelerate cybersecurity enhancements. There are many common insights that could be derived from research and leading practices within specific sectors. This will help CII operators develop quicker and more effectively.
Mr Speaker, since 2015, the Ministry has been doing public and closed door consultations. I would like to ask the Minister, through the consultation exercises, whether the Ministry has performed an assessment of the readiness of the current CIIs in the various essential services sectors to comply with CSA's security requirements. Has the Ministry estimated how much it will cost for the CIIs to comply with the Cybersecurity Bill's requirements? What is the timeline that CIIs have come back that they need to get fully ready and compliant?
Under the Cybersecurity Bill, the Minister, the Commissioner and his deputies are given the authority to investigate and get CIIs to disclose information to assist with investigations. Citizens will be concerned that, as part of investigations, the authorities may need to access data residing within the CIIs and this may breach the privacy of individuals. What are the safeguards put in place to ensure that the broad investigation powers under this Bill do not invade the privacy of individuals and consumers?
Mr Speaker, under this regime, the Cybersecurity Bill will complement CMCA, which will be renamed CMA. What is the rationale of keeping the Acts separate as they both deal with essentially cybercrime? How would enforcement operations be divided across the two pieces of legislation to deal with cybercriminals involved in attacks, such as Ransomware, Malware or Distributed Denial of Services (DDOS) attacks? The same crime can technically be applied across both critical infrastructure and non-critical, and common information technology (IT) systems. So, is there a duplication of effort or duplication of resources? What features under the new Bill will enable our agencies to better address as well crimes arising from overseas actors?
Currently, the CIIs are defined based on systems located here in Singapore. Given that some CII operators may use technologies, such as cloud services or outsourced managed services based overseas, how does the regulator plan to designate these systems as CII, as the data and application may not reside, wholly or in part, in Singapore?
Mr Speaker, the Bill will put in place a licensing regime to providers of penetration testing and managed SOC monitoring services. I support this initiative as it will put in place a credible ecosystem to support our CIIs. This will also promote our service providers to be better trained and specialised to meet the standards required by the regulators. However, I would like to seek clarity from the Minister why does CSA only register companies and not allow for the licensing or registration of individuals. In this emerging field of cybersecurity, there are many global experts, or even white-hat hackers, whose expertise may be useful as freelancers to advise CII owners. Why does the Ministry not consider allowing individuals to be contracted by the CII owners?
From a manpower perspective, Mr Speaker, cybersecurity resources are in demand today. How is the Ministry planning to uplift the capabilities that we have to fulfil demand once the Bill comes into force? Do we have a significant capability gap today and how long does the Ministry estimate for us to fulfil this gap?
I would like to suggest that the Ministry put in more resources to build up cybersecurity capability that will help CIIs fund training and international exposure for their personnel for security training. The Ministry may also wish to facilitate manpower exchanges with leading technology research labs or CIIs overseas with leading practices. Some of the CIIs named are in sectors that are facing slowdown and may find it difficult to prioritise funds for this in the short term. Such a capability fund can help adoption, especially within the immediate future.
Mr Speaker, the defence of our nation, our people and its economy needs a new approach in this digital age. Countries have the ability to combine conventional and cyber tactics to weaken an opponent's defence by disrupting its essential services and its economy, and also to maximise confusion and uncertainty using both simple and sophisticated technologies in innovative ways.
This Bill is timely to stress the importance of strengthening our CIIs in the interest of national security. We have been developing our Total Defence capabilities across five pillars – military, civil, economic, social and psychological defence. It has worked for us for several decades. In this digital era and considering the emerging threat of hybrid warfare, it may be time for the Government to update our approach. Perhaps, it may be time to add a sixth pillar to our Total Defence framework in the area of cybersecurity or digital defence to counter the new threats in this digital era. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this is a significant Bill which establishes a framework for the oversight and maintenance of cybersecurity in Singapore. Its ambit and reach are understandably wide in view of the reliance both the public and private sectors, including individuals, place on computer programmes, systems and services, and the devastating prospect of debilitating cyberattacks on critical sectors of the economy.
More specifically, the loss or exposure of private information may also erode trust in the Government, statutory agencies and private companies as the release of such information in the public realm can seldom ever be completely reversed.
I understand the Bill has received significant feedback from industry with an excess of 60 companies, many of them large corporates, and separately, a healthy number of industry associations – not forgetting civic-conscious and interested individuals – providing feedback to the Ministry on this Bill. For that reason, my clarifications will be limited to the Bill's broad principles and impulse, centring on queries that pertain to the operation of the envisaged Cybersecurity Act in practice.
The first clarification pertains to clause 7 of the Bill covering companies and entities that host CII that are partly located overseas for business reasons or simply logistical convenience. As a part of a Singaporean entity's CII ecosystem may be located overseas, how does the Bill ensure that this bifurcation does not render a particular CII susceptible to compromise or cyberattacks since CII computers and computer systems based overseas are not covered by this Bill?
Separately, in light of the feedback received, how common are such hybrid arrangements amongst public and private sector CII owners and is the Ministry concerned that some entities may seek to locate some elements of their CII overseas to hedge against the reach of the Act and, as a consequence, compromise its regulatory reach?
I have a similar clarification with regard to ownership of a CII, particularly if the owner is an offshore entity or individual. What regulatory oversight will the Bill realistically have over CII owners who operate outside our jurisdiction, and would this not represent a loophole?
Secondly, I seek some clarity on the compliance costs that are likely to result for both public and private sector entities as a result of this Bill. Feedback on such costs were received by the Ministry and there was a suggestion that grants should be extended to help organisations offset these costs. Can the Minister give us some sense or an estimate of the dollar value of the compliance costs of the Cybersecurity Bill with regard to, for example, CIIs in sectors referred to in Schedule 1 of the Bill – perhaps those covering the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and some public hospitals? Finally, how much would be set aside in the Budget for grants arising out of an increase in such compliance costs?
Thirdly, I understand from feedback to the Ministry that there was some concern about what constituted a significant security incident. The language of the Bill in clause 14 focuses on prescribed incidents suggesting that subsidiary legislation will clarify such words and terms. As the Bill imposes a duty on owners of CII to report incidents, can the Minister give the House a general sense, with examples of the specific thresholds of hypothetical incidents which may require reporting under the Bill.
With this as a backdrop, can the Minister also share with Parliament what punishment would be effected by this Bill against a company like Uber – assuming it is a CII – which caused the compromise of personal information, such as names, email addresses and personal contact numbers, of close to 380,000 Singaporeans and tried to conceal the same, as reported in November last year? How far does this Bill go to take a CII owner to task for non-reporting should a similar Uber-like episode occur after this Bill becomes law?
What other actions would the Government consider against entities that are negligent in securing their computer systems, particularly if such an incident is aggravated through willful concealment?
Fourthly, clause 19 of the Bill gives extraordinarily broad powers to the Commissioner of Cybersecurity and his officers to investigate cybersecurity threats and incidents against companies, entities and even individuals with respect to any computer or computer system in Singapore, not just CIIs. The ambit of these powers is best exemplified by clause 19(1)(a) of the Bill, which gives the Commissioner and any authorised officer the power to remove or make copies of a hard disk, for example, even if it is only to assess the impact or potential impact of a cybersecurity threat. Non-compliance carries with it a fine of up to $5,000 and/or an imprisonment term of up to six months.
For avoidance of any doubt, notwithstanding the remarks in the Report on Public Consultation on the draft Cybersecurity Bill where it was stated that such powers are to be applied in a calibrated manner and, more importantly, in response to major cybersecurity incidents against non-CIIs, can the Minister confirm the envisaged threshold of what qualifies as a major incident, so that the House is reassured that the Commissioner's powers will be used very judiciously and not against Government critics and individuals?
Coming back to the Uber example, does the Government foresee using such powers against foreign companies that operate in Singapore?
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I am concerned about how much Singaporeans are actually aware of their online signature and the importance of cybersecurity. While we seek to protect key infrastructure against cyberattacks, every Singaporean, who uses his or her smartphone to pay for goods and services or uses it as a social engagement tool, is susceptible to cyberattack or hacking. This prospect is likely to increase as Singapore undertakes its Smart Nation drive with more focus and coordination.
The CSA is in a privileged position to educate Singaporeans on security tips as we transition to a more cashless economy and live online, as many of us already do. What measures can Singaporeans look forward from the Government to protect them from cybersecurity threats in our Smart Nation journey? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Cybersecurity Bill is a forward-looking piece of legislation that ensures that our laws keep pace with the threats that we face as a nation.
The year 2017 has been called the Year of the Data Breach. Even within the first six months of 2017, the number of records stolen in breaches numbered almost two billion – even more than the whole of 2016, which was 1.4 billion. New malware samples reached an all-time high of 57.6 million in the third quarter of 2017, according to McAfee Labs Threat Report December 2017.
This is not just a matter of privacy or lost personal data – there are financial, security, proprietary interests at stake. A class action suit was initiated in the US last year against Equifax for data breach. They alleged that criminals used the stolen data to \"apply for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, tap into bank debit accounts, file insurance claims and rack up substantial debts.\" Stolen identity also poses an international problem, a terrorist problem. Last month, Thai police arrested a man who allegedly forged passports, including Singapore passports, for groups, including a terrorist group.
Furthermore, breaches in cybersecurity can have debilitating effects on essential services. WannaCry, the first ransomware worm, crippled the healthcare system in England. It \"shut down computers in more than 80 NHS organisations in England alone\", cancelling almost 20,000 appointments in an appointment-based healthcare system, five hospitals resorted to diverting ambulances, unable to handle any more emergency cases. So, what we are debating today is serious.
Wannacry was a ransomeware worm and, by \"worm\", we are talking about a malware programme that is able to self-replicate to infect other computers and infiltrate through the connections in a computer network. The NotPetya in Ukraine, which utilised a hacked version of a major accounting programme widely used in Ukraine, affected companies in many different sectors, from shipping to pharmaceuticals and to outside Ukraine through multinational companies. Worse still, NotPetya encrypts files with no chance of recovery, that is, it was not a ransomeware.
Stuxnet, a different computer worm, caused a proportion of machinery in Iran’s nuclear facility to spin out of control in 2010. This cyberattack was executed through infected Universal Serial Buses (USBs), overcoming the \"air gap\". Since then, new methods to jump over an air gap has emerged. No sector has been spared cyberattacks, with commercial and healthcare sectors targeted the most.
This threat is not something remote to Singapore. The threat is real and palpable. Although Singapore’s critical infrastructure was not hit by Wannacry, Singapore malls were among the victims of that ransomware.
Within the past five years, there were notable occasions of security breaches. In 2014, Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs' IT system was breached. One thousand and five hundred SingPass users' IDs and passwords were reported to be potentially compromised and illegally accessed. In 2017, 850 Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) personnel’s National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers, birth dates and telephone numbers were stolen following a cyberattack. Additionally, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) reported an attack by \"advanced persistent threat\" (APT) actors that sought to \"steal research and Government-related information.\"
These and many other instances are like red, flashing lights warning us to be vigilant. So, I concur with Minister Yaacob Ibrahim's point that we need to act and we need to act now.
Cybersecurity threats are nearer than we think. They could hit us faster than we can react and they could hit us harder than we can imagine. Therefore, this forward-looking Bill goes upstream to secure our information infrastructure through preventive and reactive compliance, so as to give us the upper hand and arsenal we can deploy against those who seek to do us harm.
Some key features of this Bill’s regulatory framework include: (a) reporting and investigating of breaches to facilitate damage control and prevent future occurrences under clauses 14, 19 and 20; (b) licensing of cybersecurity service providers in Part 5; and (c) regular auditing under clause 15 to ensure compliance and accountability. To facilitate accountability and promote compliance, clause 45 protects informers’ identities.
In today's age of technology, more infrastructure is being built, not from concrete and steel but, rather, in the realm of intangible cyberspace. This trajectory is bound to continue as Singapore moves toward being a \"Smart Nation\". Some of the future initiatives announced recently include digitalising of healthcare records even at the level of a private general practitioner (GP) through the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) and the promoting of cashless payments.
As we seek to increase leveraging the conveniences and prowess of modern technology, it is critical that we protect and prevent attacks and crises from threatening our cyber infrastructure. The important place they have in the running of our country is reflected in this Bill’s designation of CII. This designation spans 11 broad areas of essential services set out in its First Schedule.
Cybersecurity in a computer network would only be as strong as the weakest link. A single vulnerability may be exploited to infect other areas and other computers in the network. Since computer networks extend beyond territorial boundaries and cyberattacks know no physical boundaries, clause 3 of this Bill extends regulation to computer networks that are wholly or partly in Singapore.
This Bill has been carefully calibrated for a consistent framework over the different sectors yet providing space for flexibility for purpose-oriented, sector-suited rules and practices. For example, the Commissioner’s written directions may be issued to a class of CII owners under clause 12(1); the Commissioner to direct more frequent audit above the two years \"in any particular case\" under clause 15(1)(a).
The Bill also provides for flexible codes of practice under clause 11 to be promulgated to promote best practices in cybersecurity. It is important that this regulatory skeleton provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate for changes in the realm of cyberspace and allow for careful calibration of regulation in the future. If there are too many regulations, the higher threshold to entry may perhaps shrink our well of cybersecurity expertise to draw from, harming our cybersecurity resilience, for example, through an over-reliance on a single provider which may multiply knock-on effects of a breach. Hence, the regulatory framework, in my view, needs to remain flexible for future refinement of regulatory controls.
This flexibility is especially crucial because technology is an ever-evolving landscape. Cybersecurity depends on innovation to keep up, keep ahead and remain effective. Recently, MINDEF invited white hat hackers to hack into MINDEF’s Internet-facing domains. This method of exposing vulnerabilities maximised the talent pool available locally and overseas. The non-prohibitive cost estimated at $100,000, compared to up to a million dollars for hiring a dedicated vulnerability assessment team. This is attractive fiscally. Would the Minister clarify how this Bill would affect non-mainstream methods of strengthening cybersecurity, such as white hats?
In this fast-changing technology-connected world, this Bill provides the preventive complement to the deterrent CMCA. It is a complement to that Act. It places our country to better respond to, prevent and secure the integrity of our computer systems through a strong, yet flexible, regulatory framework. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I strongly support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is, indeed, a step in the right direction in light of more and more sophisticated cyber threats which have crippled a country's CII, such as that which happened to NHS in the UK, as the Minister has alluded to. The terrible impact of the cyberattack devastated hospitals and GP clinics in the UK. Its Cyber Security Centre was working round the clock to bring its systems back online when this attack resulted in surgeries being cancelled, ambulances being diverted and patient records missing after it became the highest-profile victim of a global ransomware attack and was faced with renewed concern about the strength of its infrastructure. This malware blocks access to any files on PC until a ransom is paid.
This could have been a situation in Singapore if we are not better prepared. The concern over cybersecurity becomes more imminent with the Ministry of Health’s (MOH's) direction to move into NEHR for patients, which is an excellent initiative. With access to one patient record across public and private healthcare sectors, framework, structure, audits, cybersecurity governance and oversight, including educating the stakeholders and providing relevant continuous training, becomes paramount.
Our country’s information infrastructure has to be protected and well-preserved from infiltration and attack in the name of cyber-terrorism. The special focus of the 11 key sectors, such as Government, security and emergency, healthcare, telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, water, media, land transport, air transport and maritime, demonstrates the critical nature of the sector that could cripple the entire Singapore in terms of economy and threaten our lives to its devastation.
With this as backdrop, I am, indeed, heartened to see the Government’s inclusive effort to garner stakeholder’s feedback and support on the Cybersecurity Bill. It is, indeed, notable that the public consultation on the Bill, which was originally scheduled from 10 July to 3 August 2017, was extended to allow respondents more time to provide feedback on such an important Bill that is pertinent to safeguard the people of Singapore in all aspects.
The importance of working with the various stakeholders cannot be over-emphasised and it is equally pertinent to ensure the relevant sectors work closely with one another to implement the intricacies of the Bill and to ensure the proposed requirements are adhered to. I believe implementing it would be more challenging than enforcing the Bill.
Licensing cybersecurity service providers may not be a popular move but a necessary one to ensure that they meet the security needs. In this regard, I would like to propose the following suggestions for consideration.
There needs to be a structured means of briefing the companies, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), on guidelines to encourage them to adhere to the cybersecurity measures. SMEs may not have the resources and capabilities to adhere to the measures, unless they are given the impetus and financial support to put in place the necessary requirements. They may also need borrowed expertise to put in place the secured means of protecting information as they serve as a third-party vendor to some clients. It would be good for the Government to grow and provide a pipeline of those talents to assist these companies which will need them.
In the areas of training, the Government may consider grants to encourage individual personnel to take up cybersecurity courses or programmes to refresh their knowledge and to be updated on the latest advancements, as the industry transforms rapidly. This can be tied to SkillsFuture cybersecurity upskilling grants.
To enhance governance and oversight, it would be worthy to introduce an accredited framework for auditors to perform checks and provide guidance or advice on what companies can do to have a more secured portal. Establishing a national cybersecurity audit to check on the stakeholders of the 11 sectors will provide a high level of assurance for those who engage in services in the specific sector.
Effective communication mechanism or efficient connectivity to promptly inform stakeholders and companies of the specific sector or sectors that could be potential target and how to take timely precaution will serve to act as preventive means.
Companies or individuals who proved to have unintentionally violated the requirements in the Bill, should be made to go through relevant cybersecurity programmes and this should be made compulsory. In fact, it would be useful to ensure that all staff of the industry be made to attend awareness programmes in this field, so as to better protect the critical information.
Sir, I fully support the Bill that raises the level of resilience in our efforts to prevent and combat global cybersecurity attacks that periodically threatens us, especially when we least expect.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Bill that sets up the regulatory framework to protect Singapore from the increasing threat of cyberattacks. The extensive commentary and feedback received during the public consultation for the Bill show that the public recognises the importance of cybersecurity. In the responses to the feedback, we can also see the Government trying to balance the compliance burden on business with the necessary measures to protect the economy from cyberattacks.
Singapore’s cybersecurity strategy is a correct approach taken for a global city that depends on openness and connectedness to the world for its proper functioning. This approach can be described as a whole-of-Government approach that places public-private collaboration at the heart of the strategy with a strong future-oriented plan for capacity development and for value addition to the economy. This Bill is an integral part of the strategy and expresses the strategy’s approach.
I have three sets of clarifications for the Minister. The first set is more general and has to do with the strategy and its implementation; the second, on the scope of the Bill; and the third, on the specific provisions of the Bill.
The Paper setting out Singapore’s Cybersecurity Strategy was published more than a year ago in October 2016. The strategy has four pillars: building a resilient infrastructure, creating a safer cyberspace, developing a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem and strengthening international partnerships.
I was rather surprised that there is very little mention of MINDEF in the Paper. It was mentioned once in the Paper when it was noted that MINDEF formed part of the National Cyber Incident Response Teams with CSA, the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). These teams are part of the plan to respond to Tier 1 cyber campaigns threatening national security and Tier 2 cyberattacks on a sector.
MINDEF is a 4G military force reliant on secure communications and information networks. It should already have well-developed cybersecurity infrastructure and capabilities. It would be a terrible waste if the military applications are not adapted for civilian use. Could the Minister share whether there are plans to synergise and share military cybersecurity knowledge and technology to develop and deepen our civilian cybersecurity infrastructure?
Afterall, as it is stated in the strategy Paper, cybersecurity is a way of putting Total Defence into action and everyone has a role in creating a safer cyberspace for everyone, and this must include the military. There are two other specific ways that the military could play a key role to realise our cybersecurity strategy objectives. These are already observed in public commentary on the strategy and many have pointed to the Israeli military as a successful example.
First, our military has a peculiar asset: the commitment of tens of thousands of full-time and operationally-ready National Servicemen. This represents a potentially significant investment of time, not only of manpower, but of brainpower, by our highly educated workforce. The time invested could be harnessed to serve both military and civilian cybersecurity needs.
A cybersecurity corps could be formed to train budding IT professionals when they are serving full-time National Service. Deferment could also be considered for these young men to obtain degrees in cybersecurity first, so that they would hone their classroom skills in the military. They could then enter the cybersecurity industry when they become operationally-ready and return to the military with enhanced knowledge and skills during their NSmen call-ups. This is a win-win method to develop a vibrant cybersecurity system for Singapore.
Second, our unique military institution could also be used to foster startups to develop Singapore’s cybersecurity industry. Israel is already ahead of everyone in this game and there are an estimated 420 cybersecurity companies in Israel today, many of which are at the forefront of innovation and exporting their technology. It is now well-known that the Israeli Defence Force acted as the incubator for the startups. We have similar institutional features here, so there is no reason why the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) cannot also serve as such an incubator. It would be a win for the military and a win for our entrepreneurship sector and economy, too.
I move on now to the second set of clarifications on the scope of the Cybersecurity Bill. The Bill defines \"critical information infrastructure\" in section 7 as the computer system \"necessary for the continuous delivery of an essential service\", the compromise of which would lead to a serious effect on the availability of the essential service. Essential service is defined in section 2 as \"any service essential to national security, defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order of Singapore, and specified in the First Schedule\". I am surprised that higher education and research institutions are not listed as essential service in the First Schedule and would like the Minister to clarify why this is so.
There are three reasons why I am surprised. First, it was reported that the NUS and NTU both suffered separate cyberattacks in April last year. It appeared to be the work not of casual hackers but of carefully planned, sophisticated cyberattacks that might be aimed at stealing information related to the Government and research. This is an extreme cyberattack scenario which this Bill is aimed at defending against. If our top public universities are being targeted by organised hackers, who could not be named by CSA for operational security reasons, and they were going after some precious information which, again, CSA could not reveal for security reasons, then there must be critical information residing in our universities and research institutions.
Second, of course, a sophisticated, targeted cyberattack on our universities does not mean that the service provided by the universities is essential, as defined in the Bill. I am, however, inclined to argue that there is a lot of research that is going on in our universities and other associated research institutions that have to do with the continuous delivery of essential services. The theft of information related to these research projects could lead to cyberattacks or other forms of attack that could seriously affect the availability of essential services. I would like to ask the Government, therefore, to review whether the computer networks for research-related to essential services, especially Government-linked research projects, should also be considered as CIIs.
Third, our universities are central to cybersecurity innovation and training. In the Paper outlining Singapore’s Cybersecurity Strategy, four of our six autonomous universities are named as playing key roles in fostering cutting-edge research and development (R&D) and talent development. It is in the vision that each of the six universities would become a \"cybersecurity centre of excellence\" developing its own area of specialisation. The training of our cybersecurity workforce is also entrusted to the universities. The Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) offer Bachelor and Master's programmes in cybersecurity. What this means is that there is a lot of meta-information on cybersecurity residing in our universities. The theft of this meta-information could compromise the general resilience of our cybersecurity infrastructure or that of specific CIIs.
I move on finally to the third and last set of clarifications that have to do with the duty to report cybersecurity incidents, as specified in section 14. I have two points of clarifications for this. The first is specific to section 14, and the second has to do with cybersecurity incident reporting in general. First, section 14(1)(b) specifies that the owner of a CII must notify the Commissioner of a cybersecurity incident in any computer or computer system under the owner’s control that is interconnected with or that communicates with the CII. This seems onerous, and yet, limiting.
It is onerous because it enlarges the scope of regulation beyond the CII into a far larger field of secondary computer systems. For the owner of a CII, this would mean the requirement of detection mechanisms in secondary computer systems. Yet, section 14(2) is not clear whether it is a legal requirement.
Would the Minister clarify whether it is a requirement for the owner of a CII to install detection mechanisms in secondary computer systems interconnected with the CII? Would the Minister also clarify whether this reporting requirement is, indeed, onerous, especially since MCI and CSA’s response to feedback during the consultation on the draft Bill stated that \"computer systems in the supply chain supporting the operation of a CII will not be designated as CIIs\", implying that the regulation would be more narrowly scoped.
Yet, section 14(1)(b) is limiting, if the intention is to protect the CII from cyberattacks in adjacent interconnected computer systems, as the clause is now worded to limit regulation to only secondary computer systems under the owner’s control.
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify what does \"owner’s control\" mean in real operational terms? What if the secondary computer system interconnected to the CII is not under the control of the CII owner? Does it mean that such a computer system would not pose a risk to the CII? If a secondary computer system not under the control of the CII would still pose a risk to the CII, then why limit reporting to secondary computer systems under the CII owner’s control? If the risk is the same regardless, then why not remove the need to report cybersecurity incidents in secondary computer systems altogether?
My final point has to do with the reporting of cybersecurity incidents beyond the CIIs. Threat reports issued by cybersecurity firms often point to the problem of under-reporting, as many companies and organisations often choose not to report or to reveal the full extent of cyberattacks and data thefts. This is understandable, as sensational news reports of major data breaches would undermine trust in these organisations and affect the bottom line of businesses.
At the same time, it is not viable for these organisations to hide such incidents from view, as it would erode the general resilience of cybersecurity infrastructure in the long run. Afterall, large-scale organised cyberattacks would likely begin with trial runs of mini attacks on non-critical computer systems. The only way forward might be to legislate mandatory reporting of all cybersecurity incidents to CSA with the assurance of confidentiality and indemnity.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Cybersecurity Bill is a significant step forward in putting Singapore’s Cybersecurity Strategy into action. I support the Bill. It is an expression of our Total Defence culture. As such, I believe there is a greater role to be played by MINDEF to develop our cybersecurity capabilities and enhance our cybersecurity enterprises.
I also believe that the Government should look more closely at our Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) as they have already come under a severe cyberattack and their computer systems contain crucial information related to our essential services and meta-information related to our cybersecurity infrastructure.
Finally, I believe that we need to get the reporting of cybersecurity incidents right and there are kinks in this area in this Bill that the Minister could do well to straighten out.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Cybersecurity Bill is an important one. It will enhance the oversight and protection of cybersecurity for our CII sectors.
I am heartened to note that we are building up our cybersecurity capabilities on a solid foundation and that the Government has been investing in developing a robust system. Last year, we ranked third globally in terms of cybersecurity spend as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) with 0.22%, behind Israel (0.35%) and the UK (0.26%).
However, we can do better to raise our cybersecurity standard. Just last month, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reported IT control problems in our public sector due to \"agencies not complying with the controls put in place\". I agree with the Committee’s assessment that these lapses, which cut across agencies, are significant in view of the IT security threats today.
PAC noted that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has taken steps to deal with this problem on a whole-of-Government level, including the establishment of an interagency work group. At least one of the lapses originated from an IT vendor, which had been warned.
CSA had clarified in its report on the public consultation on the draft Cybersecurity Bill that \"computer systems in the supply chain supporting the operation of a CII will not be designated as CII\". However, CSA noted that CII owners have the option to impose cybersecurity requirements contractually on their vendors.
On one hand, I am concerned that this option may result in vulnerabilities. If CII owners choose not to impose cybersecurity requirements on their vendors, how robust will our systems be? Even if they do, will there be checks or audits to ensure our cybersecurity requirements are being met by the engaged vendors?
On the other hand, vendors, some of which are SMEs, may find it difficult to cope with added costs, for example, third-party costs, should they be bound by contractual cybersecurity obligations. Although reporting is compulsory, vendors, especially small ones, may not want to report as that means taking staff away from work to attend to investigations. Small companies are most vulnerable and their vulnerability may impact the CIIs which engaged them due to the sharing of data.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry assist such small companies upstream by providing a pool of trained personnel to look at how their systems can be strengthened. We have to be absolutely thorough to ensure that our systems are not being compromised through such weak links.
I now move on to the point on licensing of individual cybersecurity professionals. Due to concerns that this will pose practical difficulties for global cybersecurity service providers since they deploy employees from different parts of the world to deliver urgent services at short notice, CSA has decided to work with industry and professional association partners to establish voluntary accreditation regimes instead. But I am worried that, without licensing, we may be exposing ourselves to greater risks in the future. How do we minimise such exposures and ensure accountability and traceability?
Similarly, for personnel responsible for cybersecurity, especially senior staff, do we have checks in place to ensure that we recruit suitable persons to make sure that they are of good character with adequate proper training and who upgrade their knowledge continuously?
The cybersecurity sector is evolving rapidly and we must be careful not to compromise Internet and system hygiene in our enthusiasm to support developments and innovations in this area. While interconnectivity provides greater efficiency and productivity, in a way, we have also become more vulnerable and greater care must be taken across all networks. I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ganesh Rajaram.
Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill.
Singapore has had its fair share of cybersecurity breaches these past few years. We have heard in this House about the attacks on MINDEF, as well as our two major universities, NUS and NTU. While any cyberattack is of concern, to me, what is most worrying is that the attacks, the likes of those on the Singapore universities last year, were, as the authorities have depicted, carefully orchestrated and specifically targeted. It was not the work of casual hackers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, so far, Singapore has been spared from, at least from what we know publicly, serious breaches that could undermine trust and confidence in our financial systems and national security. But for how long? \"We were just lucky\", said Mr David Koh, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CSA, to explain why Singapore escaped the brunt of global malware attacks like the WannaCry ransomware attack. According to Mr Koh, had these attackers targeted Singapore specifically, the consequences could have been quite disastrous.
This is why this Bill is so important. In a world where nation-state actors are becoming bolder in their cross-border activities, we must ensure that our national security, including cyber defence, can withstand these cyberattacks by enemies we cannot see. Cyber defence has to be a whole-of-country approach. It is not just the Government’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of every single person in this community, from the home owner to the business leader.
Singapore is one of Asia’s major technology hubs. We are very highly connected and, as a result, very vulnerable to cybercrime. Our Smart Nation aspirations will bring many benefits but also many vulnerabilities if we are not vigilant and prepared.
In a recent newsletter, cyber technology company Apvera put Singapore at the top of the list of countries from which cyberattacks could be launched. Just to clarify, this does not mean that Singaporeans are becoming hackers, but rather, we have become the No 1 potential launchpad for cybersecurity attacks because of our location, digitalisation, IT savviness as a people, and the increasing number of cloud-based and virtual servers.
Beyond the provisions of this Bill, Mr Speaker, public education has to be enhanced and ramped up. Last year, CSA commissioned a survey to find out about Singaporean attitudes to cybersecurity and cyber hygiene. Here are some findings.
One in three respondents did not manage their passwords securely. They store them on our computers and they write them down. They also use the same passwords for multiple accounts, for work and personal accounts. One in three respondents did not enable their two-factor authentication. Despite widespread use of cloud storage, mobile and other storage devices, almost half the respondents did not conduct virus scans on their devices and files. More than six in 10 respondents connected to open, non-password protected wi-fi networks in public places. Practices, such as these, pose a substantial risk to the security of their personal information and, ultimately, the cyber communities they are part of.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend CSA for launching the \"Live Savvy with Cybersecurity\" campaign last year, where people from all walks of life learned about cybersecurity threats and cybersecurity hygiene. I would strongly encourage the Government to make these roadshows and campaigns a part of school curriculums right from the first time children use computers in schools. Grassroots clubs and community centres should use this campaign to reach out to the elderly, too.
Businesses should also play their part in bolstering their cybersecurity defence. Too often, CEOs are happy to invest in IT systems only when it adds to their bottom line. Few realise, until it is too late, that IT security will actually protect this bottom line. According to a commentary on channelnewsasia.com last December, the cost of security failure because of cybercrime is projected to grow to over US$2 trillion globally in 2018.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government can also do more. Last month, in its review of the Auditor-General’s (AG's) Report for financial year (FY) 2016/2017, PAC cited recurring weaknesses in IT controls as a major weakness. Some of the lapses pointed out by PAC included: user accounts not being properly removed when required, and staff given access to accounts and data that they should not have access to.
What is alarming is that these weaknesses and lapses were pointed out in the past by the AG, and they were still recurring. Though the Ministries concerned have made arrangements to ensure that such lapses do not happen again, this is yet another timely reminder that cybersecurity should not be taken lightly. All we need is just one lapse to bring down the entire system.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude my speech by reaffirming my strong support for the Bill. We cannot take our security for granted and, in today’s digital world, cybersecurity is as important, if not more important, than military security, as the enemy is invisible and can strike anytime and anywhere.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, advancements in information and communications technology (ICT) have transformed our society and the way we live, work and play. We are living in an increasingly interconnected world enabled by digital technology, and the inadvertent rise of Internet of Things (IoT) will accelerate our dependency on technology to an unprecedented level in the near future.
Singapore remains one of the most connected country in the world. Internet penetration rate in Singapore is at 82.2%, much higher than the global average, and 70% of Singaporeans are active on a social media platform, more than double the global average of 34%.
The explosive growth of ICT has ushered in a golden age of digitalisation and has been instrumental in enabling research, applied science, healthcare, transportation and urban development, just to name a few areas. Building upon a robust ICT infrastructure is also the vision of transforming Singapore into a Smart Nation.
Yet, the exponential growth of ICT and our increasing dependency on digital systems have heightened our vulnerability to cyber incidents. These cyber incidents can take the form of cybercrime aimed at siphoning money from corporations and individuals; cyber terrorism and espionage aimed at crippling Government systems and pilfering sensitive information; or even seemingly innocuous cyber pranks that could lead to widespread havoc and social disruption.
In Singapore, our Government systems were also not spared from such incidents. We have heard various Members in the House already referring to the incidents and the attacks carried out against MINDEF and also our IHLs. What is more foreboding is the CSA warning that there has been a consistent and concerted effort to penetrate our Government’s IT system. Thus, the introduction of the Cybersecurity Bill is not only much needed, it is also timely. I do, however, have some points that I would like to raise for discussion and consideration.
Clause 4 of the Bill has vested the Minister with the authority to appoint a Cybersecurity Commissioner and a team of high-ranking cybersecurity officials who have a wide range of duties pertaining to the cybersecurity efforts in Singapore. Although the appointment of the team will help ensure that efforts across Ministries and Statutory Boards are coordinated and policies are implemented consistently, greater clarity perhaps needs to be given on how this jurisdiction will be established.
With the recently established GovTech taking on the role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Government, and CSA already monitoring cybersecurity, how will the newly established centralised cybersecurity office work alongside these agencies? How can we ensure that there is no duplication of duties and, more importantly, what is the unique value-add that the centralised cybersecurity office will bring to our cybersecurity ecosystem that GovTech and CSA are not already doing?
Part 3 of the Bill has vested the Cybersecurity Commissioner with the authority to designate computers and computer systems as CIIs and empower the cybersecurity office with greater oversight over these systems.
While the Bill has set out some guidelines regarding the criteria of designating CIIs, perhaps more consideration needs to be given also on how the status of a CII is designated and what constitutes the phrase, \"essential services\". For example, clause 1 in Part 3 of the Bill suggests that a CII can be defined as a computer or computer system that is necessary for the continuous delivery of essential services in Singapore.
Although some services might not be regarded as \"essential\", they could be considered significant, and any disruption of these entities could have a serious socio-economic impact. Moreover, there could also be private organisations that would require the appropriate assistance, advice and, more critically, protection in this area, too.
On a related note, if an organisation’s computer system, especially a commercial or private one, is designated as a CII, how much access to its database would the cybersecurity office have? For example, if the computer system contains sensitive personal data like health records from insurance companies or investment portfolios from private banks and private organisations, how would cybersecurity be balanced with the intrusion into the privacy of the individual?
I noted that the Minister earlier mentioned that cybersecurity officers are going to be bound by certain very clear guidelines and perhaps even legislation or laws with regard to ensuring confidentiality when they access such information. But I think we cannot deny that there are some potential ethical dilemmas that could arise when cybersecurity officers, in the course of their work, gain access to personal data that contains identifiers when the providers of that information did not give explicit consent for the information to be used or accessed.
While it might not fall strictly under the rubrics of the proposed Bill, how can we provisionally use the Bill to manage the issue of \"fake news\"? I am aware that the Parliamentary Select Committee will, no doubt, present its views on how the issue of fake news can be tackled in due time but, until then, can we utilise the provisions in this Bill to take action against the perpetrators of fake news?
If someone were to hack into a Government agency’s system and issue falsehoods via the agency’s website or automated broadcast system, then can the Government take issue with the perpetrators for committing a cybercrime and also prosecute them for what their hacking resulted in? For example, if someone hacks into the Singapore Police Force (SPF) website or creates a fake SPF site to spread fake news of terror acts, how would the Government deal with the perpetrators and the ensuing chaos that possibly could result from this cybercrime?
Fake news, as we all know, can lead to widespread panic that erodes the trust in public institutions. So, can the cybersecurity office hold the perpetrators of such cybercrimes responsible for the consequences of their crimes? Or will the crimes fall under other legislation, such as the CMA? And, if so, how can the Cybersecurity Bill complement the legislation under CMA?
Mr Speaker, Sir, advancements in science and technology have always benefited humanity by enhancing conveniences in our daily lives and enabling us to do things that once existed only in our imagination.
At the same time, there will always be deviant individuals who will use science and technology for criminal activities or subversive purposes. Consider how nuclear power has allowed humanity to make significant progress, yet that same nuclear power and capability, in the hands of the wrong individual, can have catastrophic consequences for humanity.
Digitisation and Internet technological advancement are no different. As much as they have tremendous benefits for humanity, there is a dark side to this as well. At best, cyber pranksters can cause widespread inconvenience. At worst, cyber terrorists can cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of innocents.
I thus believe that it is timely that the Government is taking steps to address the critical issue of cybersecurity and I stand in firm support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, good afternoon. The Internet has undoubtedly been part of our life, be it at home, at work, or while we play. We use the Internet directly or indirectly, so much so it is almost impossible to live without it – doing research for education, dynamic navigation while driving, exploring new recipes for the next party meal, or even searching for that box office movie. The Internet is now becoming an indispensable part of our daily lives. Our high dependency on the Internet has made it a part of us.
Like many things which are a part of us, it can also be deemed to be private, until when it is violated. Violation of privacy leads to dire consequences. This could mean loss of business, loss of self-esteem for an individual or even loss of life. While we want to believe that the Internet is safe and secure, however, a dark side of it exists and must be managed and controlled.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to share my own personal experience as a victim who was held ransom by a ransomware called \"Locky\". It happened in April 2016, where my work computer was attacked by a software virus which eventually encrypted and locked all my data files. This resulted in me not being able to open or run any of my files. It was a complete disaster as all my work was stored in the computer. It was also unfortunate that the virus attacked the backup files, both in my computer and the main server.
This eventually rendered me helpless as I could neither provide all the required information, nor could I prepare any information for my potential business acquisition. I felt intruded and my personal space had been violated. Mentally, I felt no difference than a person who had been physically violated.
At this juncture, I wished the authorities could have acted and the culprit be apprehended and be dealt with according to the rule of law. However, this never happened. Eventually, I managed to recover all the attacked files through a third-party overseas service provider, but with a fee for a few thousand US dollars. I felt that I was held ransom and the only way to recover all my files was to pay that ransom fee. This is not right and should never happen at all. However, the truth is: it did not stop. Not only did it not stop, in fact, more and bigger cyberattacks occurred in the preceding years.
Just to give Members some examples. I believe that some of my colleagues had already shared this. In October to December 2013, a cyberattack called \"The Messiah\" created havoc as several systems and portals were compromised. Users were redirected to suspicious and unknown websites and this undermined the confidence of Internet users. However, fortunately, the culprit was eventually apprehended.
We always thought that our military should be the last place and institution for a cyberattack to occur. Unfortunately, our MINDEF was hacked on 1 February 2017 where details of some of our Servicemen and personnel, including their Singapore NRIC numbers, telephone numbers, and birth dates were leaked.
On 14 May 2017, ransomware \"WannaCry\" crippled the world for three consecutive days and compromised more than 3,000 systems globally. This was considered as one of the major cyberattacks of the decade.
On 28 June 2017, \"Petya\", which was considered more dangerous than previously known ransomwares, created havoc as it encrypted the Master File Tree Tables for New Technology File System (NTFS), overwriting the Master Boot Record. It spread through malicious emails with booby-trapped Microsoft (MS) Office document. From there, it downloaded and ran the installer and released the software virus and spread unknowingly. This had a devastating effect as it attacked the purported highly secured Master Files which are the basis of the file structure system.
Mr Speaker, in all the cases highlighted, the cyber intrusion and cyberattack were uninvited and unlawful. It was made with malicious intent with the objective to create havoc and misery to all parties, including individuals, agencies and institutions. It undermined the confidence of everyone. Such acts must never be condoned as it will only lead to unhappiness, anger and loss of faith.
I regard such acts as similar to any physical attack on a person, as the consequence from such attack is dire, if not even more. From mental anxieties for having felt violated in their personal space to loss of valuable data and information on one’s Internet-linked devices, such as a computer, mobile phone and others, becoming a victim of a cyberattack can lead to serious consequences. It could even be far-reaching as the outreach from a cyberattack can be wide and endless.
Mr Speaker, it is always hoped and wished that the relevant authorities would be able to act appropriately and accordingly when such things happen. Thus, the Cybersecurity Bill, which is aimed at establishing a working framework in the management of and in response to cybersecurity threats, is very much welcome. In addition, a regulatory framework over the owners of CIIs and cybersecurity service providers will provide an added boost in ensuring that Singapore has a robust cybersecurity framework overall. It is my hope that the regulatory framework be regularly reviewed with higher frequency and in tandem with the fast-changing Internet landscape. With that, Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Members of this House have talked about the possibilities, as well as the dangers, offered by the Internet and we talk a lot about cybersecurity threats. So, I would not repeat those other than to point out the fact that Singapore is no less exposed to such threats.
On the contrary, as the financial services hub and a regional hub to many global corporations, we are among some of the most exposed countries in the world, making us an attractive proposition to hackers from around the world. It is key to see how vulnerable we are.
In a survey done last year by security services provider Quann of 150 senior IT professionals from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, it showed that 40% do not have an incident response plan when they are facing cyberattacks and 67% of those who had those plans admitted to not practising their incident response plans.
This stands to impact our reputation, credibility and position as a global corporate hub and a regional e-commerce platform. As Chair of ASEAN this year, Singapore has identified our aspirations to push for an ASEAN-wide e-commerce platform. For such an ambitious project, and to protect our business hub status, we need to make sure we have a strong cybersecurity framework and regime. In this regard, I am very supportive of this Bill. However, I would like to ask our Government to share more on an important issue which is: how do we keep watch on the guards?
First, how about the companies we are entrusting to protect the cyber world here? While we have certification regimes to manage such companies and ensure that they meet desirable quality standards, do we know enough about the people who are working in these companies? Do these professionals, who are certified, have a vested interest in Singapore? And what if they have interests that are contradictory to Singapore's? It is certainly not a stretch of imagination that we have foreign interests among our cybersecurity professionals here who may leverage their positions in having access to secret and confidential platforms. As such, I call for three things.
One, more thorough due diligence checks by our cybersecurity agencies on professionals. Two, re-examine the penalties for misuse of access to data, especially if the perpetrators are members of the cybersecurity industry who are supposed to guard the industry. Three, create a certification system that favours cyber professionals who have a vested interest in Singapore, people who have some real roots and deep roots in Singapore, rather than fly-by-night experts who drop by for ad hoc projects whom our laws have difficulty to reach and deter.
In addition, cybersecurity could be promoted as an engine of growth. Singapore has emerged as a trusted business hub because of our trusted regulations, our strict regulations and because of our people's trusted reputation. Properly executed, Singapore could naturally become a premier trusted business hub for Asia and for the region with regard to cybersecurity.
Can the Government share our plans to grow and internationalise the industry? Can the Government also share more about our manpower plans to prepare Singapore to take part in this exciting development?
In conclusion, while this Bill helps to create a strong cybersecurity regime for Singapore, we must also ensure that we are not caught blind-sided by any unforeseen circumstances, for doing so would be a risk that could prove very costly for Singaporeans in many ways. But if we get this right, it can also create many opportunities for Singapore. Mr Speaker, I fully support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a 20-minute break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.00 pm until 3.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
In Singapore, there has been a reported increase in the proportion of cybercrimes to overall crimes from 7.9% in 2014 to 14% in 2016. Cases reported under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA) more than doubled from 280 in 2015 to almost 700 in 2016, with ransomware, hacking and the compromise of online accounts, such as Facebook, SingPass and Internet banking accounts, figuring most prominently amongst these. In 2016, the National Cyber Security Command (NCSC) saw cyberattacks of varying impacts across many sectors, including the defence, Government, banking and finance, and healthcare sectors. I, therefore, welcome this Bill.
The omnibus Cybersecurity Bill allows the Minister to appoint a Commissioner of Cybersecurity. The Commissioner is, in turn, empowered to designate a CII.
There have been tweaks, Mr Speaker, since an early draft of this Bill was first released in July last year for consultation. Conducted between 10 July 2017 and 24 August 2017, the public consultation exercise garnered close to a hundred submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders. I must disclose at this point that I was together with other scholars and students of the Singapore Management University, one of the respondents of this consultation exercise. I am, therefore, pleased, Mr Speaker, with what has followed, with the refinements that have been made to this draft Bill and now the Bill before us. In particular, I am pleased in relation to the regime that now governs cybersecurity licensees.
Beyond this, clause 19(6) also suggests and clarifies that a person is no longer obliged to produce to the incident response officer an email infected by a malicious programme or malware if that email contains information that is subject to legal professional privilege. A distinction is made between a non-disclosure agreement which would be a contractual document of privilege, but there is a distinction now being made with legal professional privilege.
Importantly, Mr Speaker, the Bill acknowledges that a compliance-driven approach to cybersecurity should not only be focused on a box-ticking exercise, of getting all the boxes ticked, but one that solves cybersecurity problems creatively and proactively, thereby instilling a risk-management culture. Behind laws, Mr Speaker, it is this creative approach that will be our shield against cybersecurity threats and incidents; it is this risk-management culture that will see CII owners taking swift and appropriate measures to prevent, manage and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents. In this vein, permit me to pose a few further questions to the Minister.
Most importantly, or chief amongst them, I would say, are businesses that are involved in this sector. What perhaps is the Ministry and CSA's plan to minimise additional compliance costs? I know that compliance costs for audits, reporting and risk assessments can be exorbitant, and these costs are, unfortunately, likely to be passed down to the consumers, not to the owners themselves.
Data disclosed during a recent proposal to amend the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation in the US had revealed that costs per company associated with implementing its cybersecurity rules went up to US$150,000 for independent assessments, and equipment costs ranging, in turn, for up to US$350,000 to perform continuous monitoring for this purpose. If these processes are not properly managed in Singapore, considerable sums could be unproductively spent.
In relation to Part IV of the Bill which deals with responses to threats and incidents, can we have some examples of what might variously qualify as a “cybersecurity threat or incident of a severe nature” on the one hand, a “serious threat” on the other, and still on the third hand, which we do not have, an emergency level “serious and imminent threat”? They are terms apart which I would say judges and lawyers would be very keenly looking at. Can we have some guidance as to what this would be?
Third, will cloud services be impacted by this new regulatory framework? The Bill’s explanatory statement admits that the Commissioner’s wide-ranging powers of access to data in clause 20 is “intrusive”. Will this be seen as going against perhaps established data privacy and protection principles and potentially expose the data of the cloud service provider’s clients? This is particularly so in a public cloud environment.
Could the Bill have a chilling effect on the adoption of cloud services in Singapore, as cloud customers in both Singapore and elsewhere become increasingly concerned about the level of Government access to private data and perhaps may withdraw from such cloud services in time to come, even though these cloud services arguably claim to provide better cybersecurity than what we have beyond the cloud services? This would be a pity as the cloud could enable new innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analytics, which will likely become the basis of future developments in technology and that, by all accounts, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office wishes to support.
I understand that codes of practice and standards of performance will provide more guidance to the relevant businesses on the actions that they must take to comply with the Bill. Are there plans to adopt the best practices, specifically from the US and the UK in this regard? I note that the US has a Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2015, which adopts a \"comply or explain\" procedure in certain circumstances. Will we be following that route or studying it at least? Or the UK’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Partnership, a structure for incident disclosure and collection which, among other things, allows business organisations to work in collaboration with the regulators to collaboratively and voluntarily report incidents to the UK national computer emergency response team?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the breadth of machines and systems that are or could become potential CIIs is staggering and will only expand in a smart city, such as Singapore, in time to come. I fear when I read that MINDEF, quite rightly, is looking at how even fitness trackers could become a portal for CII threat or incident.
Allow me to end by noting that the Economist Intelligence Unit's most recent report notes that cybercriminals are seeking out points of least resistance in the Asia Pacific region. So, now we are going to have cybercrime legislation in addition to CMCA. But jurisdictions, perhaps as in our neighbouring jurisdictions, without this cybercrime legislation or with weak enforcement, are attracting cybercriminals as vantage points from which to conduct attacks into the networks of more advanced countries. So, if I can end by just asking if the Minister could share anything that is going to be done regionally and perhaps internationally to prevent this. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which regulates cybersecurity service providers and enhances the online resilience of our country’s CIIs across all key sectors. With the proliferation of Internet devices and the growing scale of worldwide cyberattacks, such as the widespread WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017, the proposed provisions in this Bill are a much-needed step towards safeguarding our cyberspace and everyday security. Considering the multifaceted cybersecurity threats that we face today, the Bill is encouraging in both breadth and depth.
Let me begin by expressing my support for the Ministry’s intentions behind the licensing of key cybersecurity services. There is no doubt that cybersecurity is important for Singapore. Our highly interconnected businesses and community depend very much on the integrity and round-the-clock availability of technology to function smoothly.
Just last Friday, thousands of Singaporeans were affected when the e-payment system Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) was down for more than an hour. Our Smart Nation needs to be secured all the time, every time. However, I would like to ask if the proposed licensing framework would impact the development of a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem in Singapore.
Would third-party startups and vendors be required to obtain a licence just to offer their services as part of a turnkey solution to organisations?
Mr Speaker, even the best cybersecurity defence systems and the most onerous cybersecurity legislation would be for naught if the end-users of these systems end up being the weakest link in our cybersecurity chain. With the proliferation of smart devices, flash drives and devices connected to the Internet, these can all be points of entry for a hacker to cause damage if the user does not have a good basic understanding of digital security. I would like to urge the Ministry to design and roll out awareness programmes to educate our citizens, both young and old, on digital security to ensure that the weakest link in our cybersecurity chain is secured.
Another possible weak link in the chain is the outsourcing of cybersecurity services to companies that are based overseas. How does the Ministry intend to ensure the compliance of such companies?
A third possible weak link is the use of third-party vendors. As seen from overseas hacking incidents and data breaches, such as the data breach suffered by Netflix in 2017, poor cybersecurity by third-party vendors has been a consistent problem for years. In 2013, hackers gained access to the network of retail giant Target by first stealing passwords from a third-party vendor dealing with their heating and ventilation systems. Often, these vendors, also known as network-connected outsiders, are small-sized companies which do not invest much in proper cybersecurity practices, even less so investing in best practices. This has been a problem plaguing many industries. How does the Ministry plan to ensure that such third-party vendors, beyond the 11 identified critical sectors, are also well-regulated?
Mr Speaker, the demand for cybersecurity solutions is set to swell as technology advances. There is, therefore, a need for us to ensure that Singapore has a core talent pool of cybersecurity professionals that can be deployed across the various sectors. Can the Minister provide some insights on the number of cybersecurity professionals needed for the next five to 10 years? How far are we currently from these target numbers? What are the plans to ensure that we have a strong sustained pipeline of local talents to service this growing industry?
Perhaps, a short-term solution in ensuring that our cybersecurity defences are working as intended, while current batches of cybersecurity professionals are still being trained in schools, would be through the use of “white hat” hackers. I have read with interest that MINDEF has recently invited 300 international and local hackers to hunt for vulnerabilities in its Internet-connected systems. Harnessing the enthusiasm of the “white hat” hacker community is a step in the right direction and I would like to propose for the Ministry to consider grooming a local community of “white hat” hackers in Singapore. However, clear boundaries and protocols would need to be drawn and the Ministry would need to think about how to best support and manage the group. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. With the extent, speed, increasing sophistication and trend of high-profile cyberattacks, this Bill is timely. We are seeing an increasing trend of ransomware. Ransomware, like Wannacry, that everyone has cited, as well as Samsam, have targeted high profiles like multinational corporations (MNCs), critical infrastructure providers, even hospitals and education institutions. This shows us the extent of disruption that ransomware can inflict.
Malware affects files, computers and mobile devices by encrypting and locking data, rendering them inaccessible and, in most cases, leading to a loss of data and impacting operations. Once inside the network, it gives control of the management inside the network. As more businesses digitalise and technology progressively influences the way we live, work and play, such attacks will have wide-reaching impact.
In the physical world, customers place their trust in businesses to provide quality services and to handle their information appropriately. The measures outlined in this Bill are no different, requiring owners of CIIs to proactively put in place the right procedures to protect customer data and ensure quality and continuity of service.
This Bill spells out the code of practice and standards of performance, the duty of owners of CIIs to report cybersecurity incidents; to perform cybersecurity audits and risk assessment of CIIs and also to participate in cybersecurity exercises; and put in place measures to prevent, manage and respond to threats and incidents; investigation and prevention of serious cybersecurity incidents. It sounds extremely onerous.
To meet these requirements for cybersecurity, one constraint that we all must recognise is that of the availability of skills and knowledgeable cybersecurity specialists. There has been a lot of discussion on costs. The reason for that high cost that everyone is envisaging is because of this lack of skills or the need to build this base of deep skills. With the growing demand for cybersecurity skills, building this talent base, we all have to recognise, will take time.
Clause 5(l) of the Bill outlines the duties and functions of the Commissioner to promote, develop, maintain and improve competencies and professional standards of persons working in the field of cybersecurity. Can the Minister share the plans to build this talent base and what is being done to ensure that we have sufficient cybersecurity skills and capabilities in Singapore to meet the current and, more importantly, future demands?
The Bill also recognises that for cybersecurity to be effective, it must start at the top, with owners or leaders of CIIs. Building cybersecurity awareness and culture across an organisation requires a strong tone from the top. So, it is interesting to see Part 3 of the Bill clearly outlining the accountability of owners of CIIs. Failure of owners to comply with the regulations carries with it heavy penalties, including imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Clause 7(8) puts the same emphasis on CIIs owned by the Government, stating that when the CII is owned and operated by the Government, the Permanent Secretary allocated to the Ministry who has the responsibility for the CII is treated as the owner. This sends a strong message that leaders own and are accountable for cybersecurity in the organisation. This will keep cybersecurity top of mind in the organisation.
Compliance is necessary but not sufficient. Building resilience is at the core and spirit of this Bill. To achieve cybersecurity, we must not only ensure compliance but, more importantly, an understanding of a mindset change of all stakeholders of Singapore’s CIIs. While measures are put in place for compliance, people are one of our weakest links. Employees must understand the impact of their actions on cybersecurity. With the increasing sophistication and social engineering, targeted phishing emails are not as easily detected. It is becoming more difficult to tell a malicious email from a legitimate email. Hence, cybersecurity awareness and keeping cybersecurity top of mind are key. Apart from cybersecurity professionals, training and building resilience of all employees and users of CII is as essential. This is not a trivial task, and organisations will need support to achieve this. Can the Minister share what will be done to support organisations in this aspect?
We must also recognise that it is not a matter of “if” but “when” there will be a breach. In fact, statistics and information tell us that many oganisations that have been breached take about 12 months, on average, to actually discover that they are breached. Organisations must have processes and tools to detect cyber threats or incidences. Most importantly, organisations must have in place processes to take action to recover and minimise the potential impact of the breach.
As Singapore strives to be a Smart Nation, cybersecurity is critical. Ensuring cybersecurity and resilience of our CII will require a strong partnership amongst stakeholders in the ecosystem. To effectively fight cyber threats, organisations and the Government must work together as no one has all the knowledge or resources to do it alone.
For a start, there must be two-way information sharing and feedback. By sharing plans on how data collected or submitted to the Commissioner will be used and how it will be used, will enable owners of CIIs to better understand how the data they submit are used. This will help build trust amongst stakeholders to share and, more importantly, work together to combat cyber threats. The cybersecurity journey has started and is one that we have to continually work on to protect our essential services. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, in this era of digitalisation and connectedness, cutting back on cyber solutions is not the answer for institutions and companies. With our dependence on the digital world, we can only expect the exposure to cyber threats to increase. It is crucial that our Smart Nation aspirations must go hand in hand with resilient cybersecurity systems. This makes the Cybersecurity Bill an essential move forward.
Certainly, investments in cybersecurity could lead to rising business costs. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) already struggling to stay afloat, this will create additional financial stress. With more cross-company collaboration and outsourcing occurring these days, it is crucial that this becomes a nationwide effort. It would be just like how suppliers for the banking industry would have to adhere to the Banking Secrecy Act. Data sharing and exchange will be compromised if even just one organisation is careless with their approach on data security. Resultantly, some companies may then pass down the cost of cybersecurity measures to the consumers.
Cybersecurity is often likened to insurance and similarly scorned for the same reasons. Its necessity is often overlooked until a crisis happens. Yet, according to the Cost of Data Breach Study 2017 by the Ponemon Institute, a US-based organisation that conducts independent research on privacy, data protection and information security policy, the average cost for each lost or stolen record containing sensitive and confidential information for 419 companies which took part in the survey was approximately US$3.62 million. This would be largely attributed to loss of reputation and potential business, remedial measures, as well as lawsuits.
Ultimately, having a sound cybersecurity system in place would be more cost-effective in the long run. But some businesses may not realise this. Moreover, as cybersecurity is still unfamiliar territory, some companies may under-invest or over-invest in the wrong systems. I have heard from business operators who think they are adequately covered with an anti-virus software, for example. I hope the Government can look into the estimated costs that will be incurred in cybersecurity investments and consider financial incentives to alleviate the financial burden of implementing enhanced cybersecurity measures. Awareness and education would also go a long way in helping organisations make informed decisions.
I wish to also express my concern that the incident reporting and investigation requirements on CII owners under the Bill could be too onerous, especially when they are potential victims of cyberattacks. This could mean plenty of administrative work back and forth, when the time, effort and other resources may be better spent on constantly shoring up cybersecurity defences instead. Perhaps, for high-risk CIIs, the Commission could work more closely with the owners to improve prevention measures.
I also note that with the decision to simplify the licensing framework, the Bill will do away with the licensing of individual cybersecurity professionals. At this point, only penetration testing and managed security operations centre (SOC) monitoring service providers will require licensing. With the gig economy blooming, there will be no doubt cybersecurity professionals who provide their services as freelancers will increase. Cybersecurity professionals deal with sensitive information in large quantities. So, is there a need for this to be better regulated? Is it not vital to ensure that they are adequately skilled and possess the right disposition to provide services of such a delicate nature?
On the topic of handling sensitive information, some hold reservations that the authorities, while conducting their investigations, would intrude on personal privacy. Are there safeguards in place for the broad investigation powers to ensure that there is no misuse of authority, whether unintentional or not? Can the public be assured that their information is in safe hands?
Mr Speaker, this is a comprehensive Bill that adequately covers many areas concerning cybersecurity. Meanwhile, we also have the Computer Misuse Act (CMA), formerly the CMCA, as well as existing pieces of legislation, like the Banking Secrecy Act, which also address cybersecurity and data protection issues. Are there overlapping policies, and how would the new Bill interact with and complement the existing pieces of legislation that we have now? Enhancing our cybersecurity defences is the next logical move in the face of an increasingly digitalised society. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, cyberattacks are almost commonplace in recent years. In fact, in May 2017, billionaire businessman Warren Buffett said to his investors that cybersecurity could be the number one problem for mankind.
The numbers confirm this. In the first six months of 2017, globally, there were more than 900 data breaches in the first six months of last year. Analysts say that the damage caused by cybercrimes globally could hit US$6 trillion annually by 2021. No country has been spared. Singapore has been targeted by cybercriminals. We must put in place laws to safeguard our critical cyber systems and infrastructure.
I have three points of concern, namely, on costs, processes and manpower needs.
In meeting the requirements, CII sectors will have to impose more stringent requirements on their systems or require their vendors to do so. This will inevitably lead to higher costs, as pointed out by Members of this House. In the Report on the Consultation Outcome paper released by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), it was stated that MCI will not be providing grants to offset the costs of audits and risk assessments because they are regulatory requirements. However, it will work with the sectors to streamline requirements so that they can minimise compliance costs incurred because of the Bill. May I ask what is the estimated compliance costs involved for the various sectors? For sectors that face greater complications in meeting the requirements, are there existing schemes that they can tap on for this purpose? What is the timeline for the implementation of these compliance measures? Companies might not only need time to ramp up their compliance capabilities but also need technical guidance from MCI.
My next point is on processes. While we must not compromise on security, we must ensure that the reporting processes are not unnecessarily onerous. Companies and their staff already face substantial reporting requirements to other Government bodies. We must seek to rationalise compliance for ease of operations without compromising on security.
While a strong CSA is necessary for our cybersecurity, it must not also intrude upon privacy unnecessarily. The Ministry has assured that there are safeguards in place. And it will adopt a calibrated approach, depending on the severity of attacks. Can the Ministry also share more if it will adopt a tiered or classification system that would spell out the scope or limits of investigation, depending on the level of severity of the incident or attacks? For example, the security agencies have used threat-level systems to decide on the intensity of preparation and fortification that needs to be done. Could a similar system be put in place so that stakeholders and parties involved will have a clearer picture of what is required of them should a cyberattack or breach of systems happen? And more importantly, the requirements needed of them during peacetime as it affects business costs and manpower requirements.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to know if the cybersecurity manpower is sufficient to achieve the aims of this Bill. While our IHLs have been training more students and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has introduced Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for the IT sector, and they have been in place for some time now, would the supply be sufficient? How can the Ministry work with the Ministry of Education (MOE), MOM and even the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to ensure that there will be sufficient manpower to meet our future needs?
On a separate but related matter, in 2017, data security firm Check Point Software Technologies ranked Singapore as the world's top spot to launch global cyberattacks from. While the attacks may originate somewhere, being a technology hub in Southeast Asia means that we have a high amount of Internet traffic from other countries going through us. We are a hub with high inter-trade and data connectivity. It is inevitable that some attacks will originate from Singapore and other similar hubs. Yet, it is also our global responsibility to stop attacks where possible. It is also an opportunity to provide a trusted gateway for countries and businesses. It establishes Singapore as a secure business node. We must not stop at exploring and developing ways for us to be used as a gateway for global cybersecurity.
In spite of the concerns, this Bill puts us in the right direction in hardening our systems for both current and future security needs. With this, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I support the Bill, which is an important one that will eventually help strengthen our laws on cybersecurity and related threats.
With our Smart Nation initiative and Government-wide move towards digital transformation of our processes, procedures and data management approaches, cybersecurity inadvertently becomes a concern that needs immediate address. While a lot are in this Cybersecurity Bill, there are, however, several concerns that I have in the implementation of this Bill that is to be enacted.
First, the cybersecurity services providers and licensees. How does the Government plan to ensure the integrity and reliability of these companies? Are their track records studied, and are the employees all screened? How sure can the Government be in ensuring security and privacy of matters pertaining to the Government, with these third-party cybersecurity service providers and licensees having access to such privileged information?
Second, we know that cyber hackers and attackers are always, at least, two steps ahead. While I appreciate the focus of the Bill to put in place a penetration testing service to search for vulnerabilities and compromises in the computing system of our public sector and Civil Service outfits, how do we stay ahead of the curve and stay relevant and secure? How do cybersecurity service providers and licensees ensure that the personnel who are helping them to search for these vulnerabilities and compromises are up to speed with what potential cyber hackers or attackers are or will be doing?
Third, while this Bill aims to address the various measures and countermeasures to prevent, manage and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents that may afflict our public sector and Civil Service, it must be accompanied by non-legislative approaches as well. Sustained efforts to ensure awareness in cybersecurity training of our public and Civil Service officers, so that they are able to recognise potential and actual cybersecurity threats, need to be carried out as well. In fact, this approach has to be nationwide, even to users of public services, such as students and the general public.
Public education to increase awareness and identification of potential and actual cybersecurity threats must also be done to support the provisions of this Bill. Public and Civil Service officers, as well as students in our public education institutions, need to understand and recognise when certain emails, hyperlinks or even mobile applications could risk the integrity and compromise the safety of connected computing systems in our various public offices, institutions or schools. Our cybersecurity public awareness programmes must continue and be further enhanced. In addition, to what extent is data shared among our public sector officers currently in designing and implementing better policies or programmes for the public? And with this new cybersecurity legislation, how will that sharing of data and information be impacted? Notwithstanding my concerns above, I support this Bill, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Singapore runs on computers. Everything from our transport system and fire departments to our hospitals and military relies on the availability of sustained access to computer systems and networks.
This also means that a successful cyberattack on our CII would not simply pose a threat to our way of life but could seriously endanger our national security. Therefore, I applaud MCI and CSA's efforts to develop the resilience needed to ensure that when we are attacked, we will stay strong.
I have seen how technology, used in the right way, has uplifted people. Ride-sharing and food delivery applications have given many people a new outlet for income, and entrepreneurs have embraced e-commerce to expand their market. Technology has helped many to climb the socio-economic ladder.
Ensuring our CIIs are resilient to a large-scale cyberattack is important. But there is more to who we are as a country than just 11 critical sectors. Small businesses must be resilient to hacks and learn how to maintain business operations, but regular Singaporeans should also be armed with tools to stay safe online. A 2015 survey published by IT Security firm ESET notes that although 76% of Singaporeans know of some precautions to take when going online, only 44% actually do anything about it.
So, how can we help our SMEs, our Instagram influencers and first-time e-retailers stay safe and be able to continue their business operations when they are hacked? How can we help the older generation, the aunties and uncles, to learn the best practices of using the Internet so that they can avoid becoming victims of cybercrimes?
The risks that regular people face online are increasing. As many have mentioned, last year, thousands were affected when WannaCry ransomware hit our shores. But the threat can come from within Singapore, too. Singapore hosts 1.6% of all the malware in the world, which is an astronomical amount considering that our island holds only a very small fraction of the world's population. The very fact that we are a connected and smart country means that we are more at risk to cyberattacks.
An idea to start with is with our young ones. The UK, for example, has set aside £20 million to fund co-curricular activity (CCA) clubs in schools that focus on cybersecurity training. This not only teaches children how to be good online citizens, but it also creates a pipeline of future cybersecurity specialists. Would MCI and CSA consider working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) on this?
Another possibility would be to provide grants to SMEs to beef up their cybersecurity awareness. Many businessmen may be unaware that being hacked could ruin their company. A recent survey conducted by QBE insurance found that only 23% of all surveyed SMEs are concerned about security of sensitive data while 35% of smaller SMEs have no cyber protection at all.
Smaller companies do not have large IT footprints but will face serious operational risks if their systems were down. Precision engineering firms would not be able to continue to manufacture if they were attacked by ransomware. Others would lose customers if customer data was to be hacked. Would MCI and CSA work with SPRING Singapore or the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to help SMEs and startups pay for anti-virus software or hire consultants for cybersecurity reviews?
Next, we can explore ways to do more for our most vulnerable residents – the older generation. I have residents who are 90-year-old grandparents who check their email and WhatsApp constantly. To them, technology is no longer just a novelty, but an integral part of daily life. Unfortunately, these residents are the most vulnerable to hacking. Would CSA work with the People's Association (PA) to develop programmes to teach the fundamentals of cybersecurity?
Finally, I would like to ask MCI whether there are plans to amend the Bill to require all hacked companies to report breaches. This would give CSA greater visibility on the types of hacks that are happening in Singapore. Rather than waiting for a CII to be attacked, CSA might be able to identify trends and take preventative measures.
This will also prevent incidents from going unreported, for example, like the Equifax breach in the US, which resulted in the sensitive data of 145 million citizens being stolen, or Uber paying off hackers who had stolen customer information. After all, every day that a breach goes unreported is another day that people are at risk of identity theft or credit theft.
Sir, in conclusion, I stand in support of the Bill. Anything we can do to improve our national resilience to outside threats is a positive step. But let us not forget that thousands of SMEs and millions of Singaporeans still do not know how to stay safe in cyberspace. We will never be truly resilient unless all of us, collectively as Singaporeans, can effectively mitigate the risks of being online.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, in 2017, Singapore came in as the top launchpad for global cyberattacks in cyber security firm Check Point's Threat Map, ahead of China, Russia and the US. According to the Check Point report, Singapore was likely used as a gateway for attacks based elsewhere.
In another study by CyberInt, a cybersecurity threat monitor, Singapore ranked as the fifth biggest global target for phishing attacks, after the US, Britain, the Philippines and Russia. In recent years, we have also witnessed a surge in spates of cyber incidents on a global scale, some of which have hit home.
As Singapore develops into a highly-interconnected Smart Nation, we will become an increasingly attractive target for cybercriminals. As more aspects of our lives go digital, fallout from such attacks will become even more extensive and breakdowns in provision of essential services could result in loss of property, sensitive data and even lives not only on a national scale but on a global scale. It is, therefore, timely that we put in place robust regulatory infrastructure to govern cybersecurity matters in Singapore and maintain high cybersecurity standards to protect critical systems and data.
While I am supportive of the Bill, I do have some questions and suggestions which I would like to raise. I classify them into what I call the 5Cs: (a) Classification, (b) Compliance Costs, (c) Compromises and Concerns, (d) Continuing Education and (e) Contingency Planning.
First, is there a mechanism in place to allow organisations to check with CSA if they are classified to be an owner of a CII? Having such a mechanism would allow organisations to definitively determine if they are a CII so that they can better plan for their operational costs and resource requirements in order to comply with the requirements of CIIs under the Bill.
Second, for organisations which have been notified that they are a CII, are there any support programmes in place which they can tap on to tide them through the implementation of processes and infrastructure to enable compliance with the requirements of CIIs under the Bill? By the same token, are there any measures in place to ensure that the cost of compliance as CIIs do not trickle down extensively to the consumer?
Third, CSA is given broad investigative powers under the Bill. These powers should be exercised with care to ensure that innovation is not curtailed. As part of its educational outreach in the NTUC's U Associate’s network, The Internet Society, Singapore Chapter (ISOC.SG) collected feedback from stakeholders on this Bill. ISOC.SG found that the general thrust of the Bill was widely accepted although there was concern that overly broad investigative powers would curtail innovation and the technology industry. A balance, without compromising cybersecurity, must be found.
An example is allowing investigation and removal of anything, servers and data included, at any time. Although powers are used to combat security threats, too much data could be taken or disruptive actions could result if powers are poorly exercised. With possible implications on our status/efforts to become a data hub, the reasonable use of powers, perhaps with a chance to challenge a decision, makes sense. As a general point, overly broad powers usually affect innovation because of fear and less risk-taking.
Fourth, with this Bill and our Industry Transformation efforts across several sectors, I look forward to more job opportunities for those with cybersecurity skills. This will avail new entrants as well as those already within the profession to upgrade and keep abreast with the latest developments. Although there were reservations by practitioners during the public consultation to license practitioners in this field, I submit that it is still good to align and benchmark the skills and competencies of cybersecurity professionals locally and with global accreditations and provide more platforms for continuing education and professional development to ensure they stay relevant and current within the practice of cybersecurity. To this end, the Labour Movement hopes to partner the various associations in this sector and the cybersecurity professionals in this journey to provide continuous learning, growth and career progression opportunities.
Fifth, recognising that cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility, are there plans to ensure that the wider community, our enterprises and individuals, are prepared for cyber contingencies and know what to do to prevent one, or, when faced with one, what to do to mitigate its impact?
NTUC and ISOC.SG are supportive of continuing efforts, as every Singaporean is online to some degree and a stakeholder in the security of the Internet, to avail users to tools and resources and building cybersecurity awareness to help enhance cybersecurity and build trust online. By inculcating that cybersecurity DNA or genetic code into all Singaporeans, we will also create a world-class future-ready workforce that can differentiate itself to employers.
For example, enterprises. In the recent Petya ransomware attack in mid-2017, a number of companies under the global marketing services group WPP were affected by Petya. Singapore employees of a company under WPP were reported to be scrambling to follow instructions on how to deal with Petya after the attack. They were told to log off from the office wi-fi network or servers, and made arrangements to work remotely. Some worked from home using their personal computers, while other teams met in public spaces, such as cafes. Are our enterprises equipped to take steps to prevent cyber incidents from occurring? Are there response and business continuity plans in place which they can implement if they are subject to a cyberattack?
Next, individuals. To raise our people’s awareness of cybersecurity, will there be a pervasive rollout of cybersecurity messaging and e-learning to individuals so that they are equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to prevent cyber incidents and know what to do when faced with one, as has been done for SG Secure? Are there plans to develop cybersecurity tools that all individuals can use to safeguard their devices against cyberattacks? There could be publicly available online quizzes to understand cybersecurity and prevention tips.
These tools could perhaps be developed by trainees undergoing training to be cybersecurity professionals who are placed with cybersecurity enterprises or startups in the business of developing these tools. We can even provide free-to-use anti-virus software available for all households to utilise, especially since we are moving towards a Smart Nation and we are all so virtually connected. Mr Speaker, just a short one in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this Bill but I would like to raise three points here.
First, I am worried about the additional compliance cost. Are there any grants to help SMEs cope with this extra cost? I am also concerned that the cost will be passed on to the consumers.
Second, will the new Act curtail innovation from the companies?
Third, as the cybersecurity scene changes every day, individuals and companies must upgrade and keep abreast with the latest developments. Hence, I hope that the industry can develop a continuing education framework.
Cybersecurity is the responsibility of every individual. Therefore, I urge the Government, companies and our citizens to stay alert and be prepared.
(In English): With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the Cybersecurity Bill sets out a comprehensive framework to protect our CIIs and points out the areas where Government agencies can work with CII owners to fortify our systems.
Given the pivotal role that CII owners play, I would like to understand how the essential services and CIIs are identified, together with their owners. In instances where business operations are international and computer systems are housed outside Singapore, how would CII owners be identified and held accountable for their cybersecurity responsibilities?
The Bill sets out requirements for CII owners to establish mechanisms and processes to detect any cybersecurity threats. It is heartening to note that MCI and CSA have been forthcoming and open to suggestions. I would like to enquire, given the range of cyber threats, to what extent would it be possible to expect CII owners to guard against every imaginable threat?
The Bill would likely bring about increased compliance costs as well as organisational change to businesses. Has there been an assessment on the costs businesses would incur from the implementation of the Cybersecurity Bill? Would there be adequate time given to them for them to comply? And when there are cyberattacks, how do we balance the need for incident reporting and investigation requirements when CIIs may be putting efforts simultaneously to restore services targeted by cyberattacks?
Standards or codes of practice issued or approved under the Bill should be aligned with globally compatible policies and benchmarks to help CII owners as much as possible. Given rapid developments globally to tackle cyber threats, how would the Bill take into account global developments and evolving standards?
The Bill is bold as it covers both the public and private sectors, recognising that cybercriminals do not distinguish between such boundaries. However, concerns about the extent of powers a proposed Cybersecurity Bill would give the Government has emerged, underscoring the ever-present tension between security and protection of privacy.
For example, the Bill empowers the Commissioner of Cybersecurity to require any person to surrender pertinent information regarding a suspected cyberattack. At the same time, various laws prevent the disclosure of personal information. Banks, for example, owe their customers a duty of confidentiality under the Banking Act. Similarly, organisations cannot use or disclose personal data without individuals’ consent under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). Is there scope then for the Bill to better address the intent of the Bill with existing prohibitions on disclosure? Lastly, how would the Cybersecurity Bill interact with existing legislation that may already cover cybersecurity requirements?
Digital technologies are transforming our daily lives. They offer many new and exciting opportunities but, at the same time, present several challenges, including increasing our vulnerability to cyberattacks. The Cybersecurity Bill would help fortify our systems against cyberattacks and, notwithstanding my clarifications, is definitely a step in the right direction. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Cybersecurity cannot be taken for granted. Cyberattacks are becoming more sophisticated and can cripple our CII. This can have serious repercussions for our nation’s ability to function and deliver essential services to our citizens.
The Bill sets out the responsibilities of CII owners. CII owners have to be identified correctly and their responsibilities accordingly scoped so that they face the right impetus to invest in cybersecurity for the sake of the nation.
There will be conflict between the need to uphold cybersecurity and the need to protect the privacy of information, but we should not shy away from exploring where the boundaries are and find the right balance.
(In English): With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker:\tMinister for Communications and Information.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, the hon Members have raised valid concerns and good suggestions on the Cybersecurity Bill. Let me address each area in detail.
Some Members, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sun Xueling, asked how the Bill will apply to systems that are providing essential services but located overseas. The Bill allows the Commissioner to designate as CII, computers and computer systems necessary for the continuous delivery of essential services in Singapore. Overall, a significant majority of such systems are based wholly or partly in Singapore. Owners of CII that are partly located in Singapore will still have to comply with their obligations under the Bill.
Given Singapore’s interconnectivity, it is inevitable that some computer systems serving important functions in Singapore are connected globally and may also be located wholly outside Singapore. These computer systems could also be operated by international organisations based abroad.
While Singapore may be able to work with these international organisations to ensure the cybersecurity of the systems in question, we cannot control such systems by designating them as CII under the Bill as they are outside our jurisdiction. There may also be potential conflicts with other countries’ regulatory regimes.
To facilitate investigations of cybersecurity threats and incidents that may originate overseas, the Government has made significant efforts to develop strong international partnerships and linkages with overseas Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). CSA will work closely with its foreign counterparts for such investigations.
Ms Joan Peirera and Mr Melvin Yong asked if the cybersecurity of CII would be affected if their owners choose not to impose requirements on their vendors or if such vendors were not regulated. CSA will work with the sector regulators and CII owners to define the boundaries of the systems that will be designated as CII, on a case-by-case basis. CII owners are ultimately responsible for the cybersecurity of their respective CII. Many engage third-party vendors to support their CII. In deciding which vendors to engage and what conditions to impose on their vendors, CII owners should carry out the necessary risk assessments and due diligence to ensure that their obligations under the Bill are complied with.
CII owners will be required under the Bill to conduct regular cybersecurity audits to ensure that their obligations are met. This provides an added layer of assurance that the CII would be in compliance with cybersecurity codes of practice and standards of performance, as required under the Bill.
Ms Thanaletchimi suggested establishing an accredited framework for a national cybersecurity audit for CII stakeholders. Sir, audit is an important aspect of good corporate governance. There are already multiple layers of IT audit regimes established within the 11 sectors. We are mindful that another layer of national cybersecurity audit could potentially result in CII stakeholders experiencing audit fatigue. For now, CSA plans to tap on existing sector audit regimes to ensure that the security measures are effective in protecting the CIIs. To ensure an acceptable standard of practice, CSA will provide audit guidance to auditors and track the audit outcomes.
Mr Darryl David asked how CII and essential services are determined, while Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested that higher education and research institutions be considered essential services. In arriving at the list of essential services in the First Schedule, we took reference from section 15A of CMCA. We also studied the definition of \"essential services\" in other jurisdictions before identifying a total of 11 sectors in Singapore delivering essential services. These sectors provide services that are essential to the national security, defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order of Singapore.
For each sector, CSA worked closely with the relevant sector regulator to identify the essential services within the sector, as well as the computers and computer systems that would be CII. CIIs are identified as computers and computer systems that are necessary for the continuous delivery of essential services, the loss or compromise of which would have a debilitating effect on the availability of the essential services in Singapore.
Higher education and research institutions are not considered essential services at this point in time. Nonetheless, we do not preclude that new essential services may arise in the future, and the Minister may amend the list of essential services in the First Schedule if necessary.
Mr Patrick Tay asked if there is a mechanism in place whereby organisations can check with CSA on whether they are CII owners. There is no need for organisations to make self-assessments as to whether their computer or computer systems fulfil the criteria of a CII. Prior to designating a computer or computer system as a CII, CSA will consult its owner and the relevant sector regulator to identify whether it is responsible for the provision of any of the essential services listed in the First Schedule. Organisations whose computers or computer systems are designated as CII will be notified in writing.
CII owners will be given an opportunity to submit representations to the Commissioner if they disagree with the Commissioner's decision. They may also appeal to the Minister against the designation. However, the Minister's decision on an appeal will be final.
Sir, I would like to assure Members that the identification of CII is a considered and consultative process. MCI and CSA have already consulted with the sector regulators in identifying potential CIIs and engaged the potential CII owners twice since July 2016. Hence, potential CII owners would already know who they are. The process for identifying and designating new CII in the future will be similarly considered and be consultative.
Some Members – Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sun Xueling – asked whether the incident reporting and investigation requirements under the Bill could be too onerous for CII owners, especially when they are potential victims of cyberattacks. As mentioned in my opening speech, we do not intend to take action under the Bill against CII owners for cybersecurity breaches so long as they comply with their obligations thereunder.
Given the importance of CII to Singapore, it is necessary to provide for their proactive protection. For example, clause 14 requires CII owners to establish mechanisms and processes to detect cybersecurity threats and incidents in respect of the CII. CII owners are also required to promptly report to CSA cybersecurity incidents in relation to their CII and any computer or computer systems connected with the CII that are under their control. This will enable CSA to have better oversight of incidents happening across sectors, and to take the necessary actions.
There is no obligation for a CII owner to report a cybersecurity incident in respect of other infrastructure that it owns, where such infrastructure is not connected to the CII.
Under clauses 19 and 20, CII owners are required to cooperate with CSA during the investigation of cybersecurity threats and incidents. I will elaborate on CSA's exercise of investigation powers later in my speech.
Mr Pritam Singh asked about the incident reporting threshold for CII owners. All CII owners, regardless of whether they are local or foreign companies, will need to report to CSA cybersecurity incidents that occur on or that affect their CII. As mentioned earlier, reporting cybersecurity incidents in respect of CII is a requirement under clause 14, and any non-compliance without reasonable excuse will be an offence. The maximum penalty is $100,000, or two years' imprisonment, or both.
A cybersecurity incident on a CII is defined as an act or activity carried out without lawful authority on or through the CII that jeopardises or adversely affects its cybersecurity. As Mr Pritam Singh pointed out, details of what constitutes a prescribed incident and the form and manner of reporting will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
When exercising these powers, the Commissioner will be mindful that the owners of the computer systems in question are typically also victims. CSA will be providing further details to guide CII owners in incident reporting, such as relevant forms and guidelines.
On the other hand, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Louis Ng called for mandatory reporting of all cybersecurity incidents to CSA for more holistic protection of Singapore's cyberspace. Making the reporting of cybersecurity incidents a requirement under the Bill will be both resource-intensive for CSA as well as companies in Singapore, especially our SMEs. Today, all companies, including owners of computer systems that are not CII, can already voluntarily report cybersecurity incidents to CSA through the Singapore Cyber Emergency Response Team (SingCERT). On top of this, the Bill will provide CSA with powers to investigate cybersecurity threats and incidents pertaining to computer systems in Singapore, including computer systems that are not CII.
Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there are programmes to help CII owners comply with their obligations under the Bill, while Ms Thanaletchimi suggested that staff of organisations that own CII attend cybersecurity awareness programmes. On the other hand, Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the time that CII owners will be given to implement cybersecurity measures.
To assist CII owners and their staff in getting ready for the implementation of the Bill, CSA has developed a Cybersecurity Legislation Initialisation Programme for Sector Leads, also termed as CLIPS, to work with the CII sector regulators to prepare CII owners for their obligations under the Bill.
CLIPS will focus on establishing clarity on the roles and responsibilities between the sector regulators and the CII owners and identifying and resolving any operational issues pertaining to the respective sectors. For example, these include harmonising policies and streamlining audits and incident reporting processes.
The need to step up protection of CII is urgent but, where necessary, CSA will also give CII owners sufficient time to undertake preparations and planning, prior to issuing the cybersecurity codes of practice or standards of performance for each sector. Assistant Commissioners, also known as ACs, are senior officers appointed from the 11 CII sectors and will be able to advise the Commissioner on the necessary requirements, taking into consideration the unique contexts and complexities of their respective sectors.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad provided many useful suggestions to help CII owners meet their obligations under the Bill, including sharing best practices and benchmarks, and providing support for their R&D efforts. He also asked if the cybersecurity readiness of the CII owners will be benchmarked. Today, CSA assesses the cybersecurity readiness of the CII sectors and shares this information with CII owners to help them improve the cybersecurity of their CII. We will consider Mr Zaqy Mohamad's other suggestions.
And I agree with Ms Thanaletchimi that we need to establish mechanisms to inform organisations if they are potential targets, and advise them on precautionary measures that they could take. CSA currently shares information on cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities with the CII sectors so that appropriate actions can be taken promptly. The CERTs overseeing specific sectors also issue advisories to the operators in their respective sectors.
Several Members – Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Desmond Choo – asked about the costs that CII owners and other businesses may have to incur in implementing cybersecurity measures, while Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there are any measures to ensure that compliance costs do not trickle down to consumers.
Cybersecurity is a collective responsibility, and we must all do our part. Much of the cost of strengthening cybersecurity protection and enhancing responses to cybersecurity threats and incidents at the national level is borne directly by the Government. This includes resourcing national-level cybersecurity infrastructure and manpower, conducting regular cybersecurity exercises to validate cybersecurity incident management processes, and deploying National Cyber Incident Response Teams (NCIRT) to respond to cybersecurity incidents.
Today, many CII owners have already put in place cybersecurity measures arising from regulations in sectors, such as banking and finance and infocomm. The Bill aims to strengthen the cybersecurity of CII in all sectors, including those that currently do not have any cybersecurity requirements. The requirements under the Bill have been carefully scoped and are considered not too onerous.
There will be cost implications for some CII owners who will have to strengthen the cybersecurity posture of their computer systems to meet the requirements of the Bill. To minimise regulatory costs, we will work with sector regulators to streamline the cybersecurity audit and incident reporting processes in order to harmonise cybersecurity requirements under the Bill and in their respective sectors, wherever possible.
It is also in the interest of CII owners and their vendors to spend adequately on cybersecurity measures. They should consider not only the upfront cost of such measures, but also the cost of potential breaches, including the intangible costs arising from any damage to their reputation. If organisations follow security-by-design practices, they will spend less overall in the long run to fix cybersecurity issues. As Mr Ganesh Rajaram mentioned, cybersecurity will actually help companies protect their bottom line.
Therefore, on balance, MCI and CSA will not provide funding to offset the costs of CII obligations which are regulatory requirements.
Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Cybersecurity Bill is intended to interact with existing legislation that have cybersecurity or data protection requirements. Mr Darryl David asked how the Bill will be administered in view of existing agencies with cybersecurity roles.
The Bill will apply concurrently with other laws and regulations enacted in Singapore, including existing sectoral laws. For example, in the event of a cybersecurity incident, the Telecommunications Act will continue to govern licensees under that Act for resulting telecommunications service disruptions, while the PDPA will continue to govern companies and individuals in the area of personal data breaches.
As mentioned earlier, there are already some laws and regulations in Singapore that deal with various aspects of cybersecurity, such as in the banking and finance, and infocomm sectors. In certain cases, such sectoral requirements may be more stringent or wider in scope than those in the Cybersecurity Bill. The AC from the sector will play a key role in ensuring that CII owners do not face conflicting requirements under the Cybersecurity Bill and in sectoral regulations. This will help minimise the regulatory burden on CII owners.
I wish to clarify that we are not establishing a new agency under the Bill. The Chief Executive of CSA will be appointed as the Commissioner, and he will be supported by CSA staff and the ACs who are intended to be senior officers from the sector regulators. So, there will be no new agency. In many instances, the CII owners will interact with the ACs appointed from their sectors. For example, CII owners in the banking and finance sector will interact with an AC, who will be a senior officer appointed from MAS, for requirements under the Bill.
I want to highlight that information shared with CSA under the Cybersecurity Bill cannot be used for enforcement action against the CII owners under sectoral regulations.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the relationship between the Cybersecurity Bill and CMA. Mr Darryl David asked how the Government would deal with individuals who hack into a website to spread falsehoods, while Mr Henry Kwek asked for a re-examination of the penalties for misuse of access to data, especially if the perpetrators are cybersecurity professionals.
The Cybersecurity Bill and CMA are complementary, given that cybersecurity and cybercrimes are closely related. The Cybersecurity Bill provides for investigation powers in clauses 19 and 20. These investigation powers apply only to the assessment of the impact of cybersecurity threats and incidents, and to the prevention of further harm and further incidents from arising. The investigation of cybercrimes and the prosecution of their perpetrators are different issues covered by CMA. Hence, it is important that the Cybersecurity Bill and CMA are kept separate.
The Bill provides for the protection of the CII in Singapore and ensures that CII owners maintain a necessary level of cyber safety awareness, protection and vigilance against cybersecurity threats and incidents. This will also make them less vulnerable to cybercrime.
The unauthorised use of or modification of computer material and the unauthorised use of computer service are cybercrimes which are offences under CMA. CMA is under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Police. Depending on the facts of the case, cybersecurity professionals who misuse their access to data may be prosecuted under CMA. CSA, with the investigation powers under the Cybersecurity Bill, will work with MHA and the Police to better protect computer systems in Singapore, especially CII, against cybersecurity incidents.
However, neither CMA nor this Bill is intended to address the threat of fake news.
Several Members − Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Darryl David, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat − asked about the broad investigation powers provided to the Commissioner by the Bill, including whether such powers would curtail innovation or intrude into personal privacy and how such powers would be used judiciously.
Sir, as mentioned in my opening speech, the investigation powers under Part 4 of the Bill are calibrated and there are limits to the investigation powers that can be exercised depending on the severity of the threat or incident. How an incident will be classified depends on the facts of the case at hand. To be clear, all organisations, regardless of whether they are local or foreign, are required to cooperate with CSA during the investigation of cybersecurity threats and incidents pertaining to computers or computer systems in Singapore.
We recognise the need to balance operational expediency with the proportionate and judicious exercise of power. Investigation officers cannot investigate and remove equipment \"at any time\". For example, the Commissioner’s authorisation is required before cybersecurity officers and authorised officers can exercise more intrusive investigation powers under clause 20. There will be a governance process within CSA to ensure that the investigation powers are exercised responsibly and in accordance with the Bill. CSA will also consider providing guidelines to the public, to advise the owners of computer systems on what they should do during investigations of cybersecurity threats or incidents.
The Commissioner will determine the appropriate measures to take during investigations of cybersecurity threats and incidents, in consultation with the owner of the computer or computer system whenever possible. To address Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's point, this will be the case, regardless of the type of computer system or technology involved, including cloud services.
For example, the Commissioner may take possession of any computer or equipment to carry out further examination or analysis with the consent of the owner. However, if there is no consent from the owner, clause 20(5) clearly sets out the conditions that must be met before the Commissioner can authorise the exercise of this power. The conditions are as follows: first, this is necessary for the purposes of the investigation; second, there is no less disruptive method of achieving the purpose of the investigation; and third, this can only be done after consultation with the owner, and having considered the importance of the computer to the business and operational needs of the owner, that the benefit of the action outweighs the detriment caused to the owner.
Prior to deploying more intrusive investigation tools, such as network-scanning software, which are necessary when responding to cybersecurity incidents, CSA will, wherever possible, notify the computer system owners and follow appropriate protocols.
Let me assure the House that the powers under the Bill are not intended to intrude into privacy. The measures and requirements are mainly technical, operational and procedural in nature. For example, CII owners may be required to implement network perimeter defence devices, such as firewalls, or to perform regular vulnerability scanning of their systems, to identify potential loopholes. These measures are non-intrusive with respect to personal privacy.
Sir, I would like to assure Members that any information required under the Bill to deal with cybersecurity threats or incidents will be primarily technical and not personal in nature. For example, to aid in the detection of cybersecurity threats, information, such as network logs, indicators of compromise as well as systems event and audit logs, may be requested.
Furthermore, the Commissioner’s requests for information from CII owners are carefully scoped for specific purposes, such as information pertaining to the technical design and configuration of a CII. The Commissioner does not have direct or continuous access to the data of any CII owner.
As mentioned in my opening speech, the Bill protects information disclosed to CSA under the Bill by requiring persons who obtain it in the course of performing their functions or discharging their duties under the Bill to keep it confidential, and by specifying the circumstances under which it can be disclosed. Misuse of the information by the Commissioner or other specified officers will be a criminal offence.
With the exception of clause 23, the Bill does not require persons to disclose any information that is prohibited by any other law. The powers under clause 23, which are for emergency cybersecurity measures, are not new and were taken from section 15A of CMCA.
We have also further scoped clause 23 to be tighter than the existing section 15A of CMCA, to make clear that action can only be taken against serious and imminent threats and not just any cyber threat to the national security, essential services, defence or the foreign relations of Singapore. The Minister is constrained by the language of clause 23 when exercising his powers. His discretion is not unfettered.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the Bill would cover less mainstream cybersecurity services, such as white hat or ethical hackers, while Mr Melvin Yong asked if the Ministry could consider encouraging a local community of white hats.
On the other hand, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether cybersecurity freelancers need to be regulated, while some Members − Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Ms Joan Peirera − spoke about the missed opportunity and risks of not regulating individual cybersecurity professionals.
Sir, it is clear from the debate that there are diverse views on the issue of licensing cybersecurity service providers and growing the cybersecurity ecosystem. On the one hand, there is a call for even individual professionals to be regulated while, on the other hand, some expressed concerns over potential cost implications for businesses.
As I had mentioned in my opening speech, for a start, the licensing framework is deliberately light touch in view of the need to strike a good balance between industry development and cybersecurity needs.
Furthermore, given the global nature of the cybersecurity industry, we recognise there are currently practical challenges to require individual cybersecurity professionals to be licensed, especially for service providers who deploy employees from overseas to serve clients in Singapore.
Our focus is on more mainstream or mature cybersecurity services with the potential to cause significant impact on the overall cybersecurity landscape. We have identified two categories of services, penetration testing and managed SOC monitoring, as licensable cybersecurity services, which are set out in the Second Schedule. Nonetheless, other cybersecurity services will still need to comply with other laws in Singapore, such as CMA.
All providers of licensable cybersecurity services, regardless of whether they are companies or individuals directly engaged for such services or third-party vendors that support these companies, will need to be licensed. However, we do not intend to require companies to be licensed for providing such services to their related companies.
Under the Bill, no person may engage in the business of providing any licensable cybersecurity service to other persons, except under and in accordance with a licence granted or renewed under clause 26. CSA will encourage consumers of such cybersecurity services to only procure services from licensed cybersecurity service providers by publishing a list of licensees online. Companies can also inform CSA of any unlicensed service providers.
The proposed licensing framework is intended to reduce the safety and security risks that cybersecurity service providers can pose. The service providers are required to ensure that their key executive officers are fit and proper persons when applying for a licence. Any applicant who is not fit and proper may be refused a licence under clause 26.
Similarly, a cybersecurity service provider’s licence may be revoked or suspended, if the service provider is no longer fit and proper, among other factors under clause 30. In addition, the service provider will be required to keep records on the cybersecurity services it has provided to its clients, including details of the employee providing the service, for not less than three years for accountability and traceability in the event of foul play.
Mr Henry Kwek also asked whether the Government could create a certification system that favours cybersecurity professionals who have a vested interest in Singapore. CSA intends to work with the industry and professional association partners to establish voluntary accreditation and certification regimes for cybersecurity service providers and professionals to raise the quality of cybersecurity services and further improve their standing. For example, in partnership with CSA and the Association of Information Security Professionals (AISP), the Council for Registered Ethical Security Testers (CREST), a non-profit international organisation, established a Singapore chapter to introduce penetration testing certifications and accreditation in Singapore.
Given the nascent nature of our industry, we should remain open and take reference from internationally recognised standards where possible. It would not be in our interest to favour only those professionals who have a vested interest in Singapore. Likewise, we would want our local cybersecurity professionals to be recognised in other markets, based on their professional expertise and experience. The regulatory regime needs to strike a balance between security needs and the development of a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem. This is the best balance that we can find at this point in time.
MCI and CSA will be engaging the industry in working out the implementation details for licensing, including licensing conditions for licensable cybersecurity service providers. We will also continue to take in feedback from the industry on the licensing regime as the cybersecurity ecosystem evolves.
Several Members, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Desmond Choo, asked about the Government’s plans to grow and develop the pool of cybersecurity professionals. I would like to assure Members that Singaporeans will continue to be an important part of our cybersecurity workforce. The Government is collaborating with the industry to grow the cybersecurity workforce in Singapore. For example, under the Cyber Security Associates and Technologists (CSAT) programme, CSA and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) partner the industry and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to attract new graduates and convert existing professionals from related fields to a career in cybersecurity.
Under CSA’s Cybersecurity Professional Scheme (CSPS), officers will be recruited and trained in areas, such as cyber forensics and vulnerability assessment, before being deployed to public agencies overseeing CII sectors to assist companies in these sectors with their cybersecurity capabilities.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the potential to build greater synergy in civilian and military cybersecurity capabilities. Today, CSA already works closely with MINDEF on cybersecurity matters. For example, CSA can call on MINDEF for support when responding to cybersecurity incidents, as MINDEF is part of NCIRT. CSA and MINDEF also collaborate in areas, such as the sharing of operational lessons and threat information, technology cooperation and participation in joint exercises, such as Exercise CYBER KNIGHTS 2017.
Last year, MINDEF announced the establishment of a new Cyber Defence vocation. I understand that they are looking into better harnessing the cybersecurity skills of National Servicemen (NSmen) to defend our military networks and contribute to the national cybersecurity effort. CSA and MINDEF will continue to find more ways to cooperate in these areas.
I also agree with Mr Patrick Tay that we need to bring together various partners to assist cybersecurity professionals in areas, such as continual learning and career development. We need to continually upgrade our cybersecurity defences and training as cyberattacks are getting more sophisticated. CSA, through its Academy, is leading efforts to boost the skills of cybersecurity professionals working in the Government and CII sectors, such as energy and healthcare. On this, Sir, I look forward to the Labour Movement’s support.
Ms Sun Xueling asked how the Bill would take into account global developments and evolving standards to tackle cybersecurity threats, while Mr Azmoon Ahmad spoke about the need to regularly review the regulatory framework, given the fast-changing Internet landscape. In formulating this Bill, we studied cybersecurity legislation which other countries have implemented or are considering. Our Bill has taken into consideration these international developments.
During the implementation of the Bill, we will take reference from internationally recognised standards when developing codes of practice and standards of performance for the different sectors. We also recognise that the environment that we operate in may change with changes in the industry and technological trends. Therefore, we will need to keep abreast of international developments, and review and adjust our laws to address new and emerging issues moving forward.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked what MCI and CSA have done with respect to cybersecurity internationally and regionally. CSA has been an active participant at international forums and discussions to develop international cyber norms, including at the United Nations. Bilaterally, we have signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with countries, such as the US, the UK, France and Australia, on cybersecurity cooperation and capability development. Regionally, we have launched the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Cyber Capacity Building Programme with ASEAN member states and Dialogue Partners to build cybersecurity capacity in the region. We will continue to pursue efforts on this front.
Several Members, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Peirera, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Darryl David, asked whether there are plans to assist businesses, including our SMEs, and to educate the public on how to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents. Through the Cyber Security Awareness Alliance, CSA works closely with representatives from public and private sector organisations and industry associations to reach out to businesses, including SMEs, and to promote awareness and adoption of cybersecurity practices. This is done through organising cybersecurity talks and conferences and developing online cybersecurity resources, which are available on CSA’s GoSafeOnline website. CSA also publishes an annual Singapore Cyber Landscape report for public awareness.
In addition, SMEs can also tap on IMDA’s SMEs Go Digital programme to adopt cybersecurity solutions and seek technical advice on cybersecurity and other digital concerns from IMDA’s SME Digital Tech Hub.
Besides these initiatives, businesses and members of the public can also sign up for SingCERT’s advisories and alerts on cybersecurity threats and incidents. For example, when D-Link routers were found to have security vulnerabilities in September last year, SingCERT and the Info-communications Singapore Computer Emergency Response Team (ISG-CERT) under IMDA issued a joint advisory which contained information on the affected products and the steps that affected consumers should take.
CSA also collaborated with the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) to develop a series of Student Activity Books to raise awareness on the importance of Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection among our students. The Silver Infocomm Junctions, an initiative by IMDA, provides seniors with infocomm training, which includes cybersecurity. We will continue to work with partners in our efforts to raise cybersecurity awareness among the public.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked whether the Government could consider cybersecurity as another pillar of Total Defence. CSA has been working with MINDEF to incorporate cybersecurity messages in each of the existing five pillars of Total Defence. On this, I agree with Ms Jessica Tan that people are the weakest link, but also our strongest asset. If we each do our part to use our computer systems and devices responsibly, collectively, we can help to protect Singapore’s cyberspace.
Sir, many of the issues raised by the Members are among those that we have considered in developing a Cybersecurity Bill that takes into account the interests of the different stakeholders and Singapore’s needs. The Members also raised questions that do not relate directly to the Bill, but rather to the larger cybersecurity ecosystem that we are developing. I understand their concerns and agree that these are important issues to address.
My Ministry will continue to work with stakeholders from the public and private sectors to ensure that our laws remain robust and relevant and, beyond this Bill, to raise the level of cybersecurity awareness and develop the cybersecurity ecosystem in Singapore. As Mr Ganesh Rajaram mentioned, cybersecurity is not just the Government’s responsibility. Everyone needs to play a role, including Members in this Chamber.
Members of the House will agree that it is an important legislation to protect our CII and safeguard our essential services from disruption by cyberattacks. I hope that we can support the Bill.
Sir, lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from MCI and CSA for working on this landmark Bill. In particular, I would like to make special mention of Mr Chng Ho Kiat, Director of the Cybersecurity and Resilience Division in MCI, who passed away less than two weeks ago. In his time at MCI, Ho Kiat made significant contributions towards the strengthening of cybersecurity in Singapore. He played a pivotal role in developing the national cybersecurity strategy and this Bill. Thank you.
[(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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim.] (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":"Enterprise Singapore Board Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” The hour is late and I look forward to a productive and innovative debate on this important topic.
In September 2017, I announced the Ministry of Trade and Industry’s (MTI's) plan to merge International Enterprise (IE) Singapore and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore and form a new dedicated agency for enterprise development – Enterprise Singapore. The Enterprise Singapore Board Bill will give effect to the new Statutory Board and replace the International Enterprise Singapore Board Act and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act.
Sir, enterprise development has always been an important component of our economic strategy and, indeed, it is an essential complement to our efforts to attract foreign investments. In 1973, then-Minister for Finance Hon Sui Sen emphasised that “our industrialisation can best be brought about through broadening our international connections and through an unrelenting striving for quality in all aspects of our activities… our own national enterprises, too, must make a greater contribution to our future industrial development.”
Those wise words from 45 years ago remain as relevant today. We have been resolute through the decades in our commitment to developing our enterprises, but our approach has evolved in tandem with our economy, the needs of industry and the external environment.
In our formative years, we established the Department of Trade under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, which in 1983 became the Trade Development Board. We also formed the National Productivity Board in 1972 which, together with the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (SISIR), became the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) in 1996. These agencies subsequently became IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore in 2002. Collectively, IE Singapore, SPRING Singapore and their predecessor agencies have rendered consistent and strong support to the growth of Singapore enterprises in trade, internationalisation and capability development.
In 2017, SPRING Singapore supported the capability upgrading of close to 40,000 companies, almost three times the number supported in 2010. Similarly, IE supported more than 45,000 companies in their overseas ventures last year, more than double the number supported five years ago. About 36,000 of these companies were small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Over the years, IE and SPRING Singapore have developed deep expertise and extensive networks in support of their mission. However, there have been significant changes in the nature and pace of change in the global economy which have profound implications for Singapore.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
First, the weight of global growth is shifting to Asia, which is projected to grow at about 5.8% in 2018, compared to 2.1% in advanced economies. Our companies have recognised that the rise of Asia is a major opportunity to internationalise quickly. Overseas expansion ranks among the top five business priorities for SMEs, and 60% of participants in the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s (SCCCI's) Annual Business Survey had plans to internationalise over the next three years. So, the message has been hoisted in and it is being acted upon.
Second, the advent of e-commerce and digital technology is making it easier than ever before to access overseas markets. Scaling up and growing beyond our borders is now possible at a much earlier stage in an enterprise’s evolution and, indeed, has become even more important to success.
Finally, to expand into international markets, our companies must have deep capabilities so that they can compete globally. Productivity and innovation must be the basis for the sustained growth of our businesses, especially when dealing with pervasive disruptive technologies.
The confluence of these trends necessitates a different approach towards the development of our enterprises and their ability to seize the opportunities around us. In this new environment, companies need to integrate capability-building, innovation and internationalisation. These areas of pursuit are deeply intertwined and they reinforce one another. They are mutually reinforcing. A company must innovate and deepen its capabilities if it is to successfully expand into overseas markets. But, equally, venturing overseas will itself create the scale and the impetus and opportunity for businesses to gain new capabilities and expertise.
As highlighted by the Committee on the Future Economy, Singapore enterprises must adapt equally to these changes, and quickly, to remain competitive. Our economic agencies must also respond to this dynamic environment and hone their efforts to support enterprise development and internationalisation.
So, it is necessary and timely to merge the functions and operations of IE and SPRING Singapore to form Enterprise Singapore. This merger also underscores the Government’s commitment to review its programmes and, when necessary, restructure its agencies, in its continuing effort to support the growth of our businesses.
Sir, Enterprise Singapore aims to build a thriving community of Singapore enterprises that are competitive and ready for the future economy.
Enterprise Singapore will adopt an enterprise-centric approach, providing differentiated programmes and support according to a company’s stage of growth, the industry within which it operates and its overseas markets of interest. To achieve this, Enterprise Singapore will deepen its knowledge of industries’ and companies’ needs, expand its partnerships and networks in Singapore as well as overseas, and develop a cohesive suite of programmes to enable enterprise growth.
Enterprise Singapore will work with a broad spectrum of businesses, from startups to scale-ups to SMEs, and be the single point of contact for Singapore-based enterprises which are committed to growth. Enterprise Singapore will support upgrading, innovation and business model transformation to capture new revenue streams, promote digitalisation, automation and adoption of new technologies to improve productivity and overcome resource constraints. It will facilitate expansion into overseas markets and business diversification and strengthen enterprises’ leadership and management capabilities.
Enterprise Singapore’s mission is central to Singapore’s long-term economic strategy, especially as we enter the next phase of our economic growth. The scope of its work is wide and the scale can be daunting, given the large number of enterprises that we are dealing with.
To succeed, it is important that Enterprise Singapore work closely with private and public sector partners and have their full support. Sir, the agency will deepen its partnership with trade associations and chambers (TACs), unions and other stakeholders to reach out to our broad and diverse base of enterprises. It will also work closely with other Government agencies to promote public-private partnerships, as well as collaboration between multinational corporations (MNCs), large local enterprises (LLEs), SMEs and startups to enhance the collective competitiveness of our industries.
I want to cite the precision engineering sector as an example of how such partnerships can be valuable. The Economic Development Board (EDB), SPRING Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) worked with the Singapore Precision Engineering and Technology Association (SPETA) to enhance the industry's manpower capabilities through programmes, such as the Skills Framework for Precision Engineering.
IE worked with SPRING Singapore and a group of precision engineering SMEs to form the Singapore Manufacturing Innovation Centre (SMIC) in Guangzhou Knowledge City, a platform that helps our SMEs venture into a major international market and allows them to co-create innovative technology solutions with Chinese enterprises. SPETA worked with IE and SPRING Singapore to set up a group of industry veterans to advise SMEs on business and technology strategies. So, by leveraging each other's strengths, public agencies and TACs can help our companies compete internationally. The formation of Enterprise Singapore will give greater impetus to such partnerships.
As the national standards and accreditation body, Enterprise Singapore will build on SPRING Singapore's efforts to develop internationally-recognised standards and quality assurance, which have burnished Singapore's reputation for high-quality and trustworthy products and services. The agency will continue this important work, which is key to promoting innovation and strengthening the capabilities and competitiveness of our companies.
Enterprise Singapore will also build on IE's efforts to promote the export of goods and services and establish Singapore as Asia's foremost trading hub by anchoring new players in Singapore to grow a strong domestic trade network. This includes strengthening Singapore's trade infrastructure in areas of product development and liquidity-building initiatives for sectors, such as commodity derivatives. Enterprise Singapore will take over from IE as the lead agency for the Wholesale Trade Industry Transformation Map to build a vibrant ecosystem of wholesale traders supported by talent with the right skillsets for the industry.
SPRING Singapore's consumer protection fair trading function will be transferred to the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS). The new Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will oversee all regulations and enforcement pertaining to consumer protection and ensuring a well-functioning market for the benefit of businesses as well as consumers.
Sir, in this entire process to establish Enterprise Singapore and make other consequential adjustments, a smooth transition has been the utmost priority. This means ensuring that the competencies, knowledge, experience and networks developed by IE and SPRING Singapore are preserved. Also, that Enterprise Singapore will retain and build on the relationships that IE and SPRING Singapore have developed with enterprises and partners both here in Singapore and overseas. And that current programmes and schemes, such as the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) scheme, continue to be administered even as they are streamlined and new programmes developed to better support enterprises. Enterprise Singapore will undertake these in a manner that will minimise disruption and maximise opportunities for enterprises and their staff.
Sir, having explained the rationale for the Bill and the role that Enterprise Singapore will play, let me now describe the main elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises 10 Parts.
Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill provide for the key concepts used in the Bill and to establish Enterprise Singapore. Part 2 also sets out Enterprise Singapore's functions and powers, which are drawn and streamlined from existing provisions in the SPRING Singapore and IE Board Acts. These cover the enterprise development, internationalisation, wholesale and commodity trading, and productivity, innovation and standards functions that SPRING Singapore and IE currently perform. The consumer protection fair trading function has been excluded in view of the transfer to CCCS.
Parts 3 to 6 cover matters regarding the appointment of Enterprise Singapore's Board members and their decision-making procedures, Enterprise Singapore's employees and its financial provisions. Relevant provisions have been aligned and streamlined with the Public Service (Governance) Act, which was passed in Parliament on 8 January this year.
Part 7 of the Bill sets out the administration and enforcement powers of Enterprise Singapore. In particular, this Part will allow Enterprise Singapore to request and verify information in relation to its incentive schemes. It will also protect against improper use of certification and accreditation marks that are administered by Enterprise Singapore. These provisions will facilitate the effective administration of incentives and grants, and better support Enterprise Singapore in its role as the national standards and accreditation body.
Parts 8 and 9 contain provisions that transfer the relevant undertakings and personnel to Enterprise Singapore, to repeal the IE and SPRING Singapore Board Acts, and provide for saving and transitional arrangements.
Finally, Part 10 of the Bill makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts. In particular, the Competition Act will be amended to update CCS' statutory functions to include the promotion of fair trading, prevention of unfair practices among suppliers in Singapore, advising relevant organisations on consumer protection matters generally, and the enforcement of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). As mentioned earlier, CCS will be renamed CCCS to reflect its new statutory consumer protection function. This Part also provides for the transfer to the new CCCS of SPRING Singapore's assets, employees, liabilities and records relating to the fair trading functions.
Sir, as a single enterprise development agency, Enterprise Singapore will be able to provide the holistic support that our businesses need to develop deep capabilities, robust internationalisation strategies and strong partnership with industry stakeholders. Just as companies must adapt to keep pace with changes in the global economy, Government agencies and their programmes must also respond with agility to the shifting needs of industries and enterprises.
I am confident that with the merger of IE and SPRING Singapore and the integration of their operations to form Enterprise Singapore, we will be well-placed to work closely with all stakeholders to transform our industries and grow stronger Singapore companies and a vibrant enterprise ecosystem to seize growth opportunities in the future economy. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, in his speech to announce the merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore in September last year, Minister Iswaran mentioned that while the Government has been urging companies and industries to transform themselves, Government agencies, too, must be prepared to adapt and restructure with the changing landscape. This is so true both in substance and in the spirit of it. We need to restructure to stay relevant and to up the game, and this applies to all stakeholders.
Indeed, we have recently seen notable restructuring efforts in the Government space, such as the merger of the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and the Media Development Authority (MDA) to form the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the consolidation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) industrial properties into JTC, among others.
With enterprise capability-building and internationalisation as among the two key thrusts in the current phase of transformation, the merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore is the next logical move.
This merger signalled to businesses that we need to look beyond our small and near-saturated domestic market to seek new growth frontiers overseas so as to sustain economic growth and job creations. Otherwise, we run the risk of a stagnant economy and may even decline as regional competitors step up and eat our lunches.
As more companies trade, service and venture overseas, it does not make good sense to have more than one agency serving the same enterprise, where the overlapping coverage can actually add more administrative work for companies and it is also a case of sub-optimal utilisation of resources. Internationalisation requires capabilities building, and both are actually inseparable and intertwined when companies expand into overseas markets. Hence, the need for an integrated and a more lifecycle approach to help companies grow and build capabilities, developing competitive advantages that can help sell their products and services to the consumers of the world.
Over the years, SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore have done a good job helping businesses, each engaging and assisting tens of thousands of enterprises per year. In my interactions with businesses, I do hear good feedback and accolades from companies on the work done by SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore. On the other hand, I have also heard comments from businesses that they would prefer to deal with one single agency, one point of contact, for Government-related support. So, we all buy in to the merger.
So, how can the new Enterprise Singapore do a better job helping businesses to grow? The merger presents a timely opportunity to fundamentally restructure the merged organisation and reconfigure its functionalities to meet both the present and future needs.
Presently, SPRING Singapore, with its multiple SME Centres, and IE Singapore with its overseas Singapore Centres in major cities, have been a very useful first stop or touchpoint for businesses seeking help. Coupled with its sectoral coverage, they have been able to maximise their outreach, especially to SMEs. I hope that the locations and sectoral coverage will continue under the new Statutory Board and grow further as many companies continue to need assistance and support in this next phase where we deepen restructuring.
Soon after the merger was announced last year, a concerned business executive asked me whether, for the post-merger, will there be rationalisation and reduction of total headcount for the combined entity. My answer to him was that I hope not. Of course, we should seek efficiency and streamline any duplications and unnecessary workflows but I believe the motivation and purpose of the merger is not about reducing headcount and to cut costs but rather to be more effective in assisting companies by way of harnessing the combined and now more integrated resources of the two entities.
In his answer to my Parliamentary Question last year on the impact of the merger, Minister Iswaran assured the House that Enterprise Singapore will continue \"to support our enterprises, regardless of their size or stage of growth\".
With more extensive use of technology and various platforms, including through the TACs and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), Enterprise Singapore should aim to further expand its outreach to businesses, including reaching out to the newer SMEs and micro enterprises. The new Statutory Board should also continue its work to simplify ways for businesses to tap on the various support schemes, such as using platforms like the Business Grant Portal (BGP). There should also be, in parallel, a regular closing of the loop on the utilised schemes to ascertain their effectiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, besides the role of outreach and administering of schemes which are important functions, Enterprise Singapore must also see building strong clusters of competitive enterprises as its key mission.
Unlike attracting MNCs which bring along their capabilities and cutting-edge technology when they invest in Singapore, developing local capabilities of home-bred companies can be a very formidable task. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), which tap on the collective expertise and resources of the ecosystem partners to build capabilities is the way to go. But in reality, we also know that the ITMs are essentially driven by one of the key economic agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore, going forward, which are like the workhorse facilitating the transformations. Therefore, it is critical to the success of ITMs that economic agencies like Enterprise Singapore have the deep industry knowledge, a good ground sense of the prevailing competitive landscape, a good knowledge of the sectoral strengths and gaps as well as enough business acumen to design meaningful policies and schemes to incentivise and help capability buildup.
All these are a tall order to expect from a Government agency, staffed by career Public Service officers. Fortunately for Singapore, economic development has always been our foremost priority. Our system of Government and its policies have always been pro-business and pro-growth, and officers are frequently rotated to economic-oriented Ministries and Statutory Boards to gain exposure and experience in economic development.
Nevertheless, to diversify its bench strength and to add to its organisational versatility, Enterprise Singapore should also look to continually recruit and induct officers from the private sector with relevant industry and international business experiences.
One functionality that the new Enterprise Singapore can step up is in the area of helping SMEs build their brands and promotion overseas. Some SMEs may be too caught up in developing their product capabilities and may not have the resource or sufficient know-how to more effectively sell and brand their products in overseas markets.
As companies seek opportunities beyond the traditional developed markets to newer emerging markets with unfamiliar business environment, the availability of shared brand-building and marketing expertise for specific external markets will be of good help to SMEs and to speed up market penetration. I suggest that the new Statutory Board have a dedicated unit to assist companies in their brand building and product promotion in overseas markets, especially in the ASEAN and South Asian markets.
In my interactions with businesses, most recently with the contract manufacturing sector, finance-related issues continued to affect SMEs. In last year’s DP Information Group SME Development Survey, more than a third of SMEs surveyed also cited finance-related issues as their immediate business challenge. This has more than doubled, compared to the survey done in 2014. Most of the issues relate to delays in payments from customers, although high interest rates for bank loans and tighter suppliers’ credit are also cited among the business issues faced.
I know that there are various useful SME financing schemes available to assist enterprises to finance their businesses. From the survey, I believe the other help that SMEs need is to improve their financial management capabilities, such as cash management and credit management, for both their customers and suppliers. As more businesses internationalise, such cash and credit management become more complex when they are cross-border. It requires a deeper understanding of the in-country business practices and its legal framework. We should help SMEs shorten the learning curve and minimise the chances of them paying the \"tuition fee\" in unfamiliar territories. Here, Enterprise Singapore and the TACs can help pool and share experiences from businesses which are already overseas and learn from one another's practices and experiences.
Also, from the survey, it is encouraging to note that more SMEs are making fresh investments in technology and innovation. And importantly, more are also getting revenue gains from their technology investments. Increasingly, data technology is seen as a critical enabler for business successes. For smaller enterprises, to build their own data mining and analytical capabilities may not be economical. Enterprise Singapore can also help in this regard, for example, as a source of data aggregator on industry trends and insights and harnessing on information already collected by other Government agencies. Specialised functionality within the new Statutory Board can be set up to extract and manage data, distilling them into sufficient sectoral granularity that will be of help and usefulness to various business sectors. We could start with the building up of deep data resources for sectors of the 23 ITMs that are already launched.
Finally, as an organisation gets bigger, we should avoid the pitfalls of it becoming too hierarchical and less responsive. In an increasingly fast-changing business landscape, the enlarged organisation would need to gear up its quick-response ability to keep up with changing business needs, in addition to developing its breadth and depth. The new operating framework would also require sufficient empowerment to officers at the various levels to carry out their mission of transforming the economy.
Not easy by any means, but we have high confidence in the new chairman-designate Mr Peter Ong and the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO)-designate Mr Png Cheong Boon.
On the related amendment, I support clause 68(b) which transfers the functions relating to the administration of CPFTA to the renamed CCCS. I believed this would sharpen the focus and add more teeth in enforcing fair trading and, hence, better protect consumers, an area we clearly need to do more. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, with digitalisation and the pace of change that businesses are facing, the merger of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore will give them more holistic and seamless support. This merger will allow for an integrated support network for businesses to build capability and access to both local and overseas markets.
We must not underestimate the changes that businesses, both large and small, face with the technological advances we are witnessing today. Growing connectivity has led to the defining of a new economy with evolving business models, how products and services are delivered and consumed. There is also a trend of sharing and partnerships. Even in the area of manpower, employment models are changing with access to different sources of skills. There is a greater use of independent and freelance workers.
As Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat recently said, global and technological changes are causing the blurring of industry boundaries. He stressed the importance to consider \"the convergence of sectors\". There will be an increasing need for Enterprise Singapore to partner across several agencies to deliver the appropriate help to businesses. Against this backdrop of change and the pace of change, can the Minister share how the new Enterprise Singapore will be organised and restructured to work with companies to be responsive to helping them, both large and small, transform, grow and go global?
SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore are already connecting and enabling the sharing amongst businesses to improve productivity and helping them internationalise. The food manufacturing industry is one good example of this. With digitalisation and the new economy, I see an opportunity for the new Enterprise Singapore to play an even bigger and somewhat different role in connecting businesses to build capability, grow and go global. As the Minister had shared in his speech earlier, the approach has to evolve in tandem with the change the industry is facing and also with the needs of businesses.
Let me give just a very simple example to help explain my point. Last week, in a pre-Budget dialogue that I had with SMEs, an SME leader shared the challenges she is facing with regard to addressing some of her customer needs because of her limited delivery capability. She was looking at how she could tap the excess capacity of other small businesses. There was another business leader in the room and she quickly said that she had excess capacity in her off-peak periods and would be able to support this.
I know this is a very simple example but I hope it demonstrates the need and potential for an ecosystem that connects companies for greater effectiveness and efficiencies to leverage their capabilities and capacities locally and even overseas. And providing them also relevant information and insights.
Yes, you could say that businesses could do this themselves but this peer-to-peer approach may not be as effective, especially in a world where businesses need to move faster and be a lot more responsive to the market. For ecosystems to cooperate effectively, you need support to enable efficient collaboration and information sharing both within and amongst businesses. Enterprise Singapore can and should play that role both for SMEs and larger businesses albeit how the support is structured will differ. It is not about providing more infrastructure or more grants but rather connecting and enabling businesses to collaborate effectively for joint success. As the Minister so rightly put it, building business capability, innovating and internationalisation are so much more intertwined now. There also could be more done across different industries, and not just within industries.
This brings me to my final and related point. With changing business models, instead of working alone, more companies will partner to deliver products or services. So, can the Minister share how Enterprise Singapore will structure the various assistance schemes and eligibility criteria for these schemes in such circumstances? Because what a business is, who your employees are, where your resources come from will really differ as we move forward. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Enterprise Singapore Board Bill seeks to merge the operations of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore into a single entity and also to transfer the fair trading functions of SPRING Singapore to CCS.
The move to integrate the functions of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore would facilitate the provision of domestic and international state support to enterprises in a coordinated fashion, in a manner of a one-stop shop. Such a move may eliminate any potential interagency overlap or rivalries and reduce confusion and time on the part of enterprises seeking Government support.
Moreover, integrating all functions relating to fair trade under the new CCCS would have the same streamlining and rationalising effect. Therefore, this is a step in the right direction and I do not oppose this Bill. The work of supporting local enterprise is critical, so as to grow a third pillar to drive value creation and job creation for our economy, alongside the pillars of MNCs and Government-linked entities.
I would like to ask a few questions and make a few suggestions in relation to the future and important work of Enterprise Singapore. Before I do so, I declare that I am the CEO of a research consultancy that works with a wide spectrum of end-clients, including some SMEs.
Firstly, there is a strong case for Enterprise Singapore to differentiate the account management approach it takes to enterprises according to whether an enterprise has limited growth potential and aspirations versus those with strong potential and ambitions.
The term \"SME\" is a convenient shorthand which we all use. However, there are often big differences between the S and the M. Aside from just size, there are differences in terms of the mindset of the entrepreneurs. Some SMEs are more focused on stability, have modest ambitions and may not want to become the next Facebook. But others are more focused on growth and should be encouraged and supported to become dynamic job creation and value creation engines for our economy.
For those enterprises which may be small or mid-sized and not in a hurry to grow radically, largely domestically-oriented and/or are more focused on stability rather than growth, there is a case for supporting such enterprises with challenges like productivity, internationalisation and business succession planning, so as to maintain jobs and grow wages. The approach taken to support these SMEs could be more oriented towards programme administration. But on top of that, some of those enterprises could be nudged into using incentive schemes towards sunrise sectors within their own broad industry or in adjacent industries where they have core competencies that can be leveraged.
On the other hand, there are enterprises that have the potential to become regional or global champions, those with the ambition, drive and ability to become engines for job creation and value creation for our economy. These would need support in a much more open-ended way.
The appropriate approach to support such enterprises would be to provide more aggressive support in a more holistic, responsive and creative way. Such enterprises may need support in terms of human capital, recruiting management and expert talent. They may need support to obtain financing where, at some stages of growth, some SMEs continue to experience an inability to raise sufficient financing from capital markets, venture capitalists (VCs) or banks. And they would need support in terms of internationalisation and overseas market penetration, or even foreign direct investment to locate parts of their global business supply chain abroad while keeping critical headquarters and other functions in Singapore. The optimal approach for such enterprises would perhaps involve tapping on whole-of-Government resources to enable them to resolve problems in their overseas operations or to introduce them to sources of funding or potential partners, to cite two examples.
Will Enterprise Singapore, therefore, provide different approaches in this manner to support local enterprises based on their needs, abilities and aspirations? The different approaches that are called for may require separate divisions and separate operating styles in those divisions.
Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the integration lead to companies being serviced by a single account manager as in a single account management officer or account management team within Enterprise Singapore to avoid confusion and for maximum efficiency on the part of the company as well as state?
Thirdly, and to take this a little further, does the Government try to arrange a single account manager for each company for Government support, across all agencies? That account manager could reside in different agencies, for example, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) for tourism-related companies. Anecdotally, it would appear that some companies sometimes may not be completely clear about whether there is a single Government account manager currently along these lines.
Fourthly, and relatedly, how will Enterprise Singapore's role be differentiated from that of other economic agencies like the EDB and STB? And how will this differentiation be conveyed to the companies that these agencies serve?
Lastly, I trust that one area the new Enterprise Singapore will actively look into is how to catalyse links between Singapore companies when they operate in international markets. We do see such links between some companies from foreign countries when they move abroad, whereby such companies cluster into specific areas or even buildings and business centres, share learnings and networks, and thus, shorten the learning curve and lessen the risk for one another. This is especially important in difficult markets, like Africa, which is probably the next and last frontier in emerging market region. I would like know what Enterprise Singapore plans to do on this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, local SMEs are responsible for half of gross domestic product (GDP) and over two-thirds of the jobs in our economy. The consolidation of most state support to local enterprises under one roof has the potential to create a powerful one-stop shop to support our local enterprises in ways that are appropriate to their entrepreneurial trajectory for maximum benefit to our economy.
The Workers’ Party supports this move to consolidate local enterprise support under Enterprise Singapore. Local enterprises need to be a strong third pillar of our economy alongside MNCs and Government-linked companies (GLCs). Right now, their share of value-added is much smaller than their share of jobs, implying that we need to move those capable and aspirational SMEs up the productivity ladder. And at the apex, we need to groom a critical mass of local companies to become globally competitive, with the centre of gravity and critical headquarters functions rooted in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last year, when it was announced that IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore would merge to become Enterprise Singapore, there was a significant amount of interest in business circles. Many were pleased that they could look forward to holistic support from one organisation. The Bill has proposed several thoughtful measures that will smoothen the merger process, thus giving reassurance to businesses.
Indeed, it is prudent to ensure that while the merger is in execution, all successful claims for grants under both Statutory Boards before the merger would first be validated by an externally appointed auditing company before disbursement. This will ensure that any fraudulent claims can be identified and disallowed before the merger takes place, as not doing so could complicate matters. It would be difficult to trace the fraud after the merger, or determine which party is responsible. This shows the dedication of both Boards in safeguarding public funds.
When the merger was first announced, some SMEs expressed concern. This arose among those who were in the midst of making significant plans and exploring options for their business, and they realised that by the time they are to submit their grant application, both Boards would be caught up in the merger transition. This worried them as they felt that their plans would be hampered. I note that both SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore will ensure all legitimate grants are pre-approved before implementing the acquisition process. Improving transparency of the process also provides assurances to these SMEs.
Following the merger, I hope that the consolidated resources will enable Enterprise Singapore to work more closely with businesses. Previously, officers from SPRING Singapore would usually conduct one or two follow-up sessions after businesses have implemented the acquired systems and upgrades. And if no anomaly is detected during the follow-up sessions, it is considered case-closed and the businesses are then left to fend for themselves. I believe the frequency of officers following up with the companies could be looked into to ensure that the implemented system is, indeed, aiding the company’s growth and progression as initially projected.
If the company is still experiencing trouble in achieving that progression within a stipulated timeframe, then there should be guidelines in place to extend further assistance to the company. As the time taken for companies to adapt to the new systems would differ due to many factors, the amount and type of assistance required would vary.
Next, I think Enterprise Singapore would want to look carefully into the grant applications to ensure that the submissions for upgrades are justifiable. The most expensive is not always the best but, for some applicants, they may adopt this mantra. The key to achieving greater effectiveness is to tailor solutions and assistance schemes to each company. Every company faces unique challenges and the differences in the challenges would vary even more greatly across different industries.
Perhaps a small panel of consultants or experts could be appointed to conduct in-depth industry analyses and identify the common problems faced by these individual industries. Adopt a proactive approach to engage companies and encourage them to adopt solutions based on the gaps identified by the experts. Appoint solution providers who have been pre-vetted for suitability, to assist with the implementation of solutions. Pre-vet the cost of implementation and negotiate better pricing where possible to ensure that the grants can help companies to achieve even more. If shortage of manpower is a concern, freelancing consultants, auditors and other professionals can be engaged to help perform the relevant follow-ups to ensure that each implementation achieves the desired results.
Many are looking forward to see if the new merged entity can help SMEs to grow and scale their business at home and overseas. They hope that the pooling of resources will support SMEs in their aspirations to make their mark in the increasingly competitive business world. Perhaps through the strengthening of collaborations with the various industry partners, there could be more missions to bring our SMEs for overseas exposure to explore opportunities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I hope the merger of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore can consolidate the resources and provide more support for local companies. According to my knowledge, after a company has implemented certain improvement measures, Government officers would usually conduct one or two follow-up sessions to make sure that everything goes well. If no anomaly is detected, it is considered case closed.
I hope that, in future, the Government can follow up more closely to make sure that improvement measures have, indeed, worked. When companies apply for grants, the Government should not just hand out the grants. Instead, it should have a set of standards to make sure that the planned improvement measures are truly beneficial. The Government should check on the companies more often on things like whether they are providing better services and prices. The Government can also work with experts and auditors to craft and implement such standards.
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill. It is a clear reflection of the Government’s commitment to help companies achieve success. With further improvements, I believe that many more businesses will benefit substantially from this new Enterprise Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): In Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am the Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Immediate Past President of SCCCI.
Sir, I support the Enterprise Singapore Board Bill. This Bill provides the legislative basis for the official merger of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore on 1 April. This shows that while the Government urges industries and businesses to transform, it is also actively playing a leading role.
I recall that in 2009, SCCCI proposed eight recommendations to the Economic Strategies Committee on behalf of the business community. One of the recommendations was to set up a Statutory Board to provide one-stop services for enterprise development, streamline its processes so that companies do not have to go back and forth among the various Government agencies. Today, eight years after raising the recommendation, we are finally seeing the establishment of the Enterprise Singapore Board. This is good news, indeed. We applaud the Government for heeding the recommendations of the business community and certainly look forward to this new agency.
When the World Economic Forum recently announced its 2017-2018 Global Competitiveness Report, Singapore came up third in the global ranking. However, the competitiveness and capabilities of local companies, including SMEs, are not amongst the top three, ranking behind their counterparts in Switzerland, Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and other economies. This ranking showed us that in terms of transformation and innovation, there is still a lot of room for our local enterprises to improve.
Currently, SMEs are stepping up their transformation process and working hard to keep abreast of national economic growth. In the new economic environment, the Government is adjusting its structure by setting up a dedicated agency to help develop local enterprises. In this regard, the newly set up Enterprise Singapore Board will have a heavy responsibility and a long road ahead.
Previously, IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore helped local enterprises via two different routes. While IE Singapore’s mission was to lead larger local enterprises in expanding overseas, SPRING Singapore was responsible for helping SMEs improve their capability. Businesses are now concerned about how the new agency would operate after 1 April. How do our businesses deal with this new agency? What kind of new experiences will they have? I take this opportunity to share some views of the business community.
Firstly, after the merger of the two agencies, how would it be reorganised in terms of the customers and resource allocation? How would the new agency take care of different industries and the needs of enterprises of different sizes?
Secondly, among the 180,000 local enterprises, small and micro-enterprises make up the majority. Would they be an important part of the agency’s customers? How would MTI set key performance indicators (KPIs) for the officers? In assessing their work performance, would they be evaluated based on the economic value-add of the industry under their care, or the size and number of companies they have helped? Or would it be based on other performance indicators?
Thirdly, when companies which fall within the ITMs and those from non-ITM sectors approach the new agency for assistance, will they be given different priorities? For companies with the intention to upgrade but are not from the ITM sectors, will they be treated differently from those from the key industries?
Fourthly, will the plethora of Government assistance schemes continue to exist, or will they be streamlined and reclassified according to the needs of enterprises at different stages of their development?
Apart from these, businesses also hope that the new agency could continue to work closely with EDB. As EDB attracts foreign investors, it could also provide opportunities for local enterprises to be part of the industry supply chain and collaborate with MNCs. I hope that the merger of these two Government agencies could lead to a more effective operation, creating a “one plus one, greater than two” effect, helping local enterprises to grow, and creating even more quality job opportunities for Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan\t(West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Our SMEs make up the majority of our enterprises, employ two-thirds of our workforce and contribute to about half of Singapore’s GDP. As we embark on transforming our economy via our ITMs, a key pillar of transformation lies in the internationalisation of our enterprises. Given the small domestic market in Singapore, internationalisation is the key engine of growth and transformation for Singapore companies and our economy. Expanding our SMEs overseas will also give our working people more opportunities to gain international work experience and enhance job mobility. It is, therefore, timely that SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore consolidate to provide one-stop support to our SMEs for their growth, development and internationalisation needs. This will give our efforts to transform our economy a concerted push forward.
In the past, an SME would have to go to SPRING Singapore to address their capability development needs and then to IE Singapore if they needed support in internationalising their business. The SME would have to submit documents to both agencies and maintain relations with officers from each agency. With the merger, the SME need only approach Enterprise Singapore for support for both their capability development and internationalisation needs. This will not only reduce the administrative burden on the SME but also allow the officer-in-charge to have a more holistic overview of the strategic direction and growth trajectory of the SME to better enable the provision of more efficient and effective support as the SME evolves. This is a positive change. However, I have some questions on the details of this consolidation.
First, in view of the merger, staff from both SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore will have to take on new roles and expanded job scopes. A total of 960 employees will be affected. SPRING Singapore has about 500 employees while IE Singapore has about 450.
The staff in Enterprise Singapore must be familiar with both the mandates, schemes and grants of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore in order to provide SMEs with the one-stop advisory and support envisioned. How are staff being prepared for this expanded job scope? Would there be any support provided to them during this transitioning period?
On a related note, CCS will be taking over SPRING Singapore’s oversight of consumer protection. Will existing staff in SPRING Singapore in charge of this area of work be transferred to CCS or will staff at CCS be taking on these new responsibilities? If so, how are the staff at CCS being prepared for this expanded job scope?
Second, in every merger, the challenge lies in integrating the cultures of the merging organisations and co-creating the new culture of the merged organisation. What efforts are being undertaken to smoothen this transitional phase for the employees of Enterprise Singapore?
Third, how will SMEs which are currently being supported by SPRING Singapore and/or IE Singapore be affected by the consolidation? Will these SMEs be assigned with new staff due to the consolidation?
Fourth, with the consolidation of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore, will there be a streamlining of grants and schemes currently offered by the two sector agencies? There are many grants and schemes offered by both SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore respectively and, currently, SMEs already require assistance in identifying which grants and schemes are more suitable for them. Given that Enterprise Singapore will be a one-stop support for SMEs, it may be timely to review the grants and schemes available and assess if it would be useful to tier them to cater to the different developmental needs and stages of the SMEs.
Lastly, with the coming together of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore, Enterprise Singapore will be connected to a larger pool of SMEs. Are there plans to leverage this expanded network of SMEs to build stronger interlinks within our SME community? For example, in the first half of 2017, IE Singapore helped 24,000 enterprises with overseas expansion. The success stories of these SMEs can serve as guides for smaller SMEs to emulate. Through this network, smaller SMEs can also build business links with the larger SMEs to create mutual business value by leveraging each other’s strengths and value propositions. I also urge Enterprise Singapore to work closely with our Labour Movement’s U SME to address the issues and challenges faced by our SMEs and make every SME workplace a better workplace, every SME job a better job, and every SME worker a better worker. Mr Deputy Speaker, shortly, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Regarding the merger of the two agencies, I have three questions.
Firstly, in the course of merging, staff from both agencies will be affected. Their job scope may change or expand, and the corporate culture may also be different. What kind of support will they receive so as to build a new corporate culture? Are there measures to ensure a smooth transition?
Secondly, will the schemes currently offered to SMEs be affected?
Thirdly, the economic network will be expanded after the merger. It is my hope that more SMEs will benefit, receive one-stop services, improve their productivity and internationalise.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.
Our economy grew well last year. But many SMEs continue to face many challenges. SME owners know that they have to respond swiftly or risk being irrelevant. These changes are not just unique to certain companies; they are prevalent across industries.
Hence, many businesses want closer collaboration within the industry and for the Government to be more involved. The Government recognises this need. Therefore, we set up coordination bodies like the National Productivity Council and the Future Economy Committee. The Government also established SME Centres under the supervision of the new Enterprise Singapore to bring policies to the doorsteps of companies.
However, I am very concerned about our SMEs, especially the micro-SMEs, as they need to change fast. The change is at their door. The disruptive future we have been talking about is happening now. Despite all these efforts, we have yet to see deep participation of many SMEs and micro-SMEs in the ITMs. We need to understand why this may be so. From my understanding, I think there are two common factors that help industries be successful in following through the transformation spelt out in their respective ITMs.
Firstly, they have to have industry leaders who have worked successfully with the Government and then managed to seek a buy-in from the rest of the industry.
Secondly, they have to have TACs which also have strong and focused leadership that is able to steer the industry to a clear path of adoption. Driving and catalysing industry transformation will be a very important part of Enterprise Singapore. As such, I would like to propose three points for Enterprise Singapore’s consideration.
First, is to professionalise the TACs. The accounting and law sectors are prime examples of how TACs have been professionalised. For one, they are staffed by relevant industry professionals who then bring with them the domain expertise in industry promotion or transformational work. Having people with the relevant knowledge and experience in TACs also means that they can help the TACs develop industry code of conduct, standards, benchmarking and development programmes. There is great value in getting each TAC to be staffed by people of their respective industry.
Effective TACs are not just limited to firms practising professional services. SBF is another good example. Today, all Singapore-registered companies with a share capital of $500,000 and above have to join SBF. SBF thus has the capital, legitimacy and professionals who have the clout to fulfil their mandate to help the larger companies.
Beyond the general business chambers, the real leadership and drive for ITM transformation must come from the specific trade associations, which have a more intimate knowledge of the industry and experience. Thus, we can look to get the trade associations to have greater ownership. We can also see how we can better resource these associations and industry bodies to have relevant professionals so that they can provide effective leadership. This can come through mandatory participation and affordable membership fees.
That brings me to my second point ‒ the role of the SME Centres. It will be difficult to ensure that every sector has an effective TAC. Within any sector, there are also many smaller industries. Hence, SME Centres can help. For now, SME Centres spend a large proportion of their time in bringing the Government grants and incentive schemes to companies, and they have been effective in reaching out to more than 200,000 companies annually.
However, with the launch of the Business Grant Portal (BGP), companies here, especially those which are savvy, will be able to self-help for Government schemes. As such, there is scope for SME Centres to play a dual role, which is to drive the ITMs. They can drive ITMs by encouraging geographical or industry collaborations. For example, the SME Centres can provide the industries within the same location with the advantage of the use of common facilities, shared services and shared marketing resources. This will especially help the smaller companies and industries. The SME Centres can also develop industry-specific knowledge by hiring existing staff with relevant knowledge. Alternatively, Enterprise Singapore can also consider co-opting staff, preferably with industry experience, to an SME Centre so that the SME Centre can be a focal point to help specific industry ITMs.
My last point is to tap on additional media channels. While we are doing all that, there is still a danger of some companies falling through the cracks. After all, we cannot force some companies to come up to the SME Centre if they are not aware of the initiatives to drive the transformation. This is a real problem.
Our Singapore SME landscape is such that many of their owners may not be English-educated and may not be very familiar with many Government schemes or incentives. While I know that agencies like SPRING Singapore have made an effort in recent years to reach out to the non-English media, there is scope to do more. Take the Chinese media, for instance. Reaching out to SMEs through Lianhe Zaobao may not be sufficient. Some of them read evening dailies, like Shin Min Daily or Wanbao. The problem is that many of our SME leaders are not plugged into the national newspapers and simply do not have the luxury of time to flip through the newspapers every day.
Hence, we should encourage and explore all forms of media communication, including radio and the media from the Malay and Tamil languages. We could discuss on industry-specific transformation on these news channels and do so in the language of the everyday Singaporean. For example, we can have a programme talking about the fate of the prata makers, something that will gel with the everyday Singaporean and make people aware of the issues. This is important because many SME owners and workers, especially from micro-SMEs, are everyday Singaporeans.
One might wonder whether it is possible to capture the imagination of everyday Singaporeans, especially on this seemingly technical subject of industry transformation. But I would argue otherwise. Many Singaporeans, especially those above 45 who consume these news channels, are deeply aware of the implication of the ongoing business transformation, because they live through it every day. And many of them have a deep anxiety about what is next and how to adjust to the changing world.
Therefore, using the mass communication channel to talk about the fate of different industries will not just focus everybody on these industries, but getting everyday Singaporeans to think about how to do things differently. When we talk about industry 4.0, technical terms get thrown around liberally. Digital, data, disruptions are big words. But all it means is trying to do things differently. Therefore, we must get as many Singaporeans who are staffing our SMEs, who are business owners, as possible to think about doing things differently all the time.
I have full confidence that Enterprise Singapore will do a good job catalysing widespread and deep industry ownership of the ITMs and level up our companies. With that, I fully support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the formation of Enterprise Singapore from the merger of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore is good news for local businesses and the economy. The feedback from the business community, including food manufacturers, is very positive. They generally see greater efficiency in this new body where they do not have to shuttle and interface with two agencies.
As a single agency, Enterprise Singapore will be able to pool together resources and expertise across a wider spectrum of corporate strategies. This would facilitate the provision of more holistic support for enterprises to succeed in both domestic and overseas markets and better respond to the challenges presented in these markets. But as with all mergers, it is to rise to concerns about continuity. The Minister has mentioned this in his opening speech. However, I would just like to focus a bit on the details.
Having a different account manager is a concern shared by some companies. I hope Enterprise Singapore will do their best to retain the same account managers for business continuity and to minimise changes for the companies. Where it is not possible to retain the same account managers, I would like to ask what steps will be taken to make the transition as seamless as possible.
If a new account manager is to be deployed, frequent follow-ups would help to build relationships, create assurance and familiarity. Certainly, as long as the new manager is committed to the success and welfare of the business, his/her identity should not be of grave concern. Ultimately, there is not a single solution or even specific formulae that could apply across the board as no two enterprises are the same, and this goes even for those in the same industry. It would be more productive to craft strategies and implementation together with each enterprise.
I also believe SMEs, including smaller enterprises, will remain an important priority group for Enterprise Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister how Enterprise Singapore and its new structure intend to continue to prioritise them. With the synergies of the new entity, will the form-filling procedures, for example, required by SMEs be streamlined or reduced? Embedding technology and digitalisation in the form-filling procedures could save a lot of time and manpower, which is valuable to SMEs with a small headcount. In fact, all businesses, not just SMEs, should benefit from such positive advances. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I would like to discuss some feedback and findings by the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), which did a pre-Budget survey with the Muslim/Malay business community recently. Among the top business concerns are rising labour and rental costs, the outlook of the global economy, and keeping up with the digitalisation trend.
For 2018, the top strategies to stay relevant include creating new products and services, entering new markets and managing operating costs. These are good long-term strategies and in line with IE Singapore and also SPRING Singapore’s vision to nurture successful enterprises through growth and internationalisation.
I believe Enterprise Singapore, with its existing capabilities, resources and new focus on digitalisation, is in a good position to help them succeed with their strategies. Current IE Singapore initiatives, such as the Global Company Partnership (GCP) grant and Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) should continue to be offered in some form by Enterprise Singapore as they will remain highly relevant to any firms’ strategy to internationalise their businesses.
The Malay/Muslim business community also believes that to stay competitive globally, there are three top areas that the Government could help them improve on. These areas are brand building, overseas growth and technology adoption. It is a positive sign that companies recognise the value of brand-building. Indeed, having a strong brand is a prerequisite to establishing one’s presence in the overseas market. Hopefully, we can have a brand that is well-received, just like, for instance, IKEA. I hope Enterprise Singapore can provide more support to businesses in this area.
One solution or suggestion would be to provide more media-related grants which companies can use for their branding endeavours. It would also be ideal to create more cross-border opportunities spearheaded by Government agencies, allowing them to get more exposure and experience. The Government has been partnering local firms for infrastructure and construction projects overseas. Therefore, other industries could benefit through similar partnerships.
(In English): Finally, under the ITM initiatives, the Government has been developing ITMs to address issues within the targeted industries and promote synergy across agencies that can provide support. Some sectors are quite extensive, and they may appear to not come under the ITMs for the targeted industries. In fact, some of these SMEs are already getting assistance and support rendered by IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore to SMEs which, in essence, are part of the ITM, I believe. But they feel that they have been left out because these efforts are not branded as ITM initiatives.
May I suggest to the Minister that Enterprise Singapore enhance its branding and awareness on these piecemeal initiatives that have already been done, so that the SMEs would know that it is part of the ITM efforts and something worthy that they can and should tap on? As I have mentioned earlier, no two organisations are the same, and not every organisation would fall under the ITM. This is evidence of the Government diversifying efforts to reach out to all parts of a sector as much as possible.
These past two years have seen the economy rapidly changing. Keeping abreast with new demands, creating new products and reinventing existing ones in response to the changes are key to staying relevant. Expanding into new markets, too, will help to open up more opportunities. Enterprise Singapore, too, will do well to review and enhance its existing programmes and help enable local enterprises to scale to greater heights. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which will consolidate and coordinate Government efforts in nurturing a vibrant ecosystem for SMEs. I wish to raise just four points for clarification and consideration.
As the Minister would be aware, a recent survey by QBE Insurance that was published just last week, found that only 14% of SMEs intend to expand overseas while 45% have no plans to internationalise soon. Insufficient funding, unfamiliarity with foreign markets, concerns about competition in foreign markets were some of the reasons cited. Enterprise Singapore has the mandate of supporting our enterprises in internationalising. How does the Minister intend to respond to these findings?
The merger of SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore is a significant undertaking and Minister Iswaran has emphasised that the priority is to \"ensure a smooth transition\". Assurance had been given that, in the transition period, support for SMEs will not be affected and companies can continue to apply to SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore for assistance under the existing programmes.
At the same time, Enterprise Singapore is intended to streamline existing grants and provide a comprehensive suite of support from a single agency. Can the Minister share whether he foresees any issues in harmonising the programmes of the two agencies and what steps will be taken to reduce any inconveniences to the companies?
Further, I understand that SME accounts are currently managed by different agencies. The Minister had highlighted efforts to streamline the account management so that there is a principal agency managing a particular relationship with a company, whether it is EDB, IE Singapore or SPRING Singapore. Can the Minister provide an update on its efforts and clarify whether Enterprise Singapore will be the principal agency managing all SME accounts, moving forward?
Also, during Question Time in September 2017, the Minister had alluded to the challenges in synthesising the missions of two organisations and the concern that one may prevail over the other. With this focus on overseas expansion, small firms may have concerns of being neglected. The concern was articulated by SBF's Teo Siong Seng who had voiced the concern of whether micro-enterprises, such as mom-and-pop shops in HDB estates, will be ignored in the process.
Minister Iswaran has articulated an inclusive mission to \"create globally competitive Singapore enterprises\" which will apply \"to the whole range of enterprises from startups to scale-ups and large local enterprises\". He has emphasised that there would be \"no dilution or diminution in terms of the services rendered to the wide swathe of SMEs that we have in our ecosystem\". While this is heartening to hear, can the Minister share what concrete plans it has to ensure that small and micro-enterprises are not neglected?
I would also like to highlight the need to include sustainability as part of the conversation on the growth of SMEs. At the Singapore Apex Corporate Sustainability Awards in 2017, Minister Heng stated that pursuing sustainability is a \"matter of survival\" for businesses. As highlighted by Minister Heng, \"studies show that sound sustainability standards lower a company's cost of capital and result in better operational performance. Investor demands and customer expectations are increasingly favouring sustainable businesses.\"
Environmentally and socially sustainable growth has been receiving greater attention. For instance, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) has made it mandatory for all listed companies to report their environmental, social and governance practices from 2018 onwards on a \"comply or explain\" basis.
Beyond large listed companies, we can do more to increase uptake of sustainable business practices by SMEs which are the biggest employers and contribute to the bulk of growth. SMEs make up 99% of our enterprises. Individual efforts by SMEs to adopt sustainable practices would, collectively, represent an enormous leap forward.
To be sure, there are moves in that direction. SMEs are part of the supply chain for listed companies and would be impacted by SGX regulations. I also applaud initiatives by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), such as increasing funding for SMEs to green their premises, providing free feasibility assessments against BCA Green Mark standards, and piloting the Behavioural Change Programme to encourage building users to adopt sustainable behaviours. Another initiative is the Energy Efficiency fund, which supports businesses, including SMEs, in identifying and undertaking energy efficiency retrofits.
We need more of such initiatives that are specifically targeted towards SMEs. In 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) stressed that \"the prospects and strategies for a green growth economy cannot be entirely understood without taking fully into account the production, technology and management practices of SMEs\".
Sustainability efforts may need to be tailored to meet the needs of SMEs. For instance, SMEs may face challenges of cost, lack of resources, lack of time, or difficulty in implementing existing sustainability indicators that are too complicated to be adopted or too high level for practical usage by small companies.
Sustainable growth is possible for SMEs. Founded by Susan Chong in 2002, Greenpac is a multi-million dollar business that provides eco-friendly packaging to Fortune 500 companies. What we need is a concerted effort to push the sustainability agenda for SMEs, and Enterprise Singapore, as the leading agency for SMEs, would be well-placed for that. Can the Minister share what plans Enterprise Singapore has to support SMEs’ adoption of sustainable business practices?
Sir, I believe that Enterprise Singapore can be greater than the sum of its parts and support the move, which demonstrates a whole-of-Government approach in responding to future developments and challenges. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the fast-changing economic landscape demands that our businesses see the global markets as a continuum of the domestic market. Changes in financing structures and supply chains and ease of doing business overseas have opened up business opportunities beyond Singapore. There is a consequent need to support our local businesses to seize such opportunities. The new Enterprise Singapore can play such an important role.
With the formation of the new agency, it should not simply be an amalgamation of two current separate approaches to helping our companies. The chances to tap on overseas opportunities and best practices should influence how we help SMEs to grow. I would like to ask how will the support and assistance for SMEs to grow be different from what it was before? What new strategies will be taken to assist them in building capacity and remaining relevant in Singapore, or in expanding their businesses abroad? Yet, because many of the SMEs might not be ready for overseas expansion, how can we still ensure that these SMEs are not neglected as we help the potential winners? They still face many pressing issues, such as improving productivity, manpower shortages and business process re-engineering. We must ensure that efforts to help them continue unabated.
The new agency, with its new integrated mandate of helping businesses to grow, can also develop new ways in operationalising the ITMs. There are two separate facets: one, from Singapore-to-overseas; and two, outside-and-into Singapore. I will take them in turn.
First, many of the ITMs were developed while the two agencies were still separate entities. How would the ITMs change now that the local-overseas nexus is much stronger? For example, in the retail and food and beverage (F&B) sector where SPRING Singapore has been a major player and lead agency of the ITM, how would the merger change its approach to helping the F&B businesses? There are opportunities in getting local businesses to benefit from global supply chains and expansion opportunities. For example, in the SC VivoCity project in Ho Chi Minh City, we can find familiar names, such as NTUC Fairprice via its CoopXtra venture, Breadtalk, and also Xiao Ban, which is linked to the famous Lao Ban Dou Hua. In the case of CoopXtra, the overseas venture has allowed new food supplies to be established for Singapore. I hope that with the new agency, we can accelerate such growth and expansion of our local businesses.
Two, from an outside-and-into Singapore perspective, there are also opportunities for the new agency to work with EDB to explore synergies in operationalising our ITMs, especially in cluster transformation. In attracting investments into Singapore, our SMEs can benefit in providing strategic partnerships and ancillary services to the MNCs. Bringing in the right MNCs can catalyse transformation in many industries, especially through horizontal competencies, such as information and communications technology (ICT) and supply chain management.
As with any merger, there is a lingering concern on the deployment of manpower. I would like to ask the Minister if the employees of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore will be absorbed entirely into this new agency. Will there be any redundancies and, if so, what will happen to the staff who are made redundant due to this merger and will they be redeployed?
Finally, this merger provides a good opportunity to re-examine the various schemes that are offered and for the new agency to align, refresh or revamp schemes where possible. I would like to urge the new agency to put in place processes and schemes that will be easier for companies to access and apply for.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this merger can provide Singapore with a full value stream platform to help our businesses to grow. It also opens up new opportunities for us to relook at our ITMs, especially in operationalisation. With this, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio):\tMr Deputy Speaker, I am supporting this Bill. I declare that I am currently the employee of a local financial institution (FI). In Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] By merging IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore to form Enterprise Singapore, we will be able to provide one-stop services for our enterprises. I believe that after the merger, Enterprise Singapore will be able to provide more comprehensive and robust coordination services to our businesses.
Besides helping our companies improve productivity and the quality of their products and services, Enterprise Singapore can also help them expand and explore the overseas markets. Our domestic market is small. If our local enterprises hope to become even stronger in the future, they need to internationalise. Enterprise Singapore can not only provide advisory services through its extensive network of overseas offices, but also help to link up various companies, so that they can enter overseas markets hand in hand.
I would like to ask the Minister how Enterprise Singapore's various departments are going to streamline and consolidate their resources after the merger. I would like to know the current status of the various schemes supporting local enterprises and the number of companies that have benefited from the schemes.
Lastly, I would like to know how many companies under the schemes owe or are unable to repay loans from the banks or FIs. I would also like to ask the Minister the number of applications approved under the schemes managed by IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore. How many companies have defaulted and how much is the loss so far?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all the hon Members who have spoken on the Bill.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to seek a clarification from the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, because at the start of his speech, he said he does not object to the Bill but I think, towards the end, he said that the Worker's Party supports the Bill. May I just have a clarity on that, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Sir, what I said was that I did not object to the Bill.
Mr S Iswaran: That is right. So, you do not object to the Bill but the Party supports the Bill. Is that right?
Mr Leon Perera:\tI do not object. We support the Bill.
Mr S Iswaran: You support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all 11 speakers for their unambiguous support of the Bill. And let me now address the key points that have been raised and I will try to give some clarifications on the issues that have been brought up.
I want to start by saying that, generally, the fact that the Members have supported the Bill, and I think, in general, also reflecting the mood and the opinion in the broader business community, are welcome signs because it means that we are moving in the right direction. Many of the questions are around the details in terms of how and what we intend to do in execution, and I would endeavour to address them as much as I can.
Firstly, I think there is a set of questions around how Enterprise Singapore will proceed with its task, its mission. Various Members, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Desmond Choo, have asked whether Enterprise Singapore will, in fact, support enterprises of different sizes and from different industries.
Sir, I want to reiterate that Enterprise Singapore's mission is to build a thriving community of Singapore-based enterprises. However, the fact is that their needs are varied based on their stages of growth, the sectors within which they operated and also, to some extent, the markets in which they are venturing into beyond Singapore. And this variation is also accentuated by the fact that there are different types of growth opportunities, digitalisation and technology change, which have a differential impact on the various sectors.
So, for all these reasons, it is important that our businesses have to adapt, innovate and build new capabilities according to their circumstances, as has been pointed out by several Members in the course of this debate. And Enterprise Singapore itself, and I want to again stress this, will adopt an enterprise-centric approach and its programmes will take into account this diversity of needs while rendering support to enterprises in all sectors – to address Mr Thomas Chua's point – regardless of whether they are covered by ITMs or not. The fact is that the programmes and schemes are available to all enterprises. The ITMs bring them together in particular sectors because there are certain objectives around that but, in general, the accessibility is open to all.
I also want to address the point about micro SMEs because they are an important segment of the economy and they have much potential. And I want to share with Members that SPRING Singapore has already been working with the Federation of Merchants' Associations, Singapore, for example, to drive the growth and transformation of heartland enterprises. So, similarly, Enterprise Singapore will continue to support micro SMEs through the TACs and the SME Centres as well as through – and this is important – private sector initiatives, such as the 99% SME campaign which is jointly organised by Singtel and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) to drive capability upgrading.
Enterprise Singapore will build on IE Singapore's network of over 35 overseas centres covering regional, developed and emerging markets and it will continue to organise trade missions for our SMEs to explore opportunities in new markets. I think Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and also Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Desmond Choo highlighted this.
Mr Louis Ng cited survey findings indicating that few SMEs want to venture overseas due to concerns over insufficient funding, unfamiliarity and heightened competition in foreign markets. However, as I highlighted earlier, there are also surveys by SCCCI and DP Information Group (SME Development Survey), which found that a significant proportion of our enterprises have, in fact, prioritised internationalisation and have plans to do so in the next few years. This becomes then a battle of the surveys, and which is right and which is wrong. The reality of what it shows is that the terrain is uneven. We should recognise and acknowledge that. In other words, whilst we are making the best of efforts to reach out to all our companies, some, depending on their stage of development, their sector and so on, will have a differential response. Some might even not have addressed these issues because they are so used to some other aspects of their business.
I also want to say that it is quite understandable that SMEs have concerns when venturing abroad because that is not without risks. Our economic agencies have sought to mitigate some of those risks through support schemes to evaluate the opportunities like the MRA scheme and also to build their manpower and capability, such as the GCP scheme.
On Enterprise Singapore's part, it will sustain and, where necessary, step up efforts to help companies that are facing challenges in financial management, brand building and product promotions, points that Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have highlighted. And we have also worked with the TACs and companies to encourage greater collaboration in sharing of experiences so that they can enter markets more effectively, perhaps in partnership or at least learning from each other's experience, so that the pathway is a bit less difficult.
But I do want to make one point. Ultimately, each entrepreneur has to weigh the risk-reward balance of any new venture before making a decision. This is the very essence of entrepreneurship and it is not something that can be supplanted by any Government agency or support programme. So, it is important that whilst we have this architecture of schemes and programmes to support our enterprises, our entrepreneurs have to step up, make the assessments and take the decision.
Mr Leon Perera made a good point, which is that, at the end of the day, the levels of ambition may be different and also the appetite for risks, and we respect that. So, it is more about individual companies and their leaders making the choice and then benefiting from the appropriate schemes that are available from our economic agencies.
I want to turn next to a set of questions around the programmes and schemes. Various Members have raised these questions and they have asked whether the Government schemes will be streamlined, if not now, then in the future, and in the process of the transition.
Generally, the streamlining of Government grants is an ongoing process because we want to ensure policy efficacy, meaning that it is achieving its desired or stated objective; and also to ensure accessibility for businesses and, importantly, staying relevant in the context of the different circumstances. So, for example, there have been changes made to some of the processes. The BGP was launched in January last year to provide a one-stop portal for businesses to apply for grants without having to approach multiple agencies. This is an important step. And it includes grants administered not just by MTI agencies but also others like BCA's Building Information Model Fund. The plan is to add more grants to this portal progressively. And we share the objective of wanting to make things simpler for our companies. Enterprise Singapore will continue the review of its touchpoints, processes and schemes for that purpose.
But at the same time, I agree with the point made by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that whilst we have a quest for ease of access and efficiency in the administration of Government grants, they should not come at the expense of efficient and effective safeguards. The Government takes a strong stance against any case of fraud or abuse and will take stern enforcement action after investigations. Internal control systems are reviewed regularly and the lessons learnt, especially from some incidents of abuse, are incorporated to prevent future irregularities. It is not foolproof but it is an important part of the process of continuing to ensure that safeguards are in place.
On the specific point about the transition, because the schemes are being administered by SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore today, and after 1 April, by Enterprise Singapore, the important element here is not so much to have an audit today but ensuring that there is a clear audit trail because all the officers will be working in the new organisation in one form or another, and it is important that we have the data, the analysis and the audit trails so that if there is a need for verification, it can be done, regardless of when that need arises.
I want to assure Mr Louis Ng that Enterprise Singapore will continue SPRING Singapore's close collaboration with our agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA) in order to encourage the SMEs to adopt efficient energy practices in their businesses, as well as to support the adoption of standards to ensure their sustainability. These practices, and I want to echo the point that Mr Louis Ng and others have made, they are not just relevant for the reason of sustainability of the environment but also because they make good business sense. In fact, many enterprises today differentiate themselves on the basis of their sustainable practices. So, we encourage it.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query was whether there has been a good take-up rate of the programmes that support our local enterprises. As I said in the Second Reading speech earlier, both SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore have been able to reach out to more and more enterprises over the years and there has been good traction. I think this is something that will continue under Enterprise Singapore and it will reach out to more companies. We will share more details on any changes to the suite of schemes and grants at the upcoming Budget and Committee of Supply debates.
Before I move on, I do want to highlight one thing. As we listened to the comments and ideas made by many of the Members who spoke today, I think the inherent tensions in some of our aspirations become quite apparent. On the one hand, we want one organisation because that would make it easy for everyone to know where to go to get what kind of help; on the other hand, we want the nimbleness and flexibility of small organisations because they can move around and be quicker in their response. On the one hand, we want customised programmes to help companies which have got specific needs and they have got higher ambitions or greater risk appetite; on the other hand, we want broad-based, easy schemes so that companies do not have to go through a major exercise of providing information in order to benefit from them. On the one hand we want easy access, on the other hand we want effective safeguards.
These are the tensions in the administration of any Government programme. This is something that Enterprise Singapore will have to wrestle with. The last I checked, Enterprise Singapore officers, or today's IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore officers, are not caped crusaders. They are people like you and me. They are making an effort to reach out and do the best that they can. What we will find as we go forward is that they will try to find this balance, adjusting their programmes and schemes according to the needs of the companies on the ground but also with an eye to Singapore's long-term economic objectives and future.
There were a series of questions on transition issues. First, on the resources. Enterprise Singapore will draw on the combined resources of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore, except for the headcount and budget that goes with the consumer protection role which will be transferred to CCS.
To ensure business continuity, companies will have the same account managers as far as possible. I want to stress that because many Members have raised this and it is an important point. So, whether they have been served by SPRING Singapore or by IE Singapore, the commitment is to try and ensure that they have the same account manager.
In the unlikely event that it is not possible for certain operational reasons, the Enterprise Singapore management is committed to ensuring a seamless handover. This is important because it is not just the officer who is on the frontline, but also the team that supports him or her in the relationship with the companies. So, I think we have enough bench strength in the system to deal with the transition issues if, in fact, there is a change of account management.
But in establishing Enterprise Singapore, we also have taken care to preserve the competencies, networks and culture that SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore have built over the years. So, I want to assure Members, especially Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Desmond Choo, that all IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore officers can look forward to augmented roles and opportunities and, in some cases, new assignments in Enterprise Singapore.
As part of any move, whether it is an enlarged role or a new one, there will be training and mentorship that is relevant that will be provided. Enterprise Singapore will also continue to recruit officers from both the public and the private sectors because you need that blend of capabilities and they need the relevant industry and international business experience in order to support the mission. This will include tapping on industry experts to support the enterprises through counsel advice, which is something that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has talked about.
Mr Patrick Tay has also asked about the integration of the cultures and workflows of the two organisations. This is the perennial challenge of any merger. The key is to get the mission clear and the leadership correct. In the case of Enterprise Singapore, the mission is clear and, importantly, it builds on the work that has already been done by IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore. In terms of leadership, the Chairman-designate, Mr Peter Ong, is the former Head of Civil Service and has also served in MTI. The CEO-designate, Mr Png Cheong Boon, is the Second Permanent Secretary at MTI and has helmed several economic agencies. Together, they bring extensive leadership experience in the Public Service and in working with the business community. I am confident that they, and the senior management, will build a strong culture of the organisation and the mission orientation in Enterprise Singapore.
Let me now move on to the point on partnerships and collaborations, which several Members have stressed. Even as we strengthen Enterprise Singapore in terms of its capabilities and programmes and so on, we have to ensure that the partnership and co-ownership of initiatives are something that is emphasised in the relationship with companies and industry stakeholders. That is the key to success. We have to collectively own this and work together on it. So, I agree with Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Henry Kwek that all stakeholders must work closely together to understand the challenges and also to identify the opportunities. Broadly, we are doing this in three ways.
First, is collaboration within the public sector. With the merger, Enterprise Singapore and EDB will form two critical and complementary Government agencies that will help formulate and implement strategies for the development of industry clusters and enterprises in Singapore. These agencies will also work closely with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and JTC, among other Government organisations. So, we bring, first, a public sector, holistic perspective to the engagement and policies.
Second, EDB and Enterprise Singapore will promote partnerships within the private sector, a point that has been raised by several Members. Through the Partnerships for Capabilities Transformation (PACT) programme, they will drive greater collaboration among MNCs, LLEs, our SMEs and also our startups so that they can reinforce one another's strengths and, in the process, we end up with a competitive industry and one that is able to compete globally.
Third, it is the collaboration that we have with other industry stakeholders, like TACs, which are important agents of change within industries. Mr Henry Kwek spoke on the need to professionalise our TACs which SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore have already been doing and supporting through the LEAD programme. We had a further evolution of that through LEAD Plus, that was introduced in Budget 2016 to strengthen the leadership and secretariat teams at the TACs and also to improve their organisational processes and deliver new value-added services.
In 2017, SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore committed $100 million from financial year (FY) 2016 to FY2020 to encourage industries to drive impactful cross-industry projects. We are supporting our TACs, in terms of their people, capabilities and ability to run programmes that affect the entire industry. I think there is scope here. The points that have been raised by Mr Saktiandi Supaat in the context of SMCCI, these are the areas where they can form the agenda for engagement between Enterprise Singapore and SMCCI, for example.
The point that Ms Jessica Tan made about sharing amongst SMEs, again, it is something where you can get these collaborations going in order to see how SMEs can rely on one another and perhaps pool some of their resources.
Mr Henry Kwek talked about the SME Centres as a first stop. They are important nodes to provide customised business advice and help our SMEs better understand our Government initiatives. It is a two-way thing. It is not just about them going to SME Centres to apply for grants; it is also for SME Centres to convey and cascade information on Government programmes and initiatives.
In 2016, we enhanced our SME Centres to provide business diagnosis, run upgrading projects and solve common business challenges. There are also plans for more of such group-based upgrading projects with other SME Centres, TACs and merchant associations so that more of our SMEs can benefit from them.
Sir, ultimately, it is important to recognise that if we are to achieve a vibrant and thriving community of Singapore-based enterprises, all our stakeholders have to be co-owners of the mission and equal partners in the various change initiatives. It is critical that the message reaches the entire spectrum of enterprises and I thank Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for their comments on public communications and strengthening outreach to SMEs and the broader public.
To promote the message of industry transformation, our agencies have engaged the target audience not only through the mainstream media but also through social media and other methods like dialogues and seminars. They have also stepped up efforts to work with the vernacular media like Lianhe Zaobao and Berita Harian. From October to December last year, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) worked with our economic agencies and Lianhe Wanbao to organise a series of dialogues to target the Mandarin-speaking SME business owners in sectors, such as wholesale trade, logistics, retail and F&B.
I would like to add that many of my colleagues in the Ministry, such as Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Low Yen Ling, have also been reaching out through a variety of channels in order to get the message out. We are working on various initiatives and we are working with the TACs and NTUC to help disseminate the message to a wider audience through their communication channels.
The TACs have organised events, such as the SBF's Future Economy conference and exhibition last year, and NTUC helps amplify messages on transformation to its network of workers through dialogues, seminars and marketing collaterals. We value these partnerships and we want to build on them.
Moving forward, Enterprise Singapore will work closely with the media, TACs and unions to propagate the transformation message to ensure greater outreach and awareness among employees. But again, it is important that our enterprises and workers also take the initiative to find out what is happening in their industry, what the changes are, and what they need to do in order to adapt themselves to these changes and be prepared for the next phase in the development of their sectors. This is an important responsibility that we cannot ignore.
Sir, I believe I have addressed in the main the issues that have been raised by Members and I want to conclude by reiterating a few key points.
First, that enterprise development has been an important component of our economic strategy, and it is an essential complement to our efforts to attract foreign investments.
Second, we are now in a new phase of growth, and we will need to sharpen our focus and efforts to support enterprise development and, in particular, productivity, innovation and internationalisation efforts.
The future economy calls for transformation at all levels – individual, enterprise, industry and economy. Just as the companies are being exhorted to adapt to keep pace with changes in the global economy, Government agencies and their programmes must also respond with agility to the shifting needs of industries and enterprises.
By combining the resources and capabilities of IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore under Enterprise Singapore, we will be able to provide holistic support to our businesses to develop deep capabilities, robust international strategies and strong partnerships with stakeholders.
Enterprise Singapore will build on the good work that has been done by IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore to grow strong Singapore-based enterprises by helping them to develop deep capabilities and access global opportunities as we make the transition to the next phase of our economic growth. In turn, this will create greater value for our economy and good jobs and career opportunities for Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [S Iswaran.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 10.00 am tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Power Imbalance in Contracts Involving Small Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as a disputes lawyer in private practice. In last year’s Budget, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were described in some materials published by the Ministry of Finance as being at the heart of the Singapore economy. They make up 99% of our enterprises, employ two-thirds of our workforce and account for half of Singapore’s gross domestic product. This is a positive sign which demonstrates the entrepreneurial spirit of Singapore.
The 2017 Annual Business Survey conducted by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry found that business sentiment among Singapore SMEs has risen. However, SMEs continue to face a number of challenges. The same business survey also revealed that SMEs continue to face rising business costs, with 72.3% of respondents saying that they face higher business costs, compared with 62.3% the year before. Rising business cost is also cited as the biggest challenge by 68.4% of those polled, ranking ahead of competition in the Singapore market and manpower shortage.
The Government continues to help SMEs through various means, for example, through the SME working capital, and we just heard today's debate on the Enterprise Singapore Board Bill to support enterprise development, yet another example of helping SMEs. SMEs themselves would have to continually evolve ways to deliver more productivity gains, for example, by leveraging technology.
One area that we could look closer at and where small businesses are particularly disadvantaged, is in respect of contractual dealings with large suppliers who dominate the market. These dominant players’ usage of market power to drive the use of one-sided and unfair terms has the effect of increasing business risks and costs on the part of small businesses. I respectfully suggest that the time has come for regulatory and legislative solutions to be offered to protect the interests of small businesses from such domineering practices.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to provide Members of this House a better sense of the clauses I am referring to, I seek leave to distribute to Members a handout containing some standard clauses that are incorporated in the areas of provision of utilities, telecommunication services and leases.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leave is granted. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Murali Pillai: I am grateful, Sir. I will be referring to these clauses in the body of my speech.
In the Budget debate last year, I raised the issue of large players taking advantage of their size in commercial dealings with small businesses. This persists in the rental markets which involved, on the one hand, landlords with muscle, such as real estate investment trusts and, on the other hand, tenants which are small businesses. This imbalance in power has allowed tenancy agreements to contain onerous clauses for tenants. For example, a “demolition clause” allows the landlord to recover the premises for redevelopment purposes initiated by the landlord itself without any compensation to the tenant, who may have spent a significant sum to retrofit the premises and who may not have had the benefit of most of the terms of the tenancy. An example of such a clause may be found in the handout.
I dealt with such a case some years back. I acted for my aunt who ran a beauty parlour at a shopping mall for an initial period of three years. The mall owner extended her lease for another three years. My aunt decided to spend money to renovate her premises. About 10 months later, she was served with a Notice to yield premises on the basis that the owner decided to renovate the floor in which her beauty parlour was located. My aunt was in tears as she had ploughed most of her savings into renovating the premises. She was facing certain financial ruin. Not only that, she was upset that her staff who have been loyal and been with her for years would have to be let go, too. Thankfully for my aunt, the High Court, in a reported decision, ruled that the owners exercised the demolition clause in bad faith. This is rare. For the vast majority of tenants in my aunt’s shoes, they have to yield their premises without any compensation.
Additionally, commercial lease contracts include provisions stating that the tenant is responsible for any additional property tax that is payable on the leased premises above the base property tax payable by the landlord. However, if the shoe was on the other foot and the landlord subsequently receives tax savings through tax rebates, reliefs or exemptions, there is no contractual provision requiring the landlord to pass these tax savings to the tenant.
It is also common for commercial leases to contain what I term as \"illusory options\". What do I mean by this? There are leases that provide that options to renew are granted on the basis of rent to be decided by the landlord at the time of the renewal. Another variation is the provision in the leases that the revised rent is to be determined by the landlord, whose determination is final and conclusive. In both cases, the contractual provision giving the tenant the right of an option to renew is effectively illusory and non-enforceable as the essential terms for the renewed lease have not been agreed on and the tenant can potentially be provided with the Hobson's choice by the landlord at the point of renewal.
It is unfortunate that despite the Singapore Business Federation’s (SBF's) laudable attempt to address this situation by issuing the Fair Tenancy Framework that was put together by its Rental Practices Working Group chaired by Ms Cynthia Phua, a former Parliamentarian, in 2015, the usage of these onerous clauses still subsists.
Besides tenancy contracts, other examples of contracts which may contain unfair clauses include contracts for the provision of utilities or telecommunication services. I have provided an illustration of such clauses in the same handout that I distributed earlier in the House. For such contracts, small businesses are often in no better position than individual consumers in that they have little bargaining power to negotiate contract on the supplier’s standard terms.
Presently, in Singapore, small businesses are given some protections when entering into standard form contracts under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA). However, UCTA protections focus mainly on certain types of clauses, such as exclusion of liability clauses and indemnity clauses, which must be reasonable in order to be enforceable. Even then, certain types of contracts are excluded from UCTA, such as contracts that involve property interests.
In a report for the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) written by the Centre for Competition Policy in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2014, the report recognised two key arguments in favour of providing greater protections for small businesses. The first is that small businesses, which may not be as sophisticated and have the same level of resources as large companies, need protection to make effective purchasing decisions relative to larger businesses. Second, as a matter of policy coherence, if small businesses behave more like individual consumers than they behave like large businesses, then it would be coherent to treat them the same under the law.
In Hong Kong, small businesses may rely on the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance, which is the equivalent of our UCTA. However, unlike Singapore, for consumers, which by definition excludes small businesses, there is also recourse to the Hong Kong Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (UCO). The UCO provides that with respect to a contract for the sale of goods or supply of services in which one party deals as a consumer, where the court finds any part of the contract to have been unconscionable in the circumstances when the contract was made, the court may refuse to enforce that part of the contract, or limit the application of the unconscionable part.
The Hong Kong UCO vis-à-vis consumers is, therefore, wider in its application compared to Singapore's UCTA in that it applies to all contractual clauses and not merely exclusion or indemnity clauses. The Hong Kong UCO was modelled after the Australian Trading Practices Act of 1974 which applied to both small businesses and consumers.
The United States (US) and Germany have also legal provisions that render one-sided contracts with small businesses unenforceable. Article 138 of the German Civil Code, known as BGB, renders a legal transaction, where a person exploiting the counterparty's weakness grants to himself a pecuniary advantage which exceeds the value of performance to such an extent that under the circumstances, the pecuniary advantage is an obvious disproportion to the performance, void. Section 2-302(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code of the US provides that if a court, as a matter of law, finds a sale contract or any clause of a sale contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, amongst other options. This provision has been judicially interpreted to apply outside the arena of sale contracts to lease of chattels, insurance contracts and other areas. Perhaps, Singapore could consider similar legislation.
The current UK position is similar to Singapore’s in that only legislative protection afforded to small business is through the UK UCTA. The main tranches of consumer law, such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which offers the most significant protections, only cover individual consumers. However, there is some sectoral protection of small business customers in the UK by the regulators.
For example, under the 2003 Communications Act, a distinction is drawn between \"domestic and small business customers\" and other customers. Consistent with this, the UK telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, provides such small businesses with the same protection as domestic customers throughout its general conditions. For example, both types of customers are covered by Ofcom rules relating to information to be provided at the point of sale, the ban on automatic rollover contracts and restrictions on misleading or aggressive selling. Each supplier is required to develop and publish a Code of Practice for both individual and small business consumers that should, at a minimum, specify where such customers can avail themselves of necessary information. Access to the Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme is also available for both domestic and small business customers.
Australia has taken a robust approach to protecting small businesses through the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). ACL provides for a national unfair contract terms law covering standard form consumer and small business contracts. ACL provides that a term is unfair when it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, and it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the supplier, and it would cause financial or non-financial detriment to a party. Terms that are determined by a court to be unfair are void.
Additionally, the Competition and Consumer Act and the ACL are administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which may investigate alleged breaches of the Act and take enforcement or compliance action.
Apart from this, certain Australian states have also enacted additional laws for more sectoral-based regulations. For example, in Western Australia, most retail shop leases are regulated by the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreement Act 1985, which does not apply to leases to publicly-listed companies and which regulates commercial tenancy agreements. For example, the Act prohibits the landlord from engaging in conduct that is unconscionable in connection with the lease. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration to determine whether the landlord has contravened this section include the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the landlord and tenant; whether the tenant was required to comply with conditions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the landlord; and whether any unfair tactics were used against the tenant.
Having regard to the approach taken by other countries, I personally prefer that we examine whether there is a need for a general protection approach, such as that provided by the Australian ACL, instead of a sectoral approach.
This would be consistent with instilling principles of fair dealing in corporate cultures, where customers are able to have the confidence that they deal with companies where fair dealing is central to the corporate culture. Such fair dealing guidelines have already been implemented in 2013 by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in the financial industry in Singapore in respect of financial institutions and their customers. It is open for other regulators in Singapore, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority or the Energy Market Authority, to adopt MAS’ practice and require the big players to provide fair dealing outcomes to their customers.
Providing legislative and regulatory protection for small businesses would go a long way to equalising the bargaining positions between small and large businesses and lower the business risks and costs assumed by these small businesses. It will make them more competitive and, hopefully, allow them to make an even bigger contribution to the vibrancy of Singapore's economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
6.59 pm
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon Member has spoken about the imbalance in the bargaining positions of SMEs vis-à-vis bigger players. He has suggested a general protection approach through legislation.
The Government is empathetic to challenges faced by SMEs. The question is how should we approach this issue and what should be the underlying philosophy that underpins our policy and approach?
In Singapore, our underlying philosophy is that, in general, free-market principles should apply and the Government should intervene only when necessary, for example, to address systemic market failures. Even when we do intervene, we try as far as possible to have the right regulatory touch and avoid heavy-handed interventions that could lead to distortion or unintended consequences. This philosophy has ensured that our businesses, big and small, can respond quickly to market signals and adjust their business strategies accordingly. It has led to growth and good outcomes for all. In a competitive business environment, consumers benefit.
In any economy, it is inevitable that there will be competing demands and different interests. The question is how to strike the right balance. Take, for example, the sample clause on the option to renew, which the Member had handed out. From the landlord's perspective, what he wants is certainty. He does not want to be put in a position where the tenant can automatically renew the lease without knowing what the rent is, as that would be unfair to the landlord. The landlord would argue that his clause is fair because his revisions must be pegged to market rate, and the tenant has the choice not to renew and rent elsewhere. So, as Members can see, there are conflicting viewpoints.
Of course, one can legislate to the effect that landlord must have a clause that option to renew will be on the basis of market rate, full-stop. But that may not solve the problem as the tenant and the landlord may disagree on what the market rate is. If they cannot agree, the tenancy will either not be renewed, in which case the tenant will still have to find new premises, which is the same position that the tenant would have been in if he had rejected the landlord's revision under the sample clause; or the tenant can continue with the lease, while both parties litigate the market rate, which will sour the relationship, and likely rule out a further lease beyond the option term, which may not be in the tenant's interest.
Of course, you can then have a clause that says that the option to renew will be on the basis of market rate to be determined by a third-party valuer. Then you will have the question of who should pay for the valuer's fees.
I highlight this not to suggest whether the standard clause produced by Mr Murali Pillai is a good clause or a bad clause, but simply to point out that, in every situation, there will be different views on what is fair, and the answer is not always clearcut. Ideally, the contract should reflect a mutually agreed negotiated position, taking into account the parties' commercial considerations.
Introducing legislation is not without difficulties. Just as in the property market today, there exists a wide spectrum of landlords and tenants with varying bargaining powers, and in differing circumstances. This makes it difficult to determine whether a particular clause is unfair or simply the result of a valid, albeit hard commercial bargain.
In making these judgement calls, the Court may run the risk of substantively altering the bargain struck between two commercial parties, causing uncertainty in the process. In fact, this has been one of the common criticisms of the application of “statutory unconscionability” in Australia.
Enacting such legislation in Singapore can cause market distortion and, eventually, market inefficiency, to the detriment of all. Unintended consequences can arise as well. For example, should the landlords, which this legislation targets, respond by increasing the rental rate to address the added business cost, this might end up hurting SMEs even more in the long run.
However, not having general protection legislation does not mean that there are no safeguards under our laws to protect against injustice. General contractual principles, such as the doctrines of duress, undue influence and unconscionability, apply to all contracts. These doctrines have been applied by the Singapore Courts to prevent a contracting party from being unfairly exploited by the other, when entering into a contract.
In relation to the demolition clause highlighted by the Member, the High Court has held, in the case which the Member referred to, that such a onerous clause will be “usually interpreted very strictly” in favour of the tenant, as the Courts recognise that “premature termination of the lease generally imposes inconvenience, if not hardship, on the tenant”. The outcome of Mr Murali Pillai's aunt's case does, in fact, illustrate how the law, as it currently stands, allows the Court to protect against unscrupulous behaviour.
Fundamentally, the issue, as the Member pointed out, is that of bargaining power. As such, the way forward for SMEs should be to strengthen their bargaining power through growing their businesses, bolstering their negotiating positions with the assistance of business and trade associations, such as SBF, ensuring that they have other options and alternatives while, at the same time, seeking out ways to raise productivity, reduce cost and maximise profits.
The Government has many schemes and programmes which SMEs can leverage to achieve these outcomes. For one, Government landlords like the Housing and Development Board and JTC have sought to ensure that their respective tenancy agreements do not contain onerously one-sided clauses. These are alternative premises for SMEs to consider renting.
SMEs should also consider leveraging Government schemes to build business capabilities, innovate and improve productivity. For example, SMEs can tap on schemes, such as SPRING Singapore's Capability Development Grant, to defray up to 70% of qualifying cost when they embark on projects to develop their capabilities in 10 key areas. In addition, the Government provides near-term support for SMEs to manage their business costs, such as the corporate income tax rebate and Wage Credit Scheme.
These support schemes all work together to assist SMEs in transforming their businesses by uplifting their productivity in developing new capabilities. Therefore, SMEs which do not get the benefit of the savings from property tax in the specific clause mentioned by the Member can, nevertheless, access various schemes which will help their businesses as a whole.
SMEs can also explore whether rental costs can be reduced through new business models. SME retailers, for example, might consider expanding through e-channels beyond the traditional “brick-and-mortar” retail shops. This will reduce the need for physical space and, hence, rental costs and, at the same time, expand their businesses. To strengthen their bargaining position, SMEs can also consider working with their respective trade associations to spearhead discussions with landlords, and leverage the Fair Tenancy Framework to level the playing field for themselves.
We have also launched the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), a collaborative effort between the Government, Trade Associations and Chambers, and industry, to help our businesses transform and grow. SMEs are encouraged to participate in the ITMs so that they can achieve their full potential for growth and profit.
In conclusion, we should be slow to constrain market players unduly through legislation. The best way forward is to promote entrepreneurship and help our SMEs grow bigger and stronger which would improve their relative bargaining positions, individually and collectively.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.08 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":"Avenues for Landed Property Owners to Gain Access to Construct or Treat Adjoining Party Walls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development what avenues are available for owners of landed properties to gain access to construct or treat any adjoining party walls.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Owners of landed properties require their neighbour’s consent if they wish to enter the latter’s property to carry out works on party walls or adjoining fences. Owners who face difficulties in seeking their neighbours' cooperation should first engage Neighbourhood Committees or mediation/dispute resolution channels like the Community Mediation Centre, to try to resolve the issues amicably. Alternatively, landed property owners can check with their consultants or contractors to explore methods of work that do not require access to their neighbours' properties.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) regulates construction with a focus on the structural safety of buildings. If there is reason to suspect that the structural integrity of any building is compromised, including adjoining walls, BCA officers can enter the premises to carry out inspections. If BCA assesses that there are any structural safety concerns, the Commissioner of Building Control can serve a Dangerous Building Order under the Building Control Act requiring the owner to take immediate precautionary measures to remove the danger and carry out permanent rectification work within a specified timeline. Those who fail to comply with the Order may be subject to a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months or both.
Nevertheless, it is preferable for neighbours to try to work things out with each other rather than allowing conditions to deteriorate to such an extent as to pose a danger to both parties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Economic Strategies Committee's Target to Grow Successful Local Enterprises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what is the progress of the Economic Strategies Committee's target set in 2010 to double the number of local enterprises with revenue of over S$100 million to 1,000 enterprises by 2020; and (b) whether this target needs to be reviewed or new indicators be formulated to determine the growth and success of our local enterprises.
Mr S Iswaran: In its 2010 report, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) set an aspirational goal of having 1,000 Singapore enterprises with annual revenues exceeding $100 million by 2020. Notwithstanding a challenging external environment in the intervening period, we have made progress towards this goal. As of 2016, we have around 800 such enterprises, up from around 580 in 2009. With the sustained efforts of our economic agencies to help enterprises scale up and internationalise, we remain on track to achieving the ESC target.
The 2017 Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) affirmed ESC's focus on developing a strong base of globally competitive enterprises to create a vibrant corporate ecosystem in Singapore, grow the external wing of our economy, and create good jobs for Singaporeans. The CFE report highlighted the importance of providing high-growth and promising enterprises with focused support to help them scale up and become global leaders in their respective fields.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry and its agencies, especially Enterprise Singapore, will continue to focus on this initiative and track the number of companies crossing $100 million in revenue as one of the indicators of growth and success of our enterprises, and review the indicators regularly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criticisms of Industry Transformation Roadmaps at Pre-Budget Roundtable","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether the Government agrees with the recent criticisms of the Industry Transformation Maps expressed at a pre-Budget roundtable organised by the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants on 9 January 2018 and how the Government is responding to these criticisms.
Mr S Iswaran: The development and implementation of Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) is one of the strategies recommended by the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) to transform our economy and create opportunities for our people. Each ITM is tailored to the needs of specific industries and brings together all relevant stakeholders, coordinated by a lead Government agency. As we have emphasised from the outset, the transformation of our industries requires the collective effort of the tripartite partners.
In particular, trade associations and chambers (TACs), unions and businesses are actively involved in the Future Economy Council (FEC) and its sub-committees, with a key role in shaping and communicating the ITMs. For example, the Economic Development Board (EDB) has worked closely with its tripartite partners to develop the Aerospace ITM. This included a forum organised by EDB and the Association of Aerospace Industries (Singapore) in April 2017, for the business community to discuss the Aerospace ITM before its launch last month. Separately, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Aerospace and Aviation Cluster consolidated valuable suggestions and feedback from union leaders.
The ITMs aim to help all enterprises in their transformation journey, but especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which may lack the resources and capacity. This includes helping SMEs to raise productivity, develop talent, harness innovation and pursue internationalisation through Government schemes, such as SPRING Singapore's Capability Development Grant and the SMEs Go Digital programme. The formation of Enterprise Singapore will give further impetus to this effort.
However, it is not possible for the Government to reach out directly to each of our over 200,000 enterprises. Hence, TACs and unions must help to propagate the message to their members. Individual workers and business owners must also take the initiative to find out more about the ITMs and how they can benefit from them.
Finally, the ITMs are conceived as dynamic plans that respond to the changing economic environment. The FEC regularly monitors the progress of our ITMs, modifying strategies where necessary in response to new emerging trends. For example, the Hotels ITM was launched in November 2016, but several new initiatives were introduced just one year later in November 2017, including the Smart Hotel Technology Roadmap, to help hotel owners and operators transform their operations through technology adoption.
Ultimately, ITMs are strategic roadmaps that must be owned by all industry stakeholders to sustain the competitiveness of our enterprises and create good jobs for our people in the future economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Regulate Computer or Mobile Games Promoting Gambling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government is actively considering measures to regulate computer or mobile games that may promote elements of gambling.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: There is a wide variety of video games, including those which contain some elements of luck, chance and reward as part of their gameplay. It does not mean they promote gambling. Hence, we have adopted a risk-based approach in regulating these video games.
Under the Remote Gambling Act, video games which allow players to win money or prizes that can be exchanged for money are generally prohibited. These include games which allow players to convert in-game credits to money or merchandise outside the game. Physical copies of these games will be disallowed for distribution. If the games are available online, the Infocomm Media Development Authority will block access to them.
However, regulation is not the only solution. Public education is key to addressing the problem. Organisations, such as Fei Yue Community Services, TOUCH Community Services and Montfort Care, have programmes to help children and youths combat gaming addiction and encourage responsible use of digital technology. They also offer counselling and parental support services. In addition, the Media Literacy Council has developed outreach programmes, such as the Better Internet Campaign and cyber wellness workshops, to reach out to different stakeholders and raise awareness on cyber wellness and the risks of online gaming addiction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Bridge Possible Class Divide in Singapore Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there is a widening class divide amongst the population and, if so, what plans the Ministry has to bridge such gaps.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Minister for Social and Family Development has addressed at length related questions on income inequality, social mobility and social integration. His written reply pointed out the steps taken by the Government in reducing economic disparity and emphasised the importance of social integration, so that we progress together as a people.
On this front, we have been doing well. The recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on Social Capital in Singapore, supported by my Ministry, asked respondents to name different kinds of people who make up their social network. The results are encouraging and show a good deal of social mixing. The study found a fair amount of racial and religious diversity in people's social networks. It noted that respondents and their neighbours helped one another with house matters, while workplace ties were an important source of social companionship, inter-ethnic contact, and inter-nationality ties. Although respondents tended to have social networks that were relatively less diverse in terms of educational status and type of housing, the study also found that respondents were able to name people in occupations ranging from low to medium to high status and prestige. As this study is the first of its kind in Singapore, it can be built upon to track the trend over time.
The IPS study noted that participation in sports, arts and volunteer activities, in addition to schools and workplaces, promotes social interaction and integration across groups. These are areas where the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been working hard at to nurture social cohesion by facilitating shared experiences and strengthening bonds within and across communities. Social harmony is not something we can leave to chance. Over the years, we have introduced initiatives to enhance social mixing on various fronts.
One strategy is to create more opportunities for positive interactions among Singaporeans, regardless of socio-economic background, age or ability. An example is the Secondary 3 Ministry of Education (MOE)-Outward Bound School (OBS) programme launched in 2017 that has so far brought together 6,000 youths from diverse backgrounds for a 5-day camp where they forge new friendships through challenging experiences. We will progressively expand this programme to include the entire Secondary 3 cohort when the new OBS@Coney campus is ready.
Through the arts and sports, our programmes provide opportunities to bridge and integrate communities. Programmes and activities at the ActiveSG Sports Centres, as well as sports initiatives, such as Team Nila, SportCares and ActiveSG programmes, bring people of different backgrounds and abilities together.
Furthermore, SG Cares is forging partnerships across corporates, schools, public agencies, non-profits, community partners and ground-up movements to encourage and support Singaporeans' effort to do good and better help those in need. Through this movement, we are fostering a more caring and cohesive society.
The Government is doing its part to partner Singaporeans to bridge social divides but, ultimately, a strong cohesive community cannot be commanded by the Government. Social trust requires the commitment and effort from each and every one of us to build an inclusive and cohesive society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Locate Training Centres within Industrial Estates for Convenience of Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Ministry will consider introducing joint industry-driven cluster training centres within the vicinity of various industrial estates to add convenience for workers and employers and encourage more employers to send their workers for bite-sized training.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Today, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) already works closely with industry-led training centres set up by trade associations and chambers, as well as key industry players to develop industry-relevant training programmes. These include the SSG-supported productivity-related training programmes rolled out by the Centre for Corporate Learning by the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, as well as training programmes by Singtel Cyber Security Institute that develops skills in areas, such as cyber threat preparedness and crisis management. By and large, these training centres are sited near or within workplaces and accessible to workers.
Apart from such industry-led training centres, a broader range of industry-relevant and modular training opportunities is available at the two Continuing Education and Training (CET) campuses, that is, the Lifelong Learning Institute in Paya Lebar, and the Devan Nair Institute for Employment in Jurong East, both of which house various training providers. The Institutes of Higher Learning and other SSG-appointed CET centres also deliver industry-relevant modular courses at locations all across Singapore, and many of them are near key transport nodes and easily accessible.
SSG will continue to enhance its close collaboration with the industry in CET delivery and expand both the range and availability of training opportunities, so that more individuals and employers can benefit from industry-relevant skills training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of SkillsFuture in Helping Recent and Past University Graduates Gain Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) how successful has the SkillsFuture initiative helped (i) recent university graduates in securing employment that they have stayed in for at least one year, (ii) older university graduates aged at least 35 in 2017 and who had left their jobs or been retrenched to secure employment thereafter, in the same industry they were in and in a different industry respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The employment outcomes for our university graduates have been good. Over the past 10 years, around nine in 10 university graduates who entered the labour market each year found employment within six months after their final examinations. This is achieved by ensuring that university courses are relevant and of good quality and produce graduates with degrees valued by the market. In addition, and also most importantly, we have to ensure that the Singapore economy remains diverse and dynamic.
Under the SkillsFuture movement, our autonomous universities have taken further steps to ensure that graduates identify their strengths and interests, possess the right skills and knowledge to practise their crafts, and achieve mastery through lifelong learning. We have enhanced our Education and Career Guidance system, opened up more educational pathways, and introduced more opportunities for internships and overseas attachments. Students can also use the MySkillsFuture portal to help them make informed education and career choices. We have also launched new SkillsFuture Work-Study Degree Programmes, where Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and industry collaborate to deliver undergraduate courses. The IHLs have also banded together to deliver the SkillsFuture Series of courses to help their graduates keep their skills and knowledge up to date.
We work closely with the Ministry of Manpower and Workforce Singapore to support and assist mature graduates seeking new employment. For example, the Professional Conversion Programmes help professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) undergo training and move into new occupations with good prospects and progression. Workforce Singapore also runs the Career Support Programme to encourage employers to hire experienced, mature PMETs, especially the longer-term unemployed, by providing them with salary support.
As our economy continues to adapt to new challenges, there will be no let-up in our efforts to enhance the opportunities of learning and reskilling that our workers can gain through SkillsFuture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Singaporeans and Foreigners who Contribute to Supplementary Retirement Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Finance (a) in 2017, how many Singaporeans and foreigners contributed to the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) respectively; (b) what is the profile and income bracket of those contributing to SRS; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to review the tax relief provision under SRS.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The \tSupplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) is a supplementary savings scheme for those who wish to save for retirement, in addition to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. SRS also provides an avenue for foreigners, who are not allowed to contribute to CPF, to have a pension plan for retirement.
For Year of Assessment (YA) 2017, a total of 75,700 SRS members contributed to their SRS accounts. Seventy-two thousand and three hundred (96%) were locals while the remaining 3,400 (4%) were foreigners. The SRS members came from all income brackets, with a larger proportion from higher-income brackets. This is a natural result as the SRS is intended to encourage supplementary savings beyond what individuals save in CPF.
We do not currently have plans to revise the tax relief provided under the SRS scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issuance of Government Bonds to Fund Mega Infrastructure Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider issuing Government bonds or project level bonds to finance mega infrastructure projects like Changi Airport Terminal 5 and Tuas Mega Port.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Bond financing by Statutory Boards and Government companies is one way to finance infrastructure projects. We already do this today. For example, Statutory Boards like the Housing Development Board, Land Transport Authority and Public Utilities Board have issued bonds to finance public housing, rail and water infrastructure.
Such borrowings enable the capital cost to be spread out over a longer period, thus better matching the cost with the benefits over the useful life of the asset. But we also need to consider interest costs and ensure that there are adequate future revenue streams from the project to service the debt.
For the major infrastructure projects that are upcoming, the Government will study the extent to which bond financing can be used, bearing in mind the key principle of ensuring fiscal sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Online Platforms that Sell Drugs that Require Doctors' Prescriptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health whether local online marketplace or auction platforms are allowed to sell drugs, such as antibiotics, that require a doctor's prescription and, if disallowed, what the Government is doing to enforce the law.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Prescription-only medicines can only be dispensed from a licensed healthcare institution or retail pharmacy with a valid prescription. Anyone who contravenes this law can be fined up to $50,000 and/or jailed for up to two years under the Health Products Act.
The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) works with local web administrators to educate online sellers on the laws regulating prescription drugs and the consequences of illegally selling prescription drugs online. It also works with the web administrators to remove inappropriate online content advertising such sales.
In the area of enforcement, HSA monitors online sites to detect illegal sales of medicines and takes actions against those who engage in such sales. As the issue extends beyond local sites, HSA also works with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and its overseas counterparts to tackle the illegal sale of medicines.
Finally, HSA has embarked on public education efforts to complement its preventive and enforcement activities. It has issued consumer advisories and press releases to raise public awareness on the dangers of purchasing medicines online. In January 2018, for example, HSA launched an online campaign which included an educational video to highlight the risks of buying from dubious online sources. This video is also being shown by our three public healthcare clusters and three major retail pharmacy chains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations, Prosecutions and Convictions under Prevention of Human Trafficking Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many prosecutions, convictions and investigations have been carried out under the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act and under which categories of trafficking are these carried out.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act came into force on 1 March 2015, the Ministry of Manpower and the Singapore Police Force have received information on and investigated 166 cases of alleged trafficking. Eight were found to be substantiated.
Of the eight cases, five were sex trafficking cases and three were labour trafficking cases. Four of the sex trafficking cases have been concluded with four accused persons convicted. The accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 38 to 80 months and fined up to S$30,000.
The remaining four cases are still undergoing Court proceedings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers Covering Employees' Medication Costs for Outpatient Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower what is the reason for the Employment Act not mandating that medication costs for outpatient treatment be borne by employers.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Employment Act requires employers to provide sick leave to employees after three months of service. To apply for sick leave, the employee must obtain a medical certificate by a Government doctor or a doctor appointed by the employer. To ensure the employee can do so, we, therefore, require the employer to pay for the consultation fees.
Beyond this, there is no requirement for employers to provide additional mandatory medical benefits for their employees. This is so that jobseekers in poorer health or with pre-existing illnesses would not face more hurdles in finding employment. Even so, a Ministry of Manpower survey showed that a vast majority (86%) of employers do offer outpatient benefits on a voluntary basis.
Singaporean low-wage workers who face difficulties in meeting their medication costs can access subsidised outpatient care at Government polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics (SOCs) at public hospitals. In addition, lower- and middle-income Singaporeans on the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) can enjoy even higher subsidies at SOCs. They can also use the CHAS card to access subsidised outpatient medical and dental care at private general practitioners and dental clinics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Workplace Abuse and Harassment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many reports of workplace abuse and harassment have been respectively reported to the Ministry in the past five years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for employers to report all incidents pertaining to workplace abuse and harassment and incorporating this obligation into the Workplace Safety and Health Act.
Mr Lim Swee Say: In the last five years, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received about 1,500 complaints on workplace issues. Among them, six cases were related to allegations of workplace harassment. TAFEP had looked into all the six cases. In four of them, with the employees' consent, we engaged the employer and advised them to take corrective actions. For the two cases where the employees did not wish for TAFEP to engage the employer, we advised the employees on their options. All the six cases were closed after TAFEP had provided advice to the employers or employees.
To protect individuals against harassment, including workplace harassment, the Government introduced the Protection from Harassment Act in 2014. Employees who face workplace harassment should seek help promptly and can report such incidents to the Ministry of Manpower or TAFEP. They can also seek civil remedies directly through the Courts or report egregious cases to the Police.
Employees can also report the matter to their employers if they wish to resolve the matter privately without involving the authorities. Employers are expected to intervene and take necessary actions to address the employees' concerns. Given that there are already multiple avenues for employees who face workplace harassment to seek help, there is no need to legislate mandatory reporting by employers.
To create more awareness among employers and employees, the Singapore National Employers Federation, the National Trades Union Congress and TAFEP conduct regular workshops addressing workplace grievances, including workplace harassment. Employers are also reminded of their obligations to prevent and manage workplace harassment through the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. The tripartite partners will monitor the workplace harassment situation closely and make further interventions if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mitigating Waterfall Effect Due to Roof Structures on Sheltered Walkways outside Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development regarding the roof structures on sheltered walkways outside buildings, whether the Ministry will consider redesigning these structures to mitigate the waterfall effect created on both sides during heavy rain and strong winds.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sheltered walkways are intended to provide cover against elements, such as sun and rain, while allowing natural light and ventilation. The design of such walkways takes into consideration both functionality and ease of maintenance.
For example, in Housing and Development Board (HDB) developments, the design of the sheltered walkways takes into consideration the effective width to height ratio of the walkways, and whether there are sufficient roof overhangs, appropriate roof slopes and proper alignment of the roof eave to drains. Through effective design, users are adequately protected from the weather.
To minimise the need for maintenance, HDB's sheltered walkways are designed to be self-cleansing and for rainwater to drain off directly from the roof wherever possible. The design avoids the use of roof gutters which would trap leaves and other debris, thus requiring regular cleaning and maintenance to avoid any blockage and water stagnation that could lead to mosquito breeding.
In recent years, sheltered walkways built by HDB and the Land Transport Authority also have roof designs such that they are sloped to one side, so that discharge of water during heavy rain only occurs on the side where pedestrians are less expected to cross. The relevant agencies will take in the Member's feedback and will continue to study how the design of our infrastructure can be improved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Institutions that Qualify for Tapping on Child Development Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how assessment is made to determine which education, healthcare or service provider is included in the list of approved institutions for the use of the Child Development Account (CDA); and (b) whether there are any plans to expand the categories of usage and/or the list of approved institutions.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Child Development Account (CDA) is part of the Government's Baby Bonus scheme, which supports parents by defraying part of the costs of raising children. CDA funds are intended to support the developmental needs of children, such as for preschool and healthcare. To participate as a Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-approved Baby Bonus Approved Institution, the education, healthcare or service provider must be licensed or registered by its respective governing body. For example, childcare centres must be licensed by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) under the Child Care Centres Act, while clinics must be licensed by the Ministry of Health under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act.
This helps to ensure that the services and products offered by the Approved Institution (AI) meet regulatory standards, which include proper administration and quality checks. MSF may revoke the approval granted to any institution if it is no longer in the public interest for it to participate as an AI.
The Government regularly reviews the CDA scheme. In July 2012, the approved uses of the CDA were expanded to cover healthcare items at pharmacies, eye-related products and services at optical shops, assistive technology devices and education expenses, such as the purchase of uniforms and preschool registration fees. We welcome more eligible providers to participate as an AI, to help defray the cost of parenthood and make Singapore a great place for families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designation of Lead Agency to Deal with Complex Cases of Children with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether his Ministry will designate a lead agency to manage complex cases of children with special needs from dysfunctional families who present serious behavioural issues impacting on them, their family members and their neighbourhood.
Mr Desmond Lee: Families may find it challenging to cope with behavioural issues in their children with special needs, especially when the parents are not equipped with the knowledge to support them. This is compounded when these families face other stressors, such as financial and marital problems.
Supporting these families with complex needs requires multi-agency collaboration that would include schools, disability agencies and other community partners. Family Service Centres, as key case management agencies in the community, take the lead in ensuring that each agency plays their part to provide timely and holistic support for these families. For complex cases, the Social Service Offices (SSOs) can help marshal these partners to develop a plan of action together and facilitate information sharing to address the needs of the family and the child effectively.
Children with special needs attending early intervention services, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Development Support (DS) Programme and Special Education (SPED) schools, have social workers and psychologists in these programmes who also provide support to caregivers in addition to rendering intervention and educational services to the children. These programmes also have peer support groups to assist caregivers who are facing challenges with their children with special needs. Caregivers can also enhance their care skills through appropriate training that is offered by our disability service providers. These trainings are made affordable for caregivers with the support of the Caregivers' Training Grant available through the Agency for Integrated Care.
In addition to this network of support, caregivers of persons with disabilities can contact SG Enable, who will connect them to relevant services. Caregivers are a key focus under the Third Enabling Masterplan, and the Government is working with social service providers to enhance the ecosystem of support for caregivers in enabling their well-being.
Complex and deep-seated issues require changes in parents' mindsets, and managing of their emotions, for them to take ownership and be a partner in the interventions. The Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to study ways of improving social service coordination and delivery across the Government, people and private sectors. It will take a concerted effort by all parties involved to intervene and journey with the families for a period of time to make progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Volunteers who are Abused on The Job","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what the current number of active individuals in the Community Volunteer Programme is; (b) what support is given to them should they be verbally or physically abused by members of the public while carrying out their duties; and (c) whether NEA can equip these volunteers with body cameras to record their interactions with the public.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) launched the Community Volunteer (CV) programme in 2013 to foster greater ownership of the environment. There are currently about 350 active individuals in the CV programme.
The primary role of CVs is to educate environmental offenders to stop the offending acts and encourage greater ownership of the environment. To enable the CVs to perform their role more effectively, they are empowered to request the particulars of offenders who fail to heed their advice. The particulars are sent to NEA for follow-up action. Given that the vast majority of the offenders had responded positively to the advice of CVs, such as by picking up their litter and no further action was taken against them, there are currently no plans to equip CVs with body-worn cameras. Nevertheless, the CVs are trained to disengage from any abusive offenders.
Under the law, our CVs are considered public servants when exercising powers of enforcement. This makes it an offence for anyone to exhibit any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards a CV in the execution of his duty. It is also an offence for anyone to assault or use criminal force to prevent or deter a CV from discharging his duty. CVs who face verbal or physical abuse in the course of their duty should seek the assistance of the Police and inform NEA of the incident.
Depending on the outcome of NEA's investigations, NEA may charge the offender in Court for obstruction of duty, in addition to the principal offence, to send a deterrent message that such behaviour will not be condoned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for More Bus Stops with Cantilever Shelters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what the current percentage of bus stops with cantilever shelters is; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider constructing more of such bus stops to protect passengers boarding and alighting from the buses during raining periods.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Out of a total of 4,900 bus stops in Singapore, there are currently 74 which have cantilever shelters. It is not cost effective to build all bus stops with such shelters and we have given priority to bus stops which are heavily used, especially those connected to Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. More than a quarter of the bus stops at MRT stations have cantilever shelters. Where space permits, more such shelters will be built for heavily utilised bus stops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation Costs of Workplace Safety Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry considers the cost of implementing various workplace safety practices when introducing them and whether there is a reasonable cost threshold beyond which the proposed practice is deemed too costly or impracticable.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA) generally adopts a non-prescriptive approach. In most circumstances, we do not spell out specific safety measures but allow companies the flexibility to adopt suitable methods according to their business needs to ensure safe workplaces.
For hazardous sectors and high-risk activities, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does stipulate prescriptive WSH measures for the relevant industries. This is to ensure that companies operating in dangerous environments adopt proper WSH measures as any incident can have serious consequences on their workers. In formulating such measures, we do not set cost thresholds, but consult with industry and trade associations to arrive at measures that are of reasonable cost and practical to implement.
We are cognisant of the cost implications to businesses when requiring them to provide a safe and healthy workplace. In this regard, the WSH Council has developed a wide range of WSH programmes and resources to assist companies. While cost of implementing WSH measures is unavoidable, companies need to recognise that any workplace accident can result in greater business losses and immeasurable human suffering to the victims and their families. Hence, WSH measures should be seen as investments rather than costs.
Companies have the moral and legal responsibilities to ensure the safety and health of their workers. MOM and WSH Council will continue to work with the tripartite partners and industry stakeholders to help our companies improve their workplace safety and health standards in reasonably practicable ways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tailgating Detection System at Car Parks to Detect Motorcyclists who Avoid Payment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Tailgating Detection System (TDS) will be able to detect motorcycles where the motorcyclists ride on the pavement to avoid paying parking charges; and (b) whether the video recording function of the system can be enhanced to ensure the safety of pedestrians, including strollers and those on wheelchairs, who encounter such motorcyclists.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Tailgating Detection System's (TDS') primary function is to detect motorcyclists who evade parking charges by tailgating other vehicles. The TDS is also able to detect motorcyclists who bypass the car park gantries by riding on the pavements flanking the Electronic Parking System gantries.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) will take enforcement action against motorcyclists who are detected by the TDS. This serves as a deterrent against such errant behaviour and, in turn, enhances the safety of pedestrians. As TDS was only recently introduced for HDB car parks, HDB will monitor its effectiveness against such motorcyclists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Programmes to Guard against Problem Gambling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what the number of Singaporeans who have been subject to Casino Exclusion Orders over the past five years is; (b) whether programmes in place to guard against problem gambling are adequate; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to increase the casino entry levy of $100 for Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are three types of Casino Exclusion, namely, (a) Voluntary Self-Exclusion, (b) Family Exclusion, and (c) Automatic Exclusion for Singapore residents who are bankrupts, receiving financial assistance from the Government, receiving legal aid, or residing in Housing and Development Board rental flats with rental arrears. As at 31 December 2017, approximately 24,000 Singapore residents are under Voluntary Self-Exclusion. Some 2,200 had Family Exclusion Orders and 44,000 had Automatic Exclusion Orders imposed on them. These numbers have remained stable over the last five years.
We have put in place a robust and comprehensive set of social safeguards to combat problem gambling. This includes casino entry levies, exclusion and visit limits, not permitting credit for Singapore residents who are not premium players, age restrictions, as well as advertising and promotions restrictions. Additionally, there are ongoing public education programmes to raise awareness of gambling disorders.
The various social safeguards have helped to minimise the social ills of casino gambling. The latest published Gambling Participation Survey in 2014 showed that the overall probable pathological and problem gambling rates among Singapore residents was 0.7%. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these social safeguards, work closely with our community partners who are helping to tackle gambling addiction, and make changes when necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closing the Gap between Last Step on Buses and Pedestrian Curb","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider requiring all buses to be fitted with steps that are lower or can be lowered so that the distance between the last step and the bus stop kerb can be closer for the safety of alighting commuters.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: For the safety of commuters, our public buses have low floors with a maximum height of 32 centimetres above the ground. To ease boarding and alighting, our bus captains are trained to pull up within half a metre of the kerb, and to ensure commuters have boarded or alighted safely before moving off.
The Land Transport Authority has been exploring the installation of bus steps which can be lowered but has yet to come across a system that can ensure the safe movement of commuters on and off the bus when passenger flow is heavy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Number of Heavy Vehicle along Fort Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are any plans to manage the large number of heavy vehicles travelling along Fort Road; and (b) what are the measures to improve safety for other road users on this road.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Most of the heavy vehicles plying along Fort Road are going to and from the construction sites for the Thomson-East Coast Line and the Marina East Staging Ground, where excavated materials are transferred to barges for reuse or disposal at offshore sites.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) works closely with the developers and contractors to develop localised traffic control plans to improve safety and minimise inconvenience to other road users. These plans include managing the time and route of the heavy vehicles to avoid peak hour traffic and residential areas where possible. There are signs to alert motorists to slow down and watch out for heavy vehicles. There is regular monitoring to ensure that heavy vehicles adhere to the control plans. In addition, LTA has also installed surveillance cameras at Fort Road to monitor the traffic situation and deploy enforcement officers when necessary.
LTA will continue to engage the residents, grassroots leaders and community advisors in the area to gather feedback and apprise them of the traffic situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cutting Inefficiency across Ministries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister (a) what key projects are being carried out to cut inefficiency across Ministries; and (b) whether the Smart Nation office has a timeframe for getting interagency work to be reduced in time and effort by using technology.
Mr Ong Ye Kung (for the Prime Minister): Since the 1980s, the Government has been using automation technology to do our work more efficiently and serve Singaporeans better. Our national libraries use radio-frequency identification tags to track the borrowing, return and sorting of books, and provide access to a wide range of e-resources online; checkpoints at Woodlands and Tuas have automated capabilities to clear motorcyclists and pillion riders; and our hospitals use automated medication dispensing systems.
As digital technology advances, more opportunities will arise for our agencies to re-engineer processes, streamline workflows and serve the public better.
One important task of many agencies is to respond to public feedback and queries. They can be voluminous. We want to address simple queries quickly, while paying more attention to difficult cases. To help us do this, we have deployed chatbots to handle calls and queries from the public. We are also using Natural Language Processing to spot patterns in feedback and make upstream process changes. For example, the Government Technology Agency ran textual analysis on feedback emails sent by the public to the Housing and Development Board (HDB). This generated the insight that key collection was a major issue. As a result, HDB changed its key collection process from assigning dates to home owners to allowing them to select a date to collect their keys.
Digital technology also enables the integration of Government functions across agencies. The OneService App allows citizens to report municipal issues involving multiple agencies on a single portal, without having to access individual agencies’ websites and call centres. But the app is just the front end. It needs to be accompanied by policy and process changes in order for efficiencies to be reaped and services to the citizen improved. We are taking a similar approach to build citizen-centric services around \"Moments of Life\" (MoL), delivering relevant Government digital services to individuals based on specific moments in their lives, such as the birth of a child. The first phase of the MoL app, centered around parents with young children, will be rolled out by mid-2018. We are also exploring other life moments to cluster services around and will provide more information on this in due course.
The Government is fully committed to using digital technology and continually improving our processes and workflows to serve the public better. This is an ongoing effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Different Fee Scale for Students with at least One Singapore Citizen Parent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry can consider having a different fee scale for non-citizen students whose parents are also non-citizens vis-a-vis non-citizen students where at least one parent is a Singapore Citizen.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Students in schools pay fees based on their citizenship, with Singapore Citizen (SC) students paying the lowest fee rate, followed by Singapore Permanent Resident, and International Students paying the highest fees.
For non-citizen students with at least one SC parent who need help with paying their fees, they can approach their schools for assistance, and the Ministry of Education will assess their situation and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students with Dyslexia in Mainstream Schools and Exemption from Taking Mother Tongue Language as Compulsory Subject","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) from 2010 to 2016, how many students have been diagnosed with dyslexia before formal schooling age; (b) what percentage of these students continue to be educated in mainstream schools; and (c) what are the factors taken into consideration when deciding whether to exempt students with dyslexia from taking a second language as a subject.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Dyslexia is characterised by difficulties in learning how to read despite adequate language exposure and good reading instruction. It is, therefore, more commonly diagnosed after the child has started formal schooling and has received sufficient reading instruction in the primary school. In our multilingual society, children grow up in varied home-language environments. Children who appear to have initial difficulties reading in the preschool years may catch up with their peers as they mature and receive greater exposure when they start primary education where literacy support programmes are available. Many preschools thus focus on providing a language- and print-rich environment to prepare the child for formal reading instruction in Primary 1.
All children with dyslexia are in mainstream schools and will receive additional literacy support if necessary. Exceptions are made for children with dyslexia who have additional co-occurring conditions, for example, Autism Spectrum Disorder, cerebral palsy, as they are better supported in Special Education Schools.
Students with certified Special Educational Needs (SEN), including dyslexia, may be considered for exemption from Mother Tongue Language (MTL) if their SEN severely affects their ability to cope with MTL and with overall learning. In evaluating such applications, the Ministry of Education takes into account not just their diagnosed SEN but also how these students are managing in their learning and responding in the classroom.
Students who have difficulties coping with the standard MTL curriculum can consider the option of offering MTL at a lower level. The Foundation MTL curriculum offered at Primary 5 and Primary 6, and the MTL \"B\" curriculum offered at secondary and junior college levels focus on the development of oral and listening skills, with a much reduced demand on writing skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formation of Home Team Career Transition Office in Helping Retired Officers Find New Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the formation of the Home Team Career Transition Office (a) what is the percentage of retired officers who are assisted in finding new employment; (b) how has the Ministry developed new ways to prepare retiring officers for new careers; and (c) whether the Ministry is working with the Public Service Division to redeploy such officers within the Civil Service.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) set up the Career Transition Office (CTO) for Home Team officers in April 2016.
CTO will seek to help retiring officers. Some officers will be suitable to be re-employed within the Home Team, depending on the nature of their work, and manpower needs. CTO will also help the other retiring officers. This will include assisting them in finding new employment. MHA has now set up a structured framework for this. The retiring officers will be engaged early to consider their options. A number of initiatives have been launched.
(a) We give officers days off to attend courses to learn new skills to enhance their employability after retirement, and provide subsidies to defray the cost of such courses;
(b) we organise workshops to help officers identify the occupations that would suit them, and to guide them on reskilling or upskilling to improve their employment prospects;
(c) we have begun a secondment and job attachment programme to help officers transit into their post-retirement career. Officers may apply for secondment to another public agency or to take up a job attachment in a private sector company prior to their retirement, to try out potential job opportunities. This will help both the officer and the prospective employer assess the fit before formal employment. During this period of secondment or job attachment, which can extend up to three months, officers would continue to receive their salaries from their Home Team departments; and
(d) we also organise networking sessions with prospective employers for our retiring officers. Since this initiative started in the middle of last year, we have organised three such sessions, attended by about 50 officers at each session.
We also actively engage private sector companies and public sector agencies to source for suitable job opportunities for our officers. In 2017, CTO publicised more than 150 job openings in sectors, such as engineering, logistics and private security, to retiring Home Team officers. Officers are also encouraged to use the internal job portal developed by the Public Service Division to explore job opportunities in the Public Service.
The Ministry is committed to assisting retiring officers, as the steps set out above, show.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Abandoned Dogs Following Year of Dog in Chinese Lunar Calendar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry monitors the number of abandoned dogs each year; (b) whether historically, the abandonment rates are higher in the Lunar Year of the Dog and the subsequent year; (c) whether there are plans to work with animal welfare groups to reinforce the message of responsible adoption and pet ownership in view of the upcoming Lunar Year of the Dog; and (d) whether there are plans to work with these groups to deal with any hikes in abandonment numbers to ensure the welfare of the dogs, public health and safety.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) started tracking dog abandonment data since 2015 and does not have data from the previous Lunar Year of the Dog in 2006. But we understand from anecdotal feedback that some Animal Welfare Groups, or AWGs, observed an increased in the number of dogs taken into their shelters shortly after 2006.
Hence, AVA is stepping up its outreach efforts with AWGs and industry partners to promote responsible adoption and pet ownership. The key message is not to acquire pets on impulse, as keeping them is a lifelong commitment. This year, AVA is working on a social media campaign to promote responsible ownership and to encourage potential dog owners to consider adoption first. AVA will also continue to work with AWGs, schools and other partners to organise road shows, adoption drives, school talks and community events to create awareness about animal welfare and responsible pet ownership.
Aside from public outreach, AVA has tightened the dog licensing regime as an upstream measure to deter abandonment. As of 1 March 2017, all dogs have to be licensed to the new owner at the point of sale or adoption. This improves traceability and ensures that owners can be held accountable for their pet dogs.
Pet abandonment is an offence under the Animals and Birds Act. First-time offenders can be fined up to $10,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months. Last year, AVA successfully prosecuted eight cases of pet abandonment. AVA will continue to monitor the situation closely and carry out enforcement actions where required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Development of Retirement Villages in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government has studied different retirement village models; (b) whether any of these are suitable for the ageing cohorts in the next decade; and (c) how land development and zoning regulations can be adjusted to promote the building of retirement villages.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of National Development have studied retirement village models, including those in Western countries like Australia and the United States, and in Asia like Hong Kong and Japan.
However, we cannot simply transplant these overseas models and will have to adapt them to Singapore’s context and needs. In particular, during our earlier public consultations for the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, many of our seniors had expressed a strong preference to age in place, in the communities where they live.
Hence, the Government has been designing public housing developments that can provide care and support for our seniors within the community. Over the years, we have been placing more eldercare facilities, such as Senior Activity and Senior Care Centres, in our Housing and Development Board estates. We have taken this one step further with Kampung Admiralty, where senior residents can access a continuum of social and health services at the Active Ageing Hub to support them as their needs evolve. These include active ageing programmes, assisted living services, such as housekeeping and grocery delivery, for seniors requiring assistance with their daily activities, and rehabilitation, home medical care and home nursing for seniors who require more care. Residents at Kampung Admiralty also have amenities, such as a supermarket, hawker centre and medical centre, all within walking distance.
To expand the range of housing options available to seniors, the Government is studying measures to facilitate private housing projects which support the needs of seniors. For example, we are reviewing our Development Control guidelines to provide more clarity on retirement housing developments.
We will continue to explore more new models in both public and private housing in consultation with our community partners and the real estate industry. We will share more information on these plans when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety and Privacy of Data on Third-party Booking Apps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the LTA has regulatory enforcement powers to ensure that third-party booking apps, such as Grab and Uber, are required to share timely information, such as safety and condition of their vehicles fleet; (b) how personal particulars of commuters and drivers are protected; and (c) what preventive measures are in place to ensure that the safety and data of both commuters and drivers are not compromised.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We currently do not require private hire car (PHC) booking service operators and third-party taxi booking apps to submit information on the safety and condition of their vehicles fleet. However, under the Road Traffic Act, these operators are required to despatch licensed and properly insured vehicles. If there are three or more violations of these regulations within a rolling period of 12 months, the Land Transport Authority may issue a general suspension order that bars all PHC drivers affiliated with a particular PHC booking service operator from driving for that operator.
To protect the data privacy of commuters and drivers, private hire car booking service operators operating in Singapore must comply with the Personal Data Protection Act, or PDPA. Under PDPA, organisations are required to put in place reasonable security arrangements to protect personal data in their possession or under their control in order to prevent unauthorised access, use or disclosure. Organisations which are found in breach of PDPA can be liable for a financial penalty of up to $1 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Promotion of Dialects on Learning of Mandarin","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how has the promotion of dialects helped improve the learning of Mandarin among students so far; and (b) whether the Ministry has done any study to monitor improvements in grades for students taking Mandarin.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Schools do not promote the use of dialects. Our bilingual policy has enabled a growing proportion of Singaporeans to be proficient in English and their Mother Tongue language. With our Chinese language students in schools, our focus is on helping them to learn Mandarin to as high a level as their interests and ability take them. As dialects have differing vocabulary and grammar structure from Mandarin, the learning of dialects may not necessarily ease the learning of Mandarin among students.
The Ministry of Education monitors the performance of students at national examinations closely to assess their level of mastery of the different disciplines. The results of students taking Chinese Language at major examinations have shown a stable trend. Over the past five years, the passing rate of Chinese Language at GCE \"O\" level has maintained at about 97%, while the distinction rate has held steady at about 40%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Selected HDB Flats for Lift Upgrading Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will review the Lift Upgrading Programme for units that do not have lifts serving them, particularly for (i) those that are technically feasible but are not eligible due to the funding cap (ii) flats approaching 28 years and existing lifts need to be replaced; (b) how many and what proportion of the total ineligible households are these categories; and (c) how many affected households has the HDB helped to move out of their homes owing to mobility issues in the past five years and what proportion of affected households does this represent.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and the less mobile. At the start of the programme, there were more than 5,300 HDB blocks without 100% lift access. Among them, more than 1,000 blocks were initially found to be unfeasible for LUP due to prohibitive cost or technical constraints.
Over the years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has adopted innovative technical solutions, such as lifts that do not have a machine room at the top of the shafts, that is, machine room-less lifts, and the use of smaller \"home lifts\" to help such blocks to have direct lift access. Through these efforts, the vast majority of the 5,300 blocks are now able to benefit from LUP. There remain only about 150 blocks where it is still not possible to implement LUP due to prohibitive cost, or existing technical or site constraints. On a flat basis, less than 1% of our sold flats do not have direct lift access.
Residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability may approach HDB for housing and financing assistance. They have to submit relevant documents, such as the doctor's certification of their medical condition. Over the past five years, HDB has received 23 such appeals, and has acceded to 22% of them. HDB will continue to assess such requests on a case-by-case basis and see how best to render help.
The Member also asked whether blocks with lifts approaching 28 years of age could be granted LUP. I would like to clarify that LUP is not intended to assist Town Councils with their statutory duty to carry out renewal or replacement of common property, such as lifts. We have already introduced initiatives, such as the Lift Replacement Fund and Lift Maintenance Grants, for this purpose.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Flats Eligible for Home Improvement Programme but Not Approved for Programme Yet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development what are the number and percentage of flats that are built up to 1986 and eligible for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) but have not been approved for the programme yet; and (b) what is the timeline set to complete HIP for this batch of flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with more than 300,000 eligible flats.
The Housing and Development Board has received nominations for the remaining 74,000 HIP-eligible flats and is working to complete the selection exercise by the first half of 2018. This constitutes approximately 23% of the flats eligible for HIP when it was introduced in 2007.
In general, a typical HIP project takes about two to three years to complete after announcement. Nonetheless, the time taken differs from project to project due to site-specific issues and conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Decision on Cryptocurrency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister in light that cryptocurrency trading via exchanges is banned in China and soon to be banned in South Korea (a) what Singapore's stand on the possibility of a similar ban here is; and (b) how the Ministry is dealing with the possibility of the use of cryptocurrency to escape taxation and other money laundering activities.
77 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Prime Minister whether any action is being considered to ban the trading of bitcoin currency or cryptocurrency and what measures will be taken to protect consumers against making losses from investing in unregulated currency.
78 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) whether plans are in the pipeline to further educate investors on the risks of investing in cryptocurrency; (b) whether assessments are done on how a collapse of the cryptocurrency market can affect Singapore; (c) what measures the Ministry has to deal with any such collapse; and (d) whether there are plans to reconsider the setup of a regulatory framework.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Cryptocurrencies are an experiment. The number and different forms of cryptocurrencies are growing internationally. It is too early to say if they will succeed. If some do succeed, their full implications will also not be known for some time.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been closely studying these developments and the potential risks they pose. As of now, there is no strong case to ban cryptocurrency trading here. But we will be subjecting those involved as intermediaries to our anti-money laundering regulations. And we will keep highlighting to Singaporeans that they could lose their shirts when they invest money in cryptocurrencies.
There are two main uses of cryptocurrencies today. The first is as a means of payment. The second, which has become far more prominent, is where cryptocurrencies are assets in their own right. People are trading in them in the hope of making a profit.
In both these uses, the underlying technologies, in the form of blockchains or distributed ledgers, may prove to have potentially useful applications in facilitating payments and trade settlements. MAS has, for this reason, been involved in and encouraging a number of blockchain experiments with the financial industry.
However, there are significant risks in the use of cryptocurrencies. There is a clear risk of money laundering. And there is a clear risk that people will lose a lot of their money by investing in cryptocurrencies. We are addressing both these risks.
First, money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Cryptocurrency transactions are anonymous. Given also the decentralised systems behind cryptocurrency payments, and the speed at which they can be performed, they can be used to conceal the illicit movement of funds. In fact, today, a significant portion of bitcoin transactions globally is suspected to be for illicit purposes.
MAS will be imposing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements on the intermediaries that buy, sell or exchange virtual currencies. We set out this AML/CFT regulatory framework for virtual currency intermediaries last year as part of our public consultation on the proposed Payment Services Bill.
In the meantime, there are general safeguards that are in place against AML/CFT risks. Our enforcement agencies are on the lookout for illegal activities related to cryptocurrency trading. Everyone is required under the law to report suspicious transactions which they come across in the course of their trade, profession, business or employment to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) in the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). All suspicious transaction reports, including those involving cryptocurrencies and digital tokens which are commonly known as initial coin offerings, are analysed by STRO. Where there are indications of an offence, STRO will refer the matter to the enforcement agencies, such as the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for possible tax crimes, and the CAD for possible money laundering.
The second priority is to help people be aware of the risks of putting their money in cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoins, are a very high-risk investment, subject to sharp swings in prices driven by speculation. They are also mainly traded on opaque markets, with no regulatory protection for investors.
The big fall in bitcoin prices in recent weeks illustrates the risk. But people must also beware of the marketing pitch by operators encouraging them to put more money into cryptocurrencies when prices fall, in the hope of making money if prices surge again. It is, in fact, an inherently unstable, high-risk game.
MAS has issued advisories to warn members of the public of the risks of investing in cryptocurrencies. We will continue to work with the media to highlight these risks. When dealing with entities located outside Singapore, there is also greater risk of fraud, as it is more difficult to verify their authenticity or credibility.
For now, the nature and scale of cryptocurrency trading in Singapore does not pose risks to the safety and integrity of our financial system. Its use in making payments is small, and trading volumes of cryptocurrencies in Singapore are also not high – they are much smaller than in countries like the United States (US), Japan and South Korea. Further, connections between cryptocurrency trading and Singapore’s financial system are also not significant at present. Singapore’s banking system does not have any significant exposure to global and local entities dealing in cryptocurrencies. We, hence, do not have broader, systemic risk concerns with regard to cryptocurrencies.
That said, the cryptocurrency space is rapidly changing and regulatory thinking internationally is still evolving, including in the US, the United Kingdom and Europe. MAS is watching these developments closely and is part of the regulatory discussions internationally on how the risks posed by cryptocurrencies are best addressed.
We will continue to encourage experiments in the blockchain space that may involve the use of cryptocurrencies, because some of these innovations could turn out to be economically or socially useful. But equally, we will stay alert to new risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Setting up of Inter-Ministerial Committee to Look into Better Integration of All Social Classes in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister whether an inter-Ministerial committee can be set up to look into better integration of all social classes in Singapore.
2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the income gap between different income groups has widened in the past 10 years; and (b) whether there are any plans by Government to continue to ensure the income gap between different income groups will not cause social divide and ensure social harmony and social mobility for Singaporeans.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: We must keep Singaporeans together. Maintaining social harmony is very much at the top of the Government’s priorities. There are three aspects of this issue: income inequality, social mobility and social integration. They are interrelated.
Over the last half century, income inequality has increased in almost all developed economies, including Singapore. The problem is most acute in large cities, for they tend to be where a country’s wealth is created and concentrated. Singapore is both a city and a country. Our Gini coefficient is higher than that of many other advanced countries. But it is similar to or lower than other large metropolitan centres, such as Beijing, Shanghai, London, New York and San Francisco.
Despite the longer-term trend of growing inequality, over the last 10 years, income inequality in Singapore has declined slightly. The Gini coefficient has fallen from 0.470 in 2006 to 0.458 in 2016. After we account for Government taxes and transfers, the 2016 figure was even lower at 0.402. And unlike in many developed countries, the real per capita household income of the lowest quintile increased by 40% over the same period, keeping pace with the median household.
As globalisation and technological disruption have widened income inequality, the Government has, over the years, intervened more aggressively to support the less well-off. In the long term, quality education, home ownership and affordable healthcare are the fundamental means by which our citizens, especially those from poorer backgrounds, can improve their lives. In addition, we have many targeted, means-tested assistance schemes which provide transfers and subsidies to lower-income groups. For example, the Workfare Income Supplement scheme tops up their cash earnings and Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts and helps them build up their retirement savings.
Over the years, we have made significant changes to our system to fund this increase in social expenditure – from the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1994 to the increased reliance on Net Investment Return Contributions (NIRC) as a source of revenue. NIRC is now our largest revenue source, exceeding any single tax, including GST. But though we have far more extensive social safety nets now than we did in the 1970s and 1980s, it is important to strike the right balance: providing sufficient transfers to support those who need extra help so that they can help themselves, but without diminishing their incentive to work or discouraging enterprise.
The second aspect of this is social mobility. Some degree of income inequality is natural in any economy. It gives people the motivation to strive to do their best and improve their lives. But in a fair and just society, this inequality must be tempered and complemented by social mobility. Every citizen, no matter what his social background is, must have the opportunity to do better and move up in society, based on his efforts and talent. Nobody should feel that his social position is fixed based on his parents’ income level or position in life.
Many Government policies are directed at improving social mobility and countering the tendency of a mature society to stratify. Education is a critical plank of the Government’s efforts. We have made major investments in our preschools and school system to ensure that every child has access to quality education and a good start in life, regardless of income. The Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) Financial Assistance Scheme, and substantial bursaries and subsidies, make quality education affordable to all. There are countless examples of children from low-income families who have risen to the top in the professions, academia, Government and the private sector with the support of these schemes. New programmes, like KidSTART, will further strengthen the support system for children from lower-income and vulnerable families. We are also investing in our people through SkillsFuture to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to improve themselves and their prospects throughout their lives.
Because of these measures, our social mobility is good, compared to other countries. One study, looking at the proportion of children from the 20% of households with the lowest incomes who do well in life and later reach the 20% of households with the highest incomes, found a higher proportion in Singapore making this transition than in the United States or Denmark. We must not and will not let up on maintaining social mobility, because it will get harder to narrow and bridge class divisions as our society matures.
The third aspect is social integration. We want Singaporeans to feel that we are one society; that we share experiences, values and outlooks; that we identify with and care for one another; and that we are united and will fight together in the face of adversity. Moderating income inequality and ensuring social mobility will help to strengthen our cohesion. In Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious context, we have to do even more to reinforce our shared values and actively create opportunities for interaction and integration both across different social classes and among different races and religions. Only by living, working, studying, serving, playing, mourning and celebrating together do we become one people, one nation.
In Singapore, we are deliberate and proactive in our approach on social integration. The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth has responded in a separate reply on our measures to promote social mixing and integration. In particular, our urban planning and public housing policies have enabled ethnic and social integration, and distributed access to good schools, healthcare, parks and recreation across the island. We design shared spaces within our neighbourhoods, such as the playgrounds and parks, shopping malls and hawker centres, and sports facilities, in order to maximise social interactions. Hawker centres are a uniquely Singaporean institution where people of all backgrounds mingle and enjoy good, affordable hawker fare. We have a good mix of flat types in each Housing and Development Board (HDB) neighbourhood. The People’s Association (PA) organises all sorts of activities in our neighbourhoods and precincts, bringing together people from all walks of life. In National Service, Singaporeans train and serve together in the defence of our nation, strengthening our national identity and fostering cohesiveness.
The issues of mitigating income inequality, ensuring social mobility and enhancing social integration are critical. If we fail – if widening income inequalities result in a rigid and stratified social system, with each class ignoring the others or pursuing its interests at the expense of others – our politics will turn vicious, our society will fracture and our nation will wither. This is why this Government will strive to keep all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion or social background, together.
There is already a concerted and coordinated effort among Government Ministries to tackle these challenges together in various fora. It is, therefore, not necessary to set up a specific inter-Ministerial committee to look into these issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Supplementary Retirement Scheme Monies for Purchase of Singapore Savings Bonds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister whether the Government can review and allow the use of Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) monies for the purchase of Singapore Savings Bonds.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singapore Savings Bonds (SSBs) were introduced to provide Singaporeans with a safe and flexible way to invest for the long term. For those wanting a low-risk retirement savings instrument, SSBs are a good alternative to cash held in savings accounts. As of 1 February 2018, more than 55,000 individuals hold over $1.8 billion of SSBs.
Given the objectives of SSBs, we intend to allow the use of Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) monies for the purchase of these bonds. It will enhance the range of low-cost products available on the SRS platform. However, the allocation mechanism for SSBs will continue to ensure that small savers amongst the public get preference in the event of over-subscription.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore is making information technology system changes to bring this about and will make an announcement when it is ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Cashless Transactions Originating in Singapore are Encrypted and Secure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the measures in place to ensure all cashless transactions originating in Singapore are encrypted and secure; and (b) what are the contingency plans in place in the event of network breakdowns and power failures.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) takes seriously the security of electronic payment transactions. Encryption is one of the safeguards against cyber threats and fraud concerning e-payments, but not the only one needed. The specific measures that payment service providers must put in place depend on the risks associated with different e-payment modes, and they include:
(a) strong authentication, such as the use of biometrics or dynamic passcodes, to verify customers' identity and to authorise electronic payment transactions;
(b) encryption to protect sensitive information against unauthorised access during data storage and transmission;
(c) fraud monitoring to facilitate timely detection and blocking of suspicious transactions; and
(d) transaction notification via short message service or email to alert customers when transactions exceed a specific threshold or when unusual payment behaviours are observed.
The contingency plans that have to be put in place for a network breakdown or power failure will depend on how each system is designed and the criticality of the service provided. Financial institutions (FIs) are required by MAS to have plans, such as back-up power supply or an alternate telecommunications service provider, to ensure continuity of service during disruptions.
MAS conducts periodic reviews of FIs to assess the adequacy of controls to manage technology and business continuity risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on No-Wrong-Door Policy and First Responder Protocol","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the No Wrong Door (NWD) policy introduced in 2004 and the First Responder Protocol (FRP) introduced in 2012 are practised by every Government agency; and (b) how do these two policies ensure Public Service officers are empowered to fully resolve the public's issues instead of finding the quickest solution to pass the issue on to another agency.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service strives to adopt a customer-centric approach in dealing with feedback and requests from members of the public. The No Wrong Door (NWD) policy and the First Responder Protocol (FRP) were introduced as part of many efforts to ensure that feedback from the public are addressed quickly and effectively. Under NWD, the agency that receives feedback on an issue not under its purview should identify the agency responsible and ensure that the agency will take up the case, before putting that agency in touch with the person who provided the feedback. If the issue has no clear owner, the agency that receives the feedback will apply FRP and identify an agency with some domain expertise. This latter agency, also known as the First Responder, will promptly resolve the interagency request, while the back-end policy and operational issues are being sorted out.
Public officers at the frontline are trained on these protocols. The Civil Service College conducts regular case simulation workshops for frontline teams to familiarise officers with the procedures and standards. Many large agencies include these requirements as part of their service training programmes and have also developed innovations to enhance seamlessness. For example, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board has an internal virtual assistant to help officers provide accurate answers to members' CPF queries and identify the right contacts to help them. Agencies are audited on a regular basis on their compliance with the procedures and service standards.
The Municipal Services Office (MSO), established in 2014 to coordinate municipal issues that span across multiple agencies, is an example of how the Public Service has moved from \"No Wrong Door\" to \"Just One Door\". Its OneService app allows members of the public to provide feedback on all municipal issues without having to know which agency is in charge. This is made possible by a backend routing system that allows seamless case referral among agencies based on parameters, such as land, issue and asset ownership.
MSO has also worked with partner agencies to establish First Responders in different domains. For example, MSO has brought the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Town Councils together to determine who should serve as the First Responder in different types of water-related issues, so that residents no longer have to face multiple site inspections from both PUB and their Town Council. Other First Responders include the Land Transport Authority for the maintenance of connectivity-related infrastructure like park connectors, footpaths and footbridges; the National Parks Board for public greenery maintenance; the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority for animal-related issues; and the National Environment Agency for public cleanliness. There are also escalation mechanisms to ensure complex cases or cases with unclear ownership are escalated to the appropriate authorities for prompt action. Collectively, these mechanisms strengthen agencies’ practice of NWD and FRP in the delivery of municipal services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Errant E-scooter Owners with Repeated Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry keeps track of e-scooter owners and whether it will consider banning them from owning e-scooters when they continue to flout regulations after repeated warnings and fines.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority does not maintain any records on the ownership of personal mobility devices (PMDs), such as e-scooters.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel has been tasked to review the regulatory regime for PMDs, including the need to register motorised PMDs, and will surface its recommendations to the Government later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Road-widening Works along Clementi Road between Jalan Anak Bukit and Ayer Rajah Expressway","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport when will the major road-widening works along Clementi Road between Jalan Anak Bukit and the Ayer Rajah Expressway be completed.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The road widening works along Clementi Road between Jalan Anak Bukit and the junction of Clementi Road with Ulu Pandan Road was completed last December. A second phase of works between Commonwealth Avenue West and the Ayer Rajah Expressway will be completed later this month. The last phase of the Clementi Road widening works between Ulu Pandan Road and Commonwealth Avenue West will be completed by March 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Requirements for Private Hire Cars and Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current number of private hire cars on the road; (b) whether there will be further regulatory requirements for private hire cars and drivers; and (c) if so, what will these requirements be and the timeframe for implementation.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: As of 31 December 2017, there were approximately 47,000 cars that are registered to offer private hire car (PHC) services.
We will continue to monitor the situation and review our regulations regularly. Currently, these cars have to be affixed with tamper-evident decals. In addition, PHC drivers are required to hold a Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence and are subjected to the same demerit point system that applies to taxi drivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation for Passengers Injured in Joo Koon MRT-train Collision","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) how were the passengers who were onboard the trains involved in the Joo Koon MRT-train collision compensated for their injuries, medical expenses and other loss and damages suffered; and (b) which party is responsible for footing these expenses and damages.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: As the rail operator, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit has reimbursed and will continue to reimburse the injured passengers' medical and other related expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Breakdown of Sexual Harassment Incidents on Public Transport from 2013 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many incidents of sexual harassment on public transport have been reported each year in the last five years; and (b) whether the public transport operators are required to implement a public safety policy with strategies to keep public transport free of sexual harassment.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The table below indicates the number of reported cases of Outrage of Modesty (OM) on public transport over the past five years.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Public Transport Security Command of the Singapore Police Force (TransCom), and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) have taken steps to educate commuters about OM, including several public education campaigns over the years. Commuters are encouraged to report such cases, and every report is treated seriously.
LTA, TransCom and the PTOs will continue to work together to tackle OM on public transport and improve the safety and security of our commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Wage Supplements for Workers with Monthly Gross Salary below $2,000","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many workers earning below $2,000 in monthly gross salary have received Annual Wage Supplements (AWS) in the last three years; and (b) what efforts are being made to encourage employers to give AWS to their workers.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The proportion of full-time resident employees earning below $2,000 who received bonuses, including the Annual Wage Supplement, has remained stable at about 50% over the last decade.
Employers and unions share the flexibility in structuring staff remuneration together under our Flexible and Performance Based wage systems. Broadly speaking, rank and file employees have more of their annual package allocated to fixed monthly salaries while monthly or annual variable payments tend to comprise a bigger share for those in more senior positions. The Ministry of Manpower, therefore, looks at total annual wages when monitoring wage increases. Over the past five years, total wages, including annual and monthly variable components, at the 20th percentile have risen by 4.1% per annum, comparable to the growth at the median.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans on Mid-career Switch Programmes in 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower over the past one year (a) how many Singaporeans have undertaken mid-career switch programmes, such as Professional Conversion and Place and Train; (b) of them, how many are retrenched PMETs and discouraged unemployed workers; (c) how many of them were eventually successful and secured a job; and (d) what are the reasons for those who did not get accepted into the programmes.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) and Place-and-Train (PnT) programmes help professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and rank and file (RnF) workers address job-skills mismatches respectively.
PCPs provide training and salary support to help mid-career PMETs reskill, so that they can move into new and different occupations or sectors that have good prospects and opportunities for progression. Over the past one year, more than 3,300 local PMETs were placed. Among those placed, about 10% were previously retrenched or unemployed for six months or more, that is, long-term unemployed (LTU).
Similarly, PnT programmes provide training and salary support to help RnF workers reskill to take on new jobs in different sectors. Last year, more than 1,800 locals were placed through these programmes. Among those placed, about 5% were previously retrenched or LTU.
As both PCPs and PnT programmes are structured such that every jobseeker is hired by an employer before undergoing training, every worker on these programmes would have successfully secured a job. Applicants who are unable to secure employment and hence do not get into these programmes, are being assisted through other programmes. For example, the Career Support Programme (CSP) provides salary support to encourage employers to hire mid-career PMETs who have been retrenched or are LTU. Since its inception in October 2015, over 1,100 PMETs have been supported through CSP, with more than 80% being LTU or retrenched at the point of placement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Breakdown of Workplace-health Related Claims under Work Injury Compensation Act from 2015 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the last three years, what is the number of claims under the Work Injury Compensation Act that are workplace-health related; and (b) what is the total amount claimed.
Mr Lim Swee Say: There were 186, 211 and 202 workplace health-related claims awarded under the Work Injury Compensation (WIC) Act in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. They made up less than 1.5% of total WIC claims annually. For the last three years, the workplace health-related claims amounted to a total of $24.3 million, which is about 7.4% of the total WIC payout.
While the number of workplace health-related claims remains small, the Ministry of Manpower and the tripartite partners are working together to better address work-related ill-health as part of our Total Workplace Safety and Health Plan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Users against Security Flaws of Wi-fi Devices and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the security flaws which place wi-fi devices at risk (a) what is the impact on our free public wi-fi service Wireless@SG; and (b) what measures are being taken to protect users.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) works closely with its appointed telecom service providers to ensure the security of the Wireless@SG public wi-fi network.
IMDA, as the programme owner, ensures that the Wireless@SG operators adhere to the stipulated standards on identity management, login and security. Its appointed telecom service operators – M1, Singtel, StarHub, Y5ZONE and MyRepublic – are responsible for the network design and implementation.
In terms of security, the Wireless@SG operators are required to ensure that their infrastructure meets international best practices, for example, the Open Web Applications Security Project. Depending on the vulnerabilities found, all operators will work closely with IMDA and the relevant authorities to address them promptly, such as implementing patches released by the manufacturers and disabling vulnerable components.
Nevertheless, users are encouraged to be vigilant when they access public wi-fi networks. Users should choose password protected and encrypted hotspots, for example, Wireless@SG, over those that are not. Users should also consider using encrypted channels, such as Virtual Private Network (VPN) and the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), when processing personal or sensitive information. For safe surfing tips, users can refer to the Cyber Security Agency's GoSafeOnline website at https//www.csa.gov.sg/gosafeonline.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Vehicular Accidents Involving Singaporeans Overseas from 2015 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past three years, what is the number of vehicular accidents which occurred overseas involving Singaporeans; (b) whether the issuer of the International Driving Licence is required to advise drivers of the precautions needed in different destinations; and (c) what other measures is the Ministry considering to reduce the incidences of driving accidents involving Singaporeans overseas.
Mr K Shanmugam: We do not have data on the number of overseas road traffic accidents involving Singaporeans.
The Traffic Police (TP) leverages social media to publish advisories and videos on safe driving overseas. The Automobile Association of Singapore (AAS), a close working partner and the authority for granting the International Driving Permit in Singapore, provides pointers on safe driving overseas through its website and booklets available at its premises.
TP will continue to work with the Singapore Road Safety Council and AAS to raise awareness among Singaporeans of the precautions they should take when driving overseas. These include familiarising themselves with local traffic rules, road conditions and driving culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Traffic Accidents Involving Overseas Visitors Who Drive in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many visitors to Singapore drive around during their stay and get into traffic accidents; and (b) whether the numbers are significant and a cause for concern.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2015 to 2017, an average of about 240 short-term visitors to Singapore were involved in road traffic accidents annually. This accounts for about 1.7% of all drivers involved in accidents in the same period. The numbers are low.
The Traffic Police (TP) remind foreign motorists crossing land checkpoints to drive safely in Singapore, through distributing brochures and erecting billboards. To deter the commission of traffic offences, TP conducts regular operations at the checkpoints targeting foreign motorists with outstanding summonses.
Any policy intervention might be excessive, at this point, with knock-on effects on other areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Citizens with Registered Johor Bahru Home Addresses on Identity Cards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Singapore Citizens currently have home addresses in Johor Bahru registered on their identity cards.
Mr K Shanmugam: The current entry format does not allow collation of this data accurately.
Further, even if the information were available, there are a number of considerations, on whether such information should be released. The release of data on the number of Singaporeans, in specific locations, in the region, as well as around the world, may, for example, not be in the interests of the Singaporeans in some of these locations.
In the context of Johor Bahru, our assessment is that the information should not be released.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Protection of Public Spaces against Terrorist Incidents Using Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the progress on hardening and protecting our public spaces against terrorist incidents using vehicles; (b) how are commercial operators contributing to the protection efforts; and (c) what are the future plans to design public spaces with security factored in.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with other Government agencies to enhance security measures in public spaces against hostile vehicle attacks. This includes existing spaces and selected new ones in the pipeline where measures can be designed upfront.
We adopt a risk-based approach in identifying locations to fortify and the type and extent of measures to put in place. We have to strike a balance between enhancing security, the cost of the measures, and the impact on the public's daily activities.
We have started to deploy anti-hostile vehicle measures in the Orchard Road area. Crash-rated barriers and bollards were installed in some locations along Orchard Road in late 2017. More will be progressively installed.
There are plans to install similar barriers in other areas later this year. We have been consulting the local business associations, such as to assess the viability of the proposed measures.
Commercial building owners also have a part to play to protect their premises. Under the Infrastructure Protection Act, owners of large or iconic buildings, and critical infrastructures that deliver essential services, will be required to undergo a security-by-design process. They will have to incorporate measures to address security threats in the design of the building before it is constructed or, for an existing building, when it undergoes major renovation.
In addition, as part of the Safety and Security Watch Group and SGSecure engagements by the Police, building owners are given practical advice on how to mitigate vehicle threats. Building owners can also refer to the Guidelines for Enhancing Building Security in Singapore published by MHA for advice on best practices and solutions to protect their premises
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outpatient Non-chronic Illnesses Treated and Cost of Medication in 2016 and 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the non-chronic illnesses that outpatients are largely treated for; and (b) what is the average cost of medication for such outpatient treatments over the last two years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Common outpatient non-chronic illnesses seen at the primary care setting include the common cold, diarrhea, vomiting, sprains and strains.
Between 2015 and 2016, the average total bill size of a non-chronic attendance at polyclinics was about $16 for Singapore Citizens, after Government subsidies. This includes an average cost of medications of $4.
Over the same period, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Blue and Pioneer Generation cardholders at general practitioner clinics participating in CHAS paid slightly more than $20 per visit on average for non-chronic attendances, including medications. Before CHAS subsidies were applied, their average bill was $45 per visit, about half of which was medication costs.
At our public healthcare institutions, including polyclinics, patients who have concerns about their medical bills, may apply for financial assistance, such as MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Elderly Aged 65 and Above Who Live Alone from 2013 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Health in the past five years, (a) what is the number of elderly aged 65 and above who lived alone; and (b) what is the number of elderly found dead in their homes while living on their own.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The number of Singapore residents aged 65 and above who lived alone in the past five years is shown in Table 1 below. We do not track the number of elderly found dead in their homes while living on their own.
Given the growing number of seniors living alone, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been making additional efforts, together with our community partners, to engage and care for our seniors. We launched the Community Network for Seniors (CNS) in 2016, which aims to develop a strong system of community-based support to complement family support, so as to keep seniors healthy and socially engaged and help them age well in place. A key focus area is befriending. We work with our network of Pioneer Generation Ambassadors, grassroots leaders and community voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to connect seniors who are lonely or at risk of social isolation with befrienders or neighbour volunteers in their neighbourhood. To date, we have over 850 volunteers serving 2,500 vulnerable seniors in 47 constituencies. We are also leveraging technology to better support our seniors. For example, Changi General Hospital is piloting Care Line, a 24/7 tele-befriending and telecare service. This programme supports seniors living in the community through alerts on active ageing activities in their area, information about programmes and urgent assistance if seniors are unwell.
Building communities of care requires all of us to play our part. MOH will continue to work with our community partners, other agencies and our fellow Singaporeans to support our seniors.
21 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Health for each of the last three years, what has been the proportion of (i) births registered and (ii) deaths registered for those aged 65 and above, in private versus public hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The proportion of births registered at public hospitals was 41.7%, 43.3% and 44.7% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. For private hospitals, the figures were 58%, 56.4% and 54.9% respectively. A small proportion of births occurred at other locations, such as personal residences.
For elderly decedents aged 65 and older, 57.7%, 59% and 59.1% of deaths were registered at public hospitals in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. Less than 2% of elderly deaths were registered in private hospitals from 2014 to 2016. Other places of death, which include nursing homes, charitable institutions and personal residences, comprised approximately 40% of elderly deaths in the period 2014-2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Naming ElderShield on Enrolment and Payout Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether it is appropriate to name ElderShield as such when enrolment into the scheme starts at the age of 40; (b) whether the monthly payout of $300 and $400 for up to 60 and 72 months respectively is sufficient for a person meeting the criteria of severe disability; and (c) over the last decade, how many people have opted out of ElderShield.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The ElderShield Review Committee (ESRC) is in the process of reviewing the ElderShield scheme, including the payout quantum and duration. It has consulted widely and obtained valuable inputs from stakeholders. The Government Parliamentary Committee for Health has also submitted a report to the Committee. ESRC will be making its recommendations to the Government by the middle of the year.
ElderShield is an insurance scheme that provides basic protection against the costs of long-term care arising from severe disability, especially in old age when such risks are higher. Enrolment to the current ElderShield scheme begins at age 40 to allow policyholders to pay their premiums during their working years from age 40 to 65. Coverage will start from age 40, with lifetime protection for the policyholders as they age and become elderly over time.
The opt-out rate for ElderShield was 11% in 2007 and this has decreased to 5% in 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pensioners under Fixed Amount on Ward Medical Benefits Scheme and Co-payment on Ward Medical Benefits Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current number and percentage of pensioners under the Fixed Amount on Ward (FAW) medical benefits scheme who have withdrawn their MediSave completely; (b) what is the current number and percentage of pensioners under Co-payment on Ward (CPW) medical benefits scheme who have not met 30% of their cohort's applicable Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS); and (c) whether CPW pensioners can withdraw the excess amount above their required BHS from their MediSave accounts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: \tFixed Amount on Ward (FAW) pensioners are entitled to comprehensive medical benefits at Government healthcare institutions and are hence not required to set aside any MediSave. However, they may opt to set aside MediSave. One thousand two hundred and thirty-six, or 99.6% of FAW pensioners, have zero MediSave balances.
Co-payment on Ward (CPW) pensioners need to set aside 30% of their cohort's applicable Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS). In 2016, 8,200, or 50% of CPW pensioners, have MediSave balances below 30% of their cohort’s applicable BHS.
For all Central Provident Fund (CPF) members, any MediSave monies above their respective BHS is automatically transferred to their other CPF accounts. FAW and CPW pensioners will be able to withdraw these monies if they had met their applicable Retirement Sum.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Industry Transformation Map for Offshore Marine and Oil and Gas Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) when will the industry transformation map for the offshore marine and oil and gas industries be ready.
Mr S Iswaran: The Economic Development Board, as the lead agency, has been working closely with industry stakeholders, trade associations, such as the Association of Singapore Marine Industries; unions, such as the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees’ Union; and other Government agencies, for example, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, International Enterprise Singapore, JTC Corporation, Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board, SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore, on the Marine and Offshore Engineering Industry Transformation Map (M&OE ITM). The M&OE ITM will be launched on 22 February 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students in Institutes of Higher Learning Involved in Learning More about Industry Transformation Maps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how are students in the Institutes of Higher Learning involved in learning more about Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs); and (b) what are the future plans to expose students to the ITMs that are relevant to their field of studies.
Mr S Iswaran: Industry Transformation Map (ITM) lead agencies have worked with the Ministry of Education (MOE), SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to help IHL students learn about the changing nature of industries and provide them with mentorship and work opportunities.
First, the Skills Frameworks, which are an integral part of the ITMs, identify, amongst other things, the skills that are needed to meet changing industry needs. IHL staff, including Education and Career Guidance counsellors, factor relevant information on industry developments into career guidance to help their students make better-informed decisions. Since late 2017, such information is also available on the MySkillsFuture portal, which enables students and other Singaporeans to chart their own career and lifelong learning pathways.
Besides MOE/SSG, ITM lead agencies also reach out directly to IHL students. For example, as part of a series of student outreach initiatives for the Aerospace ITM, final-year students from our polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education will visit aerospace companies to learn about their advanced manufacturing and repair capabilities at the inaugural Aerospace Day @ Seletar Aerospace Park.
Second, MOE/SSG have worked with the IHLs and the ITM lead agencies to enhance mentorship and work opportunities for students to learn more about their industry of choice and facilitate their transition into the workforce. For example, since 2015, over 1,700 polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education graduates have participated in 76 SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programmes. The autonomous universities have also rolled out 10 SkillsFuture Work-Study Degree Programmes since February 2017. The National Trades Union Congress, a key partner in the ITMs, also plays an active role. For example, it provides students from the Singapore University of Social Sciences and the Singapore Institute of Technology with career mentorship and guidance as part of its Youth Career Network programme.
We will continue the fruitful collaborations between ITM lead agencies, MOE/SSG, IHLs and other partners to prepare our IHL students for the future economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Increase Supply of Executive Condominiums in Next Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether there is a plan to increase the supply of executive condominiums in the next five years on the Confirmed List of land sales and what is the projected number of such units for each year.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In planning for the supply of Executive Condominiums (EC), the Government takes into consideration many factors, such as the existing unsold stock of ECs, take-up rate of new EC units, and prevailing market sentiments. These factors fluctuate from year to year. Hence, the Government monitors the EC market closely and calibrates the supply of ECs accordingly.
For the first half of 2018, there are three EC sites in the Government Land Sales Programme, which could yield a total of about 1,700 units. One of the sites is on the Confirmed List. The other two sites are on the Reserve List and could be triggered for sale if there is strong demand from developers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty Fees and Qualifying Certificate Extension Charges Paid by Developers since Implementation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how much Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) fees and Qualifying Certificate (QC) extension charges have been paid by developers each year since the rules were implemented; (b) how many unsold residential property units have been subjected to both ABSD fees and QC charges, categorised by years of vacancy as at 31 December 2017; and (c) what is the projected number of unsold residential property units that will be subjected to these fees and charges in 2018.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As of 31 December 2017, developers have paid about $200 million in Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) fees, and about $180 million in Qualifying Certificate (QC) extension charges, since the regimes were implemented.
As of 31 December 2017, no residential development has been subjected to both ABSD and QC extension charges on their unsold units.
Around 80 developments with a total of about 750 unsold units could be subjected to these fees and charges in 2018 if either or both disposal conditions are not met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Citizens, PRs and Foreigners in Singapore Owning One or More Private Residential Properties and also HDB Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of citizens, PRs and foreigners in Singapore who own (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three to 10 and (iv) more than 10 private residential properties respectively; and (b) how many of them also own an HDB flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 381,000 Singapore Citizens, Singapore Permanent Residents and foreigners own one private residential property in Singapore. About 59,000 own two private residential properties; 20,000 own three to 10 private residential properties; and fewer than 200 own more than 10 private residential properties. Of these private residential property owners, 15% also own an HDB flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Blocks Projected to be Redeveloped under Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme over Next 10-20 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development how many HDB blocks does the Ministry project to redevelop under the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme over the next 10-20 years when many HDB flats will have less than 60 years left on their leases and progressively lose their value until the lease run-out date.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is implemented on a highly selective basis. The Government will announce SERS for suitable precincts only where feasible, after a careful evaluation on a site-by-site basis, taking into consideration various factors, such as the redevelopment potential, availability of suitable replacement sites, and the Government's financial resources.
\\We do not share details on the blocks to be redeveloped or other related information ahead of the SERS exercise, as these are market-sensitive information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Subsidence and Mitigation Measures Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has evidence pertaining to whether land subsidence is taking place in Singapore; (b) if so, what are the future consequences of this; and (c) what policy actions are being planned to mitigate these consequences.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Land subsidence refers to the loss of surface elevation when soil gradually settles and compacts over time. Some degree of land subsidence happens in all countries, due to natural phenomena, such as tectonic motion, as well as human action, such as building and construction.
Singapore lies away from the margins of tectonic plates, and our ground predominantly consists of stable geological materials. Hence, we have not seen evidence of land subsidence in Singapore that would raise cause for concern.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Lift Upgrading Programme for Hougang SMC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) for Hougang SMC, excluding the cost-sharing by residents and the Town Council; and (b) what is the amount paid by residents of Hougang for this town-wide LUP.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and the less mobile.
LUP is a heavily subsidised programme, with the Government paying 75% to 90% of the cost, depending on flat type. For the Hougang Single Member Constituency, the cost of LUP works that have been completed so far is around $77 million, and the Government's share is around $64 million. The remaining amount is shared between households and the Town Council. In particular, Singapore Citizen households pay 5% to 12.5% of the cost, depending on flat type, subject to a cap of $3,000 per household.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Building of New Hawker Centre in Choa Chu Kang and All Other Proposed New Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether there are any updates on the proposed location and timeline for the building of a new hawker centre in Choa Chu Kang; and (b) when will the Ministry complete its study and announce the timeline for all remaining hawker centres that are part of this initiative.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government has committed to building 20 new hawker centres by 2027, focusing on new Housing and Development Board towns, such as Punggol, Bidadari, Sengkang and Choa Chu Kang. So far, announcements have been made for 17 of these new hawker centres, of which seven have started operations.
The remaining hawker centres, which include a new centre at Choa Chu Kang, are at various stages of planning and development. We will announce the location and development timelines for these centres as soon as they are ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporean Students Commuting from Homes in Johor Baru to Classes in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (Schools) how many Singaporean students currently commute from homes in Johor Bahru to Singapore to attend classes at primary, secondary and pre-university levels.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education has reviewed the release of such data. Guided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, our decision is that such data should not be released.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Primary School Vacancies in Chua Chu Kang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) whether the number of primary school vacancies in Chua Chu Kang is sufficient, given the influx of new BTOs in the Keat Hong area, particularly for applicants seeking a school within two kilometres (km) of their home; (b) what proportion of Primary 1 school applicants living in Keat Hong division have been able to secure a school within two km of their homes; and (c) what is the current waiting list of Southview Primary School, Concord Primary School and Chua Chu Kang Primary School.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education regularly reviews the demand and supply trends at the national and regional levels to ensure that there are sufficient school places for school-going children, taking into account the current and projected population as well as planned housing development programmes.
Due to the families that are moving into the recently completed Housing and Development Board Build-To-Order flats in Choa Chu Kang, we have projected a slight increase in the localised demand for primary school places. As such, we have increased the number of school vacancies in some of the schools in Choa Chu Kang. There should be sufficient primary school places to meet the increased demand from these families.
The proportion of Primary 1 (P1)-going children who secured a P1 place in their first-choice school or a school within two kilometres of their homes averaged about 98% nationally for the 2017 P1 Registration Exercise. The outcomes for individual constituencies would typically hover close to the national average, and this is the case, too, for Keat Hong division.
South View Primary School, Concord Primary School and Chua Chu Kang Primary School currently have a wait list for some students who wish to be transferred there. These include children who are currently studying in other nearby primary schools. For information, there are available vacancies in other nearby primary schools, such as Teck Whye Primary School and Kranji Primary School.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Female Students Taking up Engineering Courses at ITE, Polytechnic and University","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) in the past five years, what is the number of female students taking up engineering courses at the ITE, polytechnic and university levels; (b) how many of these female graduates eventually took up engineering jobs; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to encourage more female students to take up engineering courses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the last five years, the proportion of female students who took up engineering courses at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics and universities has remained fairly stable, at around 20% of the total engineering cohort, or about 3,600 students each year. Based on the Graduate Employment Surveys conducted in 2016, around 70% of them who were in full-time permanent employment reported that they worked in engineering-related jobs after graduation.
We welcome more students, male and female to consider engineering as a career, and have various initiatives and programmes to encourage more to do so. For example, at the secondary schools, Applied Learning Programmes (ALP) in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) enable students to apply their knowledge and skills in authentic situations to address real-world problems, and offer opportunities to interact with engineering professionals. More than 60% of our secondary schools offer ALP in STEM areas.
In addition, the polytechnics have pooled their efforts to promote engineering diploma programmes to secondary school students. The talks will feature industry practitioners who share about their passion for engineering and why they chose it as a career. The polytechnics also reach out to school teachers and involve them in industry learning journeys and experiential workshops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Students Defaulting on Repayment of Study Loans from Local Banks and Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the rate of default in the repayment of study loans taken out by foreign students from our banks and other local institutions in each of the past five years; (b) what actions have been taken to effect recovery against such defaulters; and (c) what is the rate of cases where full recovery has been made through such enforcement actions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To ensure that our Singaporean students are not denied a tertiary education due to their financial circumstances, the Government provides loans to students at our publicly-funded tertiary institutions. These loans are also extended to international students who need some assistance.
On average, over the last five years, 3.9% of the total outstanding Government loans taken up by international students are in default and deemed unrecoverable, after exhausting all recovery efforts. For international students who default on their loans, they can face adverse consequences should they apply to work or reside in Singapore.
Commercial banks also offer study loans. But based on the data reported by banks to the Credit Bureau, study loans granted to foreigners were less than 0.0001% of the total banking assets in Singapore. As they make up only a very small share of total banking system exposure, the Monetary Authority of Singapore does not collect the data on these loans, including the default rate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holders of WSQ ACTA Who Secured Jobs as Trainers of WSQ Programmes within a Year of Completion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) in each of the last five years, what is the proportion of persons who obtained the WSQ Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA) had gone on to secure jobs as trainers of WSQ programmes within a year of obtaining their certificate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on a survey conducted by SkillsFuture Singapore in 2017, over 60% of the respondents who attained a Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA) between July 2015 and June 2016 were performing on a full- or part-time basis, one or more training-related roles, such as working as a trainer, adjunct adult educator, training management practitioner, or human capital management practitioner. A further 25% of respondents were employed in non-training and adult education-related roles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Lasting Power of Attorneys Registered with Office of Public Guardian in 2016 and 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) have been registered by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) in 2016 and 2017 respectively; and (b) what further measures can OPG take to encourage more senior Singaporeans to execute LPAs.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2016, approximately 8,000 Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) were registered by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). In 2017, this number increased by 50% to around 12,000.
To encourage more senior Singaporeans to make an LPA, OPG is working with various organisations to raise awareness on LPA in the community. These outreach activities include engaging eldercare service providers, conducting talks at senior activity centres and distributing collaterals at community touchpoints. We will also be promoting the importance of making an LPA through radio. There is currently an application fee waiver in place for Singaporeans making more straightforward LPAs using Form 1 until 31 August 2018. We urge more Singaporeans to make their LPA early.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children Born in 2016 and 2017 Whose Birth Certificates Do not Bear Name of Father or Whose Parents Were not Married","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year from 2016 to 2017, what is the respective number of children born in Singapore who (i) do not have a father named on their birth certificates and (ii) have a father named on their birth certificates but the parents are not married on or before the date of registration of birth.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of babies born to citizen mothers who were not married to the father at the point of birth registration is 843 in 2016, and 836 in 2017. The 2017 figure is provisional at this point and subject to change. The further breakdown by whether the father's name is reflected in the birth certificate is as follows:
40 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) to date, what are the numbers of children and families in the KidSTART programme; and (b) what is the breakdown of the number of children benefiting from the different components of the programme.
Mr Desmond Lee: As at end 2017, more than 500 children and their families are being supported under the KidSTART pilot programme. By components, about 150 children are on the home visitation programme, 125 children are in KidSTART playgroups and the rest are enrolled in preschools supported by KidSTART.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children Conceived through Surrogacy Overseas and Born to Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding children born to Singaporeans who were conceived through surrogacy overseas (a) how many of such children are currently residing in Singapore; (b) what percentage of these children are being cared for by married couples who may not be their biological parents; (c) whether these couples are legal guardians of these children; and (d) what options are available to these couples to secure the children's well-being.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government does not track the number of children that Singaporeans have through overseas surrogacy procedures.
How the law treats the relationship between a couple and their child conceived through overseas surrogacy procedures varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Such couples may wish to seek legal advice on their rights and responsibilities for the child under Singapore law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":939,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Thomas Chua Kee Seng(1).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua Kee Seng(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":940,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Patrick Tay Teck Guan(2).pdf","fileName":"Patrick Tay Teck Guan(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":941,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Sun Xueling(3).pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":942,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(4).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":943,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Thomas Chua Kee Seng(5).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua Kee Seng(5).pdf"},{"vernacularID":944,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Patrick Tay Teck Guan(6).pdf","fileName":"Patrick Tay Teck Guan(6).pdf"},{"vernacularID":945,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Saktiandi Supaat(7).pdf","fileName":"Saktiandi Supaat(7).pdf"},{"vernacularID":946,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180205/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(8).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(8).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}