1 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2005 to 2020 under Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements with China, India, USA and Australia, how many nationals from the respective countries have entered and worked in Singapore using (i) intra-corporate transferee visas (ii) professional visas and (iii) dependant passes.
2 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower how many nationals from China, India, USA and Australia holding Employment Passes or S Passes are currently working in companies with fewer than 10 employees.
3 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2005 to 2020, how many (i) dependant passes and (ii) Long Term Visit Passes have been issued to relatives of nationals from China, India, USA and Australia who are Employment Pass or S Pass holders respectively.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Oral Question Nos 1 to 3, as well as Written Question Nos 19 to 24 in today's Order Paper through the Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister Ong Ye Kung and myself tomorrow, 6 July 2021?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please. Mr Pritam Singh, Question No 4.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Set Up Commission of Inquiry to Review Government's Response to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will commit to setting up a Commission of Inquiry to review its response to COVID-19 and, if so, when will this inquiry take place.
\tThe Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, dealing with COVID-19 has been a major whole-of-nation exercise, for which we have mobilised all of our resources. It was an unprecedented crisis that extended beyond public health and threatened both lives and livelihoods. Countries, especially those which encountered the virus relatively early such as Singapore, had to quickly adapt our contingency plans in the midst of doing battle, to deal with the particularly severe challenges posed by this virus. Every Singaporean has had a part to play.
Our response has by no means been perfect. We adapted and improved along the way, sharing experiences with other countries as we collectively gained more knowledge of the virus and how to deal with it.
We must thoroughly analyse and learn from our experience, the entire crisis, in all its aspects, from start to finish, just as we did from SARS 17 years ago which helped us greatly in our response this time. The aim is to understand what we have done well and what we have not, so that we can do better the next time. Another novel disease that causes a global pandemic is not a matter of if, but when, and the next disease may well be even more contagious and dangerous than COVID-19. So, we will certainly undertake a comprehensive after-action review (AAR).
However, right now, our agencies remain in the thick of battle. Their resources are totally committed; they are stretched dealing with the pandemic, which is far from over. Even as we fight the current battle, we are constantly evaluating, learning, innovating and building new capabilities and capacities to stay ahead of this fast-moving virus. As a result, we are in a much safer position now than last year. But COVID-19 will not disappear soon and with new variants continuing to emerge, there could yet be new twists and turns, some perhaps for the worse, but others hopefully for the better.
We have made preparations for a long battle. But with the unprecedented speed at which effective vaccines have been developed and the pace of our vaccination programme, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. When we have the vast majority of our population fully vaccinated, we should be able to live with the virus endemic in our population and gradually shift into a new normal, along with most of the countries in the rest of the world. There will be lessons to learn from that shift too.
But we are not in a new normal yet. Meanwhile, we are learning and adapting as we fight the virus, whether it is COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, management of dormitories, isolation procedures for foreign arrivals, or safe management measures. The full AAR will therefore have to wait until the situation has stabilised and we are out of the woods.
The purpose of the AAR is for us to learn valuable lessons to improve our response for future pandemics. We want participants in the AAR to be open and forthcoming, to be reflective and thoughtful and be candid on their experiences and decisions, to acknowledge shortcomings and where we could and should have done better, even as they analyse successes. The structure of the AAR must fit this purpose. A Commission of Inquiry, which is a quasi-judicial investigative tribunal, is not the most appropriate way to achieve this objective.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister for his response to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on behalf of the Prime Minister. Sir, the main impetus behind filing the question was the commitment given by the Government about 12 months ago, almost a year ago, to look back at COVID-19 and I refer to the remarks of the now Minister for Finance: \"I have no doubt that we will find many things where we could have done better and many changes we should make to be better prepared next time.\" And I think this is in concert with what the Senior Minister has shared.
I also note that there are other countries, the United Kingdom, for example, and the state Legislature of Victoria which has already actually delivered a report on the government's handling of the pandemic. I would like to ask the Senior Minister what sort of form the AAR will take. I understood the Senior Minister when he said that there will be input from the public, but what sort of shape and form is the Government considering if it is not going to be a Commission of Inquiry?
The Senior Minister said that there is a quasi-judicial aspect to Commissions of Inquiry. That is true. But Commissions of Inquiry also involve matters of public policy. Multi-agency issues of grave public concern have also found themselves to be subject of a Commission of Inquiry as opposed to an AAR. So, just to reiterate the question: what sort of review and how can the public play a part in the review that the Government has in mind?
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not determined the precise form in which such a review will take. But we certainly want to learn all the lessons that we have, including those which can be submitted by members of the public who have views and informed views particularly.
In my career in the Public Service, I have been the subject of, the convenor of, and participated in many inquiries of various kinds. It must suit the purpose for which we set up these inquiries or reviews for. In my experience, a Commission of Inquiry (COI) is probably best suited to look into a singular event that has occurred in a specific moment or instant in time, such as a building collapse and a major accident. But I do not think the pandemic fits well into such a situation. It is an ongoing and evolving event. It is not over yet. In fact, many lessons have already been learnt along the way, not necessarily though formal AARs or a COI, but because of actual ground experience in which the agencies have adapted and adjusted their response, both in order to be more effective but also in response to an evolving virus and evolving situations. As you can see, our testing, our ring-fencing, our safe management procedures, our procedures for incoming travellers – all have changed and adapted along the way. You can see this learning process continuing.
We want to make sure that when we reach a new normal, this process is properly documented so that we are ready for the next round, just as we did not have a COI for SARS but we learnt many valuable lessons from it which allowed us to be better prepared for COVID-19.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister. Like the original answer to the PQ, I take the Senior Minister's point. Section 3 of the Inquiries Act does say that \"a Commission is suitable if an inquiry is to be conducted into any matter which in the opinion of the President be in the public welfare or public interest\". I am not sure whether the AAR that the Senior Minister has in mind will be as broad-ranging as a Commission of Inquiry could potentially be but we await information from the Government in this regard.
\t
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the AAR will probably be more broad-ranging than the COI, which by its normal construct, will usually be defined in a very specific way. The Government intends to do a very broad-ranging AAR on all aspects because there are many aspects to this particular pandemic from which we can learn good lessons for the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implications for Singapore of G7 Agreement on Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Finance (a) how will Singapore be impacted by the landmark agreement amongst G7 nations to reform the global tax system and impose a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15%; and (b) what are the plans to mitigate adverse impact to Singapore's corporate income tax revenue.
6 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Finance (a) what are the implications of the G7 agreement on a global minimum corporate tax for Singapore; (b) whether Singapore’s status as a tech hub will be affected; and (c) how will the tax affect multinational corporations that currently operate in Singapore.
7 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of MNCs that currently pay less than the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% proposed by G7; and (b) given that MNCs receive tax incentives for undertaking activities that benefit Singapore in the long run such as developing new sectors or building capabilities, whether such special tax schemes will be permissible under the proposed changes; and (c) what other levers must the Government strengthen.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 5 to 7 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, since 2016, there have been concerted efforts to strengthen international cooperation in taxation matters, to stamp out harmful practices and to increase the taxes paid by multinational enterprises (MNEs). These efforts were first initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to deal with the issue of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) by MNEs. To ensure a wider international consensus, the discussions were subsequently broadened to include more than 130 jurisdictions through a platform called the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.
Singapore has been actively involved in these international discussions as part of the Inclusive Framework (IF). The IF has been discussing two major tax changes.
The first proposal concerns the reallocation of taxing rights of the largest and most profitable MNEs from where they conduct their substantial activities to where their customers are. This is known as Pillar One. The current proposal is that Pillar One will apply to MNE groups with global revenues above 20 billion euros and profitability above 10%.
The second proposal is the introduction of an internationally agreed minimum corporate tax rate for large MNEs, wherever they operate. This is known as Pillar Two. The G7 and IF have proposed a minimum effective tax rate of at least 15% for MNE groups with global revenues above 750 million euros.
Let me briefly explain how Pillars One and Two will likely impact Singapore.
Pillar One was intended to adapt the international tax system to new business models where large businesses sell remotely to consumers in other jurisdictions, without physical presence. Under Pillar One, some part of the profits and hence, the taxes payable of large companies with overseas operations will be reallocated to where their customers are.
To illustrate, assume a Pillar One MNE group in Singapore has a profitability of 15%. Pillar One will then reallocate a portion of the profits in excess of 10%, 5% in this case, from Singapore to be taxed in the market jurisdictions. This means that hub economies with smaller markets like Singapore will stand to lose corporate income tax revenues.
Pillar Two aims to put a floor on international corporate tax competition. Essentially, under this proposal, MNEs will be subject to the minimum effective tax rate of 15% at the MNE group level, in every jurisdiction they operate. Broadly speaking, this means that if an MNE group in Singapore is taxed at an effective rate of, say 10%, then its home jurisdiction will impose additional rules to require the group to pay an additional 5% in tax there. Pillar Two will therefore limit the effectiveness of tax incentives as a tool to encourage larger MNEs to invest in Singapore.
\t
Ms Mariam Jaafar asked how many MNEs in Singapore currently pay less than the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. The current proposal, under Pillar Two, is to apply this minimum effective tax rate to MNEs that meet a certain revenue threshold, currently set at 750 million euros, as I highlighted just now. There are about 1,800 such MNE groups in Singapore that would meet this revenue criterion.
We expect that a majority of these MNE groups will have group effective tax rates below 15% in Singapore. That is because our headline corporate tax rate is 17%, close to the proposed minimum effective tax rate of 15%. Furthermore, our tax system, like most others, provides for tax reliefs to encourage various meritorious activities like capital investment, R&D or charitable donations. And for a small number of companies, there are also tax incentives for their qualifying activities subject to economic commitments.
However, at this stage, it is still too early to work out the exact impact of the tax proposals. The final number of affected MNEs, as well as the extent of the impact, depends on the design of the specific rules which are still being actively discussed at the IF. As some of the tax proposals can only be effected through a multilateral instrument, there will be a need for international consensus to be fully reached before the changes can be implemented.
So, in response to the query from Ms Foo, we will only be able to determine with a high degree of confidence what the eventual impact on Singapore's fiscal position would be, once the IF has worked through and agreed on the detailed design elements of both Pillars. The eventual impact will also depend on how companies and other governments respond to these international developments.
What we can say for certain is that when a consensus is fully reached, Singapore will adjust our corporate tax system as needed, in consultation with the industry. Any adjustments to our tax system will be guided by three principles. First, we will abide by internationally agreed standards. Second, we will safeguard our taxing rights. Third, we will seek to minimise the compliance burden for businesses.
Ultimately, the best response to these tax changes is to continue to strengthen our overall competitiveness. Over the decades, Singapore has built a solid reputation and track record as an attractive place for business and substantial economic activity. While a conducive tax environment has been helpful in attracting investments, it is not the decisive factor. Having quality infrastructure, good connectivity, a skilled workforce, an open and business-friendly regime founded on the rule of law, are all far more important factors. We must therefore double down on these competitive strengths. In particular, the Government has been investing and will continue to invest in enterprise capabilities, including innovation and digitalisation, and in the skills of our workforce.
The Minister for Trade and Industry will be elaborating further on how Singapore can continue to strengthen its position as a hub. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has also separately provided a written answer to Ms Mariam Jaafar's question on Singapore's position as an international financial centre. In short, we will continue to provide a conducive regulatory environment for businesses, especially for new and innovative activities, as well as a good ecosystem and infrastructure for such activities to scale up across the region. We will also work closely with the industry to build up capabilities and skills that will enable us to stay relevant in the face of key structural trends like digitalisation and sustainability that are transforming the financial landscape.
Mr Speaker, the latest proposals to change international corporate tax rules will not be the first or last challenge we face. The key is for us to stay agile and nimble, and respond innovatively to the key global trends affecting our economy. We must continually work hard to strengthen our value proposition, build new advantages and seek new opportunities. This way, we can ensure Singapore's continued economic success and ultimately a good future for our people.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I understand a lot of details are not out yet but, I guess, with the announcement, there has been a lot of interest in the industry. Whilst we expect the tax system to evolve, I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on, for the Minister to speak a little bit more about what specific non-tax benefit could Singapore provide or enhance, in order to compensate for the loss of tax benefits, previously enjoyed by companies, so that there is some level of certainty when companies are planning.
Question two is about the carve-outs. I understand that financial services have been a carve-out from this global tax reform. Could the Minister comment on how the financial sector is being impacted including family offices and variable capital companies (VCCs)?
And last but not least, on jurisdictions that have been tax havens, without the other non-tax benefits. I would like to ask the Minister, how is Singapore positioning itself to attract companies that are expected to exit tax havens and how Singapore will attract them with other non-tax related benefits.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, with regard to the question of carve-outs, as I mentioned earlier, the current proposal on the table is for regulated financial services to be carved out from Pillar One. As for Pillar Two, as I have mentioned, it applies to the larger MNEs. So, whether or not family offices and VCCs will qualify, will really depend on the facts of the case, and ultimately, what are the final criteria that are used for the definition of large MNEs. So, we will continue to monitor this closely. And as I said earlier, we will respond accordingly once the international rules are worked out and finalised.
We will respond in two ways.
Number one, we will protect our sovereign rights on taxes. And we will make sure we adjust our corporate tax system accordingly, in line with the international standards and in close consultation with businesses in Singapore, ensuring that as far as possible, we keep a low compliance burden on businesses.
Number two, we will continue to work hard at improving and enhancing our competitiveness in other areas, especially in terms of the non-tax factors that Ms Foo highlighted.
So, to Ms Foo's question, yes, this is work in progress. We have always been looking at how we can restructure, transform our economy, invest in enterprise capabilities, as well as the capabilities of our workforce. And we will work even harder at that.
Our objective is to continue to remain attractive and competitive; attractive to substantial investments and substantial economic activities to be based here. We are not trying to get companies to register in Singapore without a physical presence. That is not our intent. We want to anchor substantial activities here, with the aim of creating good jobs for Singaporeans. That must be the objective of our economic policy. It has always been so and we will continue to work hard on this front.
I think we should also be mindful and clear that with these tax changes, going forward, as a small city-state with no natural resources, with limited land, it will be that much harder for Singapore to attract investments. And that means we will have to work even harder to attract and retain investments based on these non-tax competitive factors.
Up to now EDB and our economic agencies have been very effective in bringing investments into Singapore and creating jobs for Singaporeans, but we should never take that for granted. We should never assume that these investments will just fall on our laps and they will automatically happen year after year. It will get harder, so we will need all Singaporeans to support this critical mission; and that includes everyone in this House.
And I am saying that with a reference to the upcoming debates on FTAs, because what we say, the tone of the debate does matter. If investors start to feel that Singapore is starting to become less hospitable to foreign investments and talent, they will surely look for other options and there are many compelling options everywhere in the world. And we will end up worse off.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my question is firstly on Pillar Two. I understand that the G7 countries had initially sought a minimum corporate tax rate of 21%, but have since agreed to lower it to 15%. I would like ask the Minister whether he sees this 15% effective tax rate as a number that Singapore can agree to. And if not, is there room for further negotiations or seeking further carve-outs? Or is it the case that Singapore, being a small country, will just be the price-taker?
The second question is, the Minister mentioned about Pillar One, where the location of the taxing right will be given to countries where the customers are, I want to ask how significant is this reduction in the tax base and whether that will have any fiscal impact on our Budget. For example, whether the 15% tax effective rate would be enough offset for them in the short term?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, there has been already extensive discussions at the Inclusive Forum on many of these matters. And recently, 130 jurisdictions in the Inclusive Forum, including Singapore, have reached a consensus on the key parameters of the corporate tax changes. That includes the global effective minimum tax rate of 15%. But there are still many design elements and implementation details that need to be worked out, as I mentioned earlier. For example, how would the effective tax rate be determined? There are some technical details there to be resolved. Or whether there will be sectoral carve-outs, as I have mentioned.
For now, under Pillar Two, the one carve-out that is being proposed is for shipping. Why? Because really, shipping operates under a very special tax regime. Shipping has no, by definition, physical presence. It moves everywhere and to many different countries. And so, you have different kinds of taxes for shipping, like tonnage tax, that falls outside of the scope of corporate taxes. Therefore, the intent or at least the proposal on the table now is to carve out shipping from Pillar Two. But these things are fluid. They continue to be discussed at the Inclusive Forum. Singapore is an active participant in the forum and we will do our part to shape the consensus in line with our national interest and also to ensure a level playing field for everyone.
On the second question on Pillar One, yes, there will be a negative impact, because Pillar One means reallocating tax revenues for some of these large firms to where the markets are located. So, this will have certainly a direct impact on our revenues. Exactly how much, like I said, it is difficult to give any detailed estimates now when the detailed rules are still being finalised. And whether or not we will be able to make up with sufficient revenues elsewhere, that is something that we will have to work out.
I should explain why we even ended up with Pillar One. And the reason is that many jurisdictions feel that in this new digital world, digitalisation has enabled large MNEs, especially the digital companies to do well, to grow dramatically and to be able to acquire more customers in jurisdictions outside of where they operate. They can acquire customers remotely. And therefore, many of these market jurisdictions have started to unilaterally impose, what they call, digital services tax on these companies.
It is not in our interest to have a taxation system that is fragmented and to have other jurisdictions impose unilateral taxes. That is not helpful for Singapore as a small and open economy. And that is why we feel it is better that we participate actively in the Inclusive Forum and be part of the multilateral discussion to shape a set of international tax rules that can be adapted to this new business model of the digital world.
\t
So, indeed, that is what Pillar One is about. As and when there is an agreement on Pillar One, the agreement will provide for the coordination of this new international proposal together with the removal of all digital services tax and other similar measures that have been unilaterally imposed by certain market jurisdictions. That is why we have decided we could go along with this Pillar One consensus view, so that businesses can work with one set of rules rather than have to deal with a patchwork of fragmented rules. But as I mentioned, there are still details to be worked out even under Pillar One and these are issues which we will continue to actively discuss at the Inclusive Forum.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I have got two further clarifications. The first is, basically, in terms of the effective corporate income tax rates here in Singapore, what are they and whether the Government has conducted any scenario analysis to assess the net impact to our income tax revenues as a result of Pillars One and Two. I understand that it is still preliminary days but we already have the key parameters. OECD, for example, has already given some sense of what it expects the global overall tax revenue impact is going to be.
The second question is in terms of the foreign MNCs who are currently paying effective tax rates of below 15%, whether the Government would consider raising the effective tax rates to be in line with this minimum of 15%. And if I look at the US IRS data, for example, based on what has been disclosed, I think the effective tax rates for these US companies do appear to be much lower than our statutory income tax rates at just about 4%, and especially given that, as the Minister said, Singapore's attractiveness is not solely based on tax incentives alone.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Mr Chua has, in fact, asked quite a detailed series of questions on our effective tax rates, not just for MNCs but for local enterprises, and quite a range of different breakdowns in a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ). So, we will provide the full answer there. Those are data that we will share.
Yes, effectively, our effective corporate tax rate is low, not just for MNCs, but for all companies, especially for SMEs in Singapore. They are low. And they are low for a reason because we want to encourage business innovation, business investments and we want to make sure that businesses can create good jobs for Singaporeans. So, with Pillar Two being in place and with the consensus around Pillar Two forming at an effective rate of 15%, we will, of course, have to start thinking about what changes and adjustments are needed with regard to our corporate tax system to be in line with international standards, as I have said earlier.
At this stage, I would just say it is premature to speculate or to talk about what these tax adjustments will be. But as I mentioned earlier, the key principle is we will preserve our sovereign tax rights, our rights to taxation, even within the international agreement, and we will work out together with businesses what adjustments and changes might be needed in our corporate tax system. Secondly, we will also, at the same time as we adjust our corporate tax system, make sure that we work even harder on non-tax factors to make sure that Singapore remains competitive and attractive to investments. That is not something we should take lightly for the reasons I have explained earlier.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Minister for elaborating on the impact of Pillar One and Pillar Two. I specifically have a follow-on question with regard to tech companies in relation to what the Minister said about the digital economy.
Given both Pillars One and Two, and the impact of that – although I know that there are still a lot of uncertainties – how can Singapore, specifically, for the tech hub status, how can we continue to be attractive because both Pillars One and Two, could have significant impact on Singapore's tech hub status.
I would ask the Minister if he could elaborate on some of the key levers we would need to strengthen. I know he talked about the whole breadth of it but what would be some of the key pillars for the tech sectors specifically, given the impact of digitalisation?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, it is a very important question and I do not want to belabour the broad points because, at this stage, I think it is a little early to dive into details. The upshot of these tax changes, as I said just now, is that it will make it harder for Singapore to attract investments; there should be no doubt. So, let us be realistic about what the impact will be. It will make it harder for us to attract investments and we have to work harder, particularly, given our size, the fact that Singapore is such a small city-state, compared to so many other locations around the world which offer equally, if not more, attractive and compelling attributes.
So, whether it is for technology, whether it is for finance, whether, it is any other major investment that will now be impacted, we just have to work that much harder. Basically, in a post-Pillar One and post-Pillar Two world, the large MNCs of the world will bear a larger tax burden. That is what it comes down to, anywhere they go. Assuming Pillars One and Two are applied evenly, uniformly, around the world, they will have to bear a larger tax burden.
So, we, on our part, will therefore have to work that much harder, whether it is on upgrading of our workforce, our infrastructure, our connectivity, our overall business environment; all of these factors will, therefore, become more salient in our ability to attract and retain investments and, ultimately, with the objective of creating good jobs for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of G7 Agreement for Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate on Singapore's Ability to Attract MNCs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the latest G7 agreement on a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% (a) how will this potentially impact our efforts (including the use in part of corporate tax incentives) to attract MNCs; (b) what are the fiscal and foreign investment implications for Singapore; (c) which sectors of our economy will be principally affected; and (d) what strategies will the Ministry take to find new growth industries and hubs in this new global tax environment.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, as the Finance Minister has mentioned, last week, about 130 countries and jurisdictions, including Singapore, agreed to reform international taxation rules under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (or BEPS) 2.0 Project. Details on the final parameters, design and implementation will need to be discussed in the coming months. Therefore, there remains significant uncertainty in terms of the possible impact on Singapore and the sectors which will be most affected.
When the details have been finalised, all jurisdictions will need to adjust their tax regimes to be compliant with the new rules, or cede tax revenue to other jurisdictions. We are closely monitoring developments and have been engaging industry stakeholders to understand their needs so that we can better formulate our response. As we adjust our tax system, we will aim to minimise the compliance burden for businesses and ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive place for business.
After all, Singapore’s competitiveness goes beyond our taxation rates. Key fundamentals such as our strategic location and international connectivity, excellent infrastructure, the rule of law and skilled workforce remain strong. However, we must not be complacent. We are, therefore, redoubling our efforts to enhance our competitiveness and improve our business environment, for example, through upgrading our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). We are confident that investors will continue to find Singapore a compelling place to do business, and our economy can continue to thrive in the new environment.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for answering my question. I have two supplementary questions. The first is a simple question: the impact of Pillar Two. Will there be a risk of existing firms moving out? And I am referring to the United States (US) Inland Revenue Service filings which indicated that Singapore's share of US firms' foreign income taxed is second highest in the world at about 7.5% after Bermuda, and which indicates that US firms' here, for example, have about 165,136 people working for them, not to mention the cascading effects of some of these US firms in terms of subsidiary employment for Singaporeans. So, my first question is: will there be risk of these US firms moving out?
The second question is whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is reviewing its strategies to attract multinational corporations (MNCs) in light of this change and what are those strategies? I think the Minister has mentioned briefly the non-tax factors but how much more can we improve to enhance even further those non-tax factors and to attract more firms coming in, year after year.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member for the two important questions. Yes, indeed, US firms play a very important role in Singapore's economy. They provide significant employment and good employment to Singaporean workers. But it is not just the US firms. I think BEPS 2.0 is going to affect all countries and, therefore, it is important for us to take a holistic approach, look at the entire business environment. We are doing quite a few things to ensure that we remain competitive.
Mr Saktiandi asked whether there is a risk of firms moving out of Singapore. The risk exists and they exist today even. Companies will do their calculations and they do that almost yearly to decide whether they are going to continue to be in Singapore, to continue to invest more in Singapore or to move somewhere else. That is why we cannot take it for granted, as I mentioned, and as the Finance Minister also underscored. We need to continue to ensure that our business environment remains effective and competitive.
What are the things that MTI is looking at doing? First, we have to continue to invest in our infrastructure, to ensure that we provide a very efficient infrastructure to allow our companies to operate here in a very cost-effective way. Secondly, we need to extend our connectivity. I have entered into several Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and we continue to sign FTAs. We are looking at the various new opportunities for us to enter into new trade agreements including in areas such as renewable energy, green and digital economy.
Over the last few weeks since I took on the job, I have been talking to our counterparts in other countries almost on a daily basis to develop new connections, to allow our companies to expand beyond the confines and the limitation of our physical size.
We also want to encourage companies to invest in productivity and upgrading, so that they can continue to be cost-effective, and there are many schemes that we have offered. I cannot detail all of them here; I am sure Members are aware there are a lot of support schemes to encourage and support companies to become more productive. Particularly, for tech companies, we have a lot of incentives and support for investment in research and development. This will anchor a knowledge-based economy, an innovation-driven economy, in Singapore. We have to do all of these in order to keep Singapore competitive.
We must remember that BEPS 2.0 is one of many threats that could affect our competitiveness and we cannot remain static. There is a Chinese saying: 逆水行舟, 不进则退. In business, it is the same. If we stop at where we are and hope that we will continue to thrive and to be vibrant, we will be in trouble. We have to constantly be on the move, look out for opportunities, continue to restructure, reorganise and reposition ourselves for new opportunities that will come our way.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Community Conversations on Sensitive Race and Religion Topics and Addressing Tensions due to Racial Insensitivities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the current efforts to build the civic engagement sector for skilled facilitators to lead conversations in the community on sensitive topics of race and religion; (b) how are suitable and effective facilitators sourced for, identified and trained; and (c) how will the tracking, evaluation and scaling of the positive effects of these conversations on social cohesion be made within the community.
10 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how does the Government intend to address tensions on racial insensitivities and discrimination on social media platforms; and (b) how does the Government intend to strengthen racial and religious harmony in Singapore.
\t
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to allow for the answers to Questions Nos 9 to 16 to be given first and then to address any further supplementary questions there might be collectively. These Parliamentary Questions (PQs) raise general issues concerning or affecting racial integration and various policies.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. May I also seek your permission to take Questions Nos 9 and 10 together, in my answer now.
\tMr Speaker: Yes.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, as a multi-racial and multi-religious country, we do not tolerate any form of racial or religious discrimination. Racial discrimination sows discord amongst and between different communities and threatens the harmony that we have worked so hard over so many generations to build up.
Our multi-racialism is not perfect and there is still much that we can do to improve. Let me elaborate on our multi-pronged approach to tackle racism and racial discrimination.
First, we have an enforcement and legal framework to deal with egregious cases that undermine our racial and religious harmony. Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to commit acts that deliberately wound the racial and religious feelings of any person, that promote enmity between different racial and religious groups, or that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), as amended in 2019, allows the Government to respond more effectively to incidents of religious disharmony and strengthens our safeguards against foreign influence that threaten our religious harmony.
The Government does not tolerate hate speech and will investigate anyone who sows enmity between races. Just last year, an individual used a Twitter account to make racist remarks against people of different races. This included comments against Indians whilst making reference to a news article on foreign workers living in dorms contributing to the apparent high COVID-19 infection rate in Singapore. He was charged for offences of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race under section 298A of the Penal Code.
In addition, under the Broadcasting Act, IMDA can direct Internet Content Providers to take down broadcasting material that glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance, which is prohibited under the Internet Code of Practice.
Second, Sir, we foster social norms for respectful online behaviour and discourse. Recent events have highlighted the polarising effect of online platforms and social media, and we must guard against potential divisions. This is especially important because we can only strengthen our multiculturalism, if we treat fellow Singaporeans as partners, instead of adversaries to be confronted. To achieve this, we will require a whole-of-society partnership, with Government, industry and, of course, the community, and each of us collaborating.
For example, the Media Literacy Council (MLC) promotes responsible online behaviour by working with partners to support projects by our youth promoting the shared values of respect, responsibility, empathy and integrity; and online behaviours that demonstrate safety, responsibility and also civility.
Social media companies also play a part in managing content hosted on their platforms, by constantly improving and enforcing their policies to remove content that promotes violence against people based on race or ethnicity. For example, Facebook has a set of Community Standards, which classifies \"Hate Speech\" as \"objectionable content\". Twitter also has a similar set of policies on hateful conduct. The Government works with these social media companies to promote healthy online discourse.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) also encourages ground-up projects that promote racial and religious harmony, including those that leverage digital and online platforms. MCCY provides funding support through its Harmony Fund and partners community organisations to organise initiatives such as the Mission:Unite Hackathon in December 2020.
Third, we foster open, meaningful and responsible conversations on race and religion. That is important. These conversations bring Singaporeans together to discuss and find common ground on issues important to us as a people, and in the process, build up mutual trust, respect and also understanding.
To support such dialogues and civic engagements, we work with stakeholders in the public, private and also people sectors to identify and equip individuals with the relevant skills, so that they can in turn create safe spaces for sensitive topics to be discussed.
Within the Public Service, we have trained and developed a sizeable pool of facilitators who are able to design and lead engagements both within the Public Service and with the wider community. An example is the on-going Emerging Stronger Conversations, which I am sure many Members have heard or participated in, which are mostly led by public officers across different Government agencies who are trained in facilitation.
Beyond the public service, community and religious groups also play a key role in encouraging constructive discussions, clarifying doubts and misconceptions, and rallying Singaporeans around our shared values to take a stand against divisive rhetoric on racial and religious issues.
Our religious and community leaders have amongst them, strong facilitation and convening capabilities. MCCY augments their efforts. For example in June, MCCY supported the Centre For Interfaith Understanding's launch of a series of public workshops that aim to discover, develop and deepen interfaith facilitators' role and expose them to cross-cutting issues such as interfaith marriages and economic inequality when discussing race and religion. So, having other segments of society come together, discussing policies and economic policies as well, but having the undertone of race and religious harmony as a backdrop.
Last month, MCCY also launched the \"Create and Connect\" digital media workshops where 40 participants from religious and community organisations came together to learn from technology companies on how to impactfully engage audiences on sensitive race and religion issues, and also manage complex online discussions in a constructive manner.
MCCY also supports community-driven dialogues that provide safe spaces and opportunities for open dialogue and mutual learning. MCCY's BRIDGE programme was launched in 2017 and has to-date supported over 120 such dialogues pertaining to race and religion. For example, OnePeople.sg has been organising the \"Regardless of Race\" dialogue series since 2019, with its most recent sixth edition in April this year. These dialogues address salient issues on racial harmony, including the impact of social media on race and religious relations.
Fourth, Sir, we are committed to enlarging the common spaces in which all Singaporeans can live, work and play together, and also share the daily lived experiences that bind us. Singapore's approach to maintaining our common space has created room for every community to enjoy our diverse cultural heritage, without asking any specific segment of community to give up its rich inheritances, culture and heritage. Over time, we have achieved a balance that all communities can accept and it has allowed us to live together in peace for more than half a century. This approach remains fundamental to tackling racism and racial discrimination, and strengthening racial and religious harmony in Singapore. And I must stress that we all have a part to play.
MCCY also works with other Government agencies and community partners to provide opportunities for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds to have meaningful interactions with one another. So, it is not just between Government and people, but also crucially, between people and people as well. These include events organised by arts, heritage and sports organisations, the People's Association (PA) and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs).
We also nurture the values of respect and harmony in our students. Within the classroom, topics on multiculturalism and the importance of racial harmony are taught in subjects like Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), History and Social Studies. As part of the refreshed 2021 CCE curriculum, teachers in secondary schools and pre-university institutions will receive specialised training so that they can also facilitate conversations, discussions, dialogues on contemporary issues, including race and religion, to hone students' ability to understand different perspectives and engender a sense of empathy and respect for one another.
Through co-curricular activities and other school experiences, students bond and interact with one another regardless of background. Learning journeys to cultural and heritage sites and the celebration of cultural festivals also help students foster and develop a stronger sense of identity, learning and also importantly, sensitivity to each other's race and religious issues.
Sir, these are just some of the Government's initiatives in the community and education domains to strengthen racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Racial harmony in Singapore is a constant work in progress and our ambition is for the bonds that bind our different communities to grow from strength to strength in the common spaces that we provide. All of us have a part to play in building a nation \"regardless of race, language or religion\".
\tMr Speaker: We will take the supplementary questions after the political officeholders have addressed the various related questions. I call on the next political officeholder who is addressing the next set of questions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Concerns from Students about Racial, Religious and Gender Discrimination amongst Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the procedures that schools and institutes of higher learning adopt to address concerns from students about racial, religious and gender discrimination arising from individuals such as staff or lecturers, curricula, or policies; (b) what are the principles guiding these procedures; (c) what steps are taken to review, update and improve on these procedures; and (d) what are the obstacles to making the public more aware of the above and how can they be overcome.
12 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education (a) what avenues are available in educational institutions to ensure that educators with racist views will be flagged up at the earliest possible opportunity; and (b) whether safeguards are available to ensure that persons giving feedback do not fear victimisation or being disadvantaged especially if they choose not to do it anonymously so that they can be informed of the outcome of their feedback.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Questions Nos 11 and 12 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are committed to providing a supportive and safe environment for our students and staff, regardless of their race, religion or gender. They provide a common space for students to learn and live out the values of respect and harmony and build a deeper appreciation of diversity in our society. To maintain this common space, our institutions stand firmly against any form of discrimination. The importance of racial and religious harmony and respect for others, is also taught through the formal and informal curriculum.
Our institutions have clear guidelines against unprofessional and discriminatory conduct. Specifically, respect for others is an integral part of the Codes of Conduct for both students and staff in the IHLs. In particular, we expect all educators to conduct themselves to the highest standards of their professions given their position of influence over the students.
Students and staff who experience any form of discrimination should not hesitate to bring it up to their institution immediately. Feedback channels and processes for students to do so include approaching senior staff or faculty members in person, or via email channels and other formal feedback mechanisms. In schools, students are informed that they can raise any issues to their teachers or any staff member. In IHLs, information on feedback channels are broadcasted on various platforms, including institutions' websites, student handbooks and portals. Students are also informed about these feedback channels during enrolment and orientation briefings.
While students and staff can choose to remain anonymous when providing feedback or reporting any incident, we generally encourage them to identify themselves and provide their contact details so that a more thorough investigation can be conducted. Students and staff have the assurance that they will be supported and protected, and that their feedback will be handled sensitively and in strict confidence.
Where necessary, institutions may decide to implement measures to maintain campus safety and the safety of those involved in the incident. For example, institutions may issue a no-contact order between the complainant and perpetrator or temporarily suspend the perpetrator from campus while investigations are ongoing.
Once a case has been lodged, institutions take prompt action to investigate the case and provide counselling support to the affected persons. Individuals involved in the incident will be interviewed and evidence gathered, to ascertain the facts of the case. Those found to have breached the Code of Conduct will be disciplined and counselled accordingly.
Institutions will continue to strengthen their feedback processes and encourage students to speak up on any incidents of discrimination. The curricula and policies in the Ministry of Education schools and IHLs are also regularly reviewed, taking into consideration feedback from educators, students and parents, through regular engagement sessions.
\t
Beyond efforts in schools and IHLs, parents and community groups also play a crucial role in supporting students to stand up against acts of discrimination and not be afraid to raise any issues to their respective institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Ethnic Integration Policy for HDB Blocks and Neighbourhoods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ethnic Integration Policy is still necessary in today’s context; and (b) if so, what steps are taken to assist minority sellers who may have difficulty in selling their HDB flats.
14 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development in view of the increasing number of inter-racial marriages and the changing profile of our households, whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) and (ii) adjusting EIP proportions for blocks and neighbourhoods.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 13 and 14 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for their questions on the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). I thought it would be useful for me to first share the history and context in which it was first introduced.
When Singapore was still under British rule, the Raffles Town Plan, also known as the Jackson Plan, designated separate geographical zones for each ethnic group. Malays, Chinese, Indians and Europeans lived in different areas and apart from one another. But this segregation was not conducive to promoting interaction and integration between the races. That was our colonial history.
Given the experience as well as the circumstances that led to Singapore’s Independence in 1965, our founding fathers were determined to learn these lessons in order to build a cohesive, multiracial society. Our very existence as a nation was based on this ideal: that we would be one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.
To achieve this aspiration, the Government did not blindly paper over the differences between the ethnic groups. We also did not take a \"melting-pot\" approach by forcing the different races to blend or conform artificially to one uniform national culture.
Instead, we respected and celebrated our differences, worked hard to uplift every community while actively enlarging our common space, and fostering trust and understanding between the various ethnic communities.
We encouraged this through a range of policies, including public housing policy. For instance, when the Housing and Development Board (HDB) built new towns and estates to provide public housing for Singaporeans, we consciously allocated flats in such a way that every HDB block and precinct all over Singapore reflected the ethnic mix of the general population. These were for our new flats then. This was so that people of different races could interact and form bonds with one another.
While we controlled the allocation of new flats quite carefully, we did not initially place similar restrictions on resale transactions, which were first allowed in 1971. Over time, as more resale transactions took place, people sold and bought and moved, ethnic concentrations started to re-emerge in particular areas. For example, by the late 1980s, we started to observe an increasing concentration of Chinese buyers in Ang Mo Kio and Malay buyers in Bedok and Tampines. We could see that, without intervention, there would, over time, once again, be ethnic enclaves which would separate us.
That is why we introduced the EIP in 1989, for both new as well as resale flats, to ensure that public housing estates remained inclusive and diverse, even beyond initial flat allocation.
The EIP applies to all races. It caps the proportion of flats in each HDB block and neighbourhood that can be owned by households of each ethnic group. The limits are set based on the ethnic proportions in the general population, with an allowance for some local variations in each block and neighbourhood. And if you look at the EIP limits, they are actually set higher than the national demographic proportion of each ethnic group.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong pointed out the changing profile of our households. He is right. We, therefore, review the EIP limits regularly, to ensure that they are in line with national demographics so that our HDB blocks and neighbourhoods continue to reflect the multiracial character of our society.
As for inter-ethnic households, which are becoming increasingly common in our social landscape, they can choose which ethnic quota to be considered when buying a flat. This choice is then fixed until they sell the flat, to be fair to other flat owners.
Today, we have made progress in strengthening good relations among Singaporeans of all races. This is the result of the hard work put in by many generations of Singaporeans, as well as our deliberate policies and programmes that seek to actively support multiracialism, including the EIP.
But as recent incidents show, there is still more that we can and must do to combat racism. Building racial harmony is a constant work in progress.
The EIP remains an important part of this effort because, left entirely to social and market forces, ethnic concentrations will start forming in different areas again.
There are many reasons for this, even beyond instinctive preferences that people may have, to live near others from the same ethnic community. For example, family members may wish to live near each other for mutual support, that is, live near family. Or residents of certain ethnic groups may prefer neighbourhoods with a higher concentration of specific amenities and services or larger flat types. Or they may find different locations more suitable for their household’s financial situation.
Individually, these are completely understandable and reasonable preferences and very personal ones. But collectively, if we are not careful, these tendencies could, inadvertently, lead to segregation among our races.
Is the EIP still relevant today? Let us look at the facts. Today, nearly one out of every three HDB blocks, and 14% of HDB neighbourhoods, have reached one or more of the EIP limits, which means they have hit that particular ethnic limit more than the national proportion. This happens across all ethnic groups – Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others – as well as in both mature estates with older Singaporeans and newer estates with younger residents, where most residents fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period in recent years. In some areas, like Bukit Merah, Pasir Ris and Woodlands, the limits have been reached persistently across time.
So, just imagine how much more the different ethnic groups would concentrate in different neighbourhoods, if we did away with the EIP, and how much harder it would be then to promote mixing and understanding across ethnic groups in the home environment.
Our children could grow up in neighbourhoods where they hardly see any children or any people of other races, not even in their classrooms, since most children go to pre-schools and national schools near their homes. How much harder then would it be for them to even get acquainted with different cultures from a young age – to see festivities, celebrations and mourning in the neighbourhood – not to mention to truly understand and appreciate these cultures from a very young age? And how much harder would it be for our children to correct their conscious and unconscious racial biases and learn how to live in a multicultural society?
So, to Miss Cheryl Chan’s questions, yes, the EIP remains relevant and necessary today.
Fostering real racial harmony is challenging and the EIP is one very important part of the solution because it helps to ensure inclusive and diverse neighbourhoods.
Of course, some might argue that just because we live next door to someone from a different ethnic group, culture or religion, it does not necessarily mean that we will get along with our neighbour, or learn to tolerate or understand our differences. In fact, all these incidents of friction between neighbours of different cultures have caught our attention and is part of the reason why are having this debate today. But equally, often, we do not celebrate the large number of situations when neighbours learn to live with each other, celebrate each other's festivals, mourn with each other, grieve with each other and go and learn how to live together, because they live in the same community. Others also argue that there are other ways to mix and achieve social integration – in schools, at work or during National Service.
But the EIP remains critical because so much of our lives and our children's lives revolve around our homes and our neighbourhoods. With diversity in our estates, we get to interact with our neighbours of different races almost every day – along the corridors, the void decks, playgrounds, markets, neighbourhood centres, shops, hawker centres.
And if we do not live with one another, it makes it much harder to empathise with other communities and understand the challenges that they face. And so much easier to stereotype or assume the worst of the other, the people we do not see or do not see so often. And this is a recipe for mutual mistrust and intolerance that we have seen in our early history but also repeated in cities and townships all around the world.
Indeed, we only need to look at other countries in the present day to see how this might happen. In major cities across Europe and the United States (US), for example, racial segregation is common and well-advanced. Different ethnic groups live in different enclaves. The wealthier ethnicities congregate in expensive, gentrified precincts. While ethnicities which are less well-off are excluded and stigmatised. They receive fewer opportunities and these differences get entrenched across generations.
I recently read an article on the website FiveThirtyEight analysing racial segregation in the US. It featured a tool developed by the University of Virginia which is called \"The Racial Dot Map\" – and you might want to check it up after this. The map plots one dot for each person on the maps of US cities, with different colours representing different ethnicities. The visualisation is quite stark. The map is colourful, but you can see distinct and clear patches of colour sharply separated from one another, with very little inter-mixing, a reflection of how multicultural but segregated the country is. The author also cites a study showing that three quarters of white Americans do not have any non-white friends. He writes, I quote, \"The places we live affect not only our access to resources, but also who we meet, interact with and become friends with. The nature of segregation in the US means that we only end up seeing and learning about what our own groups experience, making it hard to understand the lives of people outside of our own group.\"
Similarly, after I spoke about the EIP at an overseas conference some years back, a mayor of a big city that suffered from serious racial segregation and conflict came up to me. He said he wished that his city had implemented a version of the EIP much earlier on, to foster harmony and avert the unrest that they now regularly face. But now that societal divisions have hardened along racial and ethnic lines, the EIP is not a feasible nor politically attainable option. Even talking about the idea of ensuring that different races live near one another would cause an uproar and inflame tensions even further. That is how bad the situation had become. That conversation with this mayor has stuck in my mind all these years.
In fact, in September 2016, Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan of London, said this: \"The less integrated our societies are, the greater the economic and social costs we face now and in the future. Failure to integrate feeds extremism, whether in the Muslim community or the far right. It causes anxiety and fear of crime and causes mistrust between people. A laissez-faire approach to achieving social integration just does not work. There is so much that city leaders can do to ensure people of different ethnicities, faiths, culture, age groups and incomes do not just tolerate each other, but live truly interconnected lives. We need to ensure that our housing and planning laws mean we design and build integrated communities and institutions where neighbours have real reasons to come together.\"
And, actually, I have got many other studies that we have been following over the years – studies in Europe, the US and other cities – which affirm that integration and social diversity strengthen social cohesion and understanding.
So, the EIP continues to serve a very important function for Singapore. We cannot leave social mixing to chance and hope that it will happen by an invisible hand. It is better to intervene upstream to pre-empt the problem and to foster mutual understanding and encourage integration from the start. If we wait until after racial tensions have started to bubble to the surface and develop and become entrenched, it will become so much harder to heal those fractures and rebuild trust among different communities.
From our engagements and the feedback we have received, most Singaporeans understand and support the EIP and recognise its purpose. Based on a recent REACH survey, more than 60% of Singaporeans agreed that implementing racial quotas in public housing was an important way of promoting racial integration. Similar levels of support were seen across all races. About 30% were indifferent to this and less than 10% disagreed.
Having said that, we recognise that the EIP is an intrusive social policy, because it acts against very powerful and complex socio-economic forces that are at play in Singapore and all over the world.
And in its application on the ground, the EIP does have its rough edges and may cause difficulties for some owners looking to sell their flats. In 2020, HDB received about 500 appeals for a waiver of the EIP, which is about 2% of the 23,100 resale applications filed last year.
\tWhen the EIP limits are reached for an ethnic group, sellers from other ethnic groups are unable to sell to buyers of the constrained group. With a smaller pool of eligible buyers, sellers may have to lower their asking price or they may take longer to market and sell their flat. This happens across all races, including Chinese sellers who are affected by the non-Chinese EIP limits. But we do see more appeals from sellers from the minority races. This is because Chinese buyers form a larger proportion of the market simply from the demographic mix of society and the impact on individual non-Chinese sellers is therefore larger when the Chinese EIP limits are reached. And this data we presented in some Parliamentary Questions (PQs) earlier.
In such cases, the seller’s loss may be the buyer’s gain. A buyer from an eligible race will benefit from a lower resale price and would thus be less affected if and when they sell the flat in the future.
But this brings little comfort to affected sellers, particularly those who had bought the flat from HDB, or on the resale market before the EIP limits were reached, and yet are now caught by the EIP limits. This is the group who can be financially disadvantaged, and I understand why they feel aggrieved. They may feel it is unfair that they are personally shouldering the costs for a policy that benefits all of us in society.
Over the years, Members of Parliament on both sides of this House have raised these concerns. This is why HDB has been exercising flexibility for EIP-constrained owners, on a case-by-case basis. For instance, HDB will give the household more time to sell their flat and even waive the EIP limits if there are exceptional circumstances. In fact, the percentage of successful EIP-related appeals has risen from 14% in 2018 to 21% in 2020.
However, whenever HDB waives EIP limits to address its impact on certain households, it is mindful that this may lead to even higher imbalances in the concentrations of certain ethnic groups in some areas. So, we are studying the situation carefully and are looking at what more can be done to help affected sellers.
The EIP is by no means the perfect tool, nor the only tool to promote and ensure racial harmony. We are very conscious of the trade-offs and will keep working to smoothen its sharper edges.
But it has an essential place among the range of tools, programmes, policies and safeguards we deploy to protect and promote our racial harmony. So, let us keep in mind the larger social objective behind the EIP even as we seek to smoothen its sharper edges. We must always ensure that the places we live and grow up reflect the fabric of our society. That is how we continuously press on towards our ideal of a cohesive and multi-racial Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin. We are taking PQs all the way to Question No 16.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Ownership Schemes for Malay/Muslim Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development with regard to Project DIAN@M3 which helps Malay families in public rental flats to achieve home ownership, how will these efforts (i) complement existing efforts by HDB’s Home Ownership Support Team (HST) to avoid duplication and (ii) be resourced to achieve intended outcomes of integrating assets towards enhancing home ownership of the Malay/Muslim community.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, uplifting lower-income and vulnerable families, including supporting families staying in rental flats to attain and regain home ownership, is a whole-of-society effort.
On the Government’s part, we have a suite of housing grants and priority schemes to ensure that public housing continues to be affordable and accessible to all Singaporeans. We have also enhanced our measures to provide additional support to families staying in rental flats in recent years. In addition to generous housing grants, families in public rental can receive one-to-one guidance from the Housing and Development Board's (HDB’s) Home Ownership Support Team (HST) as they work towards buying a flat.
Within the Malay/Muslim community, the M3 network has various programmes that complement the Government’s initiatives in supporting lower-income and vulnerable families. Project DIAN@M³ aims to provide more effective and integrated support for Malay/Muslim families staying in rental flats by connecting them to the wide range of national and community programmes for education, employment, social support and health.
Project DIAN@M³, which focuses on Malay/Muslim families, will focus on the following aspects.
First, we want to improve inter-generational mobility by giving more attention to families with children staying in rental flats. Project DIAN@M³ will see the coordination of M³ outreach efforts with other Government programmes such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Community Link or ComLink, Early Childhood Development Agency’s KidSTART and Ministry of Education’s UPLIFT, including facilitating access to pre-school education and ensuring the children can attend school regularly.
Second, we want to help families staying in rental flats improve their employment outcomes and earn a stable income, so that they can work towards buying an HDB flat. This includes helping these families utilise their SkillsFuture credits and linking them up with career counselling programmes under MENDAKI SENSE. We also want to encourage more women to join and remain in the workforce. For Malay women who wish to continue working after marriage or childbirth, the Back-to-Work Women programme by MENDAKI SENSE connects them to potential employers and prepares them to take on new jobs.
Third, we will ensure that families have access to social support that can help them to grow a positive family environment. This is done through programmes such as Bersamamu and Project ARIF, which support newly wed couples for family life, maternal wellness and child development.
In terms of resourcing, Project DIAN@M³ will be led by the M³ Engagement Coordination Office (ECO) and tap on its existing resources. For example, ECO will equip volunteers reaching out to families staying in rental flats with the knowledge and skills to perform last-mile outreach. We welcome more who wish to be part of Project DIAN@M³, and partner us on this important effort. Ultimately, we hope the concerted support will enable the vulnerable families to achieve home ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of Question Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 16, including relevant supplementary questions.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Questions for Oral Answers set down on the Order Paper for today to continue until the completion of Question No 16 and including relevant supplementary questions. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah, Question No 16.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate by Malay/Muslims of Existing National Financial and Estate Planning Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the current take-up rate by Malay/Muslims of the national financial and estate planning programmes available; (b) what are the current initiatives available to educate Malay/Muslims on permissible methods of investments and estate planning; and (c) what are the avenues for them to seek clarification or enquire about such financial or estate planning methods.
\t
The Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, MoneySENSE is our national financial education programme that seeks to raise Singaporeans' financial literacy. Under MoneySense, there are various initiatives, resources and tools to help Singaporeans make prudent decisions related to their savings, housing purchase, investments and retirement planning.
This is done in two ways. First, MoneySENSE's website and social media channels provide free bite-sized information, starter packs and financial tools on financial planning. Second, MoneySENSE offers free financial talks and workshops through the Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL). Since March this year, the IFL has been conducting periodic \"Ask-Me-Anything\" Facebook Live sessions, where individuals can ask trained finance professionals about topics such as estate planning and digital tools for financial planning.
In addition, MoneySENSE collaborates with various partners to reach out and provide financial education to Singaporeans at different stages of their lives. For example, MoneySENSE works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to incorporate financial planning topics in the marriage preparation programmes. This includes Muslim couples attending the Cinta Abadi Marriage Preparation Programme, where they will learn how to plan ahead by making Central Provident Fund (CPF) nominations and the Lasting Power of Attorney.
Community initiatives supplement these national programmes to further strengthen support for the Malay/Muslim community, including newly wed couples and young families.
MENDAKI SENSE’s Program Bijak Belanja engages young and low-income families to empower them with financial management skills. The workshop is delivered in Malay and covers practical day-to-day management of family expenses. Topics such as home ownership, basic investment and management of inheritance are also covered in the programme. Over the last two and a half years, more than 600 participants have benefited from MENDAKI SENSE's Program Bijak Belanja.
As part of the M3 initiative, the Naib Kadi or solemnisers will provide marital guidance to newly wed couples through the Bersamamu programme, so that they have a good start and build a strong foundation to their marriage. Where required, the Naib Kadis will also refer couples to available community and national resources including financial support programmes.
Financial planning courses will also be offered to newly wed couples and young Muslim families under Temasek Foundation's programme called \"Achieving Resilient and Inspiring Families\" or Project ARIF. Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) is in discussion with MoneySENSE to incorporate financial planning components into this programme, which is expected to be implemented next year.
Religious guidance is also another way provided to the community on matters related to financial and estate planning tools. MUIS has conducted seminars and talks on managing inheritance and organised several Continuous Professional Education or CPE training programmes on “Wealth and Estate Planning” for our asatizah. A free guidebook on the Islamic Law of Inheritance or what we call Faraidh, covering the financial and estate planning tools that can be practised by Muslims within Singapore’s context, is also accessible online. The guidebook contains a helpful list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on managing inheritance.
In addition, MUIS has issued religious rulings or fatwas to guide the community in their estate planning and decision making.
For example, the Hibah Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) Fatwa permits trusts to be made for disabled dependents to ensure their future well-being when there is no longer a surviving caregiver.
Another one, the Joint Tenancy Fatwa permits the surviving joint tenant to have full ownership of the property, without the need for a transfer of ownership and being subjected to distribution of inheritance according to Islamic law.
And third, the CPF Nomination fatwa recognises the permissibility of the CPF nomination instrument. Muslims can choose the CPF instrument or distribute their wealth according to faraidh, or exercise both options together.
In 2012, MUIS also set up the \"Wakaf Ilmu\", a voluntary charitable endowment for Muslims to come forward to do planned giving. The revenue generated through the investment of the Wakaf in capital-guaranteed instruments and properties is channelled towards supporting Islamic education in Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader for extending the time for Members to ask supplementary questions. My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for that very nuanced exposition of the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). I think it has been the most nuanced reply that I have heard from a Government Minister on the EIP, considering on the one hand the realities of racial integration and other policies that can assist; and on the other, the fact that there are people who actually pay a price for the EIP.
I have three supplementary questions.
\t
The first pertains to the request for waivers. This has been on the up, from 2017 to 2019. I understand the numbers were around 1,850 for the three years: 25% from the Malay community, 16% from the Chinese community and 59% from the Indian and other communities. The numbers actually cascade lower in the years before.
My question is: for the EIP limit for the Indian and other communities, which was at 59%, when the EIP limit overall was actually reviewed in 2010, the EIP limit for that category was 10% and 13% at the neighbourhood and block level, and that was increased to 12% and 15% respectively. My question is: in view of the large number of EIP appeals continuing to come from this community and a suggestion made in 2010 by the then-Minister for National Development that there would be a review around 2020, has this review been undertaken and what are the new EIP limits, if any?
The second question is a question for information. In 1989, when EIP was introduced, 28% of the neighbourhoods had already reached the established EIP guidelines on the start date of the EIP. Over the years, this has fallen but there is no real clarity about why this has fallen. I am specifically referring to the number of new neighbourhoods that have also come about. So, the percentage can be very difficult to understand. For example, in Kaki Bukit and Aljunied GRC, the neighbourhood level numbers for the Malay community are still, I believe, beyond the EIP limits. And there is nothing untoward about race relations in Kaki Bukit. And I think this will be replicated in other parts of Singapore.
So, to this end, is the Government prepared to share details on the breakdown by ethnic groups in all HDB neighbourhoods, both new and old, on an annual basis from 1989? If it is, then, we will file the question.
Finally, in response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in 2013, HDB shared that it had reviewed the EIP limits for rental flats; and administratively, it adds up to 10% for the block limits for HDB rental flats. Would HDB consider a similar approach for all flats and also exercise greater flexibility at the neighbourhood level as a means of loosening the EIP criteria as a compromise, or even remove precinct and block quotas in favour of a larger area of coverage?
This is in view of the rising number of EIP waiver requests over the last few years, Singapore's changing demographic profile and for policy equity considerations towards communities that are adversely affected by the EIP.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his three questions.
First, on the number of appeals from households from Indian or other ethnic origins, whether the review is ongoing, it continues to be so. We look at the proportions of various ethnic groups over the years and we make adjustments, where necessary.
In 1989 versus 2020, the second question. Here is the data. In 1989, when we introduced the EIP, 28% of neighbourhoods had reached one or more EIP limits. So, 125 neighbourhoods then; 35 neighbourhoods reached one or more limits. In June this year, out of 173 neighbourhoods – because we have been building our towns and increasing the number of neighbourhoods – 14% have breached one or more ethnic limits. That is 24 neighbourhoods. In 1989, 35 neighbourhoods out of 125 and in June 2021, 24 out of 173.
So, more neighbourhoods as a whole in Singapore but the number of neighbourhoods hitting one or more EIP limits has come down, not just in proportionate terms but in absolute numbers.
That is perhaps a result of a range of factors: the EIP operating, including operating in new neighbourhoods that are launched over the years since. But also, a whole variety of factors: providing a whole range of flat types, providing for different budgets, programmes that promote a sense of belonging, programmes that help to integrate society together across races. So, a whole range of factors may have led to that.
As for rental flats, I recall reading in 2013, the Member asked, following a 2012 question he had asked to Minister Khaw Boon Wan, then Minister for National Development, and Minister Khaw said that for rental flats to accommodate the Malay households that are applying for rental housing, there would be an administrative 10-percentage point increment to accommodate.
Whether we will consider that across all housing types, as I said earlier, we are mindful of the intent of EIP as a bulwark against very strong socio-economic forces borne out of choices of individuals. The EIP, we need to adjust along the way in terms of looking at proportions, but it is a very important bulwark. And I hope the Member agrees with me.
Therefore, we look at individual cases in order to determine whether we should waive the limit as opposed to an inexorable increase in EIP limits for all races across the board, which for some cases would bring it close to 100% because for Chinese, the EIP limit is already 87%.
So, the question is how much more do you want to raise the cap? In doing so, even when we allow appeals on a case-by-case basis, we are already pushing at the boundaries of what the policy seeks to achieve.
Let me also take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the Opposition to give us a better understanding of the Workers' Party's (WP's) position on EIP. He has asked very useful questions. I looked at your manifestos and WP has said unequivocally from 2006 to last year, that WP wants the EIP to be abolished; and people should be able to stay wherever they want in our estates.
Let me quote page 28 of the 2020 manifesto, \"the ethnic quotas governing citizens' home ownership of HDB flats should be abolished. This would address the disadvantage faced by ethnic minority HDB flat resellers. Abolishing the quota will not cause racial disharmony amongst Singaporeans. After more than 50 years of nation-building, our society has evolved and achieved multi-racial integration that has gone beyond the need for mandating proportionately mixed neighbourhoods. Singaporeans should therefore be given the freedom to choose where their homes will be without taking into account race.\"
It is the same in 2015. You did not cite the impact on minority resellers but you say that society has now attained a level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for EIP.
In 2011, that is the same position except that in addition to saying that in 2011, Singapore had reached a high level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for people to be mandated to live with each other across different ethnicities in our neighbourhoods, WP goes on to say that the ethnic quota system also contradicts the policy of encouraging young families to live closer to their parents and prevent young Malay and Indian families from buying homes close to their parents. I would dare say that also applies to Chinese families who are constrained by EIP even if they wish to live in the same block as their parents.
That is also the same in 2006.
Between 1989 and 2006, we have no record of any position that WP has taken since the EIP was launched.
I looked at speeches made by the hon Leader of the Opposition as well as the Chairman of WP and other Members. I just want to understand the rationale and, indeed, what the position is. Because in the House, there has been no clear and unequivocal position taken by WP that you want the EIP abolished because you object to it and that Singapore has reached such a high level of multi-racialism that it is no longer necessary.
We, of course, take a very different view to that. And the recent incidents over the years continue to remind us of the need to keep working at it and never rest on our laurels, that we can afford to take away mechanisms that are in place through the wisdom of the generations to keep our society where it is today.
So, I would like to seek some clarity. Firstly, given what I have said about the current EIP limits being strained in different locations and the experience in different cities and countries, not just in the past but in the present, what would be WP's position? Is it your position that there will not be racial concentrations if we abolish EIP? Or are you saying that we have reached a level of multi-racial integration so that it does not matter if we have entire blocks and neighbourhoods of predominantly one race; society will not change if we have ethnic concentrations?
What would your position be if you know that people go to the pre-schools, they go to the schools near their homes. And if we have neighbourhoods predominantly of one ethnic group, that will of course cascade into pre-schools, into our national school system. The services in the heartlands, the shops, the markets, the hawker centre food choices, they will adjust to reflect the proportions of the clientele in the neighbourhood.
How about local jobs? The availability of local jobs and the kinds of ethnic Singaporeans who fill those jobs?
If you are concerned about diversity in the workplace, in National Service, in national schools and even social mixing – I recall there was an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) discussion about different socio-economic classes and the concern about whether they mix – then, why not at home and in our neighbourhoods where we spend a vast amount of time?
I would like to seek the Member's clarification. It would help to advance our common understanding.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yes, that is the Workers' Party (WP) position, as iterated by the Minister, in the manifesto. It really is undergirded by the frustration that we sense from ethnic minorities who cannot sell their flats.
The question is: is the EIP the only policy, among a whole gamut of policies, that the Government has to encourage racial integration, bearing in mind that it is a pre-emptive policy introduced in 1989? And we also have a hybrid system almost, in Singapore, where we do have places like Chinatown and Little India, where there are concentrations of a particular race but it does not disturb Singaporeans. It does not bother Singaporeans.
We may take a different philosophical approach as to what the end situation will be, but I cannot speculate on one or two episodes and say that because of that, we are descending in terms of our journey towards greater racial integration.
My own sense on the philosophy behind the HDB EIP policy as it stands today – almost one generation since its introduction – is that it needs to be revisited. It has to be revisited in the context and not limited to: number one, a larger national conversation on race relations in the context of today and tomorrow Singapore; and, separately, what it means to be Singaporean.
Number two, the effect of immigration into Singapore from the 1990s after the EIP was introduced, leading to a larger Singapore family living in HDB flats that include communities outside the traditional CMIO categorisation such as naturalised Singaporeans from Myanmar, the Philippines and non-Tamil ethnic Indians.
Number three, the more common experience of mixed marriages amongst Singaporeans and separately between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, and its impact on traditional racial categorisations.
Number four, as it is well known – this is really the heartbeat of why WP has taken the position it has since 2006. It was, I think, referred to as a \"time bomb\" by PAP even then – and that is the economic loss to minorities who have to lower the market price of their flats in the name of that policy. That is particularly painful because we hear that from many people who are in that position. I believe the Chairperson of WP in the opening of the Parliament for this session, referred to one individual who had to sell the flat at a loss of $100,000. That is shocking and that is really where we are coming from.
Number five and finally, a reassessment of Singapore's lived experiences which acknowledge policies and guidelines that have successfully encouraged racial integration such as national schools, anti-discrimination guidelines at the workplace, National Service, amongst others, and how these compare in today's time with the continued efficacy of the EIP as a policy tool of racial integration.
So, the position is this. The current policy as it stands has a larger impact on minorities, penalising them in the pocket when they have to sell their flat. By minorities, I mean not just racial minorities, but those who are affected by it, including Chinese, Malays, Indians. This may perversely interact with the stated objective of the policy of racial harmony, thereby breeding resentment amongst those who are affected by the policy.
For that reason, the EIP as it stands needs to be reviewed. We must always keep in focus the prospect of endeavouring towards a race-neutral society where race-based policies like the EIP are no longer needed. In its current form, as I suggested, the EIP quota should either be further loosened to ameliorate the prospects of further economic loss for sellers with HDB committed to buying back the affected flat at the valuation price, or a larger geographical area representing the anchor for the EIP rather than the precinct and block quotas.
And just before I conclude, my second supplementary question was not just a general question about the percentages at a broad level. It was about specific neighbourhoods across time. Would the MND be prepared to release that information?
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the very clear elucidation of the party's position that it objects to the EIP and would want it abolished. A couple of responses.
First, he says it is a pre-emptive policy in 1989. If you look back in history and over the last few weeks and months as we continue to review our policies and preparing for today's session has been a humbling experience in learning from the wisdom of the generations. It is not a pre-emptive policy in 1989. It was a policy that was put in place because of the lessons learnt from the 1960s, paid for with blood, sweat and tears. A real pain in families grieving for lost loved ones and a country newly formed wrecked by racial riots and disharmony, distrust. The efforts of HDB are not just to build homes for people who lived in slums and villages that flooded or were easily burned, but also ensuring that we learn those lessons, and in allocating new flats, make sure that in every block, there was a racial mix. Taking people from what were ethnic enclaves, which were a legacy of the Jackson Plan and persisted through villages and enclaves of different races, pulling them up and saying, \"You move into these high-rise homes in the sky, but we will mix you. Learn to live with each other.\"
If you talk to the earlier generation, it was not easy. And I think today, there are still frictions along the way, but things have improved.
So, it is not a pre-emptive policy. It is not something that we decided to put in because we were looking at other countries. We paid for it with the blood of our brethren and sisters.
Second, the Member says that he or WP would like to abolish the EIP because of its disproportionate impact on minorities. As I said earlier, the EIP has its rough edges. By its very operation, it seeks to ensure that in every estate, from BTO all the way to resale flat, there is freedom to choose where you would like to live, subject to balloting or price. But when it hits certain limits, and when the function of individual choices results in blocks exceeding significantly the demographic proportion of each ethnic group, then we have to kick in this bulwark and say, \"Well, we will have to cap it\".
Of course, it causes pain to minorities but also Chinese as well. The proportion, of course, will be different because there are a lot more Chinese than there are the other ethnic minorities, and that is the reality of it.
For Build-To-Order (BTO) applications in certain popular locations, say Bishan, Ang Mo Kio, you do have cases of Chinese coming up to say, \"Look, I have been balloted. I have been asked to select, but the next day I am told sorry, EIP limit hit, and then the minority takes over my place\". There is also unhappiness. But we explain the rationale and seek their understanding, and by and large, all Singaporeans of all races have kept faith with the broader intent of this policy.
But I accept the Member's point and I accept the point that was made by many Members of this House, both present and past, and looking at very thoughtful questions in speeches by both PAP Members and Members from across the aisle over the years, concerned about the impact on their constituents of all races, including minorities.
And that is why we have been looking at it case-by-case, understanding the situation for each seller, looking at how long they have taken to market the flat, looking at the price if asked for, given the market conditions, and well, if today is EIP, tomorrow or next month, perhaps there might be a change of circumstances. Or after a few months, the EIP may adjust because people buy and sell and the EIP may no longer apply to your block. So, we look at it individually, bearing in mind that we have to be very judicious. Otherwise, the lessons that we have learned will all unravel.
The Member talked about the case that the Chairman of WP sought to help and the example was raised twice as an anecdotal, but real, example of a person who lost $100,000 through resale. I would like to clarify and we have checked all the cases that the learned Member had filed and without naming the individual family, it was not a case of them losing $100,000. Ms Sylvia Lim's appeal to us was that the resident told her that she got offers for her flat that appeared to be $100,000 less than what other people nearby were offered. That was anecdotal, it was said to her. I am not sure if the Member verified. We were not in a position to verify what the offers were for that flat.
But in that case, HDB assessed the case holistically and agreed in August 2019 to waive the EIP for a period of time to allow the family to sell. Waived off EIP, looking at the circumstances of the family. But the family decided not to take this offer up for other reasons and requested HDB to acquire the flat. So, that was what happened. I think better put these cases which are raised as anecdotal examples to rest.
Having said that, there is impact, no doubt. There is impact. And we address that through appeals, we look at these and scrutinise very carefully to help the affected seller. And as we said, we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges of EIP and ensure that a new generation of Singaporeans who have not lived through the tumultuous early days of Singapore history continue to support measures, may not be popular measures, but necessary bulwarks to ensure that our multi-racial character is in substance and not in form.
The Member, I am not sure whether he has addressed my question, but because of the impact on minorities, which we have said we address through appeals as well as through continuous smoothening of the rough edges, does he still take the position that we want to abolish the EIP for that reason? And if abolished, does WP believe that our estates will remain multicultural and representative? Or is it the case that you accept that given even current trends, there will be a lot of concentration, but that it is perfectly okay, there is no impact to our multi-racial character because we have multi-racialism in National Service, in our national schools and our workplaces?
I have also said earlier that there will be these knock-on effects, if whole estates become concentrated, to all these places, platforms and spaces that the Member talked about. From being common, they will be ethnic focused. Does he then say, we move the EIP away from housing and put ethnic quotas in schools, in workplaces, in pre-schools, in markets, in hawker centres, in neighbourhood shops? Or you think it is fine that the schools and pre-schools, they are all ethnically focused because its proximity and it is fine. We are sufficiently multicultural – a point you have made since 2006, that Singapore has reached such a high level of multiculturalism that we no longer need to concern ourselves with mixing people.
As for the last point about the data, we will look at what data we can provide, the granularity, it changes from month to month. But we will see what we can provide.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for National Development. I think the point really, again, is the philosophy that we want to aim towards, towards a race-neutral society and we continue working towards this assiduously and keeping in mind that you do not want the policy to become a barrier to that vision, to that journey to become a race-neutral society. That is why we took the position that we had.
I do not believe the Minister has suggested what sort of policy beyond the very helpful clarification of the anecdote, I think this is how Parliament should work: if an example is brought up, the Government clarifies. Beyond these cases where HDB looks at it on a case-by-case basis, we have a regime, the rental housing regime, where HDB is prepared to administratively lift block limits. So, it is not as if the Government, the arguments that were made by the Minister for National Development are cast in stone. There is flexibility beyond looking at individual cases and moving the boundaries.
So, the question I like to ask is for the review that was supposed to take place 10 years after 2010, according to Minister Mah Bow Tan. What sort of scheme changes have HDB discussed internally, beyond just looking at cases on a case-by-case basis?
If I have not answered any of the Minister's questions, please ask me again. I will be happy to answer them. Ours is a philosophical point. We take the position because we want to endeavour and move towards a race-neutral society.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Those are details, important details but I think, fundamentally, it is important to understand, given the Government's position as articulated, that we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges and given how over the last few years, we have started to see more appeals succeeding, do we recognise that that is on a case-by-case basis, providing a balm to a household but also not quite pushing the limits further. Does WP still want to abolish? And if it abolishes, the important questions about your belief about what society will be like, I think that is most fundamental. The other issues we can address, but we need to understand your position on multi-racialism.
Number two, the importance of these bulwarks to ensure multi-racialism. Number three, your position on Chinese, Malays, Indians, Others (CMIO). You have talked about a race-blind society, a race-neutral, race-blind multicultural society. But yet over the years, we have been tracking; WP has been filing lots and lots of questions specific to individual minorities or races. And in fact, I understand Member Mr Faisal Manap had asked a PQ before, asking for assurances that we will ensure that the ethnic mix in Singapore will remain and wants to keep a very close eye on ethnic issues.
The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to ask a clarification of the Leader of the Opposition because I was listening to his response.
I think he had started out by saying that the EIP should be revisited. Then, he said, reviewed. He then mentioned that in the manifesto, they took a philosophical position. But I am sorry because I still do not know what WP's position is.
So, could the Leader of the Opposition clarify? Is he saying today that the EIP should be abolished? Is the answer to that, yes or no? That is all I want to know. Or is he saying that it need not be abolished, we can just look to see how we improve it? That is all I wanted to understand.
Mr Pritam Singh: Well, it is a very nice way to close off our discussion on this topic. But I will be happy to clarify the doubts of the Leader of the House. The philosophical position remains, we aim as a society towards race neutrality. It does not matter what the colour of your skin is, we respect each other as Singaporeans, the Singapore family is going beyond CMIO categorisations and that is the target we need to keep in mind. That is where we want to endeavour towards.
\t
The Government is the government of the day, it wants to retain the EIP for reasons which I would say are not totally illegitimate. I think it is important that I state that. But having said that, how do we move forward with the EIP as it is, knowing that there are minorities, knowing that there are minority communities, knowing that there are even majority, even the Chinese community, who are affected by it? Is there a better way forward?
I think that is our duty as an opposition also. Half the reason why I am asking for all that data on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis, over time – annually, not monthly – annually, is to try and see, for those neighbourhoods where EIP limits have been breached, what is unique about those neighbourhoods. Is it very different from any other neighbourhood in Singapore? How do we look into those details with more granularity? And I hope that clarifies the point by the Leader, but I do not think so.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his erudite answer, which did not answer my question. So, I think we both agree. Both, indeed, the Workers' Party and we, agree we do want a race-neutral society. We want to raise a society where everybody can live happily together. It is a question of how do we get there. And one of the things that the People's Action Party Government has put in place is the EIP.
The Workers' Party, in its manifesto, has said, abolish it. Mr Pritam Singh comes to Parliament today and says revisit, review underlying philosophy and a few other things. I just want to know, today, is the Workers' Party saying we should remove the EIP? If you are saying that we should do that, say so. On the other hand, if you are saying, keep the EIP but let us improve it and ameliorate the impact on minorities, say so. Then, I think we know where we both stand and where we are in agreement.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: We still aim to remove it but, until we get there, we have to, as Minister said, even out the rough edges as much as possible and, at some point, I hope my generation, within our generation, we reach that place where we are race-neutral. It does not mean that sometimes things do not bubble over. But there are more important things that remind us that we are Singaporeans and we ought to look beyond our skin colour.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for that very clear position. In 2006 and all the way till last year, the Workers' Party position was that we have already reached a level of multiculturalism and, therefore, unequivocally, called for since 2006, election after election, for the immediate abolition of EIP. But the Workers' Party's position today, in 2021, is that we still need the EIP, we work towards a race-blind society and we endeavour to reach there and, at some point, hopefully, we may not need EIP. So, that is a clear change in political position and I thank the Member for that.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question actually takes the focus away from the EIP. I would like to reference a point that was made by the Minister for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Minister Edwin Tong earlier. The Minister referenced the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) programme that is being taught in the schools right now. I remember, not just from the Minister's point, but in the Committee of Supply earlier this year, there was due to be a review of the CCE. So, my supplementary question is actually for the Minister for Education.
In the review of the CCE, could the Minister share more details how we intend to incorporate the topics of multi-racialism and multiculturalism into the CCE syllabus and also how the syllabus will possibly be taught across the various platforms than we allow for a more vigorous, broader, intense debate?
My second question is, will the Ministry be looking into, say, for example, certain schools, where perhaps the student demographics are a little bit more homogeneous? I am not just talking about, say, SAP schools or madrasahs, but even certain schools which might be devoid of particular ethnicities for a variety of reasons. And will the Ministry then perhaps adjust or tweak the CCE to cater to teaching the topics of multiculturalism and multi-racialism in these schools?
The Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the CCE curriculum to ensure that our students are equipped with the necessary skills and keep up with the increasingly complex and dynamic environment. The last review, as the Member is aware, began in 2018. So, as part of the review, besides drawing from the research on Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), we interacted with experts and practitioners on current and emerging trends, engaged community partners and stakeholders, such as school leaders, educators and students across all levels. So, we continue to review CCE education, a very important part of our curriculum development for our students.
The new CCE 2021 curriculum builds on the foundation that have been laid by the previous CCE curriculum and further strengthens the focus on guiding students to build character, learn values, social and emotional competencies, and develop citizenship dispositions within and beyond the classrooms. This is done through engaging pedagogies that encourage students to voice out and explore the multiple perspectives, including the national perspective, and bearing in mind the common good. So, we are using different pedagogies and not just top-down, not just telling them what it is, to allow them to use experiential learning. There is also a difference between the formal curriculum and the informal curriculum. It is not just in the classrooms but also through exposures like co-curricular activities (CCAs) as well as uniformed group interactions.
So, even as the Member mentioned earlier, circumstances where there are students with different kinds of profiles, CCE is not just in the classrooms. It also takes place in experiences and platforms where students interact with one another. So, for example, in CCA, in national competitions, camps, leadership camps, students are exposed to other groups of students and they are able to interact with one another.
The CCE curriculum also takes the age-appropriate dimension. So, the Primary schools get a different level of content versus the secondary schools versus the junior colleges. We also ensure that we train our teachers and our new teachers to be ready and prepared to implement the new curriculum. The new teachers are provided with this programme called the \"CCE in the Singapore context\" and so they are trained to deliver the content. Even existing teachers are also given opportunities to look at different pedagogies because we know that students are exposed to different content on social media and they use some of these contents using new pedagogies to excite the students and, at the same time, acknowledge the importance of engaging in discourse of this nature.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for his response to my PQ, Question No 15. I am really glad to see that there are increasing efforts to enhance coordination between agencies, as issues, such as the potential entrenchment of community within the rental flat paradigm, are complex and really will require a more nuanced and sustained approach, as well as adequate resources to see real outcomes over the longer term. So, I have three supplementary questions.
Firstly, are the other plans for the efforts under Project DIAN@M3 to be integrated with national efforts, such as ComLink, for example, and how would the duplication of these efforts be avoided? Second, given that home ownership is also closely related to other factors, such as employment and family structures, is there room for Project DIAN@M3 to be a sandbox for potential policy adjustments and what sort of community assets will be integrated, given that these involve multiple agencies? And finally, I am sure many of us will be interested in understanding what sort of outcomes the Government is hoping to see from this and also the timeline. So, could the Minister of State please share when will Project Dian@M3 be rolled out?
The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I will take it as a whole and try to answer the questions. So, as I have shared earlier, for now, Project DIAN@M3 will focus on outreach to families staying in rental flats and build upon the partnerships which M3 has earlier on developed with Government agencies and Malay/Muslim organisations.
In essence, we will augment the efforts of the community partners and the agencies that we have built partnership with, so that Malay/Muslim families who live in rental flats are able to take part in programmes and also receive holistic support from the programmes that we have. These include counselling programmes under MENDAKI SENSE, Bersamamu and Project ARIF undertaken via the focus areas of M3 and with the support of the volunteers.
When we look at the integration of assets relating to Project DIAN@M3, we are looking at the institutions that we have as well as the people and the volunteers. I am happy to share that since M3 started, the number of volunteers that have come on board has also increased. For example, for M3@Towns, we have about 500 volunteers who have come on board and this is also something that we want to train them. In addition to that, we also have volunteers that come on board via other programmes, like programmes relating to how we support vulnerable individuals as well as families; as well as how we support mentoring among the youths where more than 1,000 volunteers have come on board for our youth mentoring programme. For efforts like Fitrah, we have about 460 volunteers as at June this year. Mayor Mohd Fahmi Aliman is also looking at how we can increase a lot more volunteers for efforts relating to upskilling of our people.
So, essentially, we are very happy that many more volunteers are coming on board. These are Malay/Muslims who have been very successful in their own life, in their fields and they are able to contribute back to the community. We will continue to work with them, together with all the other Malay/Muslim organisations and Project DIAN@M3 will integrate these community assets that we have to help families in rental flats holistically and inspire them to be homeowners. In doing so, we hope to also cultivate values, such as independence and resilience, in these families as they journey towards home ownership.
We will launch Project DIAN@M3 in the fourth quarter of this year, where we will start with three M3@Towns, namely Bedok, Geylang Serai and Jalan Besar. As we journey through this process, we hope that we will be able to strengthen families, provide opportunities for the Malay/Muslim families, especially those in rental flats, and, at the same time, give them and work with the Government agencies and our partners for them to move towards home ownership in the years to come.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
\tDr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question relates to financial planning and estate planning for Malay/Muslims. I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply just now. I just have a few supplementary questions on it. It is not uncommon for estates that go to intestacy to lead to familial disputes over the allocation of assets. Muslim estate planning, under the Faraidh laws, allows Muslims to plan for one-third of their assets. Yet, today, there are still many Muslims in Singapore who passed away intestate.
\t
Will the Ministry consider compiling data on whether there is currently still a lack of clarity on the estate planning options available to Muslims in Singapore? And would the Ministry also consider programmes for older or more mature families, not just for newly wed couples or young couples, who may be less tech-savvy and not as easily accessible for institutions, such as mosques or MENDAKI to reach out to?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, the problem that I see, is not so much the lack of programmes. First, how do we get these programmes to the people who need them most. Sometimes, we have to be very creative, we have to find ways to make it attractive for them to come.
I will give one example. A group of lawyers under M3 (Lawyers at M3) came together and said they wanted to educate our community about the same issues that the Member has raised. I said, \"Go ahead, tell me what you want to do.\" But they knew that if they just did it themselves, call it LPA, call it Faraidh, I do not think anyone would turn up. But what they did instead was, they brought in an ustaz, a religious teacher, they brought in a popular personality and an artiste. They put together a panel and said, \"Come and talk to us\". The programme attracted a full house; a total of about 600 people came. We had to keep putting in chairs because people were still coming in to see what this was about.
At the same time, these lawyers also agreed to stay back after the programme, in case there were still questions that need to be answered. The session went on quite light-heartedly. Although some of the questions raised were really heart-wrenching, they were addressed in a very proper and enlightening way. At the end of the session, because the lawyers agreed to stay back to hear other issues, there were long queues because people do have issues to clarify. We do really need to do more of such programmes. I think these programmes that I have talked about have been successful. We want to replicate it to as many towns as possible in M3. We call upon our successful lawyers who have done this or have done this successfully, to come forward again. After we lift the restrictions for gatherings that we cannot now have because of COVID-19, we can have more of this.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Raeesah Khan.
\tMs Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions to the answer to my question.
Firstly, I would like to ask whether MOE will consider publishing report on complaints of discrimination on an annual basis, in the interest of accountability and raising awareness of MOE's efforts to curb discrimination. Secondly, given the wide age range of students across the different levels in our academic institutes and the confidence these students may have in providing feedback, is there a need for the Ministry to differentiate the procedures according to the different levels of these students?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, to the first question of the Member's, whether we should be publishing the report annually, first, I want to say that the incidence of this nature in schools is very low and I do not see that there is a necessity to publicise the report every year. But we take every case that has been brought to the attention of the institutions very seriously, whether it is in the school or whether it is in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
Every report or every feedback given will be investigated thoroughly. As I mentioned in my earlier response, we will provide every opportunity for students to raise their concerns through various channels. Every institution and school will have its own mechanism to investigate and we will take action against those found guilty of the alleged offences.
The second question on whether programmes are differentiated, yes, I have mentioned earlier, in the schools, students can report to the leaders of the school, their teachers, any staff member that they are comfortable with. In the IHLs, including the Polytechnics and ITE, there are various channels that the students are able to access. More importantly, it is to ensure that they are able to provide the feedback in a safe environment and that they feel assured that their feedback will be taken in strict confidence. I want to assure again that any incidents of racism are not tolerated in any of the schools and any report that we receive will be thoroughly investigated.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.
Given what we have seen, especially in recent weeks, do we need to substantially tighten our laws or even introduce new rules to deal with racial outbursts and discrimination?
Two, I hear the Minister's points on CCA and social mixing. During Committee of Supply 2021, I spoke on the need for more inter-school mixing through arts, culture and sports programmes. This is especially so for missionary, madrasahs and the culturally oriented schools. Does the Ministry plan to expand the current CCA or Youth Sports framework under SportSG and MOE?
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I will take the first of Miss Cheng's questions and Minister Maliki Osman will take the second.
Sir, when it comes to discrimination in certain specific settings, that will be studied and we can consider. As I have said in my speech earlier, where needed, action has been taken and I cited some examples. Most recently, of course, there was an occasion where action was taken on the basis of breach of public nuisance.
The Member will also know that we have the MRHA framework which I also alluded to. What is useful about this framework, of course, is that it provides the outer parameters, defines the framework. What is also useful about it is that Members may know that it has not been used, we have not had to invoke it. Which is sometimes the usefulness of having laws which define the parameters, especially when it comes to race and religious harmony, and issues surrounding community harmony.
Sir, this framework is useful, but I would stress, as I said in my earlier answer, that having constructive dialogue, having constant learning, exchanges and appreciation of sensitivities, having the daily lived and life experiences on integration, living side-by-side, in the manner which Minister Desmond outlined so articulately earlier, I think these are examples and these are real lived examples of how we would like to promote integration.
We also will occasionally come across differences; there will be flash points from time to time. The trick is to deal with this constructively, not try and stoke emotions in such already tensed situations, learn the differences. I cannot pretend that we will always get along but the key to it is to try and find common ground. And the way to find common ground is to try and assert less personal space, less of a \"me-first\" mentality. I think when we do that, we will find that there will be a lot more space where we can do these exchanges.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, can I just clarify with the Member, her question is whether we should extend MOE's CCA offerings to the madrasahs?
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Inter-school games and programmes.
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: As a context, Mr Speaker, I think the Member would also appreciate that the madrasahs are not part of the national MOE education system; they are a separate education system, they are treated as a private education institution. So, they are not bound by the inter-school framework. On whether we should encourage that or not, I think we have to study that very carefully.
But today, there are already opportunities for the madrasah students to interact with many of our national school students through various opportunities. For example, we have SAP schools like River Valley High working very closely with some of the madrasahs.
The most important thing is that we want to find common spaces for our students and our young people to interact in the light of our conversation today, to facilitate greater inter-ethnic understanding. Although they are in separate institutions, we should continue to find opportunities for them to interact, not just through inter-school games or inter-school CCAs but also other opportunities.
Community organisations also provide such opportunities. I remember when I was the Mayor of South East District, the Community Development Councils organise platforms like the Common Senses for Common Spaces, where students from different institutions come together to learn more about inter-religious understanding.
We can explore further opportunities for our young people to continue to interact regardless of where they are studying and, more importantly, to ensure that we try to expand the common spaces as much as possible.
\tMr Speaker: I will take the last supplementary question. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
\tMr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon Mr Pritam Singh has mentioned CMIO quite a number of times in his speech. In the light of this, can I ask our MCCY Minister, Mr Edwin Tong, to share with us the relevance of CMIO today.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, Sir, WP has on several occasions questioned the continued relevance of having the CMIO classification, and has also called for it to be removed. Sir, but at the same time, at almost every Parliamentary Sitting, there are a many number of PQs which focus on individual specific races, looking at programmes, outcomes, assistance.
I just did a quick look; this last Sitting, we have seven or eight such PQs and they range from issues such as education, like Ms Raeesah Khan asked a question for tomorrow whether there are, and I quote, \"any immediate and specific action plans to tackle the issue of low education levels of the Malay community\". She has also asked another question for tomorrow where she has asked the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, \"for each year from 2011 to 2020, how many Malays entered the local Universities and what is the percentage breakdown as compared to other races?\"
Mr Faisal Manap has also asked the question, I think, in writing, asking the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of reports made by victims of sexual assault, asking for a breakdown by race. I think Mr Leon Perera, at an earlier Sitting, asked for MOH's Screen for Life programme to be broken down by ethnic lines. And I think Ms He Ting Ru asked the same question for the breakdown in relation to elections.
Sir, I am not citing these to suggest that these questions ought not be answered. On the contrary, I think these are very important questions and it is not wrong to do so, and we agree. The relevant Ministries will answer those questions fully.
The point though of citing these PQs is to say that, in reality, both sides of the House, and I think certainly on these examples, WP as well, realise that it is important to look at these outcomes by segments of society. And it is only if you have the CMIO classification and breakdown that you will be able to track performance of relative segments of society, to gauge the outcomes and to gauge for ourselves the efficacy and outcomes of these programmes that we have in place.
The relevant Ministries will give more full answer, I am sure, in due course. But if you take some of the points raised in these PQs, we are able to say that the percentage of Malay P1 cohort going onto post-Secondary education has doubled in the last 25 years. The number of Malay university graduates has doubled from 5.5% in 2010 to 10.8% in 2020. If we take the average Malay student, they were found in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 to have scored higher, above the OECD average. And Malay students also outperformed international students in this same PISA assessment on 21st century competencies.
This gives us, Mr Speaker, a good gauge of not just the relative performance of the segments in our society but also on the efficacy of our programmes and allows us to look at relative outcomes to assess where there might be gaps and to help in targeted, specialised, curated ways.
So, Sir, with reference to the point made by the Member Mr Sitoh, I think these are important classifications that feed into an important outcome in terms of the programmes that we make. And I would invite the Workers' Party to consider this position and perhaps to state whether or not they see the CMIO as a relevant consideration today. And I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that certainly from the nature, type and range of questions that they have asked in Parliament, I think that would appear to be so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should thank Mr Sitoh for asking a question on our behalf.
I think we have to accept that we operate on terms dictated by the Government which wins the mandate at the elections, and that has been the PAP government. It has continued this CMIO model. I think where we are coming from is – and I believe the Government is on the same page in this regard – that we want to level everybody up so that no race feels that the government policy does not reach out to them in a way which brings us to that destination which the Workers' Party wants Singapore to reach, of a race-neutral society.
So, these questions inevitably will be asked but the point I want to share with Minister Edwin Tong is, to what end do we keep asking these questions? What is the end game? We want a situation where we can tell that government policy is improving outcomes, especially for communities which are not doing well. But let us be clear about where we want to go with this.
More than that, I think, immigration after 1990 has changed the complexion of Singapore society in that, are we just looking at CMIO now or is there something a little bit more complicated in Singapore that we need to look into?
The Minister did not address the PQs I have filed for tomorrow. They are Written PQs, they are on the basis of the census that has been released last month. In the census, if you look at Census 2010 for the Indian community, for example, it was broken down into the minority languages: Urdu, Gujarathi. More data on Indian community groups. But Census 2020 takes a much more narrow approach; some categories have fallen away. What are the reasons? I do not understand, hence, the PQ.
I do believe that there is a fundamental shift in Singapore society and it will be useful to know if the CMIO model needs to evolve.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making those points. Just to pick up on his last comment, to look at the outcomes and to see whether or not we can improve certain segments in society in Singapore and to look at whether the programmes help to uplift them, would he not accept that if you are looking at how to uplift certain segments by race, which we have done, then, would that not mean that the CMIO classification would not only be relevant, it would in fact be necessary to retain this distinction; at least for now, until we reach post-race-blind or race-neutral society?
\tMr Pritam Singh: I think I can agree with the eventual outcome that even the Minister shares, which is to reach that race-neutral, race-blind end. To that extent, yes. I think you have to look at how the Government is performing on these indicators and eventually, with more Opposition Members in the House, looking at these numbers and figures, and asking more pointed questions and even putting up alternatives for debate and discussion, hopefully, we can reach that end state, which will be beneficial for all Singaporeans, not just this generation but those that come after us.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak or ask any questions on this very important subject, but I thought that since I have slightly more white hair than most people here who have been speaking, I thought I would share a perspective.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks we should allow ethnic enclaves to form and just to see what happens, by abolishing the EIP today; and then, reach a situation where we were 50 years ago, 60 years ago, at the point of Independence; and then, try and correct it when all the problems arise?
Or whether we should take what he calls a pre-emptive but the measures that we are taking today, to avoid such a situation arising?
So, are we more likely to arrive at a situation where Singaporeans learn to live with each other on a daily basis by making sure that we live in an integrated way on a daily basis in our estates? Or are we more likely to do so if we allow Singaporeans to live in segregated estates?
And also, are we more likely to level everyone up if we are able to identify the issues that each of the communities in Singapore may face and therefore have more targeted programmes for them?
Or to ignore the differences? The Leader of the Opposition says we should be race-blind or race-neutral and just treat everybody as though they are exactly the same.
And then, are we likely to arrive at a good solution, where we reach this eventual outcome? Or are we less likely to do so?
And Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me, because he mentioned more Members of Opposition in the House would lead to better outcomes. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me that these are matters of great sensitivity and have to be handled with great sensitivity, rather than be exploited for political purposes?
\tMr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I will deal with the last comment first. Is the Senior Minister suggesting that the WP is using these episodes for political purposes? The answer, I think, should be obvious. The answer is no, we do not do that. I appreciate the accolade because I think it is appropriate.
In terms of the series of hypotheticals that the Senior Minister put out, I think moving from one extreme to another extreme is probably not the policy approach; hence, the earlier exchange we had about evolving the EIP to suit the needs of this current generation.
But I hope it does not undermine or take away the point that philosophically, where does the WP want Singapore to go? And I do not think the PAP is very far away from this – that we all are trying to move towards a race-neutral society. We may have different approaches of going at it. We, of course, have the harder job of trying to second guess what is reasonable in the way we move there, because we do not have the information and the broad sweep of facts that the Government has.
But I think, by and large, we accept that we have to move forward in a way where Singapore, as a country, as a society, is strengthened. That should make things clear.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Speaker, Sir, I think there is a lesson to be learnt here between philosophy and methods. The philosophy, we can agree on. We all want a multiracial Singapore. We want Singaporeans to live together in multi-racial communities, not in segregated communities. I think even the WP agrees on that; the Leader of the Opposition says so too.
But how do we get there? Those are methods. Methods can be adapted and changed. But we have the same philosophy that we want a multi-racial society Singapore, integrated housing, well-integrated communities and schools. We are more likely to get there with the HDB policies that we have today, with EIP, rather than what the WP is proposing. In fact, their manifesto says abolish it now; although the Leader of the Opposition seems to have shifted away from that because he realises that that is untenable.
Are we more likely to achieve an integrated Singapore by having integrated housing or to abolish the EIP as the WP would propose today and have segregated housing. And then, how do we learn how to live together again? That is the question I have, Sir.
I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we should all not exploit the issues of race and religion for political purposes. I applaud that.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Finance.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 22-33, 35-38, 40, 42, 47-48, 54-58, 60-64, 73-76, 78-96, 98-104, 106-111, 114-115 and 120 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Measures for Phase Two (Heightened Alert) and Phase Three (Heightened Alert)","subTitle":"Statement by the Minister for Finance","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been a year and a half since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. When the pandemic first broke out, some thought it might be all over after a year.
Unfortunately, this scenario has not materialised. We are dealing with a very tricky virus. Each time you think you have it under control, it comes storming back. So, we are continuing to see rolling waves of infections around the world, driven by new variants of the virus
Late last year, we had the Alpha variant, which was first detected in the United Kingdom, and which was about 50% more transmissible than the original strain detected in Wuhan. Now, we are dealing with the Delta variant. It is estimated to be 60% more transmissible than the Alpha variant. That means it is about two and a half times more contagious than the original strain.
Even countries which kept their borders tight like China and Australia are seeing outbreaks of new clusters linked to this variant.
The Delta variant is fast becoming the world’s dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2. It has spread throughout Asia and is now making its way to countries around the world. For example, Members would have read reports of how new infections are surging across the African continent because of the Delta variant. Some countries that started relaxing their measures are also seeing new infections due to this strain.
The good news is that the mRNA vaccines, be it Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, offer excellent protection against severe illness, even with the Delta variant. But in places where the vaccination rates are not high enough, especially amongst the elderly population, the increase in infections may unfortunately lead to higher hospitalisation, ICU admissions and eventually fatalities.
The world is unlikely to reach a point where enough people are immune to stop the virus’ spread before the emergence of new variants. Delta may not be the worst variant of this virus. I shudder to think what the Omega variant would look like.
We must be prepared to see new strains that are more transmissible, vaccine-resistant and even able to evade current diagnostic tests.
For Singapore, we can take heart that we are in a much better position to deal with the pandemic now, than at the start. We have more robust public health defences, including testing and contact tracing capabilities, which have enabled us to quickly detect and contain the spread of new clusters. We have procured enough mRNA vaccines as part of our national programme and are now able to offer these vaccines to all eligible persons in Singapore.
And to deal with the latest round of outbreaks, we decided there was no need to go into an economy-wide circuit breaker like what we had done last year. Instead, we adopted more targeted measures calibrated based on the severity of the outbreaks. So, in early to mid-May, we saw the emergence of new clusters, most notably at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Changi Airport, and a sustained increase in unlinked community cases, we moved into Phase Two (Heightened Alert) on 16 May to protect Singaporeans and to control the spread of the virus.
We introduced measures aimed at reducing transmission risks in indoor settings where people do not have their masks on and where there is a higher chance of large clusters forming. These included F&B dining-in, gyms and fitness centres, as well as live arts and cultural performances.
These additional measures have worked in curbing the spread of the virus, while allowing most parts of the economy to continue operating. That is why we started to ease the restrictions from 14 June, when we moved from Phase Two to Phase Three (Heightened Alert); and we expect to open up further from 12 July to allow larger groups of five people to dine together.
In line with this calibrated approach during the Heightened Alert, we have targeted our support measures to help businesses and individuals most impacted by the tightened restrictions. The details of the support measures have been announced previously. So, let me just provide a quick summary.
First, we enhanced the Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS, to help enterprises retain local workers. From 16 May to 11 July, we provided different levels of JSS enhancements based on the impact of our measures on various sectors. We provided 50% JSS support for sectors which had to suspend all or most of their operations. These included F&B, gyms, fitness studios, as well as performing arts organisations and arts education centres. We also enhanced support to 30% for sectors that were not required to suspend operations but were, nonetheless, significantly impacted by the reduced footfall. These included the retail sector, cinemas, museums, art galleries, historical sites, indoor playgrounds and other family entertainment centres. To ease businesses back towards reopening, we will taper JSS support to 10% for two weeks from 12 July.
Second, we helped businesses with their cash flow by providing relief for rental costs. We provided two months of rental waiver for hawkers in Government-owned premises. To support smaller businesses, including those in the heartlands, we extended rental support for Small and Medium Enterprises, or SMEs, and eligible non-profit organisations through one month of rental waiver for tenants of Government-owned commercial properties and half a month of cash payout for those who are end-tenants and owner-occupiers of qualifying private commercial properties.
Third, we helped individuals impacted by the safe management measures. We supported taxi and private hire car drivers through the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund. To further assist our hawkers who were impacted by the dine-in restrictions, we provided subsidies for table cleaning and centralised dishwashing services. We also introduced a COVID-19 Recovery Grant (Temporary), or CRG-T, scheme to provide short-term support to employees and self-employed persons who suffered from sudden and significant income loss during this period. The coverage for this CRG-T scheme extends to end-July.
In coming up with this package, we consulted closely with workers, union leaders and business leaders to hear their concerns and challenges and I thank them for their understanding and close cooperation as we navigate this crisis together.
The additional support measures for the period of Heightened Alert are expected to cost $1.2 billion. We sized the package based on what we assessed to be appropriate to meet the needs of businesses and individuals during this period. As mentioned earlier, most parts of our economy continued to operate over the past two months. It was not the same as the circuit breaker last year where many activities were curtailed and literally the whole economy was shut down. In fact, many individuals and businesses have learnt to adapt and pivot to new ways of working and doing business, allowing them to keep going in the face of tightened restrictions.
We are also building on a strong base of support measures announced earlier this year in Budget 2021 and which are still in place. For example, we have the Jobs Growth Incentive and other measures in the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to facilitate workers moving to jobs in growth areas. We also have measures to foster innovation, help businesses adopt new technologies and build deep digital capabilities and we continue to have various assistance schemes for individuals and households, including the GST Vouchers, CDC Vouchers and the COVID-19 Recovery Grant.
Mr Speaker, under these circumstances, I do not believe there is a need to draw on our past reserves. Drawing on past reserves is a major move. We do so only in exceptional circumstances. That was the case last year. Our economy shrank by 5.4%, the largest fall since Independence. Our resident unemployment rate rose to nearly 5%. At the start of this financial year, because we were starting out on a new term, we had to draw on past reserves again to finance the continuing COVID-related measures in the Budget.
We are not in the same situation this time. Our economy is recovering; our employment situation is steadily improving. On the COVID-19 front, we have improved testing and tracing capabilities and we can now control the infection with more targeted restrictions. We have also made good progress on vaccinations. Almost 40% of our population has been fully vaccinated and we are going as fast as we can with nearly 80,000 doses being administered every day.
Let me be clear. We will not hesitate to use the full measure of our fiscal firepower to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans. But we also need to be careful about the state of our public finances and ensure they are sustainable for the future. In many countries, COVID-19 has led to massive increases in debt levels, which have not been seen since the end of the Second World War. Not many people are paying attention to how all of this debt will be serviced. They may look affordable now, but will not be so once interest rates increase to more normal levels. The day of reckoning will come and the burden will surely fall on the young and future generations.
We are one of the very few exceptions to this trend of rising public debt around the world. We are very fortunate to be where we are today, thanks to the foresight and fiscal prudence of our forefathers. When the Reserves Protection Framework was introduced in 1991, no one could have foreseen that a pandemic of this magnitude would hit us one day. But it is precisely this discipline of setting aside resources for rainy days that has put us in a strong fiscal position to respond decisively to the current crisis.
We already expect to draw up to $53.7 billion from our past reserves. It is an amount which we are not likely to be able to put back anytime soon, if at all. Our expenditure in FY2020 was the highest ever in the history of our country; and this unprecedented fiscal response has also led to the largest Budget deficit in Singapore’s history. Now that things are better, we should refrain from drawing further on past reserves. Instead, we will fund the support measures using resources that were approved in this year’s Budget. That is the responsible way to manage our finances.
So, we are not asking for new monies in this Bill but are seeking a reallocation of monies to fund the support package. Let me explain what this entails.
About $0.6 billion out of the $1.2 billion will come from the capitalisation of development expenditure under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA, in short. There are two projects that meet the criteria for financing under SINGA: the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System and the North-South Corridor. We had set aside funds for these two projects in Budget 2021, before SINGA was passed. With SINGA, we will borrow for these projects and capitalise their development expenditure from the fourth quarter of this year. The amount that was originally budgeted to finance these two projects can now be reallocated to fund this support package. This is a one-off adjustment, because SINGA was passed after we started the financial year. Going forward, the amounts that will be capitalised under SINGA will be incorporated as part of future annual Budget Estimates and, so, we will not have such reallocation space in future.
The remaining $0.6 billion will be reallocated from underutilisation of development expenditure mainly due to delays in projects arising from COVID-19. It does not mean we are cancelling the projects. We still want to do the projects and we will have to catch up on our development schedules as the situation stabilises. So, the delayed expenditure will still need to be incurred in future financial years. But, in the meantime, there is some fiscal space for reallocation. That is why I am introducing this Supplementary Supply Bill to effect the total reallocation of $1.2 billion to fund the support package.
Mr Speaker, the way we have gone about providing support this round, as well as our ongoing support schemes over the years, reflect our fiscal approach in supporting Singaporeans and businesses in Singapore.
Even before the crisis, we have been careful to ensure a fair tax regime for everyone. Our overall income tax revenue, both corporate and personal, as a percentage of GDP, is low, at only around 6%, about half of the OECD average of 12%.
For individuals, we layer on a progressive system of transfers that provides more help for those in greater need. And as we have shared in this House before, the bottom 20% of households by income, for example, receive around $4 of benefits for every dollar of tax they contribute.
We also have a competitive tax regime for companies, particularly our SMEs, as they are the backbone of our economy. While there is a global movement to change corporate tax rules, which we discussed at length just now, these changes are only applicable to a select group of global companies and not to smaller enterprises. So, our SMEs in Singapore can continue to enjoy low taxes. Let me share some numbers.
Our SMEs, or those with turnover of up to $100 million, comprise more than 95% of active companies in Singapore, but they contribute less than a third of our corporate income tax revenue – 95% versus one-third. In fact, more than 50% of such companies do not pay any corporate tax at all.
Besides taxes, we recognise that SMEs are concerned with business costs, like rental, labour and utilities. We do not directly offset such costs in normal times but, instead, provide a wide range of schemes to help them improve productivity and build new capabilities. So, from 2015 to 2019, before COVID-19, about 70% of Government grant disbursements went to SMEs.
During times of crises, we recognise that lower-income households and SMEs face bigger challenges. That is why we have designed our interventions to benefit them the most. In particular, our COVID-19 support packages provide more help for SMEs. For example, about two-thirds of the $26.7 billion of JSS paid out to-date went to SMEs. About 90% of the benefits from the corporate income tax rebate in the Year of Assessment 2020 went to SMEs.
For many SMEs, access to credit is a critical lifeline to tide them through this crisis. That is why we have supported over $22 billion worth of loans to over 25,000 enterprises through Enterprise Singapore’s financing schemes since the start of 2020. Ninety-nine percent of the recipients were SMEs. While economic conditions have improved, such access to credit remains critical to our SMEs. Therefore, I will extend the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and the Enhanced Enterprise Financing Scheme – Trade Loan for an additional six months from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022. The parameters for both schemes remain unchanged, including the Government risk-share of 70%. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will also extend the MAS Singapore Dollar Facility for Enterprise Singapore Loans accordingly.
I encourage businesses to make use of this extension and other available schemes to ready themselves for the new normal. Many of our SMEs have already seized the opportunity to build new capabilities and future-proof their businesses.
Take the example of Slake, which started out in 2014 as a humble neighbourhood bistro in Siglap. In 2017, even before the pandemic, Slake pivoted to online ordering to reach more customers by taking up the Productivity Solutions Grant. These investments paid off during the Circuit Breaker last year.
Since then, Slake has doubled down on their efforts to go digital. It took up the Enterprise Development Grant to develop a virtual brand for new revenue streams, tapped on the Food Delivery Booster Package. It recently also expanded its social media marketing and is now well-positioned for growth opportunities during this period and beyond.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, let me say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In May this year, the Government tightened the restrictions and provided a series of support measures to the most affected individuals, workers and firms. The Government will fund these measures by reallocating the budget of various Ministries and the measures will cost about $1.2 billion.
When coming up with these measures, I am especially mindful of our SMEs' situation. SMEs are the backbone of our economy. However, they tend to have less resources due to their size. SMEs also tend to require more assistance when dealing with a crisis. This is why we tend to tilt our policies towards SMEs by providing more support to them.
For example, our SMEs enjoy low taxes in Singapore. More than 50% of our SMEs do not pay any corporate income tax at all. In addition, although SMEs comprise more than 95% of local companies, they contribute less than one-third of our total corporate income tax revenue.
The Government has paid out a total of $26.7 billion under the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) to date and about two thirds of which went to SMEs.
Since the start of 2020 till today, Enterprise Singapore's financing schemes have supported more than 25,000 enterprises with over $22 billion worth of loans, and 99% of the recipients of the loans were SMEs.
To continue to help SMEs in need, I will extend the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and the Enhanced Enterprise Financing Scheme Trade Loan for an additional six months to 31 March next year.
Beyond this support, the Government will continue to support our businesses to digitalise and innovate to prepare them for recovery and growth post-COVID-19.
(In English): Mr Speaker, looking ahead, the global economic outlook continues to be highly uncertain as it depends critically on the path of the pandemic. On the upside, the US is picking up strongly while the EU is showing the beginnings of a strong recovery. A faster-than-anticipated global vaccine rollout and effective pandemic containment could boost growth prospects.
On the other hand, there are many downside risks, including the threat of new waves of infections, which could force a return to lockdowns in some jurisdictions and a slower timeline for the reopening of borders.
As a small open economy, Singapore's outlook depends crucially on these external developments. The uncertainty surrounding our economic outlook is, therefore, larger than usual. Nevertheless, barring unforeseen circumstances, we continue to expect GDP growth of at least 4% to 6% this year. But the recovery will be uneven across sectors.
The outward-oriented sectors which account for about 70% of our economy are projected to benefit from the pick-up in external demand.
The construction, marine and offshore engineering sectors are not short of projects but they face a severe manpower crunch due to the COVID-19 restrictions. We have provided Foreign Worker Levy rebates to cushion the impact and other support measures to help these companies adapt and resume work safely. But these cannot make up for the shortfall of workers. So, as we reopen our borders and allow more workers to come in, we expect the outlook for these industries to improve.
Likewise, domestic consumer-facing sectors like retail and F&B can expect to recover as we progressively ease our restrictions and allow larger groups to gather.
But the recovery will be more gradual in some of the hard-hit sectors like aviation and tourism-related industries because it will take a longer time for international air travel volumes to return to pre-COVID-19 levels. So, there might be some consolidation in these industries.
We, the Government, will do our part to reskill the affected workers and help them transition to other growing sectors that need manpower. At the same time, we will continue to provide targeted support for these industries to preserve their core capabilities and to position them for recovery, which will come when travel restrictions are eventually lifted.
For FY2021, our Budget position remains expansionary. We expect an overall deficit of $11 billion or 2.2% of GDP – similar to what was previously announced at Budget 2021.
One important part of the recovery process is the reopening of our borders. This is not just about GDP growth. It is, in fact, an existential issue for Singapore because we survive and thrive on our ability to connect businesses and people to the region and the world.
There has been feedback from the business and investment community that Singapore might lose out to other hubs that are moving more aggressively to reopen their borders. We understand these concerns. But we are also very mindful that if we were to reopen prematurely before we reach high enough vaccination levels, we could end up with another wave of infections and, worse, a surge in hospitalisation and ICU cases.
So, our priority is to speed up vaccinations and we have the ability to reach a very high level of vaccination coverage over the next one or two months. This will enable us to progressively reopen and reconnect with the world.
We are already discussing with other jurisdictions that have effectively controlled the infection to work out travel corridors with them for vaccinated persons to travel more freely, either without the need for Stay-Home Notice (SHN) or with a reduced SHN duration. While we will not be able to prevent occasional imported infections, a high vaccination rate and our public health defences will prevent major outbreaks. Beyond the immediate term, we are investing in new capabilities and building ourselves up strongly for the future.
We are accelerating our automation and digitalisation efforts to help our businesses, especially SMEs, improve their productivity and transcend the limitations of our size and geography. We are intensifying our efforts in SkillsFuture to equip our local workforce with deep skills and to power our next bound of growth with a strong Singaporean Core.
We are creating new investments and jobs in the green economy and strengthening our position as a regional centre for green finance. We are investing in R&D to be at the forefront of new technological revolutions and to spur more innovative startups and enterprises. Through all of these efforts, we will emerge from this crisis as a smarter and greener economy and a more innovative and inclusive nation.
The foundations for all these have been laid in previous Budgets under Deputy Prime Minister Heng. We also convened the Emerging Stronger Task force, co-chaired by Minister Desmond Lee and Group CEO of PSA International Mr Tan Chong Meng, which has set out many useful recommendations to better position Singapore for future growth. We will double down on these efforts and develop new initiatives over the coming months to accelerate our progress.
To achieve these goals, we will need strong partnerships across the community, private and public sectors. Our experience throughout this pandemic has shown that we are stronger and more effective when we are united and when we work together.
In this regard, I am glad that the Emerging Stronger Task force has prototyped the Alliances for Action, where groups of private and public stakeholders come together to identify opportunities and create new solutions. We will build on this prototype and scale up more of such private-public collaborations.
To conclude, Sir, I know that there is a deep longing in all our hearts to go back to how things were before the pandemic: to gather freely with our family and friends; to be able to travel freely for business and leisure; to be able to participate in religious activities and enjoy entertainment and sports events like football, although you can watch the European Championship (Euros) now on television; to go about our daily lives without masks.
For many people, such a way of life can seem like a lifetime ago and they feel a sense of helplessness, not knowing when normalcy will return, if at all.
I share and understand these concerns. The reality is that COVID-19 is unlikely to go away anytime soon. But with vaccinations and with improvements in treatment, we can make SARS-CoV-2 look more like influenza in terms of morbidity and mortality.
As my fellow Multi-Ministry Task force (MTF) Co-Chairs and I have shared, we are preparing a roadmap for Singapore to transit to such a scenario where we learn to live normally with COVID-19.
We see promising signs from countries that are ahead of us in vaccinations. Israel is one such example. Its vaccination rate is amongst the highest in the world – about 60% of its population has been fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. It has opened up most of its economy, relaxed many of its measures. It has seen a recent rise in cases, mostly due to the Delta variant, but the new outbreaks have not led to higher hospitalisation rates because of the protection from the vaccine.
So, for Singapore, we are targeting for two-thirds of our population to be fully vaccinated by National Day. It is an ambitious target but we are making steady progress towards it.
We are also going all out to engage our seniors and get more of them vaccinated. We have already reached higher than two-thirds for our seniors but it is not high enough and we want to get an even higher rate.
With high vaccination rates, we will be able reopen our economy safely. We will then ease the safe distancing rules progressively, especially for vaccinated persons, and we can look forward to larger gatherings, concerts, performances, sporting events and, eventually, to travel again.
Sir, this has been a long and difficult journey. We have been running this marathon together for some time. I know many are fatigued and tired. But we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel.
I would like to thank, once again, our frontline workers and the many unsung heroes who have worked tirelessly throughout this past year and a half to support our battle against the pandemic and I also thank all Singaporeans for your forbearance and cooperation with our safe management measures.
Throughout the darkest moments of this pandemic, we have seen the Singapore spirit shine brightly. So, let us move forward with renewed confidence about the future because we will overcome this crisis together and we will emerge as a better, stronger and more united Singapore. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, \"That the Ministerial Statement made by me be considered by Parliament.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Finance.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, to give Members some time to consider my Statement, I would like to adjourn the debate.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Monday, 26 July 2021, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Home Affairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Force (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Police Force Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in August 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dental Registration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Dental Registration Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for Health; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in August 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"
[(proc text) \"to amend the Child Development Co-Savings Act and to make related amendments to the Employment Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in August 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.47 pm until 5.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Sir, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) has been enacted for more than 10 years now. The MCA allows for Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) to be registered with the Public Guardian. The LPA is a legal instrument through which a person, called a \"donor\", appoints one or more persons, called \"donees\", to make decisions on the donor’s personal welfare and/or property and affairs, should the donor lose mental capacity in the future to make such decisions. The MCA also allows the Court to appoint a person, called \"deputy\", to make certain decisions on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity but has not made an LPA. The key difference between a donee and a deputy is that a donee is appointed by the donor when he or she has mental capacity, while a deputy is appointed by the Court after the person has lost mental capacity.
The pandemic has shown that life can be unpredictable. We never know when events that could result in the loss of mental capacity, such as accidents and diseases, may strike. Making our LPAs early offers peace of mind for ourselves and our family. For example, Mr Low Kim Leng, a 69-year-old retiree, and his wife made their LPAs after witnessing how the LPA ensured that the affairs of their relatives with dementia were well taken care of.
Mr Francis Ng, a 60-year-old semi-retiree, also attested to the importance of making an LPA early as this would help his family avoid the stress and costs of applying to the Court for a deputyship order. He shared that because his father had not made an LPA before losing mental capacity, he was unable to manage his father’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) property on his behalf.
Instead, he had to apply to the Court to be appointed as a deputy and reflected that the process was very stressful as it was long and tedious, in addition to having to care for his father. Unfortunately, his father passed away before the deputyship application was granted. Now, he urges his peers to make their LPAs as soon as possible.
Many Singaporeans appreciate the importance of pre-planning. Already, we have more than 120,000 LPAs registered as of May 2021. This is a good sign. To encourage more Singaporeans to sign up and pre-plan, we have waived the $75 fee for LPA Form 1 applications by Singapore Citizens until March 2023. This means Singaporeans need not pay any application fee when making their LPAs during this period. They will need to pay for the LPA Certification service, which is about $50 or less, based on rates charged by those found on a list of the top 10 most visited doctors who are serving as Certificate Issuers as at January this year.
LPA Form 1 is the standard LPA form used by 98% of donors to confer on their donees the power to make decisions on the personal welfare and/or property and affairs of the donor. The remaining 2% use LPA Form 2, which require lawyers to draw up the specific and customised powers to be granted by the donor.
In preparing for this Bill, we have sought feedback from the legal and medical sectors, as well as members of the public. They have provided valuable insights and they are supportive of the amendments we are proposing.
Let me draw the attention of this House to two key amendments proposed in the Bill.
Firstly, the Bill will make it possible to create and execute LPA instruments electronically. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIIA on matters pertaining to the establishment and operations of a new electronic transaction system, OPG Online or OPGO. New subsections (5) to (14) of section 11, which are inserted by clause 4 of the Bill, will allow us to recognise an electronic copy of an LPA registered prior to the launch of OPGO to be free from error and to be treated as the lasting power of attorney, if certain conditions are met. Other transactions such as the filing of a Deputy Report with the Office of the Public Guardian will be lodged via OPGO as well. This is in line with the Government’s commitment to harness technology to better serve Singaporeans and so that all donors and donees can reap the benefits of going digital. We will support those who are less tech savvy so that the gains will be enjoyed by everyone.
Secondly, to better protect donors against the risk of fraud, a new section 31A inserted by clause 12 of the Bill provides that if the Public Guardian has reason to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce a donor to execute an LPA or appoint a particular person as his or her donee, the Public Guardian may disclose to the donor: one, the number of LPAs which have appointed the person as donee; and two, the number of applications that are pending before the Public Guardian for the registration of an instrument which appoints the person as donee.
LPAs today are made and executed in hard copy. To this end, we can do better. For example, Dr Sin Yong, a Certificate Issuer who certifies that a donor has mental capacity to make an LPA, shared that doing away with hard copies could reduce the hassle of passing around paper forms. Indeed, by enabling LPAs to be made online, there will be greater convenience, efficiency and security for our citizens. Let me illustrate.
First, donees will be able to accept their appointments more conveniently. Donees will not need to append their wet-ink signatures before a witness or to affix physical seals on the LPAs. Instead, donees will be notified of the donor’s intention to appoint them via SMS and email. They can then log on to OPGO via Singpass to accept the appointment. This is especially beneficial if donees are overseas and unable to return to Singapore to do so.
We will also legally recognise electronically signed LPAs as deeds. Currently, hard copy LPAs must have wet-ink signatures appended and seals affixed by the donors to be executed as deeds. Going forward, the donor will sign the LPA using his National Digital Identity in OPGO in the presence of a Certificate Issuer, instead of appending wet-ink signatures and affixing seals. Certificate Issuers can be accredited medical practitioners, practising lawyers and registered psychiatrists. The new section 12A of the Act inserted by clause 6 of the Bill sets out the requirements for the LPA to be executed electronically as a deed.
Second, digitalisation will cut the time taken to complete and register an LPA. With built-in system checks and validations, most online LPA applications can be immediately processed upon submission. This is a substantial time saving compared to the current three weeks processing time. A handful of cases may require manual processing, that will take about eight working days. To be clear, there will still be a three-week waiting period allowing for any objection to the registration of the LPA to be raised. This three-week window starts from the date the Public Guardian notifies the donee or donees of the acceptance of the donor’s application to register the LPA. If there are no objections at the end of this three-week waiting period, the Public Guardian will register the LPA instrument. On a related note, we will also tap on Singpass to retrieve personal information via MyInfo. This auto-populates the donor’s particulars into the online LPA, thus increasing the ease of making an LPA.
Third, robust measures ensure that the LPA is properly made by the donor and not by an impersonator. In this regard, we have retained the critical requirement for the donor to execute the LPA before a Certificate Issuer. Under paragraph 2(1)(e) of the First Schedule to the Act, the Certificate Issuer will need to certify that the donor understands the purpose of the LPA and the scope of the authority conferred under it, and the donor is not under undue pressure or duress to make the LPA and that there is nothing else which would prevent the LPA from being created. The Certificate Issuer must be satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled before the Certificate Issuer may certify the LPA.
Both the donor and Certificate Issuer will sign using a secure electronic signature, which is enabled by the National Digital Identity, before submitting it online for processing. Electronic LPAs that are easily retrievable will also reduce the risk of damaging or misplacing hard copy LPAs.
Finally, OPGO will serve as a one-stop electronic transaction system for all transactions with the Office of the Public Guardian. Donors and donees will be able to easily access the registered LPA in OPGO. When transacting with third parties on behalf of the donor, donees may request for the Office of the Public Guardian to send an electronic copy of the LPA to the third party. This assures third parties that the LPA is indeed the true and latest version. Additionally, individuals will be able to conduct online LPA searches and, subject to approval, request for certified true copies of the registered LPAs via OPGO.
Filing deputyship reports will also be made easier via OPGO. For example, deputies can use an online finance tracker to manage the incapacitated person's income and expenses. Certain fields in the reports will also be prefilled with information from court documents, the previous year's report and the finance tracker. Deputies will not have to manually complete their reports or compile their supporting documents. Instead, they can focus on caring for their incapacitated loved ones.
We want all donors and donees to benefit from digitalisation and this includes those who have registered their LPAs before the launch of OPGO. The Office of the Public Guardian will make available electronic copies of all existing LPAs on OPGO. The risk of error in transferring these existing LPAs onto OPGO is low as there is neither extraction nor entry of new data.
Nevertheless, we will send a notice to all existing donors and donees via registered post, requiring them to verify the accuracy of the electronic copy on OPGO against their registered LPA. Under the new section 11(7), they will be given 90 days after the date of notice to notify the Public Guardian of any error. If the donor has lost mental capacity, any donee may notify the Public Guardian on his, or her behalf.
Under the new section 11(12), if the Public Guardian is not notified of an error, the electronic copy will be treated as the LPA after the end of the 90-day period. If there is a notification of error within the 90-day period, the electronic copy will be treated as the LPA on the 91st day, or the day on which the Public Guardian rectifies the error, whichever is later. This is to allow donors and donees to fully benefit from having the entire 90-day period to notify the Public Guardian of any error.
I would like to assure Members that errors discovered after the 90-day period can still be rectified by the Public Guardian. This is provided for under the new section 15A of the Act which is inserted by clause 9 of the Bill. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage all donees and donors to make the necessary verifications within the 90-day period.
Under paragraphs 7(4), 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the amended First Schedule substituted by clause 17 of the Bill, the Public Guardian is required to attach a note to an LPA on the occurrence of certain events. Such events include the bankruptcy of the donee, which terminates the donee's authority in relation to property and affairs, and the donee's loss of mental capacity, which terminates the donee's appointment.
All such notes will be attached to the electronic copy of the LPA in OPGO. As such, the electronic copy of the LPA in OPGO will be the most up-to-date copy.
Third parties transacting with donees should ask for the electronic copy when verifying the donee's authority. The Office of the Public Guardian will send the electronic copy to the third party through OPGO and upon the donee's request. In the unlikely event that there is an error in the electronic copy, the new section 16A of the Act which is inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, protects the donee if he or she had relied on the electronic copy without knowing of the error and protects any third party, if the third party had transacted in good faith and without knowledge of the error.
Let me now turn to an amendment that aims to enhance the protection of donors. There had been concerns about the exploitative behaviour of donees in past discussions of the Mental Capacity Act. Such cases form a very small minority and we had amended the Mental Capacity Act in 2016 to put in place pre-emptive actions. For example, the Court may under the existing section 36A(3) of the Act, suspend the donee, or deputy's powers. If he or she has engaged in conduct affecting his or her suitability to be a donee or deputy and there is a risk of dissipation of the incapacitated persons assets. But we can do more to protect the donors proactively even before an LPA is registered.
There may be rare instances where a person attempts to unduly influence many donors to appoint him or her as their donee. The donee may stand to gain if any or all of the donors lose their capacity. Some donees may also fail to disclose their multiple appointments to donors who might take that into consideration.
To safeguard against such risks, the new section 31A of the Act, which is inserted by clause 12 of the Bill allows the Public Guardian to interview the donor and disclose certain information if she suspects that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the donor to make an LPA or appoint a person to be his or her donee.
Only the number of LPAs for which the prospective donee has already been appointed or intends to be appointed may be disclosed. No other confidential information such as the names of the other donors will be given. However, this alone should suffice for the donor to pause and reconsider the choice of his or her donee.
Further, if the Public Guardian has reason to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has indeed taken place, she may exercise her supervisory and investigative functions, for instance, by applying to the Court under the existing section 17 of the Act to determine if the LPA should still be registered. This amendment will not apply retrospectively to LPAs registered prior to the amendment.
I am mindful that some of us may be less comfortable navigating online services. MSF will provide support and work with our community partners to ensure that assistance is readily available. Today, almost 90% of the donees are the donor's immediate family members, of which more than 60% are below 50 years old. This is promising as it indicates that family support is strong with many donees often helping their older relatives to fill up the hard copy LPAs. As we roll out OPGO later this year, I am confident that many Singaporeans will continue to rely on their family to assist with their LPA applications online.
To facilitate this, we have designed OPGO to leverage the multi-user SMS two-factor authentication, or 2FA service provided by Singpass. Elderly users who do not know how to log on to OPGO via Singpass may opt for the SMS one-time PIN, or OTP, to be sent to the child's mobile phone number. The child would then be able to help the elderly log on to OPGO via Singpass.
We will make OPGO as user-friendly as possible. Videos and resource guides will be incorporated into the system to guide users in the completion of their LPAs online. This includes text-to-speech functions for the visually impaired. The online guides, videos and instructions will also be made available in vernacular languages. Members of the public who need help may also set up an appointment for one-on-one consultation at the Office of the Public Guardian.
We will work closely with our partners to ensure that help is accessible at various community touchpoints. Individuals may approach their nearest Citizen Connect Centre located at selected Community Centres or the Public Service Centre, or PSC, at Our Tampines Hub. We also welcome other community partners to work with us to bring more on board as we begin this digitalisation journey.
Electronic submissions of LPA applications will be the norm to ensure that the public reaps the full benefits of digitalisation. But there may be exceptional circumstances that warrant the use of a hard copy form which are specified in the new section 10C(2) of the Act inserted by clause 3 of the Bill. For example, where personal circumstances or physical disability of the donor and/or donee results in their inability to make or sign the instrument using OPGO.
Other instances include cases where the donor or donee is ineligible for a Singpass account if he or she is not a Singapore Citizen, Permanent Resident or long-term resident. We will also allow hard copies submissions if there is a severe and prolonged system outage.
Sir, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of pre-planning for exigencies. This includes the very real risk that we may one day lose our mental capacity. It is wise to pre-plan and have peace of mind knowing that we have entrusted our well-being to a person who will act in our best interests should the need arise. Making our LPAs early will also make the caregiving journey less stressful for our loved ones, who will be spared the stressful and costly process of obtaining a Court order to be appointed as deputy.
We will walk this journey with our citizens to ensure that everyone can take advantage of OPGO and it is my hope that Singaporeans will leverage this digital transformation to make their LPAs safely, conveniently and expediently. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), provisions can be made for individuals who lack capacity to manage their affairs. This Bill amends the MCA so as to establish a simplified electronic process for the creation of Lasting Powers of Attorney, which allow individuals to appoint persons to make decisions on their behalf should they lose their mental capacity to do so themselves. It is certainly a useful legal instrument that was introduced in 2010.
But the number of persons who have made it is not high. As of 2018, only about 23,000 Singaporeans above 65 have made their LPA. This low number could be due to a number of reasons. One often incited is a stigma about speaking about death. Understandably, we might not be comfortable discussing the possibility that we will be unable to make decisions for ourselves.
Talking about end of life matters is still seen as a taboo or inauspicious for some. It is human nature. We say we will do it, but most of us will procrastinate and end up not doing it. These are important matters, whether it is making a will or LPA, but we do not pay enough attention to it.
Some years ago, my wife and I finally accompanied each other and we did both. Since then, I could say so to a lot of people, with stronger conviction, whether it is to friends or residents, why they should do it and do it now, not tomorrow. We do this certainly not for our sake, but for the people that matter to us – our family and loved ones.
In the long term, with an ageing population, these conversations will increase in frequency whether in public forums or private spaces. As unpleasant as the possibility may be, in the event that someone can no longer make their own decisions, an LPA empowers their close relatives to act on their behalf, for elderly individuals or couples without family support, the Professional Deputies and Donee Scheme provides a source of potential donors for an LPA.
Another reason for the low numbers might be a lack of public awareness. MSF has been promoting LPA through Community Centres, Senior Activity Centres and radio channels. However, members of the public might be unfamiliar with what an LPA entails or are confused by the decisions needed: what powers to grant donees whether multiple donees should act jointly or separately, and so on?
For this, we will need to step up our outreach and publicity efforts. Although events and roadshows are good idea, awareness tends to fade if they are not sustained over time. Furthermore, the effectiveness of in-person events may be limited by evolving safe distancing measures.
Last, I think perhaps the most likely is just a lack of attention. Our bias is to ignore the long term or to shy away from thinking about difficult topics. This cannot be fixed by more public dialogues or information and education. It requires each of us to decide for ourselves that we need to be responsible and aware of our own mortality and to prepare for it.
LPA is certainly a useful instrument which deserves to be better known and more widely used. At the same time, even as we promote its use, we should see its limitations.
Under the MCA, a donor can confer on the donee the authority to make decisions regarding the donor's welfare, property and affairs if the donor becomes unable to make these decisions themselves. Currently, the process requires the hardcopy of all documents and physical meetings between donor and donee.
For most of us, we will find making LPAs digitally much easier and more convenient. With the amendments, parties do not need to physically meet up to sign and exchange documents. The use of Singpass also means that the user's details are automatically entered, making it more convenient for LPA to be made while not compromising on data security.
However, I do have the following concerns on the proposed amendments to the Act.
First, it concerns access. We need to ensure that those who are less tech savvy are not left behind. As mentioned earlier, the elderly are a prime target audience for LPA to be made. Yet, many of them may be unfamiliar with the tools or even terminology that is used.
For example, they may not know how to navigate the Singpass app or website with the two-factor authentication. While Singpass now allows users to sign into family members' accounts, not all elderly have family members on hand to help them.
Yes, MSF will assist those who have difficulty navigating the OPGO system by making Internet-enabled devices and trained staff available at community centres (CCs). This ensures that people do not have to venture beyond their neighbourhoods, making the process quick and easy. However, not all CCs will have these facilities. For those who need help, travelling further to an unfamiliar place may greatly discourage them. In fact, I know it does, especially for the elderly. If help was available at all CCs, I am quite sure it would lead to a greater take-up rate.
Sir, I hope the Ministry can consider this suggestion. Yes, I recognise that more resources will be required but I believe it will be monies well spent.
Still, even with various forms of assistance and accessibility measures, the five steps of the OPGO process may be hard to track, with multiple notifications and confirmations. For this, giving donors a physical checklist of the steps involved and the stage they are at – similar to reminders on vaccination cards – may be useful.
Next, I want to touch on scams. Besides improving accessibility, with more services and applications transitioning online, we also need to watch out for scams, which are getting increasingly sophisticated.
For now, there are safeguards in place such as Singpass users being prompted to verify the authenticity of websites before logging on. However, scams are getting more complicated, with fake websites resembling other Government agencies' websites being reported. We must keep our guard up and prevent such scams.
Some elderly individuals or those who are less tech-savvy might request friends or family members to help them with their submissions. I think this is quite normal in the course of business. While the majority of such cases will be safe, there could be those who abuse their trust and appoint themselves as donee. I would like to know what safeguards are in place to ensure that the donee appointed is the one intended by the donor.
Additionally, the current proposal's \"default setting\" is to treat the e-copy of the registered LPA in OPGO as free from error and as the LPA if there is no notification of any error within 90 days.
While this method might be administratively expedient and help save time, and certainly it does, given that this is such an important document, I think we should instead make it an affirmative confirmation by the donor that all details are correct; that is, to ensure that the consent is active consent. The security and sanctity of the LPA are worth the increase in administrative work, in my opinion.
Finally, I am heartened to hear that there are safeguards in place should there be reason to suspect that someone was pressured or deceived into making an LPA, especially if the donor lacks mental capacity. In such cases, the Public Guardian can disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which their prospective donee has already been appointed to allow them to make a more informed decision.
This safeguard, I feel, can be made stronger. We should not subject the Public Guardian to such a heavy responsibility. The Public Guardian should not really have to exercise judgement about when to step in. Instead, as long as the donee is a multiple nominee, I think this must be disclosed to the donor. With the disclosure, the donor can then decide if he or she wants to continue making the LPA with this donee.
In the long run, as we improve access and strengthen safeguards against abuse of the process, hopefully more people will make an LPA. Notwithstanding these suggestions, I support the proposed amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer who is involved in the issuance of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs). I have also had personal experience as a court-appointed deputy of a mentally incapacitated person.
Sir, the primary purpose of this Bill is to enable the Office of the Public Guardian to establish an electronic transaction system to facilitate the execution and registration of LPAs and other documents. I am generally in support of this Bill, which promises to make it more convenient for the public to execute LPAs and register them instead of needing to print and submit wet-ink documents to the OPG.
Another group of persons who would benefit are court-appointed deputies who will also be able to transact online with the OPG and retrieve information more easily. There are also provisions to alert donors of suspicious circumstances surrounding the intended LPAs, which are well-intentioned.
Even if the move is to go online, the Ministry has decided to retain the requirement for an LPA donor to appear in person before the Certificate Issuer. While some have called for this requirement to be done away and to allow donors to appear remotely, I disagree.
The in-person appearance is important as it will enable the Certificate Issuer – whether a lawyer, a psychiatrist or a credited medical practitioner – to make some assessment as to whether the donor is making the document out of free will. In comparison, having the donor appear online may be convenient. But online certification also carries a higher risk that there are unseen persons or forces adding pressure to the donor to execute the document.
Similarly, out of caution, the Government has decided not to expand the category of professions who can issue LPAs. Again, I agree that caution is warranted.
We have already seen hostile litigation among family members over LPAs, with lawyers and doctors dragged in to justify their assessments of whether the donor was mentally capable or incapable at various points in time. It is prudent not to include other suggested groups like religious and grassroots leaders without much more consideration.
Sir, the Bill will mandate that LPAs be executed and registered digitally from now on and reports by deputies be filed online. As with all things digital, there are concerns about those who would find it difficult or even oppressive to do so and how we would need to include them in the implementation of the OPG online. The Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Mr Louis Chua, will elaborate on this while my colleague in Aljunied GRC, Mr Leon Perera, will offer his suggestions for some reforms for the future.
For my part, I wish to seek clarifications about three clauses in the Bill: the proposed section 10(C)(2), clause 12 and clause 17(2).
First, the proposed section 10(C)(2). This will allow the Public Guardian to provide alternative ways to transact with its office if the transaction cannot be carried out through the online system and \"due to a person's physical disability or other circumstance or because the system is unavailable or for any other reason.\"
It would be useful for the Ministry to elaborate on the scope of these exceptions. When we say a person is unable to use the system due to physical disability, are we referring to a person who cannot use his fingers to key in a digital identification or who is visually impaired? What is the scope of the wide phrase \"for any other reason\"? Would this include, for instance, persons who are hospitalised or incarcerated?
Second, clause 12 will give new powers to the Public Guardian to interview the donor. The new section 31A provides that the Public Guardian may require the donor to appear before him if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee. It is further stated that one of the grounds for such suspicion is the number of LPAs registered or pending registration with the same donee.
Sir, this provision is well-intentioned but raises a few questions. Although it is stated that the Public Guardian can require the donor to be interviewed, it is not stated what the consequence will be if the donor does not attend. This could happen for innocent reasons like not being physically mobile. What will the Public Guardian do in that circumstance?
Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Public Guardian might apply to Court for a decision on whether the LPA should be deregistered. Could he clarify, for example, whether the Public Guardian might even decline to register the LPA in the first instance?
Next, on what basis would the Public Guardian find reasonable cause to suspect fraud or undue pressure? Will the Public Guardian largely rely on information given to it rather than initiate its own investigations?
Third, the Bill specifically suggests that being a donee in multiple LPAs is a suspicious circumstance. How will this operate in practice? For example, if I am named a donee by three family members, will that be considered suspicious? Indeed, the likelihood of family members appointing the same donee is increasing as many of us need to assist elderly relatives who are unmarried or childless.
Finally, clause 17(2) of the Bill will facilitate the Public Guardian in giving special approval for LPAs to be executed remotely. This may be allowed with prior approval if the Public Guardian is satisfied that there is \"good reason\" why the donor cannot appear physically before a Certificate Issuer to execute the electronic document.
Given what we have discussed about the risk of not appearing in person before the Certificate Issuer, it will be useful to know what scenarios are being contemplated as constituting good reasons. Indeed, the Ministry has stated in its public consultation summary that exceptional circumstances will need to be shown. Could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on these circumstances? For example, does it include situations where donors are overseas for long periods of time? Sir, I look forward to hearing the Ministry's responses to my queries.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Mental Capacity Act.
The amendments primarily provide for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPAs) to be made and registered online through the formation of an what the Parliamentary Secretary calls OPGO, an Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system.
There are good reasons for this change: (a) to cope with the rising LPA volume, which has increased nine-fold from 2,681 in year 2014 to close to 25,000 in 2019; (b) to enable a faster and more convenient process – the change removes the need to physically print and submit hardcopies or affix wet-ink seals and signatures currently need for LPA deeds; (c) and the third good reason, the proposed amendments provide for new features to better store, search and retrieve electronic LPAs versus hard copy LPAs. New safeguards to check on donees and cybersecurity features are also added.
These changes bode well for Singaporeans who were previously deterred by the longer and more cumbersome process and especially for those who are IT-savvy and who can self-help. However, I would like to highlight four concerns which I hope the Ministry can address.
Concern number one: the underlying inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA.
Sir, I fear that the amendments will not address the underlying cause of inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA. Despite the encouraging increase in the number of LPAs registered – more than 20,000 annually in recent years – the total number remains relatively low compared to the population which is eligible.
The data bears testimony, supports this concern. More than one million Singaporeans are above the age of 55. More Singaporeans are expected to be hit by dementia or loss of mental capacity gradually. In a 2015 study conducted by the Well Being of the Singapore Elderly or WiSE led by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), one in 10 people aged 60 and above may have dementia. In 2018, ChannelNewsAsia ran an article featuring more Singaporeans being diagnosed with dementia at an even younger age and even younger age.
There is clearly an increasing number of Singaporeans at risk of losing their mental capacity. There is also an inertia to take the initiative by many to apply for an LPA. So, even if the expected number of LPAs is expected to rise to more than 30,000 with the proposed amendments, there is still a large pool of Singaporeans who need more than a nudge.
A more aggressive and robust communications and outreach plan is in need. The current video example available to MSF and the other measures are obviously not enough.
So, I strongly advise the development and implementation of a comprehensive communications and outreach plan covering: (a) different target audiences with demographics and so forth; (b) analyses of their communications style, the language, channels of communication; (c) ways by which they can be reached through an effective marketing mix or communications mix of TV, radio, print, grassroots workshops, volunteer workshops and incentive programmes.
Concern number two: the vulnerable and the need to include and protect their interests.
Sir, some members of society who most need an LPA are the least likely to apply for an LPA. They may be the less educated, not defined by one’s paper qualifications, who may not understand the concept or need for an LPA. They may be the less technically savvy who are averse to the use of Singpass, electronic signatures and so forth. In an IMDA survey of 2019, it was revealed that 58% of residents above age 60 are Internet users compared to 89% for all residents – a percentage-point difference of about 30%.
Then, there are persons with disabilities who are differently abled and they are different. Some may have mental capacity but will still need help to understand and complete the process of LPA application and registration. Some may not pass the test for full mental capacity as stated in MCA. For example, that is to understand, to be able to retain information, to weigh decision and to communicate. They and/or their caregivers will need advice and guidance on whether LPAs are relevant or whether deputies should be appointed to protect them.
There is an obvious need to seriously invest in a track for the vulnerable. I suggest that the Ministry considers the following options to ensure that the vulnerable are included and protected.
One, to set up specific LPA clinics at the major community centres staffed by trained professionals with technical knowledge and/or language fluency that is required. Much like the vaccination centres albeit at a smaller scale. These can be permanent for bigger towns for longer period or they can be mobile LPA clinics to serve smaller precincts.
And second is to consider adopting a parallel run allowing for a co-existing physical and online system until our nation is more ready to go fully online in this matter.
Concern three: Certificate Issuers.
One important party to the process of LPA application is the Certificate Issuer or CI. The CI is a witness for the donor and certifies that the donor has the capacity to make an LPA and that there is no fraud or undue influence used to induce the donor to make the LPA. The current Act states that the LPA CI must be either one, a medical practitioner accredited by the Public Guardian; or a practicing lawyer; or a registered psychiatrist. Just three professions.
Findings in countries such as Hong Kong, for instance, have shown that many do not approach these professionals for various reasons: the cost or the perception of the cost; and the fear or discomfort of approaching or interacting with these experts.
Legislation in England and Wales, of which the Singapore MCA is modelled after, provides for a \"Certificate Provider\" to be someone a donor knows well. So, I think that is a bit broad and general and I do not support that. But they also include professional persons such as one of the following: either a registered healthcare professional; a solicitor, barrister or advocate; a registered social worker; or an independent mental capacity advocate. So, the professional pool is larger than that in Singapore.
Whilst technical qualification is a proxy of a CI’s competency, it is only one of several competencies required of a good CI. A responsible CI should be able to and is interested in detecting the donors who are vulnerable, unduly pressured or influenced into giving power to certain donees. Why, for example, can certified, accredited social workers or psychologists not be accredited by the Public Guardian? Why can they not be included in the pool of CIs, so that the pool can be enlarged for choice by the donor? I recommend that the pool of CIs be enlarged.
Concern four and the final concern: families of persons who lack or lost mental capacity and are without LPA.
Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned for my adult residents who are incapacitated, due to old age or birth or accident and so on, or have become incapacitated but they all are without an LPA. They and their families who have to decide on their behalf and look after them are often clueless and helpless.
I understand that a process for the application and appointment for deputies has been put in place under the existing Act. However, the low level of awareness of the need and the process remains baffling to the main in the street. Usually, it is too late by the time they know about this and the process often takes too long, leaving the family in limbo and distress.
While progress have been made to encourage deputyships for clients in disability organisations – I know such as MINDS for the intellectually disabled – there is still a sizeable population out there who need to know about the matters of deputyship appointments. They ought to urgently start the process of application and appointment, before it is too late.
Hence, I urge the Government to allocate more resources, both financial and for Ministry to allocate more time, to similarly enable a faster, customer-centric and effective process for those who are now without mental capacity.
In summary, Sir, the proposed amendments provide for welcomed changes to an otherwise more cumbersome system.
I have listed four major concerns and provided recommendations for the Ministry’s consideration. Resources will be needed but they will be monies and time well invested. The cost of not investing in this important life planning tool will most certainly be higher later.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mental Capacity Act (Amendment) Bill makes changes to bring about the digitalisation of LPA filing, changes in the filing of deputyship reports and the modification of the donor protection framework to help curb abuse, among other things. My party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim has spoken in support of the Bill and has posed important clarifying questions and suggestions, as will my Parliamentary colleague Mr Louis Chua. I shall limit my speech to a few technical suggestions for future consideration.
Firstly, Sir, under the Bill, making and submitting an LPA in hard copy may still be permitted but only under exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of physical disabilities or if the Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) website is down, for example.
Some donors may not necessarily have physical disabilities but may be uncomfortable with the prospect of transacting purely online over such an important legal act. This phenomenon may have been elevated by the publicity surrounding Internet frauds and personal data being compromised through various data breaches.
MSF says it will reach out to users in need through the Citizen Connect Centres at community centres and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Tampines Hub. I would like to ask to what extent will the Government preserve this option, going forward, of human staff to support donors at Citizen Connect Centres who wish to register LPAs but who are uncomfortable with submitting the LPA purely online without any interaction with officials at a physical office.
Next, Sir, I would like to suggest that it be made mandatory for donees to notify the Public Guardian of their intention to exercise their authority to make very major decisions on behalf of donors that impact the donor’s living arrangements and have major impact on their finances before doing so, so as to better safeguard persons who lack mental capacity from abuse.
Some jurisdictions require proactive regular reports from donees or guardians, particularly those with financial responsibilities. In Victoria state in Australia, for example, administrators must submit financial statements to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on an annual basis and otherwise as directed
The New York Mental Hygiene Law requires guardians to report on their activities. The guardian must file an initial report no later than 90 days after being appointed by the Court. In the initial report, the guardian who has been granted powers with respect to property management must document a complete inventory of properties and financial resources of the \"incapable\" person. For personal needs, the guardian must provide a plan of care. The guardian must also file an annual report and provide accounting yearly as prescribed by the Court.
Sir, we do not necessarily have to go as far as what is being done in these jurisdictions at this very early stage in the evolution of our LPA landscape, since we also have to avoid imposing overly onerous burdens that may deter persons from becoming donees. However, a basic requirement to notify the OPG when a donee exercises their powers under the Act as regards to major financial and property-related decisions and major living arrangement-related decisions may be worth considering. The definition for what constitutes such major decisions could be clearly spelt out in the legislation or subsidiary legislation.
Such a requirement would provide the OPG with more information on how powers are being exercised under the Act, which would be useful for subsequent policy reviews. Such a requirement may also make the donees take the exercise of their responsibilities a little more seriously when it comes to making very major decisions on behalf of their donors.
I would stress that I am not suggesting that donees be made to file detailed descriptions of every single decision they make on behalf of the donor, or annual reports and so on and so forth, as this is too onerous.
Lastly, Sir, for the longer-term evolution of this body of law and regulation, would the Government consider giving some thought to complementing a substitutive decision-making model for LPAs with a supported decision-making model in the future?
Currently, the Mental Capacity Act or MCA adopts what can be termed a substituted decision-making model, which differs from the supported decision-making model now encouraged by the committee for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or CRPD.
Substituted decision-making enables a proxy to make decisions on behalf of another person who is incapable; therefore, the concerned individual has no right to make a decision for himself or herself unless the substitutive decision-making framework is reversed or mitigated through some form of legal action.
One counter-argument to any move towards a supported decision-making model may be that the substitutive decision-making model may not be as paternalistic as it sounds right now. In the words of Assoc Prof Chin Jing Ji in an article in the journal of the College of Family Physicians, and I quote, “section 6 of the MCA defines best interests to include reasonably ascertainable past and present wishes and feelings, beliefs and values of the person, and other factors of significance. Furthermore, the MCA insists that before an act is done, or a decision is made, due consideration must be made to achieve the intended purpose in a way that is less restrictive on the person’s rights and freedom of action.”
But, Sir, at best, the MCA is ambiguous as to whether it wants primarily to advocate autonomy or beneficence for the person lacking mental capacity. This ambiguity could allow for some interpretation in favour of supported decision-making at the practical level, but may also make decision-making challenging for the donee, potentially leading them to err on the side of caution, meaning to err on the side of paternalism.
It is known within the medical community that the best interests of patients can sometimes come into conflict with substitute decision-making. Clinicians may be left in a difficult position when best interest standards are in conflict with each other. Some argue that the role that the managing physician plays in consensus-building is a potential solution. This problem is further complicated by the presence of paid professionals in the LPA system. Professional donees with little knowledge, no more than the doctor, about the donor’s preferences might be more likely to employ a standardised, paternalistic approach towards decision-making on behalf of the donor.
Sir, the concept of supported decision-making is relatively new and it is predicated on the basic principle that most people are autonomous beings who develop and maintain capacity as they engage in the process of their own decision-making, even if at some levels support is needed.
In the supported decision-making paradigm, the individual receives support from a trusted individual, a network of individuals or entities to make personal, financial and legal decisions that must be followed by a third party such as financial institutions, business, health professionals and service providers. Depending on the needs of the individual with a disability, depending on their particular condition, the supported person will aid the individual to understand the relevant issues and information and make decisions based on her own preferences. If necessary, the person providing support interprets and communicates the individual's preferences and desires to third parties, so that they can be realised.
As described in a paper by researchers Devi, Bickenbach and Stucki, Canada is one of the leading countries in the legal implementation of supported decision-making models, for example, the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Disability Act 1993 from the province of Manitoba. Another example is contained in the province of British Columbia's Representation Agreement Act (RAA), under which an adult can enter into a \"representation agreement\" with a trusted person or support service who is empowered to either to assist that individual in making and communicating certain decisions with which he or she needs assistance, or to make decisions for him or her. Another example of a supported decision-making model is the Swedish \"legal mentor\" who acts as the individual's agent, with the individual's consent. Sweden revoked its formal guardianship laws for adults with disabilities in 1989 and replaced it with this supported decision-making model.
Supported decision-making recognises that even people who have difficulty making choices, formulating decisions and communicating their preferences can make positive choices.
The CRPD Committee has repeatedly called for the replacement of substitutive decision-making systems with supported decision-making systems. For example, in its Concluding Observations on Croatia and also General Comment No 1.
I wonder, in conclusion, if the Government would give some thought to developing instruments in the future that would enable us to make supported decision-making a legal option that donors can select alongside the options currently provided for. Moving in this direction may better promote and protect the rights of persons who require support in exercising their legal capacity in line with what they believe to be the mental capacity, the degree of mental capacity that they have.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. Death and taxes are both as unwelcome, yet both are an essential part of our lives. We have to think, plan and eventually execute the provisions for our mortality. The amendments we debate today will enable the Office of Public Guardian to digitalise the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) process. I see this as an important first step that will provide Singaporeans and their families with better support in dealing with life’s vicissitudes pertaining to loss of mental capacity, terminal illness, end of life and distribution of assets to loved ones post-life.
I made the call for digitalisation of LPAs and Wills on 7 April 2020 in this House when we were debating the COVID-19 (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I had also made calls to modernise and simplify the probate processes for several years now.
I do hope that in the near future lay persons will be able to access digital platforms to make not only LPAs but digital wills, advance medical directives and applications for Grants of Probate or Letters of Administration for straightforward probate matters without fuss, with little costs and from the comfort of their homes. That would be real and significant progress.
At the same time, I do recognise that we still have a digital divide in our community and hon Member Ms Denise Phua spoke cogently about this point, drawing from surveys done by IMDA. I, therefore, would like to join her and hon Member of Parliament Mr Seah Kian Peng in their call to provide tangible support to persons who are not digitally savvy.
I only have one short query and this is to clarify the legislative policy concerning the role of the Public Guardian in safeguarding the donor’s wellbeing and interests even before an LPA is made by him. This arises from the proposed amendments to give the Public Guardian (PG) the power to: (a) interview the donor if there are grounds to suspect there is fraud or undue influence to induce a donor to make an LPA or to appoint a particular person to be his donee; and (b) disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his prospective donee has already or will be appointed as donee on the same grounds.
A number of hon Members of Parliament who spoke before me also dealt with this provision including hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim.
Let me say that, in principle, I do not have an issue with the proposed amendments. I applaud the move to enlarge the Public Guardian’s responsibilities so as to better protect the donor’s interests at the outset before an LPA is made. I do not see this as an extension of duties; the PG taking over the responsibility of ensuring that the donee is a suitable person. That responsibility must sit squarely with the donor. However, I think it is good that the PG provides the necessary support to the donor in terms of giving relevant information and putting the donor on notice before he makes the important decision on the choice of his donee.
My short query is in relation to why the role of the PG in safeguarding the donor’s interest before the registration of the LPA cannot be expanded beyond fraud and undue influence to also include general suitability of the proposed donee.
For example, it may serve the donor’s interest if the PG shares with the donor information as to whether the proposed donee has any criminal convictions dealing with theft, cheating, extortion, criminal breach of trust or an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Such information is not easily accessible by members of public, even though these are matters of public record since convictions are almost always pronounced in open Court. Currently, the Court already has the power to revoke the LPA or direct that the LPA not to be registered on this ground if the conviction post-dates his appointment as donee. The presumption here, I gather, is that the donor would know or act with reasonable diligence to establish the proposed donee’s background beforehand.
But, in practice, this is not necessarily the case. We know all too often how we shirk tasks that have high cognitive tax, such as reading the fine print of contracts and policies, and I am speaking as one who is paid to read fine print, even though I must admit I do this at work but not at home.
I would be grateful if the hon Parliamentary Secretary could please clarify what is the legislative intent in circumscribing the PG’s role to just matters where it is suspected that fraud or undue pressure is used on the donor.
Before I sit down, I would like to take this opportunity to join the hon Parliamentary Secretary in his clarion call to fellow Singaporeans who have not done so to make LPAs so that they can minimise the trouble to their loved ones who have to bear the responsibility of caring for them should they lose their mental capacity. I have.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, early last month, I hosted a Zoom webinar organised by the Sengkang Constituency Committee, where we shared with our residents the importance of wills, CPF nominations and the Lasting Power of Attorney or LPA. Each one of these instruments play an important role in estate planning and helps provide peace of mind for our loved ones should something untoward happen in our lives. While we are still fortunate to be in good health and of sound mental capacity today, an LPA arguably also provides us with the serenity of knowing full well, that there will be someone we trust to undertake key decisions for us, should we lose mental capacity one day.
I thus believe that having an LPA or will done up to provide assurances in the event of the \"ifs\" and \"what ifs\" in life, is no less important than, say, the assurance of having basic health insurance plans in place, such as MediShield, for example, to which I note that with the rollout of MediShield Life in 2015, all Singaporeans are now covered for life, compared to 2.8 million policyholders back in 2006, notwithstanding the general population increase since then.
I was thus a little sad and frankly unsurprised, however, that based on the straw poll that was conducted during our Zoom webinar, only 5% of participants have indicated that they have done up an LPA and 6% have done up a Will. Upon conducting further research, I note that up to 2020, there has only been about 100,000 LPAs registered in Singapore. Even if we exclude foreigners and base our calculations off the resident adult population of about 3.2 million people, the number of registered LPAs represent a mere 3.1% of the resident adult population.
I recognise that MSF expects more than 40,000 LPAs to be registered by year-end. But even so, based on 40,000 LPAs registered a year, this will take the equivalent of about 80 years to get everyone covered; and most of us would not be here by then!
Beyond the technical amendments to this Bill, the key question I have for the Ministry is thus, do we have a target to aspire to, in terms of the timeline, the number and percentage of LPA registrations in Singapore? Beyond the digitalisation of the LPAs and the waiver of the application fee for Form 1 since September 2014, what more is being done, and how much resources are being dedicated to ensuring that we raise the awareness of LPAs and, ultimately, the number of LPA registrations in Singapore?
Looking into the details of the Bill, my first clarification is on section 31A, which my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim has discussed. While the new section allows for the Public Guardian to interview donors if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee, I wonder if a caveat mechanism can be put in place as a preventive measure to protect vulnerable persons and prevent abuse, rather than just a risk-based approach of requiring an interview when risks are identified? This could involve, for example, having a next-of-kin or appointed caregiver submitting a declaration, substantiated with medical opinion that a person already lacks mental capacity or have intellectual disabilities, and that any attempts by the person to register for an LPA would raise an immediate red flag.
My main concern, however, is that surrounding the transition to a purely electronic transaction system, the Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system (OPGO). I consider myself a digital native and appreciate the digitalisation of paper-based processes, especially one which would involve the use of snail mail, to a purely electronic one. But for consequential documents, such as the Election Department (ELD)'s nomination papers or residential sale and purchase agreements, for example, there is a certain degree of comfort and confidence from the tactile experience of touching and signing a physical document.
The digital divide is thus real and cannot be ignored, as can be seen from recent experiences of residents choosing a physical TraceTogether Token instead of downloading the TraceTogether App, or the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers, on which many residents have shared with me feedback on the convoluted digital process of redeeming some of these vouchers.
As such, I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider retaining the option for donors to draft their LPA on a hard copy version of Form 1, if it is preferred, rather than only for exceptional circumstances? I note that for CPF nominations, while this can be done online, there remains an option for members to complete a hard copy form to be submitted at the CPF Service Centres as well.
Further, it would also be preferable if multilingual support can be provided on the LPA Form itself, while also providing a guide in all four official languages to walk donors through the process of registering an LPA. Looking through the guides provided by the OPG in its current website, I note that the LPA brochure, guides for caregivers, donees and deputies are all available in Chinese, Malay and Tamil as well. But arguably the most important guide of all, the guide to the LPA is only available in English on the website.
I recognise that the Ministry will be assisting those less comfortable with digital services, by leveraging on community touchpoints such as the Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) and the Integrated Public Service Centre (IPSC) at Our Tampines Hub. Yet even at the CCCs, my understanding is that staff will be assisting residents with performing Government transactions online. As it is an important document to make, elderly residents who may not be comfortable with digital forms, especially one in English and may not wish to complete the LPA form all at one go. As friendly as the CCC staff may be, elderly residents may also wish to consult their children or other relatives whom they trust to get a second opinion on the LPA and a physical form would better facilitate this whole process.
Further, while I strongly believe that an LPA is important for adults of all ages, close to 80% of LPA donors from 2014 to 2019 are aged 50 and above, while 55% of LPA donors are aged 60 and above. The importance of having hard copies and multilingual support is thus even more important, given the demographic of LPA donors today.
Another interesting statistic which I observed is that from 2014 to 2019, female LPA donors have consistently outnumbered male LPA donors by a ratio of about 1.4 is to one. I wonder, if the Ministry has conducted any study into why this is the case and whether efforts can also be made to encourage more men to make an LPA? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me end my speech in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that if one day we lose mental capacity due to ageing or other factors, we would hope that someone whom we trust, someone who is reliable and capable can handle our personal welfare and financial matters on our behalf.
That being the case, it is extremely important to have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in advance to appoint someone whom we trust as our donee.
When the amendment Bill is passed, Singaporeans will be able to apply for LPA online through the Office of the Public Guardian's online service and handle relevant transactions such as submitting online deputy’s report and making e-payments. Once LPA is digitised, the time to register an LPA will be shortened from three weeks to an average of eight working days. This is a good thing.
However, for the elderly who are illiterate and do not know how to use computers, it will be more difficult for them to apply online. The digitisation of LPA may also lead to concerns about electronic forms and public trust.
I understand from the MSF's announcement in May that Singaporeans who are not tech-savvy can go to Citizen Connect Centres located at CCs and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub for assistance. However, it is nonetheless an online application form. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister if we can keep the paper form LPA , just like when we do CPF nominations, we can either do it online or go to the CPF Service Centre to fill up the physical form.
From 2014 to 2019, nearly 80% of donors are aged 50 and above and 55% are 60 years old and above, hence having a paper form LPA and multilingual support is all the more important.
Finally, according to my study, adult residents now make up 3.2 million of the population, only 3.1% have successfully applied for an LPA. I hope the Government can make more efforts to encourage more Singaporeans to have an LPA so that they are protected.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to enable the digitalisation of the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), filing of deputyship reports, as well as enhance the protection of donors and persons who lack mental capacity.
The LPA is a legal instrument which allows a person, the \"donor\", to voluntarily appoint one or more persons, the \"donee\", to make decisions and act on his behalf when he loses mental capacity one day. There are three key steps under the existing process.
First, the donor must choose someone he or she trusts to make decisions and decide on the decision powers to accord to the donee. If there is more than one donee, the donor must also decide whether the donees are to act jointly, or jointly and severally.
Second, the donor must attend before a Certificate Issuer, that is, a doctor, lawyer or psychiatrist, with the LPA, who will then sign and certify that the donor has mental capacity to make an LPA. This is a crucial safeguard in ensuring that the donor is aware of the legal implications and has not been under duress or undue pressure in the creation of the LPA.
Third, the donor must submit the LPA and all relevant documents to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) by post. The OPG will then verify the documents and proceed to register the LPA if there are no valid objections.
We are living in an era where almost anything and everything is digitalised. It also means things are done even faster, smarter, easier and safer, especially with a low touch economy. Accordingly, the proposed amendments which seek to establish an electronic transaction system for persons to create an LPA or carry out their transactions with the Office of Public Guardian digitally, is a timely and laudable move.
Even as the majority of Singapore rides the rapid waves of change in the digital sphere and we are moving forward in this space, I wish to highlight three concerns which I hope to see addressed we embark on this set of amendments.
First, expanding outreach and communications. My wife and I did our LPA earlier this year and I must say the process is not a simple one. You need to read the fine print and there are quite a number of signatures and quite a number of documents and forms to go through.
My first concern is with the seniors amongst us and whether the electronic process will be a boon or a bane to them as there are many who may not be electronically savvy and comfortable with the e-processes and may result in us losing out this group which are precisely the ones who need to make their LPAs most urgently, in case they lose their mental faculties with the passing of time and age. The question we need to address is how the electronic process will help or encourage seniors to do up the LPA? Will the system be multilingual as well and void of legalese?
I understand that the Office of Public Guardian has plans to work with the People's Association, the Infocomm Media Development Authority and other organisations to train and assist elderly persons. This is a step in the right direction to evangelise the importance of the LPA. In addition, the Office of Public Guardian can also partner with NTUC and the Labour Movement as well as our union leaders to enhance the outreach to workers and union members. For a start, perhaps a special campaign can be embarked on to get all our union leaders to do up an LPA at a subsidised rate so that they can lead the way to encourage the workers and fellow members as they interact and engage them at the workplaces and the various shop floors.
Second is extending support at the local level and the needy. Over in my Pioneer constituency, my community volunteer team and I had also organised and conducted a Facebook live webinar in October last year on \"Wills, Estate Planning and Lasting Power of Attorney\" to educate our residents on this very important topic. We collaborated with Invictus Legacy centre to extend a very economical and affordable package to all Pioneer residents when they do up both an LPA and a simple Will, to the end of this year. This was well-received by my residents and many of them shared that this was a useful and practical. As of earlier this year, I know more than 300 residents have done up their LPAs in response to this special package and service for our residents.
I recalled also doing a similar drive during my last term in Boon Lay constituency where we also extended a special package, but this time to the many needy and low-income residents there staying in rental flats. With this, I submit and suggest that OPG can work with the community and come up with a similar support scheme to assist low-income and needy residents to do up their LPAs. Besides waiver of the registration fee, which is a good move, support can come in the form of waiving or even subsidising the certificate issuer charges. There can also be proper benchmarks as now, there is a spectrum of charges imposed by Certificate Issuers depending on whether it is done through a lawyer, doctor or psychiatrist.
Third is deputyship. I am concerned for those who do not make their LPAs before losing mental capacity and their families and loved ones must now apply for deputyship with the Courts, which is a costly, time-consuming and cumbersome process, which quite a number of Members of this House have probably highlighted. Would MSF be making any further changes to simplify the existing procedure, which would save time, costs and energy for all of us? I note that there is a simplified application process for restricted use of monies of S$60,000 and below for certain categories of applications.
Further, the amendments propose to allow the Public Guardian, in case of suspected fraud, to disclose to a donor that his prospective donee is already a donee to multiple donors. Does this disclosure obligation apply across the board? Or would there be certain exemptions, for instance, where the appointed donee is either a next-of-kin, close relative, or friend of the multiple donors? Also, if the authorities suspect that fraud has been perpetrated, what will happen to all LPAs registered after the amendments have been passed?
Sir, clarifications and concerns notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, against the backdrop of changing demographics and in the spirit of digitalising the Public Service, enabling the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be made electronically is indeed a welcome move for it allows greater efficiency and convenience for the donor, donee and the Ministry.
Whilst in the process of improvement and advancement, it is important that we do not forget there are risks involved. Hence, I seek clarity on the safeguards put in place and its adequacy as well as some clarifications regarding specific sections in the amendment Bill.
First, ensuring robustness of the nomination process to prevent fraudulent nominations.
To provide additional safeguards for donors, it was mentioned that the Public Guardian may interview the donor and disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his or her prospective donee had already been appointed, or intends to be appointed. Could the Ministry provide more specifics on the process and how in doing so, would prevent fraudulent nominations and avoid conflict of interest for donees with multiple appointments? Further, how would the process account for and act as a preventive measure for those who are already experiencing an early onset of dementia or individuals with special needs?
Regarding process robustness, for section 10B(1)(g) and section 46(2)(b) and (d), could more clarity be shared on (a) what circumstances and considerations would allow for the disclosure of this non-confidential information; (b) who would be allowed the access to this information and (c) will there be any measures in place to ensure that only those permitted have access to the information and that the risk of incorrect disclosure is minimised or even eliminated?
Under section 10C(2), if more insights can be provided on what the Public Guardian foresees and hypotheses that could constitute valid reasons besides physical disability and electronic transaction system unavailability that is already outlined, for transactions that can be carried out in the form and need not be done electronically.
On section 10D(1) and (3), in the event that the Public Guardian has to correct any error or omission in the register or document as a result of the malfunction of the electronic transaction system, would there be any prompt communication to inform both the donor and donee of the correction that has to be done? If so, what would be the service level agreement in informing both the donor and the donee. This is a critical point as outlined in subsection (3) that and I quote, \"when an error or omission has been corrected, the error or omission is treated as not having occurred\". Should there be an error made by the Public Guardian in the course of rectification, what possible recourse can the donor or donee pursue?
Second, to ensure sufficient reach and provision of support for the move towards electronic LPA. I think a few of my fellow colleagues have spoken about this. But I just want to emphasise on one point: with more elderly in Singapore living alone, are there any concrete plans to assist these seniors to file for LPA if they have not done so and to assign deputies earlier to them to better support them in their later years.
I believe, many of these seniors and special needs individuals may also be unfamiliar with the legal considerations, so how can we better serve their needs as we pivot towards electronic LPA.
In clause 7, amendment of section 13(10), would steps be taken by the Public Guardian to authenticate the certificate from the registered medical practitioner, ensuring that it is a true copy? Because as we go electronic and in many of these documentations, sometimes inevitably, that could be errors or that could be gaps. So, if we are not going to do this, how can the public agencies or organisations in which the donee is interacting on behalf of the donor, be assured that there is a validation process in place?
On section 33A(3) and (4), could greater clarity be provided on the next step of action should the donor or donee raise objections to the proposed rectification or update of the register?
Last but not least, the cost that is involved and the transition process towards electronic LPAs. With this move towards electronic LPAs, would there be any additional cost for the donor in the LPA filing as compared to the non-electronic LPA? Because in clause 9, section 15A, it mentions that if there is any error to the non-electronic LPA, rectification can actually be made on the electronic version. So, my query is: what then would become of the non-electronic LPA? Will it be superseded? Additionally, what is the transition process for the existing non-electronic LPA filed and the impact that it has on the existing protocols related to it?
Sir, the move towards digitalisation of public records is an important milestone. It will help with improving efficiency of processes for records checking and cross-usage amongst the authorities and I believe this is a very welcomed move.
However, LPA is a sensitive document and it deals with the matters that affect the welfare of citizens, particularly more so for the vulnerable. Thus, it is important that we maintain a robust system, albeit electronically, which manages the affairs with great accuracy and continues to uphold the trust between the institution and the public.
Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill represents another step in the nation's move to digitalise. A smooth transition to the new electronic transaction system for LPAs will simplify the process of making and accessing LPAs. However, if not managed well, the transition can cause more errors and put users off the new electronic transaction system.
A sizeable number of donors who interact with the system will be the elderly and vulnerable who may require more guidance in navigating the electronic system. This makes it all the more important to closely and carefully manage the transition.
I have four points for clarification on this Bill on the transition process.
My first point is on the rectification of relevant errors.
The new section 11(10) provides that the Public Guardian (PG) may rectify a relevant error if it is satisfied that there is a relevant error. This suggests that the PG has the discretion to rectify a relevant error but is not obligated to rectify the error. The new section 11(12)(B)(II) also addresses the situation where a PG decides not to rectify a relevant error.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify under what circumstances will the PG not rectify a relevant error? In addition, can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that for the 90-day period before the electronic copy is treated as being free from error, the non-electronic copy remains the LPA? Can the Parliamentary Secretary also then confirm that the donee and third parties are entitled to rely on the non-electronic copy in the 90-day period before the electronic copy becomes the LPA, even if there are discrepancies in the non-electronic copy, which the PG may decide not to rectify in the electronic copy?
My second point is on parties that have relied on relevant errors in carrying out transactions.
The new subsection 10D(3) provides that where an error or omission has been corrected, the error or omission is treated as not having occurred. The new subsection 16A(2) provides that if an electronic copy of a non-electronic LPA has a relevant error, a person who transacts in good faith without knowing of the error is entitled to rely on the electronic copy for that transaction.
Where a transaction is entered based on a relevant error, which is corrected, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the effect of the correction on the transaction? Does the transaction remain valid or will the transaction be unwound?
I ask this because, according to section 10D(3), the error is treated as not having occurred, which may mean that the basis of the transaction no longer exists and should be unwound. However, section 16A(2) provides that a person is entitled to rely on the electronic copy with the relevant error in relation to the transaction, which suggests that the transaction remains valid.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify how this potential contradiction should be reconciled?
My third point is on suspected fraud or undue pressure on a donor.
Under the new section 31A(1), a donor may be interviewed if the PG has reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the donor to execute the instrument.
In addition to interviewing the donor, does the PG have the power to interview persons related to the donor or to interview the donee? In the event that the PG is of the view that there is sufficient evidence to show that fraud or undue pressure was, in fact, used to induce the donor to execute the instrument, will the PG intervene, regardless of the donor's stated wishes? What are the steps a PG will take in relation to a donee that it suspects is using fraud or undue pressure to influence multiple donors to appoint him or her as a donee?
My fourth point is on how the transition to the electronic transaction system will be implemented.
The new section 10(C)(1) requires a person to use the electronic transaction system if they wish to register an instrument to create an LPA. Section 10(C)(2) contemplates that there may be some circumstances where a transaction cannot be carried out using the electronic transaction system due to a person's physical disability or other circumstances.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Can the\tParliamentary Secretary elaborate on the circumstances under which a person may be exempted from using the electronic transaction system? The elderly and the vulnerable who may use and need the LPA most may also be the demographic that faces the most difficulties using this new electronic transaction system.
I am glad that the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) has already shared its many initiatives and roadshows to educate and provide assistance for using the electronic transaction system.
The UK has also implemented an online system for LPAs. The UK took a gradual rollout approach to their four million registered LPAs by opening up the system in batches to LPAs registered in different years.
What are the lessons the Ministry has identified from the UK's rollout of their online system? How have these lessons been incorporated into the Ministry's and OPG's efforts to ensure the rollout is a smooth one in Singapore?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To most Singaporeans, LPAs sound depressing and remote. However, there will come a day when you and I may be bedridden and have to rely on someone we trust to continue to live with dignity. Since we have to appoint someone to handle our property and other important affairs through an LPA eventually, the LPA application process should be made easy.
Here, I would like to discuss the impact of LPA digitalisation on Singaporeans.
Public Service in Singapore has always been at the forefront of digitalisation. During the pandemic, digitalisation has helped our elderly to learn about and use email, internet banking and video conferencing. However, this does not mean that they do not fear digital services. The key to make the leap across the digital divide is not knowledge but confidence. How are we going to instill confidence in our elderly towards digitalisation?
Digital services will not completely replace customised services. To many Singaporeans, convenience from digitalisation is merely a function which is a complement to face-to-face services.
In order to boost the confidence of the people, we need to make digital LPA easy to understand, use and trustworthy. At the same time, automated services should come with a human touch and be more personalised.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the hallmark of a 21st century government is its ability to digitise its functions and processes and the Singapore Government has made leaps and bounds in this regard, such as the digitisation of citizen data on Singpass, payments on PayNow and even, to many of our citizens' delight, replacing parking coupons with an app.
However, Mr Speaker, today, we are here to debate the digitisation of a service that is arguably of more concern to a thinner, more vulnerable slice of our society, such as the elderly as well as adults with special needs – the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
These LPAs are not a matter that should be taken lightly. While the prudent and forward-thinking make LPAs pre-emptively, many Singaporeans only consider LPAs as they get on with age out of the concern that, one day, they may not have the ability to make proper judgements over their own welfare, property and other personal affairs. Effectively, to make an LPA is to commit to let someone else decide what you should eat, where you should stay and how you should live should the fateful day come that you are not able to make these decisions yourself.
Sir, I have seen the trepidation with which some of my elderly residents and even residents in their late 40s and 50s have with their approach in their interactions with the digital world – be it creating an email, setting up a bank account or even creating video calls with their loved ones. I recall someone I know in his early 50s asking me for help with the change of a file name on a document that is stored on his phone.
It is unfamiliar terrain for many and then even for some. Understandably then, the electronic LPA system, with implications reaching farther than WhatsApp video calls, may daunt many seniors who cannot find the confidence and assurance to traverse the digital divide.
An online system is only as useful as those who are able to find it useful and set itself up to be an exhibit in the museum of digital assets if not well implemented. Given that most of the online LPA system's intended audience will be daunted by fears associated with crossing the digital divide compounded by the pressure of making an LPA while they still can, we must stand ready to provide support for using these systems.
While digitalisation is often intended to reduce burdens on manpower, we must be willing to cross the bridges with those whom we build it for. I call on the Government to make accessible support systems for those daunted by online systems in order for them to get the most out of this initiative.
Crossing the digital divide is not just a matter of know-how but, in many cases, it is a matter of confidence. Providing a personal touch, especially on something as personal and life-changing as LPAs, through social services or other equivalent means will give our residents the encouragement, assurance and motivation to set up LPAs over the well-meaning online system.
Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would also like to shed some light on another vulnerable slice of society and they are adults with special needs and residents with mental health impediments.
On the extreme end, parents or relevant caregivers assume deputyship over these individuals, making decisions on their behalf in matters akin to an LPA. However, special needs and, indeed, mental incapacity, are a spectrum and we find a great diversity of conditions. Some cases are more visible than others while many other such conditions are virtually invisible to the untrained eye. Some conditions cause mental incapacities in bouts or sporadic episodes and cannot be recognised with certainty in one-off encounters.
We recognise that online LPA services greatly add to the convenience of the process by reducing the need for physical appointments even though these physical appointments, arguably, play pivotal roles in the ascertainment of mental capacities. Given the grave implications of making an LPA, we cannot, with good faith, proceed with the issuance of LPAs should there be any shadow of a doubt whether or not an individual is under pressure or has mental health impediments. We must get it right every single time.
Sir, while I am ready to place my faith in the intentions of LPA certificate issuers – medical doctors, psychiatrists and lawyers – their ability to ascertain an individual's mental capacity at the time of issuance is, actually, paramount to safeguarding the integrity of the process.
For example, should an individual who experiences episodes that result in delusions seek to make an LPA, how would the certificate issuer be able to ascertain that the basis on which the individual applies for an LPA is grounded in reality? Would an untrained personnel be able to make an assessment based on a one-off interaction with a special needs adult? These are situations that are not easy, even with physical interactions and online submissions make it even more tricky. Without additional safeguards or a transparent and rigorous evaluation system for mental capacity, the issuance of LPAs over an online system might become inconsistent at best, and, at worst, fail to protect the individuals it was precisely set out to protect.
As we necessarily lose the personal touch of the LPA process in introducing an online system, we must conscientiously support seniors in crossing the digital divide and intentionally build in safeguards that capture the diversity of our adults with special needs. These concerns notwithstanding, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, dementia is close to my heart. It is very likely that each of us has a story to share about dementia. A family member or a friend. It is part of life, because one in 10 aged 60 and above may have dementia. This is not a trivial number.
The Mental Capacity Act has continuously updated itself over the years, strengthened its mechanisms to ensure that you, me, our friends and family will be taken care of with respect and dignity, held carefully in the cradle of trust. Yes, trust. And this must be so throughout our lives. More so when we can no longer make decisions, either because of dementia or because of an accident or other illnesses.
As we move ahead with the roadmap to digitalise, we must ensure that we continue to build trust in the system as we embark on this journey. I applaud the effort for digital avenues for those who are less comfortable with digital services, to enable more to better understand its mechanisms and to embark on this transit.
With the new electronic transaction system, some would have concerns with its security. Can the Parliamentary Secretary share further details on the safeguards that will be deployed to ensure the integrity of the process? I also understand that in the event where there are grounds to suspect fraud or undue pressure used to induce a donor to make an LPA to appoint a particular person to be his or her donee, the Public Guardian may interview the donor. Can the Parliamentary Secretary share more on the measures in place and how the Office of the Public Guardian could have detected such occurrences and take swift action to safeguard the interest of the donor? Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Mental Capacity Bill amendments which allow LPAs to be drafted and amended and submitted via OPG Online. Through interactions with Yio Chu Kang residents, I have encountered problems due to an absence of LPA.
Most recently, a resident, Mr K, came to see me at a Meet-the-People session. His father suffered from advanced dementia and was in a nursing home. Mr K wanted to sell off his father's flat to pay for his father's nursing home charges. However, he was unable to do this. His father did not execute an LPA when he was mentally capable of doing so. As such, Mr K was stuck in limbo. To obtain legal permission, he would have to apply to the Courts to be appointed as a deputy. This is both costly and time-consuming. I have proposals in three broad areas to enhance the Bill further.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should make the process even more convenient for residents. I noted that the requirement for the donor to appear before the LPA certificate issuer, or CI, is retained. While I understand the rationale, this safeguard of meeting in person still presents a challenge to donors who have mobility problems. I hope that the Government can look out for this group of donors. Perhaps the Silver Generation Office can be roped in to do house visits. They can help to make clarifications and arrange for a CI to certify the LPA in the comfort of seniors' homes. Some medical practitioners and law firms already offer house visits. OPG should consider including those who provide such options on their websites and in the directory of CIs.
We should also consider having the process authenticated using digital fingerprints. Banks and hospitals are already doing this for their forms and transactions. This will be useful for residents who may have suffered from a stroke and have difficulty signing physical documents, or those who are illiterate among our elderly.
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, along with increased convenience, we need to make sure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. With digitisation, a growing concern is the rising trend of data leaks. In this case, we are looking at potential leaks of highly personal information. It could leave donors vulnerable to online fraud or blackmail. How will the Government safeguard our data in the event of a cybersecurity breach? How can donors be assured that they will not be left to their own devices to navigate the associated issues?
Separately, there was public feedback for the OPG to assist healthcare professionals and providers to retrieve the LPA and donee's contact information in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Currently, healthcare practitioners may login via Singpass to the OPG's e-services portal to make a search request. The search results indicate whether the patient has made an LPA and the relevant details of the donee. As the LPA will now be digital, can an LPA be automatically updated on the National Electronic Health Record system? This is so that in the event that an LPA needs to be activated, the healthcare professional need not wait two working days and pay $20 just to know who to contact.
I note that as part of the additional safeguards for donors, the Public Guardian may interview the donor. The Public Guardian may disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his or her prospective donee has already been appointed, or intends to be appointed. This is in the scenario if there is suspicion that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce a donor from making an LPA or appoint a particular person to be his or her donee.
Beyond this, another suggestion would be to make it mandatory for donees to notify the OPG of their intention to exercise their authority before doing so. This is to better protect donors from abuse. Requiring the donee to notify the OPG can act as a road bump to make some potential abusers think twice.
Checks and processes could also be added to look into cases where a Singaporean with living blood-related family members decides to appoint an unrelated person as his donee. There were 21,000 LPAs registered in 2020. Currently, 90% of donees are immediate family members. Still, that leaves 10% of them, or about 2,100 donors in 2020 alone, who have unrelated donees.
According to the recent population census, more people are choosing to remain single. Some married couples are opting to go childless. As such, we will likely see more Singaporeans choosing unrelated donees due to the lack of younger relations to count on.
Having such checks may prevent fraud incidents like the high-profile Mdm Chung's case in 2016, who appointed an unrelated former tour guide from China as a donee. The 2020 edition of LPA Form 1 requires the donor to specify the relationship of the donee to the donor. This helps to alert the OPG should an unrelated donee be appointed. Hence, OPG should institute precautions when such unrelated donees are appointed, especially when LPA applications involve vulnerable groups.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should do more with regard to awareness and outreach to make sure more residents know about this important process. Under PAP Seniors Group, we will be rolling out LPA awareness talks to the public, encouraging more people, especially younger Singaporeans, to make their own LPA.
I wish to circle back to a point I made when I spoke on the Electronics Transaction (Amendment) Bill earlier this year. Digitisation is merely an enabler. We should review the fundamentals of the LPA application process to ensure that is user centric. Although the LPA is for adults above the age of 21, statistically, elderly Singaporeans are more vulnerable to mental incapacitation. We should, therefore, continue to focus our efforts on seniors. Advanced Care Planning, or ACP, is a critical component of ageing. The LPA may be important in ensuring that ACP is properly implemented in tandem.
Unlike the ACP, which is non-binding, an LPA is a legal document that appoints donees. Should one have already made an LPA, it would be ideal and advisable for one's donee and the nominated healthcare spokesperson to be the same person. This is to avoid possible disagreements when making healthcare decisions on one's behalf. I hope that the Government will look into incorporating ACP options into the LPA drafting process on the electronic system.
MSF could work with MOH to encourage all general practitioners (GPs), especially those who are concurrently qualified CIs, to proactively provide packages of LPA and ACP to their patients. Both Ministries should also build an integrated process from the Social Service Agencies, or SSAs, to the healthcare institutions to encourage this effort. SSA officers should be trained to provide this service. In the hospitals and polyclinics, they should actively highlight LPA and ACP matters to their patients.
OPG should also have a central hotline to provide support for all the GPs and SSAs. LPA consultations should be made more accessible in various languages and dialects. Likewise, the new online LPA service should be made available in four languages. Extending this further, we should take a whole-of-Government approach for outreach and awareness. Offer LPAs to everyone who is above 30 years old, like CareShield Life. We should start early because the risks of stroke and dementia are higher as we age. MSF should also work with CPF Board to see whether we can incorporate the process of reviewing one's nomination for CPF as well as LPA.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the LPA is a critical legal document. Whilst moving towards making the LPA process through OPGO more convenient is in the right direction, we need to make sure safeguards are in place and encourage greater outreach and awareness. This will benefit all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the 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":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned\".
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unending Project of Building Racial Harmony in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 11.30 am tomorrow.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I relied on a number of people to help with this Motion – a \"Chindian\" woman, a Malay colleague, an Indian Muslim who wears the hijab, a Chinese Special Assistance Plan school graduand, something of a microcosm of Singapore. Even amongst the few of us, there were heated debates, passionate arguments and some very emotional sharing.
Sir, multiracialism is difficult and race issues will never go away. Racial harmony is an aspiration and a project that we must consistently and unendingly work towards. And because racial harmony is about people, about relationships, all of us have a part to play and we must do so with sensitivity, responsibility and in good faith. As Minister Edwin Tong said here earlier today, we need a whole-of-society approach. This unending project of building racial harmony in Singapore is an unending project of engagement, communication and calibration. And these are three thrusts that I will speak on today which are especially relevant, given the recent incidents in Singapore.
The first thrust, engagement, is about the willingness to reach out, to teach, to understand and to build understanding. Government bodies have played a big part in this regard and organisations like OnePeople.sg and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) have done great work. In addition to the efforts of Government and Government-related bodies, community groups and leaders also have a role that they can play.
An example is the Young Sikh Association, or the YSA, reaching out to influencer Ms Sheena Phua after she made an Instagram post describing Sikh turbans as \"obstructions\" obstructing her view of the Singapore Grand Prix race. The YSA's actions helped turn a divisive post into something positive for all Singaporeans. As its President Mr Sarabjeet Singh noted, \"Ms Phua demonstrated humility, kindness, curiosity and sincerity, and that is more important to us…and all of us have walked away as better people.\"
Some might say that this is putting the burden of engagement on minorities and minority groups. But I would like to urge my fellow minorities not to see this as a burden but as a unique opportunity to help strengthen our racial harmony. Like the YSA has demonstrated, if we all choose to take this up, we will emerge as a kinder, more gracious and more caring Singapore – the new glue that will bind us together that Minister Edwin Tong mentioned on Saturday.
The second thrust, Sir, is communication, which entails having responsible, mature dialogue, a willingness to speak up without fear, to share lived experiences, to propose how we can do things better and an openness to listen. Communication is about both what we receive and accept and believe and what we put out.
A lot of communication is now done online. There is a multiplicity of sources from independent talk shows to analytical Instagram slideshows and confessional websites. This has enriched discourse but also spread thin the locus of public attention. Navigating these multifarious sources can be tricky.
First, as regards what we receive and accept online, I would urge Singaporeans to be wary of bad actors and opportunists. Bad actors are malicious characters who seek to sow dissent between our communities and opportunists may not be malicious but they seek to exploit certain incidents for personal gain – perhaps some attention, perhaps a few more likes or a few more clicks. While they may be hopping onto legitimate concerns, opportunists do not work towards resolution because they want to extract the maximum benefit from the situation and may therefore seek to exacerbate it and prolong it. This is why they can be dangerous.
This, of course, does not mean that we should be too quick to label people as bad actors or opportunists. In particular, for those who raise awareness on real issues and incidents they have encountered, commentators should not turn the tables on them and victim shame or accuse them of inciting racial disharmony. I do not think this accords with the law and it is a cruel and unfair way to treat the original poster. It may also lead to a chilling effect that may prevent future genuine cases from emerging.
Second, on information that we post, public figures like politicians, community leaders, even influencers and artistes, have a distinct responsibility when posting about race. I agree with fellow Member Raeesah Khan that, and I quote, \"as leaders, we have the power to start difficult conversations and that it is vital to frame these conversations in a considerate and accountable manner\". I was also heartened today to see that both Senior Minister Teo and the hon Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh affirmed their commitment not to politicise race issues.
The amplifying nature of social media can propel ordinary individuals who raise issues into the national spotlight. More of these will inevitably emerge. These individuals would then also have to exercise responsibility and, in particular, must be careful about writing large their personal experiences on their whole community.
The recent incident between Ms Sarah Bagharib and the People's Association (PA) is a case in point. When I first saw Ms Bagharib's Instagram post about PA using her photo as a standee without her consent, I thought that she had a genuine and legitimate complaint primarily rooted in intellectual property rights. PA apologised quickly, as did Member Melvin Yong. Minister Edwin Tong sent his unreserved apology and expressed dismay at the standee being used as a caricature. I had the impression that PA was quite ready to engage with Ms Bagharib, including on her concerns regarding larger issues she had raised, like the lack of understanding of the Malay culture.
But I thought that things took a different turn when Ms Bagharib made a call for feedback before her meeting with the PA and when her statements started looking like they were intended to be on behalf of the whole Malay community and on matters unrelated to the originating incident.
Sir, it is invariably more complex to engage with a self-appointed standard bearer because even within a community, people have diverse experiences and views. In fact, members of the Malay community did express disagreement with Ms Bagharib's reading of the incident. One Hanafi Ahmad wrote in The Straits Times Forum that he or she found Ms Bagharib's comments \"unsettling\". Former Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari said that the incident was not racist and that the PA was true to its mission of promoting racial harmony. Other minority commentators like Mr Devadas Krishnadas opined that \"these pinpoint instances should not be used as opportunities to generalise loosely or to appeal or rally minority groups into some coalition of resistance\".
Sir, in a multi-racial society, it is essential that individuals raise issues that affect them based on race. But these are an individual's views and experiences. They must be careful about assuming the mantle of a community spokesperson too easily. If they say, \"My view is not just my view but the view of the community; my voice is the voice of the community and I will meet you and discuss with you on this basis\", then, I think it is untenable.
If indeed this was Ms Bagharib's intention, then I think that the PA probably made the correct decision to disengage at that point. But this having been said, it was still an unfortunate outcome and I still hold out hope for an ultimate happy resolution.
Ms Bagharib has since made private the account that she used to first raise this issue and put out her statements. I was saddened by this. I watched her online interview and I found her articulate and passionate. She said her motivation of raising this issue was to build a better home for her daughter, which I think that this is the correct spirit, even if her approach could have been different.
I hope she will not self-cancel and I certainly hope no one attempts to cancel her. I invite her to return to the marketplace of discourse, even if not with the PA – perhaps, one day with the PA – but generally as well.
The third thrust of this unending project of building racial harmony is the ongoing calibration of policies, policy positions and the law. How should we look at policies? How can they be calibrated and what should we expect to be calibrated? I look at some examples.
Let us start with Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools. What is it that bugs some people about the SAP schools? First, it is the impression that one of our constituent races, the Chinese, has an entire educational programme unto itself that benefits from state resources. I have seen comments online in response that, in return, minorities have madrasahs. Let me just be clear on this point, Sir, that madrasahs should not be considered the minority's equivalent of SAP schools. Madrasahs are religion-based, they are not race-based, and they exist for entirely different purposes.
Second, Sir, there is a fear that SAP school students are an insular Chinese elite, aloof from the other races. SAP schools have origins in the Chinese-education schools of old but their contemporary purpose is to build a group of Singaporeans well versed in Chinese culture and language to engage China, the world's second superpower and second largest economy. Language and cultural competency grant us a competitive edge.
For example, my colleague who studied Higher Chinese, is able to read, draft and negotiate contracts in Mandarin. This has enabled her to compete with Chinese lawyers in the Chinese market for legal work. As former Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang said in this House, \"the learning of Mandarin should be part of the overall strategy of anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asian node as it will help us to connect to 1.3 billion Chinese\" and it is \"a tool of soft power\".
There is therefore a practical and pragmatic purpose to the SAP schools. So, let us take a step back and ask ourselves whether Malay SAP schools or Tamil SAP schools would fulfill the same purposes. Will such schools give their graduates a similar edge to compete in, presumably, India or Malaysia? My view is that it would be unlikely. India and Malaysia are very different economies and societies as compared to China. For example, business is more easily conducted in English in these countries and we also have the common language of the common law.
In this regard, we should avoid a \"you have it, therefore I must have it too\" approach when looking at ethnic or ethnic-based policies. Each of the communities in Singapore is different and policies must be designed accordingly to take into consideration these differences.
The pragmatic purpose of the SAP schools aside, it is, however, a legitimate and valid concern that these students may become an insular lot. My colleague, a SAP school graduand, told me that not only did she have little exposure to people of other races while schooling, but that she also did not feel any motivation to seek out, engage or befriend them outside of school as they did not feature in her own lived experience. She said that she only made friends from other races when she went to University. This SAP school experience was echoed by one Mr Lee Young Kai in a letter in The Straits Times Forum published just a few hours ago.
Sir, this is troubling. SAP school graduates may be expected to engage China but they are still Singaporean and they are still part of our multi-racial society.
Last year, Minister Lawrence Wong updated the House that all SAP schools will eventually offer conversational Malay programmes. He also elaborated on Dunman High School's Diversity and Inclusivity programme, which paired students with peers from other schools, including the madrasahs. Minister Maliki also spoke about such initiatives this afternoon.
These are good programmes and I urge MOE to expand on these programmes, to make them compulsory as far as possible and to ensure that SAP school students have exposure and can build meaningful relationships with all minority groups in Singapore. I also urge, Sir, for more transparency on what is being done in this regard.
Sir, moving on to GRCs. My view is that the GRC system has worked well in ensuring minority representation and the renewal of minority candidates in the elections. It has ensured diversity not only in the Parliament but also within political parties.
Furthermore, in a multi-racial country, the perception of bias in voting along racial lines is as dangerous as the reality. It is too easy for a losing minority candidate to claim that she or he had lost due to race bias. If so much heat and noise can be generated from an incident involving a standee and, recently, in the news, about a waffle – and I say this without trivialising those incidents – just imagine how much more divisiveness will be generated from claims of racism affecting elections or the electability of a minority candidate? The GRC system removes the possibility of this being claimed post-elections. The importance of this cannot be downplayed and is a uniquely Singaporean feature of our elections.
We must also take care to segmentise criticisms of a political nature from criticisms of the GRC system's function of ensuring minority representation. If there is a political concern about the GRC, then we should raise it as a political criticism. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The next question is whether we will one day see a minority Prime Minister, which has been a long running topic.
The way I see it, Sir, the selection of a candidate to lead a political party to become the Prime Minister is quite obviously a practical decision. This person must be able to hold the confidence of Singaporeans of all the races and religions in Singapore and must be able to lead the country and, importantly, to win elections.
This is, however, quite different from saying that a particular group of Singaporeans may not be ready for a minority Prime Minister, and that a decision should be made based on this group's sentiment.
Sir, I am glad that Minister Wong expressed what I thought was perhaps a more calibrated, a more refined position on this. To quote Minister Wong, \"A minority who wants to be Prime Minister should be aware of these attitudes. It does not mean that he or she cannot be Prime Minister. But these are the realities on the ground\".
I think this position gives a very timely and needed assurance to Singaporeans of all races. In fact, Sir, if we look at the 2016 CNA-IPS Survey, which showed that while Singaporeans preferred a Prime Minister of the same race, the same survey also showed that Singaporeans were accepting – all above 50% – of a Prime Minister of another race. So, I would say that the results show that a minority Prime Minister could actually have a chance of leading a party to win the elections and I am encouraged by this.
Sir, as regards calibration of the law, I suggest that whilst keeping our harsh penalties for race-based crime, we could also introduce a rehabilitative regime similar to the Communal Remedial Initiative enacted in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. This will help to avoid hardening of views by offenders by building their understanding of other races and cultures.
Ultimately, Sir, we must look at policies and laws as a whole. If we just pluck out individual policies and critique them on their own, of course there will be much to say. But policies and laws do not exist in vacuo. The correct approach is to look at the whole, to identify gaps or inconsistencies, and to plug those.
Sir, after the recent incidents, Minister Shanmugam commented that he was not so sure that racial relations were moving in the correct direction. And I think, Sir, when Minister Shanmugam is not so sure about something, we should at least be a little concerned.
And in fact, the recent IPS World Value Survey showed that although Singapore has the second lowest proportion of respondents perceiving racism as occurring frequently, that the frequency of racist behaviour has been going up since 2012. So we still have work to do, to engage, to communicate, to calibrate and to strengthen our racial harmony.
Sir, I conclude, with a quote from a recent Facebook post by one Mr Vishnu Anandh. After describing several positive experiences with people of other races, he wrote and I quote, “I understand the frustration and anger when a lot of people are currently sharing videos that call out racism or racial disharmony. But along with that, let’s not forget the good stuff as well. It may seem like small things. Yet, in such tumultuous times, it is small episodes that assure us of our togetherness and that we are one people in this nation…United we stand. Majulah”. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for emphasising the importance of racial harmony and for reminding us that this is indeed a continuous work in progress, even as we all aspire to be a post-racial society.
Earlier today, my colleagues and I outlined the Government's multi-pronged approach to tackle racism, racial discrimination and also help realise our aspiration of building a society which values people equally, whether Chinese, Malay, Indian and other races, and are bound by their commonalities, and enlarged by their differences. These points are equally relevant to addressing the issues raised by Mr Thomas.
At a recent seminar, Minister Lawrence Wong outlined the Government’s position on how our present harmony is hard-won; a result of careful thought to laws and policies over several decades.
Our electoral system guarantees minority representation in Parliament; and in each political party who wishes to represent the interests of Singaporeans and no political party can prevail by narrowly appealing to one narrow racial or religious segment of society. Our housing policies, as you have heard, ensure that we have racially integrated neighbourhoods and not segregated ethnic enclaves. Our Presidential Council on Minority Rights has the power to reject laws passed by Parliament that infringes on the rights of any minority population.
Sir, these, and other steps, have enabled Singapore to progress from the darker days of racial riots in its early years of Independence.
Unlike, for example, the French model of assimilation, we did not set out to achieve harmony by ignoring or eliminating cultural diversity and getting ethnic minority groups to adopt the language and the norms and the attitudes of the majority group.
On the contrary, we have worked hard to entrench the interests of our multi-racial groups. The Constitution itself sets out basic obligations on the part of the Government to care for the interests of racial and religious minorities.
We have long recognised the need to protect both ethnic communities and also bridge them through a set of common values and a common language. Therefore, we have embarked on a unique path as a multi-racial and multicultural society – one that celebrates its ethnic diversity as strength, while having a shared sense of belonging and identity.
I dare say, Mr Speaker, very few societies around the world have succeeded in ensuring its citizens live harmoniously together, let alone one which has as much diversity as we do in Singapore. What we have achieved is something that we can all be very proud of.
At the same time, we are not complacent, nor do we presume that what we have achieved is perfect or completed, or that we have achieved a steady post-racial state.
Recent incidents, as Mr Thomas has outlined, of racist behaviour that have gone viral remind us there is nothing natural or nothing preordained about our state of racial harmony. And without due care and attention constantly, the good progress we have made can be lost very quickly.
As Mr Thomas has suggested, and I agree, this means that we need to work constantly to ensure our racial harmony. We also have to calibrate our laws, as he has suggested, and policies to ensure that they remain relevant and fair.
Changing social attitudes mean that every generation will of course have to decide its own balance on issues of race and other sensitive issues. So, our policies are not set in stone, but must be refined to keep pace with societal changes, keeping the overarching raison d'etre as the focus. And I thank Mr Thomas for the suggestions that he has made to calibrate some of our policies. My Ministry, together with other Ministries, will study them carefully.
However, as he has pointed out, the core, the essence, of our policies continues to remain relevant today.
As we review our policies, we will engage multiple stakeholders, some of whom who may well have conflicting views. We will endeavour to seek consensus on the changes that we choose to undertake, so that policy change and policy shifts can unite and not divide us.
At the same time, we must also be conscious that what might work in other countries, in other societies, in other jurisdictions, might not work in the same way as our context will be different and we must always remain sensitive to local realities and our own lived experiences.
Shifts in our policy positions will also not come about because of populist sentiments or from who shouts the loudest. But you can be assured, Mr Speaker, that at the heart of it, the Government will always seek to preserve our hard-earned multi-racial harmony.
Let me elaborate. First, on strengthening our community networks and institutions. Mr Thomas has emphasised the need to continually reach out and engage diverse groups in our society. We will continue to do so, with the support of community partners to actively promote opportunities to build bonds of trust between races.
At the national level, I chair the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony or NSC to build close relationships between Government and our ethnic community leaders and also apex religious leaders.
We also have the National Integration Council (NIC) to integrate new citizens who may be ethnically similar to us but may come from very different context and different cultural backgrounds. At the local level, the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in each of the constituencies foster friendships and build mutual respect at every of these constituency networks. There were also several other initiatives which I have outlined earlier today in Parliament.
Second, enlarging our common spaces, something which Mr Thomas spoke at some length about, highlighting the need to ensure, in particular, that students from SAP schools do not turn into an insular group. Sir, we agree. SAP schools, and indeed all schools, should promote social mixing, and meaningful interactions and discourse with students from other communities.
Schools will always remain an important common ground to develop cross-cultural understanding and friendships from a young and early age and these will be relationships and mindsets and philosophies that we hope can last a lifetime.
In fact, Singapore’s approach to harmony has always been about creating as much common space as possible, working also through the domains of arts, culture and sports – domains that my Ministry is particularly interested in.
At the same time, Sir, I think we can do more than just simply bringing people together. We do not want our ethnic communities to just “co-exist” or just “tolerate” each other’s existence. And we certainly hope that people can embrace each other’s differences, appreciate that we all have something unique to contribute precisely because we are different, and to stand in solidarity despite our races.
We have witnessed many acts of embracement in the past year, as I am sure many Members in this House have, as we stood together as one people especially during the adversities presented by COVID-19. We want to continue this spirit of embracement, by facilitating and providing opportunities for individuals to join up their different talents for the common good.
To outline some examples. At the neighbourhood-level, we have appointed SG Cares Volunteer Centres to coordinate volunteers and resources to bring more local stakeholders working side by side on a daily basis to create a larger positive social impact, regardless of race or religion.
At the national level, we are expanding opportunities for individuals to partner with the Government to co-create solutions. In the spirit of Singapore Together, we have embarked on 25 Alliances for Action (AfAs), which are action-oriented across different sector collaborations to tackle complex issues. Again, not quite respecting strictly the boundaries of race and religion, but looking at the issue as they affect or impact on society.
Third, Sir, nurturing a constructive discourse to build empathy and mutual understanding, a third point that Mr Thomas touched on. In as much as it is important to expand common spaces, there will also be occasions of differences, discord and disagreement. We will need to be constructive about how this is managed.
Embracing each other’s differences also means being willing to hear from and engage with someone who shares a different view, especially on sensitive matters such as race.
Society falters not when we disagree about things, but when we lose interest in trying to make sense of the other person’s point of view or to understand or to learn and relearn on occasion and trying to engage that person on the merits of our own, to educate, to share and eventually come to a mutual understanding.
Mr Thomas for highlighted the important role of responsible and mature discourse as well, but at the same time, being acutely aware of the need to guard against those who take advantage of and exploit fault lines for their own malicious intent.
Community and religious groups and leaders also play a key role in encouraging constructive discussions, clarifying doubts and misconceptions. And often these doubts and misconceptions are innocent but yet they lie at the heart of some of these insensitivities or misapprehensions. They also play a part in rallying Singaporeans to stand against divisive rhetoric, a lot of which also appears online.
That is why MCCY is collaborating with technology companies, as I outlined earlier this afternoon, to support religious, interfaith and community organisations’ efforts to produce meaningful social media content, positive social media content on racial and religious harmony.
Sir, while MCCY and the whole-of-Government will continue to do its utmost to preserve the hard-won harmony that we have enjoyed, success will also require it to be a whole-of-society effort. The Government alone cannot, should not, compel Singaporeans to just have more friends of different races or religions. Neither would this be sustainable.
But we can create the conditions and the environment to foster stronger, deeper, more long-lasting harmony. And we will do so. We will convene, we will encourage, we will partner with the community, but I wish to stress that ultimately, connections can only happen when individuals want to make that happen, want to do so and reach out to one another.
For racial harmony to be enduring, the heavy lifting and the motivation really must come from all Singaporeans, collectively, in an open fashion.
Finally, Sir, let me close by thanking Mr Thomas for reminding us not to “forget the good stuff as well”, as he puts it. I think he is absolutely right.
Yes, we have to continuously work at forging racial harmony and it is not an easy task. It is a constant work in progress and we must take nothing for granted.
But we are also different from so many others in the world with what we already have: we have a guarantee of equality for all races; a racial diversity and harmony which has benefited from a system earlier generations of our leaders have set up, with wisdom and with foresight precisely to ensure that we do not fall into the difficulties that other racially diverse communities might have, with social mixing, integration, harmony. It is really so difficult for many societies to do this well, let alone a racially diverse society like ours. But we make a conscious choice that this is what our country will stand for on the very day of our Independence and have worked hard at it ever since.
So, Sir, let us not throw out what has worked well for us over the decades, a system which structurally delivers integration outcomes to foster better multi-racial and multi-religious relations.
I urge all Singaporeans from all ethnic communities to engage each other in our commons spaces to forge stronger relations, embrace diversity and also to practise it each day which is important. And if we can do that, I am sure that our lived experiences will come closer and closer to our aspirations of a truly post-racial society. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 7.00 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.30 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":"Changes to Safe Management Measures when COVID-19 Situation Transitions from Pandemic to Endemic Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Cheng Hsing Yao asked the Minister for Health in view of COVID-19 becoming endemic (a) what will be the future threshold for imposing nationwide restrictions such as another Phase Two (Heightened Alert); and (b) what must Singapore do to mentally prepare for life in this new normal.
23 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) what changes to safe management measures can the public expect when the COVID-19 situation transitions from \"pandemic\" to \"endemic\" status, particularly in healthcare, community, business and travel sectors; and (b) what are the criteria that will indicate such a transition.
24 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Multi-Ministry Task Force will make public the full set of metrics and circumstances that will trigger movements between each phase of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; (b) what are the public health benchmarks for moving between the pandemic control phases; and (c) whether there will be a fixed phase system for restriction levels in the future.
25 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the \tMinister for Health how does the Government intend to follow through on its promise to wind down the TraceTogether data collection programme in light of its announcement that the COVID-19 virus is expected to become endemic.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Members for their interest in Singapore’s transition to an endemic COVID-19 state. In this pandemic, every month or week makes a big difference, so in that context we are at a very early stage of our transition. Vaccination is key to the transition, but we have to grapple with many uncertainties, from further virus mutation or sudden outbreaks, and many twists and turns along the way. So it is against this backdrop that I will try to provide answers to the questions from Members.
In the past 18 months, we have managed our approach to COVID-19 by considering factors such as the number of COVID-19 infection cases, the trajectory of the pandemic, whether the infections are linked or unlinked, our testing capacity, and more recently, the proportion of our population that has been vaccinated. Another very important factor is the psychology of our people. Along the way, our polices are continually adjusted to ensure that the number of cases do not rise exponentially, causing our healthcare system to be overwhelmed because that will cause a lot of harm to many patients.
I can understand the desire for a definitive road map, with relaxation of public health measures and travel restrictions pegged to certain transparent benchmarks. We have seen how other countries tried to do this, but they had to delay the lifting of restrictions, or reverse earlier decisions such as removal of the requirement to wear masks in public. So I think a definitive roadmap may not be a realistic approach, given the uncertainties of the pandemic and the evolution of the virus.
But the direction we are heading towards is clear, and we are determined to do our best to make the transition. A major factor determining the pace and extent of the transition is vaccination. In line with that, we have identified a couple of milestones, such as getting 50% of our population fully vaccinated sometime in the second half of July, and then two-thirds around National Day. Whether we achieve these milestones depends heavily on the willingness of our people to step forward and get vaccinated. We are planning our transition and public health measures around these milestones. If we are confident enough to be more definitive, we will, and will announce our plans publicly.
Members also asked about when specific measures will be reviewed, including the winding down of TraceTogether at some point. There are several significant transition points. When we imagine endemic COVID-19 and achieving normalcy, these significant changes may not come across our minds. For example, we need to review how we want to treat individuals who are infected with COVID-19, whether they need to be hospitalised or can recover at home. We need to review the relevance of contact tracing and quarantine, and the focus and extent of testing for COVID-19. We will have to explore opportunities to open up quarantine-free travel corridors with countries and regions that are safe. We need to review the timing for winding down TraceTogether, monitoring and reporting the number of people who falls very sick as opposed to daily infections, and reducing mask wearing requirements.
They are all significant departures from the COVID-19 pandemic practices that we have grown accustomed too. So each change will require a psychological shift. We have to study each move closely, implement them progressively and when appropriate. At all times, the public needs to feel assured, and confident of the steps we are taking. Just like fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition to endemic COVID-19 will also need to be a whole-of-society effort, of all stakeholders working together, each person doing his or her part, and trusting each other.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of COVID-19 Vaccination to More Groups of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry doing to speed up the COVID-19 vaccination programme; (b) whether the supply of vaccines is a limiting factor; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider prioritising just the first injection, like in the UK and Canada, to accommodate more sign-ups in an effort to reduce infection rates.
27 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether his Ministry is minded to extend the COVID-19 vaccination programme to include prison inmates under the custody of the Singapore Prison Service; and (b) if so, what are the details of this plan.
28 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health given that various pharmaceutical companies are actively carrying out studies on the feasibility of vaccines against COVID-19 that are suitable for children aged 12 years and below, what are the steps taken by the Multi-Ministry Taskforce to ensure that Singapore secures and administers such vaccines once made available.
29 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health given that there is currently no provision for children below the age of 12 to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, how is the Multi-Ministry Taskforce intending to address the B.1.617 strain of infection given some scientific suggestion that it adversely affects children more than adults.
30 Ms Janet Ang asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the vaccination plan for workers who have no option to work from home such as retail and delivery staff who need to be on the shop floor or at the frontline; and (b) whether they can be prioritised for the COVID-19 vaccination regardless of their age groups.
31 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can provide walk-in vaccination services for delivery workers so that these personnel who have tight busy schedules can continue to make deliveries promptly and safely.
32 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health whether he can elaborate on the COVID-19 vaccine supply constraints that limit Singapore’s national COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My answers will also cover questions filed by Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Yip Hon Weng1 for future Sittings.
We continue to make good progress with our national vaccination programme. As of 3 July, we have administered more than 5.7 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Around 3.5 million individuals, or about 63% of our population, have received at least the first dose of the vaccine and 2.1 million people have received their second dose.
Our rate of vaccination depends upon our vaccine supply. We have agreements to bring in more than enough vaccines for everyone in Singapore. We have been able to bring forward the delivery of some vaccine supplies, allowing us to accelerate our vaccination programme. Now we can administer up to 80,000 daily doses, up from around 40,000 in May 2021.
More COVID-19 vaccines are undergoing clinical trials. The Health Sciences Authority is reviewing the progress and other vaccines may be available in the future.
One trial in the United Kingdom is studying the combination of the AstraZeneca vaccine (an adenovirus vector vaccine) for the first dose, and an mRNA vaccine for the second dose. This is known as a heterologous prime-boost combination. We will monitor their findings to assess the suitability of using such a strategy.
All Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Long-Term Pass Holders aged 12 and above have now had the chance to register for their first doses. We have set ourselves an ambitious target to complete vaccination for two-thirds of the population by National Day.
We understand some seniors may be hesitant to take the vaccines for a variety of reasons. For example, concerns about potential side-effects, vaccine safety and efficacy, or they have difficulties with care arrangements, or do not see the need for it. We are working closely with stakeholders to encourage the take-up among seniors through outreach, education and engagement.
To make it more convenient for our seniors to get vaccinated, all Vaccination Centres in the community accept walk-ins for individuals aged 60 and above, without the need to register or book an appointment in advance. Seniors who are not mobile can request to be vaccinated at their homes by home vaccination teams.
The vaccination programme is now open to all Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Long-Term Pass Holders aged 12 and above, so everyone, including retail and delivery staff working at the frontlines, can book a vaccination appointment and choose from multiple time slots. Please do so as soon as possible. Singapore Prison Service have also extended the vaccination programme to prison inmates. Thus far, about 80% of eligible inmates have received at least the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
To date, there is no evidence to suggest that the Delta variant will adversely affect children more than adults. We are actively monitoring ongoing vaccine clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies on children under 12 years old.
Achieving as high a level of vaccination coverage as possible in our population will help reduce the risks of community transmission and large outbreaks. It is a vital part of our strategy to deal with COVID-19 and to protect us all. If you are eligible to be vaccinated, please book an appointment today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress on the evaluation of other alternative COVID-19 vaccines for use under the National Vaccine Programme or Special Access Route; (b) whether alternative COVID-19 vaccines will be available in Singapore anytime soon; and (c) whether the Government is researching the possibility of heterologous prime-boost combinations to reduce the severity of side effects and reliance on any one type of vaccine."],"footNoteQuestions":["26","27","28","29","30","31","32"],"questionNo":"26-32"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19 Vaccination Programme for Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) how is the COVID-19 vaccination programme for students coming along; and (b) whether any student has suffered adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As part of the national vaccination programme, MOE commenced its vaccination exercise for students on 1 June 2021. We have been encouraged by the good progress. As of 4 July 2021, over 313,000 eligible students (around 91%) have registered for their vaccination appointments, of which about 98% have received their first dose.
HSA has been monitoring the adverse events (AEs) in our students, especially for the younger students. Thus far, the AEs reported are similar to those in adults and most comprise injection site pain, fatigue, headache, chills and fever, which generally resolve on their own within a few days. Likewise, the preliminary incidence rates for students appear to be fairly similar to the adult population, but it would be best to let HSA provide a detailed update to the public as part of their regular safety update on the COVID-19 vaccines.
There are also a very small number of serious adverse events (SAEs) that have been reported. These SAE cases either did not require hospitalisation, or if they did, they have all since been discharged. HSA is reviewing the cases to assess if they are linked to vaccination. MOE, MOH and HSA will continue to monitor the AEs that occur, and take the appropriate actions to safeguard the health of our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Opportunities for Singapore when COVID-19 Situation Transitions to Endemic Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Cheng Hsing Yao asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the economic opportunities for Singapore in an environment where COVID-19 is endemic.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In an endemic COVID-19 environment, the virus will survive in our community, similar to common diseases like flu and chicken pox. With effective vaccination, testing and treatment regimes in place, fewer people will need hospitalisation or medication.
Economic activity will progressively normalise as we reopen the domestic economy and our borders. But the virus may continue to mutate, periodically leading to new variants and outbreaks. We have put in place measures to respond quickly to outbreaks, if necessary.
We have been working closely with the industry to enable us to seize opportunities when economic activity resumes, building on the momentum of our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and recommendations from the Emerging Stronger Taskforce (EST).
For example, we will position Singapore as a critical node in the growing digital economy, by strengthening our connectivity in the digital economy through a network of Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs), platforms like Business sans Borders, and supporting more businesses to digitalise.
As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we will also help our enterprises and workforce to harness sustainability as a competitive advantage, and develop innovative solutions for the green economy. For example, we aim to grow Singapore into a carbon trading and services hub, and a green financing hub.
COVID-19 has also surfaced new economic opportunities. For example, the increased focus on health and wellness could open up new opportunities in the biopharmaceutical sector, while the desire to build more robust supply chains could create new demand for our logistics companies. There are also new areas of opportunity in agri-tech, as we strive to strengthen our food resilience.
We can pursue these opportunities successfully only if we keep our fundamentals strong, and our economy competitive.
We must acknowledge our natural disadvantages as a small, resource-scarce economy. But our growth prospects need not be limited by our size and we can grow beyond these limitations, as evidenced by our pipeline of investments even during the pandemic. However, we cannot take our growth for granted, as other economies are fast raising their game.
An endemic COVID-19 situation will bring fresh opportunities to rebuild our competitive strengths and to develop new strengths. We hope to partner businesses and workers over the next few years in seizing these opportunities and emerge stronger together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Sufficient BTO Flats and Assisting First-time Home Buyers Given Severe Challenges in Construction Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development given the current severe challenges faced by the construction industry (a) whether HDB will be able to build enough BTO flats to meet the demand of home buyers; and (b) whether HDB will assist first-time home buyers with affordable alternative options.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB adopts a comprehensive approach in planning the BTO flat supply, taking into account factors such as the prevailing economic and housing market conditions, and long-term demographic and population trends.
Notwithstanding the current challenges that the construction industry is facing, HDB is on track to launch about 17,000 BTO flats in 2021 as planned, to meet the needs of home buyers. This is higher than the 14,600 and 16,800 flats launched in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The BTO flat supply is supplemented by balance flats which are offered via the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises and open booking.
Going forward, we will continue to maintain a healthy and steady supply of BTO flat annually. There are no plans to reduce the number of flats to be launched for 2022, which we will announce when ready.
Disruptions from the circuit breaker last year, coupled with strict safe management measures imposed on worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have affected private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects. Many will take longer to complete. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, without compromising the project quality and safety standards.
Nevertheless, home buyers with urgent housing needs may consider buying a resale flat on the open market instead, where eligible first-timer buyers can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants. Resale flats are generally good for immediate occupation and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Larger Housing Grants and Financial Assistance for Flat Rental Given Construction Delays amidst COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development with regard to applicants who have to forgo their BTO flats due to further construction delays arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, whether the Ministry will consider providing (i) higher one-off housing grants for those who want to switch to resale flats in view of the rising prices and (ii) short-term rental financial assistance for those renting apartments especially for young couples starting their families.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects.
We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised.
Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready.
For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis.
Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again, whether a new flat from HDB or a resale flat with grants. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat, and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so.
However, we recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and HDB will consider waiving forfeiture based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances. This includes flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs.
The waiver of the one-year wait out period will allow first-timer families with urgent housing needs to receive housing grants if they decide to buy a resale flat. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation, and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget. Eligible first-timer families can receive up to $160,000 in grants when they purchase a resale flat. As the existing housing grants are already substantial, we currently have no plans to provide a one-off housing grant. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the market situation and explore how we can better support home buyers with urgent interim housing needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Applicants to Cancel BTO Flat Bookings Without Forfeiture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will allow buyers of BTO flats whose housing needs have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic to cancel their booked BTO flats without forfeiture on the condition that they purchase resale flats as replacement flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects.
We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised.
Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again, whether a new flat from HDB or a resale flat with grants. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat, and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so.
However, we recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and HDB will consider waiving these forfeitures based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances. This includes flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs.
The waiver of the one-year wait out period will allow first-timer families with urgent housing needs to receive housing grants if they decide to buy a resale flat. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation, and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget. Eligible first-timer families can receive up to $160,000 in grants when they purchase a resale flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternatives for Successful BTO Applicants Affected by Construction Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what alternatives can the Ministry offer to successful BTO applicants affected by construction completion delays when they approach HDB for assistance; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider reducing the penalty for affected BTO applicants who wish to cancel their applications.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects.
We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised.
Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready. For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis.
Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again. This includes both new flats from HDB or resale flats with grants. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat, and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so.
However, we recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and will consider waiving forfeiture based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances. This includes flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Relief Provisions in COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act due to Recent Phase Two (Heightened Alert) Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the relief provisions in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act concerning event and tourism related contracts may be extended to cover such contracts (whether entered into before or after 25 March 2020) and performance of which are affected by the Government’s Phase Two (Heightened Alert) measures and restrictions announced on 14 May 2021.
Mr K Shanmugam: The interventions in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act were needed to help businesses and individuals deal with the sudden and extraordinary impact of the pandemic last year.
The Act introduced exceptional relief measures for contracts affected by COVID-19. The main measure involved a temporary moratorium against certain types of legal action. Additional relief measures were provided for event and tourism-related contracts. The Act prevented the automatic forfeiture of deposits and the imposition of cancellation fees, notwithstanding a party’s contractual rights.
As we said then, we do not intervene lightly, knowing the impact of such interventions on the sanctity of contracts.
We are monitoring the situation closely. We have reviewed the feedback from event vendors and customers affected by the Phase Two (Heightened Alert) measures. On the whole, the impact is less severe than that of the circuit breaker period last year.
In many of these cases, the parties have looked beyond the strict contractual position and worked out the matter by themselves, either by postponing the event or if the event is cancelled for good, for the unutilised deposit to be used for other goods or services. In some of these cases, the parties took the cue from the approach adopted by the Assessors appointed under the Act.
In the minority of cases where parties have not been able to work out a mutually agreeable way forward, they will benefit from some assistance from a mediator.
The Min Law is therefore working on a mediation framework that will make mediation available to parties that have been unable to reach an agreement with their vendors. This will be in addition to existing mediation avenues such as the Law Society Mediation Scheme and mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre which parties can already tap on. We will announce the details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Trend of Mass Gatherings of Alleged Secret Society Members at Funerals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the recent mass gatherings of alleged secret society members during funerals and processions (a) what are the enforcement actions taken against gatherings of secret society members; (b) whether there is a trend of proliferation of such secret societies; and (c) what are the immediate and longer-term measures taken against secret societies and organised crime.
Mr K Shanmugam: In May and June 2021, there were two cases involving congregation of secret society members at funeral processions.
In the first case, Police arrested three men who were secret society members. The three men had allegedly chanted gang slogans and displayed gang hand signs to show off their secret society affiliation during a funeral procession along Havelock Road on 26 May 2021.
In the second case, Police arrested 14 men for their suspected involvement in secret society activities, and another man for allegedly behaving in a disorderly manner while at a funeral wake in the Boon Lay Drive neighbourhood on 13 June 2021. Preliminary investigations found that two suspected secret society members were wearing shirts emblazoned with their secret society’s insignia.
Today, secret societies are largely made up of loosely organised street gangs, comprising mainly of younger members who flit between different secret societies. The secret society situation in Singapore is under control as a result of active enforcement against secret society activities, which sends a strong and clear signal of our zero-tolerance approach.
The number of rioting and serious hurt cases with secret society connotations remained stable at an average of 112 cases per year from 2016 to 2020. Anyone found to be engaging in secret society activities may be prosecuted in court for offences under the Penal Code or Societies Act. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, they may be liable for a fine, imprisonment, or both. For egregious cases, they may be detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, in order to maintain the public safety, peace and good order of Singapore.
Notwithstanding that the secret society situation remains under control, the participation of youths in secret societies remains a concern. That is why the we invest significant resources to educate and engage youths to deter them from joining secret societies.
For example, Police conduct regular anti-secret society talks at Secondary schools. They also work with partners such as MSF, MOE and Volunteer Welfare Organisations to target at-risk youths. One such initiative is the Streetwise Programme, a six-month long diversionary programme for wayward youths to seek assistance and counselling from social workers and Police officers.
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, the Police are looking to enhance their online outreach. In 2020, the Police and the National Crime Prevention Council organised the e-Delta League Tournament, which saw more than 100 youths participate in an online football tournament. As part of the tournament, the Police conducted a virtual Youth Workshop to share crime prevention advice, as well as to deliver anti-secret society talks to the participants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Adoption of Skills Frameworks as Part of Industry Transformation Maps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether he can provide an update on the progress of the adoption of the skills frameworks that have been developed as part of the 23 Industry Transformation Maps.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Skills Frameworks were first introduced in 2016, with 33 Skills Frameworks completed by 2019. Based on a 2019 survey of around 1,900 companies in the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) sectors, 44% of the respondents had adopted Skills Frameworks linked to the 23 ITM sectors.
SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) engages different partners to expand adoption of Skills Framework. First, SSG works with unions and trade associations and chambers, such as the Singapore National Employers Federation and the Institute for Human Resource Professionals, to run workshops for enterprises. This helps to guide enterprises to apply the Skills Frameworks for various HR needs, such as crafting job descriptions or in performance appraisal. The Skills Frameworks are also used for developing skills progression pathways under the Progressive Wage Model, in sectors such as Security and Landscape.
Second, SSG partners SkillsFuture Queen Bee companies such as Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, Sheng Siong and Prudential to reach out to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) within their networks, and to use the Skills Frameworks to help these companies identify skills gaps and map out skills development plans.
Third, to further enhance the accessibility of Skills Frameworks across companies, SSG works with HR Information system partners such as JobTech and JobKred to integrate Skills Framework content into companies’ digital workforce solutions. Through these efforts, employers can better identify their skills gaps and curate training programmes that meet their business transformation and workforce development needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Companies in High-risk Industries Inspected by Government for Workplace Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what new measures are put in place to minimise workplace accidents and ensure that employers do not compromise on workers’ safety and that workers performing high-risk tasks are trained to do so; (b) over the past 12 months, what is the number and percentage of companies in high-risk industries that have been inspected by the Ministry; and (c) whether the Ministry is planning to expand the number of safety inspections conducted on such companies.
Dr Tan See Leng: Singapore has made significant progress in our workplace safety and health (WSH) fatality record over the last decade, from a rate of 2.9 per 100,000 workers in 2009 to a rate of 0.9 in 2020. This is the result of concerted efforts by all stakeholders: business leaders and employers, workers, and Government. Over the years, tripartite partners have worked together to raise awareness and ownership of WSH, build capabilities and strengthen WSH regulations. Recent efforts have been guided by the WSH2028 strategies, with the aim of reducing Singapore’s workplace fatality rate to, and sustaining it at, less than 1.0 per 100,000 workers.
One key strategy is to ensure WSH is aligned with business interests. We have done so on two fronts. First, we amended the Work Injury Compensation Act to require insurance claims data to be shared amongst insurers. This facilitates more accurate insurance premium pricing. In turn, companies with good safety records are rewarded with lower premiums while those with poorer safety records pay more. The legislative amendment came into effect last September.
Second, in January this year, MOM launched the CheckSafe e-service, an online tool that provides information on the WSH performance of construction companies. This enables developers, contractors and clients to make informed decisions on contract awarding and partnerships, taking into consideration companies’ safety track record.
On 29 April, the Workplace Safety and Health Council launched the National WSH Campaign, a year-long initiative calling upon employers and employees to \"Take Time to Take Care of Your Safety and Health\" at every level, from management to individual workers. This year’s campaign targets key accident types, such as slips trips and falls and machinery safety, by drawing attention to the importance of safe operating of machinery and making slips trips and fall risks more apparent to workers.
More recently, following the spate of accidents between May and June that resulted in nine fatalities, the WSH Council called for a Safety Time-Out (STO), which received strong support from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) as well as industry associations and commenced on 25 June. I strongly urge all employers to review and update their risk management and work processes, and to ensure compliance with safe work procedures.
Other ongoing efforts remain essential. For example, WSH training ensures workers have the skills and know-how to carry out work safely. All workers in high risk industries or performing specific high-risk activities are required to undergo the requisite safety training. Recertification is a prerequisite for work pass renewal so that workers remain current.
MOM's safety inspections complement such efforts and continue to be an important part of safeguarding Singapore’s WSH. While fewer inspections were conducted last year due to worksite closures during the circuit breaker period, MOM averaged more than 15,000 inspections annually over the past three years, across all industries. Around 5,000 or 33% of companies inspected were from the construction, manufacturing and marine industries, which are higher risk.
Mr Speaker, the first half of the year has seen quite a number of workplace accidents, which is of grave concern. However, if all stakeholders take ownership of WSH and do our part, I am confident that the situation will turn for the better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Injuries and Fatalities in First Six Months of 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the numbers of worksite injuries and deaths have increased in the first six months of 2021 compared to the same period last year; and (b) if so, whether the reason is less worksite supervision or increased workload due to a labour crunch in the construction industry arising from COVID-19 border restrictions.
56 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of workplace fatalities in the first half of 2021; (b) whether there has been a significant increase as compared to the first half of 2020; and (c) what is being done to curb the rise in workplace fatalities.
Dr Tan See Leng: The number of fatal and non-fatal injuries from January to May 2021 increased, when compared to the same period in 2020 and 2019. The number of fatal injuries in all sectors increased from 13 in 2019, to 15 in 2020, and 17 in 2021. For non-fatal injuries, there were 5,388 injuries from January to May 2021, slightly lower than 5,550 seen in 2019, but higher than the corresponding 4,341 in 2020, where the figure reflects some work stoppages due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A similar trend is observed in the construction sector.
Preliminary investigations into the recent fatal accidents revealed safety lapses at workplaces, suggesting that these accidents could have been prevented with adequate controls and adherence to safe work procedures. We recognise that COVID-19 border restrictions have meant fewer workers while worksite Safe Management Measures such as zoning and separation of teams have affected the efficient deployment of workers. It is unclear the degree to which these factors have contributed to the increase in workplace injuries. Nevertheless, regardless of COVID-19, all stakeholders, especially employers are very clear that the safety of the workers cannot be compromised. Workplace conditions have changed, and so must our workplace safety and health measures and risk assessments. Companies should adapt and adjust their operations to ensure their workers continue to work safely and without harm to their health.
To curb the rise in workplace fatalities, we have stepped up efforts to address the situation, especially in the higher-risk sectors such as construction. MOM inspectors have stepped up inspections since the end of circuit breaker. On top of the regular routine inspections, we have also mounted several enforcement operations targeting high-risk activities and sectors. Special inspections are also conducted on companies that suffered fatalities to identify systemic lapses across all their premises, beyond the location of the fatality. We will continue to issue Stop Work Orders and require occupiers to fix the lapses and put in place adequate preventive measures before lifting the Order.
Separately, the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council is working with industry associations, including Singapore Contractors Association (SCAL) and Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF) for their members to conduct Safety-Time-Outs (STO), to take stock of their risk management processes and re-emphasise the adherence to WSH practices to their employees. I would like to express my appreciation to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) for their support as well as the industry associations for rallying over 10,700 of their members to conduct an STO from 25 June onwards.
The senior management of companies are also personally reinforcing their support and commitment to WSH. We have called for them to redouble walkabouts and meet their workers face-to-face to convey the safety message.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Mandatory Rest Break for Drivers to Mitigate Health and Safety Concerns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will study the maximum number of hours that drivers of buses, taxis, private hire cars, trucks and delivery vehicles should work each day to mitigate the health and safety concerns relating to driver fatigue; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a compulsory rest break for these drivers after a certain number of hours of continuous driving.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM last studied the issue of long driving hours together with industry partners in 2019, in an effort to reduce Work-Related Traffic Accidents (WRTA) involving vocational drivers.
The tripartite Workplace Safety and Health Council has issued the Guidelines on Fatigue Management in 2010, updated the Workplace Traffic Safety Management Guidelines in 2014, and more recently in 2021, revised its Guide to Safe Riding. The guidelines include recommendations on preventing fatigue. For example, the guidelines recommend that in addition to limiting shifts to no more than 12 hours including overtime, drivers should take scheduled breaks such as 15 minutes of rest for every two hours of driving.
The Council considered whether to mandate its recommendations or reduce the current limit of 12 hours of work a day permissible under the Employment Act. It decided to focus instead on addressing the core attitudes and mindsets towards safety. The Council also stepped up measures to educate employers and drivers on the risk factors and share recommendations on the good practices that can be adopted to prevent fatigue.
MOM has also worked with IMDA and ESG to provide grant support to adopt vehicular safety technology such as the Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) to improve the situational awareness of drivers and warn of collision risks, and the Driver Status Monitoring System (DSM) to detect fatigue and distractions such as handphone usage or not looking ahead for extended periods. Since September 2020, 171 companies have taken up the grant to install vehicular safety technology and we urge more to come on board. Businesses can refer to these solutions under Fleet Safety Management System in the Productivity Solutions Grant for more information.
The industry has generally shown that it has been improving in managing fatigue over the years. Preliminary investigations into the four fatal WRTA that have occurred thus far this year indicate that fatigue was not the cause.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Safety Measures for Protection of NSmen undergoing In-Camp Training against COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence in light of the new COVID-19 strain and the recent increase in community infections (a) whether additional safety measures will be taken for the protection of all NSmen undergoing In-Camp Training (ICT); and (b) whether NSmen who are due to serve their ICT in the coming months will be allowed the option of taking their full COVID-19 vaccination ahead of their ICT even if they may not be due for vaccination by virtue of the age group which they belong to.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Safe Management Measures (SMMs) were implemented within the SAF to protect the integrity of our units, especially Critical Ops Units, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore last year.
These measures included testing of trainers and new entrants of BMT and ICTs before they started training. Units are also cohorted, that is, divided into small groups. Soldiers remain in their group during training and interactions between groups strictly controlled. A mask-on policy is enforced. Commonly used equipment and high-touch surfaces are wiped down and sanitised after each use. While there have been cases of SAF personnel with COVID-19 acquired from within the community, to date, no secondary clusters have formed within SAF units as a result of these SMMs.
With an endemic COVID-19, vaccination will be the mainstay of mitigation against the virus within the SAF, just as it is for the general public. As of end-June (30 June), 92% of the total MINDEF/SAF active population have received their first dose, and 84% are fully vaccinated. For NSmen who are mostly below 40 years of age, the national programme has been significantly ramped up, and they would be able to complete their vaccinations within the next month or so. These high vaccination rates among all servicemen will facilitate the resumption of training within the SAF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Awareness of Employees and Workers for Tripartite Standards on Progressive Employment Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower aside from Tripartite Standards Clinics being held for employers, HR practitioners and management staff, whether similar clinics are being held for employees and workers through unions or other platforms for them to also understand what they can and should be expecting at their workplaces in terms of progressive employment practices.
Dr Tan See Leng: I am happy to confirm that the outreach and education efforts on tripartite standards and progressive employment practices reach employees too. The efforts include promotional campaigns across multiple media platforms such as the AskST and AskZB articles in the mainstream media. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) also produces educational videos that are available online. These materials are made easily accessible and understandable to both employers and employees, thereby setting the right expectations for progressive employment practices.
TAFEP also customises outreach programmes to more targeted segments, such as graduating students or community groups. This effort is further supported by NTUC through regular sharing sessions with union leaders and employees as well as engagements with employers on fair and progressive employment practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Involving Employers Receiving Kickbacks from Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years (a) 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: MOM takes stern action against employers or any other party who collect kickbacks from migrant workers as a condition or guarantee of employment. These kickbacks are offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA).
Between 2016 and 2020, MOM looked into an average of 960 cases per year for kickback offences. An average of 102 employers were taken to task each year; about 80% of them were issued with warnings or composition fines while the remaining 20% were charged in Court. For the cases that are prosecuted, about 90% were successfully convicted.
MOM will continue to take action against errant employers who collect kickbacks from migrant workers. In recent years, MOM has made use of data analytics to identify and detect unusual patterns in hiring practices more quickly and accurately. This has helped MOM proactively detect cases of employment kickbacks, in addition to complaints and tip-offs that we received. MOM has also stepped up education and engagement efforts to educate migrant workers that their employers cannot demand or collect kickbacks from them. Migrant workers who are asked to do so, should approach MOM for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Turnover and Retention of Social Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is studying the turnover rates of social workers; and (b) what are the plans to increase the retention of social workers and reduce the burnout rate.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) are committed to developing and strengthening a strong core of professionals in the social service sector and have various initiatives in place to support and retain our social workers. The overall annual resignation rate of social workers is 17% (as at March 2019), down from 20% in 2015.
Social Service Agencies (SSAs) play an important role in supporting and retaining their staff. MSF and NCSS work closely with SSAs to strengthen their Human Resource (HR) practices and policies1, in areas such as Recruitment and Selection, Compensation and Benefits, Performance Management and Career Development.
MSF and NCSS also publish sector salary guidelines that provide a reference for SSAs to keep pace with competing markets and general wage movements. SSAs are encouraged to adhere to these guidelines to reward and retain good staff.
In-sector social workers can apply for the Sabbatical Leave Scheme supported by NCSS and the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF). The Sabbatical Leave Scheme provides seasoned social service professionals, including social workers, with paid leave and a Professional Advancement Sponsorship, to recharge themselves and develop their professional competencies.
MSF also works closely with the Singapore Association of Social Workers (SASW) to support social workers in various ways, for example, through recognising their contributions at the annual Social Work Day and Outstanding and Promising Social Worker Awards.
MSF and NCSS will continue to work with our tripartite partners in the social service sector, through the Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce (STT), to support the development and retention of our social workers. Key initiatives that the STT have worked on include expanding more support to social workers through SASW’s Supervision Service, facilitating associate professionals in taking on some social work tasks to address issues of high workload contributing to professional attrition and burn-out.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Approximately 100 SSAs are participating in the People Practice Consultancy (PPC), an initiative that has been ongoing since 2016."],"footNoteQuestions":["62"],"questionNo":"62"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance Coverage for Persons with Autism and Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Prime Minister (a) how does the extent of insurance coverage for persons with autism and mental health issues compare against that for the general population; (b) what are the main reasons for rejection or reduced insurance coverage purchases by this group; and (c) whether standardised risk assessment criteria can be implemented across all insurance companies for greater transparency.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Under our national insurance schemes, there is no difference in coverage between persons with autism and/or mental health conditions, and those without. MediShield Life provides basic health insurance coverage for life for all Singapore Residents, regardless of pre-existing health conditions. CareShield Life, which provides basic financial support in the event of severe disability, covers all Singapore Residents born in 1980 or later. When the scheme is launched for older cohorts, they can all join if they are not severely disabled.
Private insurers offer optional coverage on top of the national insurance schemes. Insurers apply the same underwriting approach to all customers, which does mean that they take into consideration their customers’ medical history, health condition and health risks arising from the condition. This is consistent with international practice. Insurers may accept or decline an application or adjust the premiums or coverage to appropriately reflect the customer’s health risk relative to those of others in the insurance pool. This ensures the insurance pool is sustainable, with sufficient funds to pay the anticipated claims.
Private insurers have to base such assessments on the evidence. International research has shown that autistic persons often experience co-occurring conditions and that hospitalisation rates among them are typically higher.
MAS, together with the MSF, is engaging insurers and other stakeholders on ways to improve autistic persons’ access to insurance coverage. We understand the motivation behind the suggestion to require insurers to apply standardised risk assessment criteria. But this could have unintended consequences. For example, restricting the ability of insurers to adjust coverage and premiums for higher-risk individuals could lead to higher premiums for policyholders who are of lower-risk.
MAS expects insurers to deal fairly with all customers, which means assessing all applications carefully and clearly communicating underwriting outcomes to them. The Life Insurance Association is developing a consumer guide to raise awareness and enhance transparency of insurers’ risk assessment approach towards health insurance underwriting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Public to Use DIY COVID-19 Test Kits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry’s plan to encourage the public to adopt usage of DIY COVID-19 test kits; (b) how will the Ministry ensure that those with indicative positive test results will voluntarily inform doctors for further testing; and (c) whether frontline workers can be provided with financial support to procure the kits when the current testing regimes are no longer in place.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: One of the ways to encourage the use of COVID-19 self-test kits is to make them generally available. Hence, Antigen Rapid Test (ART) self-test kits have been available for sale at most retail pharmacies since 16 June 2021. From 16 July 2021, we will extend the sale of the ART self-test kits to general retailers like supermarkets and convenience stores.
The ART self-test kits are currently sold with instructional materials on what to do following an ART self-test. Individuals are advised that if they tested positive, they should visit any one of the over 630 conveniently located Swab and Send Home (SASH) clinics islandwide immediately for a confirmatory Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test which is fully funded by the Government. We hope individuals will exercise responsibility to help keep the community safe.
We will also leverage employers to ensure that test protocols are observed. By mid-July, workers in settings where there are unmasked individuals or where there is prolonged contact with clients, such as those in the Food and Beverage sector, will be required to routinely test themselves using Fast and Easy Tests (FETs) such as ARTs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New MNCs Granted Economic Expansion-related Tax Incentives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in each of the last 10 years, what is the number of new MNCs that are granted (i) the Pioneer Certificate Incentive (ii) the Development and Expansion Incentive and (iii) any other economic expansion-related tax incentive; (b) what is the average concessionary tax rate granted for each incentive scheme; and (c) what is the current number of MNCs and the average effective tax rate paid for each incentive scheme in the most recent year of assessment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the last 10 years, about 600 MNC groups were awarded economic expansion-related tax incentives. This is less than 10% of about 7,000 MNC groups with a presence in Singapore today.
The Pioneer Certificate Incentive is granted to companies that locate “pioneering” activities that are not carried out in Singapore at the time. As these frontier investments are assessed to bring significant direct and indirect economic returns to Singapore over time, their qualifying activities are exempted from tax so as to attract them here.
The Development and Expansion Incentive, on the other hand, encourages companies to develop capabilities and/or expand their activities in Singapore. The concessionary tax rate for this incentive is either 5% or 10%, depending on the size of economic investments these companies commit to bringing into Singapore.
Other economic expansion incentives include the Investment Allowance and Approved Royalty incentives. These are given to encourage companies to carry out projects with economic, technical or other merits, for example to encourage companies to use productive equipment, and to support projects with broader economic spillovers.
Every company’s effective tax rate depends on several factors, including tax incentives as well as other measures such as corporate tax rebates. As each company’s situation varies, so too will their effective tax rates across industries and time.
74 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the assessed (i) total revenue (ii) profit before tax (iii) corporate income tax paid and (iv) average effective tax rate for foreign companies whose profit margins are above 10% in the most recent year of assessment; and (b) what is the number of such foreign companies.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Based on IRAS data available for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2019, the total revenue of companies whose profit margins are above 10% is S$802 billion. Their profit before tax and corporate income tax paid were S$542 billion and S$11 billion respectively. Their effective tax rate, as measured by corporate tax divided by chargeable income, was 4.6% for YA 2019.
There are in total about 52,000 such companies with profit margins above 10% for YA 2019. We do not differentiate corporate tax treatment based on the nationality of the business owner. This is in line with the reciprocal obligation under tax treaties for non-discrimination of companies. As IRAS does not track corporate taxpayers based on their ownership, we are unable to provide further breakdown of this data for foreign-owned companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Corporate Tax Relief and Rebates Granted to Companies Annually from 2011 to 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance (a) in Singapore dollar terms, how much corporate tax relief and rebates respectively have been granted to companies from 2011 to 2020 on a yearly basis; and (b) of these, what amount of rebate or relief has been extended to and taken up by foreign companies respectively to entice them to set up branches or subsidiaries in Singapore over the same period.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Corporate tax deductions and tax allowances are given to defray expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of their income, or to meet certain policy objectives. Such tax deductions and tax allowances are deducted from the companies’ gross income, together with other adjustments, before determining the amount of chargeable income to be taxed.
For instance, businesses can claim 100% tax deduction for wages, rentals and other relevant expenses incurred in the production of income. We provide 100% tax allowance for investment in plant and machinery, or for acquisition of intellectual property. To encourage businesses to invest in R&D especially R&D done in Singapore, we have up to 250% tax deduction for the relevant expenses. To encourage businesses to venture abroad, we have 200% tax deduction for qualifying expenses.
From time to time, the Government has provided Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Rebate, to ease cashflow for companies. The CIT Rebate is typically given as a percentage of tax payable, subject to a cap. This cap ensures that the rebate benefits especially taxpaying SMEs which are companies with annual turnover of less than $100 million.
We do not differentiate corporate tax treatment based on the nationality of the business owner. This is also in line with the reciprocal obligation under tax treaties for non-discrimination. As IRAS does not track corporate taxpayers based on their ownership, we are unable to provide data for foreign-owned companies.
To ease taxpayers’ compliance burden, we generally allow taxpayers to claim tax deductions and allowance in their tax returns without prior approval from IRAS. IRAS will then audit the taxpayers on a risk-based approach. Hence, we do not have data on the total amount of corporate tax breaks that companies enjoy. Instead, taxpayers are only requested to declare in their tax returns a subset of identified tax deductions and allowance to facilitate periodic policy review, like the writing-down allowances for the cost of acquiring intellectual property rights. Based on this subset of tax deductions and allowances, the total annual amount of such tax deductions and tax allowances ranged from $128 billion in Year of Assessment (YA) 2011 to $218 billion in YA 2019.
CIT Rebate was granted from YA 2013 to YA 2019. The yearly amount of corporate tax savings to companies ranged from $200 million to $580 million.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detailed Breakdown of SMEs and Non-SMEs' Corporate Income Tax Collections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance with regard to corporate income tax collection (a) in each of the last 10 years, what is the assessed (i) total revenue (ii) profit before tax (iii) corporate income tax paid and (iv) average effective tax rate; and (b) what is the breakdown by (i) SMEs and non-SMEs (ii) tax resident and non-tax resident companies and (iii) Singapore-incorporated and foreign companies for each of the items as described in parts (a)(i) to (a)(iv).
Mr Lawrence Wong: Based on IRAS data available for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2010 to YA 2019, the total turnover of companies has increased from S$2.1 trillion in YA 2010 to S$4.6 trillion in YA 2019. The profit before tax for these companies were S$128 billion and S$503 billion for YA 2010 and YA 2019 respectively. The total corporate income tax paid were S$10.2 billion for YA 2010 and S$16.3 billion for YA 2019. Our corporate tax system allows companies to enjoy tax deductions, tax allowances, group relief, loss carry back, tax exemptions or tax rebates. So the average effective tax rates for all companies were 3.2% for YA 2010 and 2.7% for YA 2019.
For all SMEs or companies with turnover of up to S$100 million, their total turnover were S$365 billion in YA 2010 and S$520 billion in YA 2019 respectively. SMEs’ total profits before tax were S$31 billion for YA 2010 and S$44 billion for YA 2019 respectively. The total corporate income tax paid by SMEs were S$3.8 billion for YA 2010 and S$4.8 billion for YA 2019 respectively. The average effective tax rates for all SMEs were 3.4% for YA 2010 and 2.8% for YA 2019.
For all non-SMEs or companies with turnover exceeding S$100 million, their total turnover was S$1.7 trillion in YA 2010 and S$4.1 trillion in YA 2019 respectively. Their total profits before tax were S$97 billion for YA 2010 and S$459 billion for YA 2019. The total corporate income tax paid by non-SMEs were S$6.4 billion for YA 2010 and S$11.5 billion for YA 2019 respectively. The non-SMEs’ average effective tax rates have ranged about 8% to 10% for the same period.
Mr Chua has also asked for a breakdown of the figures for foreign and Singapore-incorporated companies, as well as for tax-resident and non-tax resident companies. But we generally do not differentiate corporate tax treatment based on the place of incorporation or the tax residency of the company. Where corporate tax is concerned, the focus is on their income sourced in Singapore, as well as their income sourced abroad upon remittance into Singapore, and not their place of incorporation or their tax residency status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preparations for Singapore's Participation in Tokyo Olympics amidst COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the progress of preparations for Singapore's participation in the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) what are the measures taken to ensure that the health of participating Singapore athletes will be adequately safeguarded.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: At present, a total of 23 Team Singapore athletes competing across 12 sports will be at the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics. Singapore will be making our Olympics debut in Diving, Equestrian and Marathon Swimming. Besides the Olympics, Singapore will also be participating in the Tokyo 2020 Paralympics, where the Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC) will be announcing the final contingent of athletes soon. Currently, six para-athletes’ participation has been confirmed.
Our athletes' well-being and safety are of paramount importance. The support teams have been planning and coordinating the athletes’ training and participation these past months. For example, since the end of the circuit breaker period in 2020, MCCY has worked closely with the health authorities and many of the National Sports Associations (NSAs) to put in place training arrangements so that our Tokyo-bound athletes can continue their training at the National Training Centres and other designated venues, with strict Safe Management Measures (SMMs) and other safety protocols in place to ensure their health and safety, even as they train hard and prepare for the competition.
MCCY and the MOH have also been working together closely on the vaccination plans for our athletes, coaches and officials who need to travel overseas for qualification events and major games competitions. All but one of our Team Singapore athletes and officials bound for the Olympic Games have already been fully vaccinated. The remaining one will complete the vaccination regimen by next week. We will also ensure that those bound for the Paralympics will also be fully vaccinated.
We are also in contact with the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (TOCOG) as to its COVID-19 countermeasures to keep athletes safe. For starters, spectators will be restricted. To keep athletes and officials safe, most spectators will be cheering from behind screens instead of in stadiums, and athletes will have limited interaction with counterparts. Other measures include pre-departure tests prior to arrival in Tokyo, mask-wearing, safe distancing protocol of two metres, daily antigen rapid tests, as well as the use of health-reporting and contact-tracing apps. In the dining hall, acrylic partitions have been installed and food will be served in individual portions with allocated mealtimes to reduce crowding. The organisers have also designated hospitals with 24-hour emergency services and care facilities for COVID-19 patients should the need arise. Our athletes and officials will comply with these measures.
All members of our Team Singapore contingent will be issued with a travel kit comprising an ample supply of surgical-grade respirators and masks, a protective face shield and disinfectants. They will also be provided with an anti-microbial surface spray to pre-treat their attire and equipment with an anti-virus and anti-bacterial coating that can last for three to six months.
On the ground in Tokyo, Team Singapore will be supported by a joint Games Secretariat, comprising staff from SportSG, SNOC and SNPC, who will oversee the daily movement and well-being of all members of the contingent. The contingent is supported by a medical team led by the Chief Medical Officer and comprising sport physiotherapists from the Singapore Sport Institute (SSI), Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) and the private sector, as well as sport scientists and psychologists from SSI. The medical team will be stationed at the Games Village where the athletes are staying and will be equipped to provide basic medical treatment, while our sport scientists and psychologists will help ensure that our athletes stay in top form physically and mentally, and are also meeting their nutrition needs.
We will also be closely monitoring developments at the Games from Singapore, where SportSG has set up an operations centre. We will use technology and mobile apps to keep in touch with our contingent and monitor their well-being throughout the Games.
Finally, over the last few weeks, MCCY, SportSG and SNOC have also worked with colleagues in Government to scenario plan and prepare contingency plans, rehearsed with a table-top simulation exercise, to prepare for many eventualities as possible, which includes possible evacuation.
I wish to assure the Member that Team Singapore’s well-being will be our priority and we will continue to be vigilant and adaptable to changes, as the Games progress. Let me also take the opportunity to ask all of Singapore to support our athletes at the Olympic Games, to rally and cheer them on, as they prepare to compete in their chosen sport at the highest level against world-class competitors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans in Lower-Income Households who Require Full-time Caregivers' Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on how many Singaporeans are full-time caregivers to persons who suffer from permanent moderate disability, and (b) if so, how many of them have household incomes that fall within the bottom 20th percentile household income group (after transfers).
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Caregiving arrangements vary across households depending on their household circumstances and the care needs of the care recipient.
MOH does not track the number of full-time caregivers which may include migrant domestic workers and family members. However, we estimate that there are currently about 35,000 caregivers for persons with permanent moderate disability living in the community, who may be caring for the care recipient on a full-time or part-time basis.
We do not have data on caregivers by their household income. Notwithstanding this, we recognise the important roles that caregivers play and will continue to strengthen our support for caregivers. Families who need help with caregiving services can approach the AIC Link or the Social Service Office for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Family-friendly Policies in view of 2020 Population Census Results","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister whether Singapore's family-friendly policies will be adjusted in view of the 2020 population census results, particularly in the areas of (i) promoting childbirth (ii) child and student care facilities and (iii) child friendly workplace policies.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The trends reported in Census 2020 include rising singlehood and fewer children born to married women, leading to declining birth and fertility rates. They reflect shifts in societal norms and values towards marriage and parenthood over time. These trends are not new or unique to Singapore, and are also observed in other advanced societies. More recently, the restrictions and disruptions caused by COVID-19 have resulted in marriages being delayed, thereby also affecting births in many countries.
We continually review our policies to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in supporting family formation. Supporting Singaporeans who wish to start and raise families remains a national priority. The Government has invested significant resources in our measures, to strengthen support for marriage and parenthood.
For example, in 2019, we introduced an Enhanced CPF Housing Grant of up to $80,000 to further help first-timer HDB flat applicants afford their own home. Last year, we introduced the Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI) co-funding scheme and enhancing the Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) co-funding scheme to help couples with difficulty conceiving. MOH fully subsidises all nationally recommended vaccinations and developmental screenings for Singaporean children at all Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioner clinics and polyclinics. We introduced the $3,000 Baby Support Grant (BSG) to help reassure couples to proceed with their parenthood plans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, more than 22,000 families have benefitted from the BSG. This year, we increased the maximum Government contribution to the Child Development Account for the second-born child from $6,000 to $9,000.
The Government has progressively invested in accessible and affordable child and student care facilities, and increased the number of preschool places over the years. Full-day preschool places have more than doubled – from 90,000 in 2012, to around 190,000 today. This will increase to over 200,000 places by 2023. Last year, we increased the qualifying income ceiling and quantum of means-tested preschool subsidies, enabling more families to benefit. By around 2025, 80% of preschoolers can have a place in an affordable Government-supported quality preschool.
We have also increased the number of Student Care Centres (SCCs) places over the years. Today, more than 400 SCCs are registered with MSF to administer the Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme under ComCare, which subsidises the student care fees for eligible children. This includes SCCs that are located in all 186 Primary schools. Registered SCCs provide around 48,000 student care places today, with more than sufficient capacity.
To foster family-friendly workplaces, the Government continues to work with tripartite partners to support and promote the adoption of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and other relevant practices. Last year, 93% of companies offered some form of formal or ad hoc FWAs. This year, we launched the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony to further promote the adoption of FWAs and employee support schemes, and set up the Alliance for Action on Work-Life Harmony to raise awareness on work-life practices and support employers who face challenges in implementing them. We intend to encourage employers to treat FWAs as a regular workplace feature.
We will continue to gather feedback and refine our measures to support Singaporeans on issues that matter most to them. The ongoing Emerging Stronger Conversations on \"Building a Singapore that is Made for Families\" is part of this effort. Many have shared with me that COVID-19 has led us to reassess our priorities and to recognise the value and importance of family in our lives, especially the invaluable support that they provide during challenging times. While marriage and parenthood remain deeply personal decisions, we believe that we can do more as a society to make marriage and parenthood achievable, enjoyable and celebrated, and families a central part of our lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Seniors to Claim Reimbursement for Taking COVID-19 Vaccines Approved for Emergency Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing senior citizens aged 60 years and above to claim reimbursement for taking COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has approved two vaccines, namely Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna, to be used in the national vaccination programme. They are safe, effective and are fully subsidised by the Government.
However, as we are mindful that some Singaporeans prefer other vaccines, MOH has allows vaccines approved by the World Health Organization to be on its Emergency Use Listing to be brought into Singapore under HSA’s Special Access Route. These vaccines have not been authorised for use by HSA based on their safety and efficacy profiles. Subsidising these vaccines will therefore be inconsistent with their approval status. Nevertheless, Government has a stock of vaccines from Sinovac and has released them free of charge to private clinics to administer them under the SAR.
We continue to urge all who are medically eligible to receive HSA-authorised PSAR vaccines under the national vaccination programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Government's Approval for Sinovac to be Used Before Evaluation Is Finalised","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) why did the Government allow the Sinovac vaccine to be used in Singapore under the Special Access Route even when the Government has not finished its evaluation of the quality, safety and efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine; and (b) what assistance is available for needy patients who suffer severe complications from Sinovac but do not have coverage under Integrated Shield Plans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government allowed the vaccine from Sinovac to be used under the Special Access Route (SAR) because this is precisely the purpose of this prevailing scheme – to allow the use of unregistered therapeutic products in instances where there is a specific medical need. In this case, the individuals do not wish to take the approved vaccines under the national vaccination programme and it is better that they get some form of protection against COVID-19 than no protection at all.
Persons who experience serious side effects from receiving COVID-19 vaccines, whether under the national vaccination programme or under SAR, can continue to receive support through applicable healthcare financing schemes, such as MediShield Life and subsidies at our public healthcare institutions, or private insurance, where applicable. We continue to encourage individuals to take the two vaccines under our national vaccination programme. They are free, proven to be safe and effective, and will be covered by the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension and Utilisation of Current Business Support Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether there will be an extension of current business support schemes until the lifting of restrictions to the same levels as in Q1 2021; and (b) whether there can be more information given upfront to businesses about the types of schemes available to them including the timing of disbursements of the various schemes.
84 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Finance (a) what measures have the Government put in place to ensure that all eligible recipients of COVID-related support measures, both in 2020 and 2021, are aware of and have applied for the support schemes; and (b) what has been done to ensure that business owners and individuals across all levels of digital literacy are able to easily apply for such schemes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government remains committed to support our businesses and citizens through this pandemic.
Since the start of the pandemic last year, we have disbursed more than $26.7 billion of Jobs Support Scheme to help our firms to retain their local employees. We further provided over $1.8 billion to more than 200,000 self-employed workers under the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). Various financing schemes, such as the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme, have also helped over 25,000 firms secure loans worth a combined total of more than $22 billion.
In the recent Phase Two and Phase Three (Heightened Alert), we are providing targeted support to sectors more significantly affected by the tightened measures.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely and calibrate our support for our businesses and our people accordingly. As our economy recovers, we will also have to adjust our relief support while providing substantial support for companies to transform and create good jobs. This includes measures like the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, including the Jobs Growth Incentive.
As COVID-19 will be with us for some time, businesses should also continue to find ways to adapt and adjust to this new normal, and strengthen the resilience of their plans and processes.
Ms He Ting Ru also asked if we can give businesses more information on the schemes available and how we ensure that eligible recipients are aware of and receive the necessary support.
First, where appropriate and feasible, we design our schemes such that benefits are computed and disbursed automatically. Examples include major support schemes like the Jobs Support Scheme and the Jobs Growth Incentive. This ensures our target beneficiaries receive the necessary support quickly and minimises the need for applications.
There are other schemes which are on an application basis, so as to better meet the specific needs of the company, or to obtain more real-time data for assessment. This include business transformation grants and loans.
Second, whether it is broad-based automatic disbursement or application-based grants, we adopt various channels to maximise outreach and awareness.
Our agencies issue press releases, infographics and social media posts that provide key details of each scheme, including eligibility criteria, benefits and application processes. Details of support measures are also accessible through agencies’ websites.
In addition, collaterals are disseminated to our partners like trade associations and chambers, and the labour unions, so that they can help to spread the word to businesses and the community.
We have also developed interactive digital navigators such as the SupportGoWhere and GoBusiness portals, to allow businesses and individuals to self-assess their eligibility and apply for schemes.
For those who require more assistance with their application process, the Government also provides additional support. Businesses may approach any of the 12 SME centres across Singapore for dedicated advice on what schemes which would best suit their needs.
For groups who may not be as digitally savvy, we make an extra effort to reach out to them through non-digital means.
For instance, LTA and NEA actively stepped up their outreach to taxi drivers, hawkers and market stall holders.
Posters in our four official languages were also put up at common community areas such as Town Councils and Community Centres, and on digital displays at HDB lift lobbies.
I encourage Members of this House who have not done so, to help amplify our efforts by sharing information on the relevant schemes with your constituents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Admission of Students to Singapore's Autonomous Universities amidst COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether more students can be admitted to our local Autonomous Universities this year so as to help students who are unable to study in foreign universities due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) if so, how many additional places can be made available.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE is granting additional flexibility to the Autonomous Universities (AUs) to admit more students this year, to cater to applicants whose plans to study overseas have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is part of the Ministry’s broader efforts to support local students and help ensure that their education is not unduly disrupted by the pandemic.
MOE is working closely with the AUs on the number of additional places to provide. The allocation of additional places across AUs and courses will take into account the size and quality of the applicant pool, student interest, employment prospects of the various disciplines, the AUs’ capacity to cater to additional students, and other relevant factors. All students must meet the admissions criteria of the AUs, which will continue to uphold their admission standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy Decisions in Anticipation of More Elderly with Mobility Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
86 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government anticipates an upward trend in the number of the elderly with mobility issues; (b) how will the Government adjust future policy decisions so that the elderly who live alone will have convenient access to support; and (c) whether the Government will also look into promoting preventive healthcare measures to prevent or slow down the onset of mobility issues.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: With an ageing population, we have seen an increase in the number of elderly with mobility issues. Based on the Singapore Census of Population, the number of residents in resident households aged 65 years and over who had mobility issues grew from around 25,500 to 50,000 between 2000 and 2020. This represents 11% and 8% of the resident population aged 65 and above in 2000 and 2020 respectively.
MOH is cognisant of the needs of the elderly who live alone and have put in place measures to help them have convenient access to various services. These measures include subsidies under the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) for seniors requiring assistive devices such as wheelchairs and motorised devices so they can be mobile, senior-friendly housing such as the new Community Care Apartments for seniors to age independently in the community, as well as befriending or buddying services under the new Eldercare Centre service model so there is someone they can turn to for support. Seniors with mobility issues are also assisted through Medical Escort and Transport services to attend medical appointments or treatment, and there are daily meal deliveries through our Meals-on-Wheels programme for home-bound seniors.
MOH will continue to review and strengthen our policies, services and programmes for seniors to age well in the community and provide the necessary support especially to those living alone.
We agree with the importance of health promotion and preventive efforts to delay the decline in physical ability. There are active ageing and frailty prevention programmes in community nodes such as Community Centres, Residents’ Networks, Active Ageing Centres and Active Ageing Care Hubs. For example, Rolling Good Times is a falls prevention programme that seeks to improve seniors’ strength and balance through exercises, raise awareness of common falls situations and teach seniors how to minimise the risk of injuries during a fall. In addition, the Healthy Ageing Promotion Programme for You (HAPPY) programme combines physical and mental exercises to delay the onset of cognitive and frailty conditions. We will continue to promote these programmes and reach out to the elderly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing with New Demographic Challenges of Ageing Population and Impact on Healthcare Policies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the Government strategising to cope with the new demographic challenges of an ageing population; and (b) how will this impact healthcare policies, particularly for the elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministerial Committee of Ageing (MCA) hence brings together multiple Government agencies to holistically respond to our ageing society. In 2015, the MCA launched the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, a national blueprint to enable Singaporeans to age gracefully and confidently.
Since then, we made progress in areas such as employment, learning and volunteering opportunities and senior-friendly infrastructure. Planning for ageing is a continuous journey and the MCA will refresh the Action Plan so that we continue catering to the evolving needs of current and future seniors. The refreshed Action Plan will centre around \"Care\", \"Contribution\" and \"Connectedness\", where we encourage seniors to stay active, healthy, and engaged.
We also update our healthcare and ageing-related policies to keep pace with our demographic shifts. For example, to support the social and emotional needs of our seniors living alone, we are rolling out a new Eldercare Centre service model from 2021. These centres will provide a suite of services, including active ageing programmes, befriending or buddying, and information and referral to care services that will enable all seniors to stay well. They will become the go to points in the community, for seniors. The Silver Generation Office (SGO) also proactively reaches out to our seniors, and befriends lonely seniors living alone to pre-empt social isolation.
In healthcare funding, we have revamped the ElderShield scheme into CareShield Life, to offer better protection against old age disabilities. We have implemented the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation packages, to help seniors have greater peace of mind as they ages.
The MCA and MOH will continue to build an inclusive society that amplifies opportunities from ageing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment Criteria for Projects Financed by Green Bonds issued by Singapore Government","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider (i) publishing the assessment criteria and Environmental, Social and Governance standards that will apply to projects financed by green bonds issued by the Government (ii) ensuring transparency about the carbon and other environmental impacts of these projects using internationally recognised accounting principles and (iii) outlining the timeline for finalising Singapore’s green and transition taxonomy.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Climate change is real, and the Singapore Green Plan 2030 is a major policy priority for the Government. Green Finance is an important enabler of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Green bonds are a type of borrowing where proceeds will be exclusively applied to finance projects that are deemed environmentally sustainable. We announced at Budget this year that the Government has identified about $19 billion worth of projects that can be financed by green bonds, as a start. Eligible large-scale projects can be financed through sovereign green bonds under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA), while smaller scale green projects, such as Tuas Nexus, will be financed through the issuance of green bonds by the respective Statutory Boards.
We will build on the trust that investors have in us, by setting and observing high standards for our green bond issuances. We are in the midst of working with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), bond issuing agencies and industry partners to establish the standards, assessment criteria and reporting requirements for our green bond issuances, taking into account international standards. These details will be published when ready.
As a financial centre, Singapore has a special role to channel capital to investments that fulfil environmental objectives, which in turn would create new jobs and opportunities in the green economy. MAS’ Green Finance Action Plan sets out its intentions to support Singapore’s and Asia’s transition to a sustainable future, by strengthening the resilience of the financial sector to environmental risks, developing green finance markets, harnessing technology to support green finance solutions and building knowledge and capabilities.
MAS is working closely with the industry to mainstream green finance and has convened an industry-led Green Finance Industry Task force to develop a taxonomy for Singapore-based financial institutions to identify and classify activities that can be considered green or in transition. The task force recently concluded a consultation in March 2021 on the proposed environmental objectives, focus sectors and approach for classifying green and transition activities, and is studying the feedback received. In its next phase of work, the task force will develop a set of principle-based criteria and quantifiable thresholds to set out how activities can be classified according to their level of alignment with environmental objectives. A further consultation will be issued in 2022 before finalising the taxonomy by end-2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Pre-departure Polymerase Chain Reaction Tests for Individuals of All Ages Arriving in Singapore from Higher Risk Regions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether pre-departure polymerase chain reaction tests (PDT) can be made mandatory for all individuals of all ages arriving in Singapore from higher-risk countries/regions via air, land and sea entry checkpoints; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that individuals exempted from PDTs are isolated from the community until they receive negative polymerase chain reaction test results.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Pre-departure (PDT) testing is already required for all travellers above the age of two arriving from higher-risk countries/regions.
Even with PDTs, all travellers from higher risk countries are still subjected to prevailing health measures. This includes an on-arrival COVID-19 PCR test, and a 14-day Stay-at-Home Notice (SHN) at dedicated SHN facilities with PCR tests done before the end of their SHN duration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Early Warnings of Impending Health Concerns by Singapore’s Overseas Missions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
90 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether, prior to 15 March 2021, the COVID-19 Multi-Ministry Task Force has been receiving reports from Singapore’s diplomatic and consular missions in India and other parts of South Asia regarding the surge in COVID-19 cases in that region since February 2021; and (b) what measures are currently in place for Singapore’s overseas missions and intelligence operatives around the world to provide early warnings of impending health concerns that may impact Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Before the outbreak of COVID-19, MOH had established a system to monitor global public health developments, with a focus on public health events that may have an impact on Singapore. Over the years, this system has provided MOH with vital information on potential pandemic threats from outbreaks of emerging diseases happening around the world.
In addition, MOH receives information from the World Health Organization, experts and academic networks, and scientific publications. On COVID-19, overseas missions have been providing further information on the situation abroad.
Given the uncertain trajectory of COVID-19, and its tendency to mutate, we have to continue to watch developments closely and make timely assessments of any emerging public health threats from overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Visitors to be Vaccinated Before Arrival in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health in light of the latest rise in number of COVID-19 cases in Singapore and notwithstanding the ongoing discussions for mutual recognition of vaccine certification with other countries, whether the Government will reconsider imposing a pre-condition for visitors to be vaccinated prior to their arrival in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The most significant factor in determining our border policies is the COVID-19 situation in the source country. For instance, we have unilaterally opened to visitors from very low-risk countries and regions. These visitors, regardless of vaccination status, are only subject to an on-arrival test, and if negative, can proceed with their activities without quarantine or controlled itinerary.
As we achieve a higher vaccination rate locally and other places are able to control the pandemic and vaccinate their populations, we will have greater confidence in opening up travel. One possibility will be to consider setting up vaccinated travel lanes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Alternative Legal Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Law whether there are any plans to regulate Alternative Legal Service Providers in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member has asked about plans to regulate \"Alternative Legal Services Providers\" (ALSPs), which is a term generally used to refer to a wide range of non-traditional legal services providers, from small legal technology startups to large professional services firms that offer legal services as part of a broader suite of services.
Under our current regulatory regime, entities wishing to offer legal services involving the practice of Singapore law or foreign law in Singapore must be licensed as a law practice and comply with the licensing and regulatory requirements under the Legal Profession Act. This means that the entity must be wholly or majority-owned and controlled by lawyers. Therefore, an ALSP that wishes to offer legal services as part of a broader suite of services would need to adhere to this ownership and control structure.
ALSPs may also offer legal support services, such as manpower outsourcing, paralegal or other support functions, which are not subject to regulation under the Legal Profession Act, but are subject to the other usual requirements applicable to businesses operating in Singapore.
With increasing innovation and technological advancements, the services provided by ALSPs have been evolving in response to changing market needs. Law practices have also been innovating and adopting new technology tools and business models. Some have given feedback that the current regulatory requirements may not be flexible enough to accommodate their proposed innovations and service offerings.
MinLaw has been studying these developments closely and is assessing how the current regulatory framework may be enhanced to support greater technology adoption and innovation in the legal sector, while ensuring continued consumer trust and confidence in the system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for and Rate of Increase in Cash-Over-Valuation for Resale HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is a trend of increasing Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) for resale HDB flats; (b) if so, what are the reasons for the increasing trend; and (c) what has been the rate of increase in the past one year.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB resale flat transactions are conducted on a \"willing-buyer-willing-seller\" basis, with prices negotiated and mutually agreed upon between flat sellers and buyers. The transacted prices of resale flats for the last 12 months are published on the HDB InfoWEB to guide potential sellers and buyers.
After a resale price has been agreed upon, the flat sellers will grant an Option to Purchase (OTP) to the buyers. If the buyers wish to use their CPF savings or a housing loan to pay for the flat purchase, they will need to make a \"Request for Value\" to HDB. Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) arises when the resale price is higher than the market valuation of the flat, as the difference can only be paid by cash . Otherwise, there is no COV. Buyers can decide whether to exercise the OTP for the resale transaction depending on the valuation and any COV payable. Should they choose not to proceed with the transaction, buyers will forgo the option fee of between $1 and $1,000 paid to the seller.
The proportion of buyers who paid a COV increased from around one in five in 2020 to around one in three in 2021. This reflects the current broad-based demand for housing, including in the private housing market, supported by the low interest rate environment. Notwithstanding this, the majority of buyers did not have to pay any COV, and the median COV each year has remained at $0.
The current proportion of buyers who paid a COV is significantly lower compared to the period between 2010 and 2013, which was the previous period when more transactions with COV were observed. At that time, almost all resale flat buyers paid a COV. The prevailing practice then was for sellers to obtain a valuation, and negotiate a COV with the buyers which will determine the resale price. Since 2014, HDB has therefore required buyers and sellers to first agree on the resale price, with the valuation performed after that for the purpose of determining the amount of loan and CPF savings that can be used for the flat purchase.
We will continue to monitor economic and housing market conditions closely and ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable public housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developments Ceased due to Findings from Environmental Impact Assessments and Built Heritage Evaluations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development over the past 10 years, what is the number of developments that have been stopped as a result of findings from (i) environmental impact assessments and (ii) built heritage evaluations by URA.
Mr Desmond Lee: Despite being a land-scarce city-state, about 3,300 hectares of our land are designated as Nature Reserves, while more than 7,000 buildings have been conserved. Where possible, we seek to retain our natural capital and built heritage in a manner that allows them to continue playing a role in meeting Singaporeans’ needs. For example, the transformation of the concrete canal at Bishan-Ang Mo Kio park to a naturalised river, where wildlife such as otters, heron and egrets can now be found, is an example of how deliberate planning can enable ecological enhancement and restoration. Similarly, the Fullerton Hotel and Capitol Singapore exemplify how conservation can bring about a new lease of life for historic buildings.
All development proposals are subject to a robust planning evaluation process that considers each development’s impact, for example on traffic, public health, environment, and heritage, amongst others. If the proposed development is in or near areas of significant ecological or heritage value, studies will be conducted to analyse the relative significance of the site, and possible measures or alternative methods to adopt, to mitigate any potential impact as much as possible. This allows us to weigh the trade-offs and to adjust plans as required, to sensitively integrate any new development with its surroundings. For example, after conducting an EIA and engaging nature groups, HDB redesigned the parcellation plan of its Bukit Batok Hillside Park project to preserve the catchment area surrounding a stream.
We regularly review our plans to identify new sites of ecological and heritage significance to be safeguarded, taking into consideration our competing land-use demands. For example, Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, which was initially planned for factory use, is now a Nature Park, in recognition of its ecological value. For Dakota Crescent, after consulting heritage groups and carefully considering the trade-offs, we kept what was most significant about the site – a cluster of six blocks around a central courtyard and playground – while allowing the rest to be redeveloped to meet housing needs.
As needs and aspirations change over time, we will continually review our plans, consult, and gather views from different segments of society, to find the appropriate balance between conservation and development, while maintaining flexibility and agility in our land-use policies and processes. This will allow us to provide a liveable and sustainable home for current and future generations of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Bigger Format BTO Flats and Communal Working Spaces in line with Work-from-home Trend","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider (i) building bigger format BTOs and communal working spaces within HDB estates to facilitate work-from-home in the new normal and (ii) converting industrial and commercial areas of low utilisation into parkland and recreational spaces.
Mr Desmond Lee: We recognise that working from home, due to COVID-19, has become more prevalent. The Government is actively studying and engaging with the public, and will continue to ensure a liveable and flexible environment that can support changing needs of our residents, workers and students.
We will continue to cater to changing lifestyles and needs both by exploring new designs and layouts of HDB flats, and by providing more shared amenities. For instance, HDB has introduced more greenery, play and fitness equipment to enhance the common space in our precincts and neighbourhoods. These extended common spaces encourage healthy lifestyles and community bonding. We have over 7,800 hectares of green spaces across Singapore and will add another 1,000 hectares over the next 10 to 15 years, weaved more intensively into our urban areas.
The Government has also made community workspaces available within residential neighbourhoods. These include Community Living Rooms within HDB void decks, and work and study spaces within other public buildings such as community clubs and libraries. We will continue to monitor demand for these spaces, and scale them up if needed.
The Member has also suggested that we convert some of our existing industrial and commercial land into parkland and recreational spaces. We seek to maximise the benefits and synergies that these spaces can offer to businesses and people. For example, many of JTC’s industrial estates, such as one-north and Jurong Innovation District, have food and beverage outlets, parks and recreational uses integrated in the estate, which also serve users in the community.
When certain industrial uses are phased out, we have comprehensively redeveloped the land for other uses, or put the buildings to adaptive re-use. Examples include the conversion of old shipyards at Tanjong Rhu into a residential area, the repurposing of two disused power station buildings in the Pasir Panjang Power District, as well as the planned rejuvenation of older estates in Sungei Kadut for new growth sectors, such as agri-food and environmental technologies.
Currently, commercial spaces take up only 1% of our overall land area and the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on office and retail space demand remains to be seen. We are closely monitoring the evolving market trends and have built flexibility into our plans and strategies so that we can continue to meet the changing needs of our people.
At a broader level, we invite Singaporeans to contribute their ideas and aspirations for Singapore’s land use plans as part of URA’s Long-Term Plan Review later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Permissible Noise Levels in Residential Areas given Rise in Home-based Learning and Work-from-home Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will review the permissible noise levels in residential areas given the rise in home-based learning and more people working from home.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are multiple and diverse sources contributing to the noise experienced in residential areas, such as human activities, construction, traffic, or a combination of these. Given the difficulties in identifying the exact source contributing to the overall noise level, it is challenging to set limits on the overall noise level in residential areas.
To address noise disamenity arising from community sources, such as neighbouring housing units, animals, or activities occurring in common areas, various Government agencies have been encouraging community-based solutions and fostering good neighbourliness. There are ongoing initiatives to promote considerate behaviour and tolerance, build strong community bonds, and facilitate community intervention through grassroots leaders and community mediation services. Agencies have also continued public education efforts to encourage neighbourliness to help residents be aware of actions that may cause nuisance to others, such as excessive noise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Global Shift Away from Coal and Fossil Fuel on Singapore’s Petrochemical Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the global shift away from coal and fossil fuel (a) how will Singapore’s petrochemical industries be affected; (b) what is the potential impact on Singapore’s long-term growth; (c) what are Singapore’s plans in terms of allocation of land space and infrastructure for the oil and gas industry; and (d) what major sectors will need to be focused on to balance any potential adverse impact from this shift.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Our Energy and Chemicals (E&C) sector is a significant part of our economy. It contributes to three percent of Singapore’s GDP and employs about 27,000 workers. Many of these jobs pay well and provide good career progression for Singaporeans. The sector also generates significant spinoffs to sectors such as trading and logistics.
The global shift towards clean energy will impact the E&C sector seriously. It is clear that for the E&C sector to remain competitive and keep growing, companies will need to transform their operations to be among the best-in-class in energy and carbon efficiency globally and pivot towards producing lower carbon products such as sustainable aviation fuels and bio-based polymers. We also expect the sector to remain relevant as it produces critical inputs needed for the manufacturing of widely-used items such as cosmetics, vehicles and even surgical masks and gowns.
The Government will support the E&C sector on this transformation journey. Where warranted, this support may include the provision of land and infrastructure, largely on Jurong Island. We will also partner the E&C sector to develop low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture, utilisation, and storage as well as low-carbon hydrogen. These technologies can be pivotal in enabling decarbonisation at scale, and in turn facilitate our transition to a low-carbon economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Carbon Tax Revenue Used to Fund Transitional Measures by Industries to Reduce Emissions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Prof Koh Lian Pin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) to date, how much carbon tax revenue has been used to fund transitional measures by industries to reduce emissions; and (b) whether the Government will consider expanding the use of carbon tax revenue in ways that benefit wider society and align with the Singapore Green Plan 2030 including the upskilling of workers to capitalise on emerging green sectors and jobs, and ground-up initiatives of Singapore green groups that support urban sustainability, climate actions and nature conservation.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As a principle, the Government does not ring-fence sources of fiscal revenue for specific purposes. This ensures that the Government has flexibility in allocating resources to priority areas with the most important spending needs.
Singapore’s carbon tax was introduced in 2019 to incentivise emission reductions across all sectors and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. We expect to collect carbon tax revenue of about $1 billion in the first five years. To reduce carbon emissions, we are prepared to spend more than this amount on worthwhile projects which deliver emissions abatement.
To support our industries in improving energy and carbon efficiency, we have increased the funding support of incentive schemes such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy and the Energy Efficiency Fund. We have also earmarked funds under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 plan for the research, development and demonstration of sustainable urban solutions, as well as emerging low-carbon technologies that can drive deeper decarbonisation.
The Singapore Green Plan 2030 is our whole-of-nation movement to promote sustainable development and drive climate action. It sets out ambitious and concrete sectoral targets over the next decade. These are major undertakings that require significant resources and investments, and the carbon tax revenue alone would not be sufficient. For example, to encourage active mobility and reduce vehicular emissions, we are setting aside more than $1 billion to expand the Islandwide Cycling Network to over 1300km in length by 2030. We have also set up the Coastal and Flood Protection fund, with an initial injection of $5 billion, to help protect Singapore against rising sea levels.
As Prof Koh alludes to, the Green Plan must also support our people to thrive in the green economy and encourage them to mount sustainability initiatives in the community. Under the \"Green Economy\" pillar of the Green Plan, we will invest in Singaporeans and help them upskill to take on new jobs in green sectors such as green finance, sustainability consultancy and carbon services and trading. We have also launched the SG Eco Fund to encourage ground-up sustainability initiatives in the community, including those that support climate action and nature conservation. We will continue to partner Singaporeans in building a more liveable, resilient and sustainable future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Singapore Into Global Trading Hub for Climate-related Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of efforts by the Government to develop Singapore as a global trading hub for climate-related services, what are the Ministry's efforts to spur demand for, and be an active participant in, this market.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As announced under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, Singapore aims to be a leading carbon services and trading hub, as part of our efforts to capture new business opportunities and create new jobs in the green economy. To achieve this, we are doing the following.
First, we are working with the private sector to develop a trusted and robust market for carbon credits. As part of the efforts under the Emerging Stronger Taskforce Alliance for Action on Sustainability, DBS Bank, Singapore Exchange, Standard Chartered Bank and Temasek will be setting up Climate Impact X, or the CIX, a global exchange and marketplace for high-quality carbon credits. The CIX will connect an ecosystem of partners, leveraging satellite monitoring, machine learning and blockchain to enhance transparency, integrity and quality of carbon credits.
Second, we are building carbon services and trading capabilities in Singapore. Government agencies are anchoring service providers that provide sustainability-related advisory, carbon project development, carbon trading, and assurance services to financial institutions and companies. Enterprise Singapore is also developing the Enterprise Sustainability Programme to help our companies strengthen their awareness and understanding of sustainability issues, including decarbonisation, which could increase demand for carbon services as enterprises take steps to improve sustainability of their operations.
Third, we are collaborating with international partners to promote cross-border credit transactions. Singapore is actively involved in the Article 6 negotiations of the Paris Agreement that govern international carbon markets. This year, Minister Grace Fu will be co-facilitating informal ministerial discussions on Article 6 leading up to the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties. In addition to contributing towards achievement of our Nationally Determined Contributions, the success of carbon markets will lead to overall mitigation in global emissions and generate demand for associated services at a global scale.
These efforts, coupled with Singapore’s robust legislative, commodities trading and financial services foundation, will put us in a good position to grow an internationally trusted carbon services and trading hub, and help companies seize new growth opportunities in the green economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retention Rate of Trainees SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programmes (a) whether applicants have been able to fulfill the skills profile and requirements of the participating organisations; (b) what is the rate of retention of trainees up to completion of their traineeship or attachment; and (c) what is the rate of conversion to full-time employment.
Dr Tan See Leng: The SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programmes provide jobseekers with traineeship or attachment opportunities hosted by companies. These opportunities allow them to acquire industry-relevant experience and build up their skillsets and networks while receiving an allowance.
As of end-April 2021, about 13,000 trainees have been accepted and onboarded onto traineeships or attachments. We expect more to be onboarded for the rest of the year.
Of the 13,000 onboarded trainees, about 85% are still undergoing their traineeships or attachments. Of the 15% who exited or completed the programmes, based on latest available data, half have indicated that they took up employment with the host organisation or found employment elsewhere. This is a positive sign, as the traineeships and attachments have opened up opportunities for them.
We will continue to track the employment status of those who participated in the programmes. For trainees who have not secured employment, we will continue to offer employment support assistance to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prior Consultation with Affected Residents for Acquisition of 68-74 Thomson Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the acquisition of 68-74 Thomson Road (a) whether the acquisition happened without any prior consultation with the current owners of the residential units; and (b) what is the expected use of the land after the construction of the North-South Corridor.
Mr S Iswaran: Since September 2020, LTA has been engaging the owners and tenants at 68-74 Thomson Road on the impact of North-South Corridor (NSC) works on the property. This includes assisting occupants with their relocation before the start of the tunnelling works.
However, when further detailed and invasive tests revealed that the building’s concrete strength was unable to withstand the strengthening works to the foundation, we had no choice but to acquire the building for demolition on safety considerations.
All affected owners will receive market value compensation for their properties. As all acquisitions of land are market sensitive, announcements are made through publication in the Government gazette and all registered owners were notified about the acquisition on the date of the gazette.
The NSC is expected to be completed around 2027. The long-term plans for the site will be finalised at a later stage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Visitors to Wet Markets and Hawker Centres to Use TraceTogether Token and App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether more SafeEntry Gateway device stations and TraceTogether QR codes can be installed at more entry points of venues to facilitate check-ins; and (b) what measures are in place to encourage shoppers to wet markets to bring along their TraceTogether tokens or turn on their TraceTogether phone apps.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 15 June 2021, we have required public-facing venues with high visitor throughput to deploy the SafeEntry Gateway. Such venues include shopping malls, places of worship and ticketed attractions. Higher-risk venues like dine-in food and beverage outlets are required to do likewise.
These venues may apply for the SafeEntry Gateway box. Alternatively, they can use the SafeEntry (Business) App which includes a SafeEntry Gateway function. Both options are available at no cost.
Patrons, stallholders and stall assistants at wet markets are thus similarly strongly encouraged to perform check-in at all these venues via the SafeEntry Gateways or to check-in via the SafeEntry QR codes. These are placed at the natural ingresses of the markets, as well as at all entrances to toilets. Stallholders will also encourage patrons to check in via the QR codes displayed at their stall fronts, where available. Roving Safe Distancing Ambassadors with the SafeEntry QR code on hand can also help patrons to check-in on the spot.
The TraceTogether Token and App provide a convenient way to do these check-ins. We encourage everyone to carry their TraceTogether Token or keep their TraceTogether App active to facilitate contact tracing, and help protect us all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of High-rise Littering Surveillance Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) since March 2021, what has been the outcome of high-rise littering surveillance operations; and (b) whether the Ministry has implemented any new measures, apart from the existing optical or thermal camera technology, to improve the success rate of such operations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA deploys surveillance cameras with video analytics where there is persistent feedback, to catch offenders in the act of high-rise littering. More than 400 high-rise littering incidents were captured on surveillance cameras in March and April 2021. In the past six months, 240 camera deployments were made monthly and an average of 220 high-rise littering incidents per month were captured on our surveillance cameras. Investigations are ongoing and enforcement action will be taken against offenders where there is sufficient evidence. We have issued 150 summonses against 50 offenders on average per month in 2020, which was an increase as compared to 90 summonses against 30 offenders prosecuted per month in 2019.
The deployment of cameras has resulted in savings in manhours for surveillance and enabled NEA to tackle high-rise littering more effectively. However, investigation into such cases is time-consuming and does not allow for expeditious resolution. The cost of high-rise littering surveillance is substantial. To enhance enforcement capabilities, NEA will continue to keep pace with developments in camera technology for high-rise littering surveillance and improve its work processes through data analytics. NEA also partners Town Councils to enable timely information-sharing to facilitate the investigation of high-rise littering offences.
At the same time, we must continue to cultivate social graciousness, good habits and collective responsibility to keep Singapore clean and safe. NEA adopts complementary strategies such as shaping community norms to deter high-rise littering. Since 2020, NEA has been placing informative standees at public areas with persistent littering feedback, to deter people from committing high-rise littering offences. NEA also works with Town Councils to install posters jointly developed with the Municipal Services Office at HDB blocks, highlighting the environmental and social consequences of high-rise littering.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Psychological and Cost-benefit Impact of Deep Nasal Swabs for COVID-19 Tests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what is the number of children and vulnerable adults who have been subjected to a deep nasal swab; (b) whether there are any known reports of adverse outcomes or lasting psychological effects during the deep nasal swabs; and (c) of the people subjected to a deep nasal swab, whether the Ministry has done any survey of any lasting side effects, both physical and mental.
107 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any cost-benefit analysis of the role of deep nasal swabs of all contacts once a positive case is identified; (b) whether the cost of the swab tests and potential harm to individuals receiving the swab tests are evaluated; and (c) what is the ratio of the number of cases picked up in comparison to the number of close contacts swabbed in the recent mass swabbing exercises.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of 28 June 2021, we have done a total of 13.6 million PCR swabs, of which around 2.8% were performed for persons under the age of 21. The scientific literature suggests that while there is risk of minor complications from swabbing, there are no significant risks of serious or lasting adverse effects. There have been very few reported adverse events.
Testing is a key enabler in our efforts to contain COVID-19. It allows us to detect cases early and draw a wider ring with special testing operations where there is a risk of significant hidden transmission. This, along with other public health actions such as contract tracing and quarantine, has limited the local spread of COVID-19.
We have also implemented rostered routine testing for identified groups who have a higher risk of exposure to COVID-19, such as those at working at our frontline COVID-19 operations, including the borders, hospitals and community care facilities. This protects the workers and also provides reassurance that our containment efforts have been effective. We know that undergoing repeated regular testing can be uncomfortable and we thank all our frontline workers who have been extremely cooperative and understanding about the need to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Species of Marine Invertebrates in Protected List of Wildlife Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether more species of marine invertebrates such as horseshoe crabs can be included as protected wildlife species under the Wildlife Act.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Wildlife Act aims to protect, preserve and manage our wildlife. Under the Act, additional protections are given to more vulnerable species by designating them as protected wildlife species. To determine these species, NParks considers whether a species is locally and globally threatened, by taking reference from sources such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendices and the Singapore Red Data Book. Currently, the list of protected wildlife species includes threatened native wildlife species, such as pangolins, sea turtles, and selected species of marine invertebrates like giant clams and stony corals. NParks regularly reviews, and will update the list, in consultation with academic experts and the nature community.
NParks also works with stakeholders such as nature groups and the community to raise public awareness on caring for marine wildlife in their natural habitats. Beyond developing educational videos and outreach programmes, NParks deploys officers and installs signs around intertidal and subtidal areas to educate visitors on how to interact responsibly with the marine wildlife species. NParks will continue to step up its engagement and outreach efforts to promote responsible human-wildlife interactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Cat Abuse Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the measures in place to prevent cat abuse cases; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance coordination between agencies to investigate such cases when they occur.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks takes a serious view of all acts of animal cruelty, including cat abuse. To prevent cruelty to animals, NParks works closely with stakeholders such as animal welfare groups and veterinarians to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership and animal care. For example, NParks conducts outreach and education programmes at pet-related events, community walkabouts, and develops educational resources to promote responsible interactions with animals.
NParks has worked, and will continue to work, closely with relevant stakeholders such as SPF and HDB, as well as Town Councils and animal welfare groups, to investigate reports of animal cruelty. Investigation efforts include conducting surveillance, interviewing eyewitnesses and checking CCTV footage. Individuals who are found guilty of committing acts of animal cruelty can be charged under the Animals and Birds Act. First-time offenders can face a maximum fine of $15,000, or a jail term of up to 18 months, or both. Repeat offenders can face a maximum fine of $30,000, or a jail term of up to three years, or both.
Safeguarding the welfare of animals is a shared responsibility. Members of the public can play their part by calling NParks’ 24-hour Animal Response Centre at 1800-476-1600 to report suspected cases of animal abuse and any information that might help to facilitate investigation efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Precautions and Remote Learning Options for Pre-schoolers during COVID-19 Heightened Alert Phases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether additional precautions will be taken for pre-school students taking part in indoor activities during Phase Two (Heightened Alert); (b) whether additional precautions will be taken for pre-school teachers amid Phase Two (Heightened Alert); and (c) whether the Ministry is considering remote learning options for pre-school students and teachers during Phase Two (Heightened Alert).
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The safety and wellbeing of children and staff in preschools is of utmost importance. To ensure this, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has enhanced safe management measures in preschools, in consultation with MOH.
ECDA requires all preschools to observe strict safe management measures. These include:
(a) Tighter measures to restrict entry of persons that pose transmission risks such as by restricting visitors, more frequent health checks for staff and children, and disallowing entry of persons who are unwell. As an added precaution, ECDA also introduced a Leave of Absence (LOA) policy for children or staff staying with household members who are on Home Quarantine Order (HQO) or SHN1.
(b) Enhanced personal and environmental hygiene practices such as more frequent handwashing and cleaning of high touch points.
(c) Tighter measures to reduce transmission across groups in preschool by ensuring that children and staff are cohorted by class and do not mix across classes.
During Phase Two (Heightened Alert), we had further tightened safe management measures in preschools:
(a) To further reduce transmission across groups in the preschool. The enhanced measures included reduction of group sizes for outdoor activities and suspension of large group activities and activities at external venues, such as field trips.
(b) To further enhance environmental hygiene practices. Preschools have been directed to enhance ventilation of indoor premises. This includes working with facility managers to ensure that ventilation systems are adequate and in good order, and installing fans and opening windows and doors as frequently as possible.
(c) To further restrict entry of persons that pose transmission risks. Since 8 June 2021, ECDA has also tightened the LOA policy. Besides issuing LOA to children or staff staying with household members placed on HQO or SHN, preschools must also issue LOA to children or staff staying with household members who have to serve QOs at a Government Quarantine Facility (GQF), until their household member receives a negative test result on entry. Preschools will also issue a LOA if the child or staff is undergoing mandatory testing, for example, testing for all residents of a particular HDB block or workplace cluster due to potential exposure to COVID-19 cases. All preschools must now inform all parents in a class if a child or staff in the class is placed on QO and encourage parents to keep children at home until the Person under Quarantine (PUQ) receives a negative entry test result. If the PUQ was recently unwell, all children or staff who are in the same class as the PUQ will be issued LOAs.
To complement safe management measures in preschools, vaccination for staff in preschools has also been prioritised and progressively offered since early March 2021. This is so that preschool staff can better protect the children under their care, who are not yet eligible for vaccination, as well as better protect themselves and their families. As at 19 June 2021, about 85% of preschool staff have completed both doses or received their first dose.
Under Phase Two (Heightened Alert), from 16 May to 13 June 2021, preschools had remained open to support parents who need to work. Parents were encouraged to keep their children at home during this period where possible. To support preschools and parents keeping their children at home during Phase Two (Heightened Alert), MSF and ECDA waived the minimum attendance requirement to ensure that preschool subsidies and Child Care Financial Assistance (CCFA) continued to flow fully to parents. ECDA also shared home-based activity resources developed by the sector with preschools and parents, which they could make use of to engage their children at home. These resources are available on ECDA’s website and more will be provided over time.
With the Multi-Ministry Taskforce’s direction to gradually move back to Phase Three (Heightened Alert) from 14 June 2021, ECDA has adopted a conservative, calibrated approach to enable activities to resume safely. ECDA will continue to review and adjust measures in line with the national posture and in consultation with MOH to safeguard the health and well-being of preschool children and staff.
Keeping our preschool community safe and healthy is a collective effort. Hence, we urge the preschool community to continue to be vigilant and take all necessary precautions against the spread of COVID-19 infections. We also urge parents to monitor their children’s health closely and seek immediate medical advice if their child is unwell. Children who are unwell should stay at home to rest, and return to preschool only when they have fully recovered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : For staff staying with household members under HQO or SHN, preschools may issue LOA to the staff or redeploy them to back-end administrative tasks. From 8 June 2021, this measure was tightened further such that preschools may choose to lift the LOA and redeploy the staff to back-end administrative tasks only after the staff’s household member under QO tests negative for their entry swab test."],"footNoteQuestions":["110"],"questionNo":"110"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Hawkers and Food Vendors to Default to Non-inclusion of Disposable Utensils for Takeout Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry has plans to implement an education campaign that will have hawkers and food vendors default to non-inclusion of disposable utensils in their takeout orders with customers obtaining these on an as-requested basis.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The nation-wide \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign by the National Environment Agency (NEA) encourages everyone to reduce the use of disposables. Many F&B establishments, including hawker stalls, are encouraging customers to bring their own reusable containers and decline disposable utensils for takeaways. Major food delivery companies such as GrabFood, Deliveroo and Foodpanda have made opting out of disposable utensils the default option. This was done as part of their commitment under the Plastic ACTion programme initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature, a partner of the \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign.
The Citizens’ Workgroup on Reducing Excessive Consumption of Disposables has recommended a checklist comprising good practices that F&B establishments can adopt to reduce their use of disposables. This includes providing \"no cutlery\" as a default for takeaways. NEA will continue working with stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations, hawker centre operators and relevant F&B associations to promote this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nationality and Gender of Singapore's Permanent Residents Pool","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"114 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the numerical breakdown by nationality of Singapore's permanent resident (PR) pool from each of the top 20 countries and further sub-divided by gender; and (b) of these top 20 nationalities, how many individuals have remained as PRs for the last 10 and 20 years respectively and have not applied for citizenship at least once.
Mr K Shanmugam: Our Permanent Resident (PR) population is about 45% male and 55% female.
We do not publish breakdowns of our PR population by nationality. Doing so may have implications on specific groups of PRs and create bilateral sensitivities with their country of origin. A large number of the PRs come from our geographically nearest neighbours. Given our history, it has been our assessment that releasing the data of country of origin of our PRs will both create negative sensitivities with other countries and may affect the flow of PRs from such countries.
However, the broad regions where our PRs come from can be found in the annual \"Population In Brief\" publications. In the \"Population in Brief 2020\", which reports on the PR grants in 2019, about 60% of the persons granted PR were from Southeast Asia, followed by about 34% from other Asian countries, and the remaining 6% from other countries.
Our immigration policy is carefully calibrated, and we have kept the size of our PR population stable at around half a million for a number of years. About 58% of them have been PRs for 10 years or more, and 18% have been PRs for 20 years or more.
PRs contribute to Singapore’s economy and society in many ways. Many are also spouses of Singaporeans and parents of Singaporean children. Many go on to apply for our citizenship and some are eventually granted. We are very strict to whom we grant citizenship.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contact Tracing of Persons Exposed to COIVD-19 Risk who Had Opted Out of TraceTogether","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health how can the Ministry conduct contact tracing on persons who opt out of TraceTogether and who are later found to have exposed themselves and others to the risk of contracting COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH conducts contact tracing for all COVID-19 cases. The process primarily involves detailed interviews with cases and their contacts to form a comprehensive activity map about the individual’s movements and which persons they had been in contact with, until their isolation.
TraceTogether, together with SafeEntry, makes the process much faster and more accurate. TraceTogether is especially useful for identifying unknown contacts in public places that we would not otherwise be able to identify, or contacts that interviewees were unable to recall. So for someone who has opted out of TraceTogether, the process is slower, and thus the risk of onward transmission is higher because we will take a longer time to quarantine close contacts. But we will continue to try our best.
The TraceTogether Programme requires active participation from as many people as possible for effective contact tracing. To achieve greater coverage and participation, from 17 May 2021, persons who wish to enter a venue where SafeEntry is mandatory can only perform SafeEntry check-ins using their TraceTogether app or Token. These are venues that experience a higher throughput of visitors, such as malls, and where people are likely to be in close proximity for prolonged periods, such as restaurants and gyms. This will strengthen digital contact tracing and help us to better limit the spread of community cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Installation of Speed Limiters on Lorries that Ferry Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the safety of workers being transported on lorries (a) whether the Ministry has studied the proposal to install speed limiters on such lorries; and (b) whether there are any plans to implement such speed limiters on lorries used to transport workers.
Mr S Iswaran: Today, the Traffic Police already requires all heavy vehicles, including lorries with a maximum laden weight greater than 12,000 kilogrammes, to be installed with speed limiters. All such heavy vehicles are imposed with a maximum speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour as there is a greater risk of serious injuries or fatalities when such vehicles are involved in accidents. The speed limit applies to all heavy vehicles, regardless of whether they are used to ferry workers.
Agencies are studying further measures such as requiring speed limiters for lorries with lower maximum laden weight, or other technologies that can help to deter speeding, improve driver behaviour and reduce accidents. Employers should continue to do their part to ensure the safety of their workers, and educate and remind drivers of their obligations and responsibilities to ensure safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Projections for Shrinking Population from 2025 and Declining Number of Working Citizens from 2020 in 2013 Population White Paper","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Prof Hoon Hian Teck asked the Prime Minister whether there is any revision to two projections contained in the Population White Paper published in January 2013, namely (i) at current birth rates and without immigration, our citizen population will shrink from 2025 onwards and (ii) the number of citizens in the working ages of 20 to 64 years will decline from 2020 due to more citizens retiring and fewer citizens entering the workforce.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Minister Josephine Teo provided an update on our population outlook during the Committee of Supply debate in 2018. In that speech, we also provided an update on the following scenarios1:
(a) based on the total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.22 and without immigration, our total citizen population will shrink in the long term.
(b) even with immigration, the number of citizens aged 20 to 64 would likely peak around 2020 and decline thereafter. Without immigration, this group would have started to shrink earlier and decline at a much faster rate.
The changes to Singapore’s population set out in these scenarios remain valid. While we continue to take in a calibrated number of citizens and permanent residents to moderate the impact of ageing and low birth rates, we maintain a strong and cohesive core. In 2020, around 77% of Singapore residents (comprising Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents) were born in Singapore, while around 87% of citizens were born in Singapore3.
The ongoing COVID-19 situation has had an impact on our population numbers for 2020. We saw a slight decline in our total population last year but it is too early to assess the full impact at this point. We will continue to monitor the immediate and longer-term impact of COVID-19 on our population trends and scenarios.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These scenarios are not predictions, forecasts or reflections of future policy changes. They are meant to illustrate a range of possible changes to the Singapore population during different timeframes, based on certain trends and assumptions. The Government does not have any population target.","2 : For 2020, the TFR is lower at 1.1.","3 : Not all residents born outside of Singapore are new immigrants. Residents born outside of Singapore include children of citizens who were residing overseas at the time of birth, and also include persons who were born outside of Singapore but who became citizens at the point of independence."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of G7 Agreement on Global Minimum Tax Rate of 15% on Singapore's Status as Financial Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Prime Minister what is the impact of the G7 agreement on a global minimum tax rate of 15% on Singapore's status as a financial centre in general and, in particular, on emerging fields such as fintech and green finance.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Following the recent G7 agreement to endorse a global minimum tax rate of 15%, the Inclusive Framework (IF) on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) has released a statement on a two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. One of the proposals is a global minimum tax rate of at least 15%. As at 1 July 2021, 130 countries and jurisdictions, including Singapore, have agreed to the statement. However, the detailed design elements and implementation plan for these new rules have yet to be finalised. Singapore will continue to be actively involved in these international discussions, and will engage the industry as the new rules take shape.
A conducive tax environment in Singapore has been supportive of the growth of our financial sector. However, it is not the decisive factor. A robust regulatory regime, high quality infrastructure and a skilled workforce, have been far more important.
When there is full international agreement on a global minimum tax rate, the expectation is that a financial institution that is subjected to the global tax rules will be taxed at the same minimum rate regardless of where its activities are located. This means that the non-tax factors that I have mentioned will play an even more significant role in ensuring our financial centre stays competitive. Let me illustrate with some examples.
First, providing a conducive regulatory environment for businesses to grow remains key, especially so for new and innovative activities. A good example is the Payment Services Act, which provides for payment service providers to innovate and grow in Singapore while being regulated in a risk-proportionate manner. We have seen strong interest of more than 400 licence applications since the start of the Act last year. Another example is the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) FinTech regulatory sandbox which enables financial institutions and FinTech players to experiment with innovative financial products or services in a live environment but within a well-defined space and duration.
Second, a good infrastructure and ecosystem that enables new activities to scale. For example, in green finance, MAS is actively involved in developing an ASEAN taxonomy which will provide a common language on activities that are considered green and transition. This will catalyse more cross-border financing and investment flows to support the region's transition to a lower carbon future. In fintech, MAS has launched an API exchange platform, in partnership with the ASEAN Bankers Association and the International Financial Corporation, that has over the last three years helped more than 500 global FinTechs to connect with over 80 regional and global financial institutions through an online marketplace to co-create innovation solutions.
Third, working closely with the industry to build up skills and capabilities has been among the more unique strengths of our financial sector. It also ensures that Singaporeans are able to benefit from the new jobs created. For example, MAS helps financial institutions build their pipeline of talent through programmes such as the Technology in Finance Immersion Programme.
Ultimately, the continued growth of Singapore's financial centre depends on how well we connect global markets, support Asia's development, and serve Singapore's economy. We also need to stay innovative and agile, in the face of key structural trends like digitalisation and sustainability that are transforming the landscape.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make Public 2018 Review of 2013 Population White Paper","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will make public and publish in full its 2018 review of the 2013 Population White Paper.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): During the debate on the 2013 Population White Paper, the Government said that we would review the population projections and our policies again nearer to 2020. Since then, the Government has regularly explained population developments and reviewed its approach to population policies, including at the annual Committee of Supply (COS) debates as well as the annual Population in Brief publications.
An update on our population outlook was provided during the COS debate in 2018. At that update, the Government said that given recent trends, Singapore’s total population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. The details can be found in the public COS 2018 speech delivered on 1 March 2018.
The outlook provided in 2018 that our total population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030 remains valid today. Moreover, the ongoing COVID-19 situation has had an impact on our population numbers for 2020. We saw a slight decline in our total population last year but it is too early to assess the full impact at this point.
The Government closely monitors population trends and regularly reviews our population policies. We will continue to monitor the longer-term impact of COVID-19 and how it affects our population trends. This will ensure that our population strategies remain relevant to support a vibrant economy, and foster a cohesive society with a strong sense of national identity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processes in Civil Service to Manage Incidents and Review Policies and Practices of Discrimination by Race, Religion and Gender","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the formal processes in the Civil Service to (i) manage incidents of discrimination along racial, religious, and gender lines (ii) review policies, practices and institutions that result in differential treatment or discrimination by race, religion and gender and (iii) improve the current situation on such issues; and (b) whether the Civil Service will report on such issues on a regular basis to Parliament.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service has zero tolerance for discriminatory practices along racial, religious and gender lines. There are channels in place for public officers to raise complaints, allegations and grievances on such matters.
All public agencies have an Internal Disclosure Policy which sets out the procedure for the reporting of wrongful practices, including discrimination. An officer who feels that he or she is being discriminated against in the workplace can report such incidents. Apart from making such reports internally within their own departments or agencies, officers can escalate these cases to their Permanent Secretaries. Serious offences are reported by Ministries to the Public Service Division and Public Service Commission.
Every complaint will be looked into and where there is sufficient basis and information provided to establish a case, the appropriate action will be taken against the perpetrators. In the course of fact-finding, care will be taken to protect the interests and confidentiality of the complainant. Summary statistics on disciplinary cases in the Civil Service are part of the Commission’s annual report to the Parliament. Cases involving discriminatory practices are not singled out as a category in this report due to the small numbers.
The Public Service does not discriminate by race, religion or gender in our HR policies. We recruit and select public officers on the basis of merit and open competition and take into account the candidates’ overall suitability, such as their skills, relevant experiences and personal attributes, against the requirements of the job roles. Pay is based on merit and performance, and we emphasise fairness and rigour in our appraisal system. Promotion is on the basis of demonstrated performance and the ability to contribute at a higher level. In addition, our HR policies support our officers’ needs, at different stages of their working life, so that they can contribute to the best of their ability. Overall, this allows us to develop the potential of our public officers and drive performance in the Public Service to meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Prevent Fentanyl from Entering Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are put in place to prevent the drug fentanyl from entering Singapore given its lethal nature and increasing prevalence in Southeast Asia.
Mr K Shanmugam: Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is used as a painkiller, but it is also liable to abuse. Fentanyl is estimated to be 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.
Globally, fentanyl abuse has contributed to an increasing number of opioid overdose deaths, particularly in North America. These overdose deaths are partly attributed to the activities of organised crime groups, which misrepresent fentanyl as heroin or adulterate other illicit drugs with fentanyl. These substances are then trafficked to unsuspecting users.
Regionally, Asia has been frequently reported as a source of fentanyl found in other parts of the world. There are also indications that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and its analogues are becoming increasingly available in the ASEAN region.
Fentanyl is currently listed as a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). The trafficking, importation, manufacture and possession of fentanyl attract harsh penalties under the MDA.
There are so far no indications that fentanyl abuse has taken root locally. Nonetheless, we remain vigilant against its trafficking.
On 1 March 2021, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers from Changi Airfreight Centre, Air Cargo Command detected a parcel containing 200 vials, which are believed to contain fentanyl, along with other illicit medicines. This is the first known attempt to traffic fentanyl in its pure form into Singapore. The detection prompted a follow-up operation by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) which led to the arrest of three individuals, including the intended recipient of the parcel.
MHA will continue to monitor developments both globally and domestically concerning fentanyl and will regularly review our measures to ensure that they are adequate in deterring illicit activities involving fentanyl.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Police Force to Provide Assistance to Persons Locating Long-lost Adult Family Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Police Force may be minded to provide assistance to persons wanting to locate their long-lost adult family members.
Mr K Shanmugam: When Police receive a report on a missing person, investigations will be conducted to locate the person’s whereabouts. Police will accord priority to missing persons who may be at higher risk. These include young children, elderly persons, persons with intellectual disabilities such as dementia and those missing under suspicious circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Racially Charged Incidents Reported over Past Five Years and Singaporeans' Readiness to Navigate an Increasingly Polarised Society","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of racially charged incidents reported to the Police over the past five years; and (b) what is the Government’s assessment of Singaporeans' readiness to navigate an increasingly polarised society.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code cover acts that deliberately wound the racial and religious feelings of any person, that promote enmity between different racial and religious groups, or that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony. The number of cases reported to the Police between 2016 and 2020 which were classified under sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code are appended at Table 1.
The 2020 numbers show an increase. Timing wise, it is to be noted that a number of reports were filed during the period of the COVID-19 outbreak and also around the period of the General Elections.
The Members of Parliament asked about Singapore’s readiness to navigate polarisation, which is a growing concern all over the world.
In a 2019 survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and OnePeople.sg (OPSG), about 97% of respondents said the level of racial and religious harmony in Singapore was either moderate, high, or very high. According to the 2019 Gallup World Poll, 95% of respondents in Singapore reported that Singapore was “a good place to live” for racial and ethnic minorities. The global average was about 70%. We were ranked first worldwide among 124 countries polled for this question.
That said, as the Government has repeatedly said, we must accept that there remain fault lines along race and religion. And racism is also present. In the same 2019 IPS-OPSG survey, about a third of minorities perceived discrimination at work at least sometimes.
The Government will have to continue to be an objective and neutral arbiter and take action against anyone, regardless of race, who commits acts that sow enmity and threaten our racial harmony. This gives confidence to all communities that they can trust the Government to safeguard their interests and to hold the ring on our race relations.
However, not all allegations and accusations that surface in the public sphere cross the lines for prosecution or legal action. If we prosecute every allegation, no matter how trivial, this could stoke people into making police reports for any perceived racial slight, real or misunderstood, or deliberately exaggerated. Over time, this could instead escalate tensions between races and undermine our hard-earned social harmony.
The law cannot be the solution in every situation. It is important that we come together as a society to guard against social fractures and commit to growing our common space. While we should speak out against clear acts of racism, we should be judicious in how we raise issues, in ways that bridge differences and not deepen fault lines. If we do this, and continue to take action against discrimination wherever we see it, building on our already strong foundations, I am confident that we will become an even more cohesive and harmonious society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend in Number of Police Reports on Road Rage, Neighbour Disputes, Verbal Assault, Physical Assault and Nudity or Indecent Exposure in Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Home Affairs over the past three years, whether there is an increasing trend in the number of Police reports on (i) road rage incidents (ii) neighbour disputes (iii) verbal assault (iv) physical assault and (v) nudity or indecent exposure in public.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police do not track Police reports involving neighbour disputes, as \"neighbour disputes\" by itself is not a criminal offence. That said, if there are criminal offences involved, such as Voluntarily Causing Hurt (VCH), or harassment under the Protection From Harassment Act, then these will be tracked under the relevant offences.
As for Police reports over the past three years involving (i) road rage incidents; (ii) verbal assault; (iii) physical assault; and (iv) nudity or indecent exposure in public, the numbers are as follows:
9 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how is the Singapore Police Force building digital investigation capabilities for investigating online scams and digital fraud; and (b) how long does it take on average to solve each case.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police are pursuing a multi-pronged approach to building their digital investigation capabilities to combat cyber and cyber-enabled crimes, including online scams.
First, better organisation of resources. Since June 2015, the Singapore Police Force's (SPF) cyber-related investigations, forensics and crime prevention capabilities have been integrated under a single Cyber Crime Command (CCC) within the Criminal Investigation Department. The establishment of the CCC has allowed the SPF to achieve better coordination and coherence in their response to cybercrime.
To better combat scams, the Police will be forming an Anti-Scam Command later in 2021. The Anti-Scam Command will serve as the overall command centre for all scam-related investigations within the SPF, enhancing sensemaking and allowing for quicker and more targeted interventions and enforcement actions.
Second, formation of specialised units. The Police have set up three specialised scam suppression units that will report to the Anti-Scam Command. First, the Police set up the Transnational Commercial Crime Task Force (TCTF) in October 2017 to tackle transnational scams. Second, an E-Commerce Fraud Enforcement and Coordination Team (E-FECT) was set up in November 2018. Since its formation, the E-FECT has arrested 110 e-commerce scammers and solved about 2,250 e-commerce scams. Third, in June 2019, the Police set up the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC). The ASC’s focus is to mitigate victims’ losses, through the swift interdiction of the proceeds of the crime. Since ASC’s inception in June 2019, it has frozen about 16,000 bank accounts and recovered more than $120 million. During the same period, the ASC also worked with telecommunication companies and online marketplaces to terminate more than 2,200 scam-tainted phone lines and remove more than 3,300 suspicious online monikers and advertisements.
Third, better training of officers. Officers performing cybercrime investigations and digital forensics are given specialised training. For example, officers attend courses such as those offered by renowned cybersecurity training providers like the SANS Institute and Black Hat, to enhance their understanding and knowledge of various technical cyber areas, spanning malware analysis, intrusion detection and network penetration testing.
Fourth, harnessing technology to help solve crimes, such as digital forensics. One example is the Digital Forensic Kiosk, which is a self-service platform for Investigation Officers (IOs) to easily retrieve and analyse information from digital devices such as mobile phones and portable storage media.
Fifth, developing strategic partnerships with local stakeholders and international partners. In 2017, the Police set up a dedicated public-private industry platform – the Alliance of Public Private Cybercrime Stakeholders, comprising technology giants such as Facebook and Google, telcos, banks, web hosting companies, e-commerce platforms and fintech companies. The aim is to increase cybercrime awareness in the private sector through structured engagement and to establish key partnerships to achieve operational effectiveness in combating cybercrime. Police also work closely with our overseas counterparts and INTERPOL to investigate cases with a foreign nexus.
How quickly a case is solved is dependent on many different factors and differs across the different types of online scams. Also, cases where the perpetrators are outside Singapore, which is most of the cases, will take much longer and it may not even be possible to identify the perpetrators. As such, SPF does not track the amount of time it takes to complete investigations. It is not meaningful since each case would differ in its facts and circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Prison Inmates Diagnosed with Mental Health Issues in 2020 and Impact of COVID-19 on Forensic Psychiatry Community Service and Care Teams of Institute of Mental Health for Release Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of prison inmates who have sought help for, or were diagnosed as having, mental health issues in 2020; and (b) how has follow-up case work by the Forensic Psychiatry Community Service and care teams of the Institute of Mental Health for released offenders been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr K Shanmugam: All inmates admitted to prison are assessed on the state of their mental health. Inmates diagnosed with mental health needs but whose condition is more stable are housed with the general inmate population and seen regularly by prison psychiatrists. They undergo a prison regime similar to that for other inmates and benefit from mainstream rehabilitation programmes and work and education opportunities.
Inmates who are diagnosed to require specialised treatment are housed in the Psychiatric Housing Unit (PHU) in Changi Prison Complex. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) engages the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) to conduct psychiatric treatment programmes, including therapy and counselling, for the inmates at the PHU. A multi-disciplinary team comprising prison officers, psychiatrists, psychologists and occupational therapists work together to manage the inmates in the PHU.
About 12% of inmates in our prisons as at 31 December 2020 received care for mental health needs, with the most common being insomnia, adjustment disorder and depressive episodes. Most of these inmates’ conditions are stable and do not require specialised treatment at the PHU.
Depending on the inmate’s mental condition and needs, SPS may make referrals to IMH or polyclinics for follow-up care after the inmate’s release from prison. Inmates whose conditions are severe enough to warrant immediate follow-up are sent directly to IMH for further assessment on the day of their release.
The Forensic Psychiatry Community Service (FPCS) was set up by IMH in 2012 to provide continued treatment and services to ex-offenders with mental health needs. After the FPCS programme, if required, they would either be referred to IMH’s regional care teams for specialist follow-up in the community, or to regional general hospitals or general practitioners of their choice.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, FPCS and IMH’s regional care teams have shifted to using tele-consultation to deliver their services, such as video conferencing, text-messaging, and telephone calls.
SPS and IMH will continue to work closely to support inmates and ex-offenders with mental health needs. IMH will also regularly review the operations of FPCS and the regional care teams so that services can continue to be provided effectively and safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Speeding Cases of Lorries Travelling above 60km/h over Past Five Years and Traffic Police's Rules of Engagement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the rules of engagement when the Traffic Police spots a lorry travelling at a speed higher than 60 kilometres per hour (km/hr); (b) how many of such speeding cases have been detected over the past five years; and (c) of these cases, how many are stopped by Traffic Police officers and how many are caught through submissions of dashcam footages.
Mr K Shanmugam: Lorries ferrying workers in the rear deck, as well as those with a maximum laden weight greater than 3,500 kilogrammes, have a vehicle speed limit of 60 km/h; otherwise the speed limit is 70 km/h.
When Traffic Police (TP) officers spot any vehicle, including lorries, travelling in excess of either its vehicle or the road speed limit, they will direct the driver to stop at the side of the road, explain that they have committed a speeding offence and take enforcement action against the driver.
From 2016 to 2020, TP detected a total of 19,758 speeding violations involving Singapore-registered lorries. This includes lorries which were caught travelling at a speed higher than either its vehicle or the road speed limit.
Of these speeding violations involving Singapore-registered lorries, 82% were detected by TP patrol officers and 18% were caught by fixed speed enforcement cameras.
TP is not able to take enforcement action against drivers for speeding solely based on the submission of dashcam footages from other vehicles, as it is not possible to verify the actual speed of the alleged speeding vehicle through such footage. It is necessary to determine the actual speed of the vehicle in order to mete out composition fines and demerit points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Claiming to Improve Chances of Securing Permanent Residency in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry is aware of companies claiming to be able to improve the chances of securing permanent residence in Singapore; and (b) whether such claims run contrary to public policy regarding immigration policies.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) is aware of companies that claim to be able to help applicants improve their success in obtaining long-term immigration facilities in Singapore, including Permanent Residence.
ICA does not support or endorse the services offered by these companies. All PR applications are evaluated objectively and rigorously by ICA, based on the applicant’s ability to contribute to Singapore and commitment to sinking roots here.
Applicants who choose to engage the services of these companies are advised to exercise caution. Companies that publish false or misleading advertisements about their services will be referred to the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS), who will investigate and take action on advertisements that breach the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislative and Jurisprudential Safeguards in Place to Ensure Singapore Complies with General Recommendation No 35 of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of Singapore's ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (a) whether existing laws against racist hate speech are consistent with paragraph 20 of the General Recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that measures to monitor and combat racist speech should not be used as a pretext to curtail expressions of protest at injustice, social discontent or opposition; and (b) what legislative and jurisprudential safeguards are in place to ensure that Singapore complies with this recommendation.
Mr K Shanmugam: Our existing laws against racist hate and offensive speech are consistent with paragraph 20 of the General Recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to commit acts that deliberately wound the racial feelings of any person, promote enmity between different racial groups, or conduct acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony. These laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race. A couple of relatively recent examples when these laws were used are as follows.
In January 2019, we charged a Chinese man under the Penal Code for deliberate intent to wound the racial feelings of the Malay population. The man had scrawled racist messages about Malays on walls in void decks and sheltered walkways in Geylang and Aljunied.
In June 2020, we charged a Malay man who used a Twitter account with a Chinese name “@sharonliew86” to make racist remarks against people of different races. Amongst others, he (prima facie pretending to be a Chinese lady) made racist comments against Indians.
As Members know, there are other recent examples, and also situations where warnings have been given, instead of prosecutions in Court.
The law does not prohibit speech on race which does not cross into hate speech, or racially derogatory speech. Neither does it prohibit commentary and sharing of opinions or experiences on race. Members will know that on racial issues, a significant amount of discussion, commentary, sharing of experiences, and more, takes place, regularly. But we take a strict approach to offensive speech and hate speech.
The reasons for our approach were set out in a Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore made by the Minister for Home Affairs, on 1 April 2019. [Please refer to “Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore”, Official Report, 1 April 2019, Volume 94, Issue No 102, Ministerial Statement section.]
We apply this approach equally to all, regardless of majority or minority. This approach affords greater protection for minorities, by making it safe for them to speak about their experiences, and their views. Otherwise, in a situation where racially offensive speech by all is tolerated or allowed, and both majority and minority communities engage in such speech, it can be expected that more of such speech will be directed towards minority communities. And it will be the minority communities who will then bear the brunt of such offensive speech. That will ironically reduce the safe space for discussion of such issues, and increase minority community concerns for safety and security. These are not hypotheticals. This is what has happened in several other countries. We need to be careful about changing what has worked reasonably well in Singapore (though it is not perfect), and replacing it with policies which have not worked so well, in other places.
Our laws are the subject of scrutiny in Parliament, and enforcement of the laws is done through the Courts.
I would add that the CERD Committee has similarly taken the view that the protection of persons from racist hate speech is not incompatible and is not \"simply one of opposition\" with the freedom of expression. In fact, the General Recommendation emphasises that legislation against racial discrimination is \"indispensable\" to combating hate speech effectively and that States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination must effectively sanction racist hate speech as offences. In the words of the Committee, \"racist hate speech potentially silences the free speech of its victims\". These views of the CERD Committee are consistent with our approach.
It is not clear if the Member is suggesting that whenever anyone claims to be protesting at injustice, expressing social discontent, or speaking in opposition, then such a person should be exempted from the above cited Penal Code provisions and that such a person should be allowed to engage in hate or offensive speech? We invite the Member to clarify.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of Sexual Assault Cases Reported and Number of Individuals Arrested and Charged for Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape between 2017 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs between 2017 and 2020 (a) what is the number of reports made by victims of sexual assault, the breakdown by race, and the number of cases in which the perpetrators are family members and relatives; and (b) how many individuals have been arrested and charged for (i) sexual assault and (ii) statutory rape.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2017 and 2020, there were 9,200 reports of sexual assault, including rape, sexual assault by penetration, outrage of modesty, and sexual offences involving children and vulnerable victims. Of these, 869 were allegedly committed by family members or relatives.
Between 2017 and 2020, 1,858 offenders were charged for sexual assault offences, of whom 44 were charged for rape of a person below 14 years of age.
We do not provide the racial composition of victims of any crime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for Determining Reserve Prices for Sites under Government Land Sales and Industrial Government Land Sales programmes and Statistics on Sites Awarded in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the basis for determining the reserve prices for sites under the Government Land Sales (GLS) and Industrial Government Land Sales (IGLS) programmes; (b) for sites that have been put up for sale in the last five years, what is the number of sites that are not awarded as the highest bid is below the reserve price; and (c) what is the average percentage premium of the winning bid versus the reserve price for sites that are awarded.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Reserve Price for sites sold under the Government Land Sales (GLS) and Industrial GLS programmes is pegged to 85% of the estimated market value of each site, as assessed by the Chief Valuer’s Office (CVO), taking into account proposed land use and site-specific conditions, relevant land sale transactions as well as rental and sale transactions of completed buildings. The Reserve Price serves as an internal guide to assess if tender bids are reflective of the fair market value of the land being put up for sale. Bids below the Reserve Price are not automatically ruled out; whether a site is awarded depends on the prevailing market conditions, number of independent bids received and the specific circumstances of each site.
Of the 133 sites launched for tender between 2016 and 2021, 17 were not awarded as the highest bids were deemed not reflective of the fair market value of the land. Of the sites that were awarded, the majority were within 15% of CVO’s estimated market value.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Trade Associations and Chambers that Received Funding from Local Enterprise and Association Development programme and Amount Disbursed Since Its 2018 Enhancement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many trade associations and chambers have received funding from the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme since its enhancement in 2018; and (b) how much has been disbursed under the LEAD programme since then.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2021, 52 trade associations and chambers have received LEAD funding for a total of 112 projects. A total of $55,301,993.28 was disbursed under the LEAD programme over the same period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Impact of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project on Outlook of Singapore's Technology Sector and Preserving Singapore as a Favoured Hub for Technology Multinational Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential impact of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS 2.0) on the outlook of Singapore's technology sector; and (b) what are the steps that the Government will be taking to preserve Singapore's competitiveness as a favoured hub for technology multinational companies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Last week, 130 countries and jurisdictions, including Singapore, agreed to reform international taxation rules under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 Project. Details on the final parameters, design and implementation will need to be discussed at the OECD in the coming months. Therefore, there remains significant uncertainty in terms of the possible impact on the technology sector and on Singapore.
When the details have been finalised, all jurisdictions will need to adjust their tax regimes to be compliant with the new rules, or cede tax revenue to other jurisdictions. Any adjustments to Singapore’s tax system will aim to minimise the compliance burden for businesses and ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive place for these global technology companies to do business. We are closely monitoring these international developments and engaging industry stakeholders to better scope our response.
Singapore’s competitiveness goes beyond our taxation rates. Our key fundamentals remain strong. We have built a vibrant technology hub with deep capabilities, secure infrastructure, strong intellectual property protection regime and dense ecosystem of local and global enterprises. We will push on with our efforts to enhance the technology ecosystem, through initiatives such as reskilling and upskilling the local workforce in emerging tech skills, welcoming experienced global tech talent and investing in research and development to strengthen the innovation capabilities of our enterprises. We are therefore confident that even as the window for tax competition narrows, global technology companies will continue to find Singapore a compelling place to do business.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extreme Weather Conditions Affecting Outdoor Electrical Installations and Frequency of Checks on Electrical Installations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does extreme weather conditions affect outdoor electrical installations; (b) whether there is a requirement for a minimum frequency of checks on electrical installations that applies to all town councils and LTA; (c) if so, whether this frequency will be increased; and (d) whether there are plans to deploy artificial intelligence technology to support this increase.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Weather conditions such as direct sunlight and heavy rain may accelerate the deterioration of electrical equipment. To address these risks, the Energy Market Authority of Singapore (EMA) regulates electrical installations in Singapore via the Electricity (Electrical Installations) Regulations. Under these regulations, both indoor and outdoor electrical installations must meet the technical requirements specified in Singapore’s Code of Practice for electrical installations (known as SS638:2018). These include minimum protection standards for electrical installations against direct sunlight and rain water, so that they can operate safely in a range of local weather conditions.
EMA requires electrical installations to be inspected and certified fit for operation by a licensed electrical worker (LEW) at least once a year, with electrical installations in higher-risk settings or premises subject to more regular inspection and certification. For example, electrical installations at construction sites must be inspected monthly, while those in HDB estates and public areas must be inspected at least once every six months. These requirements can be found at the following website: https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Handbook/Handbook_for_Application_of_Electrical_Installation_Licence.pdf.
EMA will review the frequency of inspections from time to time as needed, depending on various factors such as industry feedback on changes in safety risk of the electrical installations. EMA is also actively exploring ways to leverage technology to enhance the safety and reliability of the electricity system, including monitoring the real-time operating conditions of the electricity grid. EMA will study the suitability of deploying new technologies, including artificial intelligence, when they become available and feasible for deployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact and Strategies to Address Drop in Singapore's World Competitiveness Ranking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons behind Singapore's drop in ranking from first to fifth in the Institute for Management Development's World Competitiveness Ranking; (b) whether this will have any severe adverse impact in attracting investments to Singapore; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to enhance Singapore's competitiveness in the short and long term.
20 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the number of companies that have taken a decision in the past year to move their regional or global headquarters out of Singapore; and (b) what are the key strategies to address the slump in our global competitiveness rankings.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The questions will be addressed by the Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng on 6 July 2021. [Please refer to \"Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower\", Official Report, 6 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 32, Ministerial Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Companies Placed on Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist and Current Breakdown in Singapore Standard Industrial Classification 2015","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies are currently on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist; and (b) what are the criteria for putting a company on the watchlist; and (c) whether the threshold percentage of a company's workforce from a single nationality is one of the criteria.
22 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2005 to 2020, how many nationals from China, India, USA and Australia have been issued (i) Employment Passes (ii) S Passes (iii) Work Permits (excluding foreign domestic workers) and (iv) letters of consent respectively.
23 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current proportion of nationals from China, India, USA, and Australia by industry; and (b) what are the commonly held jobs by these nationals in each industry.
24 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower what is the current breakdown of the numbers of Employment Pass holders, S Pass holders and Work Permit holders (excluding foreign domestic workers) by industry as per the breakdown in the Singapore Standard Industrial Classification 2015.
Dr Tan See Leng: The questions will be addressed by the Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng on 6 July 2021.[Please refer to \"Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower\", Official Report, 6 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 32, Ministerial Statement section.]
25 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the global shortage of semiconductor chips (a) how can Singapore leverage on its current semiconductor ecosystem to seize growth opportunities, (b) how will the larger economy benefit from larger semiconductor investment; and (c) how can our workforce prepare for this growth.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore has a globally competitive semiconductor industry. Ten of the 15 largest semiconductor companies, such as GlobalFoundries, Micron and Infineon, have research and development and/or manufacturing operations in Singapore. These companies have invested here because of our skilled talent, excellent global connectivity, ease of doing business and well developed semiconductor research and manufacturing ecosystem.
The long-term prospects of the industry are bright. Demand for Integrated Circuits (IC) is expected to remain strong as growth drivers such as the adoption of electric vehicles, 5G technology, cloud and Internet-of-Things (IOT) gain momentum. Singapore is well positioned to seize these opportunities. Our semiconductor manufacturing facilities are working at full steam to meet the strong demand and keep supply chains intact. Some are also considering expansion plans. For example, GlobalFoundries recently announced that it would be investing more than S$5 billion to build a new wafer fabrication facility here.
Such investments create good jobs for our people, allow us to build up the capabilities of our companies, generate strong spinoffs to other sectors such as precision engineering and sustain the virtuous cycle that keeps our semiconductor sector vibrant. The semiconductor manufacturing industry employs over 33,000 people and accounted for almost 7% of our GDP last year. Over 1,600 companies, including many SMEs, are suppliers to semiconductor firms here. It is also one of the largest contributors to Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) and our wider research ecosystem.
To maintain the competitiveness of our semiconductor sector, we will continue to forge strong partnerships between companies, research institutes and our universities; strengthen our capabilities in targeted specialty segments; and strive to be the location of choice for companies to establish best-in-class operations. We are investing resources into semiconductor research under RIE2025. EDB is also working closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning and the Singapore Semiconductor Industry Association to ensure we have up-to-date training programmes and that we continue to train jobseekers – including mid-careerists who may not have prior experience in the sector – to fill the new, high-quality jobs in the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Lower Rates of COVID-19 Vaccination in Most ASEAN Countries on Singapore's Economy and Strategies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination in most ASEAN countries (a) how will the Singapore economy be affected; and (b) how will this affect Singapore’s near to mid-term economic strategies with the ASEAN economies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: If the COVID-19 vaccination rates of many Southeast Asian countries remain low, they may affect Singapore in two ways.
First, it leaves our neighbouring countries susceptible to recurring waves of COVID-19 infections, which may require governments to implement social and mobility restrictions in order to control the public health situation. Such measures usually impede their domestic economic activity.
Second, low vaccination rates will likely slow down the pace of border reopening and the resumption of travel, not just for business but also tourism, another important driver of economic growth for the region. Both of these will affect Singapore's economic recovery, given our economic integration with our neighbours and the importance of regional travel to our hub status.
Nevertheless, the IMF has projected that the overall GDP growth rate of Southeast Asia in 2021 would be 4.9%, with the projected growth rates of individual countries ranging between 2.6% and 6.9%. While the projected 2021 GDP growth rates of some of our Southeast Asian neighbours had earlier been revised downwards due to their domestic COVID-19 situations, the impact on the Singapore economy is expected to be moderate. In particular, merchandise trade between Singapore and our neighbours is expected to remain healthy in tandem with the global and regional economic recoveries. Even amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, total merchandise trade between Singapore and Southeast Asian countries in 2020 was $239.6 billion, which was a slight decrease of 7.7% year-on-year. In the first quarter of 2021, total merchandise trade between Singapore and Southeast Asian countries was $69.3 billion, which was an increase of 6.3% compared to the same period last year.
In the long term, vaccination rates will improve and COVID-19 is likely to become endemic. The region’s underlying economic fundamentals remain strong and compelling, notwithstanding the impact of the pandemic. The economic prospects of Southeast Asia remain positive. The IMF has forecast that the region’s overall GDP would grow by more than 5% year-on-year from 2022 to 20251. This is buoyed by Southeast Asia’s young and dynamic population, and growing middle class, which makes the region one of the fastest growing consumer markets in the world. Consumers are also increasingly moving online, with almost 70% of the region’s population transacting online,2 making Southeast Asia an attractive market for the digital economy. Singapore will continue to pursue closer economic integration with Southeast Asia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2021","2 : Source: 2020 e-Conomy SEA Report by Bain & Company, Google, and Temasek"],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Plans in Place to Reskill and Upskill Small and Medium-sized Automotive Repair Shops to Handle and Repair Electric Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the plans in place to reskill and upskill staff of small and medium sized automotive repair shops to handle and repair electric vehicles in the coming years; (b) whether the Government will provide support for the infrastructure upgrades in these shops that are needed for the repair and maintenance of electric vehicles; and (c) if so, what kind of support it will entail.
Mr S Iswaran: Our vision for all vehicles to run on cleaner energy by 2040 would require our workers in the automotive industry to pick up new skills that can be applied to hybrid or electric vehicle platforms.
The Government will support the transition. Enterprise Singapore (ESG), Workforce Singapore and JTC Corporation supported the setting up of the Singapore Motor Workshop Association (SMWA) Training Academy in December 2020 to equip our maintenance workers with new skills to maintain electric vehicle (EV) components and charging systems. Over the next three years, the Academy will train at least 1,000 automotive workshop technicians in Singapore to maintain EVs. In addition, distributors will also work with automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to train workers in aftermarket services.
Automotive workshops can tap on existing schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant administered by ESG, to build new capabilities such as maintaining EV components and charging systems. Companies can also access ESG’s Enterprise Financing Scheme (Fixed Assets) to help fund the purchase of new workshop infrastructure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Assurance for Taxi or Private hire Drivers infected with COVID-19 during Course of Ferrying Frontline Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide some level of income assurance should taxi or private hire vehicle drivers get infected with COVID-19 during their course of ferrying frontline workers so as to cover their loss of income during their recovery and quarantine period.
Mr S Iswaran: Taxi and private hire car (PHC) drivers are frontline workers who play an important role in ferrying essential workers and Singaporeans every day. Our first priority is to protect them in the course of duty. This is why taxi and PHC drivers who depend on driving for their livelihoods were prioritised to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
In addition, drivers do receive support if they are quarantined or contract COVID-19 in the course of duty. Drivers who have been served Quarantine Orders can apply for a $100 per day allowance under the Quarantine Order Allowance Scheme, which is administered by the Ministry of Health. The National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and the operators have also been providing additional rental waivers and allowances to their drivers who were tested positive for COVID-19. Drivers who contracted COVID-19 while serving in situations of heightened COVID-19 risk are also eligible for a one-time relief of $3,000 through The Courage Fund, which is administered by the National Council of Social Service.
In recognition of the reduced ridership levels, the Government has been providing active taxi and PHC drivers with COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund (CDRF) payouts to sustain their livelihoods as they continue to serve commuters. This includes the recent extension of the CDRF to September 2021.
Taxi and PHC operators have also reminded their drivers to take additional precautions to protect their health and safety. These include stepping up the cleaning and disinfection of their vehicles, not using the recirculation mode of their vehicle’s air-conditioning system and to wind down their windows after every trip to improve ventilation within their vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps Taken to Segregate Persons Arriving in Flights from Countries with Higher Risk of COVID-19 Transmission and Measures Undertaken at Points of Entry to Singapore to Reduce Risk of Transmission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the steps taken to segregate persons arriving in flights from countries with a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission; and (b) what other mitigating measures are undertaken at the airport or various points of entry to Singapore, to reduce the risk of transmission to others.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his questions. I will address them at the 6 July 2021 Parliament sitting. [Please refer to “Update on COVID-19-related Processes for Visitor Entry and Airport Worker Deployment”, Official Report, 6 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 32, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
30 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport between 1 March 2021 and 15 May 2021 (a) what is the number of passengers who have flown from India to Singapore who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Singapore; (b) what immigration passes have they been issued with on arrival; and (c) what are the numbers for each category of these passes.
Mr S Iswaran: From 1 March 2021 to 23 April 2021, there were 9,040 arrivals from India who were neither citizens nor permanent residents of Singapore. Of these, 8,404 were long-term pass holders, with the majority being work permit holders from the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors to support key strategic projects and infrastructural works. The remaining 636 were short-term visit pass holders.
After border health measures were tightened on 24 April 2021 to disallow all long-term pass holders and short-term visit pass holders with travel history to India, only 11 who were neither citizens nor permanent residents have entered upon appeal, due to exceptional circumstances, such as being dependents of citizens or permanent residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Transit Passengers from India between 1 March 2021 and 15 May 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport between 1 March 2021 and 15 May 2021, what is the number of passengers who flew from India and arrived in Changi Airport as transit passengers en route to a further destination.
Mr S Iswaran: Transfer and transit passengers from India have not been allowed at Changi Airport since commercial scheduled flights ceased in late March 2020.
Between 1 March 2021 and 15 May 2021, two travellers were granted special dispensation to fly from India through Singapore to their final destination on an Indian Government-approved chartered flight operated by an Indian carrier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Registered Unmanned Aircrafts and Persons Who Obtained UA Basic Training Certificate and UA Pilot Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, what are the numbers of (i) unmanned aircrafts (UAs) that have been registered (ii) persons who have obtained a UA Basic Training Certificate and (iii) persons who have obtained a UA Pilot Licence; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide some examples of the commercial usage of UAs for which licences have been granted.
Mr S Iswaran: As at 31 May 2021, about 12,000 unmanned aircraft (UA) have been registered, close to 800 persons have obtained a UA Basic Training Certificate (UABTC), and close to 700 persons have obtained a UA Pilot License (UAPL).
All UA pilots who operate UA for commercial purposes are required to hold a UAPL. Examples of commercial usage include the use of UA to inspect infrastructure, carry out land survey and mapping, and conduct aerial photography and videography.
33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, how many taxi and private-hire vehicle drivers have been diagnosed with COVID-19; (b) in how many instances are their household members infected too; (c) what is their median and 90th percentile duration away from work and income loss as a result respectively; and (d) what income and welfare support has been provided to help affected drivers in need.
Mr S Iswaran: As of June 2021, 43 taxi and private hire car (PHC) drivers (fewer than 0.1% of active taxi and PHC drivers) have been diagnosed with COVID-19. In six instances, their household members could have been infected by the drivers.
We do not have data on the duration away from work and income loss for the median and 90th percentile COVID-19-positive taxi and PHC driver. These outcomes would vary significantly across individuals, and would depend on factors such as individuals’ physical health, working hours, vehicle type and ridership demand, which in turn is affected by prevailing safe management measures.
Drivers who contract COVID-19 in the course of duty receive financial support, such as additional rental waivers and allowances from the National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and operators. Drivers who contract COVID-19 while serving in situations of heightened COVID-19 risk may also apply for one-time relief of $3,000 through The Courage Fund, which is administered by the National Council of Social Service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Size of Taxi Fleet from 2010 to 2020 and Provision of Booking Hotline for Point-to-point Service Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the change in the size of the taxi fleet from 2010 to 2020; and (b) whether point-to-point service operators should provide a booking hotline for residents who are unable or do not know how to use the smartphone booking applications.
Mr S Iswaran: The taxi population has decreased from about 26,100 taxis in 2010 to about 15,700 taxis in 2020.
After transiting to the new regulatory regime for the point-to-point transport sector in 2020, we have continued to require street-hail operators to provide a call booking service. This is to ensure that point-to-point services remain accessible to commuters who need to rely on such services. Today, there are about 10,000 trips per day booked by call booking services.
35 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider (i) working with transport operators to introduce more on-demand, metered services for users of motorised and high-back wheelchairs who currently have limited options for affordable and on-demand point-to-point transport and (ii) encouraging operators, through subsidies or otherwise, to acquire vehicles which are able to accommodate larger motorised and high-back wheelchairs.
Mr S Iswaran: Today, users of motorised and high-back wheelchairs can book on-demand point-to-point (P2P) services, such as SMRT’s London Cabs, ComfortDelGro’s MaxiCabs and minibuses, and Grab’s GrabAssistPlus. They may also book transport services from other private providers such as SilverFleet, Caregiver Asia and Caring Fleet.
The Government has schemes to defray transport costs for persons with disabilities (PWDs), including users of motorised and high-back wheelchairs who are facing financial difficulties. SG Enable’s Taxi Subsidy Scheme (TSS) covers up to 80% of PWDs’ transport costs for travelling to school, work or employment-related training.
The Government will continue to work with stakeholders, including transport operators, to ensure that there is sufficient supply of P2P services for motorised and high-back wheelchair users and other PWDs. The Ministry of Transport will work on this through the newly-formed Steering Committee for the next Enabling Masterplan, as part of a broader effort to chart the roadmap for an inclusive society till 2030.
36 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the implementation of tray returns at hawker centres and food courts (a) what guidelines are in place to ensure that there are sufficient tray return locations at hawker centres and food courts and the accessibility of these stations; and (b) whether there are consultations with hawker and food centre committees to determine appropriate numbers and proper siting of these stations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) works with Hawkers’ Associations and Town Councils to ensure adequate provision and appropriate siting of tray and crockery return racks in hawker centres, taking into account factors such as the visibility of the racks and the availability of accessible locations to install them.
As part of the Clean Tables Campaign, NEA is installing 75 more tray and crockery return racks at hawker centres, on top of the 900 existing racks, and improving the table-cleaning workflow. This is done in consultation with key stakeholders, including Hawkers’ Associations, hawkers, as well as cleaning companies and cleaners. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and NEA are also engaging food court and coffee shop operators to install tray and crockery return infrastructure at visible locations, and to improve their table-cleaning workflow.
All of us have to play our part to keep our public dining spaces clean and safe. Returning our dirty trays and crockery after meals will enable cleaners to focus on cleaning and sanitising tables. This will allow for a cleaner and more hygienic dining environment and better protect us against COVID-19 and public health risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introduction of Smoking Cabins in Residential Areas to Regulate Smoking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider introducing smoking cabins in residential areas such as condominiums and allow the management corporation strata title to regulate via by-laws that smoking can only be done at such cabins.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Condominiums’ management corporations, or MCSTs, can carry out improvements to the common property and enact by-laws to manage the development, including for the deployment of smoking cabins in non-smoking prohibited areas within the development, subject to the relevant provisions under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Diversification of Supply of Vegetables into Singapore to Mitigate against Price Increases and Measures to Deter Illegal Imports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the supply of vegetables into Singapore is sufficiently diversified to mitigate against the rise in the price of vegetables from Malaysia; (b) whether the Singapore Food Agency has recorded a spike in the import of illegal vegetables in the last six to 12 months; and (c) whether existing enforcement measures are sufficient to deter the illegal import of vegetables.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Import source diversification is a key strategy to reduce the risk of food supply disruption and price fluctuations. Singapore’s supply of vegetables is diversified across 58 countries and regions (compared to 53 countries and regions in 2016). Local production contributed to about 13% of leafy vegetables consumption in 2020.
The supply of leafy vegetables is susceptible to inclement weather and pest infestation from time to time which may affect their prices in the short term. However, our suppliers are generally able to find alternative sources quickly. The retail prices of vegetables saw some fluctuations in May 2021, arising from inclement weather and temporary COVID-19 related supply disruptions. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will continue to closely monitor the supply situation, and work with the industry to diversify vegetable imports and enhance local production.
SFA has not observed a spike in the import of illegal vegetables in the last six to 12 months. For the first half of 2021, SFA detected 14 cases of illegal vegetable imports, compared to 41 and 21 cases in 2019 and 2020 respectively.
SFA allows only licensed importers to import vegetables, and every consignment must be accompanied with a valid import permit. SFA conducts regular inspections to ensure compliance with food safety standards and requirements. Samples are taken to SFA’s National Centre for Food Science to check that they meet regulatory requirements. Imported vegetables that fail SFA’s inspections and tests, or that are illegally imported, are not allowed for sale.
To deter illegal importing activities, SFA has taken a range of enforcement actions, including composition fine, licence suspension and prosecution in court. Offenders may be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to three years, or both. SFA will continue to monitor the trends and adjust its regulatory regime if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Progress of Adaptive Learning Initiative in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he will provide an update on the progress of the adaptive learning initiative in schools; (b) whether there are pilot programmes planned in schools which will facilitate the adaptive learning initiative; and (c) what infrastructure developments are necessary to be undertaken in schools that will facilitate adaptive learning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Developing an AI-enabled adaptive learning system to support teaching and learning in our schools is part of MOE’s plans under Singapore’s National AI Strategy. This approach complements the role of the teacher, who remains central to the learning experience. The system will use machine learning to tell how each student responds to learning materials and activities, and customise learning for each student. In the process, we seek to improve learning outcomes for our students, especially among the lower-progress learners.
We plan to introduce the adaptive learning system in a progressive and systematic manner starting with Primary and Lower Secondary Mathematics. The system will be piloted with a few schools in 2022, so that we can glean learning points and inform our approach on more pervasive deployment. Subsequently, we will consider extending the system to other subjects and other levels.
The adaptive learning system will be integrated with the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS), our national online learning platform for schools. This will ensure that all students and teachers have easy access to the system, and allow a seamless blending of adaptive learning capabilities with the learning resources and tools in SLS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Creation of Online Portals for Students Struggling with Mental Health to Talk to School Counsellors Anonymously","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether online portals can be created to allow students to talk to their school counsellors anonymously so as to encourage students struggling with mental health to open up within a safe space.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To support students struggling with mental health issues, students are encouraged to seek help from their school counsellors. Schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) encourage students to identify themselves when seeking assistance from counsellors. This allows counsellors to better help students and follow up with them, especially if the issues faced by the students are more complex. Counsellors can also better establish rapport with the students and create a safe space for them to open up.
For students who prefer anonymity, there are local online portals (e.g. Tinkle Friend, eC2, SOS) available. Students are informed of these portals and encouraged to seek help if needed. In addition to these portals, some IHLs have their own counselling platforms that maintain students’ anonymity.
MOE will continue to provide resources to support students in distress, destigmatise and encourage help seeking, and leverage community resources and helplines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contingency Plans in Event of Tightened COVID-19 Measures Required When National Examinations Are about to Start or On-going","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has contingency plans in the event that tightened COVID-19 measures are required when national examinations are about to start or are ongoing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: National examinations are important milestones that affect students’ educational progression. MOE and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board are monitoring the COVID-19 situation closely and contingency plans to manage potential disruptions are in place.
To ensure the well-being and safety of candidates and examination personnel in the examination centres, Safe Management Measures and examination arrangements, similar to those adopted in 2020 national examinations, would be implemented for this year’s national examinations. Students who are tested positive for COVID-19, or who have been issued a Quarantine Order, Stay-Home Notice, or given a Leave Of Absence due to close contact with confirmed COVID-19 case(s) would not be allowed to sit for examinations.
Students who miss the national examinations due to COVID-19 related reasons can apply for special consideration. All special consideration applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis and subjected to a rigorous review process.
Timely updates will be disseminated to schools, parents and candidates should there be any changes to the examination arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Students Suffering from Selective Mutism and Support Systems Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) for the past five years, how many students have been suffering from selective mutism; and (b) what are the support systems available for these students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years (2016 to 2020), we have on average about 260 students (or less than 0.1% of our student population) reported to experience selective mutism in our mainstream schools.
Students who are diagnosed with selective mutism by healthcare professionals are supported in the following ways in our schools:
In the classroom, our teachers allow more “warm up” time to ease them into lessons, such as have them arrive early, allowing for practice time before entering into a large group. Teachers also provide them with alternative modes of responding in the classroom to encourage participation, for example, by writing or using visual cues, or using technology such as WhatsApp and Padlet. During examinations that require speaking or presentations, special accommodations can be provided so that these students are not penalised for their inhibition in speaking.
The School Counsellors and Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) also support the students. They work with the parents and teachers to guide students to identify their anxiety and develop strategies to cope.
Students with selective mutism also benefit from peer support. Groups of peers are commonly formed in schools to provide circles of friendship and emotional support, and provide interventions to help children face their fears and manage anxiety.
Schools also tap on the Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams to further support these students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Degrees and Diplomas in Social Work Awarded by NUS and SUSS in Each of Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, broken down by the degrees awarded, how many students respectively applied for, were accepted into, were enrolled in or graduated with (i) an NUS undergraduate major in Social Work (ii) an NUS graduate diploma in Social Work (iii) an SUSS undergraduate degree in Social Work or (iv) an SUSS graduate diploma in social work; and (b) if such data is not being collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting it.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Between 2016 and 2020, around 100 undergraduate students in NUS declared and graduated with a Major in Social Work each year. SUSS launched its full-time undergraduate degree programme in Social Work in 2016 with an intake of 52, which has increased to over 80 in recent years. The first cohort graduated in 2020.
Besides full-time undergraduate degrees, CET programmes such as part-time undergraduate degrees, graduate diplomas, and master’s by coursework programmes from NUS and SUSS also contribute to the pipeline of social workers. The number of graduates from such programmes is around 300 a year since AY2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Aid Youths in Their Command of Vernacular Languages to Facilitate Employment Opportunities in ASEAN/Asian Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there will be more initiatives introduced, particularly for youths, to ensure that they do not lose their command of vernacular languages; and (b) what are the schemes and programmes to aid their command of such languages which ability will facilitate employment opportunities in the ASEAN/Asian region.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our education system encourages Singaporeans to learn the Mother Tongue Languages (MTL) not only to remain connected to their heritage and strengthen their Singaporean identity, but also to enable them to connect with MTL-speaking communities across Asia and the world.
In schools, we encourage students of different language abilities to sustain their interest to pursue MTL learning to as high a level and for as long as possible. For example, we offer the Higher MTL and MTL Elective Programmes in schools to stretch those who are capable, and make provision through Foundation MTL and MTL \"B\" to support those who find MTLs more challenging to still acquire basic language skills.
Besides that, for those keen to learn an additional language other than their own MTL, we offer the Malay and Chinese Special Programmes, and encourage schools to conduct Conversational Chinese and Malay.
The MTL Learning and Promotion Committees (MTLLPCs) also sustain students’ learning outside the class by leveraging community stakeholders’ expertise and networks. These efforts deepen our students’ engagement and interest in the MTLs, and expose them to MTL-related employment opportunities, at home and abroad.
At the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), students can continue to learn and develop their language skills. The increased interdisciplinarity and flexibility in IHL curricula support students to pursue their interests in languages, by taking language-related modules alongside their main course of study.
International exposure opportunities in IHLs, such as overseas internships, exchanges and immersion programmes, provide an opportunity for students to apply their language skills outside the classroom. These are accompanied with support in language learning. MOE’s “70-70” target aims for 70% of IHL students to participate in overseas exposure programmes, with 70% of this group participating in programmes in ASEAN, China and India (ACI). Currently, institutions have pivoted to virtual exchanges and internships where feasible, to help students acquire cross-cultural exposure and will resume these programmes once travel conditions permit. Through workplace exposure locally, students may also better appreciate the value of strong language skills in real-world contexts.
Beyond schools and the IHLs, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has worked with key partners to provide a range of language training and guide interested individuals to the relevant training programmes. For example, SSG works with partners which provide business language training programmes to support Singaporeans who wish to internationalise in the ASEAN region. We will continue to identify suitable training programmes based on market demand, to support Singaporeans in enhancing their employability and ability to seize economic opportunities in the region.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework to Bring Back National School Games for Sports in a Safe and Lower-Risk Environment for Our Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education what is the framework to bring back the National School Games for sports such as football, hockey, netball and floorball in a safe and lower-risk environment for our schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE takes a calibrated approach to the resumption of the National School Games (NSG) to ensure the safety and well-being of our students and staff. Apart from taking alignment to the national posture and Safe Management Measures (SMMs), we also consider factors such as type of sports, the age and number of student participants, the type of venue used, as well as the level of intermingling between students from different schools.
A phased resumption of the NSG would typically start with low-risk non-contact sports such as Badminton, Table Tennis, Tennis and Volleyball before higher-risk contact sports such as Basketball, Football, Hockey and Rugby are considered. These sports involve high bodily contact between student participants and therefore, carry a greater risk. Furthermore, resumption of contact sports is likely to start with older students from Junior Colleges/Millenia Institute and Secondary Schools, as most of them would have been vaccinated.
For NSG 2021, 12 non-contact sports deemed to be of low risk were resumed for ‘A’, ‘B’ and Senior Divisions in the first semester. These competitions were suspended in May as we entered Phase Two (Heightened Alert) and all remaining competitions in NSG 2021 have been cancelled, given the need to minimise intermingling of students from different schools in line with the gradual resumption of student activities at the start of Term 3. MOE is continuing to monitor the public health situation closely and will work towards the safe resumption of NSG in 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Share of GST out of Total Tax Revenue Since 1994 Compared to Share of Consumption Taxes in Total Tax Revenue in OECD Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Prof Hoon Hian Teck asked the Minister for Finance (a) from its introduction in 1994 to the most recent year, what has been Singapore's share of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) out of total tax revenue; and (b) how does this compare to the share of consumption taxes in total tax revenue in OECD countries.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In Singapore, the share of Goods and Services Tax (GST) out of total tax revenue1 was 8.0% in Financial Year (FY) 1994 and an estimated 16.2% in FY20212.
In OECD countries3, the average share of Value-Added Tax (VAT) or sales tax out of their total tax revenue4 is about 21.5% in FY2019. This does not include general consumption or sales taxes imposed at local government levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Singapore’s total tax revenue consists of Income Taxes, Asset Taxes, Customs & Excise Duties, Goods and Services Tax, Motor Vehicle Taxes, Betting Taxes, Stamp Duty, and Other Taxes.","2 : Source: MOF Budget data.","3 : Source: OECD.Stat (data as of 28 Jun 2021). Level of government set as \"Federal or Central government\" for comparability. Data for FY2019 are estimates/provisional.","4 : Refers to OECD's definition of General taxes on goods and services (Category 5110) expressed as a % of Total Tax Revenue. This does not include taxes on specific goods and services (Category 5120) such as customs and import duties or excises. "],"footNoteQuestions":["46"],"questionNo":"46"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Fight Against Stigma Faced by Single Mothers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is being done to fight against the stigma that single mothers face and to support them in their challenges as single parents to create an environment of greater empathy and support for them to raise their children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We recognise the challenges that single unwed parents face, especially in balancing dual responsibilities of raising their children and working. Our approach is to support them in their caregiving responsibilities and to extend Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, and the foreign domestic worker levy concession.
In 2016, we extended the Child Development Account benefits to children of single unwed parents, including the $3,000 First Step Grant and matched co-savings from Government. In 2017, we also extended 16 weeks of maternity leave to single unwed mothers. These aim to support the child’s development and caregiving needs.
We also support and promote the provision of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and other work-life harmony (WLH) practices for all workers, including single unwed parents, to help them better manage both their work and personal responsibilities. This includes support for employers through sharing best practices on implementing FWAs such as the ongoing Alliance for Action on WLH, as well as the recognition of progressive employers and practices through the Tripartite Standard (TS) on FWAs and TS on WLH.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that single unwed parents may face greater challenges. Those who require financial assistance or social support can approach the Social Services Offices and Family Service Centres (FSCs), which are situated within the community. The Social Work practitioners in the FSCs provide professional case management and can bring in other relevant agencies to address the family’s needs holistically.
Creating an environment of greater empathy and support for single unwed parents to raise their children requires a whole-of-society effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raise Awareness and Increase Facilitation to Assist Meeting Specific Needs of Homes for Orphans and Vulnerable Youth","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether more awareness can be raised and greater facilitation can be given to assist in meeting the specific needs of homes for orphans and vulnerable youth by informing the public as to the specific items are needed by the homes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children and youth who require care, protection or rehabilitation may stay in licensed Children and Young Persons (CYP) Homes operated by social service agencies.
CYP Homes utilise various platforms to raise awareness and seek assistance from the public to meet their needs for donations, volunteers and other forms of support. There are many opportunities for members of the public to step forward to support the Homes. For example, some CYP Homes reach out via their own Facebook pages, websites and newsletters. Some also use centralised platforms, such as the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre’s (NVPC) website at www.giving.sg, which matches volunteers and donors with the needs in the community. In addition, social service agencies operating the CYP Homes may hold donation drives and tap on community networks to request for resources needed by the Homes.
During the COVID-19 circuit breaker in 2020, MSF helped to facilitate the channelling of donations of surgical masks from MSF’s partners to the Homes. MSF also supported the Homes as they adjusted to Safe Management Measures.
More are welcomed to join the Homes’ current pool of volunteers and donors. We encourage all who are interested to volunteer or donate to reach out to the Homes, or visit www.volunteer.sg or NVPC’s website at www.giving.sg. Those who would like to donate in support of community programmes can also visit Community Chest at www.comchest.gov.sg. Everyone can play a part and contribute to care for those in need – this is the spirit of SG Cares.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken by Social Service Officers to Monitor Clients at Risk of Recurring Violence during Prolonged Period of Stay at Home under Phase Two (Heightened Alert)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the measures taken by our social service officers including those from the crisis shelters and family violence specialist centres to continue with the monitoring of clients who are at risk of recurring violence during the prolonged period of stay at home under the current Phase Two (Heightened Alert) measures while at the same time balancing the health and safety of these officers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MSF’s statutory protective services, and social service agencies (SSAs) such as family violence specialist centres (FVSCs) and crisis shelters have continued to closely monitor the safety and well-being of clients who are assessed to face higher risk of recurring violence during all phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These are essential services that have remained operational, even during last year’s circuit breaker. MSF issues updated advisories to its own officers and to its community partners for each phase of the pandemic, to guide planning and safe delivery of social services during this exceptional time. Depending on the COVID-19 situation, the modalities of service delivery are adjusted to take into account prevailing safe management measures, without compromising the safety and support we provide to individuals and families facing family violence.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, our FVSCs have continued to stay in touch with these individuals and families either through telephone calls or video calls. They have also continued to meet with clients with moderate to high needs in person, while taking the necessary safety precautions such as the use of well-ventilated rooms and desk shields where practicable. Crisis shelters have also adopted safe management measures, including split zones and split team arrangements for all staff and clients; MSF staff regularly audit the implementation of these safe management measures and advise crisis shelters where relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Average and Median Number of Hours per Month Each Social Worker is Required to Spend on a Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 Case","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the average and median numbers of hours per month a social worker is required to spend on (i) a group 2 case (ii) a group 3 case and (iii) a group 4 case; and (b) if this data is not currently being collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting this data.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Social workers in Family Service Centres (FSCs) partner individuals and families to address their social needs. FSCs refer to the FSC-Code of Social Work Practice (FSC-CSWP) to classify each case into one of four case groups based on its assessed risk and complexity. Cases with higher risks and complexity of needs are assigned higher CSWP groupings and receive more funding.
MSF does not prescribe the number of hours that FSCs are required to work on cases in each FSC-CSWP group. The nature of cases may vary even within the same FSC-CSWP group. The experience level of social workers also varies, leading to differing time needed to handle cases. Based on the survey of FSCs’ workload data conducted in September 2020, FSC social workers spent between three hours and five hours per case per month, with more time spent on cases in higher CSWP groupings. Ultimately, the FSCs have the autonomy to decide on how to distribute cases among their social workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Fee Rebates for Households who Voluntarily Choose to Keep Their Preschool Children at Home during Phase Two (Heightened Alert) Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether ECDA will consider implementing fee rebates for households who voluntarily choose to keep their preschool children at home during the Phase Two (Heightened Alert) period.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under Phase Two (Heightened Alert), from 16 May to 13 June 2021, preschools had remained open to support parents who need to work. Parents were encouraged to keep their children at home during this period where possible. As preschools continued to incur costs for service provision and the situation varied from centre to centre, we had encouraged centres and parents to work out suitable arrangements for children who did not attend preschool. For families who had chosen to keep their children at home during Phase Two (Heightened Alert) and who might have faced difficulties, preschools might consider in-kind support, such as home-based activity resources, fee offsets/discounts, or financial assistance.
To support preschools and parents keeping their children at home during Phase Two (Heightened Alert), MSF and ECDA waived the minimum attendance requirement to ensure that preschool subsidies and Child Care Financial Assistance (CCFA) continued to flow fully to parents. ECDA also shared home-based activity resources developed by the sector with preschools and parents, which they could make use of to engage their children at home. These resources are available on ECDA’s website and more will be provided over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Programmes run by FITRAH @ Masjid En-Naeem and Number of Community Befrienders Recruited","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the take-up rate of programmes run by FITRAH @ Masjid En-Naeem in providing enhanced support services to incarcerated Muslim individuals and their families; and (b) what is the current number of community befrienders who have been recruited and are actively serving ex-offenders and their families.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The FITRAH programme (Family and Inmates Through-care Assistance Haven) provides holistic support for incarcerated individuals and their families, through its in-care and aftercare services.
To support incarcerated Muslim individuals, FITRAH develops a customised religious curriculum with its religious counsellors, in consultation with psychologists from the Singapore Prison Service (SPS). The curriculum inculcates positive values and prepares the ex-offenders for life after incarceration. The curriculum is delivered by a pool of religious counsellors through counselling sessions and Friday prayer sermons. About 65% of Muslim inmates attend FITRAH’s in-care religious services on a voluntary basis.
FITRAH has also worked with other community partners to help families of inmates and ex-offenders access different forms of assistance. Since its establishment in 2019, FITRAH facilitated 611 such referrals for employment support, financial and social assistance, befriending services, as well as Islamic learning. This includes the referrals from the joint home visits done by FITRAH community befrienders and the Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) volunteers, where they assess the various needs of the families. The beneficiaries have been referred to the Social Service Offices, Family Service Centres, as well as the M³ agencies for further assistance.
FITRAH has recruited 314 community befrienders, of which 246 are actively deployed to provide ex-offenders and their families with emotional support as they reintegrate back to society. FITRAH will continue to work with Singapore Prisons Service and the M³@Towns to raise awareness about the community befriending programme to benefit more eligible families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approach and Action Taken in Respect of Madrasah Irsyad Employee who Allegedly Leaked Confidential Documents of Madrasah","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether he can explain the different approach and action taken in respect of the Madrasah Irsyad employee who allegedly leaked confidential documents of the Madrasah and who has since resigned and that in respect of the senior MUIS employee who was allegedly involved in the Halal certification issue but was nonetheless retained as part of MUIS’ workforce while investigations by CPIB and CAD are ongoing.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MUIS takes a serious view towards all allegations of wrongdoing. In such cases, MUIS will conduct investigations to determine whether there has been any wrongdoing. Where appropriate, the case will be referred to the Police or other relevant authorities.
The circumstances of both cases are different. During the internal investigations by Madrasah Irsyad and MUIS, the staff from Madrasah Irsyad had admitted to contravening the Madrasah’s internal policy and resigned. As police investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on the case involving the staff from Madrasah Irsyad. As for the case regarding the Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCB), an independent panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations against the MUIS officer involved. CPIB have also looked into the matter and informed that they will not take any further action in view of insufficient evidence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Efficacy of SELENA+ System in Screening Diabetic Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health with regard to the deployment of an artificial intelligence system called SELENA+ in the screening of patients through eye scans (a) what has been the efficacy of the SELENA+ system in screening diabetic patients; and (b) whether the Ministry will be embarking on further initiatives for an economical and accessible diabetic screening system for the public.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: SELENA+ is a National AI pilot project that is being implemented in a few phases. During the first phase, a total of 38,215 patient cases at six polyclinincs had their retinal photographs processed by SELENA+ and the results were compared to the current image grading performed by non-physician technician readers. Based on preliminary analysis, we found that the accuracy of SELENA+ in detecting vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma suspects and late stage age-related macular degeneration is comparable to current standard of care.
We have commenced the second phase of SELENA+ since December 2020, with the trial extended to an additional six polyclinics. In this phase, we will study if non-physical technician readers can better detect diabetic eye complications with the AI support. SELENA+ will also be evaluated for its potential to improve efficiency and consistency by automating the current grading process and transfer of digital retina images, for mild to moderate diabetic cases.
As diabetes may result in eye complications such as diabetic retinopathy, Singaporeans are encouraged to go for regular health checkups and follow ups. Adults above aged 40 are encouraged to go for regular screening for chronic illnesses, including diabetes. With subsidies under Screen for Life at all CHAS GPs, Singaporeans pay between $0 and $5 for each screening visit. All diabetic patients are also recommended to be screened for eye complications annually. This is why we have made eye screening a subsidised core service to be provided for diabetic patients across all polyclinics as well as at GP clinics participating in the Primary Care Networks scheme.
MOH will continue to explore the possibility of using technology to improve quality and cost effectiveness of care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vaccination Rate of Taxi and Private hire Vehicle Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked ask the Minister for Health whether the Ministry tracks the vaccination rate of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and, if so, what is the vaccination rate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since February 2021, we have progressively offered vaccinations to taxi and private hire vehicle drivers. As of 1 July, about 92% (48,846 of 53,268) active Private Hire Car and Taxi Drivers have been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, of which 86% (46,054 of 53,268) have completed both doses.
We would like to thank the taxi and private hire vehicle drivers’ community for their strong support in the vaccination programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Persons Working as Nurses in Allied, Ancillary and Administrative Roles in Public Healthcare Sector from 2010 to 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health for each of the years from 2010 to 2020 (a) how many persons are working as nurses, and in allied, ancillary and administrative roles respectively in the public healthcare sector; and (b) what is the breakdown for such persons in terms of whether they are in full-time or part-time employment, educational qualifications, age, gender and number who are Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 2013 to 2020, the overall number of nurses in the public healthcare1 sector increased from 19,180 to 23,050. Over the same period, the number of Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) increased from 3,990 to 5,400 while the number of Administrative and Ancillary (AA) staff increased from 14,600 to 18,080.
Due to changes in data definition, we are only able to provide the breakdown of staff groups by their age, gender, citizenship status, and highest educational qualifications from 2013 onwards. Data on whether they are working full-time or part-time is available for registered nurses and AHPs from 2014 and 2018 onwards respectively, can be found in the Tables below.
57 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health for each of the years from 2010 to 2020 (a) how many persons are working as nurses, and in allied, ancillary and administrative roles respectively in the private healthcare sector; and (b) what is the breakdown for such persons in terms of whether they are in full-time or part-time employment, educational qualifications, age, gender and number who are Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH does not collect data on the number and breakdown of persons employed in the private healthcare sector. The number and breakdown of nurses and registrable Allied Health Professionals (AHP) collected by the Singapore Nursing Board and Allied Health Professions Council respectively are in Tables 1 and 21.
From 2014 to 2020, the overall number of nurses in the private healthcare sector increased by 27%, from around 9,000 to 11,4202. From 2018 to 2020, the overall number of AHPs in the private healthcare sector3 increased by 13%, from around 1,200 to 1,350.
58 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health for each of the years from 2010 to 2020 (a) how many people are working in the Intermediate and Long-Term Care sector; and (b) what is the breakdown for such persons in terms of whether they are in full-time or part-time employment, educational qualifications, age, gender and number who are Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 2010 to 2020, the overall number of staff1 in the Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) sector2 increased fourfold, from around 3,200 to 16,550. The breakdown of staff by their age, gender and citizenship status across the years is provided in Table 1. The data from ILTC providers does not cover educational qualifications. Data on work arrangement (that is, full-time or part-time) is available only for registered professionals using data from their respective professional boards3 from 2018 onwards.
59 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether the use of MediSave funds may be extended to patients who incur Accident and Emergency fees arising from referrals made by their treating physicians to the Accident and Emergency Departments of hospitals but do not get admitted to the hospitals either directly or through the MediSave 500/700 Schemes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The objective of MediSave is primarily to help Singaporeans with large medical bills due to hospitalisation and surgeries, after subsidies and MediShield Life. The MediSave500/700 scheme serves the secondary objective of helping patients pay for out-of-pocket expenses for the treatment of their chronic conditions. This is in view of the recurrent nature of their treatment.
In line with the above, A&E fees are claimable from MediSave if the patient is subsequently admitted. Patients who require basic investigations and services are charged a flat subsidised attendance fee at the A&E department. This ensures that processes at A&E departments are kept simple for hospitals to provide timely vital emergency services to patients.
Nevertheless, we understand that there are patients who visit their General Practitioners (GPs) and are subsequently referred to A&E departments for further treatment.
In light of this, we implemented the GPFirst programme, where patients referred to the A&E by participating GPs will receive a $50 subsidy on their A&E fees, in recognition of the charges incurred at the GP clinic. This is so that they do not bear additional costs compared to an individual who had gone straight to the A&E. This programme is currently in place at GP clinics around Changi General Hospital (CGH), Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (NTFGH), National University Hospital (NUH), Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Sengkang General Hospital (SKH) and the Urgent Care Centre @Admiralty Medical Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation of SanOtize's Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) for Use in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is evaluating SanOtize's nitric oxide nasal spray (NONS) for use in Singapore and exploring supply agreements if assessed to be safe for use.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health closely tracks the available data on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutics candidates under development globally, including nasal sprays. We take a portfolio approach and enter into agreements with pharmaceutical firms early, once we have identified promising candidates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prioritise COVID-19 Vaccination for Adults and Children Aged 12 and above with Special Needs Who Face Difficulties Wearing Masks Outdoors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether adults and children aged 12 and above with special needs who face difficulties wearing masks outdoors can be prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since February 2021, vaccinations have been prioritised for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), particularly those who live closely in residential homes, or attend daily centre-based services. In addition, since June 2021, vaccinations have been rolled out for students at Special Education (SPED) schools. MOH is also working with MSF and SG Enable to vaccinate PwDs who are home-bound.
As all Singapore Citizens and long-term residents aged 12 and above are now eligible to register for their vaccinations, we encourage all who are eligible, including special needs individuals with difficulty wearing masks, to register for vaccinations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singaporeans who Suffer from Selective Mutism Breakdown by Age Group and Availability of Support Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of Singaporeans who suffer from selective mutism and the breakdown in terms of age group; and (b) what are the support systems available for these patients and their caregivers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 2018 to 2020, an average of 140 patients per year with selective mutism were seen at the public hospitals. Children aged seven to 12 years old formed the largest group (48%), followed by children below seven years old (31%), 13 to 16 years old (16%) and above 17 years old (5%).
A multi-disciplinary team, comprising psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists and clinical counselors, provides assessment and interventions for children with selective mutism by working closely with parents. The interventions include psychotherapies, pharmacological treatment, counselling and education, tailored according to the age of the child and clinical progress of the condition.
For school going children, the Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams works with schools on special accommodations for oral examinations and learning. KKH also provides a hospital-based support programme for parents, which focuses on behavioural adjustments of parents in response to their children. Communit- based support groups are also available on social media platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons Undergoing Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) and Method Used","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Health (a) who are the persons currently undergoing Rostered Routine Testing (RRT); and (b) how does the Ministry determine who needs to undergo RRT.
64 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the method used for Rostered Routine Testing (RRT); and (b) whether there will be alternative methods of testing considered for persons on RRT.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Rostered routine testing (RRT) is applicable to workers in higher risk settings such as our borders, the Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) sectors, as well those living in high density environments such as dorms. Inpatient healthcare personnel also go through RRT to allow for early detection of cases to preserve hospital capacity.
By mid-July, workers in settings where there are unmasked individuals or where there is prolonged contact with clients, will also be required to undergo RRT. This includes workers in settings such as dine-in F&B establishments, personal care services, and gyms and fitness studios.
We use Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for RRTs but are also considering alternative tests. There are Fast and Easy Tests such as Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs). As more people are vaccinated and more alternative testing methods are made available, we will adapt our RRT regime parameters, such as frequency and mode of testing, and review whether RRT continues to be relevant at all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Threshold for COVID-19 Vaccination Rates and Development of a COVID-19 Risk Index","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the threshold for COVID-19 vaccination rates before a near-full reopening is possible; (b) what is the basis of this threshold; and (c) what consideration has the Government given towards the development of a COVID-19 risk index that aggregates indicators like the number of new infections and active cases, hospital capacity, vaccination rate, contact tracing efficiency and testing capacity, to provide guidance to policymakers on decisions to ease or tighten safe management measures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Vaccination is a critical factor in determining the pace of our transition to living normally with COVID-19. As no vaccine provides 100% immune protection and we continue to encounter more transmissible variants, there will continue to be uncertainties and surprises. It will therefore not be wise to define a definitive threshold for a full reopening.
It will also not be very useful to devise an index to guide our public health actions, because each aspect of the effort against COVID-19 is important, and deserves dedicated attention.
However, the more we get ourselves vaccinated, the better protected we are and the more we can achieve normalcy. We have set ourselves milestone targets, namely, getting half of population fully vaccinated by the second half of July, and two-thirds around National Day. We should aim for even higher vaccination rates beyond that, especially for our seniors. Our roadmap for restoring activities and travel will have to be planned around those milestones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Priority for Individuals with Contraindications to Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines to Receive Sinovac Vaccine and Be Eligible for Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether individuals who have contraindications for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines but not the Sinovac vaccine can be given priority to receive the Sinovac vaccine over those who choose it out of personal preference; and (b) whether the Sinovac vaccine can be made part of the national vaccination programme for this group of individuals so that they can receive their vaccinations at vaccination centres and polyclinics and will be eligible for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme should they develop any adverse reactions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is still awaiting additional data to complete its evaluation of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine for its safety and efficacy standards. The vaccine is therefore not yet authorised for use by HSA under the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR), and is not recommended as part of the national vaccination programme by the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination. Hence, individuals should be aware that they will not be eligible for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP) should any serious side effects occur.
Only a small group of persons would be contraindicated for the mRNA vaccines. These include (a) persons who had allergic reactions to the first dose of mRNA-based vaccine, and (b) persons who are allergic to other vaccines and are assessed by an allergist to be unsuitable for mRNA-based vaccines.
For these persons, MOH has ringfenced sufficient Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine stocks for their priority use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Ensure Supply Chain Resilience to Maintain Availability, Affordability and Variety of Critical Medicine which May Not be Easily Interchangeable","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health what has been done to ensure supply chain resilience to maintain the availability, affordability and variety of critical medicine which may not be easily interchangeable such as insulin or psychiatric medication for Singaporeans to ensure that treatment is consistent.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To ensure drug supply resiliency, MOH monitors international developments that could affect our supply closely, and works with the Agency for Logistics and Procurement Services (ALPS), healthcare institutions (HCIs), drug companies via the Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (SAPI) and local pharmaceutical distributors.
As part of our supply arrangements, drug companies keep a healthy buffer of stock in Singapore. If companies face challenges bringing drugs into Singapore, there is an established channel to highlight to MOH to resolve the issue.
In the event of supply disruptions, alternative suppliers have been identified and can be activated as needed. HCIs may also dispense medication for shorter periods, to ensure sufficient supply for all patients. This could be more inconvenient for some patients, but it is mitigated by direct delivery of medications to the patients’ homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Workers in Environmental Services Sector Infected with COVID-19 since 1 Jan 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many workers in the environmental services sector, including cleaners, have been infected with COVID-19 in total and since 1 January 2021 respectively; (b) of these, how many are infected with the Delta / B.1.617.2 strain or other variants of increased infectivity; and (c) at the time of infection, how many are working in or had recent deployment in healthcare frontline settings.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 1 January 2021 to 28 June 2021, 64 individuals working in environmental services, providing services such as cleaning and housekeeping, were infected with COVID-19. Five of them were deployed in frontline settings including hospitals and community care facilities.
Phylogenetic sequencing was successful for 61 of them. Of these, 59 cases were found to be infected with the Delta variant and the remaining two were infected with B.1.466.2 and B.1.524, which are non-Variants of Concern.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recipients of Sinovac Vaccine to Date and Its Adverse Effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many people have received a dose of the Sinovac vaccine; (b) what adverse effects have been reported from taking the Sinovac vaccine; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide periodic updates on adverse reactions as it does for the mRNA vaccines so patients can make informed decisions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As at 3 July 2021, a total of 17,296 unique individuals have received one dose of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine.
Some individuals cannot take the mRNA vaccines due to medical reasons. Providers will not charge these groups of individuals for the vaccination and MOH will reimburse the providers directly.
Vaccination with Sinovac-CoronaVac started on the 18 June 2021. As at 29 June 2021, two non-serious adverse event reports have been received. MOH and HSA will continue to monitor this and will provide an update if any significant safety concern is detected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Effectiveness of Healthier Choice Symbol and a More Robust Food Health Rating System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to create a more robust food health rating system on a graduated scale instead of the binary Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS); (b) how is the effectiveness of the HCS at influencing food purchases being determined and what is the result so far; and (c) whether the Government has a review system in place to improve effectiveness of HCS labelling and on monitoring social marketing campaigns led by food companies on consumers’ purchasing patterns.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) is a front-of-pack label with a simple, visual identifier to help consumers identify healthier food products and ingredients easily. Products with the HCS are lower in fat, saturated fat, sodium, sugar or higher in dietary fibre, calcium and wholegrains compared to regular products within the same food categories. Compared to a graduated scale, such labels enable consumers to process basic nutritional information more quickly. Hence, there are currently no plans to develop a food health rating system on a graduated scale.
The HCS is widely recognised and used by Singaporeans to guide their food purchases. It has also spurred food manufacturers and suppliers to reformulate and launch healthier products, leading to an increase in market share of HCS products from 18% in 2016 to 28% in 2020. A recent study conducted by Duke-NUS found that HCS positively influences consumer demand for healthier foods.
The Ministry of Health and HPB regularly review the HCS nutrient guidelines to stay relevant to the latest consumption trends and new scientific evidences, and to address nutritional gaps in Singaporeans’ diets. This is done through extensive review of literature, local market conditions and consultation with food industry and academic experts. For example, in response to findings from the National Nutrition Survey (NNS) 2018 on Singaporeans’ increasing sugar intake from foods such as confectionary, desserts and sauces, the HCS criteria for sugar were lowered for selected sugary foods (for example, ice-cream and yoghurt) in 30 April 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bring Forward Arrival of COVID-19 Vaccine Supplies and Plans to Accelerate Interim-use Authorisation Process under Pandemic Special Access Route for Other Promising Vaccine Candidates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the arrival of COVID-19 vaccine supplies can be brought forward; and (b) whether there are plans to accelerate the interim-use authorisation process under Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR) for other promising vaccine candidates such as the single-dose vaccine co-developed by Arcturus and Duke-NUS.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As announced in MOH's press release on 24 June 2021, we recently brought forward supplies and accelerated our vaccination programme. We are working with suppliers of other promising vaccine candidates, such as Novavax, to submit applications under the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR). This will provide more options for individuals. It is important to note that all vaccines can have adverse effects. We encourage eligible individuals to receive the current mRNA vaccines, which have well-documented efficacy and effects, and have proven to be safe and effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medisave700 Withdrawal Amount under Chronic Disease Management Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the maximum MediSave700 withdrawal amount of $700 per annum determined for the 20 conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP); (b) whether the maximum withdrawal amount will be reviewed for chronic conditions that may cost a patient more than $700 yearly; and (c) whether the Ministry can consider allowing family members and spouses to withdraw more than $700 in total to pay for the patient’s complex chronic outpatient treatment.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the MediSave500/700 scheme, the $500 and $700 MediSave withdrawal limits are sized to be sufficient for the annual bills of the majority of subsidised patients with simple and complex chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme respectively. Seniors aged 60 years old and above can withdraw up to an additional $300 yearly under Flexi-MediSave to offset their bills in the outpatient setting, including for the treatment of their chronic conditions. The withdrawal limits were recently revised for MediSave500/700 on 1 January 2021, and Flexi-MediSave on 1 June 2021.
MediSave use beyond the withdrawal limits are considered on appeal, but are reserved for very exceptional grounds such as unique circumstances with the family’s financial and/or social situation. Patients who face difficulties with their bills after subsidies and MediSave may approach the medical social workers at public healthcare institutions for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Proportion of Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19 by Age Groups, Gender and Occupation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"73 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health to date, what is the proportion of persons who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, broken down by age group into (i) 12-20 years (ii) 21-29 years (iii) 30-39 years (iv) 40-49 years (v) 50-59 years (vi) 60-69 years; and (vii) 70 years and above; and (b) what is the proportion of such persons, broken down by (i) gender (ii) healthcare workers (iii) cleaners (iv) delivery riders and taxi drivers (v) F&B staff and (vi) migrant workers living in dormitories.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The MOH provides vaccination status breakdown by selected categories in our nightly press releases. As of 30 June, the total number of doses administered is 5,470,505, covering 3,365,674 individuals. And 2,104,831 individuals have received their second dose and completed the full vaccination regimen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Quarantine Orders Served Monthly that Required Transport to Government Quarantine Facility, Waiting Time and Time Taken to Transport Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"74 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) in the last six months, how many Quarantine Orders (QOs) have been served monthly that required transport to a Government Quarantine Facility (GQF); (b) what is the mean number of hours taken to transport individuals to a GQF from service of a QO; and (c) how many individuals waited more than (i) 24 hours (ii) 48 hours and (iii) 72 hours before being transported to the GQFs after being served with the QO.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last six months, almost 44,000 individuals under quarantine were conveyed to a Government Quarantine Facility. Of this, close to 95% or over 41,500 individuals had been transported to the facility within 48 hours from when a Quarantine Order was served. The remaining were conveyed later due to appeals to serve their quarantine at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Monthly Total Testing Capacity for COVID-19 by Tests and Plans to Expand Testing Capacity for Each Type of Test","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) what is Singapore’s total testing capacity for COVID-19 for each month since the beginning of the pandemic, broken down by types of tests; (b) how many of each type of test have been conducted each month; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to further expand testing capacity for each type of test going forward.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have increased our PCR lab test capacity from 2,900 daily tests in April 2020 to 80,000 daily tests today. On average, about 36,000 daily PCR tests are conducted in the past two months. Our reserve lab capacity enables us to mount additional tests when needed to detect and prevent spread.
Around 4,000 to 5,000 Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs) are administered daily over the past two months. We have established supply chains with major ART manufacturers to ensure quick replenishment of ART if required.
Wastewater testing is another critical component of our testing strategy and has been deployed at worker dormitories, welfare and nursing homes, and HDB blocks where there have been multiple cases. Today, NEA has deployed wastewater testing at over 200 sites and can test 2,500 samples weekly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Percentage of Hawkers Aged 60 Years and Above Who Registered for Hawkers Go Digital Programme since Its Launch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"76 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information since the launch of the Hawkers Go Digital progamme till now, what is the percentage of hawkers aged 60 years and above who have registered for the programme.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Since the launch of the Hawkers Go Digital programme in June 2020, more than half of 18,000 stallholders in hawker centers, coffee shops and industrial canteens now offer e-payment solutions. Amongst hawkers aged 60 and above located in hawker centres administered by the National Environment Agency or NEA (including cooked food and markets stalls), 47% have adopted e-payment. The SG Digital Office will continue to support all hawkers to tap on the Hawkers Go Digital initiatives, and to adopt online food delivery solutions as part of the Singapore Together Alliance for Action – Online Ordering for Hawkers, which was launched on 17 June 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Animal Shelters to Allow Potential Pet Owners to Interact with Animals Put Up for Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"77 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can work alongside animal shelters to allow potential pet owners to interact with animals put up for adoption so as to counteract misconceptions and stigma against adopted pets.
Mr Desmond Lee: To promote and encourage the rehoming of shelter animals, NParks has been working closely with Animal Welfare Groups (AWGs) to support their adoption drives and to organise pet-related events. For instance, NParks launched the Pets’ Day Out series in August 2019 as a regular platform where the public can learn about responsible pet ownership and pet care through talks, workshops, and other activities. At such events, potential pet owners can interact with the animals put up for adoption by the AWGs. This is a common practice by the AWGs as part of the adoption process, to increase the likelihood of a match between the adopter and the animal.
During this pandemic, NParks has worked with AWGs to develop guidelines to ensure that this practice can be carried out safely in line with prevailing safe management measures. It has also supported the AWGs in their adoption drives by organising the Pets’ Day Out event online.
NParks will continue to work closely with stakeholders in its education and outreach efforts to promote responsible pet ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Types and Installation of CCTVs at Main Door of Residents’ Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"78 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether guidelines on the types and installation of CCTVs including pinhole CCTVs at the main door of residents’ homes can be standardised and published.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flat owners are not allowed to install CCTV cameras facing the common areas and corridors to safeguard the privacy of residents of other flats. Residents are only allowed to install CCTV cameras facing common areas and corridors, if they are facing safety issues such as harassment from unlicensed moneylenders, and such footage would aid the Police in their investigations. Permission must be sought from HDB for such installations.
All requests for installation of CCTV cameras facing the common areas or corridors must be supported by a Police report. HDB does not regulate the types of CCTV cameras that can be installed. However, the CCTV camera must not face the door or windows of another flat, and the installation is only allowed for a period of six months, with the camera to be removed thereafter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Residents' Complaints of Illegal Parking and Obstruction by Delivery Drivers at HDB Estates in Past Two Years and Whether Delivery Bays Can be Provided","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"79 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past two years, what is the number of residents’ complaints of illegal parking and obstruction by delivery drivers at HDB estates; and (b) whether delivery bays can be provided for HDB flats that have no immediate motorbike parking facility to meet the delivery drivers' and residents' needs.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2019 and 2020, HDB received on average around 8,900 cases of feedback per month on illegal parking. HDB does not track the number of feedback specifically relating to illegal parking by delivery drivers.
In estates where surface car parks are provided, motorcyclists and drivers making home deliveries may use these parking lots, which are beside the HDB blocks. In estates where multi-storey car parks are provided, HDB has also provided loading and unloading bays along the driveway or service roads for the use of those making deliveries or performing quick loading and unloading activities. We recognise that given the limited number of diners allowed for dining-in under the current Phase Three (Heightened Alert), there is likely an increase in demand for home deliveries. To help delivery riders and drivers cope with this increased demand, we have therefore temporarily extended the grace period for parking at HDB and URA car parks to 20 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allow Resale Levy to be Rolled into Purchase Price of Flats for Buyers Financially Affected by COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"80 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will allow the flat’s resale levy to be rolled into the purchase price of flats, for buyers who have been financially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and are now unable to afford the upfront cash payment.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singaporeans enjoy a significant housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from HDB, or a resale flat in the open market with CPF Housing Grants. To ensure a fair allocation of our limited housing subsidies, those who buy a second subsidised flat from HDB will receive a smaller subsidy than first-timer buyers, by paying a resale levy in cash. However, if they buy a resale flat from the open market, they do not have to pay a resale levy.
Second-timer buyers can use the proceeds from the sale of their first subsidised flat to pay the resale levy. To help second-timer buyers who are in need, HDB has been exercising flexibility on a case-by-case basis, such as by incorporating the resale levy into the purchase price of the second subsidised flat, so that the resale levy need not be paid upfront in cash. Those in extenuating circumstances who require assistance with their resale levy, such as households that are facing financial difficulties, can approach HDB and we will see how best to help them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjustments in Progressive Wage Model and Training Requirements for Cleaners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"81 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether there will be an increase in the Progressive Wage Model bonus for cleaners for 2021 given the increased work requirements due to the evolving pandemic situation.
82 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower how will wage adjustments under the updated Progressive Wage Model for the cleaning be done sustainably given the sharper wage increase in the first year of the wage schedule.
83 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower with more mandatory training requirements under the adjusted Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for cleaners (a) what type of new training courses can the cleaning industry expect; (b) whether these courses can be vetted and recommended by the Ministry; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to leverage on upskilling to create more skilled positions to attract young Singaporeans to join the industry.
Dr Tan See Leng: Last year, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, tripartite partners called on service providers to consider increasing the wages of and providing allowances to cleaners with higher workloads, for example due to increased frequency and intensity of cleaning. This was also in recognition that cleaners faced additional exposure in cleaning and disinfecting potentially contaminated premises. This remuneration would be on top of the mandated Progressive Wage Model (PWM) Bonus of two weeks’ salary. Firms have heeded the call to do so. As COVID-19 remains a concern, the tripartite partners continue to encourage service providers to remunerate their cleaners appropriately.
Cleaning wages have been steadily increasing over the years, from a median gross wage1 of $1,100 in 2014 to $1,388 in 2019 (26% cumulative growth). From July 2023, Cleaning PWM’s basic wages will increase at a faster rate. These wage increases were determined in consultation with stakeholders, including service providers and buyers. This gives employers some time to adapt, as many have existing contract obligations that may run for a few years. There is also a mid-point review so that the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) can ensure that the wage increases remain sustainable for firms and meaningful for workers.
All stakeholders play a part in adjusting to the wage increases, including our cleaners. They will need to upskill and be more productive. Employers will also have a part to play in transforming their business models and redesigning jobs to drive productivity improvements as a whole. The Government has accepted the TCC’s recommended mandatory training requirements under the Skills Framework for Environmental Services (ES). From 31 December 2022, all licensed cleaning businesses have to ensure that their cleaners attain one Workplace Safety and Health related module, and one core module endorsed by the TCC.
IMDA and NEA have also developed an Environmental Services Industry Digital Plan (ES IDP) to enhance employees’ digital skills. The ES IDP, which was refreshed in April 2021, guides Small and Medium Enterprises in adopting appropriate training programmes and digital solutions, such as Robotics and Augmented Reality, for cleaning, waste and pest management firms to improve their business operations. This would enable the ES industry as a whole to create more skilled positions for workers.
To attract young talent into the ES industry, including the cleaning sector, NEA launched the NEA-Industry Scholarship programme in 2020, which enables ES companies to attract, hire and groom ITE and Polytechnic graduates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Median gross monthly wage (excluding employer CPF) of full-time resident employees. Source: MOM"],"footNoteQuestions":["81","82","83"],"questionNo":"81-83"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gender Breakdown of Workfare Income Supplement Recipients in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"84 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last three years, what is the gender breakdown of all recipients of the Workfare Income Supplement.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2017 to 2019, about 210,000 or half of all Workfare recipients each year were female1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Complete data on WIS recipients in 2020 is not available yet as self-employed persons (SEPs) in 2020 can only be assessed for WIS eligibility after they have declared their net trade income for 2020 and made the necessary MediSave contributions."],"footNoteQuestions":["84"],"questionNo":"84"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Declaration of Mental Health Conditions in Pre-employment Medical Examination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"85 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) under the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Guidelines, whether employers are prohibited from asking job applicants to declare their mental health conditions in pre-employment medical examination forms unless there is a job related requirement; and (b) what are the criteria used to evaluate the reasonableness and legitimacy of job-related requirements that allow employers to require job applicants to declare their mental health conditions.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may wish to note that the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which is available online, states that employers should \"ask only (for) information relevant to assessing an applicant's suitability for a job\". TAFEP's website further elaborates on the principle of merit-based hiring by explicitly stating that \"companies should not ask job applicants to declare personal information such as their mental health condition unless there is a job-related requirement\".
In assessing complaints, TAFEP will ask for the employers' rationale for requiring information on mental health conditions. We adopt a holistic approach and take into consideration all relevant factors before arriving at an assessment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4541,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210705/vernacular-Lawrence Wong MS 5uly 2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lawrence Wong MS 5uly 2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4543,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210705/vernacular-Chua Kheng Wee LPA 5July2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chua Kheng Wee LPA 5July2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4544,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210705/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling LPA 5July2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling LPA 5July2021 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}