Mr Speaker: Order. On 18 January this year, at 8.35 am, I informed hon Members that I received a letter on 16 January 2024 at 11.33 pm from Mr S Iswaran resigning his seat in Parliament.
In accordance with clause (2)(c) of Article 46 of the Constitution, the seat of Mr S Iswaran as a Member of Parliament for the electoral division of West Coast became vacant with effect from 11.33 pm on 16 January 2024.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Diversity in Acute Hospital Models in Singapore’s Healthcare Landscape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry’s comparative assessment on the existing not-for-profit private acute hospital model in Singapore and those in other advanced economies in terms of (i) patient care (ii) talent development and (iii) alignment of institutional culture with the not-for-profit mission; (b) whether additional diversity in acute hospital models will complement Singapore’s existing care landscape; and (c) what factors might constrain the viability of entrants to this new industry locally and how can these be mitigated.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first give some background on not-for-profit hospitals.
Not-for-profit hospitals are common around the world, such as in the United States (US), Netherlands, Japan, Korea. It does not mean that they operate at a loss. In fact, all hospitals need to be financially viable, or they will have to close at some point. A well-run not-for-profit hospital is sustainable in its operations, but do not distribute dividends to its shareholders. Instead, it ploughs back its profit to improve hospital services and facilities, and other activities such as charity.
There are various reasons why hospitals would run as not-for-profit organisations. The key ones are that it is more in line with the public health mission of hospitals and it helps them access philanthropic funds. Apart from that, there are no major inherent differences in the way good for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals are run, in terms of quality of care, attention to value-based care, talent recruitment, development and so on. We see those qualities in Mount Alvernia Hospital, the only private, not-for-profit hospital in Singapore.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) is consulting the industry to establish a next private hospital. Much attention has been given to the proposed not-for-profit feature, but actually, that is not the key feature. Instead, we think the more important features are:
First, the hospital is required to serve primarily Singaporeans.
Second, there will be stronger governance – it will be singularly licensed, that is, it will only have one healthcare licence, which means that the hospital operator needs to have strong oversight and control of its doctors’ clinical practices. The various professionals – specialists, surgeons, general physicians, pharmacists, rehabilitation professionals – will have to work closer as a team to serve the patients.
Third, cost-effective care – we intend to impose bill size restrictions on the private hospital as we do not want a high-cost care model.
We intend to specify these as conditions that potential hospital operators will have to meet and will be evaluated on. This means that land price will not be the sole criterion in determining the hospital operator.
Why do we want to establish a new private hospital model with these key features? The main reason is that it provides a better range of options in our healthcare landscape. Today, we have public healthcare which is heavily subsidised by the Government and which we try to make as affordable to Singaporeans as possible. But the nature of subsidised care is there is a wait time, which can be quite lengthy for non-urgent electives.
The public healthcare system is complemented by private healthcare services, where we have a range of hospitals. Most are quite high in cost and you need to be able to afford or be well-insured to access them, with little or no wait time. There are a few private hospitals that are lower in cost, such as Mount Alvernia, some say maybe Raffles Hospital. MOH’s view is that we can increase options for lower-cost private hospitals so that private healthcare better complements public healthcare and we have a more adequate range of options for Singaporeans.
About 10 years ago, the share between public and private hospital workload was 85:15. Today, it has shifted to 90:10 and the ratio continues to move towards the public hospitals. This is good in the sense that it is a demonstration of the public’s confidence in public hospitals, but it is not so positive because it adds considerable load to the public healthcare system. We are better off with a variegated system, where residents who are well-insured with private policies, have less need for subsidies, can opt for a lower-cost private hospital care if they wish to. Private hospitals will also bring new insights and ideas to the management and delivery of healthcare. The additional diversity will enrich and improve the quality of our healthcare system.
MOH has received good responses from various professionals and the industry after our invitation for consultation. I prefer not to make any pre-judgements on the constraints or success factors on this new private hospital model. I am sure we will receive many useful inputs and suggestions on how to help us improve and refine our model, and make it a success.
\t\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I should start by declaring that I work at a public hospital, although I have also worked in the past at a private hospital. I have two supplementary questions to the Minister.
Firstly, many in this Chamber would have experience of large organisations and their behaviour, and would have observed how incentives, culture and leadership all play a role in shaping the organisation, as well as the day-to-day reality on the ground. Has the Ministry given consideration to what incentives will be needed, what approach will be needed to the culture of these hospitals and whether it will have any say in the leadership approach in these hospitals to ensure that the outcomes that the Ministry seeks will be achieved?
Secondly, a question that some of my residents have asked is, if these models of care were already very much viable and having an existing market niche, why has there not been a second Mount Alvernia or similar model in Singapore so far? And may I suggest to the Ministry that although we do not want to prejudge the analysis, it is important to look at the drivers which shape whether certain models of care are viable, whether it is in terms of how the land cost is approached, how the tender is structured, including what backup measures there are to ensure that the institution does not drift from the intended purpose?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The first question on leadership and culture, I fully agree. Ultimately, that is the soul of the organisation. Without the right leadership, right culture, it will not serve our purpose. As to what incentives there can be, I personally think it is difficult to have incentives or schemes that will ensure you have the right culture. That is fundamentally inherent in the soul of the organisation, but having said that, I think rules, regulations do matter. Which is why I mentioned just now that we want to be singularly licensed. We put in other quality factors such as: primarily for Singaporeans; affordability, which will be measured in terms of bill sizes; as well as value-based care, how you intend to do value-based care. All these will be taken into account as we had put put in the tender and as we evaluate interested bidders.
As to why we did not think about the model earlier, I think there are practical considerations. We have been expanding our public healthcare and hospitals, and there is a need for manpower, for doctors. As the Member knows, doctors and surgeons take time to develop and to mature and to be good in their skills. The resource, in terms of manpower and talent, is limited. If we over push this, we can end up having a bidding war of our healthcare professionals and talent, which is why we are always careful as we develop our healthcare capacity.
Having said that, between now and end of the decade, we are developing and building more public hospitals. In addition, we think we can, we should be able to accommodate one more more affordable private hospital.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Transition to SimplyGo Fare Platform","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what enhancements has LTA made to SimplyGo since its launch in 2019; (b) whether LTA is aware that SimplyGo does not display fare deductions and card balances since 2019 and how has LTA tried to address this; (c) what public consultation was done before LTA’s initial decision for public transport fare payments to transit to SimplyGo by 1 June 2024; and (d) how do the public transport payment options in Singapore compare to those of other developed countries.
3 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past three years, how many reports of overcharged trips have been received from SimplyGo card users; (b) whether enhancements can be made for card balances to be displayed on public transport fare readers; (c) what is being done to improve the reliability of the SimplyGo app; and (d) whether the mandatory upgrade to SimplyGo can be postponed till it is made compatible with in-vehicle units of motorcars so that it can also be used for motoring-related payments.
4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport regarding the SimplyGo public transport fare platform (a) what measures are implemented to ensure the reliability and security of the platform and backend system; (b) whether LTA will consider integrating an additional function to allow a card’s balance to be displayed at the MRT fare gate or bus card reader; and (c) whether LTA is able to continue to accept the use of older EZ-Link cards until such functionality can be achieved.
5 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) to facilitate the transition to the SimplyGo EZ-Link card, whether LTA can extend the validity of the NETS FlashPay card for payment by commuters of buses and trains until the expiry of the card; and (b) whether LTA has considered the impact of compelling seniors who are less IT savvy to switch to the SimplyGo EZ-Link card system.
6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason for choosing a transport payment system like SimplyGo that does not show commuters the fares and deductions; and (b) what are the benefits that justify this trade-off.
7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO) has been consulted by the Land Transport Authority before the full transition to the SimplyGo system is announced; and (b) whether SNDGO will conduct a review to draw lessons from this incident regarding digital inclusivity.
8 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport (a) why is there a need to spend an additional $40 million so that commuters can continue to use the present EZ-Link card-based ticketing system; and (b) what is the estimated shelf life of this proposed upgraded solution.
9 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Transport what is the operational lifespan of the extended card-based ticketing system that was announced by the Land Transport Authority on 22 January 2024.
10 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the cost of $40 million to renew the present card-based ticketing system and continuing to run it alongside the SimplyGo system is a one-off or recurring expenditure; (b) how much has been spent or committed to be spent in (i) the development of the SimplyGo system and (ii) this conversion attempt, including time, manpower and other expenses.
11 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Transport what lessons can be drawn from the change in decision to phase out card-based ticketing system on public transport for adult commuters as announced on 22 January 2024.
12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is a plan to integrate adult and concession cards in the card-based ticketing system; (b) how many commuters have converted to SimplyGo cards after 9 January 2024; (c) how can SimplyGo be enhanced so as to enable public transport fare readers to display fares charged and card balances; (d) whether there are plans to install more fare readers at MRT stations and bus stops for SimplyGo users to check their card balances in the interim.
13 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the estimated remaining operational lifespan of the current EZ-Link system; (b) what specific lessons has the Ministry learned from the reversal of the EZ-Link system phase-out, particularly regarding technology integration and public communication; and (c) what concrete steps will be taken in future to ensure similar technology upgrade projects do not incur significant public expenditure waste.
14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the card-based ticketing (CBT) system for public transport will continue to indefinitely operate in parallel with the SimplyGo's account-based ticketing system; and (b) if not, when does LTA plan for the CBT system to be fully decommissioned, including the concession cards for students, seniors and people with disabilities.
15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the total government expenditure to-date in developing the SimplyGo system for public transport; (b) what are LTA’s projected annual savings from the use of only the SimplyGo system on public transport as compared to the current simultaneous use of both SimplyGo and card-based ticketing (CBT) systems; and (c) whether LTA plans to pass these cost savings on to commuters in the form of fare rebates when the CBT systems are eventually decommissioned.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what lessons has the Land Transport Authority learnt from the rollback of the decision to transit to the SimplyGo system; and (b) how long will the current card-based ticketing system be maintained before LTA considers another system transition.
17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the learning points from the reversal of the initial decision which mandated that SimplyGo will replace the card-based ticketing system in mid-2024 for fare payments on public transport; and (b) what steps will be taken to ensure that similar issues will be avoided in the future.
18 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what were the decision factors used when considering a switch of the public transport ticketing system; (b) how will the cost of maintaining or enhancing any future systems be viewed in respect of administrative efficiency and ease of convenience for commuters.
19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether plans to enhance the SimplyGo system will include the functionality to support a universal card that can be used for public transport, retail and motoring, such as that of the current EZ-Link and NETS FlashPay cards; and (b) whether such cards and the SimplyGo system will be made compatible with the new on-board units on vehicles under ERP 2.0.
20 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are LTA’s longer term plans for the SimplyGo system, including in conjunction with the continual operation of the non-SimplyGo EZ-Link and NETS FlashPay cards; and (b) with the latest change of plans, what is the period of time for which LTA is expected to utilise the $40 million estimated expenditure for hardware replacement and system maintenance.
21 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the additional features of SimplyGo compared to the EZ-Link and NETS FlashPay cards; (b) between 2019 and 2023, what are the number and percentage of commuters that utilised these additional features; (c) how many commuters have switched back to card-based ticketing (CBT) cards free-of-charge after the Ministry’s announcement on 22 January 2024 to operate CBT cards in parallel with the SimplyGo system; and (d) what efforts will be made to educate commuters more about SimplyGo going forward.
22 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport in view of the extension of the card-based ticketing system which allows the use of NETS FlashPay cards on public transport, whether motorists and drivers can expect to still use NETS FlashPay cards in parallel with NETS CashCards for carpark and Electronic Road Pricing charges.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 2 to 22 together? My reply will also address Written Question Nos 56 to 59 for today’s Sitting and related questions from Mr Christopher de Souza1,2, Mr Edward Chia3, Mr Mohd Fahmi4,5 and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim6 for subsequent Sittings.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, you may. Please proceed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, I will first provide a background on why we implemented the SimplyGo account-based ticketing (ABT) system since 2019. Next, I will go through the considerations for the Land Transport Authority (LTA)’s announcement on 9 January 2024 to sunset the card-based ticketing (CBT) system for adult commuters. Finally, I will explain why we decided on 22 January not to proceed with this original plan and how we move forward from here.
Before we had SimplyGo, commuters used stored value cards like EZ-Link cards and NETS FlashPay cards to pay their public transport fares. These cards work on a CBT system, where information like the card balance is stored on the card itself.
In 2016, LTA observed that more commuters were using contactless bank cards and mobile wallets for retail payments. Other major public transport systems were also starting to offer commuters the option of using these payment modes.
Our existing CBT system is unable to support bank cards and mobile wallets because these do not hold stored value, and transactions cannot be processed on the CBT card reader. To enable such payments, we needed an ABT system. In an ABT system, when commuters tap their card or smart device, their fares are computed at the backend, and not at the fare gates or bus card readers.
LTA started a pilot in March 2017 to allow payments by bank card via a new ABT system, which was subsequently scaled up into the SimplyGo system in 2019.
Since its launch in 2019, more commuters used SimplyGo over time. In December 2023, 41% of adult commuters were using bank cards and mobile wallets for public transport, while another 23% of adult commuters were using SimplyGo ABT stored value cards. In total, 64% or about two-thirds of adult commuters were using the SimplyGo ABT system in December 2023.
The proportion of adult commuters using SimplyGo has continued to increase after our announcement on 22 January 2024, when the public was informed that LTA would extend the CBT system for adult commuters till at least 2030. From 23 to 31 January 2024, about 9,000 adult commuters, or around 1,000 per day, have converted their CBT cards to the SimplyGo system. We now have close to 70% of adult commuters using SimplyGo in end January, with 44% using bank cards and mobile wallets and 25% using SimplyGo stored value cards.
Many commuters chose to use SimplyGo because of its benefits. For example, it allows commuters to use bank cards and mobile wallets for public transport, instead of carrying an additional card. If a registered user loses his SimplyGo stored value card, he can block it and protect the value in his account. Users can also top-up their SimplyGo cards for their family members via the app, without having the card physically present.
\t
However, SimplyGo has its limitations too. It operates on the ABT system and hence it cannot display the fare deduction and card balance information at the fare gates and bus card readers, without causing delays to the flow of commuters. Commuters are able to view their transactions and balance by using the SimplyGo app or the ticketing machines at train stations and bus interchanges.
LTA is not aware of any current technical solutions to overcome the latency problem for ABT cards. Other public transport systems around the world, such as London and Hong Kong, face the same limitation with their ABT systems. Like us, their CBT systems can display fare deductions and card balances, but their ABT systems are currently unable to do so.
Sir, I will now explain the considerations for LTA's 9 January 2024 announcement to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters from 1 June 2024.
LTA is currently operating three systems: the SimplyGo ABT system and two separate CBT systems developed at different times to support the adult cards and concession cards respectively. The two CBT systems are separate and the cards on each system are not compatible.
Like all IT systems, our CBT systems have a finite shelf-life. As the CBT system for adult commuters would reach end-of-life in 2024, LTA had to make a decision whether to extend the system, or to stop operating it after it reaches end-of-life.
To extend the system until at least 2030, LTA would need to spend an estimated $40 million to buy new hardware and equipment, and then operate and maintain the system over the next few years. This is a cost that LTA had wanted to avoid incurring by sunsetting the CBT system for adult commuters.
Between 2020 and 2023, LTA consulted different groups of commuters to gauge their readiness to transit to an ABT system. LTA also issued SimplyGo ABT cards to seniors, adults and students and gathered their feedback after they used the card for a few months. In total, LTA engaged over 1,000 commuters.
During these engagements, one of the feedback we received from seniors in particular, was that they were not very familiar with using the SimplyGo app and preferred to continue viewing fare deductions and card balances at fare gates and bus card readers. Based on this feedback, LTA decided not to shift concession card holders over to SimplyGo and instead retain the concession card CBT system for these commuters.
LTA also took on board feedback to improve the user experience for the app, such as enabling push notifications to alert app users when they make fare transactions and when their card balance is low. We also ensured that commuters who are not using the app could check their transactions and account balance using the ticketing machines at bus interchanges and train stations.
After observing that more adult commuters were coming on board the SimplyGo ABT system – I have mentioned earlier, two-thirds by December 2023 – LTA assessed that it could proceed to announce its plan to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters by 1 June 2024. It made the announcement on 9 January, with the intention of giving commuters sufficient time to make the transition before 1 June.
The 9 January announcement was met with strong reactions from commuters. While many have switched to using SimplyGo, LTA had under-estimated the strong preference of some commuters who wanted to continue seeing their fare deductions and card balances immediately at fare gates and bus card readers. After listening to the feedback from commuters, we understand their concerns and respect their preferences. We therefore decided not to proceed with the earlier decision to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters, so that commuters who prefer to have the option of using CBT EZ-Link cards or NETS FlashPay cards to pay for public transport can still do so.
With this change, there is no need for commuters to convert to SimplyGo. Those who find SimplyGo useful can switch over to the ABT system, while those who want to retain their current CBT cards can continue to do so. Commuters have a choice and can decide which system they prefer.
In making this decision, we will not be able to avoid the estimated cost of $40 million to maintain the adult CBT system till at least 2030. However, we will have an extended CBT system that can serve the needs of adult commuters who want to continue viewing their fares and balances at fare gates and bus card readers. The estimated cost of $40 million will be borne by the Government and will not affect public transport fares. We will also find ways to integrate the two CBT systems over time without affecting commuters and to reduce overall costs where possible.
I have tasked LTA to improve the features and user experience of SimplyGo and to find ways to overcome the technical challenge so that it could display fare deductions and card balances at the fare gates and bus card readers without slowing down the flow of commuters. There is currently no solution at the moment, but we will try our best. We will work with other Government agencies and we will work with industry experts to explore possible solutions.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about fare errors. Sir, these can occur with both CBT and ABT cards, though the error rate is very low. When commuters encounter fare errors, they can surface their fare disputes to claim a refund.
With the extension of the concession card and adult CBT systems, both systems will be able to operate till at least 2030. And we retain the option for adult commuters and concession card holders to remain on the CBT system if they wish to do so. We do not have to make a decision now on whether to extend these systems beyond 2030.
In making the decision subsequently, important factors would include whether we can overcome the current technical limitations of the ABT system and which system commuters prefer to use. We will consult widely to understand the needs of different groups of commuters and carefully assess the costs and benefits.
In planning and implementing our next steps, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA will continue to spend public funds prudently. In areas where we can save money, we will try to reduce costs as much as possible. But where it is necessary to spend, we will do so.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for coming out with the announcement not to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters. I think a lot of my residents have indicated the need to thank you for that.
I have two supplementary questions. The first is the variegated approach in other countries – he mentioned Hong Kong and the UK on the CBT and ABT systems. Can the Minister share how in their variegated systems or approach had been implemented – is it to offer options from the start, or were they considering something similar as to what Singapore did, in terms of cost-saving?
Second, is, in terms of technology of the ABT system, to show fare or card balance, the Minister mentioned that there is no technology at the moment. Will it be possible in the future, at the very start, at the minimal, to allow commuters on the SimplyGo platform to at least tap at the interchanges first –systems where you can actually tap and just see the balance for SimplyGo at one place in the interchange after they get off the bus?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I first want to thank Mr Saktiandi for speaking on this issue. Very early on, after LTA made the 9 January announcement, I remember Mr Saktiandi shared his views, representing the concerns of his residents. I thank him and also other Members for the feedback.
Sir, the systems in Hong Kong and London and many other cities around the world who are starting to offer ABT or who have implemented ABT systems, show that there is currently no solution to be able to display the fare deductions and card balances in a very short time at the fare gates or bus card readers. This latency limitation of the system makes it difficult for us to present that feature to commuters at this point in time, because by doing so, you can imagine especially during peak periods, it will slow down the flow of commuters and lead to long queues and delays.
Because of that, the trade-off is that they maintain two systems. So, in Hong Kong, for example, there is the ABT system that can support bank cards, but they also have what they call the Octopus card, which is a card-based ticketing or CBT system, similar to our EZ-Link stored value card. London, I believe, has a similar arrangement. There is an ABT system and then there is a CBT system. This is also what we will do. By having SimplyGo ABT, to support bank cards, mobile wallets and the ABT stored value cards, and we will also have the CBT system for concession card holders and for adult commuters. So, commuters can choose which system they prefer and which system will best meet their needs.
As I mentioned in my main reply, if over time, we are able to find a solution to be able to display fare deductions and card balances at the fare gates and bus card readers, then this trade-off can be resolved. Then, I think it will be easier to convince commuters to be able to switch over to the new system.
Sir, Mr Saktiandi's second question, is whether we can put more card readers for people to check their balances at MRT stations and bus interchanges. We currently have such ticketing machines at the MRT stations and at bus interchanges. I have asked LTA to introduce and to add more of such readers so as to make it more convenient for commuters who are not using the SimplyGo app, but who would like to check their card balances to be able to use these readers more conveniently.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I have two supplementary questions. I would like to know, what is the breakdown of the $40 million required to continue to maintain the existing card-based EZ-Link system, alongside the SimplyGo.
The second question is, during LTA's initial announcement on 15 June last year, regarding the consolidation of EZ-Link and Transit Link under the SimplyGo branding, was it already known that it planned to phase out the EZ-Link system? And if so, why was it not announced publicly at that point in time?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, to Ms Pereira's first question, the $40 million is an estimate. This is the estimated cost to purchase new hardware and equipment, software and also to operate and maintain the CBT system for adult commuters till at least 2030. In implementing the system extension, LTA will spend prudently and we will try to reduce the cost as much as possible.
\t
There is also the CBT system for concession card holders, which LTA had earlier decided to retain after getting feedback from commuters during its consultation with more than 1,000 commuters. LTA will look at ways to be able to progressively integrate these two CBT systems over time and without inconveniencing commuters, so that we can work towards, if possible, having one CBT system in future rather than two. And I believe this will help to reduce overall costs.
Sir, Ms Pereira's second question – the merger of EZ-Link and TransitLink is to enable the two organisations to be able to work more closely together and it is not linked to the decision of whether or not to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters. I had explained in my main reply the key considerations behind LTA's announcement on 9 January. It is really to try and avoid incurring the cost of extending the system when it reaches end-of-life in 2024. And also, LTA observed that by December 2023, about two-thirds of adult commuters have switched over to using SimplyGo, whether bank cards, mobile wallets, or the SimplyGo stored value ABT cards.
But we had under-estimated the strong preference of commuters who would like to continue seeing the fare deductions and the card balances at the fare gates and at the bus card readers. And so, this is why after hearing this feedback and understanding the concerns, we decided not to proceed with the original plan to sunset the CBT system for adult commuters.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister: I understand the Minister said that we are retaining the concession-based system for the CBT system. So, has LTA considered the possibility of persuading the one-third CBT ticket holders who are not on the ABT system, to go into the concession-base system which is being retained?
The second question is whether LTA has considered using the $40 million to incentivise existing CBT holders to convert to the ABT? They may be happier to join them if you offer them a credit to their account when they sign up for the ABT system.
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, to Mr Lim's first question, indeed, I think that is the plan that we have, to progressively be able to integrate the two CBT systems. But because the two systems and the two types of cards – as in the cards for the adult commuters and the cards for concession card holders – are currently not compatible, we cannot make this change overnight.
But as Members are aware, these stored value cards, EZ-Link cards, for example, have an expiry date. So, when the current cards expire, if we are able to then issue a new card under the integrated system, then in the future, we can gradually and progressively work towards having one CBT system. That is part of our plan. We intend to move towards that direction. Between having two systems versus having one CBT system, I think it is better to have one CBT system.
Sir, the second point that Mr Lim brought up, I think it is a good idea that we will certainly consider – how to encourage commuters who wish to switch over to SimplyGo to be able to do so. But I want to explain that the important thing here is to retain the option for commuters to choose because of the trade-off between the two systems.
At the moment, ABT systems are still unable to display fare deductions and card balances at the fare gates and at the bus card readers quickly. So, because of this limitation, we feel it is important to give commuters both options so that they can choose which system they prefer. Those who prefer to use the CBT system because they want to retain this feature can do so. Those who do not mind switching over to SimplyGo, because there are some benefits of SimplyGo as I explained in my main reply, they can also have the option to do so. And we will, over time, hopefully be able to improve the user experience and the features of SimplyGo. I think that will be an important factor in trying to encourage more people to switch over.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I use public transport for the vast majority of my journeys and I have been using SimplyGo for the past few years. It has always bothered me slightly that I cannot see the fare charge at the gates because I do not know if I am being overcharged. However, I am able to see the fare charge on the SimplyGo app almost immediately after I exited the fare gate. And the fact that the fare game can open immediately after the SimplyGo\tcard is placed on the reader means that the signals are able to make a round trip to the server and back in a reasonable amount of time. So, can the Minister share exactly what is the latency, preferably in milliseconds, that prevents the fare balance from being shown at the gate?
Secondly, many commuters were upset that their user experience was being downgraded without the public consultation or benefit in return and that\tSimplyGo also cannot be used for motoring. So, instead of spending $40 million to extend the life of the card-based ticketing system for another six years, can LTA instead use that money to upgrade the SimplyGo system to overcome these technical constraints? LTA could, for example, extend the contract by just one more year while it irons out the usability issues and transitions the remaining 30% of users to the\tSimplyGo\tsystem.
And finally, could the Minister please answer my Parliamentary Question No 15 Parts (b) and (c), and share how much cost savings will be gained by having a fully ABT system and whether it can return these cost savings to commuters in a form of rebates?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the issue about the fare gates, I had explained in my main reply that at the moment, the ABT technology does not allow the card balances and the fare deductions to be shown quickly. So, if you use a CBT card, because the information is stored on the card, you can tap it and then it will process it and it will show within half a second.
But with an ABT system – and this is not just in Singapore; this is so true in places like London and Hong Kong – you have to check with the backend what the information, is to be able to calculate what is the fare deduction and what is the balance. So, if you were to then wait for the information to be transmitted back to the fare gates or to the bus card readers, it could take several seconds. And this may be okay if the flow of commuters is very light, but it is going to cause delays and it is going to add to the queues, especially during periods when the volumes are higher, peak periods, for example.
So, because of that constraint, the ABT systems – not just in Singapore, but also elsewhere – are designed such that they do not display the balance information at the fare gate. I hope that answers Mr Giam's question.
He has a second part to the question, which is then how come the person can tap and go out, and do we not then have information about the fares at the point of tapping? Sir, this is something which is a bit technical here. LTA would let the person tap out and then compute the balances at the backend and that will then be reflected on the app, as Mr Giam mentioned, with a short delay; not immediately. But the next time when the user taps in and assuming that user does not have sufficient balance after the last journey, this card will then be blocked. So, the user would be able to exit but if he or she does not top up the card before the next trip, then this card would not be able to be used for the next journey.
I do not want to go into too much technical details but I hope that answers Mr Giam's question as to how this system operates. The whole purpose is to avoid causing a congestion and to slow down the flow of commuters because I think efficiency is very important for our commuters.
Sir, the consultation process that LTA has gone through, I had mentioned in my interview with the media that one lesson that we learned is we should have consulted more widely and hear the views of a wider group of commuters, and in particular, I think people who have concerns about this feature of being able to view their fare deductions and card balances at the fare gates and bus card readers, being taken away.
LTA did do some consultation with more than 1,000 commuters. Part of the exercise also involved giving adult commuters, seniors and students ABT cards for them to try and then to get their feedback after they have used it for a few months. So, this process did throw up some very useful feedback. I mentioned some of the changes that were made in my main reply, after we got the feedback from the commuters. So, I thank our commuters who participated in this exercise for sharing their views with us. But I think we under-estimated the strong preference of some commuters who want to retain this feature. So, I do acknowledge that if we had consulted more widely, we would have come across these views earlier on in the process.
Sir, the plan is not to stop here. Currently, the SimplyGo system indeed cannot be used for motoring, but we want to work towards enhancing the features and the user experience for SimplyGo. So that over time, just like today, your EZ-Link card can be used for retail, can be used for motoring and can be used for public transport, we also want to work towards SimplyGo being able to be used for all three – retail, public transport and also monitoring. But the process will take some time and that is why we need to extend the CBT system for adult commuters at this point in time because the system is reaching end-of-life in 2024.
We could, of course, extend by one year, as Mr Giam suggested, but I am not very confident that we will be able to find a solution in one year and having put in the hardware and the necessary equipment, we thought it is more prudent to plan, for the purposes of budgeting and planning, for it to run for at least a few years until at least 2030. That will give us time to be able to explore possible solutions together with industry experts and other Government agencies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister, for the CBT system for concession card holders, I note that the plan is to hopefully integrate that over time with the CBT system for adult commuters as well. I would like to ask the Minister what the current assessment is of how technically feasible it is to do this integration? And ultimately, if it turns out that it is not possible or not feasible to integrate, can I get the Minister to confirm that the CBT system for concession card holders will also be maintained until at least 2030?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, to Mr Xie Yao Quan's question, we currently plan for both the CBT systems – the CBT system for adult commuters and also the CBT system for concession card holders – to both run till at least 2030. Of course, if we are able to find a good solution before that, we can always make a decision whether to integrate earlier or to switch over earlier. But as I mentioned, one key consideration for us would be the user experience and the features of SimplyGo. So, likewise for the concession card holders, if we are able to integrate the system and to be able to have the two CBT systems come together earlier than 2030, we will certainly find ways to do so.
Mr Speaker, may I also seek your permission to answer a question from Mr Giam that I missed out earlier. My apologies, Mr Giam. Mr Giam had asked if we have savings, can we give back to commuters as rebates? Sorry, I did not answer the Member's question earlier.
Mr Speaker, the costs of implementing the ABT and CBT systems, including this estimated $40 million that I mentioned for the CBT system for adult commuters, will be borne by the Government. It does not go into the fare formula and it does not affect the fares to be paid for by commuters. So, I think in the same vein, if there are some savings that LTA is able to have through cost avoidance, some cost savings in implementing the project, I think we also would not then flow it back directly to commuters in the form of fares. Because it did not affect the fares in the first place. So, any cost savings, I think we would then be able to save on behalf of all taxpayers.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\t
\t
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I understood the Minister's explanation about the latency in the ABT because the information has to be retrieved from the server. So, my question is: can the Minister explain why it is not possible to store the balance information on the card as well? By duplicating the information on the card, we will be able to retrieve the information faster.
My next clarification is on the focus group consultations. Is the Minister saying that for the more than a thousand users that LTA has consulted, there was no or minimal feedback regarding this desire to have their card balances shown on their cards?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the information for ABT is not stored in the card, because, for example, if you have credit cards, there is no card balance to talk about because it is a credit card, bank card or mobile wallet. So, because of that design in the ABT system and the majority of ABT users are actually using bank cards and mobile wallets, as Ms Poa would have heard from my main reply earlier. This is currently not in the ABT system not just here, but also in other cities. Whether we can find a solution to overcome the latency problem, we will try our best.
At the moment, we are not aware of any solutions that can be applied at scale to the whole public transport system, both here and overseas. But we will work with our industry experts and other Government agencies and, if we can find a solution to overcome this latency problem, that would be a plus to enhance the usability and the features of SimplyGo.
The second question, just to clarify, Mr Speaker, I did not say that there was no feedback from the 1,000 commuters with regard to the concerns of not being able to view the fare deductions and card balances at the fare gates and bus card readers. In fact, that was one of the first feedback that came to LTA, especially from seniors. And based on that feedback, LTA then decided not to proceed with the plan to sunset the CBT system for concession cardholders because we understand that, for seniors, many of them told us that they are not familiar with using the app, so, that is why we decided to retain the CBT system for concession cardholders.
For adult commuters, there was some feedback, but we also heard positive comments about the benefits. So, I think, in the end, the decision taken was based on an important consideration, which is, until we can resolve the technical limitations, it is good to give commuters choices and options so that those who prefer the features of SimplyGo can choose to use SimplyGo, if they wish to; those who prefer the features of the CBT system can continue to use these cards, if they wish to.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first is whether LTA has looked into this public transport system, such as that in Japan, which, as I understand, allows locals and foreigners to use travel cards integrated with the mobile wallet. And speaking from personal experience, I was able to use my phone, which is integrated with my mobile wallet, and it actually allows me to view the fare details instantaneously without any lag and, as I understand, this is even compatible with the express mode, meaning you do not even need a charge phone to use it.
The second question is actually on my Parliamentary Question No 19, that is, whether the plans to enhance the SimplyGo system include plans for a universal card which allows one to use it for public transport, retail, motoring, just as what the current EZ-Link and Flashpay cards can do and, importantly, whether it is compatible with the new onboard unit for ERP 2.0?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I will start with the second question from Mr Chua. I had answered Mr Giam earlier on a similar point, that, over time, we do want to work towards having the SimplyGo card being able to be used for retail, public transport and also motoring.
On the first question, we do support mobile wallets, too. Under our SimplyGo, you can use your smart device, your phone, to be able to pay for public transport using SimplyGo. We will be interested to find out a bit more about the system in Japan. If there is a solution there and we can borrow some good ideas, we will be happy to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply and the commitment to consult wider on such issues. Can I ask the Minister how LTA intends to get more feedback and views from seniors and other segments of society who may not be au fait with technology? And how can LTA ensure that such segments of our society are well-represented in these feedback sessions on salient issues that affect the public?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Yip for raising this very important point. Indeed, when we move to digital solutions, we must also make sure that we do not leave our seniors, some of whom may not be so familiar with technology, behind.
And it is precisely because of this consideration that we had reached out and included seniors in our consultation exercise with the more than 1,000 commuters. Seniors were an important stakeholder group that we consulted early on and, based on their feedback, LTA then decided not to sunset the concession cards' CBT system because we are mindful that some of the senior commuters may find it difficult to make the switch because they may not be so familiar in using the app.
So, I just want to reassure Mr Yip and this House that we do pay a lot of attention to taking into account the needs of different groups of commuters when we implement some of these solutions. In this particular instance, we would have been able to do better if we had consulted more widely and would be able to garner a wider range of views that would have helped with our decision-making. We underestimated the strong preference of some commuters to view the card balance and fare deductions at the fare gates and bus card readers. But we will learn from this and we hope to do better next time.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport what is the reasoning behind the necessity for phasing out the card-based ticketing system for use on buses and trains in favour of the SimplyGo system.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport with regard to the SimplyGo system, whether there are ways to inform commuters of their fare and balance at the point of tapping out without slowing down commute.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the cost-benefit analyses that justified the decision to invest an additional $40 million in extending the legacy card-based ticketing system for public transport; and (b) what measures are being taken to ensure the efficient use of these funds while balancing the needs of commuters.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the factors that prompted the decision to postpone the phase-out of the EZ-Link card-based ticketing (CBT) system in favour of SimplyGo; and (b) what are the benefits and long-term vision for promoting account-based ticketing cards as compared to the CBT cards.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport how does the Ministry plan to engage with commuters and address concerns about fare display and technical challenges related to usage of SimplyGo cards and ensure that future transitions in public transportation payment systems are met with better preparation and responsiveness to user needs.","6 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the plans to increase resources and manpower at MRT stations, bus interchanges and other public transport nodes or areas, to facilitate the upgrading of the current EZ-Link cards to SimplyGo cards for members of the public, especially senior citizens, students and residents of low-income households; and (b) what are the plans to raise public awareness of the benefits of upgrading to SimplyGo cards."],"footNoteQuestions":["2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","11","12","13","14","15","16","17","18","19","20","21","22"],"questionNo":"2-22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Inquiry into Former Minister S Iswaran's Case Given Outcome of Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister whether the Government considers it necessary to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate former Minister S Iswaran’s case at an appropriate juncture, with the paramount objective of affirming the Government’s stance of keeping the system free of corruption.
24 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister in view of the outcome of the investigations regarding former Member of Parliament S Iswaran, whether it is necessary to consider the matter further as resolved by this House on the motion moved by Leader of the House and agreed to by this House on 19 September 2023.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Before I call on all the Ministers to reply to Question Nos 23 to 31, I wish to highlight to Members that the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) may be related to a case before the Courts.
I have allowed the Questions to stand on today's Order Paper because I am satisfied that they do not require answers that venture into legal issues before the Courts nor impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance maintained between this House and the Judiciary.
I would like to, therefore, advise Members to exercise caution in making any statement or asking any supplementary questions discussing or reflecting the details of the case as it could have the potential to concern matters that are sub judice or may prejudice the investigations and the interests of the parties to the matter.
Following Standing Order 21(1)(h), I will rule such statements and supplementary questions out of order. Minister Indranee, please.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 23 and 24 in the Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Henry Kwek asked whether, in view of the outcome of the investigations regarding Mr Iswaran, it is necessary to further consider the matter as resolved in this House on 19 September 2023.
To provide context, Members will recall that in September last year, Ms Hazel Poa moved a Motion to suspend Mr Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of that Session of the 14th Parliament. Ms Poa's objective in so doing, which she expressly stated at that time, was to stop Mr Iswaran from receiving his Member of Parliament (MP) allowance, as he was on leave of absence and was not carrying out his MP duties.
I had, in parallel, moved the Motion proposing that consideration of the matter be deferred until the outcome of the investigations was known so as not to prejudge the matter. The House agreed and resolved to consider the matter regarding Mr Iswaran when the outcome of the investigations was known.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has since completed its investigations and the Public Prosecutor has brought charges against Mr Iswaran.
Prior to the formal presentation of the charges against him, Mr Iswaran resigned from Cabinet and as an MP. Following his resignation, he also informed the Prime Minister that he would voluntarily return all monies he received by way of Ministerial salary and allowances as an MP that were paid to him since the commencement of the CPIB investigations in July 2023.
In these circumstances, the specific issues regarding Mr Iswaran, which the House was concerned with, had been addressed. There is, hence, no need for any further consideration of steps to be taken against Mr Iswaran by the House.
Members may ask, aside from Mr Iswaran's case, whether there is a need for us to change the current framework with regard to an MP who is under investigation for an offence. In the course of the debate last year, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had called for suspension of an MP under investigation, but, strangely, only if the investigation related to corruption and not any other offence. In addition, Ms Poa had also sought leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 to give Parliament the flexibility to authorise the back payment of the allowance of an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament by resolution.
There are two separate issues involved here. First, whether it should be a rule that an MP, under investigation for an offence, should be suspended. And second, whether an MP, on leave of absence while under investigation, should have his or her allowance withheld, pending the outcome of the investigation or the case. I will deal with them in turn.
On the first issue, it would not, as a matter of principle, be correct to suspend an MP simply because he or she is under investigation. To do so would be to effectively prejudge that the MP has committed a wrongdoing, even before details of the investigation are known. What if the MP is subsequently not charged or is charged but found innocent? We would have wrongly punished the MP in our haste to presume guilt or wrongdoing. Everyone who is alleged to have committed a wrongdoing, including MPs, should be given due process. This is why in most Parliamentary systems, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, there is no general practice of suspending a member against whom investigations are ongoing.
This position was supported by the Workers' Party and Nominated Members of Parliament in the debate last year.
This brings me to the second issue, which is, whether MPs on leave of absence should have their allowance withheld.
On this, it is important to appreciate that there are two material differences between leave of absence and suspension.
First, leave of absence, in and of itself, does not imply any wrongdoing as it does not function as a penalty, unlike suspension, which operates as a sanction or penalty. MPs may apply for leave of absence for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with wrongdoing, for example, due to illness, overseas travel or other exigencies.
Second, unlike suspension, leave of absence is not a matter for the House. In a situation where an MP is under investigation, he or she cannot be put on leave of absence by Parliament. The MP can apply for leave of absence on his or her own accord or be required by the party to take leave of absence. Whether or not the party requires the MP to take leave of absence will depend on the circumstances of each case.
These two material differences have a bearing on how the question of an MP's allowance should be dealt with if the MP is under investigation and is subsequently charged or convicted.
\t
Given that leave of absence is not an indication of wrongdoing or a sanction, it would not, as a general rule, be correct to withhold the Members of Parliament's allowance while he or she is on leave of absence. If the House were to withhold the MP’s pay pending the investigations or the outcome of the case, we would encounter the same problem that arises for suspension. The House would be prejudging the issue. If the MP is placed on leave of absence and is subsequently charged or convicted, it would be the party’s responsibility to ensure that the MP pays back the allowance received during this period, if that is the right thing to do in the circumstances. In the present case Mr Iswaran volunteered to pay back his allowance after he resigned and before his trial, so the question did not arise.
Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and on what is the right and fair thing to do in each situation.
Mr Speaker, I now move on to Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query, as to whether it is necessary to appoint a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate Mr Iswaran’s case at an appropriate juncture.
Mr Speaker, Sir, section 9 of the Inquiries Act sets out the subjects for which a COI may be appointed to inquire into. These include:
(a) accidents involving death, serious injury, or serious property damage;
(b) incidents that may endanger public safety or public health; and
(c) the conduct or management of a Ministry.
The purpose of a COI is to investigate something with a view to finding out how it happened.
In this case, the CPIB has investigated the matter. Based on their investigations the AGC has taken the view that there is basis for criminal charges to be brought against Mr Iswaran. Determination of criminal offences is a matter for the court, which is currently dealing with the case.
We should wait for the court proceedings to conclude before deciding if anything else needs to be done.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing F1 Contracts with Singapore Government and Strengthening Guidelines for Investment-oriented Agencies that Engage with Private Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has the Ministry assessed that the F1 contracts were not structured to the disadvantage of the Government; (b) whether any audits have found areas of non-compliance in the Ministry’s processes that may have compromised the structuring of the F1 contracts; and (c) whether such areas of non-compliance, if any, involved the Minister exercising his discretion to make exceptions to standard operating procedures, without requiring the approval of the Cabinet.
26 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of CPIB's findings on former Minister S Iswaran (a) whether he has directed the Singapore Tourism Board to conduct a full assessment of the relationship between former Minister S Iswaran and Mr Ong Beng Seng concerning the F1 Singapore Grand Prix; and (b) if so, whether there have been possible areas of lapses in due diligence and reporting processes.
27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how will the ongoing corruption allegations against former Minister S Iswaran affect the conduct of our economic and investment-oriented agencies in attracting business and investors; (b) whether the Ministry will review and strengthen current guidelines for how these agencies engage with private entities; and (c) what steps will the Government take to address any public concerns and uphold Singapore's reputation for integrity and good governance in the international business community.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for Trade and Industy): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 25 to 27 on today's Order Paper together? These questions pertain to the Formula One (F1) races and the conduct of economic agencies in working with private entities.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, my response today will also cover the questions filed by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for a subsequent Sitting. If the Member is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw the question after this session.
Sir, I would first say that many parts of these questions relate to matters which may have to be dealt with during the trial of Mr Iswaran. It is not appropriate for us to speculate or prejudge the outcome of the proceedings. I will answer in so far as it is possible for me to do so.
Mr Edward Chia asked if the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has conducted an assessment of the relationship between former Minister S Iswaran and Mr Ong Beng Seng concerning the F1 Singapore Grand Prix. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we assessed the benefits of the F1 contracts. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about Government’s contracts with Mr Ong Beng Seng’s companies. More than one Member asked if there has been non-compliance with processes.
In 2007, STB entered into a contract with Singapore GP Pte Ltd to organise the F1 night race in Singapore. STB renewed this contract three times, in 2012, 2017 and 2022. We are in the fourth term of our contract, which will end in 2028.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) had previously said that: “The terms of all the agreements were considered carefully by the Government. There was an independent consultancy study. There is nothing to suggest as of now that either the F1 contracts or other contracts were structured to the disadvantage of the Government.”
But as Members will appreciate, given the allegations of corruption, we are reviewing the terms of deal again. We have also asked STB to conduct an audit of the most recent race, held in 2022, of which accounts are ready for audit. Members will understand that I cannot say more on this at this point.
Whilst we will review any Government contracts to safeguard Singapore’s interest, we remain committed to the F1 Singapore Grand Prix. Preparations for the 2024 race have started.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the conduct of economic agencies in working with private entities, to ensure we uphold Singapore's reputation for integrity and good governance in the international business community. Like other Government agencies, our economic agencies abide by the Public Service Code of Conduct, which sets out the principles and rules of engagement. These include interactions with private entities, such as rules on accepting gifts and hospitality. Minister Chan will share more details about the Code and the practices Public Service officers are required to adhere to, in his reply to related Parliamentary Questions later.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Just one question for the Minister. Which agency is reviewing the F1 contract that the Minister shared in her speech – is it the Ministry itself or is it possibly the Auditor-General's Office (AGO)?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: MTI is leading in this review and we may involve other agencies in the process.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Just a quick clarification on my part. Can I confirm that the Government will be reviewing any other contracts that it has with Mr Ong's companies, over and beyond the F1?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I am not aware that the Government has contracts with Mr Ong Beng Seng's companies that are of the same nature and relevance.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her reply. Has the Ministry conducted any assessment of any potential impact of the case on investors confidence in Singapore?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: We have not detected any reservations or any impact, but we will keep a very close eye and will respond quickly, expeditiously and robustly, if need be.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updating Codes of Conduct and Whistle-blowing Framework for Political Office Holders and Public Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister in light of CPIB’s findings on former Minister S Iswaran (a) whether the current system of checks and balances, including the governance of senior public officials and whistle-blowing processes, adequately deliver on its intended purposes; and (b) whether there are areas for further improvements or enhancements.
29 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister in light of CPIB's findings on former Minister S Iswaran (a) whether the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the rules guiding the interactions of political office holders and officers of the public service with private sector stakeholders in social settings; and (b) whether any insight can be provided into the measures under consideration to enhance the guidelines to ensure utmost integrity in such engagements.
30 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Prime Minister regarding the acceptance or obtainment of a valuable thing by public servants or political office holders (a) whether there is an established system for declarations of such gifts; (b) how is monitoring performed to detect absent or inadequate consideration of such declarations across the Government; and (c) whether governance and controls will be reviewed to further improve their effectiveness.
31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister whether there are any plans to review or revise the Code of Conduct for Ministers and the whistle-blowing framework for public officers and to mandate refresher training on the Code of Conduct for public officers.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister. In view of Mr S Iswaran’s case, some members of the public and various Members in this House, including Mr Edward Chia, Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Darryl David and Mr Mohd Fahmi, have asked about our rules – whether they are adequate and should they be reviewed. May I have your permission to answer Question Nos 28 to 31 on today’s Order Paper? And Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will also cover the matter raised in the questions by Mr Darryl David1 and Mr Mohd Fahmi2 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for members to proceed with the Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first lay out our approach to uphold the integrity of our system of governance so as to maintain public confidence and trust.
Our rules are meant to facilitate our work and keep our officers safe from being compromised. They should not be so onerous that our officers cannot operate. Neither should they be so lax as to erode discipline and trust in our system. When an incident happens, we should not have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately tighten or add more rules. Instead, we should ask ourselves three questions.
First, was it a case where the rules were clear, but were flouted or ignored? If so, then what we need to do is not to adjust the rules, but to take action against the offender.
Second, was it a case where the rules were unclear? If so, then we should clarify or simplify the rules. But we should be mindful that not every grey area can be clarified, and for some matters, judgement may be required. Our officers should not just understand the letter of the rule, but also the spirit.
Third, was it a case where the rules were too lax, or was it a new situation not envisaged or covered by the rules? If so, we should update the rules.
To know which of these apply to the case of former Minister S Iswaran, we need to know the facts of his case, and we should not prejudge these facts before the court trial.
Maintaining the integrity of our system is a multi-pronged and continuous effort. At the individual level, we must have the right ethos and values; understand both the spirit and letter of the rules; and uphold them.
At the team or organisation-level, we must look out for one another to minimise the chances of us being compromised, subverted, or succumbing to human frailties.
At the system level, we must have regular internal audits, external audits and have institutions like Auditor-General's Office (AGO) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to respond to issues not picked up by other layers of checks.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while we may endeavour to do our best and keep improving at the system level, no system is ever perfect and will be able to pick up every wrongdoing at the first instance, as much as we may desire.
Hence, when incidents happen, we respond decisively and transparently to restore trust and confidence in our system. This is what we have done and what we will continue to do.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with these as background, let me address some specific questions raised by Members of this House.
First, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Derrick Goh asked about gifts. Our rules on gifts are clear.
Officers must never ask for gifts or favours, especially when they are in a position to influence or affect any decision involving the other party.
An officer must not accept any gift offered to him, on account of his official position or his official work. Our first instinct must be to decline any unsolicited gifts and return them, if possible.
If it is not possible or impractical to do so, we declare and account for it according to established processes. This is to ensure transparency and to maintain our probity.
If the officer wants to keep the gift, he may be allowed to do so if he pays for it after having its value assessed. For operational simplicity, the officer may be allowed to retain a gift worth less than $50 without paying for it, if doing so does not affect the integrity of the Civil Service. But should an officer accept multiple gifts of $49 repeatedly? I think we know the answer from the spirit of the rule. If such a pattern of behaviour is observed, it must stop.
What about meals? Similar principles apply. We appreciate that it may not be practical to assess the value of the meal in the moment. Officers must have good sense to know when they are being cultivated and reject such attempts. When in doubt, officers should inform their supervisors.
This does not mean that our officers should not go out and interact with non-Government stakeholders to understand the business and social communities. It is part of our work to understand the world in order to govern responsively and responsibly.
As a practical measure to protect ourselves, I always advise our officers to avoid attending such events alone where the risk of being compromised is harder to manage.
On the Code of Conduct for public officers, we review the rules annually to ensure that it remains relevant to the contexts we are facing and are going to face. For each review, we will gather feedback and will consult stakeholders, including the unions. If there are changes, they will be communicated to our officers.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Darryl David asked about the Code of Conduct for Ministers and Political Office Holders. The Code has been in place since 1954 and it is regularly reviewed to ensure that the Code remains sound and relevant. The last major changes were made in 2005 and included clarifications on the rules on acceptance of gifts, declarations of investments and directorships, amongst others.
\t
Political Office Holders are also expected to abide by the Rules of Prudence, issued by the Prime Minister after every General Election to all People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament.
Mr Edward Chia, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Mohd Fahmi asked about the whistle-blowing process. The Public Service has an established Internal Disclosure Policy where officers can directly report to their Heads of Agencies any wrongful or doubtful practices they observe. There are confidentiality and \"non-retaliation\" provisions in place to protect those who have reported in good faith.
If anyone suspects that any of their superiors have been compromised, they can report the suspicious activity to their Heads of Agencies, or beyond their organisation, including to agencies like CPIB.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must remind ourselves that Mr Iswaran’s case is before the Courts. We should let the law take its course and not jump to conclusions nor make statements that may prejudice the case or prematurely adjudge the processes that may have gone right or wrong. This case is one that was picked up by CPIB and investigations were initiated without external pressure or interference.
In updating our rules, sharpening our implementation, and inculcating the right ethos and values to our officers, the Public Service and the Government will continue to draw lessons from this and other cases, whether local or overseas.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask just one supplementary question to the Minister. Given that business and cultural norms actually differ between countries and evolved. So, for example, in some cases, declining invitations to dinners or events may be perceived as disrespectful. What are the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and training provided to public officers who advance trade relations and attract foreign direct investments (FDIs) and how often are these training materials updated?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question in two parts. First, on the training of our public officers and second part about the difference between the Government and the private sector.
Our Public Service has a system of ensuring the Code of Conduct is known and observed. We focus not just on the rules, as I have explained, but also the principles behind the rules. The key principles are articulated in the Instruction Manuals with illustrative examples to help officers understand the rules. The Code is reinforced through various channels, including on-boarding of new entrants, annual declarations to remind officers of the rules, annual mandatory quizzes, incorporation into milestone programmes – for example, the Foundation Programme for Young Leaders, Management Development Courses for Supervisors, Senior Management Programme for Directors – and there will also be regular discussions and conversations with Senior Leaders on the values and ethos of our Public Service and there will also be regular service-wide reminders. This is the process of how we inculcate the right values and ethos in our officers to help them understand not just the letter of the rule but the spirit behind the rule.
Let me address the second part. The context for public agencies is different from that of private companies. Our Public Service is in the business of governance and providing public services to a nation of people from diverse backgrounds and who have different expectations and aspirations. This is very different from the private sector where they are more concerned with transactions between private parties. For the public sector, we need to earn the respect and trust of the public and to put in place a fair system that it is not just about who you are and whether you can pay to access public services in a fair and transparent manner. This is why the Public Service hold ourselves to high standards of conduct to give confidence to all stakeholders that they will be treated fairly and transparently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister (a) whether the last review of the Code of Conduct for Ministers and other political office holders was conducted in 2005 when the Code of Conduct for Ministers was updated; (b) if so, what were the key findings and recommendations of that review; and (c) if not, when was it last reviewed and what were its key findings and recommendations.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister (a) whether he can provide insights on the triggers or red flags that prompted the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to independently initiate the investigations into former Minister S Iswaran; (b) what proactive measures is the Government considering to enhance its internal checks and balances to ensure early detection of potential corruption cases within the administration; and (c) what are the existing mechanisms and safeguards within the Government to prevent and detect corruption independently, especially in cases involving high-ranking officials."],"footNoteQuestions":["28","29","30","31"],"questionNo":"28-31"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Fail to Give Mandatory Notification to Government When They Retrench Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each year from 2019 to 2023, what is the number of companies that have failed to provide the Ministry with Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications within the required period of five working days after affected employees are notified of their retrenchment; and (b) what actions have been taken against such companies.
33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the retrenchment exercise carried out by an e-commerce company in early January 2024 has been notified to the Ministry in line with mandatory requirements for employers with Singapore-registered businesses with at least 10 employees; (b) if so, what has been the timeline and what action has been taken by the Ministry following the notification; and (c) if not notified, what action has the Ministry taken regarding the non-compliance with mandatory retrenchment notification requirements.
34 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the recent episodes of manpower reduction exercises carried out by several leading companies, what is the Ministry's overall view of the job market in the next few months.
\t
35 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the recent layoffs by an e-commerce company which was not notified to the unions (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of employees who were laid off with a breakdown by nationality; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider regulating non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
36 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the sudden retrenchment exercise in early January 2024 that was conducted by a large e-commerce company before consulting the workers’ union, what steps will the Ministry take to ensure that tripartism is maintained when companies carry out retrenchment exercises.
37 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are any penalties for companies who carry out retrenchment exercises without notifying and consulting the relevant trade unions; and (b) what specific measures is the Ministry taking to ensure that companies operating in Singapore adhere to fair labour practices, particularly in terms of providing advance notice and adequate compensation to employees in the event of lay-offs.
\t
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to address six oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs) numbering Question Nos 32 to 37 for the 5 February 2024 Sitting. In addition, to provide a more holistic answer, I will also address four oral PQs scheduled for the Sitting on 6 February and four written PQs scheduled for Sittings today and on 7 February 2024, please.
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Members have filed these Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on various issues related to retrenchment and arising from a recent retrenchment exercise that has been in the news. I am taking these PQs collectively so as to provide a more comprehensive and holistic response.
I will begin by first addressing the Lazada Group's retrenchment exercise conducted in January 2024. I believe that this was the e-commerce company referred to by Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant in their PQs.
First and foremost, I would like to assure Members that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been actively involved in this matter to ensure that Lazada's retrenchment is conducted in a fair and responsible manner. To recap, in early January this year, there were reports of sudden layoffs at Lazada Singapore Pte Ltd which is conducted without consultation with the union, which is the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union (FDAWU). If Lazada had correctly notified the FDAWU early, they would have been able to work together with the union to ensure that the retrenchment exercise was carried out fairly and responsibly, and proper support was given to the affected workers.
However, Lazada did not notify the FDAWU of the retrenchment exercise. This was not in line with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM). TAMEM sets out guidelines for employers on how to manage retrenchment exercises in a fair and responsible manner. MOM immediately stepped in to inform Lazada that their action was not aligned with TAMEM.
Through MOM's intervention, Lazada apologised to the union and acknowledged that they should have notified them before informing employees. FDAWU accepted Lazada’s apology. In the past few weeks, MOM has been actively facilitating many rounds of negotiations between FDAWU and Lazada. This is to ensure a fair outcome for the affected employees and to ensure that such an incident does not occur again. As you may have heard in the news, MOM has managed to facilitate an amicable settlement between Lazada and FDAWU. FDAWU managed to secure an improved overall retrenchment package, with retrenchment benefits that are in line with industry standards. Lazada has also committed to working in closer partnership with FDAWU moving forward.
To Dr Tan Wu Meng’s question, Lazada had submitted the Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) for its January 2024 retrenchment exercise on time. This is within five working days after the employees were notified. Following the submission, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation worked with Lazada to provide the affected employees with career facilitation services and information kits on career resources. This taskforce comprises representatives from the MOM, Workforce Singapore (WSG), the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG).
To Ms Hazel Poa's question about the number and nationality profile of the affected Lazada employees, MOM does not publicly provide such information about a company’s business operations. Nonetheless, we reiterate that employers must conduct retrenchment exercises based on objective selection criteria.
Mr Speaker and Members, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the lessons learnt from the Lazada incident. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Neil Parekh also asked about steps to ensure that tripartism is maintained.
The Lazada incident clearly demonstrates the success of Singapore's unique model of tripartism. While there was an initial lapse on Lazada's part in not notifying the union on the retrenchment exercise which contravened the TAMEM, MOM actively stepped in and facilitated the discussions between Lazada and the FDAWU to help them arrive at an amicable and fair resolution that achieved win-win outcomes for the affected workers and the company. Lazada has also committed to working closely with FDAWU in the future.
The satisfactory resolution to this matter was possible because of tripartism. This is a model where unions, companies and Government work together in a collaborative spirit to find solutions and build even stronger partnerships. In many other countries, the unions and companies would have approached similar issues in, perhaps, a more confrontational manner. This would have resulted in more conflicts, with potentially acrimonious and longer-term negative implications for all of the parties involved.
However, in Singapore, this particular incident, was quite swiftly resolved. So, the ability to resolve such incidents attests to the high levels of trust amongst the tripartite partners.
This is also why unionised companies should always consult their unions when making decisions that fundamentally impact workers, such as retrenchments. Members of the House, retrenchment exercises impact all of our workers emotionally, psychologically and, of course, financially. Unions will have the expertise to ensure that the exercise is carried out fairly, responsibly and communicated in a sensitive manner to affected workers. This will help to smoothen the process for companies and enable the affected workers going through this difficult period to be better supported.
Beyond this specific incident, several Members have also asked about how we ensure that retrenchment exercises are conducted in a fair and responsible manner. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether MOM should mandate all companies with at least 10 workers to notify unions about upcoming lay-offs. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Chua asked whether there should be penalties on companies who do not notify and consult unions about a retrenchment exercise and whether adequate compensation is made to employees. Mr Patrick Tay, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Chua again and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the measures to ensure responsible employment practices, compliance of companies with regard to MRN requirements and what actions can be taken against employers who are recalcitrant.
I will address these questions together and start with our overall approach towards retrenchment issues. Singapore’s approach has always been one that is balanced and one that protects workers, whilst giving businesses flexibility. Let me make three points in our approach.
\tMr Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes, just to remind you.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Yes. First, we engage and educate employers to act responsibly. I am going to try and jump forward quickly.
Secondly, employers are required to notify MOM within five days of the retrenchment exercise. I will publish the entire transcript on the Hansard so that Members can read through.
And third, we protect workers and we will not wait until retrenchment happens to do so. We also help workers to build career resilience, so that they can find new and better jobs when they face disruptions.
I want to record the point and address the point that whilst some amongst us have called for stronger action to protect workers, even without legally mandating the retrenchment benefits, our MRN data from 2019 to 2023 shows that around nine in 10 eligible employees received retrenchment benefits.
So, as I have alluded to on our approach, ensuring that while we protect the workers, we must continue to preserve the flexibility for businesses to adjust to market conditions because this will ultimately create and can sustain more good jobs for Singaporeans.
During this particular period, with regard to this issue, Mr Gan and many other Members, a few other Members of the House also asked about collective agreements (CAs), non-compete clauses and restricted stock units.
\t
Suffice to say, whether or not a CA should be put in place, our approach has been to let the employer and the union decide. But any disagreements, including whether a CA should be put in place, can be raised to MOM for conciliation and the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) for arbitration if conciliation is unsuccessful.
For the rest of it, I would like to reassure Members of the House that whilst there have been a few high-profile retrenchments, Mr Neil Parekh has, in particular, asked about the Singapore job market over the next few months.
Our assessment is that while the economy is projected to improve in 2024, there are still downside risks in the global economy. What we are doing is to make sure that we continue to work with our tripartite partners to keep a close watch on the situation to continue to be ready to provide employment facilitation and to ensure that any retrenched worker will be treated fairly.
I want to end by exhorting all of our employers that retrenchment is a difficult phase that both employees and employers have to go through, especially when they are undergoing financial difficulties for companies or when they are restructuring their operations. However, it is even more difficult for our workers because it takes an emotional toll on them when it affects their livelihoods.
Our tripartite partners understood this and developed TAMEM to guide companies to carry out retrenchment exercises responsibly if retrenchment is ultimately unavoidable.
We will work closely and from the example of how the Lazada case was managed, the spirit of collaboration and tripartism in Singapore remains strong. We will continue to stand committed to work together to protect our workers' interests and we will, at the same time, also do our best to ensure that Singapore continues to remain competitive to provide good jobs.
Mr Speaker: We have run out of time. Minister, just to let you know, Hansard is a verbatim record. So, you cannot add other things which you had intended to say. What I suggest is that you may want to address some of these in a separate way to Members or to the public; because indeed, it is a matter of public interest.
Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Minister for Social and Family Development.
[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":"Clarification by Minister for Social and Family Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I correct a factual error in the written reply to Parliamentary Question for Written Answer, Question No 28, by Ms He Ting Ru for the 9 January 2024 Sitting?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Sir, Ms He had asked about the number of complaints and reports made against day activity centres and long-term care facilities that were referred to the Police for further investigation in the past five years. The reply to her indicated that the number of cases referred to the Police was three. The correct number should have been five.
Mr Speaker: Order. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister for Health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Infectious Diseases Act 1976 and to make related amendments to certain other Acts,\"\t(proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung) read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2024/2025. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day and Notice of Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
Over the years, we have been making changes to the criminal justice system. I have set out some of these changes in a handout. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Members can access this and other handouts I will be distributing later, through the MP@SGPARL app as well.
Members can see that since 2010, we have made several changes to improve our criminal justice system. The Bill today is a significant Bill. There are around 20 sets of proposed amendments. They cover law enforcement, criminal investigations, court processes and sentencing.
In my speech, I will cover two major aspects of the Bill. First, the new Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP) and the second is a new framework for conducting Forensic Medical Examinations (FMEs).
After my speech, two of my colleagues will be speaking. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will deal with the rest of the Bill, including changes related to Police powers to conduct searches and the criminal disclosure regime. Minister of State Sun Xueling will also deal with some of the main changes.
Sir, before going into the Bill, let me take a step back and reiterate our approach relating to criminal justice. Essentially, if you are guilty, you should face the penalty for the offence. If you are innocent, you should go free. The system should be robust and fair. There are two parts to it.
The first part, there has to be an effective framework of laws that deal with the crimes committed. And that means there must be a strong and effective law enforcement system and there must be a Judiciary which can apply the laws. The second part, the criminal justice process must be fair and civilised. That is the approach that has been taken by my predecessors and I have continued along the same path. The results are the safe and secure Singapore we have today.
Whenever we talk about criminal law, every country will say they are trying to find the right balance between the interests of society on the one hand and the individual's rights, on the other. But I think as we look around the world, there are serious questions as to whether the balance is being struck right.
In Singapore, we also try and strike that balance. There can be differences on whether we are getting the balance right and we do need to be continuously mindful about that. But that is our approach and that gives context to the changes we are making.
Let me now turn to deal with the first major aspect of the Bill that I will be touching on, the SEPP. What is it? Why are we having it? How will it work? What do we hope to achieve? I will also speak briefly about a related part of the Bill, on the Sentence for Public Protection (SPP).
First, what is the SEPP? In essence, it is a new type of sentence, which the Courts can impose. It will apply to offenders who are 21 and above, at the time of the commission of the offence. It will cover dangerous offenders who commit serious violent or sexual offences and provided there is an assessed risk that they may commit similar offences after they are released. The relevant offences will be set out in a new Schedule to the CPC. They will include culpable homicide, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of minors.
The SEPP is different from normal prison sentences under existing law. With normal prison sentences, offenders serve a fixed term of imprisonment. The Court imposes a sentence. The usual process is that the offenders are released earlier, after serving two-thirds of their sentence. That is called remission. Most prisoners get remission.
When released, they are released unconditionally.
The SEPP changes that. The Court will specify a term of imprisonment for the offender, based on the facts of the case. But the difference is that this is a minimum term. There will be no early release or remission. The Court will also say whether the offender is released and at the end of the minimum term, will be subject to a review. If he is assessed to pose a risk to others, when his term ends, he can be kept in custody beyond the minimum period. And if he is released, conditions can be imposed, until it is assessed that he is safe to be released.
I will say a little bit more about how the SEPP works later on. But, first, let me first explain why we are introducing it. Some people have asked is it because there has been an increase in serious violent and sexual crimes in Singapore? The answer is no, that is not the reason for the SEPP. We regularly review our laws. We study other countries. Some have similar sentences to the SEPP. We looked at them and decided that it made sense to have something similar.
In Singapore, as in other places, serious sexual and violent crimes do occur, except that our numbers are much, much lower. But people do get killed. They do get seriously hurt. And they do get raped. These are very serious offences and some victims, they are very young. And some offenders can be assessed to have a risk of re-offending.
Let me give Members an example which I have talked about publicly. In 2013, an offender was released from prison. He had been put in jail for raping his six-year-old stepdaughter. The sentence was for 19 years. He was released after 12 years, which is taking into account the usual one-third remission period. After he was released, the offender moved in to live with his sister and her young granddaughters. In 2015, just two years after being released, he started sexually assaulting one of the young girls. She was 10 years old at that time. The girl then moved out, but he did not stop. In 2017, he sexually assaulted the girl's younger sister. She was nine years old.
In 2022, the Court sentenced the offender to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. The Court said that his risk of sexual re-offending was high.
This kind of conduct is highly reprehensible. Our society will not accept it. No society will accept it. But our society takes a very serious view of it. The impact on the young girls is devastating. Their lives shattered. We have to deal with this kind of menace and protect our society.
Let me give you another example. A few weeks ago, a man was sentenced to twenty-nine-and-a-half years in jail, for raping his niece. She was seven years old. For four years, he sexually assaulted her, almost every week, when she spent weekends at his home. He also gave her a sexually transmitted disease, and body-shamed her, until she developed an eating disorder. It is absolutely cruel what was done to the young girl. The girl is now in a welfare home, undergoing counselling. She is facing psychological trauma as Members can appreciate. The man also had more than 100 media discs with child pornography and a thumb drive with 12,000 child abuse images.
There are other examples of such offenders, committing egregious acts.
Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: This is a handout containing more such examples, from Singapore and abroad.
Members can see for themselves the kinds of troubling conduct and patterns of serious abuse, with persons offending repeatedly, sometimes, very shortly after they are released from prison.
Our response to these kinds of cases is SEPP. With the normal prison sentences, these offenders go free after serving their prison terms, even if there is an assessed risk that they might go out and do bad things. On the day of release, if responsible people assess that the person might go out and commit a serious crime, nevertheless, the person has to be released.
Take the first example I gave Members, of the man who sexually abused his two grandnieces. The Court said at the time of sentencing that his risk of sexual re-offending was high and sentenced him to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. But what if there continues to be an assessed risk after he has served the 20 years? Under the current law, he will have to be released: no conditions and no risk assessment is done. With the SEPP, there can be a more calibrated approach to better protect society. There will be an assessment at the end of the minimum term to see if it is safe to release such offenders.
This brings me to my next point: how will the SEPP work? The SEPP is imposed by the Courts. When one of the Scheduled offences is committed, the Court decides whether to impose a normal sentence or the SEPP. When deciding on the appropriate sentence, the Courts can look at risk assessments by IMH and, of course, such other reports as the Court decides are necessary. The Defence can also make representations and submit expert evidence.
If the Court assesses that the offender poses a risk to others, it can impose the SEPP. But the Court also retains the discretion not to impose the SEPP, for example, where it would be “gravely disproportionate” in all the circumstances of the case.
If the Court imposes the SEPP, it will specify a minimum period of custody. That can be anywhere between five and 20 years. After this minimum period, the offender will be released if he is assessed to be suitable for release. This assessment will be made by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister will be advised by a Detention Review Board. The Board will be made up of relevant experts, for example, retired judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and psychologists. The offender and his lawyers can make representations to the Board.
This review model is not new. For example, there is a Life Imprisonment Review Board. This Board advises the Minister on whether to release prisoners. These are prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Next, say, the offender is assessed to be suitable for release. He will be released on licence and conditions can be imposed on him. The conditions could include mandatory counselling, electronic monitoring or curfews. He will continue to be assessed until a view is taken that the conditions can be removed. In the meantime, we will support his integration back into the community.
On the other hand, if the assessment is that the offender should not be released, he will continue to remain in custody. The Minister must then review the offender’s suitability for release annually. And if he is eventually found suitable for release, he will be released.
Finally, on this point, what do we hope to achieve with the SEPP?
First, we hope that this will enhance public protection. An offender who continues to pose a real danger to others should not be released. I gave some examples earlier. We really ought to deal better with cases like that.
Second, the SEPP will, hopefully, promote rehabilitation. An offender sentenced to SEPP will have a very strong incentive to take his rehabilitation seriously in the first period of sentencing. Otherwise, he jeopardises his chances of being released. So, if he wants to be released after the minimum period, he will have to show both psychologically and through his behaviour that he is a changed person, that he can behave well and he does not need to be kept in. So, tremendous incentive for a person to work on his rehabilitation. These things can only work if the person who is the subject of the rehabilitation really puts in the effort.
Third, as I mentioned earlier, the SEPP allows for a more calibrated approach to sentencing. Take the examples I had mentioned earlier in the handout – egregious facts. A sentencing judge might think, “This person is a monster. Better not take the risk with a short sentence. Better to lock him away for a long time.” So, you do see some sentences, 20 years, 30 years, even more.
With the SEPP, the sentencing judges will now have more assurance, greater clarity, because the sentences they impose are only the minimum. There will be a further risk assessment with experts at the end of the minimum term. This can actually result in the Court imposing shorter sentences upfront.
Sir, I will now touch quickly on SPP. This is intended to replace and streamline the current Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes.
CT and PD were introduced in 1954 to deal with recalcitrant offenders. Since then, rehabilitation programmes have become widely available to all inmates. In particular, CT has become qualitatively similar to imprisonment. So, we have decided to do away with CT and adopt characteristics of both CT and PD in the new SPP. SPP is for a fixed term of between five and 20 years, and offenders will be eligible for release on licence after serving two-thirds of the sentence. SPP will be a useful sentencing option to deal with persistent or habitual offenders.
Finally, let me touch on FME. FMEs broadly consist of physical medical examinations, collection of body samples and taking photographs of body parts. These processes have now become very important for getting evidence in offences like rape and sexual assault. I will highlight two key aspects of the FME framework in the Bill.
First, we take a differentiated approach towards accused persons and victims. So, accused persons, one approach; victims, a different approach. For accused persons, Police can require them to undergo FMEs, even if they do not consent. Reasonable force can be used if the FME does not relate to intimate body parts or invasive procedures. But it will be an offence for an accused person to refuse an FME, unless he has a reasonable excuse, for example, if he has haemophilia and giving a blood sample could endanger his life. The Court can also draw adverse inferences from an accused person’s refusal to undergo FMEs.
In the case of victims, consent is generally required for FMEs. However, there can be exceptions. For example, FMEs may still be conducted, if delays will result in the loss of evidence and the victim is not able to give consent within a reasonable time due to a physical or mental condition. This could happen, for example, where a victim is sexually assaulted, falls into a coma and has no prior authorised decision-maker to give consent.
In many cases, time can be critical, especially for DNA evidence, because DNA can degrade very quickly, if it is exposed to the environment. Allowing FMEs to be taken in these cases is in the interests of both the victim and the public. It can make the difference between catching the culprit and him going free and, worse, committing more such offences.
There will be safeguards in place for both accused persons and victims to ensure that FMEs are conducted safely and sensitively. For example, only qualified medical professionals can conduct physical medical examinations and invasive medical procedures. Before taking a body sample, the person conducting the FME must be satisfied that it will not endanger the subject.
Only Police officers holding the rank of Inspector and above can require an FME involving intimate body parts. If the person undergoing an FME involving intimate body parts is a lady, the forensic specialist or Police officer carrying out the FME must also be a lady.
We have consulted quite extensively in preparing this Bill. Many stakeholders have shared their views, including the Judiciary, AGC, law enforcement agencies, criminal lawyers, members of the Law Society and members of the public. The feedback and suggestions have helped us to refine our policies and we have taken many of the suggestions on board. So, I thank all those who have participated and given their feedback, and I hope that Members today will support the Bill. The changes will do much to strengthen our criminal justice system and make Singapore a safer place.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Thank you, Speaker. In Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Please allow me to recap what Minister Shanmugam spoke about earlier and outline the key principles that underpins Singapore's criminal justice system.
The Government's objective for our criminal justice system is to ensure the safety of our people so that they can live their lives without worrying about their own safety. Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low crime rate, a fair and effective legal system, and a trustworthy police force. This is important for the well-being of our society and our economy.
We have always been ranked highly in terms of law and order and safety in international studies and surveys. We achieved this through laws that are tough on crime, effective enforcement of laws by the police and other law enforcement agencies, and fair and effective criminal procedures.
We need to strike a balance between the desire to protect individual rights and safeguarding the interests of society. We also need to continually review and update our laws. There are about 20 sets of amendments under this Bill, covering various aspects of the criminal justice process.
Three major changes have been proposed.
First, we will establish a legal framework for conducting Forensic Medical Examinations (FMEs); second, we will introduce a new Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP); and third, we will make amendments to the disclosure regime for our criminal cases.
I will give a brief explanation on the FME framework. FMEs generally consists of physical medical examinations, collection of body samples, and taking photographs of body parts. Through such a process, the police can gather forensic evidence for investigation. Forensic evidence is key in the investigation of major crimes. Therefore, there should be an effective legal framework for FMEs.
The key features of the framework are as follows.
First, we will establish safeguards to ensure that FMEs are conducted safely and sensitively. This includes ensuring that only qualified medical professionals conduct examinations and procedures; the person conducting the FME must be satisfied that it will not endanger the subject; the order to perform FME is given by police officers with the rank of Inspector and above; and measures to protect privacy are taken for FMEs involving intimate parts, for example, ensuring that such FMEs that need to be conducted on a female is carried out by a female police officer or a female forensic expert.
Second, we take a differentiated approach towards accused persons and victims. For accused persons, the police will have powers to require them to undergo FMEs, even if they do not consent.
This is because if a person is guilty, the person will most likely refuse to be examined, if given a choice. Reasonable force can be used to conduct the FME, as long as it does not involve intimate body parts or invasive procedures. It will be an offence to refuse to undergo an FME without a reasonable excuse, and the accused can be imprisoned or fined, or both. The court can also draw adverse inferences from the accused person's refusal to undergo FMEs.
In the case of victims, consent is generally required. It is important to ensure that victims, especially those who were sexually assaulted, are handled sensitively, to prevent them from being traumatised again. If there is no consent, the police generally will not proceed with the FME.
However, there are several exceptions, for example, if the victim has fallen into a coma after being sexually assaulted and DNA evidence will degrade if it is not collected as soon as possible. The scope of exceptions to consent is stringent and the Police will implement such exclusions judiciously. The Police will also wait, as far as possible, for the victim to recover before obtaining consent.
Moving on to the SEPP. SEPP represents a significant change to our sentencing landscape. Currently, an offender who receives a prison sentence, will be incarcerated for a fixed term as determined by the Court, and must be released unconditionally after that period.
However, there is a small group of high-risk offenders who still pose a danger to the public at the time of release, such as serial sexual offenders. The law currently does not allow us to stop such offenders from being released from jail or impose any conditions for their release, even if they are likely to re-offend.
Just now, Minister Shanmugam cited several tragic and egregious cases where the offender commits serious crimes shortly after being released from prison and also referred to a list of such cases. Let me share another example.
In 2020, an offender was convicted of committing sexual abuse on his girlfriend's eight year old daughter and nine year old son; both of whom had low IQs. The offender had sexually assaulted them, forced them to watch videos displaying sexual behaviour, and to commit indecent acts while recording them. The children obeyed him because they were helpless and afraid of the offender. The offender began committing this serious offence just two years after his release from prison. He was previously imprisoned for sexually abusing his own four-year-old daughter.
Arising from such cases, the Government has been looking at ways to better protect the public from such dangerous offenders. SEPP is our response. There are stringent requirements that must be fulfilled before the court can impose SEPP.
First, SEPP can only be imposed for very serious offences, which will be set out in the legislation. These offences include homicide or murder, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of a minor.
Second, there are strict prerequisites that must be fulfilled before SEPP can be imposed.
Third, SEPP only applies to adult offenders aged 21 years and above at the time of the offence.
This is in line with our general approach to sentencing young offenders, where the main focus is on rehabilitation. Since SEPP is a sentence, the Courts will decide whether SEPP should be imposed. This is usually done after considering the risk assessment report by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) which is done independently. The Defence can also submit its own expert report. Court procedures will be applied at this stage. An appeal can also be filed if the Prosecution or Defence is not satisfied with the Court's decision.
The Court will retain the discretion not to impose SEPP, for example, if a less severe sentence can still achieve the goal of public protection. When imposing SEPP, the Court will specify a minimum period of custody between 5 and 20 years. Offenders will remain in prison for the duration of this minimum period, which cannot be shortened.
At the end of the minimum period, the offender will be re-evaluated and only released if assessed to be suitable for release by the Minister for Home Affairs, on the advice of a Detention Review Board.
This is a matter of public protection and safety which is best decided by the Minister, and not the judge. The Minister’s power under SEPP is also in line with existing regimes such as Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD), and for life imprisonment.
The power of the Minister is subject to safeguards. If the Minister decides not to release the offender, the Minister must review the decision within a year. In effect, the Minister's power is only to detain someone for one more year before the status is reviewed again. Furthermore, the decision of the Minister is subject to judicial review.
The review process will also be fair. There will be a Detention Review Board that will assess each offender under SEPP.
The Review Board will be made up of those with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. It may include retired judges and Judicial Commissioners, senior lawyers or psychologists and psychiatrists.
Offenders or their representatives, including family members or legal counsel, will be allowed to make a representation. All relevant information will be provided to the Review Board, and in turn, to the Minister, including on the conduct and progress of the offender, and the risk assessment by a psychiatrist that will be done independently.
A key safeguard, both at the sentencing and review levels, is an independent expert assessment. Such assessment will be done by psychiatrists using evidence-based scientific tools, which are internationally recognised.
They will carefully evaluate various risk factors, including past violence; the level of understanding by the offender about his conduct and response to his treatment; and the support available to the offender upon release.
If the Minister finds the offender suitable for release, the offender will be released on licence and subject to conditions. This could include mandatory counselling, electronic monitoring or curfews.
This period of release on licence balances the need to allow such offenders to return to live in the community, with the need to reduce threats to the public. We will help offenders who are released on licence to return to society.
However, if an offender breaches the conditions of his licence or re-offends, he may be re-imprisoned and the Minister may revoke his release order.
Once released with a licence, the offender will be reviewed at least once every two years, to monitor his progress. If found suitable, the offender can be released unconditionally and the sentence ends.
Speaker sir, SEPP has many advantages, including enhancing protection for society against harm, promoting rehabilitation because offenders have strong incentives to improve themselves and fair punishment rules based on risk.
We introduced this regime after studying the issue carefully and concluding that it is necessary to better protect the public. We have also discussed these amendments extensively, including conducting a public consultation in 2021, and have taken in the suggestions that were submitted.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I will now speak about the amendments to law enforcement powers, the proposed provisions on criminal disclosure regime and other amendments to improve our Court processes. These proposed amendments aim to strengthen our levers to tackle crime and enhance transparency, fairness and coherence in our criminal procedure laws.
Let me begin with law enforcement powers. Broadly, these amendments are intended to strengthen operational efficiency and investigative capabilities.
The first category of the amendments will update, enhance and clarify Police powers. Clause 10 empowers the Police to search suspects at the point of arrest, to detect and remove dangerous items from them. This is to prevent arrested persons from possibly using these items to harm themselves or others, such as the arresting officers and passers-by.
Clause 3 removes the requirement for the Police to physically proceed to the crime scene when investigating arrestable offences, which, with advancements in technology and changes in the profile of crimes, is no longer always necessary or relevant. To be clear, the CPC currently already provides for circumstances where the Police need not investigate into arrestable offences and there is no change to this with the proposed amendments.
Clause 5 allows the Police to conduct a search without warrant at a place when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence.
Currently, the Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances. For example, if the Police have reason to believe that a suspect would be uncooperative or is likely to destroy the evidence before a search can be conducted.
The difficulty is that it is not always straightforward for the Police to make such a determination at the onset. Often, Police can only reasonably assess the cooperativeness of a suspect after having engaged him or her or sent the production order. Requiring that the Police do so in all cases is not practicable, as that would put the suspects on notice and allow them to tamper or destroy evidence.
The amendment is a practical one that allows for more effective Police investigations.
I would like to highlight that several pre-requisites must be fulfilled before the Police can exercise this power.
First, they must be investigating an arrestable offence. Second, the Police must have reason to believe that the document or thing is in the possession or control of a person, reasonably suspected of having committed the offence. This clause does not give the Police carte blanche powers to search anyone or anything. It also does not give the Police powers to frisk or search individuals walking along the streets just because the Police find them suspicious.
The second category of the amendments will expand the powers of certain non-police law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
Clause 11 empowers the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers, immigration officers and prison officers to pursue and arrest a person who has escaped from the lawful custody of their respective agency, another specified LEA, or a prescribed LEA.
Currently, only the Police and the officer from whose custody a person has escaped are empowered to pursue and arrest him.
However, officers from CNB, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Prisons can also play significant roles in arrest operations. For instance, ICA officers may come across the person at the checkpoint and can arrest him. This amendment will enhance the joint Home Team operations and allow the Home Team departments to operate more effectively together.
To give another example, clause 7 empowers non-Police LEAs to investigate bail and absconding offences arising from the predicate offences under their purview. Currently, such officers have to seek the Police's assistance to investigate such offences.
For greater efficiency, the relevant LEA, which is more familiar with the details of the case, will have the powers to investigate the bail and absconding offences committed by the same accused person and arising from the case which they are investigating.
Moving on to the amendments on criminal disclosure, let me begin by providing an overview of our criminal disclosure laws.
In 2010, we introduced a framework for pre-trial disclosure in the CPC, namely the Criminal Case Disclosure Regime, which is commonly referred to as the \"CCD regime\". The CCD regime formalised a framework for the Prosecution and Defence to sequentially disclose and exchange relevant information about their respective cases before trial. This has led to greater transparency and consistency, and has been welcomed by all sides – the Judiciary, the Defence and the Prosecution.
Since 2011, a common law disclosure regime has developed in parallel through case law. The Courts have held that the Prosecution is also obliged to disclose certain additional material on top of what the CCD regime requires.
I will briefly explain these: first, under the Kadar disclosure obligations (KDO), the Prosecution must disclose unused material that tends to undermine the Prosecution's case or strengthen the Defence's case, and is likely to be either admissible and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused; or inadmissible, but would provide a real, not fanciful chance of pursuing a line of inquiry that leads to material that is likely to be admissible, and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Put simply, the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence unused material that may be helpful to the accused.
Second, under the Additional Disclosure Obligations (ADO), the Prosecution must disclose statements of material witnesses who are not called as Prosecution witnesses.
A \"material witness\" is one who can be expected to confirm or contradict the accused's defence in material respects.
The ADO does not involve an assessment of the substance of the material witness's statement. It covers statements which may be adverse, neutral or helpful to the Defence.
There are overlaps between the KDO and the ADO. Where an unused material witness's statement is helpful to the Defence, it would have to be disclosed under the KDO.
In 2020, MinLaw commenced a comprehensive review of the criminal disclosure regime. One thing was clear to us – it is desirable to place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, for greater clarity, certainty and coherence.
It was necessary for us to study how the existing common law regime interfaced with the CCD regime, as well as the overall aims of disclosure. We also considered how some areas of the common law regime, which had been left open by the Courts, should be addressed.
Even though it was working well, we also considered improvements to the statutory disclosure framework, after having observed it in practice for several years.
Disclosure is an important aspect of the criminal trial process and has significant implications on the pre-trial and trial process. It was especially important for us to study the practical aspects, including the possible implications on Prosecutors, Defence counsel, the Courts and law enforcement agencies.
While the initial set of disclosure proposals were ready in early 2021, we took time to finalise them because of our extensive consultations with the various stakeholders, including the Defence Bar, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Courts.
These proposals were arrived at after extensive discussions with the Defence Bar. We presented the proposals to criminal practitioners and members of the Law Society in 2021, and they provided extensive feedback over multiple consultation sessions through to late 2023. Some of the proposals were adjusted significantly, following the feedback received.
While we did not agree with the Bar on every point, we explained the rationale for the proposals, and had candid and robust discussions. Through this process, we were assured that the viewpoints and implications on the various stakeholders, including the Defence and the Prosecution, have been considered, to ensure that our proposed amendments are fair.
Ultimately, the regime requires all stakeholders to play their part to ensure procedural fairness. Prosecutors are expected to discharge their disclosure obligations dutifully. The AG has also said publicly that prosecutors take great care to comply with their disclosure obligations, in fairness to the Defence.
I will now take you through the proposed disclosure provisions. There are two key aspects.
First, clauses 23 and 42, place the common law disclosure rules on a statutory footing, by codifying, clarifying or modifying aspects of the common law. The provisions will codify the common law position on: one, the scope of the KDO and ADO; two, the timing of the KDO; and three, the continuing nature of the KDO and ADO, among others.
We recognise the importance of the KDO and ADO in ensuring fairness to accused persons, and this is why we are putting these obligations in legislation. We have provided illustrations to help the public and parties understand what the obligations entail.
Some aspects of the common law will be modified or clarified to better align with the sequential nature of the statutory disclosure regime. We will provide that ADO is to be given after the accused has committed to a defence, either in his Case for the Defence (CFD) or his testimony, in cases where there is no CFD.
Moving the ADO to after the accused has committed to a defence, either in the CFD or in his testimony, is more consistent with the sequential and reciprocal nature of the CCD regime, where the accused will generally only receive material after filing the CFD.
I would also highlight that, statements of material witnesses that are helpful to the accused will be disclosed earlier, pursuant to the KDO. This would take place when the Case for the Prosecution (CFP) is filed, in CCD cases; or, in non-CCD cases, before the trial commences.
Accused persons are expected to state their defence honestly. Generally, they would be able to do so, based on what they know.
However, we also considered feedback, that there may be cases where accused persons decide to change their defence after obtaining new material disclosed under the ADO. There were concerns that, in cases where the new defence is a genuine one, which the accused could not have known about earlier, an adverse inference could be unfairly drawn against the accused.
We want to be clear, that accused persons will not be prevented from running a new or different defence, which was genuinely uncovered after the Defence obtained new material disclosed under the ADO. If the accused decides to run a new or different defence based on new material disclosed under the ADO, he can explain his reasons for the change. The Court will consider the accused's explanation for changing his defence, and accordingly assess what, if any, inference should be drawn.
Next, we will also provide rules for the disclosure of unused accused statements, specifically, that (a) unused accused statements are outside the scope of KDO; and (b) in non-CCD cases or CCD cases where the CFD is not filed, unused accused statements relevant to the charge are required to be disclosed only after the accused has testified or elected not to testify.
Accused statements come from the accused, and are, hence, different from other types of unused material which the accused may not know about. The proposed rules are also consistent with the CCD regime, where accused statements which the Prosecution is not seeking to adduce as part of its case are required to be disclosed only after the accused has set out his defence in the CFD.
The second aspect of the disclosure provisions, in clauses 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22, involves fine-tuning aspects of the CCD regime.
The CCD regime has been in place since 2010 and has worked well in promoting greater transparency and efficiency in criminal trials. In 2018, we expanded the regime, so that more cases could benefit from pre-trial disclosure.
We will now further expand the CCD regime to require compulsory participation in both State Court and High Court CCD cases.
First, we will remove the possibility of opting out of the CCD regime in State Courts cases.
Second, we will make it compulsory for the accused to file a CFD, after receiving the CFP, in High Court cases.
As the CCD regime was novel when it was introduced in 2011, we took an incremental approach. Today, CFDs are regularly filed for most State Court CCD trials and this has contributed to a more efficient criminal justice system. When parties file the CFP and the CFD, this facilitates clearer identification of the disputed issues, which in turn, makes the trial more focused and efficient.
Requiring the Defence to file a CFD also avoids potential delays that may arise from the belated disclosure of the Defence's case, which may arise due to a need for further investigations to verify the accused's claims or having to recall witnesses.
The proposed changes will align the position in High Court cases with that for State Court cases. Given the complexity of trials in the High Court and the severe consequences involved, it is essential that parties can prepare for trial and assess their cases more fully.
Finally, a clear articulation of the accused's defence in the CFD will help the Prosecution to identify relevant evidence, including evidence that may be helpful to the Defence and better comply with its KDO and ADO.
The proposed provisions will also further fine-tune other aspects of the CCD regime. For example, we will enhance consistency between the Prosecution's CCD obligations in State Courts cases and High Court cases, by requiring the Prosecution to file a summary of facts in support of the charge in High Court CCD cases, similar to the State Court cases.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout detailing an overview of the post-amendment disclosure framework in CCD cases?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.
As Members can see, the CCD regime ensures that the Defence receives material from the Prosecution before the trial commences. On the whole, the proposed disclosure provisions reflect our commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness in criminal proceedings.
Now, moving on to the last set of amendments under the Bill, which are the amendments to improve efficiency in our court processes. Clause 16 proposes to allow the Court to release persons accused of relatively minor non-bailable offences – that is, offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment – on personal bond, as an alternative to bail.
Currently, such accused persons can only be released on bail and, will be remanded if they are offered bail but cannot find a bailor. This amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, in appropriate cases.
There will be safeguards to guard against the risk of absconding. For example, the Prosecution must consent, before the person can be released on personal bond. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can decide not to release the person on personal bail, if it considers that this would not be appropriate.
Finally, there are also amendments to smoothen and clarify the processes for several new regimes introduced previously, such as the dispensation of oral hearings in certain cases, the new unsoundness of mind regime, the Panel of Psychiatrists and the enhanced victim compensation regime.
Mr Speaker, the Bill is a significant milestone in our criminal justice framework. The proposed amendments, build on past reforms and demonstrate our commitment towards building a fair and effective criminal justice system that protects society from crime.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to deliver my speech in Mandarin?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please do.
Ms Sun Xueling (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government's overall aim for our criminal justice system is to ensure that society is safe and secure and people can go about their lives without worrying about their safety. This has always been a priority for the Government.
\tWe have achieved this through tough criminal laws, effective enforcement of our laws by the police and other law and enforcement agencies and fair and effective criminal procedures. Every country should have a criminal justice system that meets its own unique needs. Ultimately, we must maintain the right balance between protecting individuals' rights and safeguarding society's interests.
The balance we have struck in Singapore is a good one, both in principle and practice. The proposed amendments in this Bill are consistent with our philosophy towards law and order. There are about 20 sets of amendments under this Bill.
\tFirst, I will talk about forensic medical examinations. Forensic evidence is valuable in the investigation of major crimes, such as serious sexual offences. For example, in 2016, there was a case where a stranger broke into the victim's house, assaulted and raped her, before making off with some of her belongings. The accused denied committing the offences, but forensic evidence in this case – the accused's semen and findings of the victim's DNA on the accused, was critical in establishing that he was responsible for the offences.
\tGiven the value of the forensic evidence in investigations, we are proposing a legislative framework for conducting forensic medical examinations (FMEs).
\tFirst, we set up safeguards to ensure that examinations are conducted safely and sensitively. Only qualified medical professionals will be allowed to conduct physical medical examinations and invasive medical procedures. For examinations involving intimate body parts, only police officers holding the rank of Inspector and above, can require the examinations to be conducted.
And, where such an examination is conducted by police officers or forensic specialists, and the individual undergoing the examination is a woman, the examination may only be carried out by a woman.
Second, the requirement of consent is different for the accused persons and victims. For accused persons, police will have powers to require them to undergo forensic medical examinations, even if they do not consent. Refusal to undergo examinations, without reasonable excuse, will be an offence and accused person may be jailed or fine or both.
The Courts may also draw negative inferences from any refusal by the accused person to undergo examination.
On the other hand, for victims, consent is generally required. It is important to treat victims, especially those who have suffered sexual assault, sensitively, to avoid re-traumatising them.
If there is no consent, police will not proceed with the examination. However, there are some exceptions. For example, if a victim falls into a coma after a sexual assault and DNA evidence would be lost if not collected as soon as possible. Police will exercise the exceptions judiciously. For example, if the victim is drunk and is expected to become sober within a reasonable time, the police will generally wait for the victim to recover and then seek the victim's consent.
The next major set of amendments that I will address, is the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP).
The SEPP represents a significant change in our sentencing landscape. Today, offenders sentenced to imprisonment are incarcerated for a fixed-term determined by the court and must be released unconditionally after that term. However, there is a small group of high-risk offenders who still post a danger to the public at the point of release. Such offenders, include serial sexual predators.
Let me give you an example. In 2022, an offender was sentenced to 45 years imprisonment for sexually abusing eight children with learning or physical difficulties, after offering to tutor them. These offences were committed over a period of 16 years from 2002 to 2018. The victims were as young as five years old and the offender recorded videos of the numerous attacks. He was assessed by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) to be at very high risk of repeated sexual offending against young female victims.
The law currently does not allow us to hold this type of offenders back in prison or even impose any conditions on their release, even if they are likely to reoffend. This can lead to tragic consequences. In recent years, we have seen cases, where offenders commit serious sexual crimes against vulnerable victims, such as children, soon after being released from prison.
Each of these cases is sickening. When such cases happen, we might ask ourselves: Why were these offenders allowed back into the community in the first place? Were they still a danger to others? Could these crimes have been prevented?
The SEPP is our response. When an offender is sentenced to the SEPP, the Court will specify a minimum period of custody. After the offender is detained in prison for that minimum period, he will be assessed. The offender will only be released, if we assess that he no longer poses a significant threat to others. Even after the offender is released, he will be placed on licence and subject to conditions. He will continue to be assessed. The sentence will be brought to an end, only if the Minister assesses that the offender is ready to be released unconditionally. If not, the sentence will extend to the end of the offender's natural life.
As it is a sentence, it is the Court, which decides whether to impose the SEPP.
There are strict requirements that must be fulfilled before the court can impose the SEPP. The SEPP can only be imposed for very serious offences, including culpable homicide, attempted murder, rape and sexual penetration of a minor.
Let me emphasise that it is the Court that decides whether to impose the SEPP.
This will generally be after considering an independent risk assessment report by IMH. The defence can also submit its own expert's report. Usual court procedures will apply at this stage. An appeal may also be filed, if either the prosecution or the defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision.
The Court will retain the discretion not to impose the SEPP, for example, if a less severe sentence will also achieve the goal of public protection.\tAt the end of the minimum term, the offender will be reviewed and will only be released if assessed to be suitable for release by the Minister for Home Affairs, on the advice of a Detention Review Board. The Review Board will comprise persons with high public standing, with experience and forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges and retired judicial commissioners, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists or psychologists.
The offender or his representatives, including family members or legal counsel, will be allowed to make written representations.
All relevant information, including the offender's conduct and progress and an independent risk assessment by a psychiatrist, will be provided to the Review Board and subsequently to the Minister.
The Minister's powers under the SEPP are in line with existing regimes, such as Corrective Training (CT), Preventive Detention (PD) and life imprisonment. The Minister's powers are subject to safeguards. If the Minister decides not to release an offender, the Minister must review that decision again, within a year. Furthermore, the Minister's decision can be subject to judicial review.
A key safeguard, both at the sentencing and review stages, will be independent assessments by experts.
Such assessments will be done by psychiatrists, using evidence-based scientific tools, which are internationally validated. They assess a wide range of risk factors, including previous violence, the offender's degree of insight into his conduct and responsivity to treatment and the support available to the offender when released. A scientific and regular rigorous approach will be taken for the risk assessment.
Let me summarise the three key benefits of the SEPP.
First, it enhances the protection of the public. An offender who continues to pose a real danger to others will not be released.
Second, it promotes rehabilitation. An offender sentenced to the SEPP knows that his release is not guaranteed, therefore, he has a clear and powerful incentive to take his rehabilitation seriously and participate in the many corrective programmes that are offered in Prisons.
Third, it enables more calibrated punishment. Under the SEPP, there will be an updated risk assessment at the end of the minimum period. The length of the offender’s incarceration, beyond that point, can be calibrated to the specific risk which he poses. He need not be detained for longer than necessary.
The purpose of the SEPP is to protect the public. The SEPP regime will be continuously refined as it is implemented in the future, to strike a balance between safeguarding society’s interest and protecting individual's rights.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of the Bill. I will cover three main areas in my speech: first, the amendments relating to the FME; second, on the criminal disclosure obligations; and third, on the SEPP regime.
On the FME, I welcome these amendments that will help preserve evidence crucial to solving serious sexual and violent crimes. I was volunteering as the board member of a crisis shelter for survivors of domestic violence, some of whom are victims of violent crimes as well. These amendments are important to assist the Police and our investigating bodies in administering FME.
However, I have a few clarifications. Firstly, of particular interest to me is the issue of obtaining consent. This is especially where there are grounds to believe that a delay in carrying out the FME may result in the loss, degradation, or contamination of the evidence. Can the Minister clarify what are the circumstances when the Police will determine that a victim is unable to provide consent within a reasonable time? Would this be done in consultation with advice from medical professionals, for instance, as to the probability of the victim waking up from coma or would the default position be to obtain consent from the victim's next of kin or authorised decision-maker?
Secondly, on training. Would Police officers or persons conducting the FME go through any sensitivity or trauma training to handle the situation with tact, taking into consideration any cultural or religious sensitivities, especially when interacting with decision makers, parents or spouses of victims?
Thirdly, on facilities to aid conduct of FMEs, in a Parliamentary Question in 2017, MHA stated that the Police issued sexual assault examination kits to hospitals with 24/7 obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) specialist clinics. There was also a collaboration on the One Safe Centre for reporting within 72 hours of assault. I would like to ask whether there will be more clinics that can be equipped for FME? For instance, can selected general practitioners (GPs) conduct FMEs? Family doctors who have treated and established a long-standing relationship with the victims' family may know the full history of the victim or the family members and thus the victim may be more comfortable with that particular doctor. This FME by the doctor, of course, can be conducted in the presence of the Police or their own FME experts.
Fourthly, what are the efforts to encourage more victims to come forward to report so that they receive professional help and, at the same time, secure the evidence through FME? Time is of the essence. The European Union (EU), in adopting the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, stated that according to research, it is good practise to carry out FMEs regardless of whether the matter will be reported to the Police and to offer the possibility of having samples taken and stored appropriately so that the decision as to whether or not to report the assault can be taken later by the victim. Due to the stigma and criminal proceedings that will ensue, some victims may not come forward in time or come forward at all. We perhaps need our clinics or centres equipped as a safe zone reporting shelter for victims to get medical, psychological and legal counselling, and FME with evidence to be secured and retained for investigation.
Fifthly, may ask if our offices of medical practitioners are provided immunity from personal liability in the conduct of FME on the victim? In this regard, would medical advice on the exact FME procedure and any related risk be explained to the person so that he or she will be able to make an informed decision?
Lastly, on safeguards in FMEs. Dr Jack Lee, in his article in the Singapore Law Review, provided various recommendations on such safeguards by considering the degree of encroachment into the suspects bodily integrity, dignity and privacy. This is classified into: one, non-intimate and non-intrusive procedures; two, intimate non-intrusive procedures; three, intimate intrusive procedures; four, prohibited procedures; and fifth, general safeguards. Do the Police or relevant related agencies have an internal guideline for such safeguards in FMEs? If so, would non-intimate procedures or non-intrusive procedures be prioritised or preferred in the first instance?
I now move on to criminal case disclosure. I welcome the amendments to codify the Common Law obligations into legislation. These amendments address a fundamental concern of ensuring that relevant and material evidence in the prosecutions' possession, which either incriminates or exculpates the accused, is made available to the defence at the pre-trial stage and is subsequently adduced at trial so that the Court is apprised of the full facts and all available evidence.
This is a long time coming, following the Nabill Disclosure Obligations decided in 2020 and the Kadar Disclosure Obligations decided in 2011. In the Nabill case, the Court of Appeal deliberately left open the question of whether the prosecution would be required to disclose the prior statements of a material witness, where such witness is called to testify as a prosecution witness. This issue finally came up for consideration in the case of Pigg, Derek Gordon vs the Public Prosecutor and the High Court held that a prosecution witness' prior statements can fall within the KDO obligations.
Even though such statements are presumptively inadmissible, this decision is also consistent with orbital expressed by the Court of Appeal in earlier decisions as well. In this regard, I welcome the new section 221d which makes it clear that the prosecution has a continuing obligation to serve certain materials on the defence if the prosecution becomes aware of such materials before the accused is convicted or acquitted.
However, the present amendments made it clear that the ADO does not require disclosure of prosecution witness statements. I would like to ask, in light of the developments in the case law, would the new sections 221a to 221d prevent the prosecution from disclosing position prosecution witness' prior statements? In what circumstances would the prosecution have an obligation to disclose such prior statements?
Mr Speaker, lastly, on the SEPP regime, I welcome the amendments to introduce new sentences for public protection. With the SEPP, an offender will not be automatically released after serving the minimum sentence unless he or she is assessed to no longer post a threat to the public. I thank the Minister for sharing on the composition of the retention review board for the review of SEPP.
However, I have a few clarifications. Are offenders able to obtain legal representation during the review board hearing? Would the views of the victims' families or public interest be considered before an offender is released from SEPP? And lastly, whether the sentencing advisory panel has any role to play in determining the ambits and types of offences that may fall within the SEPP in the future? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the CPC amendment Bill proposes some significant changes to our criminal procedure. I will first talk about what I see as improvements and then touch on some provisions of concern.
First, on the improvements. The three improvements I will touch on are first, pre-trial release on personal bond; second, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials; and third, compensation orders for victims.
First, on pre-trial release on personal bond. Sir, I am very pleased to see the change to enable more accused persons to be released while waiting for their trials. Clause 12 will amend section 93 of the Code, to make it more explicit that certain accused persons can be released on their own personal bonds and not need to find a bailor to post bail. This will apply at both the stage when the law enforcement agency is managing the case, as well as later, when the accused is charged in Court. Accused persons will be eligible to be released on personal bond if they are facing charges where the maximum imprisonment for the offence is not more than seven years.
By making the option of being released on personal bond very explicit, it is likely that law enforcement agencies and the Court will release more accused persons on personal bond. This is especially meaningful for suspects who are poor and cannot find bailors of means to post bail for them. As I had highlighted during the debate on the Workers’ Party (WP)'s Justice Motion in November 2020, not being able to post bail will usually result in job loss and devastating consequences on the family. In addition, such pre-trial detention would affect the person’s ability to prepare his defence. I had also highlighted that to address any concerns, conditions could be imposed when releasing a person on his own bond, such as reporting requirements, maintaining employment and so on. Clause 13 gives effect to this.
Sir, I had suggested during the Justice Motion that pre-trial release on personal bond be looked into. This amendment goes towards levelling the playing field between the rich and the poor in the criminal justice process and I commend it.
Next, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials. Clause 23 introduces a new Part 10A to the Code, entitled \"Prosecution’s Obligation to Serve Certain Materials on the Defence\". The new provisions basically seek to import into the Code certain principles that have evolved through recent Court cases. During the debate in 2020 on the Justice Motion, the Leader of the Opposition had also suggested that codification of this obligation be done for greater clarity. By importing these principles into the CPC, it would be easier for law enforcement, Prosecution, Defence and also the general public to access them and to understand what is expected.
Third, compensation orders for victims. The third improvement I would like to highlight is in clause 40. This concerns the Court’s powers in a criminal case to order compensation to the crime victim. Clause 40 amends section 359 of the Code to increase the chances of compensation being awarded in a criminal case. One change will be that if the court decides not to award compensation, it has to give its reasons for not doing so. Secondly, in a case where the offender has caused death, a dependant of the deceased victim can be awarded compensation for bereavement and funeral expenses. These are positive moves to ease the pain of victimisation.
Sir, I next move to my areas of concern. I would like to highlight two areas: first, on one aspect of FMEs, and secondly, on the new SEPP.
First, on FMEs. Clause 7 will introduce the new Part 4 Division 5 of the Code, which will govern FMEs.
I note the framework set out for the conduct of FMEs both on victims and suspects. The provisions will facilitate obtaining evidence of high value to solve crimes, and include some safeguards to ensure that trained professionals conduct FMEs with regard to privacy concerns.
Sir, the FME regime can be invasive, such as drawing samples from intimate body parts or drawing blood; they can also be non-invasive, such as drawing non-intimate body samples like head hair, urine or swabs of the mouth. In the case of non-invasive FMEs, the proposed section 40I provides that reasonable force can be used by authorised officers to extract the samples if the accused is uncooperative. Under the proposed section 40I(2), such an authorised officer includes an auxiliary police officer (APO). I am concerned about this.
As we are aware, APOs are trained mainly to conduct security activities and to assist police in maintaining law and order. Involving APOs in the use of force to extract body samples from accused persons is a highly confrontational investigative process which carries significant risk. I would like to know how APOs are qualified or trained to perform such a task.
Finally, on SEPP. There has been some public concern about the introduction of the SEPP – and justifiably so. The concern largely stems from the fact that even though the offender has been sentenced by the court to a minimum custody period of between five to 20 years, when precisely the offender will be released is subject to annual review by the Ministry; in fact, he may never be released if deemed to be still dangerous. Thus, an SEPP inmate could spend the rest of his life behind bars, based on a prediction. Under the proposed section 304B of the Code, an SEPP sentence could be imposed even on someone who is appearing before the Courts for the first time, with no prior criminal records.
In assessing the SEPP, I note at the outset the following safeguards in the Bill. First, whether to invoke the SEPP would be decided by the sentencing Court and not the Ministry. The judge will make this decision aided by risk reports submitted by the Prosecution and also by the Defence. Secondly, the category of offences for which the SEPP may be invoked is circumscribed by the proposed Seventh Schedule. These offences generally include serious sexual crimes but also non-sexual violent crimes where death or grievous hurt is caused. Thirdly, even if the case falls within the Seventh Schedule, the judge need not invoke the SEPP and can instead decide to proceed with other sentences. The judge may assess that an SEPP sentence is not required to protect the public; or, as explained by sub-section 9 of section 304B, the judge may also decide that there are special reasons not to impose the SEPP, such as when a lesser sentence is adequate or when an SEPP sentence would be gravely disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Sir, these judicial safeguards are very critical. I reiterate that the SEPP is a severe sentence that should be invoked only in the most extreme of circumstances and there are compelling reasons for this.
First, even within the offences listed in the Seventh Schedule, such as those involving death or grievous hurt, these could arise in circumstances where the offender may not be dangerous in general. Such scenarios could include one-off incidents of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, or a case of a family member not taking steps to stop another person in the household from causing the death of a child or vulnerable person. In such cases, the usual sentence for the offences should suffice, as these sentences are what Parliament has approved as appropriate for the crimes concerned.
Secondly, whether risk assessments are reliable or not has proven to be a real issue in other jurisdictions. Predictions of dangerousness, even by trained professionals, can be wrong. There is ample research literature in the United States (US) that predictions of future violence, more often than not, turn out cases which are \"false positives\" and that out of every three persons predicted to commit future violence, only one will do so. Although risk assessment tools have become more sophisticated over time, and some argue are more reliable today, the risk of false positives will always be there. We therefore run the risk of over-detaining someone based on a wrong prediction of dangerousness. In the case of the SEPP, the risk of over-detention is amplified because there is no definite release date.
That said, I note the efforts by the Government to clearly scope the application of the SEPP. The SEPP provisions apply to a restricted class of offences. In addition, it seems from the Ministry’s pronouncements that the SEPP is targeted at a small handful of offenders who may have psychiatric disorders like paedophilia. Even so, I call on the Courts and the Ministry to be circumspect when assessing the clinical assessment reports, as they are not infallible. In addition, whether a person deemed dangerous at age 50 will be equally dangerous at age 70 deserves intense scrutiny.
Sir, I wish to make one observation about an aspect that struck me when reading MinLaw’s press release on the Bill, and that is about offenders who are convicted of multiple offences. In two of the scenarios highlighted that were deemed possibly suitable for the SEPP, the offenders were sentenced by the Court to very long imprisonment terms of 40 years and 45 years for sexual offences against multiple victims. These very long jail terms were the result of the jail terms imposed for several charges being ordered by the Court to run consecutively, that is, some jail terms were added up, to run one after another. I pause here to note that 40-plus years is a much longer period of time than the currently proposed minimum detention period for the SEPP of five to 20 years. Therefore, in such cases of multiple charges, judges can already order the offender to spend the majority of their lives in jail, using long-established and accepted sentencing principles. This would, to me, be preferable and would attract less controversy than leaving it to the executive to determine when an offender should be released.
Sir, all in all, the SEPP makes a difficult debate. I understand the rationale of protecting the public in the scenarios described. In view of the limited class of offences involved, and the judicial safeguards I mentioned earlier, I feel constrained to offer my cautious support for it.
Sir, let me conclude. I have highlighted in my speech three positive aspects of the Bill, regarding the release of persons before trial on personal bond, prosecution's duty to disclose materials and on compensation for crime victims. On the other hand, I have concerns about the role of auxiliary police in FMEs and the SEPP regime. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications. Overall, the WP is in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in full support of the Bill. The new framework for FMEs will certainly help our police force to solve crimes more effectively and accurately. I am hopeful it will also serve as a deterrent and reduce the incidences of crime.
Next, the SEPP is indeed suitable for dangerous offenders who are at risk of reoffending after release from prison. Members of the public, in particular vulnerable potential victims of violent or sexual crimes must be protected from such criminals. Numerous past cases have shown that despite time in prison, despite counselling or therapy, certain offenders, upon completing their sentences, continue to pose a threat to our community. They remain unsuitable for life outside of prison. Hence, it is the right decision to keep them detained.
While I am assured to learn that the assessment of an offender’s suitability for release takes into consideration many factors, including the results of psychological tests, would the Ministries of Law and Home Affairs share in greater detail, what methods are used in these assessments to determine if the convicts will pose a threat to the public?
Regarding sexual offenders deemed suitable for release, especially those who had attacked children, would the Ministries consider additional measures for public safety? For example, in some other countries, such as South Korea, Poland, even some states in the US and more recently Thailand, these offenders are given the option of chemical treatments to reduce the risk of re-offending. Countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic also offer other long-term, permanent surgical options. Have the Ministries looked into and considered whether these options may be included as supplementary measures for such offenders in Singapore? What are the Ministries’ views on these measures?
Finally, I would like to ask how many cases of convicts have repeated sex offences after their release?
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
Mr Speaker, maintenance of law and order, and an effective criminal justice system, are essential components of Singapore’s success. Singapore is internationally renowned as being a safe place to visit, live, work and to do business, and it is important that we continue to protect and uphold the systems and structures that instil this reputation and trust in Singaporeans and foreigners alike.
Mr Speaker, the revisions and enhancements recommended in this Bill are necessary and critical for Singapore's prosperity.
The suggested changes will strengthen our existing legal frameworks, improve law and order, and make it easier to identify, arrest, charge, and detain those committing serious crimes.
Mr Speaker, before I make additional comments on this Bill, I would like to note that I have previously worked as a Probation Officer for the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and I am currently the Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences.
My clarifications and suggestions are categorised into two areas.
Firstly, I would like to discuss the new legislative framework for FMEs. FMEs involve the collection of physical evidence to support investigations and legal proceedings, including in sexual abuse matters. I am pleased to see that the Bill provides sensible guidance on the timely and sensitive collection of forensic evidence, while protecting the rights of both alleged victims and accused persons.
The proposed legislative additions also satisfactorily cover issues such as consent, explanation of procedures and the roles and functions of police and medical practitioners.
Mr Speaker, I do however, have some questions on the support provided to alleged victims.
First, I understand that in 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) established the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which aims to strengthen investigative capabilities, improve victim care processes in sexual crime and family violence cases, and foster closer collaborations with other public agencies.
I would like to know what additional measures are being considered to safeguard children and vulnerable adults who are undergoing FME, including an examination as a result of sexual abuse. Children and vulnerable adults undergoing such an examination may well be distressed, scared and confused, and it is essential that we do all we can to protect the emotional and physical well-being of these people.
Mr Speaker, Singapore currently provides support to victims of crime through the Victim Care Cadre (VCC) Programme. VCC volunteers work with the Police to support victims of crime, including victims of sexual crimes or other serious offences. The volunteers, and I quote from their website, \"are trained to provide a listening ear and to look out for these victims who may be struggling to cope in the aftermath of trauma\".
The scheme is, however, currently only available to those who ask for assistance. Perhaps it may be appropriate for the scheme to be more widely promoted and actively offered to all victims of crime. Additionally, perhaps it may be appropriate to locate VCC volunteers within the OneSafe Centre, the one-stop abuse forensic examination centre.
Related to this, I would like to know what support is available for victims of sexual abuse who have chosen not to report their concerns to the Police. In such situations, can the victim seek an FME without making a formal Police report. I understand that some countries offer examinations independent of any obligation to report the matter to the police.
Mr Speaker, I also have some questions about the provision to use reasonable force if an alleged perpetrator refuses to participate in an FME.
Forcing anyone to undergo a medical procedure to which they do not consent, raises issues of autonomy, dignity and the authority of the state and should not be undertaken without rigorous checks and balances.
Mr Speaker, I therefore seek clarification about the processes that are in place to protect the rights of people who may be forced to undergo an FME, including, in particular, the rights of young people and vulnerable adults.
It is also important that people who do consent to an FME have the legal capacity to do so and are provided with sufficient information to give informed consent.
Accordingly, I also seek clarifications about the processes that are in place to (a) ensure that people are fully informed about what their FME will involve; (b) guide those who may have limited understanding of what they are consenting or not consenting to; and (c) protect those who may lack capacity to give informed consent.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to discuss SEPP.
Mr Speaker, there have been several instances where ex-offenders have, upon release from prison, re-offended, sometimes committing serious violent or sexual offences. It is, therefore, sensible to consider what measures are needed to protect the public from such dangerous offenders, and the proposed changes afford this protection in a number of ways.
First, SEPP streamlines sentencing options. Certainty in law is paramount to ensuring justice and, by providing a single sentencing model with a range of levers, we can better deliver targeted interventions based on assessed risks. This certainty needs to be articulated clearly to those who are sentenced under this order.
Second, this sentencing option may serve as a deterrent, potentially preventing individuals from offending or reoffending.
Third, capping the age for such sentences at 21 is a positive move, as this allows young people assessed to be at low risk of reoffending the option of rehabilitation within the community.
In light of the evolving crime and criminality landscape it is necessary to protect the public from dangerous offenders. In the process of doing so, it is equally important that we balance crime control with due process rights and rule of law.
Mr Speaker, criminal law in Singapore is underpinned by four principles: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. These principles stand as the cornerstone of our sentencing system and serve as a guide for determining consequences for those convicted of an offence.
On the principle of rehabilitation, I do seek clarification on where those on SEPP are to be housed. Singapore Prison Service has evolved into a leading correctional agency, embodying the principles of safe and secure custody, evidence-informed rehabilitation programmes, and effective community supervision for released prisoners. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of Singapore Prison Service and recognise the important role played by the Captains of Lives and their ongoing commitment to building a safer, more rehabilitative society for us all.
Mr Speaker, many of those who are placed on SEPP may have committed violent offences, including violent sexual offences, and some of those may have diagnosed mental health disorders. This group, known as mentally disordered sexual offenders, include sub-groups with significant psychiatric comorbidities, including psychotic disorders, personality disorders, intellectual disabilities and substance abuse disorders.
Given the unique needs of this group of prisoners and their potential long-term or permanent incarceration, I suggest that they be accommodated within dedicated housing units separate from other prisoners, and that they receive specialised and multidisciplinary support to enhance their rehabilitation.
Additionally, it is important that prisoners on SEPP are subject to oversight by independent visitors who are authorised to meet with prisoners to assess the level of care they are receiving and whether they have any concerns or complaints.
I understand that a similar scheme is already in place in the form of Board of Visitors for Community Rehabilitation Centres and Drug Rehabilitation Centres, and perhaps this scheme could be extended to include those facilities that will house prisoners on SEPP.
Mr Speaker, my final comments relate to prisoners released on licence. My question is whether there are provisions for such prisoners to be placed within a specialised halfway house to support them with their reintegration process. Additionally, is it feasible for the committee that considers applications for release on licence to include independent advocates to represent the best interests of the prisoner.
Mr Speaker, in 2015, the Singapore Prison Service introduced Restorative Practices into their rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, thereby fostering a culture in which prisoners assume responsibility for their behaviours and enhance personal relationships through meaningful interactions with others.
I would also like to suggest implementing the principles and practices of restorative justice to increase the understanding of victim impact and offer greater community support for prisoners who are willing to participate in a restorative process.
For instance, Circles of Support and Accountability, implemented in Canada, some regions of the United States, England, Wales and Scotland, are a community-based restorative initiative that aims to prevent further offending by offenders, including sexual offenders.
Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, the proposed changes will promote justice, empower victims, prevent revictimisation and foster a safer society, and I conclude in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
This Bill seeks to enhance Singapore's criminal justice system by introducing measures to strengthen crime-fighting capabilities and granting more authority to the Police and other LEAs. The major measures include establishing a new legislative framework for FMEs and granting the power to further detain dangerous and high-risk offenders who pose a threat to the public.
Sir, I recognise the need for LEAs to have greater power to conduct criminal investigations efficiently and effectively. However, I am concerned about protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable individuals, particularly those with disabilities or special needs or those with limited education. These may be the accused or they may be victims of the crime. Some of these vulnerable persons may not fully understand or be able to articulate their thoughts and feelings. Others may not grasp the implications of their actions due to their disabilities. Some are also at risk of being exploited or coerced into illegal activities, such as acting as drug mules or committing crimes under the influence of others. Even when they speak what they believe is the truth, some of them may not comprehend the consequences of their words or actions. Therefore, it is crucial to safeguard their safety, dignity, rights and well-being while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
There are well-recognised best practices for protecting the rights, dignity and well-being of vulnerable persons within criminal justice systems everywhere. I would like to outline some of these best practices and seek the Ministry's feedback on their implementation in our country's justice system.
First, investigations should employ specialised interview techniques that are trauma-informed, age-appropriate and sensitive to disabilities.
Second, interviews should be conducted in a safe and supportive environment. For several years now, the Singapore Government's Appropriate Adult Scheme has allowed independent, trained volunteers, that is, the Appropriate Adults (AAs), to accompany young or vulnerable individuals during interviews with LEAs. A number of the AAs who are volunteers are generalists trained probably once only upon recruitment and they play a limited role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of vulnerable persons. I, therefore, seek an update from the Ministry on the Appropriate Adult Scheme's current status, including the number of volunteers deployed, their profiles, the training provided, accomplishments, challenges and some future plans for advancement of this important scheme.
Third, there is also a best practice where personnel are trained in handling disabilities and other vulnerable persons, training for persons within the Police force, medical teams conducting, for example, the forensic medical examinations, and agencies like the Public Defence Office. Vulnerable individuals must have access to legal representation who understands their specific needs. It is essential to provide specialised training for law enforcement and the judiciary on how to handle cases involving such individuals sensitively. These training programmes should be mandatory, ongoing and available both in person and online. Ideally, specialised units with experts in child psychology, geriatrics, disability services and trauma should be created to offer advice, assistance and referrals in investigations involving vulnerable individuals.
Last of all, the best practice of interagency collaborations. Interagency coordination and collaboration should be further enhanced to provide appropriate and streamlined support for vulnerable persons. For instance, the participation rate and useability of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Developmental Disability Registry could be improved to aid the criminal justice system. Another possibility is this: for incarcerated individuals with developmental and other related disabilities, appropriate facilities should be established, separate from those for typical offenders. We can tap on the learnings in Singapore from the youth rehabilitation programmes run by Trybe, remove the age limit and learn from them a good rehabilitation programme, and also halfway houses operated by various social service agencies.
In summary, I would to seek, therefore, the Ministry's considered responses to better adoption of the measures that I have mentioned to safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals in our criminal justice system: (a) the use of specialised interview techniques; (b) enhancing the Appropriate Adults Scheme for a safe and supportive interview setting; (c) more trained personnel in LEAs, including the Public Defence Office; and (d) better interagency coordination and collaborations for better outcomes.
In conclusion, Sir, the criminal justice process must effectively protect vulnerable individuals, especially those with disabilities, special needs or limited education, from the point of arrest, through interviews, trials, sentences and incarceration. Failing to do so would constitute an injustice. Nonetheless, I still support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer who takes up criminal matters from time to time.
Sir, the current Bill introduces several amendments to criminal procedure, several of which I am supportive. The move to codify the long-standing Kadar obligations derived from common law, for example, will give statutory footing to criminal disclosure practices that AGC and defence lawyers have already been practising for many years.
This having been said, I am concerned with three of the proposed amendments. The first is the new sentencing regime under SEPP. The second is the expansion of Police powers as regards carrying out searches without warrants. The third is the amendments related to FMEs.
Let me begin with my concerns on the SEPP. The SPP and the more severe SEPP framework replace the existing Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes.
The CT and PD regimes apply to repeat offenders whom the Court believes may continue to be a threat to the public if they were to be sentenced per the sentencing frameworks for the offences currently before the Court.
The Court substitutes the sentences they would have received for their offences with a separate term of incarceration, that includes rehabilitative measures during the period of incarceration and that may include supervised early release into the community.
The CT regime applies to offenders aged 18 years and above, with a term of between five and 14 years; and the PD regime applies to offenders aged 30 years and above, with a more substantial term of between seven and 20 years, as it is intended to apply to more serious offenders.
There are two important features of these regimes. First, the terms are imposed by the Court after having considered all of the evidence before it, including expert reports. Second, there is finality to the terms, that is, they are a for a fixed duration so there is certainty as to the period of incarceration.
The SEPP, on the other hand, is quite different. First, there is no certainty as to the period of incarceration. While the Court would pronounce a minimum sentence when sentencing the offender to the SEPP, the actual period of incarceration may be extended indefinitely by the Minister, who will be advised, of course, by a panel of experts.
This jars with at least what is my understanding of the process of the larger process of how sentencing comes about. Parliament enacts laws that define both offences and the punishment for them. These punishments are often enunciated as ranges of fines and/or imprisonment terms and are based on Parliament's view of the severity of each offence and what the offender needs to do to fulfil the retributive angle of justice. The punishments are balanced against other offences across laws and updated from time to time. When an offence is committed, the Courts look at the range of punishment prescribed and the facts of the matter, determine the severity and apply a sentence within the range. Where the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, there is a single point term, which presents the maximum time that a person may spend in prison. The prisons may apply restitution, such that the offender actually serves less than the actual sentence. But there is a single-point sentence that the offender knows he will not go beyond.
The idea is that the Courts determine the punishment commensurate to the offence and once that person has completed his sentence, his retributive debt to the state can be considered to have been satisfied and he can reclaim his liberty.
With the SEPP regime, however, an offender could continue to be deprived of his liberty even up to the duration of his natural life, even after he has paid his retributive debt and not by decision of the Courts.
My second concern is precisely this, that the power to continue to deprive this person from his liberty lays in the hands of the Executive and not the Judiciary. Under the SEPP, the Minister may release the offender on license after he has served the minimum term or he may decide to continue to detain the offender up to life, of course, after having taken advice from a panel of experts.
I am curious and would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to why the regime was structured in this way, instead of following the regime for the safe custody of a person acquitted for unsoundness of mind under section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Under the Penal Code, any person found to be of unsound mind at the time of the commission of an offence is to be acquitted. Such a person, having been found by the Court to be of unsound mind should naturally be assessed and be considered for remaining in the custody of the Government as he may pose a threat to himself or to people around him.
In this regard, section 252 provides that the Court is to order that such persons be kept in safe custody and reported to the Minister. Within one month, a designated medical practitioner is to assess that person and propose measures to be taken to minimise the risk of him causing harm to himself or to others. The Minister may then make one of several orders, including continuing to confine that person for a period not exceeding 12 months, provided that the total period of confinement does not exceed the notional sentence that would have been imposed on the person if he had not been acquitted for unsoundness of mind.
In the event that the Minister assesses that the person should continue to be confined beyond the initial 12-month period, the Minister must make an application to the Court. As such, the decision to continue to confine the person remains with the Court.
If the SEPP was designed in a similar manner, it would have had to include just one additional step from the current regime proposed in the Bill, that the Minister would have to make an application to Court for each 12-month extension.
In my view, this would be appropriate, as both regimes apply to extra-sentence situations. For section 252, there is, in fact, no sentence because the person would have been acquitted and for the SEPP, it would be further confinement after the minimum sentence had been completed.
I acknowledge that the SEPP is, in and of itself, a sentence, that is a Court would have to sentence an offender to be subject to the SEPP. But does this come close to an abdication of the sentencing powers of the Court at the end of the minimum period of the sentence to the executive?
In this regard, the principle of the Court's role in sentencing articulated by the hon the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in his keynote address at the Sentencing Conference in October 2022 is instructive and I quote his honour: \"...although Parliament may determine the scope of the courts' sentencing power through the legislative scheme that it prescribes, including by specifying mandatory or minimum sentences, the sentencing function of the courts cannot be enlisted to disguise what in substance is a decision of the Executive.\"
In this regard, a salient clarification is what standard of proof would the Minister apply when considering the report of the Detention Review Board? Must he be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a Court would have to be in imposing a sentence?
I note that the hon Minister of State had said the approach by the Detention Review Board will be scientific and rigorous, and she had also shared some of the criteria. But this is the report of the Detention Review Board. How would the Minister look at it and what is the standard that the Minister is expected to treat it?
Furthermore, would the Minister also produce a publicly available report that will justify and explain why the offender should be further confined?
I also acknowledge that the SEPP would apply to a very narrow class of offences, those stipulated in Schedule 7. These are very serious offences, like culpable homicide and rape. And I agree that the Minister's concern is very real. In fact, in comments that the Minister made to the media last week, he raised the same example he raised today of an offender who had served a sentence of 19 years jail and had been given 24 strokes of the cane for having committed statutory rape of his six-year-old stepdaughter and who, within three years of being released, had been convicted of then sexually assaulting two of his grandnieces and he was subsequently sentenced to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention. If he was subject to an SEPP and had been assessed to not have been rehabilitated, he could have still be detained and we could have avoided having two additional innocent victims.
But the question that arises then is this: in whose hands should lay the power to deprive a person of his liberty?
My view is that it is the preserve of the courts and that the abdication of this prerogative should occur only in very narrow circumstances. I can accept, for example, that in matters of natural security, where there may be urgency and because the Minister is himself the expert and also because of the grave consequences of delaying to act, that the Minister be empowered to take certain actions to detain certain persons.
But even in that situation, there are checks on the Minister's powers. The Internal Security Act (ISA) provides a role of the President to play in detentions under that Act, including in some circumstances empowering the President to make decisions with personal discretion. The bench is also involved in the advisory committee reviewing a detention under the ISA.
But this important review and oversight function does not appear to be sufficiently articulated in the SEPP after the completion of the minimum sentence. This is despite that the scenarios we would encounter in the case of an SEPP would not have the same urgency nor secrecy of information as we would see in the ISA.
The reports for consideration as to whether to continue to detain an offender can be prepared in advance. There should not be concern over secrecy as this is a matter of public protection and the information regarding the offender would already be a matter of public record as he had gone through the court process at trial.
In this regard, I had intended to seek the Minister's clarification on whether there would still be a role for the bench and lawyers to play, for example, in the constitution of the panel of experts. But Minister had pre-emptively already answered this when he said that retired Judges and lawyers would be included.
Could the Minister consider that the chairperson of the panel should always be a member of the bench and that legal experts should also, as a matter of course be included in it?
Before I go on to the other two sets of amendments, I also do note that both the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the hon Minister of State had said that the Minister's decision is subject to judicial review and this provides some comfort.
Sir, the other two sets of amendments I am concerned about are the expansion of Police powers as regards searches without warrants and FMEs.
Once the Bill is passed, the Police will now be empowered to conduct searches without warrants when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence that may aid in their investigations is in the possession of or power of within the power of a suspect of an arrestable offence.
Based on the illustrations in the Bill, the Police may search a suspect's place of residence without warrant. They may search the premises of another person if the suspect is at that second person's premises and they may even check the workplaces of the suspect. These are very wide powers for searches to be conducted without sanction by the courts via a warrant.
I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following points.
First, following the passing of this Bill, in what circumstances would the Police now have to obtain a warrant from the courts before carrying out a search?
Second, what are the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that these wide powers are not abused? For example, when would a person under investigation be considered to be a suspect on which the new provisions could be used and what would constitute \"reason to believe\"?
I hope these would be made public so as to allay concerns about how these powers would be wielded.
As regard to FMEs, I am broadly supportive of the move to make it an offence out of the refusal to submit to an FME as part of Police investigations and for there to be adverse inferences drawn in the event that a person refuses to do so. This will help the Police obtain evidence that is often determinative in a case.
I am, however, concerned about the new section 40I which will allow Police officers to use reasonable force to carry out FMEs which, based on the press release by the Ministry, could be used to obtain, amongst other things, hair samples and buccal or cheek swaps.
Again, I would like to ask the Minister what are the safeguards that would be implemented to ensure that such sanction of force is not abused. Could the Minister elaborate on when a person would be considered a \"suspect\", whether internal approval would have to be sought by investigating officers before resorting to force and what exactly may force be used to obtain?
I would also like to ask whether the Minister had considered including a provision to require that the Police first obtain a warrant from the courts before using force and why such an institutional safeguard was not included.
In all three of these amendments, there could have been a greater role for the Court to play. Fundamental to rule of law is the principle of separation of powers and the need for different parts of Government to check on each other. In particular, it is important that the Judiciary plays a role when there are wide powers granted to the executive.
Sir, I look forward to the Minister's response on my clarifications. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will expand the range of sentencing options for serious crimes and improve the criminal court processes.
I have three sets of clarifications on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process and on the SPP and SEPP.
My first set of clarifications is on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process. Under the Bill, where a documentary exhibit in a case for the prosecution includes an image of an individual's genital or anal region, or a woman's breasts, the prosecution is not required to serve the exhibit on the Defence. Instead, upon the Defence's request, the prosecution must arrange for the defence to view the exhibit at a Police station or a prescribed place.
The photograph may be just one of many pages in a long documentary exhibit. In such a situation, can the Minister clarify if it is open to the prosecution to serve a redacted form of the exhibit containing the image where the image is omitted? The Defence then only has to arrange to view the unredacted image in the exhibit at the Police station or prescribed place. This may be a more proportionate approach where the Defence has a set of the rest of the documentary exhibit.
Additionally, the new section 221B(1) requires the Prosecution to serve on the defence the statement of any material witness that relates to the charges. Can the Minister clarify what is considered a “material” witness?
My second set of clarifications is on how an offender’s suitability for SPP and SEPP will be assessed.
On the SPP, can the Minister share what other factors, apart from physical and mental conditions, will be taken into consideration when assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP? Can the Minister share if the factors for assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP and SEPP are identical? If not, what are the differences? Can the Minister also clarify whether there is any limit to the number of periods for which the court can remand an offender in custody under sections 304A(3) and 304B(5)?
The maximum length of each period is clearly circumscribed – one month for SPP and two months for SEPP – to enshrine some fairness in the process. But the number of periods does not seem constrained by the same safeguard. This opens the possibility that an offender gets remanded indefinitely while the entity preparing the report – the Commissioner of Prisoners for SPP and the psychiatrist for SEPP – fails to submit it in a timely fashion.
My third set of clarifications is on provisions for offenders subject to SPP and SEPP. Can the Minister share what resources or programmes will be provided to rehabilitate offenders on SPP or SEPP? What steps will be taken to mitigate the risk that being put on SPP or SEPP may signal that the offender is beyond rehabilitation? Can the Minister share if any frameworks will be introduced for the assessment by experts, review by Minister, and representations by the offender, at the end of the SEPP minimum period? Finally, can the Minister share what alternative measures the Government considered in place of the SPP and SEPP and what factors did they take into account when deciding on this approach?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. The proposed amendments represent a significant move towards ensuring that our criminal justice system remains effective, fair and transparent. In recent years, several egregious cases that have highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of our criminal justice system.
Of the many faces that criminality can take, sexual crimes remain a key concern in Singapore. There are close to 10,000 reports of sexual assault between 2019 and 2022. The number of sexual assault cases involving victims below 16 years old allegedly committed by family members increased by 61% in 2019 to 2022.
At its core, the Bill aims to strengthen the state’s levers to tackle crime, especially those that I mentioned earlier, and I will be speaking on three key aspects: first, introduction of new sentences for public protection; second, the FME Legislative Framework; and third, enhancing the powers of police and law enforcement agencies.
First, on the new sentencing framework for public protection. The impetus for the proposed law is apparent in wake of the alarming egregious cases. As mentioned by the Minister earlier, in 2001, a diagnosed paedophile served a term of 19 years jail and received 24 strokes of the cane for the rape of his stepdaughter. Within three years of his release from prison, he sexually assaulted his two grandnieces. For his depravity, he was sentenced to the maximum 20 years’ preventive detention. And just last year, a man was sentenced to 18 years’ preventive detention and 12 strokes of the cane for, amongst other charges, aggravated sexual assault. This was also shortly after he had served his 16-year jail term for rape.
Had such perpetrators remained behind bars, more innocent lives would have been spared from the lifelong trauma of sexual abuse. These are exactly the type of offenders that the new SPP and the SEPP aims to tackle.
With the new sentencing regime, it allows for the Courts to better protect the public. It also provides the necessary flexibility to strike a balance between punitive measures and rehabilitation. These amendments will provide the Courts, and not the Government, with the necessary levers to tailor sentences based on the severity of offences, for public protection.
It is notable that the SEPP is limited to serious offences, such as culpable homicide, rape, sexual offences involving vulnerable persons such as persons with mental disabilities and minors; and the courts may consider reports, that is, risk assessment reports by appointed professionals. Could the Ministry consider mandating such reports for all SEPP-related sentences? I believe that this would strike a better balance between the rights of individuals and the pursuit of justice.
Further, the SEPP regime provides that if the offender is assessed to pose a risk to society and therefore would continue to be imprisoned at the end of the SEPP term, regular reviews will be done to assess their suitability for release. Can the Ministry consider enshrining the frequency of this review into the legislation? This would ensure that whilst the protection of the public rightly remains at the forefront, the individual rights and liberties of these offenders are still given due consideration.
Next, on the new FME legislative framework. FMEs are critical to bringing perpetrators to justice, especially in the case of sexual offences. The time sensitivity of FMEs is paramount since forensic evidence can rapidly deteriorate, degrade, or become contaminated, leaving no viable substitutes. The FME, intimately connected with privacy, dignity, and the pursuit of truth, demands a careful recalibration of our legal approach.
Under the FME framework, the police now have the express power to require accused persons to undergo FME where relevant to an investigation. It is also an offence for accused persons to refuse to undergo the FME without reasonable excuse, and the Courts may also draw negative inferences in such cases if a trial is to be held. Could the Ministry clarify under what circumstances would the refusal be done under a “reasonable excuse”?
There are safeguards to the conducting of the FME, which include the requirement to ensure that there is no danger to the individual and the requirement for qualified medical professionals to conduct physical medical examinations and the collection of invasive samples, save for blood samples by way of pricking a finger.
A key safeguard proposed by the Ministry is implementing measures to minimise leakage and unauthorised sharing of materials obtained through the FME procedure. Could the Ministry clarify what measures, cybersecurity or otherwise, it will take to ensure that these photographs are held in the utmost confidence? What are the measures to protect against unauthorised collection of visual evidence such as photographs?
Further, under the proposed section 40H, informed consent will generally be required from the alleged victims and/or their authorised decision-maker, depending on the age of the alleged victim. Would the Ministry consider developing standardized guidelines for obtaining informed consent for FME procedures? Further, under section 40H(1)(b), in the case where the alleged victim is between 14 and 16 years old, both the alleged victim and the alleged victim’s parent or guardian consent would be required for the FME. Could the Ministry kindly clarify the rationale for this?
Finally, on the enhancement of the powers of police and law enforcement agencies by updating section 34 of the CPC. In the context of criminal investigations, where time is often of the essence, it becomes imperative to equip the police and law enforcement agencies with powers that allow for swift and decisive action.
Under the proposed amendments, the police will be empowered to conduct searches without a warrant when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence, allowing searches of arrested persons at the point of arrest for safety reasons. In this regard, could the Ministry clarify how it will ensure the judicious use of these enhanced powers by the police to prevent overreach and protect the rights of individuals? What are the review and training mechanisms in place to guide officers?
It is also proposed for the powers of non-police law enforcement agencies to be enhanced to deal with matters arising from predicate offences under their purview. This is especially important in ensuring that the suitable law enforcement agency deals with the matters they are most familiar with, which is important to maximise operational efficiency considering Singapore’s size.
Mr Speaker, as we navigate these amendments, let us remember that the success of these changes lies not only in their crafting but in the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders. We are sculpting a legal framework that allows us, as members of this House, to protect the public. Speaker Sir, notwithstanding the suggestions mentioned, I rise to support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.09 pm until 4.30 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, given that there have been several references to psychiatrists in the context of risk assessment in a forensic setting, I would like to declare that I am a psychiatrist and a member of the Section of Forensic Psychiatry, College of Psychiatrists of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.
The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) plays a crucial role in Singapore’s criminal justice system. It outlines the processes and rules that govern the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases within our legal system.
A robust CPC ensures the protection of individual rights and safeguards and access to a fair and just trial. It also provides legal certainty and predictability, outlines accountability of law enforcement and judicial authorities and contributes to social order and stability.
When effectively and efficiently administered, it also plays a role in deterrence of criminal behaviour, respect for the rule of law and civil liberties, and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice.
I have two sets of clarifications as part of the changes proposed in this Bill. The first set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new Division 5 – Forensic Medical Evaluation, of Part 4 of the Bill, under Information to Police and Powers of Investigation. The second set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new sections 304A and 304B, under Sentence for Public Protection and Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in principle, I agree with the amendment to articulate the powers relating to FME.
Under the proposed section 40H, there is a distinction for standards of consent for medical evaluation drawn over three groups of alleged victims: (a) alleged victims below 14 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian; (b) alleged victims between 14 and 16 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian and that of the alleged victim; and (c) alleged victims above 16 years old requiring only the consent of the alleged victim.
Firstly, given that, in the context of Police investigations, FME may cover both accused persons and alleged victims, may I ask whether these standards for consent also apply to accused persons within the same age ranges as well? If this is not the case, could the Ministry clarify why the same consent standards may not apply to both alleged victims and accused persons?
Secondly, relating to FME and, more broadly, in medical settings, doctors would consider strongly seeking parental or guardian consent for anyone below 21 years of age seeking medical treatment though there could be unique considerations that may inform such a person’s ability to give consent at a younger age than that. Notwithstanding the forensic setting, it remains the case that this is a medical evaluation, and I would like to seek clarification whether this will be considered the legal standard henceforth relating to consent of medical evaluations in general.
If this is not the case, I would like to seek clarifications from the Ministry why a forensic medical evaluation for alleged victims would be different from non-forensic medical evaluations in terms of allowable age of consent and the ages to which permission from a parent or guardian is required. This Bill appears to be more permissive to allow individuals to consent at a younger age by themselves from 16 years old rather than at 18 or 21 years old, at least to the alleged victim, based on the current proposed amendments.
Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, under sections 40I to K, regarding refusal for FME and use of reasonable force in certain cases, I agree that refusal for FME could constitute an offence and can appreciate the need for reasonable force to retrieve samples or conduct FME for certain cases.
However, in this context, other than a retrieval of blood through a blood draw, which is considered as invasive, would it be possible to list the body samples that are considered non-invasive in the context of a non-consenting FME for greater clarity? For example, would retrieval of other body samples like urine, saliva, head hair and root of head hair, sample of fingernail or toenail be considered invasive or non-invasive? This is not yet clear in the current amendment.
In section 40E, these are all articulated as body samples, but only the sample of blood is explicitly considered as an invasive sample. Perhaps, to retrieve urine and stools, one would require access to intimate parts and, therefore, this is not allowed under section 40I but may I clarify what about hair, nails and saliva? Would a probing swab to the mouth or nose for saliva or bodily fluids, or pulling of a hair sample at its root be considered invasive?
Given that the type of samples permitted for a consenting FME are already articulated in section 40E, for clarity, it would be helpful to clarify what samples are permitted with use of reasonable force on a non-consenting person and also considered non-invasive.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to my clarifications on new sections 304A, SPP, and 304B, SEPP.
I begin by unequivocally and categorically stating that the crimes for which the proposed sections 304A and 304B cover are heinous, disgraceful and reprehensible in the strongest terms.
These crimes have a long-lasting impact on the victims, in terms of physical and emotional trauma, the psychological effects on their mental well-being, their loss of security and trust towards significant others, and how they potentially view current and future relationships as well. In my work as a clinician, I also see victims of such trauma permanently scarred to the extent that they are unable to form meaningful relationships nor are they able to work, and some even struggle with the need for psychiatric support and longer-term therapy. These crimes are abominable beyond measure and have no place in our society.
However, in deliberating this change and the introduction of these two sections, I take a leaf from the document “Sentencing in Singapore” guide published by MinLaw and MHA on their website, wherein it articulates four evergreen sentencing principles: deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionate punishment and prevention. The same guideline also articulates the different types of sentences, including imprisonment, fines, caning, community-based sentences, corrective training, preventive detention and the death penalty, and that rehabilitative potential is also assessed in the context of Propensity for Reform as well as the Nature and Gravity of the Offence.
In these proposed sections, I would like to request clarifications over three areas, some of which have also been addressed by the Minister previously.
First, could the Minister explain the principles behind the selected offences in the Seventh Schedule under SEPP? In our world of widespread Internet and electronic use, the potential of sexual crimes relating to use of intimate images, recordings and voyeurism, as well as gaining access to, producing, distributing and selling child abuse material do have potential for harm to the victims and members of the public not unlike some of the offences already highlighted in the Seventh Schedule. Sometimes, these offences, indeed, far outstrip the extent of impact and harm that current offences included in the Seventh Schedule may pose and I seek greater clarity on how these offences have been chosen.
Second, I would like to gain clarification over what is envisioned as the intended gain of SPP and SEPP, and how will this eventually be measured? Are current sentencing frameworks not enough to address adequately both retributive and restorative aspects of justice for the offenders today, no matter how egregious their crimes may be?
Third, what are the numbers of current and ex-offenders this Bill could impact and how many of them could qualify for SPP and/or SEPP at their next offence?
If the numbers are small, could we not consider a greater amount of resources, monitoring and enforceability for our community sentencing options, release orders, detention orders as well as employment placement and preparation schemes, rather than relying on the hon Minister’s discretion to detain such individuals up to the natural life of the prisoner, as in SEPP?
Could we structure interventions better and amalgamate the hybrid use of prison sentences with Community Orders, Mandatory Treatment Orders, use of electronic monitoring and Day Reporting Orders better? These could still achieve the intended outcome of public protection and mitigate risk when employed with greater oversight and supervision.
If the numbers are, indeed, sizeable, then would it not be telling of how much more we need to do in conducting treatment, as well as rehabilitative and reintegrative programmes back to the community, especially for this sub-group of offenders of violent crimes and sexual harms? Would it be possible then to focus on doing this better instead of introducing SPP and/or SEPP?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether the weight of the introduction of section 304B especially, in the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection, consider too strongly the principle of Deterrence and Prevention, when compared to Proportionality in Punishment and Rehabilitation.
I do have reservations relating to SEPP specifically, its achievable gains and proportionality in the sentencing framework, as well as its encroachment into civil liberties, even if it is reserved for the most heinous and predatory among us. I wonder whether there are alternatives possible and yet to be considered within the existing structure of our legal provisions to suitably manage the risk and still protect the public.
Mr Deputy Speaker, pending clarifications from the Ministry, less the SEPP at least at this juncture, I support all other aspects of the amendments to the Act as proposed by the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's reputation as one of the safest countries in the world is a testament to our criminal justice system and the dedication of our law enforcement officers. We are fortunate to live in a society where the trust between administrators and citizens allows us to engage in critical discourse. It is our duty to question, deliberate and ensure that any changes to our legal framework are just, balanced, equitable and respectful of individual rights, even as we seek to protect the common good.
I wish to make two main points on the Bill.
Firstly, the empowerment of the Police to conduct searches without a warrant is a substantial change. It would benefit this House for us to have a greater appreciation of the underlying problems that then called for this solution. I appreciate and understand the need for our Police Force to have levers that aim to protect the safety and security of Singaporeans. However, searches without warrants have had unintended, negative consequences in some other jurisdictions with different operationalisation of this policy. The significant impact these measures have had on vulnerable communities in some such countries is worth noting. While I appreciate Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam's clarification in her speech that the powers do not amount to stop and frisk in the US, where according to the New York Police Department (NYPD)'s annual reports, in 2022, 15,102 stops were recorded, but 9,750 were eventually not arrested or given a summons, at 65%. Some studies of warrantless searches and similar programmes have also found that persons of minority descent tend to be stopped more frequently than majority ethnicity individuals, even after controlling for variability and certain profiling estimates of crime participation. It would be important for us, as a society, to protect against profiling.
Sir, our Police officers discharge their duties with professionalism and fulfil their duties in upholding the law with due care and consideration. While this continues to be true, given the extended powers and the impact it could have on the trust between our people and the Police force, if misused, even by accident, we must enquire about the safeguards in place to prevent potential unlawful use of this power and consideration on providing recourse to those who may feel unfairly searched. In the case of Mah vs AG, the appellant highlighted, in obiter dicta, that when a Police officer makes a decision, in this case, to make an arrest, his decision relies on his own common understanding, his own biases and his own experience as a Police officer.
Even with the best of intentions, law enforcement is, ultimately, in the hands of individuals and, sometimes, things can go wrong, especially when officers are required to make difficult split-second decisions. I would like to ask what was the cost-benefit analysis of these amendments and the gravity of its impact on the trust between the public and Police force. What measures will be in place to prevent unfair accusations against Police officers as well who are discharging their duties?
I believe that we have a sensible force and one that annexed their duties to the rule of law. But I also ask that we consider the realities of the systems we design and the way they may impact vulnerable communities.
In this same Bill, the proposed legislative framework for FME specifies that only Police officers holding at least the rank of Inspector have the power to require inspections involving intimate parts. If I understand it correctly, the proposed amendment to section 34 suggests that this search, on the other hand, is afforded to all officers. This individual discretion may open Police officers to accusations of biasness. A better protection could be for that permission to search perhaps coming from a higher rank.
The public would also be keen to know how these searches could be applied. A search without warrant is performed in countries for some instances, such as the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and India. It is usually performed with the caveat that it is done to save life and limb and prevent serious damage to property, including searches for weapons on a person.
At present, our Police have limited powers of search. However, it is unclear what the newer approach would be with this new power.
Finally, given that this is a recent development and members of the public may not be aware of these new powers, there is potential for misunderstanding. In particular, members of the public who are vulnerable or face communication challenges, may have difficulty understanding this. Should they not be appropriately informed, processes to manage them should be in place to mitigate potential trauma or misunderstanding. Indeed, the ordinary citizen has nothing to fear. What we do want to prevent are anxieties introduced by the perceived loss of privacy.
Some further questions I have include, firstly, could MHA share with the House why the search without warrant amendments are being put forth now, the trade-offs considered and why this is needed when our Police force have long demonstrated their ability to be effective without this provision?
Under the Bill, obstructing a Police officer from a lawful search becomes an arrestable offence. What protections will be afforded to citizens who believe they are being searched unfairly? How will an officer determine reason to believe and what are the standards? Will there be an opportunity for clarification before someone is deemed obstructive? Who holds the authority to conduct searches or authorise searches for persons with special needs, for example, and how will special care be taken for these individuals?
Finally, what are the public communication measures in place to help the public understand these challenges?
My second point of concern pertains to the enhanced FME examinations, particularly in cases involving serious sexual offences.
Sir, I have spoken up for victim survivors a number of times in this House and it cannot be overstated that investigations into allegations of sexual crimes are a harrowing experience. Victims are compelled to recall traumatic memories and it is not uncommon for them to take a considerable amount of time before finding the strength to speak up.
Even so, and despite enhanced sentences for certain sexual crimes taking effect from March 2022, many feel that sentences meted out to sexual offenders are too low and do not do much to deter others from committing similar acts. There is also little comfort to victim survivors if the perpetrator is released in just a few months. All this is amidst the social stigma which many survivor victims face, despite such sexual assaults or violence not being due to their own actions but rather malicious perpetrators.
Evidence provided by FMEs can be extremely valuable in constructing a case or, conversely, could be exculpatory, should a suspect be found not guilty of the crime. In either scenario, I agree that the FME constitutes an integral part of the Police procedures and toolkit.
Newspapers have reported on some of these cases. Time is of the essence for law enforcement services. Medical evidence, such as DNA, is time-sensitive and can degrade, potentially being washed away by the accused, if given the opportunity. It is crucial for law enforcement to conduct FMEs as expeditiously as possible to bring wrongdoers to justice.
In February 2000, Ms Chua, 27, was raped and found in Bukit Batok Nature Park with her clothes next to her. She eventually succumbed to her injuries and her assailant was never apprehended.
Conversely, in the case of Lim Chun Wing vs Public Prosecutor, Lim broke into the victim's house, assaulted and raped her before fleeing. He was arrested on the same day and FME conducted on him revealed the victim's DNA on his genitals. Such examinations can also solve cold cases, perhaps bringing some form of closure to family of victims who suffered years ago.
While we acknowledge the critical role of FMEs in obtaining forensic evidence, it is important to note that the amendment applies to both accused and victims, although there is different treatment. Questions arise about situations where an accused person may have a legitimate reason for refusal.
I have a few further clarifications. How will the legislation protect against possible unjust penalties for refusal? Are there potential incidents where a minor who is a victim of a sexual crime may have a different preference for the taking of such samples and evidence, as compared to their parents, and how will the issue of consent be handled then?
How will we advise victims or accused persons who are minors regarding the process in a way that is age-appropriate? What are the considerations and processes for working with a victim? The process can be challenging for such victims and it is in the public's interest to know what the provisions are, such as separate rooms, for example, which have been designed with victim care in mind and the involvement of female Police officers exclusively.
Additionally, I would like to inquire about the procedures and practices in place for vulnerable individuals, particularly those with special needs, to ensure that their circumstances are appropriately addressed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the public has a need to understand that these measures are conclusively beneficial and for the necessary protection of life and property, reasons that go beyond administrative ease.
Singapore's safety is a collective achievement, built upon the support and understanding of our citizens, the hard work of men and women who are in law enforcement. Safety is often cited as a key reason why many of us are grateful to live in Singapore. We are well aware that this sometimes requires the relinquishment of certain rights. Yet, we must ensure that the vulnerable are protected and that law-abiding citizens can go about their lives with confidence, secure in the knowledge that they are well-protected.
As we navigate these amendments, let us uphold the principles that have made Singapore safe, such as justice and fairness and respect for each other's rights. We owe it to our citizens – everyday Singaporeans who are law enforcement officers as well, and to future generations, to ensure that the laws that we enact strike a delicate balance between security and liberty. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. But I have some clarifications that I hope the Minister will be able to address.
Specifically, my concerns are about the new rules for the conduct of FMEs and SEPPs.
I will speak, first, on the new proposed rules on FMEs. FMEs are conducted to obtain forensic evidence which is critical for investigations, particularly those pertaining to serious sexual offences, such as rape. As MinLaw has explained in its press release of 10 January, FMEs are generally seen as an important aspect of modern evidence-gathering and there are simply no substitutes for certain types of specific forensic evidence, for example, when penile swabs need to be taken from accused persons in sexual assault cases, in order to show proof of contact.
These types of evidence are also time-sensitive because they may be lost, degraded or contaminated over a short period of time. All these factors speak in favour of a robust FME regime, but there is also a need to balance these concerns with respect for personal autonomy and notions of consent.
Under the proposed new section 40H of the CPC, it is, quite correctly, very clearly stated that a Police officer may not require an alleged victim to undergo an FME, unless the victim consents to the examination. My first clarification for the Minister relates to the information that is provided to alleged victims in the course of procuring their consent. In order for any kind of consent to be valid and legitimate, an individual must be given sufficient, accurate and relevant information on the actions that are to be taken and on the implications of these actions. Could the Minister provide details on the kinds of information that Police officers will be required to provide to alleged victims when seeking out their consent to carry out FMEs?
Notwithstanding the requirements for the grant of express consent, if the alleged victim is unable to provide consent within a reasonable time due to a physical or mental condition and that delay results in loss, contamination or degradation of the required evidence, the Police are permitted under the new law to seek consent instead from a deputy or donee, on behalf of the alleged victim.
On this point, is the Minister able to share the guidelines that are in place for Police officers to determine whether delays in the conduct of FMEs will result in the loss, degradation or contamination of the evidence concerned? Could the Minister explain how the Police will be trained to determine if delays in carrying out the FMEs will, in fact, result in the loss, degradation or contamination of the evidence?
The explanatory statement to this Bill also refers to a very wide range of conditions that include dementia and learning disabilities, both of which are conditions that can be experienced very differently in terms of severity. For example, a medical diagnosis of dementia does not immediately equate to a loss of capacity. And under our Mental Capacity Act, a person must be assumed to be able to make decisions for themselves, unless it is established that they are unable to do so. On this broad point, I seek three clarifications.
Firstly, can the Minister clarify more specifically the kinds of physical and mental conditions that would be caught by the proposed new section 40H? Secondly, how would the existence of these conditions be established by a Police officer in practice when time is of the essence and the evidence needs to be collected very quickly? Thirdly, what training will Police officers be given to enable them to decide whether a person suffering from a particular physical or mental condition is actually unable to give their consent?
The new FME rules under the proposed section 40H of CPC also list the conditions under which the Police must seek consent from the alleged victim's parent, guardian, deputy or donee, if the alleged victim is personally unable to provide their own consent. The consent of such representatives is, however, not required if delays in carrying out the FME will result in the loss, contamination or degradation of the evidence and the consent cannot be obtained despite all reasonable efforts.
Can the Minister clarify, what the threshold is for such reasonable efforts and how this term would be interpreted? For example, would the term be confined to physical attempts to locate the alleged victim's representative; or would it also potentially apply to a situation where the Police are unable to convince the alleged victim's representative to grant their consent? If the legislation is meant to include the latter situations as well, what are the qualitative factors that are then taken into account by the Police when they decide whether or not reasonable efforts have been made?
The threshold of reasonableness, once again, comes into play for FMEs conducted on accused persons, further to the proposed new section 40I of the CPC. Here, reasonable force may be applied by authorised officers where intimate parts and invasive procedures are not involved. I seek clarification from the Minister on the kind of standard that will be applied in determining what exactly constitutes such reasonable force.
My final clarification on the new FME provisions relates to the proposed section 40G of CPC, which specifies that FMEs involving intimate regions of the body may only be carried out by a woman, if the subject of the examination is also a woman. To this point, is the Minister able to explain how a subject's gender identity will be accounted for and respected?
For example, will the new rules allow a male Police officer or forensic specialist to conduct an FME on a person who is legally male, but identifies as female and has yet to undergo gender confirmation surgery or change their registered sex officially? What will the treatment be for subjects who identify as non-binary in gender? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification on how these kinds of matters would be approached.
I will now move on to the proposed SEPP. This is introduced under the new section 304B of CPC.
The primary stated policy rationale for SEPP is to protect the public from specific types of dangerous offenders, namely, from those who commit serious violent offences, such as culpable homicide and attempted murder, as well as serious sexual offences, such as rape and the sexual penetration of a minor. I acknowledge that the threshold for imposing an SEPP is a very high one.
Amongst other things, the SEPP regime only applies to offenders aged 21 and above at the time of the offence, and the Courts must be satisfied that it is in the interests of the protection of the public that an SEPP be imposed. Before imposing the sentence, the new proposed law requires the Courts to call for and consider a psychiatrist's report as well as any report submitted by the offender or their lawyer on the offender's risk of causing serious physical or sexual harm to others.
That being said, under an SEPP, an offender will be detained for a minimum term of between five and 20 years. At the end of the minimum term, the offender will not be automatically released. But, instead, will only be freed if assessed to no longer pose a threat to the public. This assessment will be made by the Minister for Home Affairs, based on the advice of an expert panel. If the offender is found to be unsuitable for release, they may continue to be detained for an indeterminate period of time. These are extremely severe provisions and I seek three clarifications from the Minister on them.
First, will any clear sentencing guidelines be issued to encourage consistent sentencing by the Courts under the SEPP regime?
Second, what kinds of rehabilitation programmes will an offender be required to attend?
In 2022, the UK House of Commons Justice Committee issued a Report on Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs). This is a scheme in the UK that is somewhat similar to SEPP. In the Report, a joint submission was made from 50 psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists who had experience of working with people serving the IPP sentence.
In that submission, various forms of psychological harm were identified as having emerged from the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. The submission states, and I quote, \"More recent studies find that people serving an IPP sentence consistently describe mental and emotional deterioration caused by the sentence, including feelings of depression and hopelessness, feeling very anxious, symptoms of paranoia and psychosis, suicidal urges and feeling fundamentally \"changed\" for the worse\".
A study by the UK Ministry of Justice in 2021 noted that, \"The rate of self-harm in people serving an IPP sentence is around double that of people serving a life sentence and almost double that of people serving a determinate sentence.\"
In light of the higher potential for mental health issues among SEPP prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, rehabilitation programmes should be available in quantity and they should be accessible to offenders in a timely manner. I seek the Minister's clarification on the kinds of rehabilitative treatment and mental health support that will be made available to SEPP prisoners as well as their family members.
My third clarification has to do with how the new SEPP regime gels with victim-centric approaches to criminal justice, especially in the realm of violence against women.
In 2014, the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) issued a report to MinLaw entitled AWARE's Recommendations on Sexual Assault Law in Singapore. In that report, AWARE put forward the view, based on its own research and work, that the most urgent priority for policies tackling sexual violence is to improve the processes for investigating cases and achieving convictions. In the experience of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre as reported in the 2021 AWARE paper, An Omnibus on Gender Equality, formal reports are not made in 70% of cases of sexual violence.
I am given to understand that victim-survivors may choose not to report their cases due to fear of harm or revenge from perpetrators or because they are concerned about the impact of the reporting on such perpetrators. These may be people who are known to them or even be family members. These concerns are actually quite unrelated to the severity of the actual punishments that are meted out to offenders. In more extreme cases, if punishments are overly harsh, victim-survivors who are the subject of coercive control might hesitate to come forward in the first place to report that offences have been committed against them.
As a final point, I seek the Minister's assurance that even if enhanced penalties are introduced under SEPP, that the Government will continue to implement and expand victim-centric and trauma-informed solutions, especially in cases where violence is committed against women.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, underpinning our reputation as one of the safest cities in the world is the strong rule of law. The robust criminal justice system that we have today is due to our LEAs which work tirelessly to keep Singapore safe and secure.
I note that this Bill contains comprehensive proposals spanning enforcement, sentencing and Court processes which reflect the Government's continuous efforts to ensure our criminal justice processes remain fair and effective in an increasingly complex security landscape. As such, I support this Bill, but would like to seek some clarifications.
Let me begin with the provisions relating to law enforcement powers.
Clause 11 of the Bill empowers officers of CNB, ICA and the Singapore Prison Service (Prisons) to pursue and re-arrest persons escaping from the lawful custody of other Home Team Departments (HTDs), including the Police. This is sensible, as it synergises inter-departmental capabilities to better deal with flight risks.
I have noted the past success and risk of joint operations involving not just HTDs but also other LEAs outside MHA, such as Singapore Customs under the Ministry of Finance (MOF). As such, can the Minister clarify if such powers will or can be extended to LEAs beyond the Home Team to further strengthen inter-Ministry operational efficiencies?
Clauses 4 and 6 clarify the powers of LEAs in obtaining customer information from financial institutions (FIs), in line with Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)' policy, specifically for banks and licensed companies, to enhance the protection of confidential customer information held by these FIs. Can the Minister clarify the safeguards for the protection of such information procured from such FIs during investigations, including the deletion of such information after investigations have concluded?
I now turn to the new framework for FMEs. The proposed Division 5 of clause 7, which formally empowers the Police and other specialists to obtain forensic medical evidence critical for investigations, with the closure of this legislative gap and the improved potential for solving crimes, can the Minister share the number and status of cases in the past five years, in which the current lack of legal powers for FME has impeded investigations?
In addition, for victims where FME is needed, consent is required except in certain circumstances laid out in the proposed section 40H(2) of clause 7. In this regard, can the Minister clarify, for cases where an FME is conducted on a victim above the age of 14, who is unable to give consent due to a temporary physical or mental condition, for example, intoxication, but who upon recovery refuses consent, does he/she have any recourse for the removal of FME information or perhaps, upon conclusion of investigation and Court proceedings?
Next, on the new sentences for public protection, the severity of the proposed SPP and SEPP conveys our desire to prevent dangerous offenders from being automatically released from prison after the end of their jail term.
For both frameworks, the judgments by the Court will be complemented with timely assessments of an offender's rehabilitation closer to the potential release date and powers vested upon the Minister to, on the advice of a Review Board, order the offender's release on licence or continued detention.
As it is critical for such powers to be exercised judiciously, based on robust risk assessments, so that decisions fairly balance the continued detention of an offender with the need for public safety, can the Minister clarify the safeguards that will be put in place?
One, what criteria would the Minister or Review Board consider in assessing an offender's suitability for release?
Two, what are the grounds for the offender's application for the judicial review against the decision of the Detention Review Board?
Aligned with this objective to enhance public protection and to provide greater assurance, I note that the amendments do not apply to those who are already serving existing sentences.
What can be done to better protect the public in cases where an offender who was sentenced before SEPP came into effect but still poses a threat to the public and will be released upon serving his current sentence? This is just like the example the Minister mentioned about the offender who was sentenced for raping his niece and, after less than two years upon release, sexually assaulted his stepdaughter.
On the improvements in Court processes, clauses 12 and 13 provide for the Courts and the Police to release accused persons on personal bond for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. While I appreciate that an aim of this measure is to expedite cases to relieve stress on our criminal justice system, the contrary may result if the risk of abscondment is not properly managed. With this in mind, can the Minister share the rate of abscondment for cases of personal bond in the past five years and whether key learnings were or can be derived from dealing of these cases to strengthen safeguards against flight risks?
Lastly, I recognise that clause 33 accords immunity to the Chief Justice and the Selection Committee regarding the appointment of members to the Panel of Psychiatrists, introduced in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that was passed in 2018.
May I request the Minister to share the progress of its operationalisation since then, as well as measures to mitigate actual or perceived conflict of interest in appointments made by the Selection Committee?
Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I am confident that this Bill will serve its purpose to uphold and strengthen the ethos of justice and peace that all of us, as Singaporeans, have come to be proud of. I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, almost two years ago in April 2022, I had asked the Minister for Home Affairs in this very House about the safeguards in place to protect members of the public, particularly children and women, from recalcitrant sex offenders and whether the Ministry will consider lifelong counselling and monitoring of these offenders.
We have to bear in mind that such cases of sexual abuse or assault on young persons can have a long-term adverse impact on the victims and we must do all we can to protect them and prevent these crimes from even taking place again.
When it comes to serious violent offences, such as culpable homicide and attempted murder, the danger posed to society is even clearer and greater. As a country, we would have failed these victims who fall prey to offenders who were released at the end of their jail terms even though they showed signs of reoffending.
The Home Affairs Minister, in his response two years ago, had shared that MHA and MinLaw were, in fact, studying a new sentencing option to give more protection to the public. Under this proposal, known as SEPP in short, which we are finally able to debate on today, dangerous offenders or repeat offenders who commit very serious hurt and sexual offences will not be automatically released after serving their sentence, but would be released only after having been assessed as no longer posing a threat to the public.
SEPP is not an alternative to life sentencing. Under SEPP, I see that Judges are making their decisions aided by expert risk assessment reports by professionals from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) or others and there is a review built in at their end of their original sentence where assessments are conducted by expert psychiatrists and a detention review board. This review is also triggered after every two years to provide a chance for the offenders to be considered for release.
I think we can all agree that in such egregious cases, there needs to be a balance struck somewhere, to allow offenders to have a second chance while also keeping the vulnerable protected. I would also like to echo feedback that I have received from lawyers who regularly handled such cases, that we would need more clarity on how the assessment will be conducted and what are the criteria for an unconditional discharge. I also hope that to be fair to offenders, there can be additional and dedicated resources provided to support offenders convicted under SEPP in their rehabilitation journey while in prison. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we can all agree that in such egregious cases, there needs to be a balance struck somewhere, to allow offenders to have a second chance while also keeping the vulnerable protected.
I would also like to echo feedback that I have received from lawyers who regularly handled such cases, that we would need more clarity on how the assessment will be conducted and what are the criteria for an unconditional discharge. I also hope that to be fair to offenders, there can be additional and dedicated resources provided to support offenders convicted under SEPP in their rehabilitation journey in prison.
(In English): I believe that the amendments are much needed and timely, and I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to first declare my occupation as a director of a law corporation and one of the areas of practice which the firm provides is criminal defence.
Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. While the Bill seeks to bring about a series of changes, my speech today will focus on clause 304B, which provides for SEPP.
At the outset, I acknowledge the Government’s calibrated approach for the SEPP, the applicability of which is scrupulously limited to serious violent and sexual offences specified in the Seventh Schedule.
In my view, one of the most severe legal punishments – indefinite detention in prison – is being rightly and proportionately reserved for the most deplorable species of offences. That said, the nuance that bears highlighting is this – it is not necessarily just the intrinsic nature and severity of the Scheduled offences themselves that warrant the infliction of the SEPP, but perhaps more crucially, it is the proclivity of the offenders to re-offend after they have been released.
We have read in news reports and judgments of cases, the atrocities committed by some offenders. We surely must have asked ourselves – could this have been prevented, or prevented from happening again? Each victim is one too many; each victim has physical and mental trauma that he or she may never recover from in spite of their best efforts and support from their loved ones. As Minister Shanmugam has said: \"the Government’s key duty is to protect the public.\" It is certainly also a key duty of this House to do the same.
Notwithstanding, we must discharge this duty responsibly and proportionately. After all, there is no saint without a past, and no sinner without a future.
The objective of the SEPP is not to eliminate the future or decimate the prospect of rehabilitation of any offender. Instead, it seeks to ensure that offenders are not released back into society before they have been sufficiently rehabilitated, which could otherwise jeopardise the future of a potential victim. To this end, I seek the following clarifications from the Minister:
Firstly, during the period of continued incarceration, will SEPP inmates undergo specific or specialised rehabilitation programmes? If so, what are those? And if so, whether good performers of such rehabilitation programmes can be allowed an avenue to make representation to seek for Minister’s early consideration for review of his suitability for an early release?
Lastly, in respect of sexual offenders who have been released unconditionally or on licence from SEPP, will MHA consider, apart from curfew and/or electronic monitoring, also imposing a condition akin to an automatic Protection Order that prohibits such offenders from coming into any unnecessary contact with their former victims? And where the offender was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, that he or she should also be prohibited from coming into any unnecessary contact with children?
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding any of my aforementioned clarifications, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the proposed Criminal Procedure Bill is extensive and covers many facets. One of the substantive amendments include the introduction of the SEPP for which many of the Members here have spoken much about.
Over the past few years, there have been many reports of cases involving dangerous offenders. These include serial sex offenders who preyed on children, as well recalcitrant offenders who committed serious sexual or violent offences soon after being released from prison.
This is not just a statistic, it is a stark reality that poses an immediate threat to the safety and well-being of our society. We therefore cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this alarming issue.
Hence, I am in support of the introduction of SEPP through the Bill as it seeks to better protect the public from dangerous, repeated offenders. However, I should also highlight that it has the challenge of balancing the individual rights of those affected by the wide ranging enhancements placed to protect the public against such dangerous offenders.
As the introduction of the SEPP could see the offender jailed indefinitely, beyond the crime he was originally charged for, it is through these lens that I want to seek clarifications so that while we agree that we must better protect the public from such offenders, we also have the civic duty to be fair to such offenders.
Clause 45 includes the \"Seventh Schedule\" for offences of which sentences for SEPP may be imposed. The offences cited include offences under sections 304, 307, 308, 326, 354, 375, 376, just to name a few. This includes violent crimes such as culpable homicide, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing grevious hurt and serious sexual offences.
When will the SEPP take into effect? Is it applied at the point of sentencing or at the point of release?
Will the SEPP be applicable to those already in incarceration? In other words, if there is currently a violent or sexual predator already serving sentence, could the SEPP be applicable to him after it is deemed by MHA that the offender is still a threat to society? If yes, do we have the necessary court resources to assess those that are already in incarceration? If no, how do we prevent the current offenders who have a tendency to recommit crimes be detained for the sake of public safety?
Based on the current offenders serving their sentence, what will be the number of offenders that could be placed on SEPP for which indefinite detention could be a possibility?
While serving SEPP, does an offender still have opportunities to be rehabilitated and taken off SEPP before the end of his mandatory jail term?
Why does there seem to be an increase in number of such crimes in the first place? Are we committing any resources from any Ministry in order to better understand this at the causal level? Should we not be looking into preventing such heinous crimes from happening in the first place?
And is there adequate mental health support and rehabilitation services for such offenders who may have underlying mental issues?
For the sentencing for SEPP, I understand that it is up to the Courts to decide. The Minister has earlier shared the make-up of the panel in his opening speech. Who will decide who sits on the panel?
And during the individual's detention, will the offender be able to appeal against the SEPP sentenced on him? Or will he only be re-assessed at the end of his mandatory detention?
During the period where the offender is released on licence and placed on certain conditions, do we monitor such offenders in terms of their Internet use, keeping in mind online platforms are often gateways to groom and exploit potential victims?
For those already sentenced on SEPP and not released on licence, the Bill mentions regular reviews to determine whether the offender can be unconditionally released and the sentence brought to an end. How often will these reviews be? Who will be conducting these reviews and how often can such reviews be appealed?
In conclusion, the cases for sexual and violent offenders is a pressing issue that demands urgent attention. The Bill goes a long way in terms of providing legal measures that can help us work towards creating safer communities and protecting the most vulnerable amongst us. We need to also ensure that we use a combination of prevention and rehabilitation programmes to tackle this at the root of the problem. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspension of Standing Orders to Speak More than Once and for Time Limit for Speech","subTitle":"In respect of Senior Parliamentary Secretary's speech","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item No 1 under Orders of the Day in the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3), so far as it is necessary to enable Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Law, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, to speak more than once?
In the course of the debate, Members of Parliament have directed queries to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and I wish to move this Motion so that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam can respond to Members' queries on the specific elements of the Bill and related matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on item No 1 under Orders of the Day in the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) in respect of Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Law, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, to speak more than once.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Law, Ms Rahayu Mahzam's speech, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Law, Ms Rahayu Mahzam's speech.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): I thank the Members who spoke on the Bill for their questions and suggestions. I will first respond to questions regarding the law enforcement related amendments.
Mr Derrick Goh asked whether the powers to pursue and re-arrest persons who escape from the lawful custody of Home Team Departments will be extended to non-Home Team law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
Currently, we do not have plans to extend the powers to non-Home Team LEAs. Our assessment is that the extension of these powers to Home Team LEAs would suffice to effectively deal with persons who escape from lawful custody of Home Team Departments. At the same time, non-Home Team agencies may seek the assistance of the Police for persons who escape from their custody.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the proposed amendments to allow the Police to conduct a search without warrant.
This specific amendment is about searching a place, in order to investigate a specific arrestable offence, where the police believe that the item they are looking for, related to this investigation, is in the possession or control of the suspect.
As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, this power is not new. The Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances, and the amendment makes the exercise of this power more practicable. I have also spoken about the prerequisites before exercising this power. For example, Police will have to apply for a court order for a search where the owner of the property is not a suspect and is uncontactable. To clarify, the powers under section 34 are for investigation into arrestable offences. For investigation into non-arrestable offences, Police will still need to obtain an order of the Public Prosecutor or a Magistrate before they can conduct searches without warrant.
Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the safeguards to protect sensitive financial information obtained by LEAs. The relevant LEA officers are obliged to safeguard official information obtained during investigations under the Official Secrets Act.
The specific LEAs must also adhere to guidelines in the Singapore Government Instructions Manual for Security of Classified Information and may also put in place operational safeguards to secure the data and prevent unauthorised access, for example, in respect of how the data will be stored and handled, and who can access the data.
I next move on to the questions on FME. The questions broadly fall within three categories: first, issues relating to consent; second, procedures of FME; and third, safeguards for vulnerable persons undergoing FME.
First, I address the questions about consent. Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about situations where an FME can be proceeded with where the victim cannot give consent and who makes the determination.
The assessment of the victim's ability to consent will be made by the Police officer. Police may also consult relevant experts, where appropriate. For example, when a potential victim of sexual assault is brought to the hospital unconscious, the Police will generally take into account the assessment of the medical professionals treating the person, such as whether and when the person is likely to regain consciousness, before deciding whether to wait for the victim to regain consciousness or to proceed with FME without consent.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked for examples of temporary conditions other than intoxication. The examples in the Bill are non-exhaustive. Another example other than intoxication is when the victim has fainted. In such circumstances, Police will have to assess the situation. If there is no risk to the evidence, they can wait.
Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about the thresholds for reasonable efforts under section 40H. In contacting a victim’s parent, guardian, deputy or donee. What constitutes reasonable efforts will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, which will include consideration of the time sensitivity of the FME.
Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Nadia Samdin had questions about the consent requirements for minors, including a situation when a minor victim has differing preference with his or her parents on the consent of FME.
For victims above the age of 14 years old, their consent is required to recognise their autonomy. The age threshold of 14 years old takes reference from the concept of Gillick competence used in medical law that a person aged 14 or above would have sufficient understanding and maturity to understand proposed medical procedure and consequences. For victims below the age of 16 years old, the consent of the authorised decision-maker is required. For victims between 14 and 16 years of age, consent from both the victim and his or her authorised decision-maker is required. Where either the victim or the parent does not consent, Police will not proceed with the FME.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the basis of the Police overriding the wishes of a donee or guardian for FME conducted on the victim. She may be referring to section 40H(3)(b)(iii)(C) of the Bill. To clarify, aside from the carve-outs for suspected perpetrators and persons who wish to conceal the offence, which the Member has already mentioned, the Police can proceed with the FME only if the authorised decision-maker abstains from giving consent. This could happen, for example, if they are in an estranged relationship and do not want to be involved in the decision.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the differentiated approach towards victims and accused persons, specifically the penalties for refusal and consent requirements for minor accused persons.
As Minister Shanmugam explained in his opening speech, and as I have explained in my Malay speech earlier, we take a different approach towards victims and accused persons. This is because accused persons who have committed the offence may refuse to consent to the FME in a bid to escape liability. For accused persons who are minors, we take the same approach in terms of consent requirements. But at the same time, we are putting in place safeguards when FME procedures involve intimate parts or invasive procedures. On the other hand, we would want to ensure that victims are treated differently. To clarify, there will be no offence when victims refuse an FME. For accused persons, they will not be liable for the offence if they had a reasonable excuse to refuse the FME.
I move on to the second category of questions about the procedures of FMEs.
Ms Usha Chandradas and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked about the advice or information provided before the FME is carried out. Mr Desmond Choo asked what is considered reasonable excuse to refuse an FME.
There will be measures put in place so that those who are asked to undergo the FME procedure know what to expect. For example, beyond being told they will be examined, they will also be informed about the relevant procedure.
For victims and their decision-makers, they can consider this information before deciding whether to consent. For accused persons, they will be reminded to comply unless they have a reasonable excuse, such as a health condition that would result in the FME endangering them. They will also be cautioned that if they do not comply without a reasonable excuse, reasonable force may be used, except where the FME relates to intimate parts or involves taking an invasive sample.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if victims can seek a forensic medical examination without reporting the matter to the Police.
FMEs are forensic procedures for the purpose of gathering evidence for criminal investigations. The position we have taken in Singapore is that an FME will only be carried out on the direction of the Police. This is important for serious offences, so that Police can make timely intervention and commence investigations into the matter. Given that FME is a critical part of the criminal investigation, it should be conducted with oversight of the Police to be done robustly and with accountability.
Victims who wish to seek medical treatment or counselling are always welcome to do so, with the institution or practitioner of their choice, but such treatment and counselling are not considered FME.
On Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on allowing FMEs to be conducted by GPs, it is in the same context as mentioned earlier that some FMEs are only conducted at select public hospitals. These matters may end up in Court.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked why the age thresholds in the FME context are different from the general position for medical treatments. This is because medical treatments can have greater risks and have more significant bodily impact on the patient, compared to FME procedures.
Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that medical advice be given prior to an FME. FMEs are forensic procedures. They are not medical treatments. Persons subject to an FME would be informed of the procedure and what to expect.
Mr Derrick Goh asked if the victim can request to remove FME information that was collected without their consent. To reiterate, FME information will only be collected without a victim’s consent in exceptional circumstances. If forensic evidence has already been collected under such exceptional circumstances, the evidence will be retained to allow the Police to solve the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. The information of the victim will be kept confidential and used for investigating the case at hand.
Should the victim request not to pursue the case, Police will notify AGC of the victim’s request. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor will decide whether to proceed with the case, in exercise of his independent prosecutorial discretion.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked about samples that are considered invasive. Whether a sample is invasive or not depends on the procedure used to obtain the sample. For example, obtaining a saliva sample via a buccal swab or extracting a hair sample by cutting the subject’s hair are not invasive procedures.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether Police would prioritise less invasive and intimate procedures over more intrusive ones. It is often the case that particular types of forensic evidence can only be derived through specific FME procedures. For example, a swab has to be taken from the penis of the accused person, and not from other body parts, when investigating into an alleged rape offence, to show proof of contact between the victim’s body and the accused person’s penis. For such instances, there are no substitutes for the intimate FME which has to be done.
Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had questions about the use of “reasonable force” on accused persons. Police will first look at the facts and circumstances of the case, before deciding whether an accused person should undergo an FME.
There is time sensitivity in obtaining forensic evidence to minimise the risk of contamination. This is especially so for DNA evidence which degrades rapidly when exposed to the external environment. It would, therefore, not be feasible to require a warrant from the Courts before proceeding with the FME, including using reasonable force to carry out the FME when required.
Police have established protocols on the use of force. What constitutes reasonable force will depend on the circumstances of the case. Examples include pulling on a cheek to swab the inside of the suspect’s mouth and holding the subject’s head still to obtain a hair sample.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the training of auxiliary police officers (APOs) in the conduct of FMEs. Reasonable force cannot be used on a victim and on FMEs involving intimate parts or invasive procedures. APOs undergo the appropriate training, which includes the use of reasonable force.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked who will conduct the FME of the person’s intimate parts, if that person identifies differently from their registered sex. The Police will generally take reference from the sex that is registered on the individual’s identity card or identification document.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the disclosure of intimate images, and Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Desmond Choo raised a similar question about precautions in relation to disclosure of material obtained through FME procedures.
Under the proposed amendments, the Prosecution will not be required to serve on the Defence copies of documentary exhibits consisting any image of an individual’s genital or anal region or the breasts of a woman. Instead, the Prosecution must arrange for the Defence to view the documentary exhibit at a Police station or other prescribed place, if the Prosecution is legally required to disclose the exhibit and the Defence requests to view the exhibit.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Prosecution can serve a redacted exhibit where the intimate image is removed. Whether it is appropriate or practicable to serve a redacted form of the documentary exhibit will depend on the exhibit in question.
I will next address the third category of questions which are about safeguards for vulnerable persons.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Nadia Samdin asked how victims and vulnerable persons will be supported.
First, in relation to victims. Victim care is a key aspect of the Police’s procedures for handling sexual assault cases. As Minister Shanmugam mentioned, there will be safeguards in place, including reasonable privacy measures when the FME involves the subject’s intimate parts. These include measures to inform the victim about the relevant FME procedure and they can communicate any concerns. For minor or vulnerable victims undergoing FME, the Police may allow the victim to have a trusted person to be present to support the victim through the process, where this will facilitate the FME and not jeopardise investigations.
Beyond the amendments, the Police have also put in place measures to support victims. For example:
(a) the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which is staffed by officers who are specifically trained to deal with sexual crime and family violence cases.
(b) the Victim Care Cadre programme, which is offered to victims of family violence below 18 years of age and sexual crime. A Victim Care Officer will be assigned to provide emotional and practical support to victims throughout the criminal justice process; and
(c) the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSAFE) Centre was redesigned and expanded with an enhanced improved design to provide victims with more privacy and convenience during the investigation process.
MSF also encourages these victims to seek help from Protection Specialist Centres (PSCs), which can assist them in applying for Personal Protection Orders and facilitate alternative safe accommodation. Victims of sexual violence will be supported by forensic psychologists in the PSCs who will provide timely psychological assessments and interventions, such as the treatment of trauma. Victims or those who know of someone experiencing sexual violence can also contact the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment helpline at 1800-777-0000, which can provide psychosocial support and referrals to appropriate agencies.
We would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her suggestions on the Victim Care Cadre Programme. We will consider them carefully.
For accused persons, where minor or vulnerable accused persons undergo intimate or invasive FME procedures, the Police will notify the accused person and, if possible, a trusted person, that the accused person has been required to undergo FME; inform them about the relevant FME procedure; and allow the accused person to speak with the trusted person on the phone through the speaker.
This will be the general position, unless Police assess that investigations may be affected. The Police will also consider how to treat vulnerable accused persons, including those with disabilities or special needs sensitively, which was a point raised by Ms Denise Phua.
We would also like to thank Ms Denise Phua for her other questions on specialised interview techniques for vulnerable persons, the Appropriate Adult Scheme and on supporting vulnerable persons during the criminal process, beyond the context of FMEs. This is an important area, and the Government has introduced changes in this regard in recent years. However, as these issues are not the focus of this Bill, we will not deal with them in detail today. We note Ms Phua’s points and will look into these as part of our regular reviews.
Lastly, to Mr Derrick Goh’s questions about the number of cases where the lack of legal powers for FMEs has impeded investigations, the Police do not track this.
Mr Speaker, I will now address the questions on our Court processes.
Mr Derrick Goh had asked about abscondment and safeguarding against flight risks, for the proposal to allow the Courts to release accused persons on personal bond for non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment or less. The number of cases where persons on personal bond absconded is not specifically tracked.
The proposed amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, but this will only be in appropriate cases, after an assessment of various factors, including flight risk. There will be additional safeguards, given that there is no bailor to ensure the accused person's attendance. For example, the Court can only release a person on personal bond for these non-bailable offences if the Prosecution consents. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can still refuse to release the person on personal bond, if it assesses that it is not appropriate to do so.
Where the Court releases an accused on personal bond, the Court must impose any condition specified by the Prosecution for the accused to be released on personal bond; and the Prosecution can withdraw consent previously given, at any stage of the proceedings. This caters for any changes of circumstances, including the discovery of new information relating to the accused's flight risk.
Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the Panel of Psychiatrists. The work to operationalise the Panel is ongoing. We have been working to prepare the relevant subsidiary legislation and put in place the necessary processes relating to admissions to the Panel.
As for Mr Derrick Goh's question on mitigating conflicts of interest in appointments by the Selection Committee, measures will be put in place to manage any potential or actual conflicts of interest. This includes the possibility of Selection Committee members or the Chief Justice recusing themselves from the matter, if necessary.
I will now address the Members' questions on the proposed disclosure provisions.
Mr Louis Ng asked who is considered a \"material witness\", for the purpose of the Prosecution's obligation under the new section 221B(1), clause 23 of the Bill. The definition is set out in the new section 221A(2).
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the proposed sections 221A to 221D prevent the Prosecution from disclosing Prosecution witnesses' statements, and asked about the circumstances in which the Prosecution would have to disclose such statements.
These proposed provisions are consistent with the case law on the disclosure of Prosecution witnesses' statements. Statements of Prosecution witnesses may have to be disclosed to the Defence under section 221B if these statements fulfil the KDO criteria, which we are proposing to codify. This is set out in section 221A(1).
Whether a Prosecution witness's statement has to be disclosed under the codified KDO in section 221B in a particular case, will depend on the facts.
I will now address Members' questions on SEPP. The questions cover a number of areas, which I will deal with in turn.
First, Members, including Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Sharael Taha, asked for certain statistics, including on the number of repeat sex offenders and the number of offenders who are expected to receive SEPP. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked about the intended benefits of the regime.
I start by clarifying that SEPP is not based on any specific crime trend. As Minister Shanmugam shared, SEPP is the outcome of our regular review of our laws. It is intended to provide the Courts with an additional tool to address dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes and pose an assessed risk of committing similar crimes again in the future after their release.
Based on the current statistics, it may be less than 30 cases per year where the SEPP may be appropriate.
Ms Sylvia Lim provided her cautious support for the regime, for which I thank her. She raised some questions including whether it may be better for the Court to impose a long imprisonment sentence, as may already be done, rather than a SEPP.
Our view is that simply increasing the length of the incarceration is not the right solution. Some dangerous offenders may continue to pose a danger to society, even after serving a very long prison sentence. I will refer to the list of case examples. Each victim is a serious tragic situation.
Under the present law, we must release such offenders unconditionally after they have served their sentence, even if they still pose a danger to the public.
On the other hand, there is also another situation which we should seek to avoid. These offenders could be subject to very long sentences upfront and may be detained for longer than necessary because the Court has to rely on an assessment done at the time of sentencing. Under SEPP, the Court does not always need to impose a longer sentence at the outset for public protection. It can better focus on the circumstances of the offence when setting the minimum period of custody, knowing that there will be a further risk assessment prior to release.
This may very well result in the offender being detained for a shorter period, especially if he is successfully rehabilitated and can be released after the minimum period of custody. On the other hand, if he still poses a danger, he will continue to be detained – in such cases, the offender may be detained for longer than presently the case.
This is also a more calibrated approach, as Minister Shanmugam shared.
Next, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the suitability criteria and the factors which the Courts will consider when deciding whether to impose SEPP.
Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about possible sentencing guidelines, and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had a question on the role of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in determining the ambit and types of offences that fall within the SEPP.
The criteria are set out in the legislation in broad terms to give the Courts sufficient discretion to decide when SEPP should be appropriate, based on the specific facts of each case. I should also clarify that the types of offences that qualify for SEPP are set out in the legislation and is not something that the Sentencing Advisory Panel will decide on.
Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted that even first-time offenders can be sentenced to SEPP, and raised the concern that SEPP may not be appropriate for one-off cases. We have sought to deal with this in the Bill. The Court must call for an independent risk assessment report for first-time offenders before deciding whether SEPP is appropriate. The legislation also requires the Court to be satisfied that the first-time offender \"poses a substantial threat of causing serious physical or sexual harm to any other person or persons\". This standard makes clear our policy intent that, for first-time offenders, SEPP should only be imposed in serious cases.
Members may also refer to the case examples we provided. The first seven cases listed in the handout all relate to offenders with no previous convictions. Members would agree that these are egregious cases. If similar cases arise, our view is that the Court should have the option of imposing SEPP, even if the offender has no prior convictions.
To respond to Mr Louis Ng's question about the differences between SEPP and SPP – SEPP has much more stringent criteria than SPP. This is set out in the legislation. For example, to qualify for SEPP, the offender must be convicted of one of the serious violent or sexual offences in the new Seventh Schedule.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked why certain offences, such as sexual crimes committed through the Internet, do not qualify for SPP and SEPP. To clarify, the offences raised by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi do qualify for SPP. SEPP will apply for severe cases, as set out in the Bill.
Mr Sharael Taha had questions about the sentencing for SEPP, including whether it applies to current offenders and whether it is imposed at the point of sentencing or release. SEPP does not apply to current offenders – the regime will only apply to offences committed after the amendments are passed and brought into force. As it is a sentence, it is imposed by the Court at the point of sentencing after the offender is convicted.
Mr Sharael Taha also had questions on who would provide the risk assessment report to the Court and whether the offender can appeal against his sentence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if such reports should be mandatory. At the sentencing stage, the risk assessment report will be provided by an independent appointed psychiatrist, usually from IMH. For first-time offenders, the Court is obliged to call for the report. For repeat offenders, it is not mandatory, but the Court has the discretion to call for the report, where appropriate. In addition, the Defence can also produce its own expert reports. Any disputes over these expert assessments will be settled in line with existing principles of law. An appeal may also be filed if either the Prosecution or the Defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision on the sentence.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether there is any limit to the number of times the offender can be remanded in custody for the pre-sentencing risk assessment. There is no limit set out in the statute. To be clear, it is the Court which decides on the period of remand. The process will be similar to other pre-sentencing assessments, for example, for Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, which are supervised by the Courts.
I will next deal with the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the rehabilitative resources available to offenders. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested that they could be segregated from other prisoners with extra support.
Prisoners sentenced to SEPP may not necessarily be segregated – they will be housed in line with prevailing Prison policies. This will allow them to benefit from the very comprehensive suite of rehabilitative programmes that are available to all inmates. These include work, religious and educational activities. Their suitability for such programmes will depend on their conduct, any medical conditions, willingness, as well as any programme-specific requirements. The offenders will also have access to psychology-based interventions targeting their specific needs, including specific violent and sexual interventions.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also asked whether the treatment of offenders placed on SEPP and SPP can be subject to oversight by independent visitors. As SEPP and SPP offenders will be detained in prisons, all the safeguards and systems in place for our prisons will apply to them. This includes the Board of Visiting Justices, an independent body which conducts random inspections of prisons facilities and speaks to prisoners to ensure the welfare of prisoners.
I next move on to the questions from Members, including Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, about the review process at the end of the Court-imposed minimum term.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about why it is the Minister, and not the Court, that decides on the offender's release, and if this interferes with the Court's sentencing powers. As Minister Shanmugam made clear, it is the Court which will decide whether SEPP is appropriate. The Court can decide not to impose SEPP if it of the view that an ordinary imprisonment term is more appropriate.
When the Court decides that SEPP is appropriate, the possibility that the offender may be detained past the minimum period is a part of the sentence imposed by the Judge. The Court decides whether SEPP is appropriate in line with the usual sentencing power to assess how the considerations of deterrence, retribution, public protection and so on are to be given effect.
After the minimum period, the decision is a different one. The continued detention of the offender past that point, once the term has expired, is no longer to punish the offender, but to protect the public. It involves a complex assessment of multiple factors including the risk that the offender might reoffend, his conduct in prison and his rehabilitative progress and prospects.
The logical and principled approach is for this to be an executive decision. There can be judicial review in specific situations.
The Minister's role in deciding whether to release the offender is not unique in our criminal justice system, as Minister Shanmugam shared earlier. Under the current sentences of Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, it is the Minister who decides whether someone should be released on licence before the end of the sentence. Similarly, for life imprisonment prisoners, the Minister decides if they should be released on remission before the end of the sentence. Similar considerations apply here. The Minister will also be advised by a Detention Review Board.
There are also other jurisdictions with similar regimes. For example, Canada and New Zealand have similar sentences for dangerous offenders, where the offender is detained for a certain minimum period after which the offender can be detained further until a Parole Board decides that the offender is suitable for release.
Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the constitution of the Detention Review Board. As mentioned during Minister Shanmugam's opening speech, the Review Board will comprise of persons with high public standing, with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists and psychologists.
Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria and frameworks that will guide the Minister and the Detention Review Board when assessing an offender's suitability for release. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked whether the views of the victims or families or public interest would be considered during the review. Each decision is case-specific, and the key factors will include the offender's conduct in prison, his rehabilitative progress and prospects, his likelihood of reoffending and the likely seriousness of the offences if he reoffends. These criteria will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the standard of proof that the Minister will apply when considering whether the offender ought to be released and whether he must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The review is a complex assessment of what is in the interest of public safety and protection based a number of factors, including the expert risk assessment and the offender's rehabilitative progress and prospects. Ultimately, it is a judgment that has to be made, based on expert assessments.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether an offender could make representations when he is reviewed for release. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether there could be independent advocates to represent the offender. As covered in the Minister's opening address, offenders can make written representations, whether by themselves, their family members or through their legal counsel, when they are reviewed for release.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the methods for assessing an offender’s suitability for release. Ms Sylvia Lim also raised the concern that such assessments may give rise to false positives. Independent risk assessments by experts will play a role in this regime. Such assessments will be done by experts. When conducting the assessments, the assessor can also interview the subjects and possibly their next of kin, and this can be supplemented with relevant information from the agencies. All of this is not fail-proof. But it is much better than the current situation where some come out without any risk assessment and destroy more lives, others spend an unnecessarily longer time in jail.
To address Ms Sylvia Lim’s concern, the risk assessments are to identify the risk of violence, which includes physical violence and sexual violence. They are not used to predict the future. Instead, the tools guide the Detention Review Board and the Minister on the appropriate decision to be made, based on a variety of factors, including the risk assessment as well as the appropriate balance between the risk that the offender poses and the interests of public protection.
Mr Desmond Choo asked about the frequency of these reviews. The legislation stipulates that there must be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if the Minister will produce a report to justify the continued detention of the offender. The offender will be duly notified of the Minister’s decision. Members will appreciate that there are a number of considerations at play, including the possible need to keep certain information confidential as well as the need to prevent offenders from gaming the system. We will also consider and study what details, if any, can be made public.
Mr Derrick Goh asked if an offender could appeal against the extension of his detention. I can assure the Member that Prisons and the Ministry will not want to keep anyone in prison longer than necessary. The Court would have already imposed a SEPP sentence on the offender. The offender would have had a right of appeal against his sentence and by the time he is serving the SEPP, he would either have exercised his right or appeal, or have given it up. There will be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court. There will be no further right of appeal from the Minister’s decision.
I will next deal with questions on what happens after an SEPP offender is released on license.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether such offenders can be placed in half-way houses. The answer is yes – as with other ex-inmates, SEPP offenders released on license can be placed in half-way houses to support their reintegration. I thank her for the suggestion that we consider the restorative model of justice during the reintegration process.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Sharael Taha asked for greater clarity on the criteria for when an offender can be released without conditions. An SEPP offender who is detained will be released on licence. When an offender is released on licence, his case will be reviewed at least every two years by the Minister. The offender may then be unconditionally released depending on his progress outside of Prison, and the primary consideration will be whether his risk to others has been sufficiently addressed.
Ms Hany Soh and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the conditions which may be imposed when an offender is released on licence. Ms Hany Soh asked if sexual offenders who are released from SEPP would be subjected to measures to prohibit them from coming into unnecessary contact with their former victims and children. In preparation for an offender’s release, Prisons would consider what conditions can be imposed on the offender that could help protect the victim. Obviously, this cannot be a complete guarantee.
Mr Sharael Taha raised the concern that the Internet use of such offenders will need to be monitored, as online platforms are often used to groom and exploit potential victims. There is a limit to what can be done. Prisons will consider imposing suitable conditions, but then again, it is not always going to be possible to guard against every possible risk, and a person may breach his conditions.
Members also asked about other possible measures to tackle serious violent and sexual crimes.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government had considered alternatives to SEPP and SPP. One option is to extend the range of situations in which life imprisonment can be imposed. But life imprisonment is a blunt tool that is not always appropriate. SEPP is a more measured solution specifically calibrated to the risk that the offender poses to the public. It balances public protection and fairness to the offender, so that he does not need to be detained for longer than necessary.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi suggested expanding the use of our current community-based programmes and interventions. These are options that remain available. However, they may not be appropriate or effective for the very serious cases that SEPP is intended to address, where the offender poses a danger to the community and needs to be detained further.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the Government had considered chemical treatments or surgical options for sexual offenders before they are released. At present, we do not intend to introduce such measures – they give rise to various issues and may not add much to our existing sentences. The key point is that, under SEPP, there will be assessments to ensure that, as far as possible, the risks of releasing such offenders will be reduced.
Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about measures to protect the public from serious offenders who are not sentenced to SPP or SEPP, including current offenders. Offenders serving imprisonment terms are first released on a remission order. For sufficiently serious offences, the offender will be subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) during his remission period. While on MAS, he will be subject to conditions such as curfew, electronic monitoring, and supported with counselling, employment assistance and case management. Safety plans can also be formulated to protect potential victims.
The MAS regime is broadly similar to the release on license regime for SPP and SEPP – the key difference is that the conditions under MAS cannot be extended beyond the remission period, which is why we need SEPP.
Mr Sharael Taha raised the importance of upstream interventions, including preventative programmes and mental health support, a point that was also raised by Ms Usha Chandradas. Ms Usha Chandradas raised the point that stricter punishment on its own may not be sufficient to address violence against women. We agree and we are conscious that SEPP is not a silver bullet.
We have to look at many approaches to tackle sexual violence as part of our ongoing reviews. I also earlier shared some of the measures we have put in place to support victims through the criminal process.
In addition, the community – such as the parents and caregivers – also play an important role in protecting vulnerable individuals such as children. We urge them and victims to step forward, seek help and report such crimes to the Police so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.
Mr Louis Ng raised some questions on SPP, including on the relevant factors that the courts will consider before imposing SPP. To reiterate, SPP is generally based on the current CT and PD regimes so the principles and factors will be similar. These include the nature of the offences and the offender’s criminal history, and risk of recidivism.
Mr Speaker, with that I conclude my round-up speech, and thank Members once again for their support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam, has answered the points raised by Members. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from Members for Minister, Minister of State or Senior Parliamentary Secretary? Looks like it was a very comprehensive response from the three office holders.
[(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 K Shanmugam]. (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":"Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.
The Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
This Bill proposes amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966, or AMLA.
Before we go into the specific amendments of this Bill, I would like to first briefly share with Members the context of the AMLA and how it supports our Muslim community.
The AMLA was enacted shortly after our Independence to cover key aspects of Muslim life in Singapore, so that the personal matters of Muslims such as marriage, divorce and their estates could continue to be governed by Muslim law. Singapore is one of a handful of countries that have such laws specifically for a minority Muslim community.
It is under the AMLA that the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, or MUIS, was established as a statutory board to administer the religious affairs of the Singapore Muslim community. The AMLA provides for a Mufti to be appointed and for religious decisions issued by him to be recognised. Other statutory Muslim institutions such as the Syariah Court, or SYC, and the Registry of Muslim Marriages, or ROMM, were also constituted under the AMLA.
The AMLA has been reviewed regularly to ensure that this set of laws remain relevant to the community’s socio-religious needs because we live in a fast-changing and complex environment. For this round of AMLA amendments, we seek to update the provisions governing the processes and operations of our statutory Muslim institutions, namely MUIS, SYC and ROMM.
Broadly, the amendments seek to: first, enable MUIS to better administer its functions and duties to support the Muslim community; second, enable the ROMM and SYC to adopt new digitalisation processes; and third, enhance the administrative provisions relating to SYC for more effective outcomes for families who go through a divorce.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) published a draft of this Bill for public consultations late last year. We appreciate the broad support from the community for this Bill and the valuable feedback received.
Let me first address the amendments to enable MUIS to better administer its functions and duties.
Mr Speaker, the practice of leaving a charitable legacy for future generations has been ingrained in our Muslim tradition and practised by our forefathers through wakaf or Islamic charitable endowments. However, the wakaf that were created in the past are no longer sufficient nor flexible enough to meet the evolving needs of the Muslim community.
We need to create and steward sustainable financial resources to support the community's long-term social and religious development. This will require us to rejuvenate our wakaf spirit to enable more members of the community to contribute. In this regard, I initiated a plan to establish the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura, or WMS. The WMS will enable more individuals to bequeath their assets for future generations and for our Muslim community to remain financially self-reliant and capable to address future needs and challenges. I am heartened by the support and encouraging feedback from the community for this initiative.
This amendment Bill will empower MUIS to create wakaf and serve as the overarching legal foundation for the WMS. Unlike traditional wakaf which must be created by Muslim individuals and scoped for specific religious charitable purposes by the bequeathed upon their death, this amendment Bill will enable MUIS, as an Islamic body, to create a wakaf on its own; and for the WMS to serve as a community endowment fund for social and religious development.
The WMS will generate a more sustainable revenue stream to fund the broader and evolving socio-religious needs of the community. These needs include the renewal of mosque leases and mosque maintenance, the development of religious teachers and scholars, collectively known as asatizah, and other community programmes.
Individuals can contribute voluntarily to the WMS in the form of cash, property or Central Provident Fund (CPF) nominations. Over time, as proceeds are sustained, the WMS will complement established community funds, such as the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, or MBMF, and zakat.
This amendment Bill will also strengthen MUIS' ability to manage the MBMF by clarifying that any contribution to the MBMF that is not attributable to any individual is deemed to be for the purpose of mosque building, so as to benefit all members of the Singapore Muslim community.
MUIS will enhance its recognition framework for Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, or FHCB, as part of its efforts to provide a transparent, practical and high-quality system of halal certification. These FHCBs, which are based in exporting countries, certify food products that are produced or manufactured overseas for import to Singapore.
This amendment Bill will strengthen the administration of the FHCB scheme by setting out the legal framework for the recognition of these bodies as having comparable halal certification benchmarks to MUIS' Halal Certification Standards. This will provide greater transparency and assurance to our Muslim community on the quality of MUIS-recognised FHCBs and provide our Muslim consumers and businesses with greater assurance when purchasing and consuming halal food products.
Mr Speaker, given our diverse and evolving society, MUIS will need a broader set of expertise to address the increasing complexity of socio-religious issues faced by the Muslim community.
As provided for under the AMLA, MUIS' Legal Committee, also known as the Fatwa Committee, issues fatwas, or religious rulings, which help guide the community in navigating socio-religious issues. To support the work of the Fatwa Committee, this amendment Bill will expand the Committee's membership from four to eight full members. This will allow the Committee to tap on a wider range of expertise, such as within the asatizah fraternity.
The Fatwa Committee will also be empowered to decide on whether there is a need to issue a fatwa based on the requests received. For example, there is no need to issue a fatwa if the Office of the Mufti has already issued religious guidance or an advisory known as irsyad on a specific issue.
Fatwa deliberations can therefore be focused on issues that have an important bearing on the life of our Muslim community. This will help to prioritise the Committee's efforts and resources. MUIS' Fatwa Committee has had to formulate guidance on new, special and unique issues facing the Malay/Muslim community here over the decades.
The strong and decisive leadership of the Fatwa Committee has guided our community well and more broadly supported Singapore, through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
For their religious leadership during the pandemic, our Mufti Dr Nazirudin Nasir and the Fatwa Committee were conferred the Imam Al-Qarafi Award by the General Secretariat for Fatwa Authorities under the prestigious Dar al-Ifta, one of the world's pre-eminent Islamic institutions.
This recognition is testament to the quality of our Muslim religious leaders and their religious guidance. More importantly, it reflects the trust and confidence that our Singapore Muslim community places in these religious leaders. We will preserve and strengthen the high levels of trust and confidence in our religious teachers and religious education and continue to enhance MUIS' administration of Muslim religious schools. While the AMLA states that it is the function and duty of MUIS to administer all Muslim religious schools in Singapore, the definition of such institutions has never been prescribed in law. Hence, this amendment Bill will introduce a definition of Muslim religious schools, provide for inspection powers for MUIS officers, as well as specify a fixed period of 14 days for an appeal to be made to the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. These provisions will augment MUIS' ability to administer all Muslim religious schools in Singapore, on both online and physical platforms and enable MUIS to take enforcement action against any unregistered Muslim religious school here.
This will ensure that Islamic religious education in Singapore is conducted by accredited institutions and asatizah with the necessary qualifications. This will maintain the integrity of our religious sector in guiding our Muslim community on the practice of Islam in a modern and multi-religious society. Mr Speaker, our Muslim institutions continuously strive to improve their service delivery and, more importantly, bring value to Singaporeans.
Recent digitalisation efforts by the ROMM and the SYC will enable them to better serve and support Muslim families. To facilitate the implementation of e-services for marriage solemnisation, this amendment Bill will allow ROMM to introduce digital Certificates of Marriage for Muslim marriages. Similar to the case for civil marriages, this digital Certificate will not require the signatures of the Muslim marriage solemniser, also known as the Kadi or Naib Kadi, the marrying parties and their witnesses.
This amendment Bill will also facilitate the implementation of SYC's new digital case management system. We will remove the requirements for the divorce register to be signed by the Registrar of SYC and the witnesses whose evidence has been taken by the Court, for cases where a married woman has applied for a divorce on the ground of fasakh under section 49 of the AMLA, that is, judicial dissolution of marriage based on Muslim law as provided by the AMLA.
These amendments will not change the fact that Muslim law will continue to apply to Muslim marriages and divorces. The requirements of a valid Muslim marriage and divorce must and will be ensured even with these amendments. The digitalisation of Muslim marriage and divorce services will be carried out in full respect of the solemnity and significance of the occasion, while enhancing convenience for the community.
Mr Speaker, I will now touch on the final group of amendments that will enhance SYC's ability to deliver fair and just outcomes for families.
The amendments align SYC's processes and powers with that of the Family Justice Courts, which were amended last year.
This amendment Bill will enhance SYC's powers to deliver fair and just outcomes through the judge-led approach in its administration of divorces for Muslim families. This includes allowing SYC to make orders on its own motion, including an order of a substantive nature to better facilitate the just, expeditious and economical resolution or disposal of any matter. This will ensure that SYC has the powers to address the immediate needs of the family. Currently, SYC can only make a substantive order if it is pleaded or applied for by the parties.
This amendment Bill will also allow SYC to limit a party from filing an application or a document in support of an application in certain situations. Such applications include those that are or are likely to be without merit, based on the applicant's past conduct, or where the application or document will have an adverse effect on the welfare of a minor child, who is an individual below 21 years in age. This will prevent parties from filing applications that may result in prolonged proceedings, unnecessary acrimony and hardship on others involved.
Amendments will also be made to sections 35 and 52 of the AMLA to clarify SYC's jurisdiction and powers in respect of ancillary orders, such as the custody, care and control and access of minor children upon divorce or nullification of marriage. Mr Speaker, allow me to summarise the amendments in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In our efforts to strengthen our statutory Islamic institutions, comprising the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), the Syariah Court, and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM), I have presented the following amendments.
First, to provide MUIS with the powers to create a wakaf. This will form the overarching legal foundation for the creation of the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura (WMS) to serve the long-term religious and social needs of our Muslim community. WMS is a form of giving recurring charity for the benefit of the next generation, which is a practice often carried out in Islam and was a norm for our ancestors.
The setting up of the WMS seeks to rejuvenate this wakaf spirit in the community, after the last wakaf made by Shaikh Taha Abubakar Mattar for the land where Masjid Sallim Mattar sits in 1978. This was nearly 50 years ago. In the same spirit and principle, WMS will be created by MUIS as a community wakaf to serve our socio-religious needs in the long-term. A community wakaf that we create together, for the benefit of the whole community, especially for future generations.
Second, to provide Muslim consumers and businesses with greater assurance when purchasing imported halal products. This will be done by setting out the legal framework for the recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCB) that have certification standards that are comparable to MUIS'.
Third, to improve the quality of Islamic religious education in Singapore by establishing a definition for Muslim religious schools that MUIS is to regulate. This is to ensure that all Muslim religious schools in Singapore, both online and physical, are properly certified.
Fourth, to strengthen the Fatwa (Legal) Committee by expanding the Committee's membership and allowing for greater discretion in considering requests for fatwas. The Fatwa Committee's efforts and resources will also be focused on fatwa requests that have a significant impact on our Muslim community.
Fifth, amendments will be introduced to support ROMM’s and SYC's efforts to strengthen the services they provide to Muslim families.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill seeks to ensure that the AMLA continues to reflect the contemporary needs of our Muslim community and will enable our Muslim institutions to better administer their functions to support these needs. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to AMLA are important. It includes amendments that enable the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) to carry out its role to support the Muslim community more effectively, such as empowering MUIS to create wakafs, recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, expanding the membership of the Fatwa Committee, introducing a definition of Muslim religious school, and a clarification on unattributable contributions to the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund.
It also includes amendments to digitalise ROMM and Syariah Court processes, in addition to enhancing provisions to administer these two entities for a more effective outcome. As the Bill covers several important aspects, allow me to focus on two key areas, firstly, providing MUIS with powers to create wakafs, and secondly, the recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies.
On empowering MUIS to create wakafs, as shared by the Minister, community funds such as zakat as well as donations to mosques and madrasahs and the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, only supports the day-to-day and short-term needs of the Muslim community, including the cost of operating 72 mosques in Singapore.
We must also prepare for the needs of our Muslim community in the medium and long term. This includes making sure that our madrasahs are well funded in a sustainable manner, so that we can continue to provide quality education. Besides providing a good grounding in Islamic education, we must provide multiple development pathways for our asatizah.
This will help us nurture future religious leaders who can continue to provide guidance to our community in an increasingly complex global environment. Our future religious leaders must be adequately equipped to guide the community in navigating complex issues such as meat created in a lab that was recently given a fatwa, stem cells and ongoing social debates on current issues, just to name a few.
Hence, I support the amendments to AMLA which will enable MUIS to create wakafs to provide additional sources of funding to meet future needs of the Muslim community in Singapore. An example is the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura whose donors comprise members of the Muslim community in Singapore, rather than an individual or a family. This means that everyone in the Muslim community can contribute, regardless of the size of contribution, towards the future needs of the community.
However, I would like to seek a clarification. While clauses 15 to 18 explain what the wakafs can be used for, and how it can be administered, this Bill does not mention any restriction on donors to the wakafs created by MUIS.
Can these wakafs accept contribution from foreign donors?
And if so, how do we prevent foreign actors from influencing the intent and direction of the created wakafs to support the medium and long-term needs of the Muslim community in Singapore?
Second, on the recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FCHBs). Singapore relies heavily on imported food products to meet local demand.
From this perspective, it is important for any food seller or food establishments possessing MUIS halal certification to have access to a wide range of halal product supplies that meet MUIS' halal certification standards. Many of such food companies or establishments import products that bear the halal certification logo given by Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCBs).
What will be the prerequisites for a Foreign Halal Certification Body to be recognized by MUIS?
Will MUIS impose requirements for regular audits to these FHCBs so that their food products continue to be certified as halal in Singapore? If so, how do we prevent this process from being excessively burdensome for MUIS, since this Bill will not involve additional expenditures? How will the proposed legal framework strengthen MUIS' jurisdiction over the FHCBs and ensure that the FHCBs meet MUIS' halal certification standards?
How will the standards imposed by MUIS on FHCBs help our halal-certified business and Muslim consumers?
(In English): In conclusion, the amendment to the AMLA is substantive, comprehensive and reflects the needs of the community. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Faishal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this is the second amendment bill to AMLA within the last two years. It shows that continuous renewal efforts are needed as we live in today's fast-paced world. I welcome the diligence and hard work that was done to continue improving Singapore's Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) for the benefit and progress of the Muslim community in Singapore.
This amendment Bill has several objectives, firstly, to enable the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) to improve its administrative work and the management of its functions and responsibilities to support the Muslim community; second, to further improve the quality of the digital processes of the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) and Syariah Court (SYC); and third, to further enhance the provisions to administer the Syariah Court in order to achieve a more effective outcome.
The Workers' Party supports this amendment Bill.
Sir, regarding the first objective, which is to enable MUIS to improve its administrative work and the management of its functions and responsibilities to support the Muslim community, it encompasses several aspects; firstly, empowering MUIS to create a wakaf; second, recognizing Foreign Halal Certification Bodies; third, expanding the membership of the Fatwa Committee as well as giving it more discretion in considering fatwa requests; fourth, introducing a definition for Muslim religious schools and also giving inspection and monitoring powers to MUIS officers; and fifth, a clarification on unaccounted contributions to the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund being channeled towards building mosques.
Once again, Sir, I would like to reiterate the Workers' Party's support towards the changes, improvements and enhancements that will be made. However, I have several questions that aim to seek clarifications on several clauses that will be introduced or amended so that the Muslim community in Singapore can better understand why the proposed amendments in the Bill are needed, as well as the benefits and gains that it will bring.
Sir, the introduction of section 88(A) aims to establish a framework for the recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCBs). My question to the Minister with regards to this matter is, firstly, whether the Minister can give some elaboration on the existing recognition process, such as what the current weaknesses are; and also, what are the main reasons that prompted MUIS to embark on these reforms. Looking ahead, can the Minister share, in general, the framework that will be created to further reinforce the existing framework?
Sir, Section 86(A) which was also recently introduced in this amendment bill, aims to provide a definition of \"Muslim religious school\". Those that are referred to as \"Muslim religious school\" includes individuals or organisations that habitually provides Islamic instruction to 10 or more individuals physically present in Singapore and secondly, a place where 10 or more individuals are physically present in Singapore are habitually provided with Islamic instruction. I understand that these laws were made to tighten regulations over the teaching of Islam and also to empower MUIS to conduct inspections and monitoring, and also take certain actions. All these are aimed at preventing any deviant teachings.
My question on this is, why is the number 10 is chosen, and is there any specific reason?
And perhaps it may be useful for the Minister to clarify whether these 10 individuals also comprise a cumulative figure rather than just a class attended by 10 individuals at any one time. I think this clarification is important because an individual who wants to spread deviant teachings will just simply break up their sessions into nine individuals at any one time.
I would also like to seek clarification on the following situations, that is, whether they are subject to the definition of Muslim religious school'.
Firstly, would a Quran reading class conducted by an individual for children or adults in HDB residential areas that is attended by 10 individuals or more, be categorised as a \"Muslim religious school\" if it is held habitually, for example, weekly?
Second, what about zikir and maulid sessions which are often held at a house and attended by 10 or more individuals? Will such situations also fall under this category?
Moving on, Sir, I would like to touch on the expansion of the Fatwa Committee membership as well as granting more discretion to the Committee in considering requests to issue a fatwa. Sir, I fully welcome the expansion of the Fatwa Committee membership. I would like a clarification from the Minister on how the process of filling up this new position will be carried out. For example, does the selection of Committee members require one to make an application or will it be done only through the selection and nomination process by MUIS?
Also, can the Minister explain, what are the limitations of existing laws that requires an amendment to be made to section 32, where subsection (3) is replaced with a new subsection (3A)?
Sir, I hope that with the expansion of Fatwa Committee, this will reflect the intellectual development and growth of Muslims in Singapore.
Sir, the final clarification that I wish to seek is regarding Clause 19 that amends section 78, which provides that any contribution that is not attributable to any contributor shall be deemed to be channeled for mosque building.
My questions are as follows, one, what is the estimated yearly amount that will channeled; and two, how long has this been going on, and why was this change or amendment not done much earlier?
Sir, before I end this speech, I would like to voice my support for the changes to the Syariah Court (SYC) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) via the proposed amendments of several clauses in an effort to expand and improve operations as well as the powers of these two institutions. The enhancement of operations and expansion of powers will be much needed to enable these two bodies to provide effective and efficient services that keeps pace with the rapid development of society. With expanded powers and enhanced operations, it is hoped that these two institutions will be supported with the necessary resources, especially manpower resources, so that they can achieve the objectives set for them as best as possible.
Finally, Sir, I hope that the Minister can provide clarifications to the questions that I have highlighted. Sir, the Workers' Party supports this amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill reflects our dedication to the evolving needs of our Muslim community in Singapore.
Specifically, I wish to address the definition and administration of Muslim religious schools under the auspices of the MUIS, and how this impacts our community. As we evolve as a society, our laws and regulations must also adapt to new challenges and opportunities. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we can all agree that in such egregious cases, there needs to be a balance struck somewhere, to allow offenders to have a second chance while also keeping the vulnerable protected.
I would also like to echo feedback that I have received from lawyers who regularly handled such cases, that we would need more clarity on how the assessment will be conducted and what are the criteria for an unconditional discharge.
I also hope that to be fair to offenders, there can be additional and dedicated resources provided to support offenders convicted under SEPP in their rehabilitation journey in prison.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill.
The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), enacted in 1968, outlines the establishment and functions of key Islamic institutions in Singapore, including Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), the Syariah Court and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM).
The Act also covers the administration of mosques, as well as the creation and distribution of wakafs, or Islamic charitable endowments.
Since 1968, this Act has been amended several times, most recently in February 2022 when provisions governing the operation of statutory Muslim institutions were modernised.
Mr Speaker, the proposed changes to this Act successfully balanced the evolving Singaporean socio-religious landscape with existing and long-standing Islamic law, principles and practices. Maintaining this balance respects Muslims as individuals and Islam as a faith, and enhances the well-being of both the Muslim community and Singapore society as a whole.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to make some brief comments about five matters of interest arising from this Bill. However, before I do so, I would like to note that I am Vice-President of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura, or the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association.
Mr Speaker, my first comments relate to the proposal to allow MUIS to create and distribute wakafs, or Islamic charitable endowments. This proposal is both positive and significant. By directing wakaf funds strategically, we can address pressing needs in education, healthcare and social services, thereby benefiting both donors and beneficiaries and enhancing the overall well-being of the Muslim community. The proposal is also aligned with the Forward SG strategy, which focuses on collective responsibility and developing a kind, compassionate and caring society. Enhancing and supporting wakaf, and providing opportunities to contribute to the community, both empower Muslims and allow them to act consistently with their faith.
Mr Speaker, I do, however, have some comments about the targeted disbursement of wakaf funds.
Wakaf is an Arabic term meaning \"to stop, contain or to preserve\", and, traditionally, the returns from the wakaf structure are disbursed according to the wishes of the individual or family making the donation.
Mr Speaker, under the proposed amendments, new power is given to MUIS to create any wakaf. These wakaf funds will be held collectively by MUIS, and the returns are then distributed by MUIS according to perceived community need, thereby making disbursements according to the wishes of the donor difficult.
To address this situation, may I suggest we develop wakaf accounts dedicated to specific causes, such as education or healthcare or targeted at specific social service sectors, such as those working with children or women, thereby allowing individuals and families to donate to a cause of their choice, and to know that their donation will be distributed in accordance with their wishes.
This targeted approach would also facilitate easier access to funds for entities, such as mosques or social service agencies, and would preserve the traditional and religious objectives of wakaf, and also remain responsive to evolving cultural and social dynamics.
Mr Speaker, I also have some comments about the potential overlap between wakaf and zakat collections. Unlike zakat, which is a requirement for all Muslims, wakaf is not compulsory. Accordingly, the frequency and level of wakaf donations will fluctuate over time.
As wakaf funds held by MUIS are managed like other investments, thereby exposing them to market risks, I seek clarification about the strategies MUIS has in place to navigate market fluctuations, safeguard returns on investments and secure the long-term sustainability of wakaf. I also seek clarification about the strategies MUIS has in place to ensure the effective, accountable and transparent governance and administration of the wakaf system.
Mr Speaker, my second set of comments relate to the proposal to authorise MUIS to recognise Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCBs). While this amendment offers Muslim consumers more choices and stimulates competition, there is currently no prohibition on the import and sale of products from halal certification bodies not recognised by MUIS. As this may result in confusion among consumers, perhaps it might be helpful for MUIS to undertake a community education campaign informing consumers about the FHCBs recognised by MUIS and those that are not. This would allow consumers to make informed choices over the halal products they purchase that are consistent with their dietary and religious preference and obligations. It may also be helpful for MUIS to develop an app, similar to MuslimSG, to assist consumers to identify FHCBs recognised by MUIS.
Mr Speaker, my third set of comments relate to the proposal to expand membership of the (Fatwa) Legal Committee. The proposal to expand the Legal Committee to allow for better representation of the Asatizah fraternity will enhance the expertise of the Committee and, therefore, the capacity of the Committee to decide and respond to queries and provide informed fatwa rulings. I do, however, have some comments about this matter.
Mr Speaker, MUIS is the leading authority in providing guidance to all Muslims and it is heartening to note that MUIS continues to take positive steps to connect and unite the Muslims in Singapore. With their targeted programming and engagement, the needs of the Muslim community are met.
Singapore's Muslim community is diverse. While the majority are Sunni Muslims of Malay heritage, most of whom follow the Shafi'i or Hanafi school of thoughts, there are also Muslims with Indian heritage, as well as converts and migrants from various parts of the world.
This diversity is testament to Singapore's acceptance of all faiths and adds significantly to the rich socio-religious fabric of Singapore. It also supports the need to expand the Legal Committee, so as to reflect and respond to an evolving community of Muslims facing ever-changing questions about Islamic practice.
As noted by the Singapore Mufti, Ustaz Dr Nazirudin Mohd Nasir, at the appointment of the most recent Fatwa Committee, and I quote: \"…in providing guidance for current and future issues, there should be a fresh application of Islamic traditions to contemporary issues. The Committee should also deliberate on moral and ethical considerations and look at longer-term implications. This approach will further empower the Committee to produce innovative, progressive and contextualised fatwas for the Muslim community to lead their religious lives confidently\".
Mr Speaker, it is important that membership of the Legal Committee continues to reflect the contemporary needs of Singapore's Muslim community and to address the breadth of issues faced by the community. Accordingly, the proposed expansion is a positive step and will ensure that the Legal Committee authentically mirrors the richness and diversity of Singapore's Muslim population.
As we continue with this expansion, I seek clarification about steps taken to ensure the continued selection of qualified Asatizahs with the expertise and knowledge needed to address all issues raised by the Muslim community.
Related, I also seek clarification about how the Committee actively seeks and encourages submissions and feedback from all members of Singapore's diverse Muslim community and how these submissions are responded to in a timely and respectful manner.
It is important that the Committee is accessible to the Muslim and broader community, and that community members have confidence that their submissions will be received, considered and responded to in a timely, transparent and equitable manner.
Mr Speaker, my fourth set of comments relate to the definition of Muslim religious schools and inspection powers for MUIS officers.
Mr Speaker, Muslim religious schools, like all other schools, have a responsibility to educate and impart knowledge accurately. For children especially, the school environment should be one that makes them comfortable and safe, and, while at school, they should be taught a standardised, relevant and approved curriculum and not be exposed to any form of abuse or harm.
And just like all other schools, teachers within Muslim religious schools need to be people who are safe to work with children and adults, and are suitably qualified to teach their subject area.
By developing a common definition of Muslim religious schools, we are able to strengthen the trust of individuals, parents and the broader community, so that they are clear about the approval process, what is being taught, how it is being taught and who is doing the teaching.
I do, however, seek clarification about the policies and procedures MUIS and/or the Ministry have to ensure that all Muslim religious schools meet all required accountability and quality standards and, in addition, what those standards are.
Mr Speaker, in Singapore, we currently have the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS). The scheme applies to anyone providing Islamic instruction to one or more persons who are not members of his or her family, and was established in 2017 to enhance the standing of religious teachers and to serve as a credible source of reference for the Singapore Muslim community.
Mr Speaker, I understand that MUIS has established a comprehensive training framework for the accreditation and renewal of those on the ARS scheme in the form of Continuing Professional Education. I welcome this initiative by MUIS. However, I seek clarification about the content in the training framework that covers contemporary issues facing the Muslim community and the best way to respond to these issues in a sensitive manner. Additionally, I seek clarification about the content in the training framework that covers working with children in an age-appropriate manner.
Mr Speaker, it is also critical that students in Muslim religious schools are not exposed to inappropriate or extreme ideas or ideologies. This, however, is sometimes difficult when considered against personal definitions of inappropriate or extreme; differences of opinion within Islam about what is correct, and the right of people to share personal views with friends or family. Accordingly, I seek clarification about how the proposed amendments manage this balance, particularly with respect to at-home, private, religious education.
Mr Speaker, my fifth set of comments relate to the digitalisation of ROMM and Syariah Court. Mr Speaker, in the era of increasing technological advancement, the proposed digitalisation of marriage and divorce processes presents a paradigm shift in how we approach these significant life events.
The advent of digitalisation promises convenience and efficiency in managing marriage and divorce procedures, and online accessibility to documents can simplify the process, making it more user-friendly. Some clients of Syariah Court have, however, expressed concerns about difficulties navigating the system, particularly in filing and retrieving online documents.
Accordingly, I seek clarification about how the proposed digital system address user experience challenges, and ensures a seamless process for all clients?
While the move towards online solemnisation offers flexibility, it also raises important questions about the default mode of solemnisation. This is an important issue, specifically for selected groups of individuals. One significant concern is how to prevent verification errors, or, worse, instances of scamming.
For transnational couples, there are also questions about the recognition of digital certificates from countries other than Singapore. This is an important issue, given the need to ensure the validity of digital documents across international borders.
Mr Speaker, when a marriage breaks down it is often a difficult time for everyone involved, including children. The introduction of an online divorce system is progressive, and aims to ease the process and support the couple with their application. The system may also be of particular benefit to individuals experiencing family violence, as it offers a discreet and accessible avenue for seeking legal remedies. However, it is important to address the unique challenges faced by individuals in such situations.
With use of technology, the human aspect is maybe missed. It is therefore important that, as we move towards expedient digital processes, there are mechanisms in place to provide additional support for affected individuals, including those impacted by trauma often associated with family violence.
Furthermore, there should be an emphasis on educational resources to enhance couples' understanding of the online divorce system, ensuring that victims are empowered with the knowledge needed to navigate the process and make informed decisions about their future. This holistic approach will not only streamline divorce procedures, but also prioritise the well-being and safety of individuals facing family violence.
Mr Speaker, my final set of comments related to Syariah Court’s administrative provisions. In recent years, Syariah Court has commendably prioritised the best-interests of children. The proposed judge-led approach accelerates this commitment and empowers judges to proactively initiate support for individuals experiencing trauma due to divorce and facilitate a swift and smooth dissolution of marriage.
This model aims to expedite the exit from conflict zones, enabling individuals to move forward and rebuild their lives with support from community agencies. This is undoubtedly a commendable step, but as we navigate this paradigm shift, we need to be mindful of potential issues faced by the community.
Mr Speaker, it important to ensure a supportive and empathetic environment throughout the process. The judge-led approach aims to further strengthen the emotional and psychological well-being of individuals undergoing trauma during divorce.
Related, I seek clarification about whether these provisions within the judge-led model to expedite the dissolution of marriage to minimise the prolonged emotional distress for individuals involved, while still ensuring a fair and just legal process?
As we move towards providing support throughout the process, it is equally important to remember after-divorce support. Perhaps the judge-led model could efficiently connect individuals with relevant community services, ensuring a seamless transition post-divorce.
Finally, with regards to the Syariah Court's jurisdiction and powers in respect of ancillary orders, would the Ministry consider provision for children with disabilities even as they turn 21 years of age.
In conclusion, these amendments signify our commitment to an inclusive, adaptable, and responsive legal framework for the Muslim community in Singapore. The amendments, particularly those related to wakaf, recognition of Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, definition of Muslim religious schools and expansion of the Legal Committee collectively reinforce the idea of a dynamic legal framework.
This framework not only respects religious teachings but also encourages independence of thought, decision-making and contributions to the greater good of both the Muslim community and Singapore as a whole. As we embrace these challenges, we strengthen the fabric of Singapore's harmonious society, where each community is valued and empowered to contribute to our shared prosperity.
Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, the proposed changes will strengthen the existing framework, and support the development of our Muslim community, and I conclude in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will allow foreign halal certification bodies to be recognised, give the MUIS Legal Committee more discretion to consider a fatwa request and strengthen the administration of Muslim religious schools.
I thank the Ministry for holding a public consultation in preparation for this Bill.
I have three clarifications to raise.
My first clarification is on the Legal Committee’s process for considering a request and preparing a ruling. The new section 32(3) requires the Legal Committee to consider every request for a ruling unless the request is frivolous. Section 32(3A) provides that the Legal Committee may prepare a ruling on the request if it is appropriate or necessary. Can the Minister clarify the procedure and timelines for the Legal Committee to consider a request and to prepare a ruling?
I have seen resident cases where these rulings are required for Court application. In one case, the request was submitted in August 2023. The resident was informed that the Legal Committee may take one or two years to provide an opinion. The resident was informed that this is because of the volume of requests that the Legal Committee has to handle.
Can the Minister share if the Legal Committee are expected to prepare their ruling based on any standards of timeliness? If so, what are these standards? Are there any plans to review the workload of the Legal Committee and the functioning of the Legal Committee to see how such requests can be more effectively managed?
My second clarification is on the recognition of foreign halal certification bodies. MUIS’ halal certification is well known and trusted. To ensure that equally stringent standards continue to apply to halal food sold in Singapore, can Minister share what are the considerations for deciding whether to grant recognition to a foreign halal certification body?
Given that the halal certification is happening overseas, what special steps will MUIS take to ensure that the standards hold up to local halal certification standards?
My third clarification is on the oversight of Muslim religious schools. The new section 86A inserts a definition of \"Muslim religious school\".
The Majlis are empowered to set rules on these schools, including on how they provide Islamic instruction \"online or remotely through electronic means.\" The Majlis may also make rules for the oversight of Muslim religious schools including the powers to inspect, to obtain information, to gain access to any computer or online account, and to examine any record.
In a situation where Islamic instruction is provided in virtual meeting rooms and the virtual meeting room is hosted on a remote server outside of Singapore, can Minister clarify how these oversight and inspection provisions will apply?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In delivering my comments for this Bill, especially in the context of the proposed amendments relating to wakaf, I wish to declare that I am President of Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud, which is an Institution of Public Character, a community organisation and charity that supports education of students in need and those who come from underprivileged communities.
Mr Speaker, AMLA is a significant piece of legislation in Singapore that governs matters related to Islamic religious affairs for the Muslim community and establishes the legal framework for the administration of Muslim law and the regulation of Muslim religious institutions in Singapore.
It gives guidance on the establishment of Islamic institutions and religious schools, and appointment of key religious figures within the community, addresses the administration of Muslim Law through our Syariah Courts and supports the need for Muslims to manage religious matters relating to Zakat, wakaf, Hajj and halal matters – among other things.
I have clarifications relating to three areas of the Bill – wakaf, Meaning of Muslim religious schools and Foreign Halal Certification Body.
First, on wakaf, I have two clarifications in relation to the proposed section 58(3A), on the proposed wakaf to be created by the Majlis. I am concerned about the accessibility of the wakaf created by the Majlis to community organisations. Where aligned with the intent and purposes of the wakaf, could community organisations and societies serving for the development of Islamic teachers, mosques, madrasahs and socio-religious programmes and initiatives to uplift the Muslim community and the under-privileged make applications as well for funding available through the wakaf? This would give assurance to the community that this wakaf contributed by the people would and could be accessible to its intended recipients not only through programmes by the Majlis, but also through community organisations and societies serving the same.
Secondly, I am also concerned about where the oversight and supervisory powers of the wakaf would lie. Where the Majlis has the power to remove and appoint trustees and mutawallis relating to wakafs created by others, may I clarify that in the instance where the Wakaf itself is now created by the Majlis and it is now appointed trustee to this wakaf, what is the intended supervisory structure to ensure governance and compliance to the intent of this wakaf, and whether should this be enshrined within AMLA as well?
Second, Mr Speaker, in relation to the proposed section 86A, on the meaning of Muslim religious schools, I have a clarification on the definition and meaning of Muslim religious schools.
The stated definition of Muslim religious schools, taking reference from sections 2 and 86A together, are that such schools could also be defined as a person that habitually teaches Quranic recitation, Quranic literacy, Tajwid, Fardh ‘ain and other religious sciences which include, but are not limited to Aqidah, Tafsir, Fiqh and Hadith.
In many Muslim families, such Islamic instruction, habitually or otherwise, is seen as part of family upbringing and a way in which to imbibe and inculcate values to their young. Many see it as basic tenet of parental or familial responsibility, and one that does not necessarily need formal instruction nor be certified to do so as is the case in formal Islamic instruction in religious schools. Often, these cover very basic aspects of religion and the way of life of a Muslim within their families and I also imagine this to be a universal approach in many families practising their respective religious faiths, Muslims or otherwise.
This particular definition of the proposed section that a person could be defined as a Muslim religious school, and be subjected to the rules, powers and controls vested to the Majlis, appears potentially intrusive to the Muslim family unit.
This definition of Muslim religious schools also may entangle parents, or grandparents as the case may be, who want to reach out to their family members, teach values organic to a Muslim family, including very basic areas of Quran literacy and recitation, or values related to the Islamic creed and practice.
In fact, as a young child, my own ability now to be able to read Arabic script and the Quran was the result of habitual Islamic instruction from my elderly grandmother on a regular basis, and this is something which I would not consider as coming close to a definition of a Muslim religious school requiring regulatory oversight.
Could I clarify the intent of including the word \"person\" as part of the definition of Muslim religious schools, and whether this definition could be nuanced and clarified further to ensure it is not intrusive to, and inadvertently implicate, well-meaning families –and these could be very large families, more than 10 members – that wish to continue their tradition of teaching basic Islamic values habitually within the household?
Third, Mr Speaker, in relation to the proposed section 88AA, on the Foreign Halal Certification Body, as the market for halal certification continues to grow internationally, so too does the proliferation of FHCBs many of whom take example from the professionalism that MUIS has established over decades in halal certification experience.
In total, as of 15 January 2024, I note, on the MUIS website, that there are 99 entities registered on the list of FHCBs recognised by MUIS, including state halal authorities and private entities. In this regard, the inclusion of section 88AA into AMLA is timely and important.
To this end, I have two clarifications. First, may I clarify if the proposed amendments of section 88AA (6) are limited to the misuse of halal certificates and marks relevant to FHCBs only registered and recognised by MUIS, or would these cover all FHCBs, even those that are not currently recognised in MUIS' list?
If the latter is not covered, my view is that members of the public should also be protected against the use of halal certificates and marks from unrecognised FHCBs and even more so, because they can be misleading and in the first instance, arise from FHCBs that MUIS has not formally endorsed.
Second, may I ask what are the safeguards and extent of oversight that MUIS has over recognised FHCBs to the extent that one can ensure that these FHCBs, especially private FHCBs, upkeep their standards of halal certification overseas and are not compromised as a result of cost and profit pressures? These safeguards would be an important assurance for members of the public to ensure that sources of food certified halal, locally or overseas, remain trusted for consumption.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I support the proposed amendments to the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of the Bill. I firstly declare that I am a lawyer with an active practice in the Syariah Bar. I am also a panel counsel for MUIS.
I welcome the amendments to AMLA. I also acknowledge the comprehensive consultations that have been conducted by the Ministry of Law, not only with the public but also legal practitioners, particularly in the Syariah Court bar including those from the Muslim Law Practice Committee (MLPC) of the Law Society of Singapore. It is through these engagements and consultations that we further improve not only the access to justice but also bring greater efficiency to the Syariah Court proceedings. The amendments also bring greater ease of use through the digitalisation of the marriage certificate in the ROMM and the legislative infrastructure to support the enactment of the Singapore Community Wakaf, or the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura (WMS). These three aspects will be the focus of my speech.
Firstly, I welcome the amendments to introduce the digital Certificate of Marriage. The Certificate of Marriage has been an important symbol that marks a significant milestone in the life journey of a married couple. With the digital Certificate of Marriage for Muslim marriages, the signatures of the Muslim marriage solemniser, the marrying parties and their witnesses are no longer required, given the unique and secure identification through Singpass. In my Court experience, some couples undergoing divorce may face issues locating their own hard copies of Marriage certificate or there are even instances where one party withholds possession of the certificate from the other. This digital certificate will help prevent these situations.
I have, however, some questions. I thank the Minister for stating that the digital Certificate of Marriage does not undermine any of the other requirements of solemnisation and the institution of Muslim marriages. However, ROMM still needs to conduct some due diligence, notwithstanding the digitalised process.
How will the Kadi and Naib Kadi assess that the couples are ready for marriage? Can the Minister please clarify what are the safeguards to ensure that the digital database and the digital Certificate are secure against against any tampering, personal identity theft and breaches of cybersecurity? For couples who wish to have a physical memento of their marriage, will ROMM continue to provide a hard copy of the Certificate of Marriage to them?
In this House, I have previously raised issues on implementing a specific dispute resolution mechanism for wakaf in Singapore. This will be beneficial to bring confidence in the utilisation or adoption of wakaf instruments generally and for the WMS specifically.
Presently, any disputes relating to wakaf or removal of mutawalli goes to the High Court. In the case of Valibhoy vs Valibhoy, the High Court held that the jurisdiction and power to manage a wakaf including the removal of a mutawalli and appointment of trustees of a wakaf lay exclusively within the purview of MUIS. On the facts of that case, the High Court did not exercise its residual inherent jurisdiction and attendant powers of the Court over the wakaf.
However, that does not mean that similar disputes may not arise in the future. This brings a unique opportunity for the Syariah Court to be the forum for any such disputes to be the heard through a dispute resolution framework for wakaf, which may include the concept of mediation or arbitration. This would ensure that the correct expertise will be provided and would also allow for matters relating to religious issues and wakaf to be dealt with sensitively and confidentially.
I have some clarifications on the amendments in relation to wakaf. For WMS or wakaf created by the Majlis, who would be the mutawalli? Will the Majlis appoint the mutawalli for the WMS in the Gazette or Rules? Will the Majlis itself be the trustee of the wakaf?
This is important because the new section 58(5A) states that certain obligations do not apply if MUIS is the trustee of the wakaf and no mutawalli has been appointed by MUIS. I would be grateful if Minister can clarify who will be the intended trustee of the WMS – whether it will be Majlis itself or another party.
Lastly, I move on to the amendments to the Syariah Court jurisdiction and procedure. The expansion of jurisdiction of the Syariah Court in section 35(ca) now includes custody, care and control, access or maintenance of minor children on divorce or nullification of marriage. Traditionally, the Family Justice Court hears issues of maintenance of children until the age of 21 even after divorce, and this is established both in practice and caselaw.
In a recent decision, the Syariah Appeal Board held that proceedings in the Syariah Court do not and will not deal with children’s maintenance, and whoever wishes to commence such proceedings shall be referred to the Family Justice Court. Hence, if the Syariah Court jurisdiction now covers “maintenance of minor children”, what will be the process for applying for such maintenance? Will it apply to post-divorce couples? And what resources will be provided to the Syariah Court to handle maintenance applications for minor children? And will these affect pending applications for maintenance currently in the Family Justice Court?
Next, on the proposed section 36B, which involves applications that will likely have an adverse effect on a child’s welfare impending proceedings, what is the legal test and/or standard for “will or is likely to”? What are the factors to be considered? Further, how will the Syariah Court be better supported and resourced in order to hear such applications expeditiously?
I welcome the amendments to ensure that the Syariah Court has the powers to address the immediate needs of the family in a judge-led approach. I would like to ask if there are specific trainings for the Syariah Court judiciary and registry to transition to this judge-led approach? Would this also extend to interim orders or injunctions that the Court can order?
For instance, in the case of TMO v TMP, the Syariah Court refused to grant an order for division of matrimonial assets because it did not have jurisdiction under AMLA since the Syariah Court did not decree the divorce. The parties had to go to the Family Justice Court and the Civil Courts. The Court of Appeal held that it retained residual jurisdiction over matters not falling within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, in order to avoid a legal vacuum. An amendment to AMLA to empower the Syariah Court to make decisions on such issues like these will help Muslims from having to go to two different, separate Courts, which will be both time-consuming and costly. In Malay, Sir.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the amendments to AMLA are steps in the right direction to provide access to justice in a more equitable and efficient manner. In addition, it ensures that we have the best platform to support the enactment of a Bill to create the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura (WMS) so that we can leave a lasting and beneficial legacy for many generations to come.
In particular, I welcome the amendments that will help encourage the spirit of giving within our community through the wakaf.
Wakaf is ingrained in our community's religious tradition and history as initially demonstrated by our pioneer philanthropists in the past. They have set up various wakafs that continue to benefit our community until today.
These amendments are key in providing us with the necessary legal foundation to ensure that the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura can be successful and garner support from everyone within the community.
As the holy month of Ramadan will be upon us in about a month's time, let us nurture the habit of giving and rekindle the spirit of the wakaf within our community to help those in need through perpetual traditions like the wakaf.
I end my speech with a Malay quatrain:
Preparing a tray to serve food;
The laden tray feels much heavier;
The community wakaf is something good;
Bringing benefits in this world and the Hereafter.
Mr Speaker: Minister Masagos.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, I thank Members who have risen in support for this Bill and I note that the Worker’s Party has done the same. This enables our statutory Muslim institutions to meet the evolving needs of our community. Let me address the issues as much as I can, as raised by the Members.
I am heartened by the strong support from Members and the community to empower MUIS to establish the Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura (WMS).
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised several questions about the WMS and how MUIS would manage wakaf.
Let me explain. The WMS is unique as it will be the first multi-asset wakaf created by MUIS where voluntary contributions from all members of the Singapore Muslim community can be received. All members, whether you are rich or poor, you can do it. These can be in the form of cash, property or CPF nominations.
The WMS will be supported by collective community contributions and used for collective purposes. It is unlike traditional wakaf, which are created by individual Muslims and bequeathed for specific purposes as designated by the contributors. The WMS will also complement existing wakaf that have been created for specific causes such as education, which Assoc Prof Razwana had suggested.
We want the WMS to build a sizeable corpus, such that its long-term returns can benefit the larger community and be flexible enough to meet the evolving socio-religious needs of our community over time in the future. Muslim individuals who wish to contribute to specific causes may still set up their own wakaf and enliven this wakaf spirit. As with all wakaf in Singapore, the WMS will be vested in and administered by MUIS under the AMLA.
To Dr Syed Harun’s question, MUIS will appoint a mutawalli once the WMS has been vested and the corpus has been built. The mutawalli will then manage the wakaf in accordance with the rules, terms and conditions required by MUIS.
The WMS is a wakaf by the community and for the community. Who will benefit the WMS benefit?
In its first instance, the returns from the WMS will be used to sustain our religious institutions, develop our asatizah fraternity, and empower our Singapore Muslim community.
Over the next 30 years, many of our mosques and madrasahs will face land lease renewals. The WMS will enable the community to prepare early for these growing needs by harnessing our collective resources in the here and now, instead of having to find funds to meet very sizeable requirements only when they are due. The WMS will therefore augment the existing Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, or MBMF, to support the large capital expenditure needed to fund the various land lease renewals, redevelopment and upgrading, as well as to develop new mosques.
The WMS will also support efforts to develop and professionalise our asatizah fraternity and nurture competent religious leaders, who are able to guide the community through challenging and contemporary issues.
WMS will serve as a reserve fund to support the community in moments of need, such as during severe national crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. We will take the cue from the use of our national Reserves to assess when our community can use the reserve fund and when it is critically needed to enable our religious institutions to support the community.
I thank Dr Syed Harun for his suggestion on whether the community organisations serving purposes aligned to WMS will be able to tap on the fund. We will study it further in consultation with MUIS and the MUIS Council, our Malay/Muslim community organisations and the broader public.
I agree with Mr Sharael Taha and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum that MUIS must ensure proper governance of WMS and this is what the Bill will require MUIS to do. As with other wakaf, the WMS must be audited as a matter of public accountability and its financial statements published in MUIS' annual reports. So, they will be presented to Parliament and we can scrutinise them.
The WMS will be held to stringent standards, with clear rules governing its administration. This will give the community confidence that their contributions will make a real and positive impact.
The wakaf funds are primarily placed in property and low-risk investments that can reap a steady income stream whilst preserving its corpus. As an Islamic endowment fund, MUIS is guided by the Fatwa Committee and the MUIS Investment Committee to ensure that the investments are permissible and that the wakaf objectives can be met. All contributions to a wakaf, including WMS, will have their proceeds distributed in accordance with the wakaf's objectives.
Therefore, the contributors will not be able to alter or direct the intent and direction of the wakaf. That is what wakaf means. One cannot change it. This ensures that wakaf are used for charitable and socio-religious purposes that it was originally intended.
I thank Mr Zhulkarnian Abdul Rahim for his suggestion to set up a dispute resolution framework for wakaf. Just like other wakafs, any disputes relating to the management of WMS after a mutawalli has been appointed will be managed through the wakaf dispute resolution framework, comprising mediation and inquiry processes institutionalised by MUIS.
Let me now turn to the proposal to improve the quality and delivery of Islamic religious education, which Members agreed is an important issue.
The nature of Islamic religious education and Muslim religious schools have changed dramatically since AMLA was first enacted in 1966. In fact, we have more qualified teachers amongst us than we had before, people who went to schools overseas and are graduates of esteemed Islamic universities.
Religious education also no longer takes place only in a physical school or setting but has also expanded to online platforms and channels. The AMLA, therefore, needs to be updated to reflect these changes.
We need to ensure that religious teachings communicated through various platforms are appropriate for a contemporary and diverse society.
Hence, we must continue to strengthen MUIS' administration of our Muslim religious schools, to preserve the high level of confidence that the community places in them.
Dr Wan Rizal asked how the proposed definition of religious schools will impact Islamic religious education in Singapore. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked how MUIS ensures that Muslim religious schools meet quality standards, and Mr Faisal Manap asked where the 10 comes from and how do we define what makes 10.
First, Islamic education in Singapore must be delivered by individuals who are certified under MUIS' Asatizah Recognition Scheme, or ARS. This applies also to Quran teachers. They are under the second level, ARS II. This will ensure that our community has access to proper religious guidance from accredited and qualified religious teachers who possess a good understanding of Islamic values and principles and who are attuned to Singapore's context. Indeed, we should give opportunities to our qualified religious teachers to be the one guiding us because they are not just qualified, they are accredited and they are well-placed to lead us whether it is in Quran reading or religious guidance and we need not go to other secondary sources, more so those from overseas.
Second, any individual or organisation seeking to offer religious instruction habitually to at least 10 other individuals physically present in Singapore – that means, together, not one at a time, 10 together, up to 10, would have to register as a Muslim religious school with MUIS, under its current Islamic Education Centres and Providers, or IECP, scheme.
To Mr Faisal Manap's \"why 10?\", this ensures that our definition of a Muslim religious school is in line with the broad understanding of what a school is defined in other legislative Acts. We are taking a leaf from other legislation to make sure that we are consistent. IECPs, therefore, must submit their school curriculum, syllabus and learning materials for verification and quality assessments.
Third, the provisions will encompass both online and in-person instruction. They apply to individuals and organisations based in Singapore and who are conducting online religious classes for 10 or more individuals also physically present in the country.
To Mr Louis Ng's question, these provisions will cover virtual rooms if the individuals attending the classes are physically present in Singapore.
Fourth, MUIS ensures that Muslim religious schools offer quality education by conducting periodic audits on these institutions and their teachers, and this is important for our community. For example, ARS-registered teachers have to complete a Continuous Professional Education programme of a prescribed number of hours, to be in touch with the latest development, to be in touch with one another and also with our senior religious teachers. They cover modules, such as the Code of Ethics, Contemporary Islamic Thought and Modern and Prophetic Pedagogy.
Taken together, the robust ARS-registration system, comprehensive asatizah training and the strong IECP regulatory framework seek to uphold the quality delivery of our religious education which means that, if we do this right, then our understanding of Islam, will be well-guided, moderated and also, always in touch with those who are qualified.
That said, I would like to urge our Muslim community to exercise due diligence and seek religious instruction from credible sources, and, in particular, refer to our ARS-certified teachers to better guide ourselves and our children on religious matters and education.
I thank Dr Syed Harun for also raising the issue of whether this amendment would affect private religious sharing, especially within the context of the family. I would like to clarify that this amendment aims to better regulate Islamic religious education in Singapore, specifically by religious schools or other individuals and entities that provide religious instruction. It is not intended to regulate the private and personal sharing of religious views and opinions between individuals, friends, family members or colleagues or, as Mr Faisal Manap puts it, zikir sessions, or sessions where you are not imparting religious instructions. So, it does not apply to all these. So, you can keep teaching your children. It is okay. Members can teach their children at home. It is alright.
I would now like to turn to Mr Louis Ng's question about fatwas or religious rulings which play an important role in the life of our Muslim community and may be requested by members of the community for the purpose of Court proceedings. The issues raised to the Fatwa Committee today are increasingly complex, demanding detailed research and consultations to ensure that the opinions issued by the Committee are rigorous and sound. The amendments will allow the Committee to tap on a wider range of expertise within the asatizah fraternity to facilitate deliberations.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked how MUIS selects the Fatwa Committee members, so did Mr Faisal Manap. Can someone apply to be a Fatwa Committee member? MUIS undertakes careful consideration in assessing an individual's capability and expertise and appoint them to the Fatwa Committee. So, it is by appointment.
Since 1990, the Committee has appointed local religious scholars as associate members, thereby enhancing the depth of discussions and providing a training platform for those who may potentially serve as Committee members in the future. So, there is already a process to induct new, even young azatisahs, to get them to understand the fatwa process and, over time, when they qualify and have depth and a grasp of the religion to apply in context, they can be appointed to the Committee.
While the Fatwa Committee seeks to address issues in a prompt and timely manner, the time taken for an opinion to be issued may vary, depending on the complexity of the issue.
With the amendment, the Fatwa Committee will be empowered to decide whether there is a need to issue a fatwa based on the request received. This ensures that the Committee's resources will be focused on matters that require its attention and, in the long term, ensure that requests can be met in a timely manner. So, we have to clear the backlog first and to reduce the number of frivolous fatwas that have been asked all this time.
Should there be complex or urgent matters to be addressed, the Committee will convene meetings more frequently to deliberate on the issues. I would like to emphasise that not all religious queries warrant a fatwa, even when you ask for one. It may not warrant a fatwa, particularly when comprehensive guidance already exists in established sources, such as the religious guidance, or irsyad, issued previously by the Office of the Mufti.
I would now move to halal products. Members have also supported the establishment of a framework to recognise FHCBs. This is a positive development, given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food products, some of which would bear the marks of these FHCBs.
To Mr Mohamed Sharael Taha, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Syed Harun's questions and to Mr Faisal Manap's questions, too, MUIS' recognition of FHCBs will help our halal-certified food establishments identify halal products from overseas and strengthen their halal regime. This ensures that all food products used in such establishments, including those that are imported, meet MUIS' halal certification standards. So, MUIS already has these standards and they have to meet those standards.
FHCBs will then be subjected to a rigorous assessment to ensure that their halal standards are comparable with MUIS' standards, in order to be granted recognition by MUIS. This includes assessing whether the FHCBs are certifying meat or poultry products from source countries approved or accredited by the Singapore Food Agency and the FHCBs are adopting ISO principles or equivalent standards in their halal certification management systems.
Here is the process, amongst others.
First, FHCBs will have to undergo mandatory training and assessment to ensure that they are able to comply with Singapore's halal standards and requirements. During the three-year recognition period, these FHCBs will be placed under MUIS' audit and surveillance regime. FHCBs that fail to comply with MUIS' requirements could be suspended or delisted from MUIS' recognition list and their certified products cannot be used by MUIS' halal-certified companies.
To clarify Dr Syed Harun's query, the amendment is limited to the misuse of halal certificates and marks of MUIS-recognised FHCBs. This will help serve as an added incentive for FHCBs to seek MUIS' recognition. We will work with MUIS and industry partners to study the Member's suggestion on how we can further protect our Muslim consumers against the misuse of FHCB marks and certificates.
MUIS will also charge a fee to FHCBs seeking MUIS' recognition, so as to defray the costs of administering this scheme, such as audit inspections. This is similar to MUIS' halal certification for local establishments. The frequency of such audits will be based on MUIS' current risk assessment framework, with a focus on meat and poultry establishments.
I agree with Assoc Prof Razwana Begum on the importance of educating consumers so that they can make informed choices on halal products. Currently, the public can refer to MUIS' website on the list of recognised FHCBs. MUIS will continue to provide consumers with relevant information through various channels and explore more ways to make them more accessible.
Overall, this FHCB recognition scheme will help to provide Muslim businesses particularly and consumers generally with greater assurance when purchasing halal products.
Let me move on to Digital Certificate of Marriage.
Mr Speaker, marriage is an important and momentous occasion in the life journey of an individual. I therefore appreciate the feedback shared by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum on whether the introduction of Digital Certificates of Marriage would affect the institution of Muslim marriage and measures to prevent errors and scams.
I would like to assure the House that the institution of Muslim marriage continues to be strongly upheld, even as we implement the digital Certificate of Marriage. I think Members know that today, when people are getting married, the Kadi or Naib Kadi would call them up first and meet them physically, give them advice before the solemnisation. So, there is already a process that we have put in place despite all the digitalisation of booking and certification that we have in this amendment.
Therefore, the AMLA ensures that our Muslim community can deal with relevant personal matters, such as marriage, under Muslim law. Any amendments to the AMLA that involve Muslim law must draw on the advice of the Office of the Mufti, ensuring that all requirements under Muslim law are met before any changes are proposed.
There will continue to be a formal religious marriage ceremony. Couples will still need to meet the requirements of a valid Muslim marriage as determined by their marriage solemniser, also known as a Kadi or Naib Kadi. The first instance when they meet, assessment is already being made.
The Kadi or Naib Kadi will assess if all the conditions necessary for a valid solemnisation and registration of a Muslim marriage have been met, in accordance with Muslim law and the provisions of the AMLA. Prior to the solemnisation, as mentioned just now, the Kadi or Naib Kadi will actually conduct face-to-face sessions with the couple to provide guidance as well as referrals to other relevant support.
There are cybersecurity safeguards for the digital Certificate of Marriage. As with other Government agency websites and accounts, citizens can log in to view their Muslim marriage application or documents via Singpass, which has its own security safeguards. The digital Certificate of Marriage is password-protected. The QR code on the digital Certificate will also make it more convenient for parties to verify the authenticity of the document.
Even as we implement the digital Certificate, the ROMM will provide a hard copy Ceremonial Certificate of Marriage for couples who wish to have it as a keepsake. I think it is important to do so.
I wish to address Assoc Prof Razwana’s question about online solemnisations. Following the 2022 amendments to the AMLA, ROMM has been empowered to conduct solemnisations via remote communication technology, in addition to physical solemnisations. ROMM had consulted the Office of the Mufti to put in steps to ensure that online solemnisations will meet all the requirements of a valid Muslim marriage under Muslim law. So, again, it is subject to the approval of the Office of the Mufti. This option for online solemnisations will provide for unique situations like the COVID-19 pandemic when people were not able to meet physically. Notwithstanding this, physical solemnisations will continue to be the default norm and preferred mode. Our Kadi and Naib Kadi will ensure this.
Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Razwana also asked how the SYC would ensure a seamless process for clients who use its digital system. The SYC has published detailed videos and user guides, as well as set up a call centre helpdesk, to help users navigate the digital portal. SYC will continue to take in feedback to enhance the user experience.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised a number of questions and suggestions regarding the SYC-related amendments. Let me address them one at a time.
First, on the amendments to clarify the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction in clauses 8 and 12 of the Bill. We are amending section 35 of the AMLA to clarify that the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction includes maintenance of children on divorce or nullification of marriage, which has always been part of section 52(3) of AMLA.
The Family Justice Courts, or FJC, will continue to hear child maintenance matters. This is because SYC’s jurisdiction is matrimonial in nature, limited to hearing child maintenance matters upon a dissolution of a Muslim marriage.
It is common that parties already have ongoing maintenance proceedings in FJC even before the divorce proceedings are commenced in SYC. Enforcement of maintenance orders are also carried out in the FJC.
It is thus more convenient for parties, as a matter of practice, for a single Court, the FJC, to hear all matters relating to maintenance of children, including the enforcement of these orders. This also prevents the possibility that two contrary maintenance orders are made by two separate Courts.
To Assoc Prof Razwana's query, I would like to assure the Member that the FJC can make orders on maintenance for a child above 21 years old if they are mentally or physically disabled.
Second, on how the Court will exercise its expanded powers under the new sections 36B and 43(2). As no two cases are alike, the Court will make its determination based on the specific facts of each case on whether the legal threshold has been met. The Presidents and Registrars of the Court will do so with a view to ensuring that the rules of natural justice will also be preserved and given effect to, including dealing with the case expeditiously to protect the welfare of the child.
Third, Mr Zhulkarnain had suggested that we expand the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction and powers beyond what this Bill is introducing today.
Specifically, Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that the Syariah Court be empowered to make decisions on the division of matrimonial assets. He cited the 2017 case of TMO vs TMP, where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the wife to seek an order from the FJC for division of her matrimonial assets. This was after the Court of Appeal confirmed that the High Court retained residual jurisdiction over matters like the division of matrimonial assets, which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. Hence, there is no legal vacuum and parties to a foreign Muslim divorce can proceed to the civil courts to claim financial relief and are not left stranded without recourse.
We will study carefully Mr Zhulkarnain's other suggestions for the Syariah Court, along with other feedback we received from stakeholders such as the Muslim Law Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore. This study will be done in consultation with the legal and asatizah fraternities, together with the broader Muslim community.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked about the proposed enhancements to the Syariah Court’s judge-led approach for divorce cases and how the Court can connect individuals with relevant community services.
I wish to clarify that the judge-led approach is actually already an existing practice of the Syariah Court. These amendments enhance the Court’s ability to apply the judge-led approach.
Currently, the Court is also empowered to make child- and family-centric social support referrals where it deems appropriate, both in the course of proceedings and after the divorce is finalised. One example is to refer parties to counselling.
Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by once again thanking our Malay/Muslim community, Members who have spoken, partners for their support – for both this current and past reviews of the AMLA. I am heartened by the ideas and suggestions from our community leaders and other stakeholders during the public consultations and in this debate. We have incorporated some of these ideas in this amendment Bill and will explore others as we implement the changes with our statutory Muslim institutions and community partners.
With the passing of this amendment Bill, we will further strengthen the robust and contemporary legal foundation for our statutory Muslim institutions to build our Muslim Community of Success.
Mr Speaker: Do any Member have any clarifications to seek from Minister?
[(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 Masagos Zulkifli B M M. (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":"Prevention of Proliferation Financing and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker\t: Minister for Law.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, Singapore is a leading financial centre and a global trading hub. Our economic openness makes us attractive for investments and businesses, but also makes us an attractive target for money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. I shall refer to these as \"financial crimes\" for convenience, throughout my speech.
As a trusted international financial and trading hub, Singapore takes a firm stance against these activities. We therefore take a robust approach to supervision, (a) both in the financial sector and non-financial sectors, (b) in order to prevent financial crimes.
In 1992, Singapore joined the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF. The FATF is the recognised international standards setter for the prevention of financial crimes. Over 200 jurisdictions subscribe to the international FATF Standards.
Aside from the financial sector, the FATF has highlighted that other non-financial sectors also have an important role. This would include the following sectors which come under the Ministry of Law, or MinLaw’s purview: precious stones and precious metals dealers, or PSMDs; moneylending; pawnbroking; and legal services.
As the regulator of these sectors, MinLaw regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they remain relevant, effective, and fully in line with the latest international standards set by the FATF.
In recent years, the FATF has updated its standards, in particular, to set out clearly the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks associated with the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or “proliferation financing” in short. This is in addition to existing FATF requirements on money laundering and terrorism financing risks.
This Bill, therefore, seeks to clearly align the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards on countering proliferation financing.
This will be achieved through proposed amendments to four Acts, namely: the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, or the PSPM Act; the Moneylenders Act; the Pawnbrokers Act; and the Legal Profession Act.
In addition, this Bill proposes amendments to the PSPM Act to strengthen the regulatory regime and enhance operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs.
As a brief background, the PSPM Act was enacted in 2019 to provide a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime to prevent dealings in precious stones and precious metals from being used to facilitate money laundering or terrorism financing.
Since its enactment, MinLaw has continued to engage the PSMD sector for feedback and to review our measures and practices, emerging risks, global trends and developments and international standards. The proposed amendments today are the culmination of these engagements and reviews.
Let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill.
First, the Bill updates the PSPM Act, Moneylenders Act, Pawnbrokers Act and Legal Profession Act to clearly align the regulatory regime for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with the updated FATF standards; and require businesses or persons covered by these Acts to implement adequate measures to counter proliferation financing.
Examples of required measures include: performing risk assessment; and developing and implementing internal policies, procedures, and controls to counter proliferation financing.
Such measures are not new to these businesses or persons. For many entities, such measures are already part of their existing anti-money laundering controls as the underlying proliferation financing offences are also money laundering predicate offences.
In addition, the controls in the Moneylenders Act and Pawnbrokers Act against criminals owning or managing moneylending and pawnbroking businesses will be strengthened, in line with the FATF Recommendations.
In particular, the Bill includes amendments to prevent persons convicted of offences relating to the prevention of financial crimes from obtaining relevant licences, or holding management functions in moneylending and pawnbroking businesses.
Second, the Bill strengthens the regulatory regime for PSMDs through amendments to the PSPM Act.
The Bill seeks to update the definition of \"precious product\". The PSPM Act covers precious stones and precious metals, or PSPM in short, and precious products.
Under the current definition, \"precious product\" means any jewellery, watch, apparel, accessory, ornament, or other finished product – made up of, containing, or having attached to it, any PSPM; and where at least 50% of the value of the product is attributable to the PSPM.
Based on the current definition, products with majority of value attributed to other factors, such as branding or workmanship, are not captured. However, we have observed that such products can also pose risks of financial crimes.
To close this gap, clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of \"precious product\" to also cover any \"precious product\" priced above a prescribed value, which will be set at S$20,000, regardless of the value attributable to the PSPM.
To illustrate, following the amendment, a platinum watch retailed by a luxury brand, with a net sales price of S$100,000, will be covered under the Act, even if the value of the platinum in the watch is less than 50% of the net sales price.
The prescribed threshold value of S$20,000 is aligned with FATF standards and international best practices.
Clause 4 of the Bill also amends the existing definition of \"asset-backed token\" to exclude digital payment tokens from the PSPM Act. This will avoid double regulation of PSMDs, as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) already regulates digital payment token service providers under the Payment Services Act.
Clause 12 of the Bill introduces a new offence in the PSPM Act for regulated dealers that submit incomplete or inaccurate cash transaction reports without reasonable excuse.
Compliance officers are instrumental in the implementation of controls to prevent financial crimes.
Therefore, the Bill makes it clear that compliance officers appointed by PSMDs must be assessed by the Registrar to be \"fit and proper\" persons.
To prevent errant dealers from disposing of records to thwart investigations after they cease being regulated dealers, the Bill introduces a record-keeping requirement for regulated dealers to keep records, for a prescribed period after ceasing to be a regulated dealer. Failure to comply would be an offence.
In addition, the Bill will empower the Registrar to continue regulatory action against former registered PSMDs. For instance, the Registrar may order them to pay financial penalties if they had failed to comply with the registration conditions, or if their registration was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
Finally, the Bill amends the PSPM Act to improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 10 to allow the Registrar to cancel or suspend the registration of PSMDs that are not conducting regulated dealing and/or fall under prescribed circumstances.
This will mitigate the risk of PSMDs misusing their registration status to gain access to the financial system to conduct illicit transactions, or to create an erroneous impression that their businesses are regulated by MinLaw, for any purpose other than the prevention of financial crimes.
Clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new section 9A to provide that the registration of a registered PSMD lapses if the PSMD, as an entity, is wound up or otherwise dissolved, or if the PSMD, as a sole proprietor, dies. This will enable the Registrar to update the register more expeditiously.
Clause 19 of the Bill introduces new sections 36A and 36B in the PSPM Act to prescribe methods of service of documents required or authorised by the Act to be served on any person. In particular, service through digital means will be prescribed to reduce the need for physical mail, better leverage technology and improve efficiency.
Sir, in conclusion, the Bill will allow clear alignment of the regulatory regimes for the PSMD, moneylending, pawnbroking and legal services sectors with updated FATF requirements, strengthen the regulatory regime for PSMDs, and improve operational effectiveness in regulating PSMDs. It will also reaffirm our strong commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. With that Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will help Singapore comply with FATF requirements on assessing the risk of proliferation financing and taking measures to mitigate these risks.
I have two short clarifications to raise.
My first clarification is on the Government’s approach on prevention of proliferation financing, anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing. Each of these areas represent risks which threaten the integrity of Singapore’s financial institutions. Each of these areas also have their own sets of safeguards and requirements.
Singapore has a national strategy for countering terrorism financing related activities. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if proliferation financing will be incorporated into this strategy?
Can the Minister share how the Government is incorporating these safeguards as a coherent approach to prevent fragmentation in the implementation of the financial safeguards for proliferation financing, money laundering and terrorism financing?
My second clarification is on ensuring effective implementation of these safeguards on the ground. Robust safeguards are important due to the seriousness of the threat posed by proliferation financing. However, overly strict safeguards can be counter-productive if entities do not have the capacity to ensure meaningful compliance with these safeguards. What steps will be taken at the industry level to avoid these safeguards from becoming a box-checking exercise?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare my interest as a practising advocate and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Singapore.
Mr Speaker, we are told that this Bill seeks to amend the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act 2019, the Legal Profession Act 1966, the Moneylenders Act 2008 and the Pawnbrokers Act 2015 to provide for the prevention of the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
This arises from new requirements introduced by the FATF in October 2020 for member states and reporting entities to assess the risk of proliferation financing in relation to their business and to take measures to mitigate the assessed risk. The proposed amendments to the said Acts add to the existing provisions in respect of prevention of money laundering and prevention of terrorism financing.
In August last year, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) arrested 10 foreigners holding multiple citizenships for alleged money laundering offences involving cash, luxury properties, cars, gold bars, handbags, jewellery, branded watches and cryptocurrency, including more than 68 gold bars, 294 luxury bags, 164 branded watches and 546 pieces of jewellery we are told. The assets seized in what is Singapore's biggest money laundering case have risen to more than S$3 billion by January. In October 2023, we were told that 152 properties and 62 vehicles were involved, and we were told last month that 55 new properties and 15 vehicles were given prohibition of disposal orders by the police. Minister Josephine Teo had said that the proceeds \"most likely came from criminal activities abroad, including illegal online gambling and unlicensed moneylending\".
Mr Speaker, this is very disconcerting, not least because of the value of the funds and assets involved but that they had taken place despite existing money laundering laws and regulations having been introduced over the years.
The inability of our existing laws and regulations to prevent the current money laundering case is worrying. If banks, law firms, property companies or other businesses or professionals who assisted in property purchase or transfer of funds could have failed to detect or prevent transfer or use of money laundering proceeds, it can also happen to money lenders, dealers of precious stones and precious metals, not to mention, our neighbourhood pawnbrokers.
I am mindful that investigation is pending but I would like to ask the Government whether it is able to share what are, to date, the lessons which we have learned from the case so far as far as anti-money laundering (AML) compliance is concerned? Has any lesson been applied to today’s amendments?
How have our existing laws or regulations failed to stop the accused persons from bringing into Singapore, funds which have been the subject of money laundering and/or from proceeds of organised crime activities and to be allowed to invest such funds in different ways in Singapore such as buying properties? Has the Government started reviewing the existing laws and if not, whether and when it will do so? These are highly relevant to today’s Bill as we are seeking to apply the current suite of laws and regulations against the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and we need to be assured that the current laws or the proposed amendments can provide adequate gatekeeping to prevent entry to Singapore of funds for financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
I also hope that the authorities will review the adequacy of the due diligence efforts of banks, law firms and other professionals or stakeholders who were involved in respect of the funds brought in by the said foreign nationals in the ongoing money laundering case or in respect of funds used for the purchases of different properties and to consider what laws, regulations and measures need to be enhanced to strengthen the current due diligence process required of all professionals and stakeholders and hopefully minimise the risks of such cases recurring, which is embarrassing for our country and tarnishes Singapore’s reputation as a financial centre.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate what day?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Government unveiled its National AI Strategy report (NAIS 2.0) last December. The report outlines Singapore's plans to harness artificial intelligence (AI) for the public good, focusing on enhancing AI capabilities, addressing potential risks and fostering a thriving AI ecosystem.
I appreciate the hard work that many policy-makers have put into writing this report, including their efforts to consult with industry. However, I believe that Singapore needs a more comprehensive AI industrial policy and clearer outcomes for each industry. We need a strategy that aims to make our nation the global leader in selected AI fields.
Under NAIS 2.0, the Government's main role revolves around enabling an environment for AI to grow and enhancing the efficiency of public agencies. While these are important, the Government certainly has the resources and capability to do much more. In this AI-driven era, we need the Government to intercede more proactively to create a world-leading AI industry. Simply leaving things to the free market may not produce the desired results because of the constraints of our local private sector and our small domestic market. It will risk forfeiting some promising economic growth opportunities that AI can bring for our nation.
Singapore's small population size should not deter us from global AI leadership. Historical industrial successes have been built on strategic government interventions, such as Taiwan’s support of TSMC, which played a pivotal role in its journey to becoming a global semiconductor manufacturing juggernaut.
Today, I will address NAIS 2.0’s AI labour policy and advocate for a strong AI industrial policy so that Singapore can aim for global leadership in selected AI domains.
Let us begin with the AI labour policy. The goal in NAIS 2.0 to generate 15,000 AI jobs sparked a blend of enthusiasm and apprehension among Singaporeans. Concerns linger that, as has happened in the past, foreigners may dominate lucrative positions, including leadership positions, leaving Singaporeans with mainly the routine and lower-paying jobs. This could impede our citizens’ career advancement alongside the advancing AI landscape.
NAIS 2.0 has three labour planks: scaling up AI-specific training programmes; scaling up technology and AI talent pipelines; and remaining open to global tech talent.
Will the Government commit to ensuring that a sizable majority of at least two-thirds of the 15,000 new \"AI practitioner\" jobs will go to Singaporeans?
I acknowledge the importance of global AI talent. However, there must be a clear differentiation between exceptional global talent and the average foreign technological worker. We should welcome the former, but, should avoid importing too many of the latter, as they may end up competing with Singaporeans who can do the job just as well. Any global talent that we bring in, must be expected to transfer their skills to locals, not just use Singapore as a springboard for greater pursuits in other countries. This can be done through tying company grants to the achievement of knowledge transfer or through limited-term foreign work passes, tied to the training of Singaporean workers.
The AI playground is level, with a highly collaborative open-source community. The core techniques and frameworks are mature enough and reasonably accessible through papers and code. With the right training, mentorship and opportunities, Singaporean talent can deliver as well as anyone in the world.
To raise a body of local AI talent, AI-training programme places and talent pipelines must be focused on Singaporeans. We need to plan ahead and start training all our students early in AI – not just students who are academically strong in the sciences and mathematics.
For mid-career workers, hands-on interaction with AI tools is one of the best forms of training. The Government should expand the scope of SkillsFuture Credits, to cover expenses for subscriptions to AI assistants like ChatGPT Plus or Github Co-pilot to accelerate their productivity. This will level the playing field for Singaporeans with less means to pay for such subscriptions. Paid models like ChatGPT-4, have been assessed to be significantly better than their free counterparts and we should give our workers more opportunities to use the best models.
Next, on industry. It was once unclear if it were possible for humans to reach the moon. But US President John F Kennedy made a speech to Congress in 1961, rallying his nation to achieve the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of that decade. And the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Apollo 11 mission achieved it ahead of schedule, on 20 July 1969.
A “moonshot” is an ambitious, exploratory and groundbreaking target that has the possibility of spurring breakout growth. We need moonshots in AI, which NAIS 2.0 appears to lack.
The Government has the resources and capability to take more risks, on a longer timescale, to pursue high-reward moonshots. These could catalyse future engines of growth. But first, the Government must catch the vision and have the determination to make our country number one in our chosen AI domains.
Achieving some of these AI moonshots has implications on our economic security and even our sovereignty. Advances in AI rely on large, high-quality data sets. We must ensure that foreign technological firms and governments do not end up extracting our data overseas to build AI products, which then get sold back to Singaporeans. This will allow such firms to profit immensely, while local expertise flounders.
Currently, no global framework governs cross-border data flows and ownership. This allows predatory dynamics to continue between countries and companies. Once market dominance is achieved, network effects and the dynamics of chasing a moving target, make it almost impossible for new entrants to catch up.
If we are not careful, Singapore may become only a consumer of such platforms, while the economic benefits and the best jobs go overseas. Singapore should avoid this, by proactively building comprehensive local data sets for homegrown AI development.
We should pursue a few ambitious, publicly-funded moonshot projects. These projects must prioritise transparency and align their outcomes with the national interest, ensuring that economic gains directly benefit our citizens.
A new government-owned AI startup will be needed to catalyse this moonshot and, I will refer to it as the AI Catalyst Corporation. It should be independently run with commercial dynamism, yet be ultimately answerable to Singaporeans.
What constitutes a well-chosen moonshot? I would like to propose five key principles: first, its products or services must directly benefit Singapore and Singaporeans; second, it should have export potential and become part of Singapore's economic growth engine; third, it needs to have \"moats\" – which are durable advantages to prevent it from being quickly outcompeted or swallowed up by global tech giants; fourth, there must be a genuine unmet global market gap that Singapore has advantages in tackling; and fifth, the industry should be ripe for fundamental disruption, not just incremental improvements.
Healthcare AI could be a moonshot that Singapore can aim for. I will present the case for this and answer the five questions in reverse order.
First, is healthcare ripe for fundamental disruption? Yes. Healthcare systems worldwide are under strain, due to ageing populations and chronic disease burdens. Healthcare institutions tend to treat diseases late in their course, when symptoms are severe and care is expensive.
Yet, major conditions like obesity, heart disease and cancer, are driven by shared underlying factors. This outdated care model no longer aligns well with scientific reality. Healthcare AI, supported by population-scale data, has the potential to predict risks and intervene early to significantly improve health outcomes.
This will require a reorganisation of healthcare delivery that focuses on early prevention and action. Singapore has started this journey through the Healthier SG programme. Let us turbocharge it with healthcare AI.
Second, is there a genuine unmet global market gap? Yes. Electronic health record (EHR) systems remain fragmented worldwide. Even in the US, no dominant player exists in healthcare AI. The players are fragmented among various entities, like EHR providers, tech firms, life sciences companies, insurers and hospitals. Those with vast healthcare data may not have efficient AI models and vice-versa.
Singapore, on the other hand, has a unique opportunity to build population-scale healthcare data ecosystem, tailored for AI. We can more easily overcome the coordination challenges that may oblige larger ecosystems to build healthcare AI components in a piecemeal fashion. A platform called MOH TRUST already aggregates multiple healthcare research datasets and the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system, aggregates clinical data across Singapore. So, the Government is already collecting and coordinating healthcare data. What is missing, is the impetus to use this data to drive the future of AI through an industrial policy.
Third, are there \"moats\" against global technological giants? Yes. Healthcare AI depends a lot on having local healthcare teams and physical sensors to collect and manage clinical data.
AI can serve as an assistant to local healthcare workers and give Singapore an edge over others. Singapore has already signalled this commitment to generating comprehensive data, like in the SG100K genome study. Healthcare also has more durable data moats over other AI spheres, like linguistics, where SEA-LION's defences against global technological giants in low-resource languages is uncertain.
Fourth, does healthcare have export potential? Yes, as a public good, healthcare AI can benefit other countries, while facing fewer sovereignty concerns. Debates are taking place globally about where large AI systems are trained and deployed. However AI, when used for healthcare, which can potentially benefit everyone, is less likely to attract controversies or nationalist and protectionist tendencies. By assuming a leadership role in this field, Singapore can export our healthcare AI innovations, generate much international goodwill and even use this to advance our foreign policy.
And finally, does it benefit Singaporeans? Yes, through improved public health, economic growth and global technological leadership.
Singapore has other comparative advantages in the race for global leadership in healthcare AI. We have a robust healthcare system, the SingPass digital ID, cross-domain talent and a history of Government investments and interventions in specific industries.
Singapore's demographic diversity provides rich healthcare data across ethnicities and ages. Healthcare AI can catalyse the development of adjacent fields like computational genomics and precision medicine. Singapore has the ingredients for a breakthrough in Healthcare AI. To succeed, the Government needs to take the lead in putting these ingredients together.
To realise a healthcare AI moonshot, Singapore must combine existing ingredients into a coherent strategy. We should aim to export specialised services and medical diagnoses, not raw data. We can create an advanced AI model trained on genetics, protein biomarkers, histology and electronic health records. We should aim to radically improve our ability to prevent disease, intervene and make causal inferences.
A multi-modal healthcare AI foundation model, moves beyond narrowly specified point solutions. By having a single foundation model for, say, both chest X-rays and retinal image interpretation, we can overcome data fragmentation across medical specialties and make it increasingly possible to uncover foundational principles of diseases.
As for electronic health records, the NEHR system is valuable, but, it needs to be AI-ready in order to consolidate complex datasets such as histology imaging, genetic data or protein data. We should create comprehensive longitudinal patient histories, spanning years. Existing data needs to be sufficiently standardised to serve AI analysis, without a massive amount of preprocessing.
An AI Healthcare Company under the AI Catalyst Corporation could drive this moonshot. This AI healthcare company needs its own versatile multi-modal foundation model, integrated with the NEHR. This will enable large-scale analysis to identify at-risk groups, conduct preventative screening and perform early treatment. It will also enable high-quality acute care, as a simultaneous expert in genomics, biology, general medicine and the specialties.
The AI healthcare company could build the world's best multi-modal healthcare AI and healthcare dataset. This could establish an unmatched resource – built in Singapore, for the world.
Local AI startups can also benefit from this foundation model, to build their own applications to sell to the world. Just like how OpenAI's access to ChatGPT queries, provides unmatched data for improving their future large language models, the first company to create a versatile multi-modal healthcare foundation model would likely find itself at the frontier of healthcare AI.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, a healthcare AI moonshot strategy will position Singapore as a global leader in AI, by leveraging our unique capabilities in consolidating biomedical and healthcare data. It is a national approach, designed to secure data sovereignty, navigate data privacy concerns, ensure Singapore captures the benefits of AI and maximise public buy-in.
This is not about picking winners. It is a proactive strategy to ensure Singapore thrives in the AI-driven future to benefit all Singaporeans. I presented just one example of a moonshot that Singapore could pursue. There may be other moonshots of equal or greater merit. I welcome open debate on selecting moonshots, but, we cannot pull our punches if AI is truly the new industrial revolution.
Singapore possesses the talent, resources and infrastructure needed to compete for the top spot in selected AI fields. Achieving it requires political will, a readiness to embrace risks and proactive intervention by the Government. We can do it and we must do it, for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank Mr Giam for raising some very important issues to do with AI. I thank the Member for reading our National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, in some detail. I would encourage the Member to read the many other documents that we have written, which describe how we are already doing many of the things the Member has listed in his speech. And, I thank him in advance, for supporting the investments that we plan to make to deliver the various outcomes that he has detailed.
He suggested a number of important outcomes. We have made some of the same points in the past. I thank him for agreeing with us on a number of key ideas, such as the use of technology and AI should benefit Singapore and Singaporeans, we agree. How we approach AI development should result in better jobs for Singaporeans, we agree.
Our approach should lead to skills development and knowledge transfer to Singaporeans and Singapore, we agree.
Ambitious, innovative projects should be attempted to create opportunities, AI can be transformative for healthcare and our small size as a nation should not deter us from seeking excellence and potentially global leadership in AI, we agree with all this, we have said all this before. And I am glad that he thinks we should do this.
But how we do so and how we proceed, matters. How we should achieve these outcomes. Here, perhaps our views differ. I will point out that in talking through the mechanisms and the suggestions that Mr Giam has made, his speech does have some internal contradictions. Statements that he makes to support one strategy, perhaps contracts another. Here are three examples.
He talks about the constraints of our local private sector and our small domestic market, but he wants to suggest exactly doing that in restricting the development of an AI system within Singapore. He talks about how there is no global cross-border framework around data sharing, but he wants to worsen that by suggesting data localisation and sovereignty strategies. At one part of his speech, he talks about how there is a level playing field for AI with a highly collaborative open source community and then later on, he worries about how there is market dominance and network effects that would make it hard for us to penetrate the market.
So, there are internal contradictions. He has differing views, depending on the differing recommendations. I think the Government also has a different view of how we should achieve the outcomes, but I would reiterate, we agree that the outcomes are the same.
So, on the outcomes, traditional industrial policy approaches, where governments pick winners and centrally plan the way to success, are not going to be effective for frontier digital technologies like AI. Our approach should target excellence in key domains and create an environment with solid foundations that maximise our chances of success. We should not seek global leadership just for the sake of it. We advance Singapore's interest by growing our AI ecosystem, partnering internationally, creating good jobs, benefiting our companies and our citizens. We will be sharing more details on the implementation of the recently launched National Artificial Intelligence 2.0 at the Committee of Supply (COS) debates. But let me just recap on a few ideas.
The strategy focuses on harnessing AI for the public good for Singapore and the world. It outlines key enablers and actions that Singapore will take in the coming years to achieve the twin goals of excellence, developing peaks of excellence in AI, including to address the needs and challenges of our time, such as climate change and population health.
Secondly, empowerment, where we raise up individuals, businesses and communities to use AI with confidence, discernment and trust.
Our approach is for AI to have widespread and positive impact on our economy and our society. That is why we will develop peaks of excellence across domains, across our economy, selected on the probability to deliver an outsized impact to Singapore and the lives of Singaporeans, including leading economic sectors such as manufacturing and financial services, those relevant to Singapore's smart nation priorities, healthcare and education.
For healthcare, we have dedicated $35 million through the AI in Health Grand Challenge since 2019 to support innovative projects that use AI to predict risk, tailor treatments and enhance health coaching. We already use datasets across various healthcare registries and databases to train AI models, and these are already being piloted for use in clinics across Singapore.
SingHealth, together with the Ministry of Health (MOH), A*STAR and the National Supercomputing Centre recently organised the AI Health Summit 2023. It featured local and international experts discussing the application of advanced AI in healthcare, and it demonstrated many of the projects that are already in development here in Singapore.
Across our society, we will address peaks of excellence for AI. We will anchor integrated and transformative AI innovation and value creation activities here, working with companies to base their AI Centres of Excellence, to build new products, develop intellectual property across the AI stack here in Singapore. We have a new model of sectoral Centres of Excellence, partnering industry champions to identify sectoral use cases, developing a broader base of researchers and companies to intensify sophisticated AI development and deployment here. We are also working to speed up value discovery, experimentation and innovation, including the AI Trailblazers Initiative, working with Google Cloud to help enterprises bring novel generative AI use cases to life in a hundred days.
Creating this environment for many projects, many peaks of excellence, has two key benefits. One is that it makes it more likely that we benefit all either through economic opportunity by being part of the industry or as a beneficiary of the new service. The second key benefit is that not all projects are successful. With moonshots, Mr Giam will know that outcomes are inherently uncertain and the original moonshot certainly did not have a friction free path to success.
Outcomes are inherently uncertain. They are not always clear, and even with the best efforts we may not get the desired or expected results.
So as we embark on ambitious and innovative projects, I hope we can count on Mr Giam's support to still stand in support of us having made the attempt in the spirit of a moonshot even when it does not quite work out in the way we expect.
So, trying several different ideas, creating the opportunity for innovation and inventiveness, rather than trying to pick symbolic projects, is far more likely to generate a success.
Anchoring AI activities is only one part of the picture. A strong AI ecosystem also requires skilled AI practitioners. We want to grow a pool of such high value and skilled jobs here in Singapore.
As discussed extensively in this House, including by Dr Tan Wu Meng on behalf of his Clementi residents and I think representing the concerns of residents across Singapore in successive Budget speeches, the 2023 Presidential Address Debate, Parliamentary Questions, our recent Parliamentary Motion. None of this will become a reality if we do not train, upskill and reskill our labour force. That point has been made and the Government's key focus is thus on training our people. This will allow Singaporeans to capture new opportunities and shape their future.
For example, the Tech Skills Accelerator and AI apprenticeship programmes have trained many Singaporeans to take on AI related roles and we will elaborate on additional plans at the COS. We have also started work on equipping our students with skills relevant to artificial intelligence. The Ministry of Education develops students foundational knowledge of AI and promotes its safe and responsible use in schools.
That said, it is important to recognise that global AI talent plays a complementary role. They serve as a bridge to expertise, perspectives, innovative approaches elsewhere that are crucial for the information exchange and skills transfer to strengthen our ecosystem. Today, we are already experiencing strong demand for AI talent here in Singapore. Given the fierce competition for this talent globally, it would be quite unwise to limit the pool of skilled practitioners we can draw from and potentially hindering our ecosystem growth.
There are some other essential enablers that we need here. We have to have sufficient compute power so that industry, academia and the Government can innovate, build and deploy high value solutions.
Our strategy on data is important in advancing our AI aspirations. Our approach on data is premised on supporting innovation, serving the public good and making sure that relevant safeguards are in place. We focus on improving the quality of data sets, building up our capability and ensuring that data use for AI development is aligned with trusted data sharing frameworks.
But domestic data and local AI models are not enough for Singapore to achieve our ambitions. We must maintain our ability to access and use global data and models to deliver good outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is important to resist the allure of data localisation narratives. It sounds very seductive. But instead, we need to remain connected, allow for and advocate for cross-border data flows as long as adequate protection is ensured.
Recent legislation in large countries avoid this idea of explicit localisation provisions. Even with their large markets and large data sets, they recognise the benefits of being connected to the world. And we benefit from openness and connectivity to the world for our partners to share with us in good faith, and they are less likely to do so if we close ourselves off. Singapore has thrived as part of a connected world.
Mr Giam spoke about industrial policy. It is the nature of the tech and digital space that Government cannot pick winners and certainly cannot centrally plan their way to success. There is also the issue of the cost associated with the approach he suggests. He proposes, I believe, that we rely on our own data only and develop an AI model at scale ourselves. I think that is what he suggesting.
I would point out that companies have to invest tens-of-billions of dollars – billions with a \"b\" – of US dollars for one generative AI model. If we took the approach that he suggests, we may only be able to afford to participate in one or two projects. And is that going to be the best approach for Singapore?
AI is a fast-moving, inherently borderless technology. For Singapore to succeed, we must remain open. Open to innovation, to talent, to data, to ideas from around the world. We will also need to work with partners from around the world to address the wide-ranging impact that AI can potentially have. Taking a protectionist stance will do us more harm than good and it will undermine our hard-won credibility as a serious, constructive, inclusive society and nation.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.41 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":"Impact of Shipping Disruptions in the Red Sea on Singapore's Economy and Consumer Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how will adverse impacts on the international shipping industry due to tensions in the Red Sea between the United States and the Houthis affect the Singapore economy; and (b) what steps will the Government take to mitigate impacts on the Singapore economy, if any.
40 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what proportion of Singapore’s imports are shipped via the Red Sea; (b) whether there is any concentration of goods that are shipped via the Red Sea; and (c) whether the recent Red Sea shipping disruptions has impacted the short-term and medium-term inflation outlook for the Singapore economy and, if so, how.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In response to attacks on vessels and tankers in the Red Sea, major shipping lines have re-routed long-haul trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe services via the Cape of Good Hope, which adds 10 to 15 days of transit. This has led to some delays in Singapore’s imports from Europe that are typically transported via the Red Sea, such as petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and machinery. The disruptions in the Red Sea have also raised sea freight charges. Businesses have provided feedback that these repercussions are manageable thus far, as the proportion of goods that are shipped from Europe by sea is small compared to Singapore’s total global imports.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry has projected that Singapore’s economy will grow by 1% to 3% this year. The Monetary Authority of Singapore' Core Inflation is expected to moderate to 2.5% to 3.5%, from 4.2% last year, given that global energy and food commodity prices, as well as the costs of most other imported goods, have fallen. These forecasts have accounted for the current Red Sea situation. Should the conflict escalate further, we expect additional downside risks to gross domestic product (GDP) growth and upside risks to inflation. We will continue to monitor developments closely including engaging with our business community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Supporting Move of Outram Secondary School to Sengkang and Measures to Retain School's Heritage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education with regard to the relocation of Outram Secondary School to Sengkang (a) what were the factors which led to the decision; (b) whether there will still be sufficient school places for students when new housing comes onstream; and (c) whether any consultation took place with stakeholders of the school and members of the community before the decision to relocate was made.
42 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education as one of Singapore's oldest schools and one of the few Government schools with its own swimming pool, how will the history and heritage of Outram Secondary School be retained in view of the school's relocation to Sengkang.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the demand and supply of school places across Singapore. In these reviews, we consider factors such as the current and projected residential populations and housing development plans.
Outram Secondary School (OSS) is currently located in a mature area where demand for secondary school places has been falling. Relocation of OSS to Sengkang will help meet the higher demand for secondary school places in the North-Eastern part of Singapore while preserving the identity of a well-established school. There will be sufficient secondary school places in the Outram area without OSS, even after considering the new housing planned in the area.
For the case of OSS, as with other relocations, MOE engaged the school stakeholders at the appropriate juncture, prior to the public announcement.
OSS’ history will be documented and preserved at a heritage space in the new school building.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on T5 Development and Changi Airport's Preparation for Increase in Air Traffic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the development of Changi Airport Terminal 5 and its possible completion date; and (b) how is Changi Airport preparing for a possible surge of air traffic in 2024 as the International Air Transport Association expects global air travel volume to exceed pre-pandemic in 2024.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Monthly passenger traffic at Changi Airport in December 2023 has recovered to around 90% of pre-COVID levels. For the full year 2023, Changi Airport handled 58.9 million passenger movements, or 86% of the traffic recorded in 2019. We expect Changi Airport’s passenger volumes to reach pre-COVID levels in 2024.
Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5) is needed to meet the demand for air travel in the longer term and to ensure that Singapore continues to be well-connected with the rest of the world. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has been working closely with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and the Changi Airport Group in the development of T5. We are making good progress in the design, following a two-year pause during the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect construction to start next year, and for T5 to be operational in the mid-2030s.
To provide for sufficient capacity before T5 is ready, Terminal 2 (T2) was fully reopened in November 2023, after three and a half years of engineering and expansion works. This provided an additional five million passengers per annum (mppa) to Changi’s pre-pandemic capacity, bringing the airport’s total handling capacity to 90 mppa.
On the manpower front, MOT and CAAS have been working closely with aviation stakeholders to build up their workforce to support the ramp-up in capacity at Changi Airport. To date, the air transport sector workforce has reached over 95% of pre-COVID numbers, and we expect it to fully recover this year. We will work with the companies and unions to press on with the upskilling of existing workers and training of new hires.
In tandem, we are working to accelerate the adoption of automation and technology at Changi Airport to increase productivity. For instance, the ongoing airport-wide roll out of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s New Clearance Concept, which automates and digitalises end-to-end clearance processes for passengers, would help to reduce clearance time at the immigration halls.
By continuing to work together as one Changi community and leveraging on our strong tripartite partnerships, I am confident that Changi Airport will be ready to welcome more passengers to Singapore and offer them the distinctive traveller experience that Changi is known for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rooms in HDB Flats Rented Out to Non-Singaporean Tenants and Non-Citizen Quota for These Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development of the approximately 110,000 HDB flats which remain occupied by their owners but have bedrooms rented out (a) what is the total number of tenants in these HDB flats and how many tenants comprise Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans respectively; and (b) what is the rationale for not applying the Non-Citizen Quota for HDB neighbourhoods and blocks to the renting out of bedrooms.
Mr Desmond Lee: As at December 2023, there were about 223,000 registered tenants in the 110,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats that remain occupied by their owners but have bedrooms rented out. Of these registered tenants, 3% are Singaporeans, 56% are Malaysians and the remaining 41% are of other nationalities.
The objective of the Non-Citizen (NC) Quota is to prevent the formation of foreigner enclaves in HDB estates and maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB heartlands. Applications to rent out the whole flat to one or more non-Malaysian non-citizen tenants are subject to the block quota of 11% and the neighbourhood quota of 8%.
The NC Quota does not apply to renting out of bedrooms in flats. Unlike whole flat rentals, owners renting out bedrooms continue to stay in their flats together with their tenants, which has some effect in reducing any sense of foreigner concentration in our HDB estates. Most of these owners are retirees and lower-income households who rely on rental collections to supplement their household income.
We will continue to monitor the profile of tenants renting HDB flats and bedrooms on the open market to ensure that we maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detection of Tuberculosis Clusters in Singapore and Lessons from the Recent Increase in Cases in Bukit Merah","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health regarding the cases of tuberculosis detected in Bukit Merah (a) whether the National Tuberculosis (TB) Programme was effective and timely in helping the Ministry to pick up such potential clusters; (b) whether the current cluster shows signs of the emergence of multi-drug resistant TB; and (c) what are the lessons learnt from this episode which can be used to prevent further spread or future outbreaks of the disease.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The National Tuberculosis (TB) Programme has been using Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) since 2020. WGS has enabled comprehensive analysis of the genetic make-up of the TB bacteria and precise identification of related cases. It is through such techniques that we could identify the Bukit Merah and other clusters in Singapore.
The control of TB does not rely solely on contact tracing and cluster detection. It is important that persons with symptoms of TB, such as prolonged cough for more than three weeks, seek early medical assessment to ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment of TB.
None of the cases in the current cluster at Bukit Merah have any evidence of multi-drug resistant TB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redemption Rate of CDC Vouchers and Ways to Redistribute Unredeemed Vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the percentage of households that fully redeemed their Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers for 2023; and (b) whether the Ministry will study how to effectively redistribute unredeemed CDC Vouchers to benefit the vulnerable.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme 2023 is part of the Government’s continuing efforts to help Singaporean households cope with their daily expenses and to support heartland merchants and hawkers. It forms a part of the wider Assurance Package that seeks to cushion the impact of additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the $1.5 billion Support Package announced in October 2022 to provide additional relief for cost of living for all eligible Singaporean households.
The CDC Vouchers Scheme 2023, which ended on 31 December 2023, saw 97.7% of 1.27 million Singaporean households, claim their CDC Vouchers. This includes newly-formed households claiming their CDC Vouchers for the first time. This marked the highest number and percentage of vouchers claimed compared to previous tranches. Of the vouchers claimed, more than $360 million, or 96.5%, was spent at participating hawkers, heartland merchants and supermarkets.
To build caring and inclusive communities, it was announced in December 2022 that Singaporean households had the option to donate their unused 2021 and 2022 CDC vouchers to a list of participating charities. These charities support diverse causes such as animal welfare, arts and heritage, children and youth, environment, migrant community, persons with disability and more.
At the end of the donation exercise on 31 January 2023, almost 10,000 Singaporean households had donated close to $1.2 million worth of CDC Vouchers 2021 and 2022 to 245 participating charities. This is testament to the generosity of Singaporeans, uplifting one another in challenging times.
It was announced in November last year that Singaporean households can continue to help the vulnerable by donating their unused CDC Vouchers 2023 to participating charity organisations from 1 December 2023 to 31 January 2024. Their contributions will make a tangible and positive difference for the various causes and beneficiaries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Separate Confinement Facility and Programme for Incarcerated Adults with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will set up a separate confinement facility and programme for adults with special needs such as intellectual challenges or autism who are incarcerated to ensure their safety and better outcomes upon their return to the community.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) does not have a separate housing facility for inmates with intellectual disabilities or autism, as there are very few of such inmates. However, SPS does tailor the management of such inmates to meet their special needs. For example, SPS officers keep an eye on them and watch out for their safety by conducting periodic checks to ensure that they are not being abused by others. SPS also modifies the content and delivery of rehabilitation services and programmes for them.
In addition, SPS partners social service and community agencies to provide specialised reintegration support. For example, the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore’s Community Forensic Service provides case management support to inmates who are being released, on family, employment and financial matters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Childcare Leave for Parents to Match Additional Number of Preschool Holidays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view that preschools will have two additional days of holidays from 2024, whether the Ministry will consider increasing the childcare leave for parents by two more days.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member is mistaken that there are two additional days of preschool closures from 2024. Previously, all preschools were allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays. Starting from 2024, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has renamed the six closure days as Development Days and designated two days – Teachers’ Day and Children’s Day – as preschool holidays as part of the ongoing efforts to improve educators’ working conditions. In other words, there has been a net increase of 0.5 days of pre-school closure.
At present, each working parent whose youngest child is below seven years old already enjoys six days of paid Childcare Leave per year. Hence, both working parents would have a total of 12 days of Childcare leave to tap on for preschool closure days, on top of their annual leave provisions.
Beyond legislated leave, it is more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment to help parents manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities, such as through providing flexible work arrangements. This is already happening, through the efforts of the tripartite partners, and we expect such practices to become more widespread.
Following the Forward SG exercise, we continue to work closely with the Tripartite Partners to promote family-friendly workplace practices to better support working parents in their caregiving needs. With strong support at the workplaces and in the community, we will build a Singapore Made For Families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of China's Demarches In Reaction to Singapore's Congratulatory Message to Taiwan's Newly-elected President on Bilateral Relations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the demarches made by China to Singapore in response to Singapore’s congratulatory message to Taiwan’s new President will affect (i) Singapore’s relationship with China and (ii) Singapore’s \"One China\" policy.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore was approached by the Chinese and we reiterated our longstanding approach and \"One China\" policy. Our strong and deep relations with China have not been affected, and our engagements with China have proceeded apace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Benefits of Spacing Out BTO Launches and Reducing Number of Sale of Balance Flat Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for National Development (a) how will HDB's move to space out BTO launches and reduce the number of Sale of Balance Flats exercises benefit applicants; and (b) what comprehensive monitoring measures is the Ministry employing to assess the impact of this policy change on the entire housing landscape, especially the resale market, in the initial stages.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the last three years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has ramped up the Build-To-Order (BTO) flat supply and is on track to launch 100,000 flats from 2021 to 2025. We plan to launch about 19,600 BTO flats this year. This commitment remains unchanged, regardless of the number of launches in a year.
With the same number of BTO flats on offer, spread across three launches instead of four, homebuyers can look forward to a larger housing supply and a wider range of flat options at each BTO exercise. They may also face less competition and have a higher chance of success in securing a flat that meets their budget and needs. Moreover, spacing out the BTO launches will provide applicants with greater certainty, as it reduces the extent of overlap between flat selection exercises.
As the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercise consists of unsold flats from previous BTO exercises, the total yearly supply is much lower than BTO flats. However, due to the shorter waiting time of SBF flats, demand for SBF flats tends to be very high. By holding one SBF exercise a year, HDB can consolidate supply and offer homebuyers more options at each sales exercise, with a higher chance of success.
To help home buyers, especially first-timers, move into their new homes and settle down quickly, HDB will launch about 2,800 BTO flats with shorter waiting time of less than three years, this year. HDB will also re-calibrate its building programme so that over time, such flats would form a larger proportion of BTO flat supply where possible. HDB will continue to closely monitor a range of different indicators, such as resale price levels and BTO flat application rates, to ensure that the public housing market remains stable and sustainable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vulnerable Elderly with Gambling Predispositions Purchasing Cheap Membership into Private Clubs with Jackpot Machines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) can consider investigating cases of vulnerable elderly persons with gambling predispositions being allowed to purchase relatively cheap membership into private clubs purely with a view to gain access to the jackpot machines there; and (b) whether GRA can consider regularly auditing and assessing the responsible gaming standards of private clubs with jackpot machines.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Gambling Control Act, a club that wishes to operate a gaming machine room, including a room with jackpot machines, is required to obtain a licence from the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA).
Clubs decide on the qualifying criteria of their memberships through their own rules and by-laws. GRA does not regulate the membership criteria.
Notwithstanding, GRA exercises regulatory oversight of the gambling activities, and conducts onsite inspections to ensure compliance with its requirements.
For instance, persons who do not have a membership term of at least one year are not allowed to enter the gaming machine room. Gaming machine room operators are also required to prominently display responsible gambling materials and the National Council on Problem Gambling’s helpline in the gaming machine room, and render assistance to individuals who show signs of problem gambling, or who enquire about self-exclusion.
In addition, financially vulnerable individuals are excluded by law from gaming machine rooms. These include undischarged bankrupts, individuals on Government social assistance and legal aid schemes, as well as tenants and occupiers of the Housing Development Board Public Rental Scheme. Individuals with self-exclusion, third party exclusion or family exclusion orders are also barred from gaming machine rooms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students Placed in Secondary Schools under DSA Scheme and Talent Areas Covered under Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of students who have been admitted into secondary schools under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme in the last five years; (b) whether there are DSA talent areas that are more popular than others; (c) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the total number of places under the DSA scheme in secondary schools; and (d) whether the DSA talent areas can be expanded to allow more diversity in DSA admissions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The number of students admitted via the Direct School Admission (DSA) for secondary schools scheme has increased from about 3,500 students in 2019 to about 4,400 students in 2023. As a proportion of the Primary 6 cohort, the number of students admitted via DSA has increased from around 9% to around 11% respectively.
There are sufficient DSA places for eligible students to enrol across the school landscape. Currently, we cater DSA places for about 20% of each cohort, or about 8,000 places in 2023. There is no need to expand the number of DSA places at this point.
Around one-third of applications are under the Sports and Games talent category, and a quarter are for the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) category. The remaining applications are spread across Leadership and Uniformed Groups, Performing Arts, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Languages and Humanities, and Visual Arts, Design and Media.
Over the years, schools have expanded their DSA selection processes to recognise diverse strengths, and take into consideration potential, interest, character, resilience and drive. The Ministry of Education will continue to work with schools to ensure that the DSA talent categories are sufficiently varied, to cater to the diverse interests, talents and strengths of our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Neighbourhood Centres Selected for Revitalisation of Shops Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB neighbourhood centres have been selected for Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme after the Housing and Development Act 1959 has been amended in January 2023; and (b) whether the Ministry will increase the budget for ROS given that the construction cost has increased significantly in the last one year.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB is currently finalising the selection of sites for the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) Batch 8 that opened in November 2023 for shortlisted sites, in consultation with the relevant Merchant Associations (MAs). The relevant Town Councils and MAs will be informed of the results by March 2024.
There are currently no plans to increase the ROS budget. In 2023, we increased HDB’s co-payment share for the main ROS upgrading cost from 70% to 85% to reduce the co-payment borne by shop owners from 20% to 5%. We also introduced additional funding support for optional works at the shopfront, for example installation of vertical blinds. We will continue to monitor the situation and review our schemes as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Number of Women and Men Who Have Undergone Fertility Screening at Public and Private Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider tracking the number of women and men who have undergone fertility screening at both public and private hospitals; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) monitors the data, including breakdown between men and women, for nationally recommended health screening. But we have no plans to do for fertility screening. Nationally recommended screening are done mostly for chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol and some cancers, because evidence supports screening of the general population for early detection and intervention to prevent disease progression. It is therefore important that MOH tracks screening participation to inform screening policies.
On the other hand, fertility assessments are individualised to the couple, depending on their specific circumstances. For many couples, fertility issues are mainly due to their age. There is no evidence to support fertility for the general population.
Hence, couples should seek medical advice from polyclinics, general practitioners or fertility specialists if the woman is below 35 years old and have tried to conceive for a year, or if the woman is above 35 years old and have tried to conceive for six months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Remove Household Income Eligibility Criterion for Silver Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether household income can be removed as an eligibility criterion for the Silver Support Scheme so that an applicant does not have to move out from his child's home to be eligible for the scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support in their retirement. It is not meant to be a universal support scheme. The household monthly income per person is indicative of the level of household support and remains a relevant consideration in ensuring the Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who need it the most.
We review the Silver Support Scheme regularly. The scheme was last enhanced in 2021, when we raised the qualifying threshold for the household monthly income per person from $1,100 to $1,800. This enabled more seniors, some of whom do live together with their children, to qualify for Silver Support.
As announced by Prime Minister Lee at National Day Rally 2023, the Government will be making another round of enhancements to the Silver Support Scheme. Taken together with the Majulah Package and upcoming enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, these measures will help seniors to meet their basic retirement needs, with greater support going to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. More details will be announced at this year’s Budget and Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Methods for Determining Annual Value of Properties When Faced with Dearth of Comparable Rental Evidence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether IRAS will review the methods used to determine the annual value of properties for which there is a dearth of comparable rental evidence; (b) how many properties in Singapore have had their annual values increased by more than 20% from the preceding year; and (c) whether the property taxes on owner-occupiers of such properties can be mitigated since they are not deriving any rental revenue. \n\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: This question will be answered in the reply to Mr Pritam Singh’s Parliamentary Question filed for the Sitting on or after 6 February 2024. [Please refer to \"Expected Additional Property Tax Collections Following November 2023 Announcement of Increase\", Official Report, 6 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 121, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternatives to Public Rental Flats for Urgent Cases during Waiting Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development where applicants for flats under the Public Rental Scheme have circumstances that warrant urgent accommodation, what alternatives to public rental flats can the Ministry provide during their waiting time for allocation of a rental flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: For approved applicants under the Public Rental Scheme, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will expedite flat allocations for those with urgent housing needs, such as those who have medical conditions or are facing other exceptional circumstances.
Applicants who require interim accommodation while waiting for their public rental flat may approach Family Service Centres or Social Service Offices for a referral to one of six Transitional Shelters funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development. These shelters provide temporary accommodation and onsite social work intervention. Persons in urgent need of accommodation can also call the MSF Hotline (1800-111-2222) for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Estate Planning and Funeral and Afterlife Arrangements for Singaporeans without Dependants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what assistance is available to Singaporeans without dependants or with only distant dependants for (i) estate planning (ii) pre-funeral planning and (iii) funeral and afterlife arrangements; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending financial assistance to lower-income families to alleviate the financial impact of the above on such families.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Any Singaporean can use My Legacy@LifeSG, to get all the necessary information for end-of-life planning. The portal covers options such as the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), Advance Care Planning (ACP), CPF nomination, will-making, and documentation of funeral wishes. There is also information on handling post-death matters, such as how one’s estate will be distributed under the Intestate Succession Act or Muslim inheritance laws. Additionally, Singaporeans can visit one of the seven ServiceSG Centres located islandwide for guided assistance through pre-planning services such as making an LPA.
Bereaved low-income families that need financial support for funeral expenses may approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs), which will direct them to relevant community support. For example, funeral companies and community partners offer pro bono funeral services to individuals and families that are unable to afford funerals. There are also charities that can support funeral services of those with no dependants or who are from low-income households. Bereaved family members of ComCare Long-Term Assistance beneficiaries may also receive support with funeral expenses from SSOs.
61 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many public recreational facilities in HDB estates have been closed due to complaints in the past three years; (b) how is Ministry engaging the community to promote a more considerate use of shared recreational spaces; and (c) what measures are there to address persistent disruptive behaviour by inconsiderate users as well as unreasonable demands by complainants.
Mr Desmond Lee: Common spaces in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, including recreational facilities like seating areas, game courts and pavilions, are managed and maintained by the Town Councils (TCs). In the past three years, there have been 27 instances in which TCs have temporarily closed recreational facilities or restricted their opening hours due to feedback from residents on disamenities such as noise nuisance.
When TCs encounter persistent disruptive behaviour by inconsiderate users of recreational facilities, TCs would typically put up advisories at the facilities to educate these users. If the misuse persists, TCs would seek the assistance of grassroots leaders to jointly advise these users. As a last resort, TCs may restrict the use of the facilities at specific hours, by adjusting the timing of the lighting at the facilities or locking up the facilities at night. TCs may also seek the assistance of the Singapore Police Force and other relevant Government agencies such as the National Parks Board and National Environment Agency, if inconsiderate users persist with their disruptive behaviour.
To encourage considerate use of common spaces, TCs have put up posters and published educational content on social media platforms and Digital Display Panels. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the People’s Association, the Singapore Kindness Movement, HDB and the Municipal Services Office also promote neighbourliness through various community events, campaigns and outreach.
We encourage all members of the public to be considerate when using shared facilities in our estates. Our shared public spaces play a pivotal role in bringing residents from all walks of life together, and thus, help to build closer neighbourly ties. We should be mindful that there are different needs from various groups in our community. We need to adopt a give-and-take spirit and be willing to accommodate the needs of others, to build a more harmonious and inclusive community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation for Seniors Engaged by Social and Community Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in recognition of the importance of dignified, sustainable and employability of our ageing demographics, whether the Government will consider establishing a framework on paid volunteering work that will guide the provision of subsistence compensation to robust seniors who are engaged by social and community organisations, such as active ageing centres, to support their operations.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government works with various partners to enable seniors to stay active, engage with and contribute to the community through volunteering. This includes efforts to:
(a) Engage seniors at the workplace and in the community to encourage them to volunteer; and
(b) Build the capabilities of organisations hosting volunteers to engage senior volunteers well, from volunteer training and development to volunteer recognition and appreciation.
We do not have a framework to mandate or institutionalise the provision of \"subsistence compensation\" to volunteers, seniors or otherwise, when they undertake volunteer work. However, some volunteer host organisations do help to defray the cost of meals and transport that volunteers may have incurred whilst volunteering.
There are also initiatives to promote active ageing through micro-jobs for seniors. For instance, the Centre for Seniors has worked with the Agency for Integrated Care and Thye Hua Kwan Moral Charities on a micro-job scheme1, where seniors receive a small allowance for work done such as delivering food, organising programmes and outings, and providing medication reminders in person to frail seniors living in the community.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth will continue to work with all partners to promote volunteerism and active ageing among seniors. Volunteerism is a calling and we hope to instil a volunteerism spirit in all Singaporeans, to reflect a shared sense of mutual responsibility to all Singaporeans. We do not, at this stage, intend to institute a framework to mandate or institutionalise the provision of allowances for volunteering.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The scheme has been rolled out at four Lions Befrienders’ Active Ageing Centres and 11 Thye Hua Kwan Moral Charities’ Active Ageing Centres."],"footNoteQuestions":["63"],"questionNo":"63"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Retired Home Team Officers Transitioned to New Careers and Top Five Industries They Have Been Placed Into","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many retired officers have the law enforcement agencies (Home Team) helped to transition to new careers in the last five years; (b) what are the top five industries and jobs that these officers have transitioned to; and (c) what are the future plans to enhance the career transition for retiring officers.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the last five years, an average of 135 uniformed officers retired each year and 36% of them were re-employed by the Home Team. Another 40% were not re-employed but assisted to transition to new careers. Overall, our surveys show that 83% of retirees who were seeking a second career outside the Home Team secured employment within a year.
The top five industries that retired officers have transitioned to are the Security, Public Service, Healthcare, Land Transport and Logistics sectors. Examples of the jobs taken up by our retirees are security assessor, firearms instructor, enforcement officer, admin manager and operations executive.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is committed to supporting our uniformed officers’ career transition. We set up the Home Team Career Transition Office in 2016 to prepare and facilitate the career transition of retiring uniformed officers.
We have a structured five-year career transition programme that focuses on preparing our officers psychologically for transition, supporting their retraining and development, as well as facilitating their job search. Some key initiatives include:
(a) Dedicated days off for training and the provision of training subsidies for officers to attend upskilling courses to enhance their employability when they retire;
(b) Facilitated secondments or job attachments with potential employers;
(c) One-on-one career coaching sessions; and
(d) A career transition resource portal that provides updated information on job opportunities, career workshops and networking events with prospective employers.
We plan to further enhance our support in three areas:
(a) Provide every retiring officer with a personalised career guide that contains recommendations on courses and certification programmes that match their interests and skills. This was piloted in 2023 and will be fully rolled out this year.
(b) Develop more career pathways for our officers by developing new partnerships under the SkillsFuture train-and-place programmes. For instance, we are piloting a Facility and Operations Management Programme with Singapore Polytechnic in February 2024 for 17 officers.
(c) Enhance job prospects and opportunities for our officers by strengthening our engagement with alumni and employer networks to provide job referrals and introductions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make Mediation between Disputing Neighbours Mandatory Given Success Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Law in view that less than 30% of applications at the Community Mediation Centre involving disputes between neighbours had proceeded to mediation in the last three years and the high success rate of the amicable resolution of more than 80% of such mediated cases, whether the Ministry will consider making such mediation compulsory upon an application to reduce any long-drawn or escalated disputes between neighbours.
Mr K Shanmugam: To further strengthen the community’s capacity to resolve disputes, the Ministry of Law, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth are looking at mandating community mediation for certain categories of cases, as part of our review of the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF).
For instance, frontline officers could mandate mediation for certain types of community disputes. Long-drawn or escalated disputes between neighbours may fall under this category.
We are also looking at mandating re-mediation for cases where voluntary mediation was previously attempted and parties arrived at an amicable resolution, but the dispute resurfaces later. With the history of an amicable resolution through mediation, there is value in mandating mediation for such cases.
Some concerns about mandatory mediation have been raised during public engagement on the CDMF. This includes the risk of potential retaliation, and abuse by those insisting on mediation without genuine intent to resolve the dispute. The Government is studying the feedback and ways to address the concerns. More details on the proposals to introduce mandatory mediation for suitable cases will be shared in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quantitative Noise Threshold in Decibels to Help in Assessment of Egregious Cases of Neighbourhood Noise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will implement the recommendation by the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise on a quantitative noise threshold in the form of decibels to help in the assessment of egregious cases of neighbourhood noise.
Mr Desmond Lee: The review on whether to establish a residential noise threshold is ongoing. The Municipal Services Office is partnering researchers from the Nanyang Technological University to determine if noise thresholds adopted elsewhere are relevant to the Singapore context and, if so, how they could be applied practically in regulation and dispute resolution.
As I have previously updated the House, we plan to complete this review 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":"Debarment of Vendors Involved in Corruption Investigations from Future Government Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether individuals and contractors who are currently involved in corruption investigations or convicted on corruption charges involving Government officials will (i) be debarred from future Government contracts and (ii) have existing Government contracts modified or cancelled; and (b) what is the framework for making such determinations.\n\n
Mr Lawrence Wong: Individuals convicted of corruption involving a public officer, in connection with a Government contract, will be debarred from being awarded new Government procurement contracts for a period of time. The debarment may also be extended to companies or businesses on which the convicted individuals serve as directors, partners or sole proprietors. The framework for debarment from Government contracts is published and available on the GeBIZ website.
Individuals under investigation are generally not debarred if the individual has not been convicted yet, as the determination of whether an offence has been committed would usually not be complete. Agencies can however take this into consideration, where relevant, as part of their evaluation of competing bids. For example, if the agency assesses that the contractor does not have the necessary controls in place to ensure that it can perform the contract while under investigation or facing criminal proceedings, this would be a relevant factor in scoring.
During the debarment period, for contracts which have yet to be awarded, Government agencies will not consider debarred persons for the award.
For existing contracts, where the contractor, any person employed by the contractor or any person acting on behalf of the contractor has committed corruption, Government agencies can terminate the contract as provided for under the Government’s standard conditions of our procurement contracts. This is considered on a case-by-case basis to avoid adversely affecting delivery of goods or services where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Exemption of Carpentry Works, Electrical Wiring Installation, Overlaying of Tiles and Other Such Works from Need to Obtain Renovation Permits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can review its current policy of excluding carpentry works, steel works, installation of electrical wiring, overlaying of tiles and other similar works from the need to obtain renovation permits with a view to require permits to be applied for all works as long as such works are noise- and dust-generating and expected to be carried out for a significant period of time.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners are required to engage a renovation contractor listed in the Housing and Development Board (HDB)’s Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC) and to obtain a renovation permit for renovation works that affect the structural integrity of the building or pose public safety concerns, such as the demolition of walls and the replacement of windows. For works which are less disruptive and do not pose potential public safety concerns, such as overlaying of floor tiles, installation of electrical wirings or carpentry works, HDB does not require flat owners or their appointed DRC contractors to obtain permits. The noise arising from these works is generally more transient in nature.
Nonetheless, HDB has put in place certain measures to mitigate the potential dis-amenities arising from renovation works. For instance, DRC contractors are required to inform households within a radius of two flats of the unit being renovated of the work at least five days in advance, and to limit the conduct of noisy renovation activities, such as drilling works, to between 9.00am to 5.00pm on weekdays, excluding public holidays. These registered contractors are also required to abide by the time restrictions for other renovation works that are non-structural and hence not required to be included as part of their renovation permits. These measures aim to minimise inconvenience and give the immediate neighbours sufficient notice to make adjustments to their routines, where necessary.
It is unavoidable, at times, that there will be some noise and dust generated when renovation works are carried out. Active communication and mutual respect between neighbours are key to resolving these temporary dis-amenities arising from renovation works. In most instances, flat owners and their renovation contractors have been able to take the appropriate measures to reduce inconvenience to their neighbours.
HDB will continue to review its policies regularly, taking into consideration the impact renovation works have on residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ex-offenders Who Secured Employment and Key Challenges Faced","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last five years, what is the proportion of ex-offenders who secured employment; (b) what are the key challenges faced in finding suitable employment for ex-offenders; and (c) what are the Ministry’s plans and support measures to enhance employment opportunities for them.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the last five years, based on Central Provident Fund (CPF) data, an average of 68% of ex-offenders secured employment within six months of release. This figure does not include ex-offenders who took on \"gig\" jobs such as food delivery, freelance work or other jobs that do not make CPF contributions.
Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) engages employers to encourage them to give ex-offenders a second chance, as well as promote inclusive workplace practices. Employers are also supported by the Uplifting Employment Credit, which provides wage offsets of up to $600 for each ex-offender that they hire, for the first nine months of employment. These initiatives have seen some success as more employers have approached YRSG to explore hiring of ex-offenders.
To improve the employability of ex-offenders, YRSG works closely with the Singapore Prison Service to provide inmates with training and skills upgrading during their incarceration and supervision period in the community. These include the TAP and Grow initiative where YRSG works with industry partners to train inmates and help them secure employment in the Precision Engineering, Media, Logistics and Food Services sectors.
To help ex-offenders stay on the job, YRSG also provides career retention support, where career coaches support ex-offenders at work for up to 12 months after release.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration and Closure of Social Enterprises in Recent Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the last three years, whether the Ministry has data on (i) the number of new social enterprises that have been registered with the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise (raiSE) (ii) the number of social enterprises that have been closed and deregistered and (iii) the number of social enterprises that have been deregistered due to financial hardship to sustain the social enterprises.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise (raiSE) is a membership body. Social enterprises are not required to be a raiSE member. The number of new social enterprises (SEs) registered with raiSE each year from FY2020 to FY2022 were around 130, 110 and 70 respectively.
Based on a check with ACRA, around 60 SEs that were formerly raiSE members have deregistered and closed over the past three years, SEs are not required to provide reasons for their deregistration.
I would like to add that a vibrant social enterprise ecosystem like any enterprise entails both a healthy number of entrants, as well as a healthy number of exits. This is how the talent and efforts of the ecosystem can be directed towards the most impactful interventions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Ventilation Assessment to All Dormitory Types and Locations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in assessing ventilation in migrant worker dormitories using carbon dioxide measurements as a proxy (a) whether the Ministry will consider taking measurements in separate locations, including workers’ sleeping rooms; and (b) whether the Ministry will include all types of dormitories, such as Construction Temporary Quarters and Factory-Converted Dormitories.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: \t As mentioned in previous replies to the House, the study on ventilation conducted by the National Environment Agency and the Ministry of Manpower in 2021 was once-off and there are currently no plans to conduct another study. If we do conduct another study, we will consider the suggestions of the Member.
72 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the monthly per capita household income (PCHI) is one of the criteria for admission into Government-funded nursing homes; (b) in the past year, how many applicants for places in such nursing homes have been rejected because their PCHI exceeded $2,800; (c) what has been the median PCHI of such applicants who have been rejected; and (d) whether the Ministry can consider increasing the PCHI ceiling for admission into such nursing homes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Government-funded nursing homes do not determine admissions based on the patients’ Monthly Per Capita Household Income. They admit patients with care needs as long as there are available beds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Retirement Age Employees Securing Re-employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the last five years, how many workers who have reached retirement age managed to secure re-employment until the re-employment age limit of 68 years old; and (b) what are the Ministry’s plans to enhance the employability and availability of suitable jobs for these older workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2017 and 2021, about 97% of eligible resident employees who wished to continue working were offered and accepted re-employment after reaching retirement age.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is working with employers to increase the availability of suitable jobs and working directly with our senior workers to help them remain employable.
Re-employment is a key thrust of our strategy to support senior employment. Employers must offer re-employment to eligible senior workers so that those willing and able to work can continue working beyond retirement age. The statutory retirement and re-employment ages will be progressively raised to 65 and 70 by 2030.
Recognising that some seniors may wish to work in jobs that are of lower intensity or with greater flexibility, MOM incentivises employers to offer jobs tailored to these needs through the Part-Time Re-employment Grant (PTRG). Employers may also tap on grants such as the Support for Job Redesign and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG-JR) to redesign jobs and workplaces to be more age-friendly.
MOM is also collaborating with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to equip firms through the Company Training Committees to redesign jobs and carry out structured career planning such that the workforce, senior workers included, can continue to keep pace with business transformation through training.
To improve the employability of our senior workers, we support them to upskill and reskill. We encourage them to do so earlier and continuously throughout their careers so that they stay relevant to the workforce. For instance, the Career Conversion Programmes help mid-career workers to reskill and transit into jobs or sectors with good prospects. Eligible senior workers can undergo training with up to 90% salary and course fee support.
With ageing and slowing workforce growth, it is imperative that we maximise the potential of our silver workforce. We hope that more employers can build more inclusive and age-friendly workplaces and our seniors can embrace ageing and stay economically active.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Safeguarding Framework to Ensure Safety and Security Measures in Childcare Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development as part of the proposed review of safety and security measures in the early childhood sector, whether the Ministry is considering working with the sector to develop a Child Safeguarding Framework.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Assoc Prof Razwana raised the idea of a new child safeguarding framework last September and I had explained that there is already a multi-layered system of safeguards. There are policies and requirements in the Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Act and Regulations, as well as a Code of Practice that it issues to the preschool sector. The issue is not that there is insufficient policies or frameworks, but to ensure that this is implemented down to every early childhood educator.
Hence, ECDA is focusing on strengthening the Regulations and Code of Practice. We are currently reviewing penalty provisions for errant operators with a view to enhancing them. We are also strengthening the training curriculum so that educators are better equipped to ensure child safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Weekly Hour Limit for Full-time Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the current limit of 12 hours of work a day and (ii) having a weekly work hour limit, for full-time salaried taxi drivers.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As point-to-point drivers are self-employed individuals, each driver will decide on his or her own working hours.
The tripartite Workplace Safety and Health Council has a set of guidelines which encourage drivers, including taxi and private hire car drivers, to limit their shifts to no more than 12 hours.
There is a small group of full-time salaried taxi drivers under ComfortDelGro’s employee-driver scheme. As these drivers are covered under the Employment Act, their contractual hours of work are up to an average of 44 hours a week over any continuous three weeks, subject to a daily limit of 12 hours and excluding overtime hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demand Projections for Executive Condominiums and Land Supply for Such Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is projecting an increase in demand for HDB Executive Condominiums (EC); and (b) if not, why is the Ministry not projecting such an increase and not increasing the supply of Government Land Sales for the development of EC projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Housing and Development Board work closely to plan the supply and development of housing in Singapore. These plans ensure a good mix of public and private housing, including Executive Condominiums (ECs), as well as a wide range of supporting amenities to serve the needs of residents. In planning for the annual supply of ECs, the Government takes into consideration multiple factors, such as the existing unsold stock, take-up rate of new EC units, and prevailing market sentiment, among others.
The supply of ECs made available through the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme has steadily increased from 2021 to 2023. In 2023, the Government launched two sites on the Confirmed List yielding about 1,260 EC units, making it the largest supply in the last three years. For the 1H 2024 GLS Programme, there is one EC site on the Confirmed List yielding about 710 EC units. There are also two EC sites on the Reserve List yielding about 855 EC units, which developers can initiate for development if they assess that there is demand.
The Government will continue to observe economic and property conditions closely and adjust the supply of future GLS Programmes, including EC sites, as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports Lodged by Persons Whose Addresses Have Been Used in Purchase of Goods Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the past three years, how many reports have been lodged by persons whose addresses have been used by scammers for the purpose of inducing victims of scams to collect goods that they have been cheated into purchasing from the said addresses; (b) what is the offence classification of such cases and whether the Police investigates such cases; and (c) what measures can be taken to provide assistance to such persons.
Mr K Shanmugam: Typically, scam victims mention a falsely declared but genuine address when making a police report. The Police do not specifically track this particular modus operandi. The Police also do not track the number of reports lodged by homeowners whose addresses have been misused by scammers.
Regardless of who files the report, depending on the facts of the case, the scammers may be liable for a cheating offence under section 420 of the Penal Code.
Where a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate the case if there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence was committed. The Police will also work with the relevant online platforms to remove suspected scam content, as well as disable the e-commerce and social media accounts involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reporting by Financial Institutions on Amounts Lost in Scams and Breakdown of Losses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether financial institutions are required to report to the Monetary Authority of Singapore or any other authorities the amounts lost to scams by their customers; and (b) if so, what have been the amounts lost in 2022 and 2023 with breakdowns by financial institutions.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The total amount lost to scams can be obtained from the bi-annual scam statistics published by the Singapore Police Force, which are derived from police reports filed by victims. There is no regulatory requirement for financial institutions to report the amounts lost by their customers to scams, to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) or other authorities, as MAS has access to the data needed for supervision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Encourage Firms to Implement Additional Paternity Leave and Ensuring Compliance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the strategies being adopted to encourage firms to implement the additional two weeks of paternity leave that are given on a voluntary basis by employers; and (b) how does the Government plan to monitor and ensure compliance with this policy once it becomes mandatory.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Paternal involvement in child-raising at an early stage, is increasingly being recognised as important for the well-being of the child and the family. To encourage shared parental responsibility and have fathers be more involved in child-raising, the Government has doubled the Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) – from two weeks to four weeks since 1 January 2024. The additional two weeks are currently provided on a voluntary basis. This is to give employers some time to adjust, taking into consideration the economic conditions, operational and manpower challenges faced by some employers. Employers who are ready to and voluntarily grant the additional two weeks of leave will be reimbursed by the Government, just as they are for the mandatory first two weeks.
As signalled by Deputy Prime Minister Wong last year, we aim to make the additional two weeks of GPPL mandatory as soon as possible. We encourage employers who have not yet done so, to make the most of this voluntary period to start adjusting their HR practices to accommodate the additional two weeks of paternity leave – so that they will be ready and can transition seamlessly once it is made mandatory.
As with other legislated parental leave provisions, failure to grant mandatory paternity leave to an employee – who is entitled to and has requested such leave – is an offence and subjected to the penalties, as laid out in the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA). Employees who encounter disputes with their employers relating to their GPPL entitlements can lodge a claim at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management.
We are working with employers to encourage them to implement family-friendly workplace practices, including supporting fathers to take paternity leave. For example, in June last year, we worked with the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) to discuss how employers can be family-friendly while staying competitive and productive.
We will continue to work closely with Tripartite Partners and community partners, such as Families for Life Council and Centre for Fathering (CFF), to encourage employers to foster a progressive and supportive workplace culture for fathers. The CFF engages companies to promote the importance of supporting fathers in managing work and family and greater paternal involvement in child-raising. CFF's Great Companies for Dads Award, also recognises companies that have put in place family-friendly policies and initiatives and can inspire others to do so too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Savings Accounts Earning Base Interest Rate Versus Higher Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore has data on the proportion, by dollar amounts of deposits, of (i) savings accounts that earn the current base interest rate of 0.05% per annum and (ii) savings accounts that earn more than the base interest rate; and (b) for savings accounts that earn more than the base interest rate, what is effective interest rate earned in 2023 at major local banks.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not collect the requested data.
As stated in the response to a Parliamentary Question in January this year, deposit rates are set competitively in the market. Apart from basic savings accounts, consumers can choose from a range of other savings and fixed deposit products – with higher interest rates – offered by banks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Appeals from Singles for Waiver of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the last two years, what is the number of appeals received from Singaporean singles to waive the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty on the basis that they are switching homes; and (b) how many of such appeals have been successful and what are the reasons for the successful appeals.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In 2022 and 2023, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) received a total of 23 appeals from singles purchasing a replacement private property for remission of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty.
Each case is considered carefully and holistically, based on its facts and circumstances. The majority of these appeals were approved as they involved extenuating personal circumstances, such as a need to purchase a replacement property for themselves and their child shortly after their spouse's demise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Property Tax Rebate for Owner-Occupied Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider providing continued rebates in property taxes for owner-occupied private properties for the next five years beyond the once-off rebates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: This question will be answered in the reply to Mr Pritam Singh's Parliamentary Question filed for the Sitting on or after 6 February 2024. [Please refer to \"Expected Additional Property Tax Collections Following November 2023 Announcement of Increase\", Official Report, 6 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 121, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Conflict Escalation in Yemen and Impact on Singapore's Participation in Defensive Coalition in Red Sea","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the risk of conflict escalation from the recent US strikes on Houthi sites in Yemen; (b) how will this impact Singapore's further participation in the defensive coalition under Operation Prosperity Guardian in the Red Sea; and (c) whether Singapore's role will be limited to contributing personnel to protect shipping vessels through maritime patrols and information sharing.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) participates in multinational operations, which are consistent with international law and when aligned with our national interests.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2722 – that was adopted on 10 January 2024 – demanded that the Houthis in Yemen immediately cease all attacks on merchant and commercial vessels, which impede global commerce, undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as threaten regional peace and security.
Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG) is a multinational coalition to protect shipping vessels in the Red Sea against security threats. It is in Singapore's interest to be part of such international efforts to ensure that key Sea Lines of Communication, like the Red Sea, remain open and safe for the free flow of trade.
Recently, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have launched several strikes on Houthi sites in Yemen – under a separate operation the US Central Command has called Operation Poseidon Archer. The Combined Task Force 153 and OPG are not linked to the US and UK strikes. Similarly, the SAF was not involved in the US and UK strikes.
We urge the Houthis to stop their unlawful attacks in the Red Sea as demanded in UNSCR 2722 to avoid an escalation of the conflict.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Situation Faced by SAF Team in Egypt and Increasing Singapore's Contribution of Aid to Gaza","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Defence in light of the Singapore Armed Forces' contribution of a two-man medical team to the hospital ship, FS Dixmude, berthed in Egypt to treat casualties received from Gaza (a) whether an update can be provided on the situation faced on the ground by the SAF team; and (b) what are the plans to assess the needs to increase Singapore's contribution of medical expertise or supplies and other humanitarian aid to casualties in Gaza in the near future.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF)'s deployment of a medical team aboard the French Armed Forces' (FAF) FS Dixmude, was part of Singapore's continued efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians.
The SAF deployed a two-man medical team comprising Lieutenant-Colonel (Dr) Nazirul Hannan Abdul Aziz and Military Expert 3 Jimmy Woo Ying Ming, who boarded the FS Dixmude on 18 January 2024. Working together with the FAF and other international partners, they provided medical aid and post-operative nursing care to civilian casualties from Gaza, including oncological and trauma patients with injuries, ranging from amputated limbs, fractures and infections. Our medical team ended their deployment on 27 January 2024, with the departure of the FS Dixmude from Egypt.
The SAF will continue to monitor the situation in the region closely and assess how we can contribute further in humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Mitigate Aircraft Noise at Jurong West Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Defence what measures has RSAF undertaken at Tengah Airbase to mitigate aircraft noise when landing and flying over Jurong West area, taking into consideration that there are more residents working from home, schools in the proximity and families with infants at home.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Local flying training is critical to keep our pilots proficient and to maintain the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF)'s operational readiness to safeguard Singapore's skies. When Paya Lebar Air Base (PLAB) is decommissioned, flights from the existing PLAB will be shifted to the expanded Tengah and Changi Air Bases and some will be moved overseas. The increase in frequency of flights from Tengah Air Base will depend on the RSAF's operations and training needs.
To minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents in the vicinity of our air bases, the RSAF has in place several noise abatement measures. These include, conducting about 50% of RSAF flying training requirements overseas, shifting some of the local flying requirements to simulators, planning for local flying routes away from residential areas where possible and adjusting flying training tempo and hours during school examinations period.
The Ministry of Defence and the RSAF have also worked with Government agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board and the National Environment Agency, on noise mitigating measures for new infrastructure developments in the vicinity of air bases, such as Tengah New Town. Examples of measures adopted for public housing include, thicker window glass for better sound insulation when windows are closed, façade designs with overhangs or canopies to deflect and abate noise transmission and orientating buildings away from the direct line of aircraft flight paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Position on Pending Cases Filed by South Africa with International Court of Justice against Israel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with regard to the pending cases before the International Court of Justice filed against Israel under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (a) what is Singapore's position on the application for provisional measures sought by South Africa; and (b) what are the actions that Singapore will take in terms of foreign and diplomatic relations in light of the contractual obligations of States under Article I of the Convention.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: South Africa filed an application against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 29 December 2023, related to the war in the Gaza Strip. South Africa also requested an indication of provisional measures from the ICJ in its application. The ICJ has not yet arrived at a verdict on the merits of the case, but has issued an order on provisional measures on 26 January 2024.
Singapore is studying the legal implications of the ICJ's order on provisional measures. Orders of the ICJ are generally binding on the litigants. We should let due legal process run its course. Respect for international law, including international humanitarian law, has always been a fundamental principle of Singapore's foreign policy.
At the United Nations, Singapore has voted in favour of resolutions that called for an immediate humanitarian truce or ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages and the urgent and unhindered provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Reported to Police on Prank Calls Directing Attention to Innocent Persons' Addresses and Proposal to Review Laws to Deal with Swatting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each of the past three years, what is the number of swatting cases that have been reported to the Police on prank calls to emergency services to direct attention at a particular address with a view to harass the occupant or a person who has a connection with the property at the address; and (b) whether, having regard to the additional aggravating harassment element in such conduct, there is a need to update the laws to deal with persons engaged in swatting.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police does not track reports of \"swatting\" cases.
Our laws are adequate to deal with persons engaged in swatting. Depending on the facts of a case, a person who engages in swatting may be charged under section 14D of the Miscellaneous Offence (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, for communicating a message that he knows to be false. This person may also be charged under section 268A of the Penal Code, for communicating false information of a harmful thing; or section 182 of the Penal Code, for communicating false information with the intent to cause a public servant to use lawful power to the injury or annoyance of another person. Upon conviction for any of these offences, the person may be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Taken by Traffic Police to Complete Investigations into Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the duration of time taken by the Traffic Police at the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles to complete investigations into traffic accidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police does not track the data that the Member requested. The time taken would depend on many factors, such as the number of vehicles involved and availability of witnesses. Each case could differ significantly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bringing Forward Deadline for Installing Speed Limiters in Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will expedite the deadline for installing speed limiters in lorries in the lower weight category in the interest of public safety; and (b) what targeted assistance options, such as technical support, installation subsidies or awareness campaigns, are being considered to encourage companies and drivers to install speed limiters without undue delay.
Mr K Shanmugam: We share the Member's desire to expedite the installation of speed limiters on lorries. However, suppliers and manufacturers of speed limiters have informed Traffic Police (TP) that only speed limiters compatible with older lorries are available. Therefore, TP requires owners of older lorries to comply sooner, with heavier lorries in two years, as they can cause greater harm in an accident. Lighter lorries must comply in two and a half years. For newer lorries, newer speed limiters are not currently available. Hence, TP gives them a longer timeframe – of up to three and a half years.
TP is working with Authorised Motor Distributors, the Motor Traders Association of Singapore as well as the relevant Government agencies, to encourage lorry owners to install speed limiters on their lorries ahead of the compliance deadline, such as when their vehicles are sent in for regular maintenance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Circumstances Permitting Rental of State Lands to Private Individuals at Below Market Cost","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) other than temporary hawker centres, what other circumstances are state lands allowed to be rented to private individuals at zero cost or below market cost; and (b) what are the justifications for doing so.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government's policy is to charge market rates for the use of state land. The Singapore Land Authority, as the custodian of state land and properties, applies this policy to users of state land under its charge.
Waivers or subsidies for rental of state land, such as for interim uses, are considered only on an exceptional and case-by-case basis. Examples include, non-commercial and non-exclusive public uses, such as the construction and maintenance of public walkways; and where tenants have to relocate temporarily due to reasons beyond their control, such as public works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Product Marketing to Avoid Greenwashing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what steps will the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore take to provide companies with clear guidelines on how to market their products so as to avoid unintentional greenwashing and unfair practices.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) is currently developing a set of guidelines to help companies make fair and accurate claims about the \"green\" credentials of their products. These guidelines will help companies avoid unintentional greenwashing that could amount to unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. CCCS will seek public feedback on the guidelines in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints about Raised Prices Due to GST Increase and Feedback on Businesses Increasing Prices Together","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints received by the Committee Against Profiteering since 1 January 2024 about businesses raising their prices, citing the increase in GST to 9%; (b) whether there has been feedback received about businesses in the same industry raising prices together at the same time; and (c) whether the Ministry will be investigating such cases for potential violations of anti-competition regulations.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) reviews and investigates feedback on unjustified price increases of essential products and services that use the GST increase as an excuse. The CAP has not seen a significant increase in such feedback in January 2024 and has not received allegations of anti-competitive behaviour during this period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trade Associations' Contributions to Achieve Mutual Benefits for Singapore and Johor Businesses Given MOU on Special Economic Zone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on a Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, what is the Ministry's assessment on how trade associations and chambers of commerce from Singapore and Johor can contribute to help both countries achieve the agreed goals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Trade and Industry welcomes inputs and suggestions from Trade Associations and Chambers on the proposed Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ). We have started working with the Singapore Business Federation to plan for an investors forum on the JS-SEZ. Beyond this, we intend to regularly seek industry feedback as discussions on the JS-SEZ progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Level of Participation in Energy Efficiency Grant Programme and Effectiveness of Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current level of participation by businesses in the Energy Efficiency Grant programme; (b) how is the Ministry assessing the effectiveness of this grant in terms of its (i) environmental impact and (ii) economic returns; and (c) whether there is potential for the expansion of this programme to encompass a greater number of enterprises seeking to improve their energy efficiency.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since its introduction in September 2022, Enterprise Singapore has approved nearly 5,000 applications from close to 2,000 companies for the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG). By switching to more energy-efficient equipment, companies can enjoy long-term savings in their electricity bills. This, in turn, helps alleviate cost pressures and improve profitability.
The EEG is currently available to companies in the food services, food manufacturing and retail sectors. We are reviewing the scheme, in response to industry feedback, that the grant could be beneficial to other sectors as well.
Improving energy efficiency and combating climate change requires a concerted whole-of-nation effort. The Government is committed to supporting our companies on this journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Individuals who Peddle Tissue Paper Packs and Support Measures for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the current number of licensed and unlicensed tissue sellers in Singapore; (b) whether any increase in the number of unlicensed tissue sellers has been observed since 2020; (c) what efforts have been made by Government agencies to reach out to unlicensed tissue sellers who are eligible for Government support schemes; and (d) whether any enforcement efforts have been conducted against unlicensed tissue sellers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As of end 2023, there are 28 licensed tissue sellers. We do not track the number of unlicensed tissue sellers.
The Vulnerable-In-Community (VIC) Network, led by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and comprising of Government agencies and community groups, was set up in November 2019. The VIC engages vulnerable individuals, including unlicensed tissue sellers, to find out their needs and link them up for support. Since its inception, the VIC network has reached out to more than 160 individuals and assisted 90 individuals to receive support, such as ComCare or employment assistance. However, a number of the unlicensed tissue sellers reject VIC's offers for help, preferring to continue with their activities. The VIC Network continues to engage them to convince them to consider other options.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) works with MSF to refer unlicensed tissue sellers to the VIC network. SFA may take enforcement action against unlicensed tissue sellers if they persist in operating illegally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Plastic Bag Charge on Habits of Bagging Trash and Purchase of Garbage Bags","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether a survey has been conducted on the impact of the charging for plastic bags at supermarkets in terms of how households bag their trash; (b) whether there has been an increase in the purchase of plastic garbage bags since the implementation of charges for such plastic bags; (c) if not currently tracked, whether this can be done; and (d) what is being done to support and educate households to reduce the use of plastic bags for bagging trash and its alternatives.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since the implementation of the mandatory disposable carrier bag charge on 3 July 2023, our public waste collectors have not observed any changes in households' waste disposal habits. Households have continued to bag their waste before throwing it down the rubbish chutes.
We do not track the sales of trash bags. The National Environment Agency will monitor households' waste disposal habits and review the impact of the disposable carrier bag charge after a full year of implementation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Emergence of Makeshift Smoking Corners to Ensure Public Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) regarding the emergence of makeshift smoking corners in heartland areas, what are the measures being taken to balance the rights and health concerns of non-smokers, particularly those who live in densely populated residential areas; and (b) how does the National Environment Agency plan to manage these smoking corners to ensure public health and safety.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Smoking is prohibited in specified places within residential estates, such as void decks, common corridors and staircases, in order to limit non-smokers' exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Smoking is also prohibited in coffee shops, except at designated smoking corners within these coffee shops. The National Environment Agency has stopped accepting applications for new smoking corners in coffee shops since June 2017 and existing smoking corners at coffee shops will be phased out when the licences of these establishments are terminated or cancelled.
Makeshift smoking points are not prohibited unless they are located in places specified in the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations 2018. However, premises owners should be considerate and ensure that makeshift smoking points in areas they manage do not cause disamenities to the public. We also urge smokers to be socially responsible when smoking at public places and to keep our public spaces clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volumes Handled by Large Commercial and Industrial Food Waste Generators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry measures the amount of food waste from large commercial and industrial food waste generators, including hotels, malls, food manufacturers, central kitchens, food caterers and food storage warehouses; (b) whether the amount of food waste has increased since 2021; (c) what legislative or other measures are in place to reduce the amount of avoidable food waste generated from these sources; and (d) how does the Ministry work with businesses and charities to distribute unexpired food to needy residents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The total amount of food waste generated in 2022 was 813,000 tonnes, close to the 817,000 tonnes in 2021. About 40% of Singapore's total food waste generated was from commercial and industrial sources.
Under the Resource Sustainability Act, large commercial and industrial food waste generators, including hotels, shopping malls, and food manufacturers, will be progressively required – from 2024 – to segregate their food waste for treatment or conversion into useful products and to submit food waste reports annually. The reporting will help raise awareness on the amount of food waste generated and encourage building managers to work with their occupants to minimise food waste.
In collaboration with industry stakeholders, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has published food waste minimisation guidebooks to help the industry reduce food waste across the supply chain. Where there is unsold or excess food that is still suitable for consumption, consumers and food establishments can donate them to food distribution organisations, such as The Food Bank Singapore, Food from the Heart and Willing Hearts. Members of the public may also refer to NEA's website for more information on food distribution organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monthly Rentals Paid by Non-subsidised Hawkers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment for markets and hawker centres managed by NEA, what has been the highest and lowest monthly rents that a non-subsidised hawker has had to pay over the past five years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency rents out market and cooked food stalls through a monthly tender exercise, which is a transparent and fair process, with no minimum bid amount. In the past five years, stallholders have successfully secured stalls at bids from $1 to $8,301 a month. And 95% of the successful tender bids for a stall were less than $3,600 per month.
Regardless of the successful bid amount, the rent that these stallholders pay will be adjusted towards the assessed market rent, which is determined by independent professional valuers, after the initial three-year tenancy period. Since 2019, the median assessed market rentals for non-subsidised market and cooked food stalls have remained constant at about $320 and $1,200 a month respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Annual Operating Cost of Hawker Centres Managed by NEA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment over the past five years and across the 119 markets and hawker centres managed by NEA, what is the average annual operating cost associated with running a hawker centre.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The cost of operating each hawker centre varies, based on factors such as the size of the centre. There are also expenses that are incurred periodically, such as for painting, repair and renovation. A significant part of the costs is funded from the Service and Conservancy Charge (S&CC) and table cleaning fees collected. For a typical centre with about 50 cooked food stalls and 80 market stalls, this amounts to about $40,000 a month, based on median S&CC and cleaning fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Campaign in Reducing Contamination of Recycling Bins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how successful has the Recycle Right Campaign been in reducing contamination in recycling bins.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) launched the Recycle Right Campaign in November 2019 to raise awareness on what can and cannot be recycled, how to incorporate recycling into aspects of daily life and how to avoid contamination of recyclables.
NEA's 2023 survey on household recycling found an assuring trend: 72% of households reported that they recycled their waste materials in 2023, compared to 64% in 2021. In addition, a higher proportion of respondents were aware of common items that can be deposited in the blue recycling bins and recycling chutes. NEA will monitor how the improved awareness of recycling right translates to lower contamination of recyclables over time.
I urge everyone to do their part to recycle right, especially during this festive season when households may be spring cleaning. Only clean and recyclable items should be placed in the blue recycling bins or recycling chutes. Electronic waste should be recycled at designated e-waste collection points and reusable items, such as furniture and clothes, should be donated or disposed of separately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students Handled by Roving and School-based Student Welfare Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the mean and median number of students handled by each of the roving Student Welfare Officers (SWOs); and (b) what is the mean and median number of students handled by each of the school-based SWOs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: On average, each Student Welfare Officer (SWO) based in school supports about 25 students in a year. Each roving SWO works with around 20 students across a number of schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Neuroscience-backed Programmes to Help Students Manage Stress and Uncertainty","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether neuroscience-backed programmes can be introduced in schools to help students understand their thought patterns and learn to manage stress and uncertainty.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our schools' curriculum includes mental health education that teaches students skills to manage stress and conflicts, break negative thinking patterns and navigate uncertainties. This curriculum is developed based on research and evidence-based practices, including an understanding of brain functions and affective neuroscience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Day Activity Centres and Residential Homes for Adult Persons with Autism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current total number of (i) day activity centres and (ii) residential homes respectively, for adult persons with autism; (b) how many adult persons with autism are currently enrolled in such centres and homes; and (c) how many adult persons with autism are currently on waiting lists, awaiting enrolment in (i) day activity centres and (ii) residential homes respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are currently eight day activity centres (DAC) funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) serving adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There are over 300 clients enrolled in these DACs and about 80 referrals pending enrolment. For clients pending enrolment, some are in the process of being assessed by the centres. Where appropriate, SG Enable will guide clients to consider other DACs not specifically catering to autism, but are able to support them.
There are four adult disability homes (ADH) funded by MSF serving adults with ASD. There are about 50 residents with ASD in these ADHs, which have capacity to house about 100 residents. About 20 referrals are pending enrolment, as they are being assessed or the ADH is hiring additional manpower to take in more residents.
MSF regularly reviews the capacity of our funded disability services, including DACs and ADHs, to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. We will share more on our plans to better support persons with disabilities in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Applications for Assistive Technology Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the years from 2019 to 2023, what is the median age of persons with disabilities who have been successful in their Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) applications; and (b) whether the Ministry budgets for the ATF usage based on per capita monthly household income data.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) provides eligible persons with disabilities with a means-tested subsidy of up to 90% of the cost of the required equipment, subject to a lifetime cap of $40,000. The median age of successful ATF applicants from 2019 to 2023, ranged from 51 to 58 years old.
We will continue to help persons with disabilities with genuine needs access assistive devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Patients' Personal and Financial Data Breach in Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in view of the recent incident where a former nurse was charged with stealing patients' bank card details for unauthorised transactions (a) what are the measures in place to protect patients' personal and financial data within healthcare institutions; and (b) what additional steps are being taken to enhance data security protocols and ensure strict compliance to prevent such incidents in the future.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In this incident, the former nurse allegedly obtained banking details of patients under his care through unauthorised access to their phones and, thereafter, committed various offences by using the information obtained. He was dismissed after he was discovered and recently charged in court. To date, there has been no evidence of breach in the hospital's IT systems.
Our public healthcare institutions (PHIs) take a serious view of the security of patients' personal belongings and have in place measures to help ensure their protection. These include the provision of secured storage facilities, the installation of surveillance cameras in public areas and the deployment of trained security personnel, to enhance security within hospital wards. PHIs will not hesitate to take strict disciplinary action against any personnel who illegally access patients' belongings or report them to the police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act to Ensure Provision of Support without Impact on Employability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health whether there will be a review of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act to ensure that those who need care and help are given the necessary help and support without affecting their overall well-being, employment and employability.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health reviews all our legislation regularly, to ensure that they remain adequate to serve the public interest. The Member may wish to give us any specific feedback on the Act's operation.
The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act allows for the admission and detention of any person, who is suffering from a mental disorder and who may be at risk of self-harm or causing harm to others, in a designated psychiatric institution for mandatory psychiatric assessment and treatment.
Patients admitted in accordance with the Act will be supported by a multidisciplinary team comprising of doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and counsellors. Safeguards are in place to ensure the proper care and treatment of the patient in the institution. For instance, regular inspections are conducted by Appointed Visitors, which comprise of lay persons and doctors, who are not staff of the psychiatric institution, to review the care and well-being of the patient.
Upon discharge from the Act, the patient will continue to have regular outpatient appointments and may be followed up by Community Mental Health Teams. The patient will also be supported for reintegration into the community and referred to community-based resources for employment needs – for example, assistance from employment support agencies which provide customised training for jobseekers with mental health conditions and pair jobseekers with suitable employers to ensure a meaningful employment outcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate for Appeals to Waive 15-month Wait-out Period for Private Property Owners Looking to Buy HDB Resale Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of appeals received by HDB to waive the 15-month wait-out period to buy a HDB resale flat after disposing of a private property since the imposition of this rule; (b) what is the number of appeals that are successful; and (c) what are the reasons for allowing the successful appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of the property cooling measures introduced on 30 September 2022 to promote sustainable conditions in the property market, private residential property owners (PPOs) and ex-PPOs need to wait for a period of 15 months after the disposal of their properties, before buying a non-subsidised Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flat. To support seniors' retirement needs, Singapore Citizens who are moving from their private property to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat are exempted from the wait-out period if both spouses are 55 years old and above.
Between 30 September 2022 and 31 December 2023, HDB received about 3,470 appeals. After evaluating each appeal for waiver of the 15-month wait-out period based on the individual merits of each case, HDB acceded to about 850 appeals – or around 25% of appeals received. These were mostly cases involving (a) individuals who provided evidence that they had committed to sell their private residential property, or to buy an HDB resale flat, before 30 September 2022; or (b) those who were in financial difficulties or extenuating circumstances, with no alternative housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Reduced Dependency Ratio Ceiling for Construction Sector on Local SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are impacted by the reduced Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) for the construction sector from 1:7 to 1:5 from January 2024; (b) how much will the reduced DRCs impact the SMEs' project production timeline and cost; and (c) how is the Building and Construction Authority educating owners of construction projects involving these SMEs, to factor into their budget the updated cost due to reduced DRCs so that worker safety is not compromised.
Mr Desmond Lee: Based on Ministry of Manpower data, as of October 2023, most local small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction industry would not be affected by the reduced Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) from 1:7 to 1:5, as they were already operating within the reduced DRC of 1:5.
The Government has implemented various measures over the years to smoothen the industry's transition to the reduced DRC. First, we gave firms almost two years to adjust to the reduced DRC by announcing the move in February 2022.
Second, we mitigated disruption to existing operations, by allowing firms that exceeded the reduced DRC of 1:5 on 1 January 2024 to retain their workers who exceed the firm's DRC limit until their work passes expire. This applied to workers who were hired or had their work passes renewed before 1 January 2024.
Third, we made moves to shift the construction industry towards more productive and less manpower-intensive building methods. For example, we required firms working on all large building projects – that is, projects with a gross floor area of 25,000 square metres and above – to adopt Design for Manufacturing and Assembly technologies from April 2022. This enables the shift of construction activities to offsite, factory-like settings that are safer and more productive. To facilitate the adoption of these technologies, we supported firms with co-funding schemes, like the Productivity Innovation Project.
Taken together, these measures help firms to streamline their processes to operate within the reduced DRC. The Government will continue to partner the construction industry in its transformation journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Rental Households in Toa Payoh Being Relocated Due To Redevelopment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the support measures to assist the over 400 rental households in Toa Payoh that are being relocated for redevelopment purposes; and (b) how do such redevelopments align with community stability and affordable housing.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2021, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) started a relocation exercise involving 414 households living in public rental flats at Blocks 29 and 31 at Lorong 5 Toa Payoh. This exercise was part of the Government's plans to redevelop older estates to provide new and better homes and amenities for Singaporeans.
To facilitate a smooth transition for the affected households, HDB formed a Care Team with representatives from various public agencies and community partners to support the tenants every step of the way. HDB officers also went door-to-door to engage tenants on their rehousing options and benefits; and set up on-site counters and a dedicated hotline to address queries.
HDB's Care Team paid special attention to vulnerable groups, such as seniors, and offered them additional support. For example, volunteers were mobilised to help to move their belongings. HDB also worked with social service agencies to ensure continuity in the residents' care services and social assistance.
To preserve community ties and allow the affected households to continue living in a familiar environment, HDB set aside vacant rental flats nearby for offer as replacement flats. Households were also given the option of choosing any available rental flat across the island. While many moved to flats nearby, some moved to other towns, mostly to be near their family members.
Every household affected by the relocation received $2,500 in rehousing allowance to defray the cost of moving. To support home ownership, for those who were able to buy a flat, HDB offered them a Relocation Grant of $15,000 on top of other housing grants they were eligible for.
All 414 households completed the relocation process by May 2023. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all agencies and community partners who stepped forward to support the households at Blocks 29 and 31 at Lorong 5 Toa Payoh during the relocation exercise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting Method to Score Quality Attributes in Government Infrastructure Tenders So As Not to Disadvantage Local Construction Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development whether the BCA, in determining the quality attributes scoring for public sector project tenders, such as the proposed coastal development tender, can consider revising the requirement for foreign projects in its scoring method since local construction companies which have fewer foreign projects will be placed at default disadvantage when competing against foreign companies in bids for tender.
Mr Desmond Lee: Government procurement is governed by the principles of: (a) transparency; (b) open and fair competition; and (c) value for money. Contracts are awarded to tenderers who are best able to meet the tender requirements and who offer the best value. This is regardless of whether the firm is local or foreign.
For construction tenders with project value of $3 million and above, Government agencies are required to use the Price Quality Method (PQM) to evaluate their tenders. Under the PQM, there is no scoring criterion that requires firms to have completed foreign projects. Firms are scored on their track record of having completed relevant projects – whether local and/or overseas.
While the PQM sets out the standard parameters for the evaluation of public sector construction tenders, Government agencies have the discretion to set additional tender requirements or evaluation criteria to cater to the specific nature of their projects. If the Member has queries or concerns pertaining to a particular project, he may wish to provide the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) with details of the tender so that BCA can follow up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for U-turn Facility to Ease Traffic into Jurong West Jewel BTO","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether the relevant agencies can expedite the setting up of a U-turn facility to ease vehicular traffic into HDB BTO Jurong West Jewel as there is currently no such facility within close proximity.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) will expedite and complete the U-turn facility along Upper Jurong Road by the third quarter of 2024. When completed, it will allow Jurong West Jewel residents to enter the development more conveniently from the westbound side of Upper Jurong Road. In the meantime, residents may continue to enter the development from the eastbound side of Upper Jurong Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Revision to Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoardings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for National Development when is the Urban Redevelopment Authority's set of Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoardings expected to be finalised and made publicly available.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority will publish the Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoarding later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Complaints of Nuisance against Tenants in Neighbouring HDB Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year of the last five years, what is the average number of complaints of nuisance against tenants of neighbouring units in HDB estates; (b) of these, what is the average number which involves foreign tenants; (c) what is the percentage of cases where penalties are meted out by HDB against such errant tenants; and (d) what is the range of actions and penalties imposed by HDB.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received on average about 180 instances of feedback per year relating to nuisance caused by tenants renting HDB flats or bedrooms. This constitutes about 1.5% of the total volume of feedback on nuisance by neighbours. HDB does not track the proportion of feedback involving only foreign tenants.
HDB flat owners are required to seek HDB's approval prior to renting out their flats or bedrooms. They must also comply with the terms and conditions, which include the requirement to conduct regular checks on their tenants to ensure that tenants do not cause a nuisance to neighbours. HDB may terminate the rental approval if flat owners fail to adhere to any of the conditions within the terms and conditions.
Where friction arises between neighbours, including tenants, HDB adopts a mediative approach and advises flat owners and tenants to be mindful of causing disturbances to others. We have explained in a previous reply in January 2024 that the parties can also tap on Government initiatives, such as the inter-agency Community Dispute Management Framework and the Community Mediation Centre, to reach mutually acceptable solutions. [Please refer to \"Rationale for and Impact of Increased Rental Occupancy Cap for HDB Units\", Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 118, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
In a separate reply in January 2023, we also explained that the vast majority of such feedback on disamenities were resolved through this mediative approach. [Please refer to \"Approvals to Flat Owners to Sublet Entire Property Rescinded due to Nuisance Caused by Tenants\", Official Report, 10 January 2023, Vol 95, Issue 80, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Flat Prices from Waiver of 15-month Wait-out Period for Seniors Moving from Private Properties to Resale HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the policy allowing seniors above 55 years old who are moving from a private property to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat to be exempted from the 15-month wait-out period (a) what is the number of seniors doing so in the last two years; (b) what has been the impact on the prices and turnover of 4-room resale HDB flats; and (c) whether there has been a spillover impact on the prices of 5-room resale HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 30 September 2022, current and former private residential property owners (PPOs) must wait out 15 months from the disposal of their private property before they are allowed to buy a non-subsidised resale flat. This is a temporary measure to moderate the demand for resale flats and ensure that resale flats remain affordable for flat buyers with greater housing needs. To support seniors' retirement needs, Singapore Citizens and their spouses aged 55 and above who are right-sizing from their private property to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat are exempted from the wait-out period.
From 30 September 2022 to 31 December 2023, about 940 senior households have benefited from the exemption and right-sized to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat. They formed under 4% of all resale transactions for 4-room or smaller flats in the period. Given the small numbers, there is likely minimal impact by this group of seniors on the prices and resale volume of 4-room resale HDB flats. Similarly, we do not expect a spillover impact on the prices of 5-room resale HDB flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Restrictions on Screening Locations for Movies Rated NC16 and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there are any restrictions on the locations where movies rated NC16 and above can be screened; (b) if so, what is the rationale for such restrictions; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider removing such restrictions in light of the rise of online movie streaming services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Films classified NC16 and above – that is, NC16, M18 or R21 – are age-restricted films, which typically contain stronger or more explicit content that would not be appropriate for younger audiences. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has medium-specific requirements to ensure that such films are accessed by appropriate audiences.
For the public exhibition of age-restricted films, IMDA requires exhibitors, such as cinemas, to undertake age checks to prevent access by underaged persons. The exhibition of NC16 and M18 films must be held indoors, or in enclosed spaces if outdoors; R21 films can only be exhibited indoors and at cinemas which are outside of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands to further prevent inadvertent exposure to underaged persons. There are currently no plans to review these requirements.
Similarly, online streaming services, including over-the-top services that offer age-restricted content, have measures in place to prevent underaged persons from accessing such content. These include parental locks for age-restricted content and the requirement for all R21 content to be locked by default and accessible only by a personal identification number (PIN). These requirements enable parents to use the parental locks and PIN to ensure that their children access only age-appropriate content.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations to Tackle Deepfake Software Being Used in Scam and Fraud Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information what safeguards and regulations are being put in place to tackle the issue of deepfake software being used in scam and fraud cases.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Artificial intelligence can be exploited for malicious purposes, including scams and fraud. Agencies, such as the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore (CSA), are working closely to ensure that Singaporeans can go online safely and safeguard themselves against such online harms and threats.
Social media platforms are expected to take down scam content as soon as it is detected and to take pre-emptive measures to detect and block possible scams, including deepfake-enabled content. The Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), which was passed in July 2023, allows the Government to issue directions to online platforms to prevent potential scam related accounts or content to reach Singapore users. Under OCHA, designated online service providers may also be required to implement measures – if not already taken – to proactively disrupt online scams, including those facilitated by deepfakes.
The Government is working with industry partners to strengthen our capabilities to deal with these threats. Some of these initiatives were recently addressed in the Parliamentary Motion on Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society. [Please refer to \"Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society\", Official Report, 10 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 119, Motions section.]
For example, the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety, which will be launched in the first half of this year, aims to enhance industry collaboration and knowledge exchanges in deepfakes detection. The SPF is also working with the Home Team Science and Technology Agency to develop and enhance technologies to detect AI-generated audio and videos and respond to the malicious use of deepfake technology.
To complement the Government's efforts to build a safe and inclusive digital society, we have rolled out public education programmes on digital media and information literacy, cybersecurity and scams. For example, the National Library Board's signature S.U.R.E. (Source. Understand. Research. Evaluate.) campaign, the CSA's national cybersecurity campaign \"Unseen Enemy\"; and the SPF/National Crime Prevention Council's \"I can ACT against scams\". The Scam Public Education Office was also set up in 2023 to drive anti-scam public education efforts and expand outreach.
The Government will closely monitor and continue to adjust our strategies and tools to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technological landscape.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Public Technological Understanding to Combat Cybercrime and Deepfake Content","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information how is the Government helping the public to better understand artificial intelligence and its capabilities to build a population grounded in technological understanding so as to combat the threat of cybercrime and deepfake content.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Artificial intelligence can be exploited for malicious purposes, including scams and fraud. Agencies, such as the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Infocomm Media Development Authority, and the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore (CSA), are working closely to ensure that Singaporeans can go online safely and safeguard themselves against such online harms and threats.
Social media platforms are expected to take down scam content as soon as it is detected and to take pre-emptive measures to detect and block possible scams, including deepfake-enabled content. The Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), which was passed in July 2023, allows the Government to issue directions to online platforms to prevent potential scam related accounts or content to reach Singapore users. Under OCHA, designated online service providers may also be required to implement measures – if not already taken – to proactively disrupt online scams, including those facilitated by deepfakes.
The Government is working with industry partners to strengthen our capabilities to deal with these threats. Some of these initiatives were recently addressed in the Parliamentary Motion on Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society. [Please refer to \"Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society\", Official Report, 10 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 119, Motions section.]
For example, the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety, which will be launched in the first half of this year, aims to enhance industry collaboration and knowledge exchanges in deepfakes detection. The SPF is also working with the Home Team Science and Technology Agency to develop and enhance technologies to detect AI-generated audio and videos and respond to the malicious use of deepfake technology.
To complement the Government's efforts to build a safe and inclusive digital society, we have rolled out public education programmes on digital media and information literacy, cybersecurity and scams. For example, the National Library Board's signature S.U.R.E. (Source. Understand. Research. Evaluate.) campaign, the CSA's national cybersecurity campaign \"Unseen Enemy\"; and the SPF/National Crime Prevention Council's \"I can ACT against scams\". The Scam Public Education Office was also set up in 2023 to drive anti-scam public education efforts and expand outreach.
The Government will closely monitor and continue to adjust our strategies and tools to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technological landscape.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Funding Support for Art Galleries Association Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there are any plans to support the Art Galleries Association Singapore with funding from the Government.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth recognises the role of the commercial visual arts sector in contributing to a vibrant arts ecosystem in Singapore. Within the sector, intermediaries, such as the Art Galleries Association Singapore (AGAS), contribute to growing the art market by supporting artists in their practices, promoting art appreciation and cultivating art collecting.
The National Arts Council (NAC) has provided AGAS with organisational development and programmatic support through various grant schemes. Examples of support include, the Organisation Transformation Grant for their website optimisation upgrade and the funding of an AGAS exhibition during Singapore Art Week 2022. NAC also extends marketing support through featuring AGAS events on Catch.sg – NAC's arts and culture events aggregator resource and website, as well as through NAC's social media platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Singaporeans Appointed in People's Association's Grassroots Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in each year of the last five years, how many non-Singapore citizens have (i) volunteered and (ii) been appointed grassroots leaders in the People's Association grassroots organisations, such as Residents' Committees and Residents' Networks.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: An important part of the People's Association (PA)'s mission is to foster social cohesion and integration so that we build a strong and resilient community. This is achieved through our series of programmes and events, which bring people from all walks of life together to interact and bond with one another. Such connections nurture a sense of belonging that encourages all, Singapore Citizens (SCs) as well as non-SCs, who live amongst us, to care for and give back to the community.
During COVID-19 for instance, we saw the importance of building such an inclusive community spirit. SCs and non-SCs came forward to volunteer, take part in ground-up groups – with community and corporate partners – to help the most vulnerable in our community and those affected by COVID-19. The SGUnited COVID-19 Social Cohesion Campaign had over 2,600 PA volunteers, including non-SCs, working together to run meaningful community projects. They put together and distributed care packs to vulnerable residents, cleaners and frontline workers within the community where they lived. They also helped provide relief to essential workers by wiping down public spaces, such as playgrounds.
Such ground-up projects, initiated to support local needs, were made possible by our volunteers and enabled by opportunities from PA for greater community participation. We have different programmes with formal and informal volunteering, to encourage all – regardless of background – to volunteer and play a part in building cohesion in the community. For individuals who may be looking for ad-hoc volunteering opportunities, we have the Community Volunteers Scheme for informal volunteering based on causes, skills or projects. Informal volunteers who are ready for higher commitment and a more structured programme and are a SC or Permanent Resident (PR), may apply to be grassroot leaders (GRLs). Many informal volunteers who initially joined PA in the COVID-19 efforts, such as distributing masks, have come forward and joined us as GRLs.
Currently, about 8% of the appointed GRLs are PRs. We want to enable both SCs and non-SCs, who make up our community, to contribute to ground activities and give back to our society. A proportion of these non-SCs also become SCs after a period of time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of ActiveSG's Inclusive Swimming Pools and Gyms by Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) for each year from 2019 to 2023, what proportion of people who have used ActiveSG's inclusive swimming pools are persons with disabilities; and (b) whether there are plans to retrofit more swimming pools with ramps beyond the six swimming pools currently.
45 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether ActiveSG keeps track of the number of persons with disabilities (PwDs) who visit inclusive gyms; and (b) given that ActiveSG plans to make all ActiveSG Gyms inclusive by 2026, what are the plans to increase usage of the gyms by PwDs.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: SportSG's current system does not track the number of persons with disabilities who use the ActiveSG inclusive swimming pools and gyms, as it does not require its users to state if they have any disabilities when registering to be ActiveSG members.
The National Sport Participation Survey conducted by SportSG, shows rising participation in sports by persons with disabilities – from 28% in 2015 to 54% in 2022. To support even more persons with disabilities to access our sports facilities, SportSG is taking steps to enable even more of its ActiveSG swimming pools and gyms to be inclusive.
The number of swimming pools that have been retrofitted with ramps for wheelchairs has increased from six to eight over the past year. By the end of 2025, two more swimming pools will have ramps, as part of ActiveSG's rejuvenation plans. SportSG will study the feasibility and explore the installation of inclusive features, such as ramps and hoists, at all remaining ActiveSG swimming pools. All new ActiveSG swimming facilities will also be fitted with inclusive features.
Eight ActiveSG gyms have been equipped with machines to make them accessible for users of all abilities. SportSG is on track to make all 27 ActiveSG gyms inclusive by 2026. To encourage gym usage by persons with disabilities, SportSG is developing an ActiveSG gym orientation programme for persons with disabilities that will be ready this year.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and SportSG have also been working with partners to update the Disability Sports Master Plan to further boost sport participation among persons with disabilities and will share more details later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Performance of Singapore's Creative Economy and Growth Prospects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the expected overall performance of Singapore's creative economy in 2023; and (b) what are some of the key considerations that will determine the growth prospects of Singapore’s creative economy in 2024.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Singapore has a vibrant and flourishing creative economy which includes sectors, such as the arts and culture, media and design. The nominal value-added from these three sectors increased by close to 50% over the past five years, from $7.9 billion in 2017 to $11.7 billion in 20221.
In the coming years, the outlook for the creative economy in Singapore is positive. The growth of the sector depends on many factors, including wider economic conditions. There are many opportunities for creative practitioners, especially if they are able to capitalise on growing demands and trends, such as leveraging technology and working with regional and international partners, to reach audiences beyond Singapore. The Government will also continue to provide support to help the sector grow by injecting funding, providing skills development opportunities and brokering partnerships with the private sector to open up opportunities for creatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Singapore Department of Statistics"],"footNoteQuestions":["46"],"questionNo":"46"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation of Cultural Medallion Fund Entitlements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the dollar amount of the Cultural Medallion (CM) Fund entitlements that remain unutilised, by both living and deceased past winners of the CM; and (b) what are the reasons why such CM Fund entitlements remain unutilised.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Of the total $9.4 million awarded to Cultural Medallion (CM) recipients since 2001, $3.4 million remains unutilised as at January 2024.
Reasons that CM Fund entitlements remain unutilised include recipients being in the process of conceptualising projects or recipients having no concrete plans yet. To increase the Fund utilisation, the National Arts Council supports and works closely with CM recipients who are still conceptualising their projects on the use of their CM Fund entitlements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Work Injury Compensation to Cover Injuries Sustained by Migrant Workers at Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the past five years, how many migrant workers have sustained injuries whilst they were at their dormitories which are not covered by work injury insurance; and (b) whether the scope of the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 may be reviewed to include injuries and death of migrant workers arising from accidents at dormitories so as to broaden the insurance coverage for the same.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not track non-work related injuries as the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) covers injuries arising out of and in the course of work. Non-work injuries sustained by migrant workers at their dormitories are not covered by WICA.
There are affordable non-work injury insurance options available for migrant workers. Migrant workers can register for the Migrant Workers' Centre Associate Membership, which provides insurance coverage for death, total and permanent disability and critical illnesses not arising from work, at $6 for the first year and $24 annually for subsequent years. In addition, migrant workers' medical expenses, including from non-work related injuries, will be covered by the employer via mandatory medical insurance or otherwise, as required under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
WICA was introduced as a no-fault claims regime to protect employees to claim compensation for injuries that arose out of and in the course of work, in a fair and expeditious manner without having to take legal action. Given that WICA covers all employees, employers' obligations under WICA are scoped specifically to work-related injuries and there are no plans to expand this scope.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Locals and Foreigners Employed at Registered Pet Groomers and Regulations to Ensure Safe Work Environment for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the current number of locals and foreigners employed by registered businesses as pet groomers; (b) what are the requirements for these businesses to (i) undertake the professional development of groomers (ii) insure groomers for work-related liabilities and (iii) conduct proper inquiry in event of grooming incidents; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing guidance to these businesses on providing a safe and healthy work environment for pet groomers.
Dr Tan See Leng: There are currently 310 resident and 70 non-resident employee pet groomers. Under the Code of Animal Welfare (for the Pet Industry) developed by the National Parks Board, pet groomers should be properly and adequately trained, including in the areas of animal care, animal handling and grooming requirements of the various breeds and species.
Under the Work Injury Compensation (WIC) Act, all employees, regardless of occupation and nationality, are covered for work injuries and occupational diseases sustained out of and in the course of work. Employers are required to purchase WIC insurance for employees doing manual work regardless of salary level – including all pet groomers – and employees doing non-manual work, who earn $2,600 or less a month. If groomers are injured in the course of their work, the employer should conduct a proper inquiry and take remediation action.
Under the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act, employers are responsible for identifying safety hazards at workplaces and taking reasonably practicable measures to eliminate or reduce risks. Employers can refer to the Approved Code of Practice on WSH Risk Management for guidance on assessing WSH risks faced by their employees at work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Investigations of and Penalties for Employers Receiving Kickbacks from Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each year from 2021 to 2023, how many cases involving employers receiving kickbacks from migrant workers did the Ministry investigate; and (b) of these investigations, how many led to (i) stern warnings (ii) charges and (iii) successful prosecutions against the employers.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2021 to 2023, the Ministry of Manpower investigated about 210 cases per year for kickback offences. Over the three years, about 70 employers were taken to task annually; of which, about 70% were issued with warnings or composition fines and the remainder were charged in Court. Of those charged, about 90% were successfully convicted, with the rest 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":"Occupancy and Monthly Rental Rates at New Commercial Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower in each year of the last five years till date, what are the average (i) occupancy and (ii) monthly rental rates of new contracts signed for commercial dormitory beds at workers' dormitories. \n \n
Dr Tan See Leng: The average occupancy rate of dormitories last year was around 97% – or close to full occupancy. In comparison, the occupancy rate in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) was around 90%. The median monthly rental rate was about $450 per bed last year, compared to around $300 per bed in 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Non-compete Clauses in Employment Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry regulates the inclusion of non-compete clauses in employment contracts; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider issuing guidelines to employers and employees on the incorporation of non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Manpower's oral reply to Parliamentary Questions No 32 to 37 on 5 February 2024. Members may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Companies that Fail to Give Mandatory Notification to Government When They Retrench Employees\", Official Report, 5 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 120, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Mechanism for Mandatory Notification by Employers to Government for Lay-offs and Overall Tripartite Relationship in Light of New Economic Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower following the recent layoffs by an e-commerce company which was not notified to the unions (a) what are the lessons learned that will require the Government, NTUC and employer bodies to review the tripartite relationship in today's economic environment; (b) what specific areas need to be strengthened; and (c) whether the Ministry should mandate all companies that have at least 10 workers to notify unions about any upcoming lay-offs.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been answered as part of the Minister for Manpower's oral reply to \tParliamentary Questions No 32 to 37 on 5 February 2024. Members may refer to the transcript for the reply. [Please refer to \"Companies that Fail to Give Mandatory Notification to Government When They Retrench Employees\", Official Report, 5 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 120, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rerouting of Bus Services 160 and 870 along Jurong Gateway Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) why Bus Services 160 and 870 do not call at Bus Stop 28301 in front of Block 131 Jurong Gateway Road; and (b) whether these services can be amended to call at Bus Stop 28301 to provide more convenient access for commuters travelling from Jurong East.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: A total of 15 bus services ply Jurong Gateway Road. Bus Stop 28301 in front of Block 131 Jurong Gateway Road cannot accommodate all 15 services without resulting in longer tailback of buses queuing, which can affect the safe movement of commuters, buses and other vehicles. Due to site constraints, the existing bus stop cannot be further expanded.
For smoother and safer traffic flow, only the six bus services turning left onto Jurong East Central from Jurong Gateway Road call at Bus Stop 28301.
Commuters can access Services 160 and 870 at Bus Stop 28441 along Jurong East Central outside the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, or at Jurong Town Hall Bus Interchange. As announced in its press release in November 2023, the Land Transport Authority will be constructing a passenger lift to improve barrier-free access to Jurong Town Hall Bus Interchange from Jurong East MRT station.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Bus Services for Residents of New Jurong West Jewel and Jurong West Crystal BTO Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Transport whether there will be new and more regular bus services available for residents living in and within the vicinity of new HDB BTO Jurong West Jewel and Jurong West Crystal projects to connect to the nodes within Jurong West, such as Boon Lay and Pioneer MRT stations, Boon Lay Bus Interchange, Boon Lay Market and Shopping Centre and Jurong West Hawker Centre.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Residents of Jurong West Jewel and Jurong West Crystal are currently served by Services 99, 192 and 974. These services provide direct connections to nearby transport nodes, such as Joo Koon Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, Pioneer MRT station and Boon Lay Bus Interchange and MRT station. Service 99 and Service 192 also provide direct connections to nearby amenities, such as Boon Lay Market and Shopping Centre and Jurong West Hawker Centre respectively.
The Land Transport Authority will continue to monitor travel pattern changes and adjust the provision of bus services as necessary, in tandem with changes in travel demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons from Initial Roll-out of Plan to Transit Commuters to SimplyGo Platform and Breakdown of Expenditure Arising from Extension of Timeline","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the breakdown in the expenditure of $40 million to extend the card-based ticketing (CBT) system which allows the continued use of EZ-Link and NETS FlashPay cards on public transportation; and (b) what are the projected total additional costs per year to maintain and run both the CBT and SimplyGo account-based ticketing systems in parallel.
57 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport since the pilot of the Land Transport Authority (LTA)'s account-based ticketing system in 2017 (a) how many cases of feedback has been received by LTA in relation to the new system; and (b) how many times were concerns raised about the inability to view fare deductions and card balances at station fare gates and bus readers.
58 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) in light of the public's reaction towards the change in decision to transit to SimplyGo, what lessons have been learned from the initial roll-out plan; (b) whether the Ministry has engaged the public and evaluated feedback during the implementation of this policy; and (c) what steps are being taken to ensure that future policy changes in the transport sector will more effectively gauge public opinion and user experience from the outset.
59 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether it is possible to code and provide real time fare deduction information on public transport fare readers in the use of SimplyGo EZ-Link cards; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Members for their questions. I have addressed them in my reply a 5 February 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Facilitating Transition to SimplyGo Fare Platform\", Official Report, 5 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 120, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction of Height Difference between Platform and Train Floor for Better Accessibility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
60 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA has studied systems to reduce the height difference between the platform and train floor, which complement gap fillers to make the MRT system more accessible.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The height difference between the platform and train floor varies based on passenger loading and wear on train wheels and rails. While the height difference cannot be fully eliminated, the Land Transport Authority is progressively implementing gap fillers across most of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network where feasible. Gap fillers help to bridge the platform gap and usually come with a gentle slope to enable passengers to safely board and disembark trains. Station staff are also available to help passengers who require assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5934,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - SPS Rahayu - Criminal Proc (Misc Amdts) Bill_edits - v2.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - SPS Rahayu - Criminal Proc (Misc Amdts) Bill_edits - v2.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5935,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-Sun Xueling CPC 5Feb2024_Chinese(MHA).pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling CPC 5Feb2024_Chinese(MHA).pdf"},{"vernacularID":5936,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-Joan Pereira CPC 5Feb2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira CPC 5Feb2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5937,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - Minister Masagos - AMLA.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - Minister Masagos - AMLA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5938,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - Mr Sharael Taha - AMLA.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - Mr Sharael Taha - AMLA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5939,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - AMLA.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - AMLA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5940,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - Dr Wan Rizal - AMLA.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - Dr Wan Rizal - AMLA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5941,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240205/vernacular-5 Feb 2024 - Mr Zhul Rahim - AMLA.pdf","fileName":"5 Feb 2024 - Mr Zhul Rahim - AMLA.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}