The following question stood in the name of Ms Foo Mee Har –
1 To ask the Minister for Transport in light of the challenges in controlling errant PMD users, what additional measures are being considered by LTA to protect the safety of pedestrians and ensure that growth in PMD use does not overwhelm infrastructure capacity.
2 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry is considering new measures to curb the use of e-scooters including stronger enforcement and harsher punishments.
3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has tracked down vendors who modify PMDs illegally; (b) to date, how many have been caught; (c) what are some of the punishments meted out; and (d) what is the Ministry's assessment on the adequacy of the current measures.
4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether the length of the amnesty period ending end-2020 for the use of PMDs which are not compliant with the UL2272 standard should be reviewed in light of the increasing number of fire incidents at homes linked to overcharging of PMD batteries.
5 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent fire incidents involving PMDs (a) whether there is a need to step up public awareness and education on PMD safety tips; (b) whether current measures to prevent such fire incidents are sufficient; and (c) what measures can the community take to work hand-in-hand with the authorities to reduce and prevent such fire incidents.
6 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, how many PMDs have been registered with LTA; (b) how many of them are UL2272-certified; (c) what measures have been taken to educate the registered PMD owners to ride safely and charge their PMDs safely; and (d) whether there are plans to further enhance the safe use of PMDs on public paths.
7 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent spate of fires involving PMDs (a) whether the Ministry can place a temporary ban on the use of PMDs until there are proven solutions for the safer use of PMDs; and (b) whether LTA can bring forward the deadline for all motorised PMDs used on public paths to be certified to the UL2272 standard.
8 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to incorporate dedicated lanes for bicycles and PMDs into the existing infrastructure to ensure the safety of both pedestrians and riders.
9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether PMDs belonging to current commercial shared-PMD services operating from private premises only are allowed to travel on public land; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will review the current law or licensing conditions to expressly bar such PMDs from being allowed to travel on public land unless the operators are given a licence to operate commercial shared-PMD services on and from public land.
10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether PMDs belonging to current commercial shared-PMD services operating from private premises only are presently required to be (i) certified to the UL2272 standard to ensure fire safety and (ii) insured against third-party claims for bodily injury or death when travelling on both public and private premises.
11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport whether there has been a further spike of PMD-related fires in the first half of 2019 and what are the considerations for not quickly bringing forward the end-2020 deadline banning the use of non-UL2272 devices on public paths.
12 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent fires related to the charging of PMDs and healthcare institutions taking steps to restrict charging of PMDs on their premises (a) whether the Ministry will consider providing guidelines to other institutions where there are significant concentrations of people; and (b) how is the Ministry working with such institutions to mitigate potential fire hazards that may arise from such charging at their premises.
13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will prosecute any retailers or suppliers who sell PMDs or PMD batteries which are non-compliant with regulatory requirements.
14 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Transport (a) what further steps will the Ministry be taking to regulate the purchase of safety-compliant PMDs and the charging of PMDs in homes; and (b) what is the timeline for the review of the deadline for the PMD safety certification.
15 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are any requirements for PMDs and their charging systems to be certified with safety marks by Enterprise Singapore before being permitted for sale in Singapore; (b) whether random tests are currently conducted on the charging system of PMDs; and (c) how does LTA manage the retailers who provide modification services for PMDs and their batteries.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current number of registered Personal Mobility Devices (PMD); (b) how many of these registered PMDs have a safety certificate; and (c) in view of the increasing number of PMD-related accidents and fire incidents, whether the Ministry will reconsider its position on mandatory third-party insurance for all registered PMDs.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Question No 1.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 16 in a Ministerial Statement later?
Mr Speaker: Yes. Mr Christopher de Souza.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhanced Law Enforcement at Orchard Towers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether increased law enforcement operations will be undertaken at Orchard Towers so as to reduce or deter any illegal or vice activities there, or around its vicinity.
18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many police reports have been made on crime and vice activities at Orchard Towers; (b) what enforcement actions have been taken by the police; and (c) what plans does the police have to eradicate crime and vice activities at Orchard Towers.
19 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current number of massage establishments in Orchard Towers; (b) whether the number of licensed and unlicensed massage establishments has increased or decreased in the past three years; and (c) whether there are plans to limit the number of licences issued for massage establishments located within one mixed property development.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 17 to 19 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Amrin Amin: There are currently three licensed massage establishments in Orchard Towers. This number has decreased in the past three years, as Police have actively managed the licences they grant, to take into consideration URA's planning intent, feedback from the community, and the prevailing law and order situation.
Police have been taking enforcement action against unlicensed massage establishments at Orchard Towers, and the number has remained stable over the past three years. In 2018, Police detected seven such establishments, which have since been shut down. Five operators have been dealt with, of which four were fined, and one was issued a stern warning. Investigations against the remaining two are on-going. Police will continue its enforcement efforts in this area.
Police have deployed more resources there, including Special Operations Command troops. This enhanced presence is supplemented with an increased deployment of CCTV cameras to deter street-walking and other illegal activities.
Police have also maintained a strong tempo of enforcement operations. In 2018, 18 anti-vice operations were conducted at Orchard Towers and its vicinity, resulting in the arrest of 76 vice workers. These operations were on top of Police’s regular checks.
Police will continue to keep a close watch on the law and order situation at Orchard Towers and ensure the safety of the public.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Orchard Towers is in my constituency. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have three supplementary questions. Last Saturday, I visited Orchard Towers with my grassroots leaders and officers from the Police, NEA and LTA. I understand that there are currently more than 30 public entertainment outlets within Orchard Towers. Can I request that the Ministry consider setting a cap on the number of public entertainment outlets within one property development, especially within a mixed development comprising many residential units?
I would also like to ask the Police to consider not renewing some of the Public Entertainment Licences at Orchard Towers when they are up for renewal, especially for those with poor public order records.
During my walkabout at Orchard Towers, we saw a number of beauty salons there. From the look of the shopfront, I would be suspicious of the sort of treatments they provide. While I am glad to hear from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the Police have taken action against massage establishments, those with licences, at Orchard Towers, I believe the Police have also stopped issuing massage establishment licences there. I understand that these beauty salons do not require any licence to operate. I would therefore like to ask if the Police are taking any actions against these beauty salons to ensure that they do not circumvent the licensing regime and engage in vice activities.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Currently, there are 29 public entertainment establishments at Orchard Towers, of which 23 are nightlife establishments, and similar to the licences for massage establishments, Police actively manage the Public Entertainment Licences they grant, taking into consideration URA's planning intent, feedback from the community and the prevailing law and order situation. Given these considerations, Police are unlikely to grant new Public Entertainment Licences for Orchard Towers. This is publicised on the Police website.
Police conducts regular checks on the Public Entertainment Licensees to ensure that they comply with all licensing conditions. Licencees with infringements of licensing conditions may have their licence not renewed upon expiry. For those who more egregious infringements, their licences may even be suspended or cancelled by the licensing officer.
Police also conduct regular enforcement to ensure that operators do not circumvent the licensing regime and engage in vice activities. It is an offence for beauty salons, as the Member mentioned, to provide massage services without a licence under the Massage Establishments Act. An operator may be liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 or two years, or both. If vice activities are detected, the operator may be liable for additional vice-related offences under the Women's Charter.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer and I am glad that MHA is taking the issue of vice seriously. Sir, the activities of Orchard Towers spill out very publicly onto the pavements of Orchard Road, especially at night. It creates an unsafe and an uncomfortable environment for people who just want to have a decent meal in the buildings that surround Orchard Towers. Therefore, could MHA prioritise anti-vice raids on Orchard Towers to clean up that strip of Orchard Road? There is also an investigation into an alleged murder there. And I think this brings to bare the urgency of the task.
\tMr Amrin Amin: We share the Member's concern. In fact, Police have been keeping up a strong tempo of enforcement actions on top of their regular checks and enhanced ground presence. I mentioned in my earlier reply that Police conducted 18 anti-vice operations at Orchard Towers and its vicinity in 2018 and these resulted in arrests of over 70 vice workers. Police will continue to keep a close watch over the law and order situation at Orchard Towers, including its vicinity.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I am just a bit concerned. I am just wondering if we stepped up enforcement in Orchard Towers, are we really addressing the root of the problem? Are we really tackling this vice issue or are we just going to move them to another place, which means we have an Orchard Towers Part II? And we are just spending our resources, just chasing our tail.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I think the Member is right. There has to be an outlet for people to entertain themselves. I think that is a given. But what is important is the law and order situation has to be maintained and if the situation gets out of hand, the Police must ensure that whatever entertainment that we enjoy, do not cause inconvenience to others and pose law and order situations to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Team’s Readiness to Deal with Multiple Concurrent Civil Unrest Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the Home Team prepared for multiple concurrent civil unrest incidents without significantly compromising its routine incident response responsibilities.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Multiple concurrent civil unrest incidents will stretch the resources of the Home Team. Our primary strategy must, therefore, be to put in place measures to prevent any assembly or procession from escalating into civil unrest in the first place.
Public assemblies in Singapore are regulated under the Public Order Act. A Police permit is required to hold a public assembly. Clear guidelines are given to event organisers during their permit application. For example, they are required to conduct their events in a socially responsible manner and ensure that they do not cause any danger or undue alarm to the general public. They are also advised to give due consideration to ensure that public safety, security, law and order are not compromised during the event.
The Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) was introduced in 2018 to ensure that Police have powers to deal effectively with serious threats to public security and order. For example, in an area where POSSPA powers have been authorised, Police may impose a cordon around the target area and order any vehicle or individual within the cordon to leave or be removed, close public roads within or leading to or from the target area, or impose a curfew requiring every person in the target area to remain indoors within specified hours.
Such powers allow the Police to take decisive measures if the need arises, to prevent public order incidents from escalating.
The Government has in place a crisis management system to prepare for and respond to major incidents. In the event of multiple concurrent civil unrest incidents, the Homefront Crisis Management System would be activated to coordinate a whole-of-Government response.
As for operational capabilities, Police’s frontline first responders are trained and equipped to deal with public order situations. If necessary, SPF can also draw on specialist forces. The Special Operations Command (SOC) troopers are trained to handle such situations.
Should there be a surge in capacity required to manage incidents, Police have procedures in place to amass both on and off duty resources. They can also recall and mobilise Police National Servicemen, and tap on Volunteer Special Constabulary officers. While Police resources could be stretched in managing multiple civil unrests, they remain committed to maintain law and order, without compromising on response to urgent incidents.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I would like to check: for MHA, during such times whereby the resources are very stretched to manage multiple civil unrests, how can the public then work with the Home Team to make sure that the Home Team's major incident response capabilities can be maintained and that we are vigilant in order to address any new situations?
\tMr Amrin Amin: There are various ways to assist the Home Team in this area. The first is for the public to take in SGSecure messages and if possible, to train. That is the first. During major incidents, the public can also play a very important role by adhering to official advisories from authorities such as the Police; advisories to keep out of harm's way. Members of the public can also help the Home Team by staying vigilant and reporting any useful information to the authorities.
It is also important for the public to always refer to official sources of information. They should be discerning regarding the information they receive and to be mindful not to share information, photos, videos that can lead to panic or fear. Distortions, rumours, untruths, misinformation and spears can spread very quickly, especially through social media, and can cause confusion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore’s Abstention from Vote on International Labour Organization's Convention on Workplace Violence and Harassment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) why did Singapore abstain from voting on the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s Convention on Workplace Violence and Harassment despite its comprehensive coverage; and (b) whether the Government plans to ratify the Convention.
22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower regarding Singapore's abstention from the ILO vote on the Violence and Harassment Convention 2019 (a) whether the Government agrees with the general spirit of the Convention; and (b) what are the Government's plans to deal with the issues leading to its decision to abstain from the ILO vote.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 21 to 22 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work, also known as Convention 190, was adopted at the International Labour Conference (ILC) this year after two years of contentious negotiations. Adoption of a Convention by the ILO does not mean that all states will automatically ratify it. Among the Conventions adopted since the year 2000, few have been ratified by more than 25% of the ILO member states.
Singapore takes its treaty obligations seriously. We have a longstanding policy to only consider adopting or ratifying Conventions which are in Singapore’s interests and with which our laws and policies can fully comply. In the meantime, where we have doubts, we will continue to study the terms of the Convention. In the meantime, we will also make improvements to our policies and measures that are aligned with the spirit of the Convention, if they also meet our objectives.
A good example is the ILO’s Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Convention, or Convention 155, which we ratified recently. Well before we did, Singapore took steps to strengthen our measures and successfully reduced workplace fatality rates.
On Convention 190, while we agree with its intent, there are concerns about overreach. For example, it proposes measures such as including domestic violence in workplace risk assessments. This would expand workplace safety and health well beyond the workplace remit. Reflecting the significant concerns on a variety of issues, one in three of all eligible ILO members – which include governments, workers and employers – voted against the Convention, abstained, or did not vote. One in three.
While Singapore voted to abstain for the Convention, we voted in favour of the non-legally binding ILO Recommendation accompanying the Convention, as it is aligned with our commitment to eliminate workplace violence and harassment. We continue to partner the ILO to promote decent work and have put in place practical measures to eliminate workplace violence and harassment.
Today, employers must already meet the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which covers grievance handling. Among other things, employers are required to respond promptly to affected persons and conduct proper investigations into complaints. Employers who need help may also approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP for short, for help to put in place processes to manage workplace harassment complaints.
In addition, concerned employees may also approach TAFEP for advice and assistance through its hotline, email or writing in. Where appropriate, TAFEP will refer cases to government agencies and partners, including the Police and the Courts. Egregious cases such as the outrage of modesty are punishable offences under the Penal Code, or can be taken up under the Protection from Harassment Act.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, I understand ILO is made up of different tripartite members, but in terms of the states, there are only six states who have abstained. We are one, including countries like Russia, Kyrgyzstan, El Salvador, Malaysia and Paraguay, I think. So, pardon me if I got the countries wrong. I would like to ask, within the Singapore delegation of tripartite partners, who were the other partners and how did they vote? How many of these tripartite partners from Singapore voted for, against or also abstained, along with the Government?
The second question is, I understand there are some concerns with the Convention that we have abstained from ratifying. What are we doing in the meantime to get us to be more comfortable with those terms and guidelines that we are not yet comfortable for full ratification?
And the third question is if the Ministry has any plans to look at companies or employers being liable to create a workplace harassment-free environment. If companies and organisations are already liable for solvency, they are also entitled to protection against harassment in our recent Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), then I find it really difficult to see that they cannot be liable for making sure that the workplace is free from harassment and violence.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, maybe I will take the second question first, what are we doing in the meantime. As I had outlined, we take practical measures. The employers are not without obligations. As I had mentioned in my earlier reply, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices does impose certain requirements on the employers. If they do not know how to implement these obligations, we make ourselves available to help them. If their employees find that these measures that are in place are not sufficient, we are also quite happy to step in. And if there are specific instances where the employees feel that their employers did not help to resolve harassment at the workplace or even violence, we certainly will take a very serious view into rectifying this.
We collect data. TAFEP receives a certain number of complaints each year that are properly filed. A very small percentage has to do with workplace harassment. This is not to trivialise the concerns of those who did file the complaints. But in general, we do not have a pervasive issue. It is quite specific to certain employers, certain types of work arrangements. Those, we will follow up. I think that also addresses the third question: what are employers liable for.
\t
Coming back to the Member's first question, which are the parties that abstained or how did we vote, amongst the Singapore delegation. The Singapore delegation comprises of the Government, as well as our employers' representatives and, of course, our Labour Movement. Because this Convention has been in negotiation for about two years, the positions of each of our tripartite partners in Singapore is well known to each other. The employers had very grave concerns; not surprisingly, when the matter was put to a vote, the employers in Singapore voted against it. The employee representatives in Singapore, which refers to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), voted to support in favour of the Convention as a mark of solidarity for the spirit behind it, knowing full well that the Government was going to vote to abstain from it.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I just want to ask, moving forward, whether MOM will consider including in the tripartite standard, some guidelines on how employers can help employees who are facing domestic violence.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, while I understand the Member's concern about domestic violence, I think the question really, we have to ask is, whether the employers are best placed to intervene. I am not so sure that the answer is so clear for everyone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend for Average Annual Government Spending on Foreign Students over Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the trend for the total average amount of Government spending on foreign students per year over the past 10 years; and (b) what is the current percentage of foreign students receiving any form of state financial aid out of the total student population (both foreign and local) in Polytechnics, Junior Colleges and Autonomous Universities.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, given the Member's considerable interest in Government spending on international students, I will give a more comprehensive reply today and I will make three points.
The first point is that the core objective of our education system is to serve the needs of Singaporeans and no Singaporean is ever displaced from an Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) because of an international student. This is because we plan the number of IHL places with Singaporean students in mind. Each IHL sets standards for admission. This ensures that students can cope with the rigour of the curriculum, the IHL continues to be held in high regard, both locally and internationally and students are valued by employers upon graduation and they can secure jobs. When all Singaporean students who meet the standards have been admitted, the IHLs then raise the bar by a few notches and then admit a small minority of international students, over and above the local students. Because of this method, no Singaporean student is ever displaced from an IHL because of an international student.
The second point I want to make is that the education budget – about $13 billion every year – is overwhelmingly spent on local students, to make education affordable. Beyond the heavy Government subsidies available to all Singaporean students, there is also financial aid, in the form of assistance and bursaries, to ensure that fees remain affordable for lower to middle income families.
To answer the Member's question, such financial aid is for Singapore Citizens only. The Member also asked for the trend of annual Government spending on international students in terms of scholarships and tuition grants. This has fallen by about 50% over the last 10 years.
MOE recently stated in a reply to a written question by the Member that the total Government spending on scholarships for international students in our schools and Universities comes up to around 1% of our annual education budget, or $130 million a year. Unfortunately, immediately after we issued the written reply, I see online reports with a fabricated and inflated number of over $300 million.
The real cost, actually, is well below $130 million per year, because $130 million is the worth of the scholarships to the students, not the cost to the education system as a whole. Let me use an analogy. Let us say a restaurant gives a $100 voucher to a customer. The voucher is worth $100 to the customer, but the incremental cost to the restaurant to fulfil the voucher can be much less. Why? Because the cost of rental, utilities, service staff, management and so on, are more or less fixed already, whether the customer turns up with the voucher or not. The same logic applies to our Universities.
You imagine, if tomorrow we send back all our international students on scholarships, how much of our education budget do we save? I think it would be much less than $130 million, because that is the worth of the scholarships to the international students, not the expenditure incurred by the system. Overhead costs such as the buildings, the laboratories, the equipment, the management, manpower, faculty will still need to be incurred anyway.
Instead, if we send back all our international students, what we will lose, are the opportunities for Singaporean students to build bonds and bridges with students from other countries and expand their network of friends. This is an increasingly important aspect of education because we are all working in a globalised, multi-cultural world.
We will also lose a catchment of people who can contribute to Singapore, potentially. Today, international students in IHLs who are awarded scholarships are required to work in Singapore for at least three years after they graduate. Many eventually sink roots, take up Permanent Residency or citizenship and raise their families here. Even if they decide to leave Singapore after fulfilling their obligations, they can be part of our valuable global network of fans and friends, who can speak up for Singapore from time to time and forge collaborations with Singapore.
The third point I want to make is that because of the reasons above, every reputable IHL all around the world admits international students and provides them with some form of financial support. The best universities around the world – Oxford, Yale, Ecole Polytechnique, Technical University of Munich and so on – all have a diverse and international student body, far more than our IHLs in fact. In fact, there are top US universities like Yale, MIT, Princeton, who have needs-blind admission system. So, they do not admit you based on whether you can pay; so long as you meet their standards, you are admitted. If you cannot pay, there will be some form of donations, financial assistance to help you pay. Singaporeans students must have entered those schools on that basis before as well.
Because of that, Singaporeans studying overseas benefit from subsidised fees or scholarships from overseas universities as well. In fact, many European universities offer free or heavily subsidised education to all foreign students. There are around 400 Singaporean students currently studying in French and German universities and they benefit from highly subsidised tuition fees there. So, we give some and we also take some. And our IHLs cannot depart from this international practice norm and has to be part of this global education network.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, the Minister clarified that the figure given for scholarships is, so to speak, if I can use a phrase, \"a nominal figure\" and it does not reflect the actual costs. I appreciate that response for the $130 million for scholarships. I would like to ask, what would be the nominal figure for tuition grants, that was also asked or implied in my first question – written question – so I would like to ask that. I do appreciate that, that is also likewise, probably going to be a nominal figure for the reasons that the Minister shared. So, that is my first question.
My second question is relating to comparisons with other countries. In the original Parliamentary Question reply last month and also as the Minister has clarified, there is some element of reciprocity, so Singaporeans students also benefit from aid. I think some of the cases, the Minister cited are aid given by universities rather than aid given by governments and states. Some of the universities that the Minister mentioned have large endowments and they provide funding to international students who need it, including Singaporean students. So, given this point of reciprocity and being part of the network, can I ask if the Ministry tracks or does the Ministry knows, what is the comparable amount of governmental spending that other developed countries actually provide to foreign students studying in their countries proportionately as a percentage of their education budget. Is that something that is looked at? So, that is my second supplementary question.
The third and last one, is really on how the impact of Singapore is measured. Does the Ministry actually look at, over time, the impact of the spending on foreign students and what are, for example, economic multipliers from retaining high quality foreigners to work in the workforce vis-a-vis an alternative such as recruiting foreigners on the open market to come and work here, without making that spending on foreign students in the education system. Thank you.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Three questions. On the tuition grant, just to let Members know, there are scholarships that we give to foreign students who are very talented and we want them to be part of our system and they have an obligation to work here. But, there are other students who are not Singaporeans, studying in our system and they may apply for tuition grants. So, we can accord them a tuition grant, but bear in mind, Singaporeans pay around 25% of the total costs of a University place. Even after tuition grant, a foreigner, will still pay about twice the amount of a Singaporean.
The Member asked for the amount spent on tuition grant. So, scholarship is $130 million, tuition grant will be about – the total, will come up to be about $238 million. So, another $108 million for tuition grant. As the Member has also pointed out, this is the nominal figure. This is the worth of the scholarships and tuition grants to the foreign students but does not reflect the cost to our education system.
The second question, the aid given by universities in other countries is from the universities, whereas for us, it is from the Government. Because, our situation is a bit different. They have state universities, they also have private universities. In our case, all our Autonomous Universities are all Government run. Therefore, the circumstances are different; ours is a much more public and centralised system.
As for whether we have numbers on how much other governments spend on foreign students, I am afraid I do not have that number. But, there is no doubt that all systems around the world use their universities to attract talent all over the world. Singapore students are also targeted. There is a fight for talent in the whole world. I think we cannot run away from that.
Has there been any study on impact of spending on foreign students? I would very much welcome the academia or our economists, please do a learned study. But, we know this has been beneficial to Singapore. Do it in the right proportion, do not overdo it, do not under-do it. Because, first, our Singapore students benefit from interacting and making friends, from foreign students, building bridges, building bonds and friendships with them. We do know, many of us, many of the colleagues we work with, actually might have come to Singapore to study at a fairly young age, sometimes on scholarships, and over time, they sink roots here, have children here, and the children serve National Service. Today, they contribute to Singapore. We see so many of these cases around us.
I recently came across an entrepreneur, a successful one from People's Republic of China. He was a foreigner thinking of doing a start-up. Then decided to go into it with a good friend, and the partner in turn has another friend, a lady, and both of them were PRCs and had studied in Singapore in Secondary school. He ended up marrying the girl. After that, the partner and the wife said that, \"We studied in Singapore, it is a wonderful place, how about you start your business in Singapore?\" Therefore, that was what he did. Today, his company is a unicorn that hires a thousand people, and all three of them are now Singaporeans and have sunk roots here.
So, I welcome any studies to measure the costs and benefits, but the benefits are clear, but do it in the right proportion.
Given the Member's strong interest in this subject, if I may ask back a question, may I know what is the Member's or the Member's party's position with regard to international students in our schools and our Universities. Do you advocate a zero international student policy?
\t
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Minister for his question. I can only speak on my personal view on this and my view would be that a certain amount of spending is certainly justified and that spending has to be calibrated based on the benefits that we receive back. That was the point of my question, to understand what that spending is.
If I recall correctly, there was one incident when the Speaker talked about a quote from former Vice President, Joe Biden, who said that, our spending is a reflection of our priorities. So, what we say about our policy goals and objectives is one thing, but our spending really concretely reflects that. So, my question was really understanding what is that spending and whether it is calibrated and whether it is the right balance point. I think, basically, every society has to find the right balance point on a question like \"How much are you providing in spending for foreign students versus local students?\" Now that the Ministry has provided this figure, which is nominally about $230 million, I think that comes to about 1.8% of MOE's budget, which is maybe about 0.3% of the total national Budget. Is that too high or too low? To me, it seems on the high side. But I do keep an open mind because I think if the Government can provide reasons that this practice generates, for example, economic multipliers, that we attract foreigners to stay here who would not otherwise come. If there is data on what other governments are doing, if the spending is comparable on the part of other governments so that there is reciprocity – we are doing our part as good global citizens – I would certainly keep an open mind to say that that figure and the balance point are the right ones.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. So, if I hear correctly, these are the Member’s position – the Member does not advocate a zero international student policy, he had no fundamental disagreement with our approach. But coming down to the exact number, he feels it is on the high side. So, if he is the Minister for Education one day, he will send back more international students. But I think, fundamentally, there has been no disagreement with the approach of MOE.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): I would just like to know what is the Minister's view on the prospects of converting more of these foreign students to net-fee payers because I think we can all agree that there is going to be a pool of international talent we need to compete for and we need to give them some inducement to come. But there could be other students out there who might be more than willing to come, who can afford to be net-fee payers. This is, in fact, something that a lot of universities in the UK, the US and Australia depend on – a large volume of foreign students who are net-fee payers and who, in fact, subsidise the local students. That is the situation in some other countries.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for that suggestion. Today, some of the students are already net-fee payers. So, although they come and attend our universities, they receive no tuition grant nor scholarship. In fact, the process is that if you apply to enter the University, you must meet the standard, which is a higher one than locals and, after you are accepted, you can then apply for a tuition grant. And some students choose not to apply for a tuition grant and they do become net-fee payers, and I think this is something we ought to discuss with the Universities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Foreign Students who Have Defaulted on Tuition Grant Bond Obligations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of international students who have defaulted on their tuition grant bond obligation in the last three years; (b) what is the amount of grants given to these defaulting students; and (c) what are the results of the recovery efforts made.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): The proportion of defaulters is currently about 4% for the last three years. The grant amount to this group of international students is about $5.5 million annually.
For this small proportion of defaulters, MOE takes a serious view. It is not just a matter of money, but also honour and trust. We have managed to recover from a few and we will continue to make suitable recovery efforts. For those who fail to pay their liquidated damages, we will also take actions to prevent them from working or residing in Singapore.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, just a couple of questions. In 2016, when I asked the question, the amount of grant given to this minority group who did not fulfil their grant obligation came up to about $30 million. Just now, the Minister said it is about $5.5 million a year now. Is that correct? It means there is some recovery effort. Can the Minister share whether there was any actual recovery in the sense that we have managed to bring it down from $30 million to $5.5 million a year now for those grants?
Secondly, can the Minister also share how MOE has tightened the recovery process because one of the answers given then was that if they were to apply for work here in Singapore, they may face some severe consequences? But then, again, these people are smart enough to gain the system and they have escaped without any consequences, so they will be smart enough not to come back here to work. Can the Minister share on how MOE intends to recover those grants given?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: When the Member asked the question a few years ago, we had a backlog of international students whom we were still trying to contact. Some were working here but they did not declare to us. So, they became question marks. And others are, indeed, defaulters. So, at that time, we put all of them together and it came up to $30 million still being unaccounted for. Of course, a couple of years have passed. We managed to contact practically all of them and, therefore, we can ascertain now it is a 4% default rate, representing about $5.5 million a year. But, again, that is a nominal figure.
We have tightened the recovery over the last few years. It means there is no running away from calling them, giving them the right forms to fill at the right time and then also having good border controls. I think once we have their names and identity number, they cannot game the system to come back to Singapore. We will prevent them from working or residing in Singapore. If they want to work elsewhere, I think our enforcement cannot extend beyond those countries.
But the fundamental point is still – so long as we believe that we need a suitable proportion of international students in our system and then we provide some tuition grants and scholarships to them, we will expect some of them to default and not fulfil their obligations. That is inevitable. But we will try to tighten the selection, make sure we pick the right people and make sure that they will continue to fulfil their obligation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Teacher-Student Ratio in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average teacher-student ratio for Primary, Secondary and Junior College levels respectively; (b) what efforts are being taken to reduce class sizes and increase the ratio of teachers to students; and (c) how will the Ministry further alleviate teachers of administrative duties to allow them to focus their day in school on teaching.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): I thank the Member for his question and interest in teaching quality, especially class sizes. I note that he has raised this issue before, in fact, as early as October 2013 – I dug it out.
Over the last decade, our Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) has improved and is currently 15:1 for Primary schools, 12:1 for Secondary schools and 11:1 for Junior Colleges. This is comparable to many OECD countries and better than countries, such as the US, UK, Germany, Korea and Japan.
However, PTR and class sizes are different concepts. PTR measures resourcing, that is, the total number of teachers provided against the student enrolment numbers. On the other hand, the class size reflects how we deploy our teachers – how much teaching they conduct vis-à-vis out-of-classroom activities, such as curriculum planning, conducting Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs), or attending professional development training. It also reflects whether teaching resources are deployed evenly for all students or varied depending on the needs of the students.
Once we differentiate the two concepts, we will realise that there are only two ways to reduce class sizes. One is to stick to existing resourcing levels but give teachers more teaching load and reduce their out-of-classroom activities.
I visited a French primary school recently that is run that way. It has a PTR of 19:1 – much less resources compared to Singapore, but it has class sizes of 15 to 20 – smaller than Singapore's. It is able to achieve this because it deploys its teachers fully for teaching. Given that resourcing is a zero-sum game, it means the French school may not have a lot of resources for lesson preparation, CCAs, learning journeys, teachers' training, as well as dedicated help for students with specific learning needs. So, something has got to give.
A second way is to expand the teaching force so that we can have the best of both worlds – small class sizes, without undermining out-of-classroom activities. But that has significant budgetary implications, especially given that manpower is the largest cost component of our education budget. Remember, our resourcing level is already at OECD standards. Furthermore, a big increase in recruitment will also alter the quality of the teaching force – inevitable, when you try to recruit in such big numbers. It is also difficult to sustain, in our context, given increased manpower demands in other sectors, such as healthcare and the needs of the economy, all competing for the smaller and smaller cohorts of adults entering the workforce.
Because of these reasons, we have decided not to implement any broad-based reduction in class sizes. But where we can, we deploy teaching resources to help students with a greater need for teachers' guidance. For example, MOE allocates additional teachers to our schools based on their student profiles and to allow them the autonomy to organise class sizes appropriately.
In the Secondary schools, for example, while Express classes are mostly taught in class sizes of close to 40, Normal (Technical) classes for some subjects are commonly sized at 20. In the Primary schools, levelling-up programmes, such as the Learning Support Programme for Lower Primary students and the School-based Dyslexia Remediation Programme for students with special education needs, are conducted in classes of eight to 10 and four to six respectively. In NorthLight School, Assumption Pathway School, Crest Secondary School and Spectra Secondary School, students are taught in class sizes of 20.
Over the years, MOE has taken steps to also ease teachers' administrative duties through the use of technology to streamline processes through e-platforms, such as Parents Gateway and the use of apps for attendance-taking. In the 2018 OECD study on Secondary school teachers, we are happy to see some positive outcomes as our teachers have reported 3.8 hours a week spent on administrative duties – a drop of 1.5 hours compared to the 2013 survey.
MOE will continue to introduce additional measures and better leverage technology to reduce the administrative workload and other demands on our teachers' time, such as on lesson preparation and marking, to allow them to focus their day in school on teaching.
\t
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I agree that ensuring, maintaining high quality in our educators must be an over-riding factor. If classroom sizes can be reduced while quality of teaching remains high, that is an ideal win-win. The trade-offs will take time to iron out. In the meantime, my question is: can MOE please invest in Allied Educators and administrative support staff to ease the load on the teachers such that teachers can focus on teaching to the benefit of students. Career progression for the Allied Educators and administrative support staff is also key.
My second supplementary question: in the way MOH is building up capability in the allied health worker force to aid the doctors in performing their duties, would MOE also build up training and continuing professional development for allied educators or even set up an Allied Educator Academy, so that teachers can be very ably partnered by Allied Educators in the education of our young. My two supplementary questions for the Minister.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. These are very valid observations. In fact, in my visits to schools, usually the top suggestion from teachers is, “Can we have more help from Allied Educators”, partly to help them teach as teaching aids, but also to help them deal with – sometimes, disruption in class. Having an Allied Educator would be most useful. So, indeed, we are looking into it – trying to recruit more Allied Educators and give more resourcing to support schools, especially through Allied Educators in what we call Learning Behavioural Support. At the same time, as we recruit more, we will also have to look at their career paths, career progression as well as their professional training.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Minister, since there is a decline in the birth cohort and classes, number of students are actually getting fewer and fewer. How are the excess teachers deployed currently? Do they go into pre-schools other than the NorthLight Crest and Spectra? How are these other teachers deployed? How can they be deployed elsewhere to support an even better quality of education?
\t
My second question: there is a lot of talk about administrative duties of teachers, of educators. Can Minister define what administrative duties? So, if educators work with parents, partner parents or they take on duties to encourage students to come to school or work with delinquents, and spending time, are those considered administrative duties? Is teaching currently defined as just being in front of the classroom or just doing the academics?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member. I reported improving pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) and one big driving force of that improvement is really because of falling cohort sizes. We are keeping the teachers in our system and we improve PTRs as a result.
And in general, what we wish to use the additional resources for are really pull-out classes – for Normal (Technical) and weaker students to give them more dedicated attention or in the lower Primary, where we have the Learning Support Programme (LSP). We use these additional resources to be able to pull out the students. That is why I am always worried about across-the-board fixing of class sizes because it can mean that all these additional resources today used to help weaker students, may disappear overnight. So, we always provide for enough resourcing but let the schools have the flexibility to deploy the resources to help the students that need it most. And that is my preferred method.
As for the administrative duties, I thank the Member for that question. Indeed, we cannot split hairs. I think every teacher has a great role to play beyond the classroom – working with parents, sometimes guiding the students outside of the classroom, and going out of their way to make sure they help students. Regarding administrative duties, I am talking about consent forms, making sure they are signed, collecting them, and taking attendance. I think we can use technology to better handle them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Rationale for Inability to Recover Overpayment Amount for Contract Variations in National Gallery Development Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2018/19, what is the reason for the AGO's conclusion that it may be too late to recover the overpayment of $13 million from the contractor in its audit finding of improper waiver of contractual provision for the National Gallery development project.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, please allow me to state that as AGO is an independent organ of state, I am here to represent MCCY and not AGO in this reply.
MCCY has reviewed AGO's findings and is satisfied that there was no fraud involved in the National Gallery of Singapore's (NGS's) waivers of contractual provisions. MCCY provided funding for this project to be directly managed by NGS, so as to achieve greater efficiency and savings from aligning the design and construction to its operational requirements.
NGS duly executed all contracts under its purview to deliver the project on time and below budget. The $13 million was not overpayment, but primarily waivers of penalties for additional time taken by the contractor to complete construction works. During the course of the project, NGS addressed all findings from MCCY's progressive audits. MCCY's fifth and final audit has since resumed after being suspended due to the AGO audit. Arising from the AGO audit and MCCY's final audit, MCCY will work with NGS to enhance their financial processes and procurement policies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Thank you, Sir. Just a quick question. Would MCCY be recovering that $13 million penalty as well?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Let me explain again. It is not a penalty; it is actually waivers and also for variation orders, which are to be expected for a project that is that massive, that involves two monuments and an extension connecting the two. I would broadly explain that this $13 million probably has two main audit findings from AGO. The first are specific items of claims amongst quantity agreements and so on. This part of the work is still being finalised and in order not to compromise our position, I would not say how it would go one way or another.
Another part of these findings relates to the systems of approval of the variation orders. This part, NGS has fully adopted the recommendations of the AGO and MCCY would work with them to see that these are implemented. Having said all that, we are going through a final audit and we have not completed the audit. But based on my understanding at this point in time, and having gone through the AGO reports extensively and several times with NGS, we are satisfied that the claims or the variation orders have good basis and there is no reason for us to believe that there is any need for major recoveries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Sports Hub Public-Private Partnership Arrangement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"27 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether she can provide an update on whether there has been a review of the Sports Hub public-private partnership arrangement and whether the Ministry is satisfied with the outcomes of the arrangement thus far.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Under the Sports Hub, public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement, SportsHub Pte Ltd (SHPL) is contracted to design, build, finance and operate the Sports Hub. In recent years, it has hosted sports events such as the Season of Athletics, HSBC Singapore Rugby Sevens, and FINA Swimming World Cup. Last month, over 100,000 fans attended the third edition of the International Champion's Cup at the National Stadium. However, like many Singaporeans, we have high expectations of the Sports Hub. There is room for improvement to make the Sports Hub the vibrant, integrated sports and lifestyle destination we envisioned.
Sport Singapore (SportSG) has been in regular communication with SHPL's senior management to monitor the performance of the operator, as well as to ensure that Singapore's goals and objectives of the project are met.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the answers. As an avid sports fan, I am very happy that we have all those major sporting events that are brought to Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister a few things. First, I am sure there are many learning points that the Ministry has acquired as a result of this pilot. Whether she is in the position to share what these learning points are, so that for future PPP projects, this is something which we could all learn from. Secondly, I understand that the Sports Hub's current CEO has left. Is it possible to share an update on the search for the new CEO, because without a CEO – I think with an acting CEO in place – it is obviously not ideal. So, just these two supplementary questions.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: This is the first major PPP that the Government has done and obviously I think, we can all learn from the process, but it will not do justice if I were to just explain or give these learning points out of memory, because this is a very substantive and serious matter. So, if the Member is interested, he may raise a separate Parliamentary Question.
The issue on CEO, I think, like the Member, we too, are very concerned about the continuity in management and also the quality of management. This is an area where we have regular discussions with the company and the shareholders as well. I would like to say that the acting CEO is the Chairman. So, the Chairman has taken it upon himself to be relocated and to take on the CEO role. But continuity and high quality of management are areas of constant discussion between the Government and the company.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of War Against Diabetes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the war against diabetes and how successful has the Ministry been in the preventive, reactive and research programmes in diabetes prevention and management since the programme began.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): The War on Diabetes was launched in 2016 to mobilise the whole nation to tackle diabetes. Since then, we have made encouraging progress across prevention, early detection and management of the disease, but much more remains to be done.
For more effective prevention, we need to tackle risk factors such as unhealthy diets and inactive lifestyles. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has been working with industry partners to expand the coverage of its Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) Programme and the Healthier Dining Programme (HDP). There are currently more than 3,500 HCS products available across 100 food categories and their sales have been growing at 9% annually. As for the HDP, with more partners coming on board, 50% of the stalls across all hawker centres and coffee shops now have at least one healthier option in their menu.
To encourage food manufacturers to innovate and reformulate to produce healthier alternatives, HPB has extended the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme (HIDS) in 2018 to three additional product categories, namely sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts and sauces. Since then, 11 suppliers have tapped on the grant to produce 62 lower sugar products, helping to improve the availability of healthier options across retail and dining outlets.
There are early indications that these efforts are producing some results. For example, more Singaporeans are becoming more physically active. More than 800,000 Singaporeans participated in season four of HPB's National Steps Challenge, four times that in season one.
Based on the 2018 National Nutrition Survey, our diet quality has also improved. Singaporeans are consuming more unrefined carbohydrates. Unsaturated fat is displacing saturated fat, which has decreased to 36% of total fat consumed in 2018 from 38% in 2010. However, sugar and salt intake are still causes for concern. Our daily sugar intake remains high at 60 grammes, with drinks, in particular pre-packaged drinks, being the largest single contributor of sugar. The average daily salt intake was 9 grammes in 2018, with 90% of Singaporeans exceeding the recommended intake of 5 grammes per day.
In November 2018, the Government decided to form a HealthySG Taskforce to further promote healthy living and activate the community to support the efforts. The HealthySG Taskforce has recommended several initiatives, including the adoption of technology-enabled, personalised coaching solutions and a lifelong virtual Health Booklet for individuals to track their personal health status. We will also implement a support programme for lower income families, to help them stay healthy.
Early detection of diabetes is important, and we encourage Singaporeans to go for regular, age-appropriate screening and follow up. To make screening more convenient, MOH has enhanced the Screen for Life (SFL) Programme and recently adopted non-fasting tests which facilitate opportunistic screening. More than 65,000 Singaporeans have benefited from cardiovascular and cancer screening in the 18 months following the enhancement of SFL subsidies in September 2017. This is almost 30 times higher than the number of Singaporeans who have come forward for screening over the preceding 18 months.
We have also made efforts to enhance the management of diabetes and reduce related complications. For example, we formulated a national strategy to reduce lower extremity amputations among diabetic patients through timely detection and clinical management. More recently, MOH issued an Appropriate Care Guide on foot assessment in people with diabetes. These guidelines help healthcare professionals better perform comprehensive foot assessment and treat diabetic complications in a timely manner.
We have also been conducting more local research to understand the effectiveness and impact of our interventions. For instance, Pre-DICTED, which stands for Pre-Diabetes Interventions and Continued Tracking to Ease out Diabetes, is a research programme by SingHealth to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based intervention programme in reducing the conversion rate from pre-diabetes to diabetes. Data from this study can help us develop evidence-based, scalable and effective interventions for better clinical management and policies.
While there are early signs of progress in our war against diabetes, we cannot afford to let up our efforts. Many of these initiatives will only achieve the desired health outcomes in the long term. The Government will continue to work with key stakeholders and partners in the public, private and people sectors to sustain our efforts in this war.
\t
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer as well as the update to this House. I am aware that in Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, there is actually a group of clinicians who have done quite a bit of very good work in the research into prevention and better management of diabetes cases. I am suggesting whether MOH can consider whether our public healthcare clusters, possibly in partnership with the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine or Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine to develop a dedicated research centre, to look into areas to better prevent, manage, overcome and also win the war against diabetes.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me thank the Member for his very useful suggestion. Indeed, I agree with the Member that research is important to inform clinical management and policies as well as for an effective war on diabetes.
Currently, there is a fair amount of collaboration among researchers and clinicians within and across the healthcare, academic and research institutions on diabetes with funding from various sources, since the war on diabetes. This includes the GUSTO study which is a collaboration between A*STAR, KKH, NUHS and NUS as well as the Pre-DICTED study that I mentioned earlier, which is between SingHealth Duke-NUS Diabetes Centre with HPB and the Singapore Clinical Research Institute. In fact, there are also two research collaborations that have just been funded through the National Medical Research Council (NMRC) Open Fund – Large Scale Collaborative Grant.
So, I think that because there is currently sufficient research focus on DM locally, both in small and large scale research, a current-state mapping of the research landscape for diabetes will need to be done to understand the range of research that has already been funded, and to ensure that the full potential of any research centre to be set up could be achieved without significant overlaps, especially with the large scale research projects that have already been funded.
Also, as the researchers for these projects often come from multiple organisations – academia as well as the healthcare clusters, and so on – actually we could take this to be akin to a virtual centre for diabetes research, which tap on best researchers from Singapore. Nonetheless, we will further study the Member's suggestion and to see how useful and appropriate such a dedicated research centre would be.
\t
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Just two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I just wanted to ask whether the Ministry has any ideas to, perhaps, increase either subsidies or further funding support for patients with diabetes. Just to give an example, diabetes is part of the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) but not all of the chronic diseases are created equal. So, I was wondering since we have this war against diabetes, whether we could look at some package where there could be additional funding liberated either from patients' Medisave or, perhaps, from other targeted subsidies for patients with diabetes, because this would probably help to increase compliance.
The second supplementary question is related to my later question but I think I will just ask it here. We are all concerned to see that the sugar intake per day of Singaporeans, as of from a survey last year, is still at 60 grammes, and WHO standard is 25 grammes every day. So, it is quite a big jump. So, I was wondering whether MOH has any targets. Have we set any targets for the sugar intake per day for Singaporeans, and do we have any timeline to try and reach these targets?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Regarding the subsidies, to ensure affordability of treatment for diabetes, just to note that we have just recently, for instance, allowed the test strips for diabetes for Type 1 and Type 2 patients on insulin to be under the CDMP. That means that they can claim on Medisave and it also goes under CDMP, through CHAS funding, for instance.
So, as with healthcare affordability issues, the Ministry will continue to look into ensuring the affordability of treatment and access for the different conditions including for diabetes.
With regard to sugar, Members know that we have undertaken a public consultation on the measures to be taken to reduce Singaporeans' sugar intake, particularly from Pre-Packaged SSBs, which was just concluded in January this year. So, we are reviewing the feedback; we received feedback from over 4,000 members of the public as well as from the SSB and media industries. We will review the feedback and we will also take into account evidence from local and regional studies, and then make our decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Cardholders to Receive Subsidies for Certain Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatments ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"29 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation cardholders to receive subsidies for certain treatments at selected traditional chinese medicine clinics approved by the Ministry.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): The Pioneer Generation (PG) package and the Merdeka Generation (MG) package outpatient benefits have been designed to help Pioneers and Merdeka Generation seniors better afford subsidised services and medications at public healthcare institutions, as well as at clinics participating in the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS).
There are currently no plans to extend PG and MG subsidies to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinics as TCM plays a complementary role in our healthcare system. MOH provides support for TCM development in various ways including funding and support for TCM capability development, continuing education as well as research. Charitable TCM establishments with Institution of Public Character (IPC) status also benefit from tax exemption and are eligible to receive tax deductible donations, which then enable them to provide affordable TCM services in the community. Seniors who wish to seek TCM treatments can receive these affordable TCM services in such establishments in the community. As of today, there are more than 50 charitable TCM clinics.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have one supplementary question. Many of the elderly whom I meet believe in the great benefits of acupuncture. Will the Ministry at least consider allowing PG and MG cardholders to receive subsidies for acupuncture treatments referred by doctors to TCM clinics in the public hospitals.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: For the efficacy and safety of the treatment, in this case acupuncture, particularly the context of pain management and post-stroke rehabilitation, this will be considered. Indeed, the Member might wish to know that PG subsidies are already available for acupuncture treatments, not all forms but for certain types of acupuncture treatments at SGH and Sengkang Hospital. And the MG benefits will also extend when the package is rolled out on the 1 November. For all other aspects of TCM including acupuncture at other PHIs, we will consider to study the efficacy and safety and decide incrementally when to introduce them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of HDB Repair Services to Support Elderly or Less Mobile Residents in Non-rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB repair services can be expanded to provide support for the elderly, less mobile residents living alone in non-rental flats when they experience problems in their homes like power trips and infrastructure problems.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, flat owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the fittings and fixtures within their flats, and can engage their own contractors to carry out the necessary work. As such, HDB does not provide repair services for flat owners.
Nevertheless, we recognise that some flat owners, such as the elderly or less mobile residents who live alone, may require extra help, so there are various avenues for these residents to seek help.
For urgent assistance on maintenance matters, such as power trips that occur after office hours, residents can contact their Town Council’s Essential Maintenance Service Unit (EMSU), who can provide advice over the phone or recommend an electrician that the flat owner can engage. HDB can also provide general advice on home repair and maintenance, including referring residents to repair contractors that are listed on HDB’s website. Finally, flat owners can approach the community for help and that includes the CDCs and the grassroots organisations.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for answering the question. I have one follow-up question. Essentially, in Toa Payoh where I am at, in the constituency, when I go around for block visits, there has been an increasing number of elderly staying alone in their flats, probably in the smaller flats. My follow-up question is, in the sense of HDB services that have been provided to rental flats for some of the elderly and more vulnerable residents staying in rental flats, HDB do provide subsidies, from what I hear. At the moment, for Toa Payoh, our Town Council and some of our RCs have actually been helping some of these vulnerable and elderly residents staying alone. I was wondering whether the services that have been provided to the rental flat residents can be extended to some of our elderly and vulnerable residents in the flats in the vicinity. Thank you.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we try very hard to uphold the principle of owner responsibility. So, for the rental flats, HDB is the owner, we will therefore take charge of maintenance for these units. For sold flats, owners have to bear responsibility. But as I said earlier, just because we uphold this principle does not mean that owners have to fend for themselves because there are in place a range of different assistance schemes or different organisations that owners can turn to, including Town Councils and community organisations, and HDB will also do its part within this set-up to facilitate and help where possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selectively Allowing Single Parent and Child to Rent HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will, deciding not just on a case-by-case basis and without receiving an appeal, allow a single parent and his/her child to get a HDB rental flat when the duo cannot afford alternative housing options and will otherwise have to share a bedroom with existing family members in the family members' home or stay in the living room because they have no spare rooms available.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): Single parents aged 21 and above who wish to apply for a rental flat from HDB with their child are treated similarly with other applicants for a public rental flat. All applicants may submit their application directly at HDB’s rental counters without having to appeal first.
HDB looks into all applications for a public rental flat to assess each individual’s housing options holistically. The applicants’ ability to afford alternative housing options, whether their family has space to accommodate them, as well as whether they face issues such as family conflict are all factors which HDB takes into consideration.
Applicants in the circumstances described by the Member will qualify for a public rental flat.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I just clarify, when we say family members, are we just saying the parents or does it include their siblings as well, in terms of when HDB considers the application? Two, you mentioned earlier about whether they can afford alternative housing. How does HDB ascertain whether they can afford it? Is there an income threshold in terms of their household income?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I will first answer the Member's second question. To assess an applicant's ability to afford alternative housing, HDB will work out their housing budget, and they will take into account their income, their age relevant to a housing loan, their savings in CPF and cash, and whether or not they previously had home ownership.
On the Member's other point about siblings, I just wanted to clarify, does he mean whether or not the siblings will house them or does he mean sharing a room with a sibling?
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Do we consider whether the parents have a spare room to house the single parent or do we also consider whether their siblings have a spare room to house them as well?
\tMs Sun Xueling: No, we do not expect the sibling to house them.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply but is there something that we can be more specific about? For example, for all other HDB rental flat application, you have to have a household income of $1,500 and below. Does it apply for single parents, which means if they have a household income of less than $1,500, then again they do qualify for rental flat?
\tMs Sun Xueling: There is a rough guideline. For households with income above $1,500, there are actually many examples of exemptions into public rental that have been given. So, I would not use that as a set principle. If the Member is aware of residents, including single or married parents, who want to apply for a rental flat and he thinks that we may need more information to understand the situation better, then please highlight them to us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Job-readiness Training at Day Activity Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are plans to (i) improve and enhance job-readiness and training in our Day Activity Centres (DACs) for young adults with special needs beyond 18 years old such as collaborating with our ITEs for such training and (ii) provide more funding support and resources to ensure full placement of such young adults from Mondays to Fridays.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister of Social and Family Development): Sir, there is already a range of employment and employability support services along with independent living and care services made available to support both work capable and non-work capable persons with disabilities.
For example, Day Activity Centres (DACs) provide long-term care support for persons with disabilities with no or low work capability. These centres aim to equip persons with disabilities with community and daily living skills so as to enable them to live as independently as possible at home and also within the community. DAC participants who show progress and proficiency in these skills can be considered for entry into Sheltered Workshops. DACs are open from Mondays to Fridays to serve eligible persons with disabilities who wish to participants in their activities
On the other hand, Sheltered Workshops provide job training and self-enrichment programmes to support adults with disabilities who may not be work-ready or who are unable to work in an open employment setting. Sheltered Workshops collaborate with industry partners to develop training programmes for their participants. Like DACs, Sheltered Workshops also provide services from Mondays to Fridays for those who are able to participate.
And in addition to all these, adults with disabilities looking for employment can tap on the programmes under MOM’s Adapt and Grow initiatives, such as the Open Door Programme and Career Trial. The Open Door Programme, which is administered by SG Enable, provides job placement and job support services, as well as grants for training and job redesign. Career Trial provides an opportunity for jobseekers and employers to assess job fit through a work trial. During the trial, which can be up to three months, jobseekers receive a training allowance from the Government.
To encourage employers to hire Singaporean workers with disabilities, employers who employ such workers earning up to $4,000 a month receive the Special Employment Credit (SEC) that provides a wage offset of up to 16% of monthly salary for employees aged below 67, that is to say that for those who are aged below 67 years old, the employers can get the wage offset of up to 16% of the monthly salary. For those who are above 67, they will get 22% of the special employment credit.
In addition, SG Enable also helps to prepare persons with disabilities through CV clinics and the RISE Mentorship and IHL Internship programmes. The RISE Mentorship matches students with disabilities with business leaders from corporates, multi-national corporations and other inclusive employers; while the IHL internship matches students with well-established and inclusive organisations in various sectors based on their course of study, interests and preferences.
So, MSF and SG Enable will continue to improve the care and support to persons with disabilities together with our partners in the people and private sector through the implementation of the Enabling Masterplan programmes.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Lately, I have had the opportunity to meet up with parents of children with special needs. And the common refrain among them, especially those whose children who are 18 years old and above, is that they are not able to get full placement for their children in the DACs, that means from Monday to Friday. More often than not, it is always two to three days a week, and then what happens for the remaining two or three other days? It means they have to take leave to take care of their children. I am just wondering whether MSF would have plans to coordinate better among the DACS and the Sheltered Workshops with oversight from MSF so that the parents can be assured of full placement for their older children from Mondays to Fridays.
Another supplementary question, Mr Speaker, is that whether there are plans to have a more integrated approach for education and training for children with special needs, starting from pre-school all the way to work-readiness training that can be overseen by a few Ministries – MSF, MOE and MOM – together.
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising two very important questions. For the first question, our DACs and Sheltered Workshops are open from Mondays to Fridays and they welcome all eligible participants who are able to take advantage of the programmes and services to make use of the centres' programmes and facilities. For those who are not able to attend full-time from Mondays to Fridays, if the Member comes across any specific cases, please let us know so that we can get our social service agencies and my Ministry Staff to look into such cases, to better understand the reason why they are not able to take full advantage of the services provided by the DACs and Sheltered Workshops from Monday to Friday.
As to the Member's second question about the more concerted and integrated approach, this is indeed something that we are doing. We share the same concerns as the Member. Under the Enabling Masterplan 3 (EMP3), we set up three different, separate workgroups to focus on different areas. One of the workgroups is focusing on early intervention programmes. This workgroup is co-chaired by my colleagues Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim together with Assoc Prof Kenneth Poon. So, they are looking into how to strengthen the learning support and the development support programmes in our pre-school education centres, serving students with special needs and disabilities.
One of the things they are doing is to strengthen the learning of the life skills and also other social skills. These are the important attributes and skills that will better prepare our students when they grow into adults and these attributes will enable them to integrate more smoothly into the society. It is a very important prerequisite to prepare young children for future employment.
There is another workgroup under the EMP3 which focuses on the improvement to employment opportunities and prospects. This workgroup is co-chaired by Member Ms Denise Phua and myself. This workgroup focuses specifically on how we can encourage more enlightened employers to provide employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. At the same time, we are also looking into how we can further strengthen and improve the training programmes for persons with disabilities and special needs, so that they will be able to grab the opportunities to be able to get employed.
So, there are a slew of initiatives and programmes under MSF, SG Enable and we also partner with MOE as well as MOM. So, there is a concerted effort aimed at trying to help persons with disabilities to better integrate into our society through employment.
\tMr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. Please keep your question short, and I would like an answer that is short as well.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I also similarly have residents who share with me the challenges that their special needs children face when they reach the age of 18. My question is, how many Sheltered Workshops do we have and what is the capacity? Is there a long wait list?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: I thank the Member for the questions. We have sufficient places in our Sheltered Workshops. Right now, we have altogether, 1,700 places. If there is a need for more capacity, we will certainly increase it. With regard to the Member's resident, I would appreciate it if she can provide the details to me, and we will follow up and try our best to help him or her to get into one of the Sheltered Workshops.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement on behalf of the Minister for Transport.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 36-38, 40-41, 43-44, 47-59, 61-64, 66-71 and 73-80 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 33-35, 39, 42, 45-46, 60, 65 and 72 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 6 August 2019.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":"Statement on behalf of Minister for Transport","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to deliver this Statement on behalf of the Minister for Transport.
Mr Speaker: Yes, proceed, please.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, we in MOT are deeply concerned about the risks posed by motorised personal mobility devices, or PMDs for short.
We are aware that this is a hot topic on the ground. We hear it from our residents; we hear it from many Members of this House. All have expressed concern over the irresponsible use of PMDs, which has caused a lot of trouble. Reckless PMD riders have become a menace on the ground, causing alarm on our public paths. People are worried about whether our elderly parents or young children will be able to avoid speeding PMD users. Speedsters have also illegally modified their devices to travel at very high speed, without fear for their own lives and the danger they put others in. Residents are also worried that their houses would be affected should their neighbour’s PMD catch fire. Such irresponsible behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
At the same time, we are mindful that tens of thousands of Singaporeans have adopted PMDs and benefited daily from their usage. The vast majority of them use PMDs responsibly. Through the course of my various engagements, fellow Singaporeans have related to me stories of Singaporeans who have saved time and costs by using PMDs as a transport option, older Singaporeans with mobility challenges who have found newfound freedom with personal mobility aids, and Singaporeans who have improved their livelihoods through new employment opportunities.
Let me just share with Members the story of Mr Low Joo Kek, who is 62 years old this year. Mr Low used to get around on a bicycle, but with age, this has become a bit more challenging for him. Two years ago, Mr Low started riding an e-scooter, which he finds is a convenient way to travel. He uses his e-scooter to run errands near his home in Sengkang, do weekend patrols with the Waterways Watch Society where he volunteers and even visit his brother in Bedok. For Mr Low, his e-scooter helps him stay active and connected, and has since become a way of life for him.
There are also thousands of Singaporeans who use PMDs to improve their livelihoods. Mr Hafidz is one of them. He had to give up his earlier job due to health reasons and doing food delivery is now his lifeline. As the eldest son in his family, working as a food delivery PMD rider allows Mr Hafidz to provide for himself and his elderly parents, who are no longer working. When I met him last week at a dialogue session, he shared with me that his goal is simply to ride safely with his loved ones in mind.
Mr Low and Mr Hafidz are only two of the many Singaporeans who have benefited from the introduction of PMDs. Even Singaporeans who do not ride PMDs benefit from the convenient services provided by riders who use PMDs to deliver food to their doorsteps.
Because we were aware of the potential negative effects and also benefits, we conducted an extensive public consultation exercise to solicit views from a wide range of key stakeholders back in 2015 and 2016. It was led by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal and his Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP). Members of the House will remember our thorough debate on all these issues when the Active Mobility Bill was tabled in January 2017.
On balance, the House decided to allow PMDs to enter Singapore as they are fundamentally a cheap, convenient and environmentally friendly alternative to cars and motorcycles for short trips. They can play an important role in our vision for a car-lite society. Members wisely emphasised the need for regulations, enforcement, public education and, wherever suitable, infrastructure enhancement. Upon AMAP’s recommendation, we put in place a comprehensive framework of regulations on device criteria and user behaviour through the Active Mobility Act. The Act commenced on 1 May 2018.
Mr Speaker, we now have a year of experience regulating PMDs. The risks and disamenities have become clearer. There have been 228 reported accidents involving PMDs on public paths in 2017 and 2018. There were 52 PMD-related fires reported in 2018. The number was 49 in the first half of this year. The growing number of fires is indeed worrying. I have often asked myself whether we would be better off banning PMDs whenever I read of accidents involving PMDs. However, I remember the call to ban bicycles from footpaths several years ago. After intensive public education efforts and infrastructure improvements, there is now a greater acceptance of bicycles in Singapore. Similarly, a PMD is just a machine. It is the rider who decides whether it is beneficial or detrimental to lives. I am confident that Singaporeans can be taught to use PMDs responsibly, as they have with bicycles. I am confident that we can bring about the safe sharing of paths with PMDs. But, with hindsight of experience, we should add new regulatory measures to enhance safety. I will focus on two key areas – fire safety and path safety.
First, how can we further enhance fire safety?
In September 2018, LTA announced UL2272 as a mandatory requirement for PMDs. The UL2272 standard improves safety against fire and electrical hazards significantly, by requiring the devices to pass a stringent set of tests conducted by accredited testing centres under extreme physical conditions. To date, we are still the only country in the world to impose such a rigorous fire safety requirement for e-scooters. Thus far, all PMD-related fire incidents have involved non-UL2272 certified devices and may have involved inappropriate charging practices, such as the use of incompatible chargers, overloading of sockets or charging near flammable materials.
We could have simply banned non-UL2272 certified PMDs. But retailers and users who had just bought such PMDs pleaded for some grace period. That is why we imposed the requirement for PMD retailers to sell only UL2272-certified devices from 1 July 2019, while users could only ride certified devices from 1 January 2021 onwards.
Even with this grace period, many retailers complained bitterly about the adverse impact on their businesses. Users were also unhappy about having to give up devices that were still usable and having to pay significantly more for a UL2272-certified PMD. These negative sentiments were widely covered in the media. However, given the recent spate of PMD-related fires, LTA will take two further steps to address the situation.
We will bring forward by six months, the deadline for compliance with the UL2272 requirement, to 1 July 2020.
As many Singaporeans rely on PMDs for their livelihoods and their commuting needs, we think this is the earliest reasonable deadline. This will also give retailers time to bring in sufficient stock of UL2272-certified devices.
We will also introduce a mandatory inspection regime for registered e-scooters from 1 April 2020 onwards. LTA will be scheduling all e-scooters which were earlier registered and self-declared UL2272-certified for inspection. LTA will henceforth require all new e-scooters to pass inspections for UL2272 certification and width, weight and device speed before they can be registered.
Some PMD users are concerned about the costs of switching out their non UL2272-certified devices. While I understand their worries, we seek their understanding and support for this necessary move.
AMAP Chairman Assoc Prof Faishal and I recently met with food delivery riders to see how they will be impacted by these proposed new measures and how we can help cushion the impact on them.
The food delivery companies have tied up with PMD operators to offer PMD rentals for food delivery riders. They have also announced their commitment to help their riders convert to, or rent, UL2272-certified devices. LTA will work with food delivery companies to offer more attractive rates for PMD rentals. From LTA’s engagement with retailers, we are also aware that they will bring in more UL2272-certified PMDs with higher capacity and longer range very soon.
I strongly encourage and urge all users and owners of the non UL2272-certified PMDs to switch them out as soon as possible. They can be a fire risk if you still keep and charge them at home. These devices should be properly and safely disposed of, as soon as possible. We will provide support to PMD users who come forth to dispose of their non UL2272-certified PMDs. We are studying ways to encourage Singaporeans to come forth and dispose of their non UL2272-certified devices early. More details will be announced later. LTA is also working with NEA to ensure safe and convenient disposal of non UL2272-certified devices.
I wish to remind PMD users that UL2272-certified PMDs come with electrical system safety features to reduce the risk of fires. UL2272 automatically cuts off battery charging once the battery is fully charged, thus avoiding overcharging which is a cause of fire. For this reason, modifying the electrical system of a UL2272-certified device will invalidate the certification. Users should not try to modify devices which are already UL2272-certified or add battery packs, as this could affect the circuitry and device safety. Device owners should instead approach their retailer or an authorised agent who is familiar with the approved battery model for that device model for battery replacements, so as not to void the UL2272 certification.
While UL2272 is a rigorous standard, users still have a part to play by adopting safe charging practices. They should avoid charging already-full batteries, and regularly check batteries for damage or deformity. They should only use original power adaptors, which should be affixed with Enterprise Singapore’s Safety Mark. Users should never leave their devices unattended when charging. In particular, devices should not be left to charge overnight.
LTA will work with SCDF to strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes on UL2272 certification and safe charging practices for residential, industrial and commercial buildings.
We will also crack down on illegal modifications of PMDs. Individuals caught doing so will be liable for a fine and/or jail term.
Let me now address path safety. Our strategy covers infrastructure enhancement, enforcement and education.
The first aspect pertains to infrastructure. Today, we have 90,000 registered e-scooters. We expect the number to grow as more Singaporeans take up the opportunities afforded by this new mobility option.
To meet growing needs, we will expand our active mobility infrastructure improvement plans, and expedite them in hotspots where accidents often occur. We are setting aside a fund to tackle such hotspots, by making appropriate improvements such as widening footpaths, installing clear warning signs, and installing speed regulating strips on the paths to slow down PMD users. These efforts are estimated to cost us $50 million to implement over the next few years. We will work with local MPs and residents to identify the infrastructure improvements to tackle specific hotspots in each of your constituency.
Two months ago, we had a discussion in this House on whether PMDs should be banned from HDB void decks and corridors, where there are many blind spots which cannot be overcome through infrastructure improvements. At that time, I said that Town Councils could set and enforce their own rules on PMD usage at void decks. After further discussions, 15 Town Councils have decided to ban the usage of PMDs in void decks and common corridors.
In addition, some Town Councils have also told us about the high accident risk at crowded town centres and neighbourhood centres where the paths are lined with shops. As pedestrians can walk in all different directions, there is a potentially higher risk of accidents, compared to a linear footpath. To address this risk, LTA will work with relevant Town Councils to conduct a three-month trial to designate pedestrian-only zones (POZs) where riders must dismount and push their PMDs. We will try out POZs at the town centres in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Bukit Batok and Khatib, and at a neighbourhood centre in Tampines. So, we are actually selecting five trial sites. We will consult the local Members of Parliament on the specific details. If the concept of the POZ proves useful, we will roll it out to other towns island-wide.
As a further step, LTA has also started a trial to implement School Zone markings along footpaths outside some schools. These include speed regulating strips, “SLOW” markings and enhanced visual cues on the ground to remind PMD users to slow down and watch out for other path users, especially young children. We have completed works at the first trial site at Fern Green Primary School. We will expand this to four other schools which include Fengshan Primary, Jiemin Primary, Rivervale Primary and Yishun Secondary School by next month.
Apart from localised infrastructure enhancements, we work closely with local Members of Parliament to develop active mobility infrastructure at the township level.
Ang Mo Kio is an example of what every town can look forward to. Ang Mo Kio is our first “Walking and Cycling Town”. When the cycling-path network is completed in 2022, it will span 20 km, connecting homes safely and seamlessly to the MRT station, bus interchange and AMK Hub. These cycling paths will be located along almost all of the main roads in Ang Mo Kio. They will have pedestrian and cyclist friendly features such as pedestrian-priority zones near bus stops, a distinctive red colouring for the cycling paths, and cycling ramps.
There are four stretches where it is necessary to build cycling paths for connectivity, but where the sidewalks are not wide enough. These four stretches are at Ang Mo Kio Streets 22, 41, 43 and 61. To ensure a safe and well-connected network of cycling paths, we will reclaim road space to build the cycling paths at these four stretches. This will be done by reducing the width of roads or taking back an entire road lane. This is necessary for safety and connectivity.
The works at Ang Mo Kio will be completed over the next three years. We will progressively implement similar plans in other HDB towns, and I seek Members' and fellow Singaporeans’ patience and support.
At the national level, there are now 440 km of cycling paths in Singapore. This is not enough to support first-mile-last-mile commutes. We will expand the cycling path network to 750 km by 2025 and triple our cycling network by 2030. This will require us to reclaim some existing car lanes. In new precincts such as Kampong Bugis, Tengah and Woodlands North Coast, LTA plans to build cycling paths on both sides of the road. New cycling paths may also be added to private residential estates and industrial estates.
Infrastructure alone is not enough. We also need to have a comprehensive enforcement and education strategy to encourage responsible riding and deter errant riding. Let me share what we are doing by way of enforcement.
LTA has significantly stepped up enforcement against errant riders. Since May 2019, we have more than doubled our enforcement resources. We will continue to ramp up and will enlarge the enforcement team to about 200 by the end of this year. This will be supplemented by crowd-source feedback through LTA's recently-launched \"Report PMD/PAB Incident\" function in the MyTransport.SG app.
Since May 2018, LTA officers have detected over 4,900 active mobility offences and impounded over 2,100 non-compliant devices.
Currently, our enforcement efforts are manpower-intensive. We are therefore leveraging on technology to expand our enforcement reach. LTA has just started on an 18-month trial of mobile closed circuit televisions (CCTVs) at hotspot locations to determine the effectiveness of video analytics software and radar technology in detecting offences such as speeding. This provides an additional layer of deterrence.
We take a tough stance against retailers who display or sell non-compliant devices, as well as those who provide illegal device modification services. To date, LTA has taken action against 12 PMD retailers. It is essential to tackle non-compliant devices at the source. We will not tolerate such behaviour and we will deal with them firmly and with the full brunt of the law.
Some Members also asked whether our penalties are adequate. The laws allow for a range of penalties, ranging from composition sums, forfeiture of non-compliant devices, to fine and jail terms for serious cases. This ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. In February 2019, the Courts ruled in a landmark case, sentencing a reckless PMD rider to seven weeks' jail for knocking down a pedestrian and causing grievous hurt. This will serve as a precedent for future cases. We are closely monitoring whether our penalty regime is effective at deterring errant riding behaviour. We will enhance penalties if necessary.
I have also asked Assoc Prof Faishal and AMAP to study the issue of insurance and compensation in the event of active mobility-related incidents. AMAP will submit its recommendations to the Government later this year after consulting the relevant stakeholders. We will likely start off by requiring PMD-sharing operators to have third-party liability insurance.
Meanwhile, major food delivery companies like Deliveroo and GrabFood are already providing third-party liability insurance for their riders. FoodPanda also announced this morning that they will be doing so starting from next month. AMAP and LTA are also working together with insurance companies to come up with more affordable products for individuals and encouraging individuals to purchase insurance.
Finally, we will keep up the intensity of our educational efforts. LTA has brought the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) to local communities and schools, with about 600 sessions conducted over the last three months alone. As of June 2019, over 57,000 people have participated in the SRP. We will continue to work with the community to develop a gracious and safe path sharing culture. This includes over 1,000 volunteers who regularly patrol and share safe riding practices with their community. Such educational efforts are key to a fundamental shift in how all path users behave, and will help us to maximise the usage of our paths in a safe manner.
Mr Speaker, we promote active mobility because it is good for Singaporeans. As our population ages, it is important to promote active ageing. Regular exercise is an important part of active ageing. This is why we promote Walk, Cycle, Ride as a preferred mode of transport for short distances within our residential estates. For some Singaporeans, motorised PMDs offer an added option. We hope Singaporeans will be able to accept their usage on our footpaths; but this requires PMD users to behave themselves. It is for their own safety as well as the safety of others.
We have had a year of experience regulating PMDs. It has not been a all smooth sailing and we did not expect any new tool’s introduction to be a rosy journey. But the experience has helped us to review our regulatory measures and to see how they can be tightened to further enhance safety.
As with any new technology, our regulatory regime has to be nimble and responsive. We will get the new measures in place quickly. And we will continue to monitor their effectiveness. And we remain ready to introduce new or better measures, if necessary. Safety is always our paramount concern. And we will not fail Singaporeans in safeguarding their lives and welfare.
Singapore is actually not alone in having to grapple with PMDs. I thank Members of this House for their suggestions and continued support. I am also grateful to AMAP for their wise counsel and unceasing efforts. Above all, I seek Singaporeans' support and understanding that we are committed to doing our utmost. I am confident that we will be able to make active mobility safe and relevant for Singaporeans. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the Statement. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the new deadlines of April and July 2020. Whilst this is a welcomed move, it is still eight to 11 months away. Given the high numbers of fires involving PMDs recently, is there anything else that MOT can do to mitigate these things that are happening?
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Sitoh for the clarification and also for his continual support as the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Transport Chairman. MOT is very mindful of the fire safety concerns about PMDs and we have studied this issue very, very carefully and consulted various stakeholders for the decision to bring forward the deadline for complying with the UL2272 standard by six months as well as for the mandatory inspection regime from 1 April 2020.
We understand that many Singaporeans rely on PMDs for their livelihoods and their commuting needs, such as the stories of Mr Hafidz and Mr Low that I have shared. And we understand that if we were to ban non-UL2272 certified devices immediately, that would definitely impose a lot of hardship and inconvenience to many Singaporeans. Our discussion with some of the PMD retailers, especially with the PMD Retailers Association of Singapore has also confirmed that 1 July 2020 is a reasonable timeline as it gives retailers sufficient time to bring in UL2272-certified devices so that you can have a smooth replacement scheme.
So, in the meantime, what we can do is that we will continue to encourage non-UL2272 certified device owners to switch to compliant ones as soon as possible. And, at the same time, we also understand that many of the causes of PMD-related fires can be attributed to other factors, such as improper charging practices, the use of incompatible chargers or adapters. And, as such, LTA will be working very closely with SCDF to step up fire safety education on PMDs.
Just to remind Members of the House as well as all Singaporeans, we can actually minimise the risk of fire by avoiding overcharging the batteries, like I mentioned before. We should avoid illegally modifying the devices and also avoid tampering with the electrical components or leaving the devices unattended when charging. And, if possible, please do not leave your PMD to charge overnight because there is a tendency for the device to overheat if you overcharge it excessively beyond what is required. Owners should also check that the batteries are in good condition, look for any damages or deformities that may give an indication that the battery may not be safe to continue to be used. And we should also make sure that original power adapters affixed with the Enterprise Singapore Safety Mark are used to charge the devices.
So, these are some of the practical advice I would give Singaporeans while we await the implementation of the new deadline.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have been discussing many of these PMD-related safety issues for the past one to two years. The situation is not getting any better. Every time I have a dialogue, I get a earful from my residents saying how dangerous it is to walk on these footpaths because the PMDs just come up behind them silently. So, with these measures, is MOT or LTA simply being reactive rather than trying to pre-empt the problem? I understand some countries have already banned PMDs from footpaths. Has LTA considered banning these PMDs from footpaths until our infrastructure is improved?
Last month, I filed a question about park connectors and asked why NParks are not prepared to draw lines demarcating areas for pedestrians from those for PMDs. But NParks said no, they are not prepared to do so. And that adds to the complication because pedestrians do not know for sure – if I run left, I get knocked; I run right, I also get knocked down. So, really, this situation is quite urgent and safety should be paramount. Would MOT really consider banning PMDs until our infrastructure is improved?
The other question I have for the Senior Minister of State is: can we take stiffer action against retailers that sell non-compliant batteries or PMDs. If they just get fined, they make it all back from selling such non-compliant batteries and PMDs. Let us give them a heftier punishment, even send them to jail if necessary, so that everyone will know the importance of compliance.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Lim for the many supplementary questions. In fact, we had various discussions on these issues on PMD safety over the past one to two years. And MOT really appreciates all the feedback given by Members of House. And if we look at some of these measures that we have come up with, it shows that we are listening, we know the concerns on the ground and we will not hesitate to take necessary action whenever appropriate.
But I also like to remind all Members that the reason why we promote active mobility is because we believe that it is good for Singaporeans and Singapore. And that it helps with our vision of a car-lite society. And as with introduction of any new technology, our regulatory regime has to be nimble and responsive, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, and that we will have to evolve with the needs according to the situation and feedback on the ground. And I also would like to reiterate that safety is of paramount importance and we will take all feedback seriously.
Thus far, Singapore remains the only country that has implemented the UL2272 standard for e-scooters and this had been a bold and decisive move, in September 2018, to deal with the potential issues of fire safety. We are also the first country to introduce a mandatory registration as well as, soon, a mandatory inspection regime for PMDs with regard to the weight, width, motorised speed as well as the UL2272 requirements.
The Member has also rightly pointed out that, could we have banned PMD use, right from the beginning or even at this point in time, until all the infrastructure is ready. We could have taken the path of least resistance at the beginning to completely ban PMDs on pavements and shared paths. But I think we debated in the House during the introduction of the Active Mobility Bill that, taking all things into consideration, PMDs still have a role to play in providing active mobility options as well as providing first- and last-mile connectivity. And if we had banned PMD use on pathways, what it actually means is that we would have just pushed PMDs onto the roads, which would likely lead to more fatalities because of the higher speed of buses, cars and lorries travelling on the same road.
Instead what we have done is to implement a very comprehensive regime to ensure that PMDs are used in a safe and responsible manner. With that, I want to urge Singaporeans to continue to work with us in making active mobility a safe and relevant option for everyone.
And with regards to the Member's questions on enforcement on some of these errant retailers who are irresponsibly selling devices that are non-compliant, LTA will definitely take a very close watch and will not hesitate to take tough actions against them.
Also, with regards to the question on PCN shared paths, currently, we are working with all the relevant agencies to see how we can enhance safety of PMD use on shared paths. We will also be working with local advisers to see how we can have infrastructure enhancement to tackle some of these issues on the ground.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, will the Ministry consider licensing PMDs so as to manage the growth of PMDs in Singapore and also to make it compulsory for the PMD riders to attend to a safe riding course? Second, can the Ministry also consider reducing the speed limit on the approved PMD paths, especially those shared paths with pedestrians? And third, the Town Councils welcome the five trial sites which LTA has identified in terms of designating them as pedestrian-only zones. We hope that the study will help us to better understand the behaviour of PMDs in these town centres. The Town Councils have plans to ban PMDs at all common property unless it is approved by the Town Council or LTA.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for those supplementary questions. In fact, we have started the mandatory registration of PMDs and we have only started that recently so I would urge everyone to give it some time for it to take effect.
At the same time, we also strongly encourage all riders to go through the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) which I have mentioned earlier, and to date we have more than 57,000 individuals who have already attended the SRP. To encourage the take up of SRP, we have made it completely free-of-charge. It is fully subsidised for the first two years till December 2019. So, if you know of anyone who has not gone for the course, please encourage them to do so while it is free-of-charge. We will continue to also work with active mobility interest groups, schools, companies, especially food-delivery companies, to encourage all their cyclists and PMD riders to attend the SRP.
As to the speed limit of devices on various paths, AMAP has recently recommended to MOT to reduce the speed limit of active mobility devices, including bicycles, on footpaths –from 15 km/h to 10 km/h, and 25 km/h along shared paths. So far, we have received some feedback similar to what Dr Teo Ho Pin has shared as to whether these could be reduced further. I have asked Assoc Prof Faishal, together with his AMAP team, to look at some of these suggestions. Hopefully, they will be able to come back with some recommendations by the end of this year.
As to the five trial sites, I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for agreeing to coordinate the efforts of implementing the trials in the five selected Town Councils. In fact, initially, we wanted to hold this trial over six months. After discussing with the Town Council Chairmen, we have decided to bring it down to three months because we want to know its effectiveness more quickly. And if it is proven to be effective, we will extend it to all the different towns island-wide where necessary.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): A few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I think first, we recognise the advantages that PMDs bring to society and they can create jobs as well. I think by and large, we have no problems with many of the users who use PMDs responsibly. The problem, as we know, is always with a small group of PMD users who flout the rules and also retailers who flout the rules. So, my first supplementary question to Senior Minister of State concerns individual users who flout the rules, who do not know how to use it and endanger the lives, whether they use it on the roads or on the pathways. We know so many cases where there are injuries, near misses and it is very difficult, much as we like, in terms of enforcement, how do we report them. My residents have told me that even if they want to, they do not know how. The users zoom past them and there is no time to take a photo and all that. So, I think we need to – while the rules are there, the rules are no good if it is not enforced. So, can we think of ways where we either step up enforcement through technology, through more people, I am not sure how, I am sure the fraction – it is a small fraction of the number of people we have to do this enforcement compared to the number of users that are on the road. So that is my first question: how can we step up enforcement against irresponsible users, regardless whether they are using on the road or on the pathways until – because we cannot fix them as what Mr Lim has asked for.
Second question: I also echo the concern about retailers who are outrightly selling things which they should not. For them, I think stiffer action needs to be taken. There should not be any two ways about it and we should be firm, we should be hard and should send the right message across to both retailers and irresponsible users.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I thank Mr Seah for those two supplementary questions. The first one is on the small group of irresponsible users. I totally agree with him that the majority of PMD users are responsible. Right now, we have 90,000 people who have registered PMDs in our database, and we know that only a small number of them are irresponsible. How can we then enhance our enforcement actions against this small group of people? Having said that, we do not want to ban the use of PMD just because of this small group of irresponsible users, while affecting the rest who are responsible.
LTA has started what we call a \"crowdsourcing application\". I think Members would have read in the papers about the \"Report PMD/PAB Incident\" function within the MyTransport.SG application. This will allow any Singaporean to take a picture of any errant riders that they may encounter. I understand its limitation. We will review and monitor the reports that are received from this application. Whenever possible, we will take enforcement action against the errant rider. At the same time, we also understand that sometimes it may be difficult to identify the irresponsible user just through a picture taken using the app. But this will also give us good information on some of these areas that are potentially hotspots and then we can step up enforcement actions, whether physically or otherwise, at these places.
I have also mentioned in my Ministerial Statement that we will be increasing the number of enforcement officers or AMEOs, up to about 200 by end of this year. And I believe, with more manpower, we will be able to do more. In fact, LTA has stepped up enforcement actions to the extent that almost on a daily basis, you will see that LTA has been putting up postings on its Facebook about some of these errant riders being summoned and some of these non-compliant devices being impounded. At the same time, we will also see how we can harness technology in our enforcement efforts, one of which I have explained in my Statement, which is piloting the use of mobile CCTVs at certain hotspots and see how we can use video analytics for the enforcement actions.
As to the Member's second clarification on errant retailers, yes, indeed, I share the same sentiment that we should really get tough on some of these irresponsible retailers. Like I mentioned in my previous reply, we will not hesitate to take very stiff actions against some of these errant retailers.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): First of all, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for including Khatib Centre as one of the five piloted sites for POZs. In fact, Khatib Centre has been POZed long before – until, until Active Mobility Act came into force. And I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to work closely with the local Member of Parliament. I have a lot more POZs in Nee Soon South that I would like to work with MOT on. It is not just in Khatib Centre; covered linkways as well.
I have three supplementary questions.
Just now, Senior of State mentioned that there are 90,000 PMDs registered so far. Out of the 90,000, how many are non-complying? From now until July, that is 11 months. If the number is huge, a lot of us will have nightmares. We would still have to worry about have to run in the middle of the night.
The second question, from 1 April, compulsory inspection before they can register PMD: is that a one-off inspection or will there be subsequent inspections? Because after that they can do modifications as well.
And the third question is that for those between 400 metres from MRT train stations, where you have covered linkways, those are the areas that normally, we received a lot of feedback of near accidents. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the infrastructure that he mentioned, the funding that he mentioned, will it be carried out for all the covered linkways between the 400 metres.
And I am glad to hear about using technology. Recently, I have a meeting with Singtel. In fact, they shared with me that they have the technology, they can give us data on who is the top violator, at what time it passed way, at what speed it went by. So, I hope that MOT can choose my area to be one of those piloted as well.
Dr Lam Pin Min: First of all, let me just thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for supporting us in this effort. In fact, I must give credit to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the idea of POZs in town centres and neighbourhood centres. I visited Khatib Town Centre together with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and she showed me some of the challenges on the ground. Through some of the feedback from Er Dr Lee as well as residents and other Town Council Chairmen and Advisors, we have, therefore, decided to implement and introduce these trials of POZs at the five selected town and neighbourhood centres. But, of course, if it proves to be very useful and if we receive very good feedback from Advisors as well as residents, we will implement the POZs island-wide to other town areas which Advisors have identified as potential hotspots.
As to her clarification on the number of non-compliant PMDs, to date, we have 90,000 PMDs registered in our database, of which 10% have been declared to be UL2272-certified. So, we are looking at 90% of these devices that are non-compliant at this point in time. Therefore, it is one of the reasons why we have decided to bring forward the deadline for UL2272-certified devices to be used on the ground by only six months, rather than immediately. There is necessary for the retailers to have sufficient time to bring in the certified devices for the replacement.
At the same time, we are also implementing this mandatory inspection regime from 1 April 2020. This will allow us, first of all, to verify that, indeed, some of this so-called self-declared certified PMDs are really certified to the UL2272 standard. Subsequently, what happens is that only PMDs that have been certified by our authorised inspection centres to be compliant, will be allowed to be registered.
Whether this is going to be a one-off inspection or a periodic inspection, currently, we are discussing internally. If Members understand the lifespan of a PMD, it is probably going to just last about two to three years. If we do have a regular inspection regime, whether that is going to be, first of all, necessary; secondly, whether it is going to be cost-effective. Having said that, like I have shared, we are still discussing internally and if necessary, we may put this as a requirement.
On the last clarification on the crowded covered linkways and whether we are able to use the $50 million fund that will be set up, the answer is yes. We will work with local Advisors to identify some of these hotspots and make the necessary infrastructure enhancements.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to answer my Parliamentary Question Nos 9 and 10. I have two supplementary questions. One relates to the issue of safe riding courses, would the Government consider making it compulsory for all users of PMD to attend safe riding courses? The Senior Minister of State mentioned that, at the moment, there are about over 90,000 e-scooters that have been registered and I wonder whether the Government has an estimation of how many e-scooters that have been imported and sold in Singapore that have not been registered so far. We can just well imagine that the figure is definitely greater than 90,000 and of all the e-scooters that have been used, surely, there are a lot of the e-scooters that have been used by more than one owner, that is, one scooter may be used by a few people in the family.
Secondly, still on the issue of public education, I think I have spoken about this in the past. I believe that to create a culture of safe riding, it will also involve putting the public information on the rules and on the etiquette to the users, that is, to PMD users, as well as to other park users or path users, who may not actively seek out such information, so they may not go to the LTA Facebook; they may not access certain areas where PMD users may, or go and sign up for safe riding courses. And this is clearly relevant. For example, a lot of elderly people, they may not access these Facebook sites for example and they are using the footpaths in our towns on an everyday basis. How do we ensure, for example, the simple etiquette that has always been talked about – that we should keep left, whether it is a PMD user, bicycle or pedestrian? How many persons actually consciously walk on a footpath or on a connector knowing that you keep left for safety —
Mr Speaker: Please keep the question short.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: — and being considerate. Thank you.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for those very pertinent questions. Maybe just allow me to answer his Parliamentary Questions on PMD-sharing in private premises. Under the Parking Places Act, operators are required to obtain a licence to offer dockless PMD-sharing services if users of PMDs may end PMD rentals in a public space – meaning outside private premises. This is to prevent indiscriminate parking of shared devices.
However, the licensing regime currently does not cover PMD-sharing operators who deploy their devices solely on private land. At present, PMDs belonging to commercial shared services, operating from private land are allowed to travel on public paths so long as the rental does not end in a public place. We are watching this very closely, especially for PMD-sharing operators who flout this rule, and we will take action against them.
From 1 July 2019, it is an offence under the Active Mobility Act for companies to sell or lease non UL2272-certified PMDs for use on public paths. This even includes operators who offer PMD-sharing services from private premises. What this means is that, all rental PMDs must be UL2272-certified, with no exception.
Our licensing regime under the Parking Places Act requires PMD sharing licensees to procure as well as maintain third party liability insurance. This does not apply to those operating solely on private land.
I hope this answers the two Parliamentary Questions that the Member had filed.
The Member also asked about whether we have any information on the number of devices that are not registered so far. Unfortunately, we do not have information even though registration has been mandatory since 1 July this year. As long as they are not registered, e-scooters cannot be used on public paths. I encourage owners of such unregistered devices either to quickly register them, or if not, they should dispose these devices in a safe and responsible manner.
As to mandatory education on safe riding, we have also asked ourselves whether we should make it mandatory for all PMD users, but we concluded that at this point in time, it may not be necessary to do so. Instead, like I mentioned in my reply to Dr Teo, we encourage all riders to go through the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). We have even fully subsidised SRP for all users if they want to take part in this process, up to December 2019. We will continue to work with all the various interest groups to encourage people to take part in the SRP.
We have also published a Code of Conduct for PMD users and this was actually suggested by the AMAP. This provides PMD users some guidelines on some of the things that they should do when riding a PMD responsibly. I also reckon that, sometimes, many of our elderly residents may not be aware of some of these rules and etiquette when using a public path. Therefore, we have also engaged the community to help us in this public education effort, through the Active Mobility Patrol (AMP) teams that are currently present in more than 60 constituencies. I also want to encourage constituencies which do not have an AMP to please sign up for the AMP. LTA will work closely with Members to educate PMD users as well as your residents on the safe use of PMDs and pathways.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the announcement by the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Lam to bring forward the amnesty period for the use of non-compliant PMDs from end 2020 to 1 July 2020. This is the concern I had in the Parliamentary Question that I filed for answer in today's session. I have three supplementary questions.
The first is in relation to the spike in the fire incidents. As Senior Minister of State Dr Lam mentioned, last year, we had 52 PMD related fires, and this year, from January to July, we already had 49 fires. As the Members of the House may recall, Dr Lam made an announcement in this House in September 2018 about the new standards. Following that, retailers of PMDs dumped prices from $600 to about $200 to $300. I believe, this may have resulted in people buying these non-compliant PMDs. I am not sure whether there is a correlation between this dumping and the higher incident of fires involving PMDs.
I am also concerned, whether or not these PMDs are fit for purpose. Even though you charged the PMDs properly, they could still be fire hazards. I wonder whether the Ministry could provide services to such PMD users to see whether their PMDs are fit for purpose.
The second question is in relation to the mandatory inspection date of 1 April 2020. Given that only 10% of PMDs are compliant now and given that the amnesty ends on the 1 July 2020, I would imagine that a good percentage of PMDs would fail the inspection, come 1 April 2020. What would be the status of such PMD users?
Finally, given that there is still a high number of non-compliant PMDs after 1 July 2020, I wonder whether steps could be taken to prevent a secondary market of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore; perhaps we could consider providing value for scrapping such non-compliant PMDs.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Murali for those supplementary questions. Indeed, it is of a great concern to LTA and MOT, when we read of the statistics for PMD-related fires. Like he rightly mentioned, in 2018, we had 52 cases and just the first half of this year, we had 49 cases. But if you look at the same period comparing the first half of 2019 with the first half of 2018 , it is actually a three-fold increase.
This can likely be attributed to the increase in the population of PMDs in Singapore. When we first started one or two years ago, our rough estimate was about maybe 20,000 to 30,000 devices in Singapore. This has increased to 90,000 since we implemented the mandatory registration requirement.
As to the 90% of the non-compliant PMDs, we will, like I have mentioned before, encourage owners to quickly change out to the UL2272-certified PMDs as soon as possible. If not, then we will want to remind PMD owners on some of the safe practices when it comes to the charging of the non-UL2272 certified devices, which I had already elaborated earlier.
Will there be a secondary market for non-compliant PMDs? I hope not, as least not in Singapore. The use of non-UL2272 certified devices on public paths will be illegal from 1 July 2020. If we do find anyone using such non-compliant devices, they will be taken to task.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have three questions.
The first is regarding the cost of the compulsory inspection. Would it be borne by the Government or the owners and would that be included in the fee for registration?
The second one is whether there is a de-registration procedure. After inspection, after, let us say, the battery's shelf life is gone and people are disposing of their PMDs, the PMDs might still be registered, but the PMDs are no longer in use. Another scenario, the PMDs might still continue to be used but modified with the registration. So, is there a de-registration process for PMDs?
Thirdly, regarding the UL2271 batteries, my understanding is that in some reports, there is some confusion with regard to UL2271 batteries that they can be used to replace batteries to make PMDs UL2272-compliant, like people buying UL2272 devices but then replacing the batteries with UL2271 batteries because they are of a higher quality, are more powerful and what not. Is this allowed or would this make it non-compliant?
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Goh for those supplementary questions. With regard to the cost of the inspection as well as the subsequent fee for registration when owners replace their PMDs, LTA is working out the details and will make the announcement soon.
As to deregistration, there is currently a process for PMD users to deregister their registered PMDs. And I would want to remind owners to do so because failure to deregister will not take away your responsibility of being the owner of the PMD device if it is being used illegally subsequently. So, there is currently a deregistration process in place. Please remember to deregister your PMD when you want to discard or stop using your PMD.
As to the last clarification on UL2271 and UL2272, I will have to check exactly whether they are compatible in terms of the certification. My understanding is that the device is certified to the UL2272 standard based on the battery and circuitry of the PMD. Any illegal modification or change to a different type of battery will actually render the UL2272 certification void. But I need to verify if UL2271 is, indeed, a compatible one. But I would encourage PMD users, if you need to change batteries, please go to a reputable retailer to have it changed. Do not do it yourself or through some black market retailers. Go to reputable ones to ensure that the certification will not be rendered void.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Mr Speaker, on improving infrastructure to cope with the needs of PMD users, cyclists and pedestrians, I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now about a pilot site in Ang Mo Kio where cycling tracks are signficantly being explored to be expanded. He actually mentioned that, if need be, a dedicated lane on the road would be set aside, if I heard him correctly. What I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is whether the Government will consider, given the rising popularity of the use of PMDs and cycling, going back to the early years of Singapore where there was a dedicated cycling track on the road along with the vehicles but, obviously, doing it safely as part of the future LTA Transport Master Plan.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Ms Foo for the question. When we mentioned dedicated lanes for cycling, it is separate from the road itself. From our feedback and experience, and looking at what some other countries have been doing, locating the dedicated cycling path next to the road has its pros and cons. There is always the danger where the fast-moving vehicles on the road may pose a danger to the cyclist or PMD user. What we mentioned in Ang Mo Kio is that we will try to reclaim part of these roads so that we can make it as a footpath or dedicated cycling path, which is physically separated from the road itself. This is to ensure the safety of the slow-moving PMD users and the cyclists, as well as pedestrians.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, I actually concur with the Member Mr Seah Kian Peng's comments earlier on enforcement. I just have two other supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first is whether we will consider mandating the licensing registration at the point of sale so that we are actually tackling both the retailers who have the onus or responsibility of sending the different products they are bringing in to Enterprise Singapore for that Safety Mark, but also to enable the users to know that what they are purchasing is of good quality or has already been certified.
Next, with regard to the use of technology, it is always possible with technology that we can mount gadgets on the PMD sets for sale since we are also asking the users to pay a licensing or registration fee. The main thing is that with technology it can help to track the speed of the individual PMDs so that we do not have to triple or quadruple the number of enforcers on the ground. The issue is very similar to that of high-rise littering or even pigeon-feeding. There can never be enough enforcers on the ground to help out with all this enforcement. With that technology, they can automatically trigger if there is any violation on the part of the PMD users.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, indeed, some of these suggestions are very valid and good. Whether we want to mandate registration at the point of sale is something that we can look at. We are not saying that we will disallow the registration by the retailer on behalf of the buyer. It can be done. But I would also like to remind users to purchase UL2272-certified or compliant PMDs from reputable retailers. If you are going to buy PMDs online, then there is a risk that you may be purchasing something that has been falsely declared to be compliant but which actually may not be.
Secondly, on the use of technology, indeed, this is exactly what we plan to do. LTA is also embracing technology to see how we can enforce the responsible use of PMDs, such as, like I mentioned, the use of mobile CCTVs. Whenever there are new technologies that are available in the future, we will consider using such technology to enhance our enforcement action. But in the interim, I think it is necessary to have sufficient manpower on the ground, which is one of the many feedback that we have received from Advisors that, in the past, there were very few physical bodies on the ground to do the enforcement. Therefore, we have increased the number of manpower to tackle the root of the problem. But in the future, if we have technologies that can facilitate enforcement action, we will definitely deploy them.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I would like to pursue the issue of mandatory third-party insurance. Although several measures have since been implemented by the Ministry, I think we can all understand due to the sheer number of PMDs and the lack of sufficient enforcement resources on the ground, it is almost impossible and also impractical to police errant PMD users. When accidents happen, victims suffer, not only suffering the pain and inconvenience of injuries but having to foot large medical bills, not to mention the loss of earnings as well. Without insurance, it is difficult for the victims to seek appropriate compensation. Taking the errant PMD user to Court may be fruitless, not to mention the high cost of litigation which the victim can ill afford. A general search of the insurance market reveals that the premium for a basic third-party insurance policy, if made mandatory, may not be exorbitant. An indicative estimate may cost somewhere between $50 and $80 pa, depending on the potential volume of PMDs that we have. This would be an affordable price to pay to ensure proper and adequate compensation to victims of accidents involving PMDs as well as the fire risks from non-compliant devices.
So, given the large number of non-compliant PMDs still in use out there – and we still have many more months to go – I urge the Ministry to seriously reconsider the introduction of mandatory insurance in the light of this real and imminent risk exposure.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Melvin Yong for that recommendation. Indeed, we had discussed this issue on several occasions in previous parliamentary sittings. Having received many of this feedback, we have actually asked Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, together with his AMAP, to study this issue of insurance and compensation in the event of any active mobility-related incidents. They will submit their recommendations later this year, after consulting the various relevant stakeholders.
So, we are not precluding that possibility. But I would also want to say that, at this point in time, we will likely start off by requiring PMD-sharing operators to have mandatory third-party liability insurance. At the same time, I have also mentioned just now that the major food delivery companies, like Deliveroo, GrabFood and Food Panda, are and will be providing third-party liability insurance for their riders. So, this is one step in the correct direction. In the meantime, we are also working with the insurance companies to see whether we can come up with a more affordable plan for the individual users so that the cost of insurance will not be a great barrier for them to purchase one if they want to at this point in time. So, I hear your appeal and we will ask Assoc Prof Faishal to look into it.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State regarding retailers. I think earlier in his speech, he mentioned that action had been taken against a number of retailers for selling non-compliant devices. I think the number was around 12, if I heard him correctly. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether any of these retailers were actually online retailers? Related to that, I have come across a few people who have bought e-scooters from Taobao and so on. I wonder how the Government is going to work with these online retailers that are headquartered overseas where they may have an international market where being non-compliant with UL2272 is legal in those jurisdictions.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the clarification. Indeed, there are 12 retailers that have been taken to task. But at this point in time, I do not have the exact information as to whether any of these are online retailers.
As to the Member's second question, yes, indeed, LTA has been working with online shopping platforms to collaborate on educating our consumers and retailers on the regulations pertaining to the sale and use of PMDs in Singapore and at the same time to remove any post of any false advertisements of compliant devices from their platforms. Like what Ms Sylvia Lim has rightly pointed out, we are cognisant of the fact that there are thousands of online shopping platforms out there, including Taobao, and many of them are actually based overseas outside Singapore. It may not be possible for us to work with every single online retailer. It is, therefore, important to have what we have just mentioned, the mandatory inspection regime, to ensure that our PMDs used on our paths meet our technical as well as safety requirements. We will also continue to raise public awareness and educate both current as well as future users that it is illegal to use non-compliant devices on our public paths.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one, UL2272. We heard the statistics that the Senior Minister of State shared earlier. We assume that there are about 81,000 PMDs out there today which are non-UL2272 certified. While I do not think that 81,000 PMDs will spontaneously catch fire, if it is a safety concern, why would LTA not call for an immediate ban on its usage? We see this in other industries. In the car industry, even though it is just one or two accidents, Toyota has recalled 2.2 million cars before. Ikea – furniture malfunction – has recalled the entire range. For the food industry, even if it is not recalled internationally, when some food additives are found to be problematic, they are recalled in Singapore as well. So, if there is a safety concern, and we already see a significant number of fires that have resulted from improper usage or battery problems in the last two years, why do we not recall for that?
The second supplementary question has to do with licensing of the rider or permitting the rider. A couple of hon Members have already mentioned this. But just to name some jurisdictions. Israel requires a special permit for riders who do not already have a driver’s licence. New Zealand also requires a driver’s licence as in certain provinces in Canada. So, there are already jurisdictions that require licensing for riders. While we may not have to go that far, my understanding from the Senior Minister of State’s response earlier is \"not at this point\". But at what point do we start considering it? If we keep saying that it is not at this point and then two years down we will have to come back to the Parliament and have another Ministerial Statement on the issue. So, for the SRP would it not be permissible to make this compulsory and for attendance of the course, you are granted, say, a letter or permit that would allow you to ride or purchase a PMD?
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Alex Yam for the clarification. Indeed, non-UL2272 certified devices have been identified as one of the possible reasons why we have this spate of fire incidents recently. But we also understand that there are multiple factors that can lead to a fire incident. As such, while we understand that there is a call to ban the use of non-UL2272 certified devices immediately, we also are cognisant of the fact that there are many Singaporeans out there that rely on such devices, not only for their daily commuting, but also as a way to sustain their livelihood. So, we are quite careful in not doing that. But at the same time, we want to remind PMD users who are currently not using UL2272-certified devices to exercise caution, like what I have mentioned about the safety practices, in terms of charging. And if you are able to do that, then we will minimise the risks of fire incidents.
As to the Member's second clarification on the licensing of riders, at this point in time, we do not have the intention to do so, but let us bring this back to study and see whether this will be necessary in the future.
Mr Speaker: I would like to increase the speed of this topic. We will take a last question, Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. I have had a few PMD-related fire incidents in my ward over the past two years. Since then my residents have taken to charging their PMDs outside of their flats while attending to them. But this has also caused alarm and concern with their neighbours of potential fire incidents. I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's position regarding the charging of PMD outside of one's flat? Is this legal or illegal?
Dr Lam Pin Min: We would like to clarify that it is not illegal to charge your PMD, whether it is inside your flat or outside. But what is necessary to know is that you are supposed to exercise the necessary precautions when you are charging your PMD. Please do not leave it to charge overnight; do not leave it to charge unattended; do exercise the precautions that we mentioned previously; make sure that you do regular inspections of your battery packs to make sure that they are not damaged; and at the same time, please use compatible chargers and Safety Mark labelled adapters.
But, if possible, I would encourage the PMD user to change out to a UL2272-certified device as soon as possible, not only just for your own safety but the safety of your neighbours as well.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments (Repeal) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to repeal the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Chapter 264 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Chapter 265 of the 2001 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resource Sustainability Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to impose obligations relating to the collection and treatment of electrical and electronic waste and food waste, to require reporting of packaging imported into or used in Singapore, to regulate persons operating producer responsibility schemes, and to promote resource sustainability\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Injury Compensation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to repeal and re-enact with amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (Chapter 354 of the 2009 Revised Edition) to provide for the payment of compensation to employees for injury suffered arising out of and in the course of their employment and to regulate providers of insurance for liability under the Act, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) on behalf of the Minister for Manpower; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Children and Young Persons Act (Chapter 38 of the 2001 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Variable Capital Companies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to make amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition), the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition) in connection with variable capital companies and their sub-funds, to make amendments to the Variable Capital Companies Act 2018 (Act 44 of 2018) in connection with the enactment of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018), and for other purposes, and to make related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time.\"
Sir, this Bill amends our intellectual property, or IP regime, specifically in the area of dispute resolution.
In today’s technology- and knowledge-driven economy, where intangible assets are increasingly important, a robust and trusted IP regime is essential for growth and enterprise. A McKinsey Report in January 2019, titled “Globalization in Transition: The Future of Trade and Value Chains”, found that capitalised spending on research and development and intangible assets such as brands, software, and IP is growing as a share of revenue, from 5.4% in 2000 to 13.1% in 2016.
Singapore is well-recognised internationally for its world-class IP regime. In the latest 2018 Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, Singapore is ranked third in the world, and first in Asia, for IP protection.
In today’s rapidly changing world, we cannot rest on our laurels and must continually assess and review our IP regime to ensure that it remains relevant and supports our enterprises. This Bill is very much in this vein.
Sir, cost-effective IP dispute resolution complements efficient IP protection. Innovative and creative enterprises that develop IP and protect it can secure a commercial advantage over their competitors. They can protect their IP in Singapore swiftly and efficiently through the suite of e-services that the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, or IPOS, provides. In addition, they can also secure protection overseas with ease and speed through the international agreements and networks that Singapore is a part of. For example, international trade mark registrations can be secured under the Madrid system, and international patent applications can be filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT. Patent applications in many major markets can also be accelerated under the Global Patent Prosecution Highway programme and the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation programme.
However, obtaining IP protection would have no commercial value to an enterprise if, when its IP rights are infringed, it finds itself unable to enforce its IP rights due to a lack of financial resources. This Bill focuses on this final mile.
The cost-effective resolution of IP disputes increases the confidence that IP rights owners have in maintaining their competitive edge, and maximising the rewards of their innovative and creative efforts.
In 2018, there were a total of 11,845 patent applications. This is an increase of almost 22% from five years earlier.
The number of applications from locals has increased by even more – about 40% from 2013 to 2018.
The pace of innovation, by both local businesses and individuals, is accelerating.
So, therefore, not only must the IP registration process be cost-effective and easy to navigate, in the event that IP rights need to be enforced, the IP dispute resolution process must also be cost-effective and easy to navigate.
This was why in 2015, MinLaw appointed a committee to review the IP dispute resolution system in Singapore. One of the objectives of the review was to make the IP dispute resolution system more accessible, particularly for less well-resourced parties such as individuals and SMEs. This Bill implements some of the Committee’s recommendations.
We are doing so from a position of strength. An important plank of our legal and judicial system is the efficiency of our Courts.
In the latest 2019 World Bank Doing Business Survey, it was noted that it takes 164 days to resolve a claim in Singapore, compared to 370 days in New York and 437 days in London.
In addition, this Bill strengthens Singapore’s position as a choice venue for the arbitration of international IP disputes.
Let me now outline to this House the key features of this Bill.
First, we are consolidating most of the civil IP disputes to be heard in the High Court. Second, we are legislating certain patent-related procedures before the Registrar of Patents. Third, we are clarifying that IP disputes may be arbitrated in Singapore.
Let me take Members through each of these features.
The first two groups of amendments facilitate the effective resolution of IP disputes, in court, and at IPOS. IPOS is responsible for the Registries of the various IP rights, for example, the Registry of Patents and the Registry of Trade Marks.
I will first discuss dispute resolution in court.
The Bill consolidates most civil IP disputes in a single forum – the High Court. Currently, IP disputes are heard in multiple forums – the High Court, the State Courts and at IPOS. Where a dispute is to be heard depends on a few factors.
First, on the IP right in issue. For example, whether the dispute is about a patent over an invention, or copyright in song lyrics. Second, the nature of the dispute. For example, whether the dispute is about infringement of someone's IP right, or the validity of the IP right itself. Third, the value of the claim.
Let me illustrate. Today, a copyright or trade secret owner commences his case in the State Courts, if he or she is seeking damages of up to $250,000 for copyright infringement or breach of confidence. Above this amount, the case must be commenced in the High Court. On the other hand, for infringement of patents, trade marks, and registered designs, the case must be started in the High Court, regardless of the value of the claim. This itself adds complexity, and different layers to determine which kinds of cases are commenced and heard in which court.
Going forward, the IP dispute resolution system will be improved.
First, the system will be streamlined and it will be clearer to users what the appropriate forum is when they have a dispute. Second, parties who litigate in court will benefit from the expertise of High Court judges. The High Court has a specialist bench of IP judges, with greater expertise and experience in IP matters. Third, IP rights owners and users in general will benefit from the development of IP jurisprudence through High Court judgments.
The Bill therefore makes the following amendments to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Patents, the Magistrate's Court, the District Court and the High Court over IP disputes:
Clause 4 makes the High Court the exclusive forum to hear civil proceedings for most copyright matters. Cases before the Copyright Tribunal, for example, cases about licensing rates charged by copyright owners, are not affected. They will remain with the Copyright Tribunal.
Clauses 13 and 19 remove the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Patents over patent infringement and declarations of non-infringement of patents, respectively.
Clause 20(a) gives the High Court jurisdiction over patent revocation, where such proceedings do not arise in the context of an existing dispute before the High Court.
Clauses 31 and 32 remove the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court and the District Court over an action in passing off.
As a result, the High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over:
(a)\tCivil infringement of copyright and all forms of registrable IP rights;
(b)\tPassing off actions, which are closely related to trade mark infringement;
(c)\tDeclarations of non-infringement of patents and registered designs; and
(d)\tBreach of confidence actions where the amount claimed exceeds $250,000.
The High Court will also have concurrent jurisdiction with the relevant Registrar over post-grant revocation and invalidation proceedings for patents, and not just trade marks, registered designs and geographical indications. Such proceedings are about whether the IP right are validly registered or granted. This gives the parties commencing revocation or invalidation proceedings a choice between doing so in the High Court, and doing so before the relevant Registrar who granted the right in the first place.
To ensure that parties may continue to access the courts in a cost-effective and expeditious manner, in conjunction with the consolidation of IP disputes in the High Court, MinLaw and the Supreme Court are looking into the introduction of a specialised IP litigation \"track\" in the High Court, with simplified processes and also cost-saving features.
This is outside the scope of this Bill, and will be done via amendments to civil procedure.
This \"specialised track\" will be especially useful for less well-resourced parties such as individuals and SMEs, who may otherwise be unable to enforce their valid IP rights.
Litigants in the High Court will generally be able to choose between this \"specialised track\" for IP cases, and the \"default track\" where IP cases are treated in a similar manner to other types of civil cases.
More details about the time and cost-saving features of the \"specialised track\" will be shared in due course.
My Ministry consulted practitioners when developing these reforms. We received feedback that IP litigation tends to be more expensive than most other types of litigation, given its specialised and highly technical nature, and in some cases, the need for expert witnesses as well. This could put it out of reach for some enterprises that need to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes. This \"specialised track\" is being developed with a focus on lowering litigation costs.
Next, I turn to proceedings at IPOS, specifically those before the Registrar of Patents. The Bill seeks to raise the quality of granted patents in Singapore.
Before elaborating on the amendments, let me provide an overview of the patent application process.
After a patent application is made at the Registry of Patents, it undergoes Search and Examination. A patent examiner will search publicly available information at the time of the patent application to understand the current state of technology. The examiner then assesses whether the invention in the application meets the statutory criteria of being new, inventive and capable of industrial application. Only inventions that fully meet these criteria are granted patent protection.
Clause 10 of the Bill legislates a process of third party observations. This is a process in which a third party can, after a patent application has been published, submit observations to the Registrar of Patents on the patentability of the invention in the application. The third party provides reasons and documents to the Registrar, which can be useful in the Search and Examination process.
This helps to ensure that only deserving inventions are granted patent protection, as the patent examiner has another source of information available to him or her when making that assessment. Currently, third party observations are already being filed, but informally. Setting out the process in legislation makes it clear and transparent for all, and increases awareness about how the process can be used.
Clause 11 of the Bill introduces a process for re-examining the specification of a patent after it has been granted. After a patent has been granted, information which affects the validity of the patent could come to light, which was not previously available at the earlier stage. For example, a competitor or a researcher could come to know of some document or earlier published literature which may suggest that the invention in question is actually not new or inventive, and therefore the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
Currently, the main means of challenging the validity of a patent at the Registry of Patents, after it has been granted, is through the patent revocation process under section 80 of the Patents Act. With patent revocation, the requestor is involved as a party in the entire revocation proceeding. The new patent re-examination process is ex parte in nature. This means that all the requestor does is make the request and submit the documents. Thereafter, he is no longer involved. If the patent examiner finds that there are grounds for the patent to be revoked, he will correspond with the patent proprietor only. Therefore, for the requestor, this provides an additional, lower cost option to challenge the validity of a patent.
Sir, in summary, these two procedures – third party observation and post-grant re-examination – are intended to be low-cost, lower barriers of entry, and provide easier avenues for third parties to bring to the Registrar's attention information about the patentability of an invention. This helps to strengthen the quality of granted patents in Singapore, and is the latest step in our efforts to improve the patent system.
In 2013, IPOS began to examine patent applications in-house, having built up a team of examiners to do so. Our patent examination capabilities were recognised internationally when, in 2014, IPOS was appointed an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority for international PCT patent applications.
In 2014, we also tightened the system such that a patent is granted only if the invention fully meets the patentability requirements in our law.
Now, these latest measures provide even more avenues for third-parties to scrutinise and submit information for IPOS to consider, thus helping to further enhance the quality of the Patents Register.
Sir, I now move on to the third group of amendments, which concern arbitration of IP disputes.
Singapore offers a suite of dispute resolution options. Besides going to the courts or to IPOS, parties can also consider resolving their disputes by way of arbitration. Arbitration holds certain advantages. For example, arbitration proceedings can take place in private, and parties have a greater degree of control over how the proceedings are conducted. Singapore is also highly-regarded internationally as an arbitration venue, and offers a choice of leading arbitral institutions. According to the 2018 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, Singapore is now the third most preferred seat of arbitration globally, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) the third most preferred arbitral institution.
Clause 2 amends the Arbitration Act, and clause 8 amends the International Arbitration Act, to clarify that IP disputes are capable of settlement by arbitration, in other words, that they are arbitrable. The amendments also clarify that such arbitral awards bind only the parties to the arbitration proceedings.
These amendments will provide greater clarity and certainty to users, as well as encourage the use of arbitration in IP disputes, and strengthen Singapore's attractiveness as a venue for international IP arbitration.
Arbitral awards cannot affect the status of IP rights on the IP Registers. The arbitral award only affects the parties that have submitted the dispute to arbitration. As Members know, arbitration is essentially an agreement by which two parties agree to submit a dispute to a chosen tribunal. So, for example, if an arbitral tribunal finds that a patent issued by any country is invalid, the consequences of such a finding, which, for example, could affect the licence fee payable by one party to the other, affects the parties in the arbitration only, and no one else. The patent remains on the Register in whichever country it may originate from. Decisions that affect the status of IP rights on the Registers can only be made by the courts or the relevant Registrars from the jurisdictions that issue those IP rights. These amendments will lend further certainty to arbitrators and stakeholders who may wish to challenge the validity of IP rights in arbitration proceedings.
I turn now to other ancillary amendments related to IP dispute resolution, and I will highlight two main ones.
First, clauses 9(c), 12(c) and 20(i) provide the Registrar of Patents with greater flexibility to refer disputes before the Registrar to the High Court. This could, for example, lead to cost savings by reducing one layer of appeal, when it is clear that the parties to the dispute before the Registrar of Patents intend to appeal against the Registrar's decision anyway.
Second, clauses 5, 26, 29, and 33 of the Bill harmonise across all the Acts relating to IP rights the availability of the right to appeal against High Court decisions made on appeal from the relevant Registrar. Going forward, the consistent approach will be that when decisions from the relevant Registrar are appealed to the High Court, where further appeals are possible, such appeals can only proceed with the leave of court.
Sir, this Bill is a part of important reforms to the IP dispute resolution system, which is a key part of a well-functioning and reputable, trusted IP regime that is needed to support an innovative economy.
We are giving IP rights owners greater confidence that they can effectively enforce their IP rights. This preserves their incentives to continue investing in innovative and creative activities, which in turn benefits our economy, and our society.
These reforms also build on Singapore's considerable strengths, to enhance our standing as a hub for international IP arbitration. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Intellectual property is particularly important for Singapore as we continue to look for smart solutions and invest heavily in research and development. By monetising intangible innovations, there is incentive to work on ideas and make them reality. This benefits society. The substantive law governing and protecting intellectual property is a key ingredient in ensuring Singapore's reputation as an intellectual property hub grows. This Bill strengthens that framework so that IP rights can be better protected in Singapore.
First, this Bill introduces third party observation and re-examination after grant process. Before I go further Sir, I should declare that I am a practising lawyer whose practice also includes IP and acted in the case that appeared in the Explanatory Statement of this Bill.
Sir, the third party observation process in clause 10, the new section 32 of the Patents Act, is available before the patent is granted. This will allow the patent granted to more accurately reflect the scope that would be adequate both for the rights of the proprietor as well as other innovators in the same field. Would the Minister elaborate on how this process may affect the turnover time for patent registration in Singapore?
The re-examination after grant process is found in clause 11, new section 38A of the Patents Act. This new process supplements the current procedure. Although the applicant has less control in the ex parte proceeding, the applicant does not need to spend as much financial resources and time to challenge the patent. Even as it is good to provide this alternative process of challenging a patent, would the Minister elaborate on the safeguards to prevent a proprietor of a legitimate patent from getting deluged by these applications? Although the applications may not cost as much for the applicant as a court proceeding, these applications take a toll on the proprietor by increasing uncertainty.
One or both of these kinds of third-party processes are present in other jurisdictions and regions such as Japan, Great Britain, Europe, Australia and China. Having it in Singapore will further our position as an intellectual property hub. These processes make patents in Singapore more robust and accurate as there are more avenues to subject them to scrutiny. Because it is ex parte, these processes are less costly and less time consuming. It is especially important for SMEs with limited resources and manpower – which is a point, I think, the Senior Minister of State alluded to in his speech earlier on.
In relation to the re-examination after grant process, there is a bar in the new section 38A(5) of the Patents Act against the filing of an application where there is a pending court proceeding in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. Would the Minister explain why there is no similar bar in the context of an ongoing arbitration, especially if a party to the arbitration is trying to get a second bite at the cherry by filing an application? Even though arbitration proceedings are private, the proprietary holder could, possibly, apply for a stay of the re-examination application.
Second, this Bill streamlines dispute resolutions by consolidating the jurisdiction for intellectual property disputes within the High Court. Currently, certain intellectual property disputes may be carried out at IPOS or at the various level of courts. For example, copyright proceedings used to be held in \"a court\" but has been changed in clauses 3 and 4 to only the High Court. The jurisdiction of the Registrar at IPOS to determine infringement of a patent is removed by clause 13. In this way, this Bill consolidates intellectual property proceedings in the High Court, simplifying and streamlining the process. This may also assist in enforcement overseas. As cross-border intellectual property disputes may become increasingly common in an inter-connected world, overseas enforcement is particularly important for intellectual property disputes.
However, along with this change comes concerns regarding costs. Small businesses already tend to avoid enforcing intellectual property rights due to somewhat prohibitive costs and a potential \"war of attrition\". While the Bill provides for indemnity costs under certain conditions at clause 6, this is only for Geographical Indications and a trial and hearing at the High Court still costs significantly more than that of a lower Court. Furthermore, as some of the procedures were previously carried out by IPOS, what will be done to ensure that our judiciary has the necessary expertise and resources needed to replace that function?
Third, this Bill makes it clear that disputes relating to intellectual property rights are arbitrable. This is important as there is some school of thought that certain intellectual property disputes such as copyright and registration of trade mark or patents are non-arbitrable as it is against public policy. These are some arguments, not necessarily arguments I would agree with. For example, the Review of the Arbitration Act Committee's 2000 Report Review of Arbitration Laws espoused such a view. However, the position in the Bill is not novel – it is the position that is also made clear in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Ordinance which came into effect 1 January 2018.
There are advantages to having intellectual property being arbitrable. Firstly, the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is especially relevant in intellectual property cases where the very thing that is being disputed is an intangible, and sometimes, and quite often, a confidential asset. Secondly, a total of 160 states have signed up to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Thirdly, parties have greater control over where they desire to have a matter arbitrated, for example, in a neutral jurisdiction instead of the place of business.
While the new section 52C(3) of the Arbitration Act and 26C(3) of the International Arbitration Act make it clear that an arbitration award involving intellectual property rights does not affect third-party holder of a security interest, could the Minister elaborate on how this will operate? This Bill sets out exciting changes to the intellectual property dispute resolution landscape. What will be done to strengthen and train up capabilities of our people so that people in our legal industry can benefit from these changes? This includes arbitrators specialising in intellectual property (IP), legal practitioners in the field of intellectual property and disputes, and thought leaders in arbitration, dispute resolution and intellectual property.
There is much potential in this Bill. People who develop and own intellectual property – software engineers, designers, small medium enterprises, for instance. People who use technology in their day-to-day life will also benefit from this Bill. Why? Because intellectual property rights are supported through a more robust dispute resolution structure. And for those reasons, I support this Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Bill. This Bill aims to ensure that the Singapore IP regime continues to support innovative activities in Singapore and positions Singapore as a choice of venue for international IP dispute resolution.
I see the three key highlights of the Bill as: (a) to streamline the IP dispute resolution framework in Singapore; (b) to provide certainty that IP disputes can be arbitrated in Singapore; and (c) to amend the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore's procedures on granting and re-examining patents.
I applaud the move to provide certainty that IP disputes can be arbitrated in Singapore and the arbitral award only has effect on the parties and not the world at large. This also means that if an arbitral tribunal makes a finding that a patent is invalid, a third party will not be able to rely on that finding to argue that he does not infringe the patent.
However, with the consequent move for IP cases to be heard by the High Court, I am concerned that the costs of arbitration as well as the costs of award will escalate in tandem with IP cases moving to the High Court. With the formalisation of third party observations on patent applications, when a patent application has been published, but a patent has not been granted, a third party may make submissions to the Registrar of Patents on the patentability of the invention. Such a formalisation of process is a positive move to ensure the quality of granted patents.
In streamlining the IP dispute resolution framework in Singapore, most, if not all IP disputes will now be heard by the High Court. With such an exclusive jurisdiction vested in the High Court, I wish to ask the Minister if such a move will over-burden the High Court and its judicial officers and over-stretch our already lean judiciary. In the same vein, will such a move also result in escalation of costs to take action or defend during an IP dispute. Although there is a fast track procedure instituted, will costs be truly and effectively kept down regardless of value of disputes or cost-sensitive litigants.
In short, in our journey towards strengthening our IP regime, encouraging inventions and innovation, can we also do more to help our Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), start-ups, including fintech start-ups, entrepreneurs and freelance professionals in various sectors, such as those in the creative sector, gaming or software development areas, to help them navigate this area of law and the new disputes regime easily, effectively and in an economical manner as and when they are registering, arbitrating, accused of infringement or taking civil action themselves in the area of intellectual property law which encompasses, trademarks, patents and copyright. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill which takes significant steps forward in positioning Singapore as a hub for international IP dispute resolution.
The Bill addresses three broad areas of IP dispute resolution. First, it consolidates the majority of IP proceedings in the High Court. Second, it updates pre and post-grant patent procedures. Third, it clarifies that IP disputes are arbitrable.
I have clarifications and recommendations for each of these three areas.
I would like to acknowledge and thank the NUS Law Intellectual Property Student Association (IPSA) for their input. I would also like to commend the MinLaw for the extensive public consultation process and outreach to stakeholder groups such as IPSA.
Sir, the proposed amendments introduce a formal procedure for submitting pre-grant third-party observations on the patentability of an invention. This move which assists IPOS in evaluating patents at the pre-grants stage will increase the overall quality of registered patents in Singapore. I would like to raise four points on the procedure for submitting third-party observations.
First, will the Ministry consider allowing third-party observers the option of remaining anonymous and not revealing their identities to the patent applicant and the general public? This would encourage more third parties to submit observations without any fear of prejudice. The Japan Patent Office and the European Patent Office both permit third-party observations to be filed anonymously. To address the concern of frivolous observations being anonymously filed, the identity of third-party observers can be known by only IPOS who can take action against parties who abuse the observation process.
Second, will the Ministry consider making the content of third-party observations and the applicant's response to the third-party observation available for public inspection?
Public inspection could generate healthy debate on the validity of the specific patent, making the grant process more robust. On a broader level, this could increase awareness of the requirements of patent validity as a whole. This would increase the overall quality of registered patents in Singapore. Under the International Patent System administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, observations and the applicant's responses are made available for public inspection.
Third, will the Ministry consider setting out in subsidiary legislation or guidelines the grounds on which pre-grant third-party observations should be based? While the new section 32 on pre-grant observations states that third parties are to provide “reasons” for their observations, it does not define the term “reasons”. In contrast, the new section 38A on the post-grant process explicitly provides grounds for third parties to request a re-examination of patents. Setting out a list of possible “reasons” would increase the clarity of third-party submissions.
Japan’s Patent Law prescribes specific grounds for third-party observations at the pre-grant stage, which are similar to the grounds under which patents can be invalidated post-grant. Likewise, the European Patent Convention specifies that pre-grant third-party observations on patentability must be based on the grounds of novelty, inventive step, clarity, sufficiency of disclosure and amendments that are not allowed.
Fourth, while I understand that the costs for third party observations have not been determined and that accessibility would be the key concern, will the Ministry provide its assurance that costs for doing so will be kept as low as possible? For instance, the costs could be a nominal administration fee for the processing of their observations. Keeping the costs low will ensure that third parties keen to submit useful observations are not deterred by the prohibitive costs of doing so.
Next, I have two points to raise on the amendments to clarify that IP disputes can be arbitrated in Singapore. My two points relate to the scope of IP disputes that can be arbitrated in Singapore.
First, can the Minister clarify if IP rights found in employment contracts are arbitrable? It is common practice for employers to insert clauses relating to IP rights in employment contracts. However, there are some countries that deem employment disputes to be non-arbitrable because they relate to matters of public policy. Greece is one such country that considers employment disputes to be non-arbitrable. The position in Singapore on arbitrability of employment disputes has not been conclusively settled. If employment disputes are non-arbitrable, then IP disputes arising from employment contracts may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts. It would be useful for the Ministry to clarify the position on arbitrability of IP disputes arising out of employment contracts.
Second, can the Minister clarify if the arbitral awards for patent validity disputes can serve as a basis for patent registry amendments? Internationally, countries have taken different positions on this. In the EU, patent infringement issues are arbitrable but patent validity challenges are within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Courts and are not arbitrable. On the other end of the spectrum, Switzerland allows arbitral awards to constitute the basis for amendments to its patent registry.
The new section 52F seems to suggest that patent validity are arbitrable. However, it would be useful for the Minister to further clarify whether it is intended that such arbitration award would only be valid as between parties or whether the award can serve as a basis for patent registry amendment.
Finally, beyond the amendments proposed in the Bill, the Ministry has indicated that it intends to further introduce a fast track for lower value disputes or less well-resource litigants. I understand that details of this fast track option is still being ironed out and will be fleshed out in subsidiary legislation. I would like to raise some points for clarification and consideration when drafting the subsidiary legislation.
First, the Ministry has proposed a cap of two hearing days for cases on the fast track. Can the Minister clarify how the proposed cap of two hearing days was derived? Will the Ministry be further studying the optimal period for hearing cases on the fast track? I raise this because the consolidation of disputes in the High Court was motivated by the fact that the Ministry has stated that, “IP disputes often involve myriad technical details that are susceptible to repeated and extensive requests for particulars and discovery”. With this in mind, it is unclear whether a cap of two hearing days for a trial would be realistic for IP disputes.
My second point is on the powers of the trial judge hearing cases on the fast track to order relief. The Ministry has not indicated a position on whether such a trial judge for a fast track case can grant both interim and final relief. This question was also left open in the Final Report of the IP Dispute Resolution Committee. This is a crucial point that I hope the Ministry will eventually clarify. I would also like to highlight that if fast track judges are unable to make decisions on relief, they may have to pass the case to default track judges. This might lead to more time spent and increased costs if plaintiffs have to bring separate legal proceedings by the plaintiff to obtain the legal remedies sought.
Third and lastly, I hope the Ministry will also clarify whether decisions from the fast track are appealable, and if so, how this will interact with the proposed two-day hearing cap.
Sir, I stand in support of this Bill and hope the Ministry can take into consideration my recommendations in further developing the IP dispute resolution landscape in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, for their support of the Bill, and, in particular, I appreciate the Intellectual Property Students’ Association’s inputs through Mr Louis Ng. Their activism and their interest in legal development in their chosen area is something to be encouraged.
Members have raised points for clarification in four main areas and I propose to deal with them as a whole under these four areas.
Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the “specialised track” would be effective in keeping litigation costs down. Mr Louis Ng also asked a few questions about the features of the “specialised track”. First, Mr Ng's suggestions and proposals in relation to how we design this track, what we take into account, we will consider them when we prepare the relevant rules.
The “specialised track” focuses on lowering costs by having simplified processes and other cost-saving features. These obviously have to deal with the appropriate types of cases and not every case will be suitable for this \"specialised\" track. I will elaborate on some of the features which we are considering although they are not part of the Bill.
There will be early and active case management by the Courts. This will ensure that cases are managed in an appropriate manner, with procedures that are streamlined and cost-effective. So, we sieve the cases upfront to ensure that they are appropriate. And to Mr Ng's point about whether separate proceedings may be filed if one determines half way through that the \"specialised\" track is not suitable, that is unlikely to happen given the upfront pre-judicial management or rather case management of the process.
We are considering a cap of $500,000 on the value of the claim for damages or an account of profits. The “specialised track” is appropriate for lower value cases, which tend to be less complex. The cap on the value of the claim reflects this.
We are also considering a cap on party-and-party costs awarded. This would be stage-based, in other words, based on the stage of proceedings of the litigation, with an overall cap of $50,000. This will also help to lower the business risk of litigation that Members spoke about.
On the two-day cap for the length of trial, we propose to cap it but at the same time allow the trial judge discretion to extend this in the appropriate circumstances. So, for example, if a case is being heard and half way through, you might need another half a day, obviously the trial judge will have the discretion to do so. This will reduce the time spent and the consequently the costs for the parties. The cap on two days – Mr Ng asked how it was arrived at. It was based on the recommendations of the IP Resolution Review Committee which, I am sure, Mr Ng knows comprises representatives from the judiciary as well as IP lawyers who handle these cases, academia and also IP rich companies who viewed this as appropriate for the less complex cases. So, we took a sampling of these views and proposed the two days on that basis.
Regarding the relief that the trial judge can grant, it is intended that the trial judge’s power to grant interim and final relief would be the same, whether a case is on the “specialised track” or “default track”. In other words, the remedies that one would expect to see ought not be different. It is just that the process and the speed by which you resolve the case could be different, depending on the complexity and nature of the case.
Regarding appeals, final decisions in cases on the “specialised track” will be appealable in the same manner as final decisions in cases on the “default track”. As the appeal is a separate process, the time spent on the appeal hearing is not included in the two-day hearing cap for cases on the “specialised track”.
Mr Tay asked whether the costs of arbitration of IP disputes will escalate as a result of moving certain IP disputes to the High Court. That has not been our sense and also when we look at the feedback from the Committee, that is also not the sense that they got. But we will continue to monitor this as we actually implement this process. As arbitration and litigation are separate and distinct methods of resolving disputes, we do not anticipate that the amendments to consolidate litigation of most civil IP disputes in the High Court will directly impact the costs of arbitration. In other words, parties choose arbitration sometimes for different reasons from why they have the matter resolved in Court.
Mr Tay and Mr de Souza asked about the expertise and resources required by the High Court, pursuant to the consolidation of civil IP disputes in the High Court. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the High Court already has a specialist bench of IP judges, with greater expertise and experience in IP matters. My Ministry will continue to work with the courts to ensure that there are sufficient resources to handle the caseload as may be appropriate.
I next turn to Mr Ng and Mr de Souza’s questions around the rigour of the third party observation process. I will just address queries that have been raised together. First, as far as anonymity is concerned – I think Mr Ng raised this point – if there is no identifier on the documents containing the third party observation, then the identity of the third party observer will not be known. So, in other words, you can choose to be anonymous or not anonymous as you wish as a third party.
Second, I think Mr Ng also asked about whether the records will be available. The records of the patent search and examination history are available to the public on the Patents Open Dossier service. This will include the contents of the third party observations filed before the deadline as well as the applicant’s response to the examiner’s written opinion incorporating any observation, where there is one. So, all of that will be made available on the Patents Open Dossier service.
Third, the new section 32(1) of the Patents Act, inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, provides that third parties may make observations on the question whether the invention in the patent application is a patentable one. I touched on this in my earlier speech. The statutory requirements for an invention to be patentable can be found in section 13 of the Patents Act. Hence, for example, the third party could make an observation that an invention is not new because of an earlier publication.
Fourth, there will be no fee to submit third party observations.
Finally, when a third party observation is made, the patent Examiner would have to take some additional time to consider it. However, the patent application period will not be unduly lengthened as Rule 46(8)(a) of the Patents Rules requires the Examiner to issue the examination report within a fixed time period, regardless of whether a third party observation is made or not. So, that helps to address Members' concern about an overall prolongation of the process because of the observations.
A healthy patent regime encourages innovation and protects only deserving inventions. Third party observations which are meritorious contribute to this and would be worth the time taken to consider it, so that overall we develop a more robust and a more trustworthy IP system and regime.
Mr de Souza also asked a few questions about the post-grant patent re-examination process. First, he asked about safeguards. When a re-examination request is made, the specification of the patent will first be re-examined by a patent Examiner. The Examiner would ask the patent proprietor to respond only if there are possible grounds for the patent to be revoked. This avoids placing an unnecessary burden on the patent proprietor.
Second, Mr de Souza asked why there is no bar against filing a re-examination request when there is an ongoing arbitration proceeding in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. This is because arbitration proceedings cannot affect the status of the patent on the Patents Register. In contrast, proceedings before the court or IPOS in which the validity of the patent may be an issue could lead to the patent being revoked. In other words, the patent itself being revoked as opposed to the right between two parties. Hence, the new section 38A(5) is necessary to prevent concurrent proceedings in which the status of the patent on the Patents Register could be affected. This is not applicable in the context of arbitration.
Mr Ng and Mr de Souza asked some questions about the arbitrability of IP disputes. Let me address those.
First, as to whether IP rights found in employment contracts are arbitrable. The Bill is intended to clarify that a wide range of IP disputes are arbitrable. In employment contracts, it is common to find clauses about the ownership of IP rights that arise in the employee’s course of work; and I think that is what Mr Ng seemed to be referring to in his speech. If there are disputes subsequently about the ownership of these IP rights, then these disputes are arbitrable. Ownership disputes are within the scope of \"IPR dispute\", which would be defined in the new section 52A(3) of the Arbitration Act and section 26A(4) of the International Arbitration Act, inserted by clauses 2 and 8 of the Bill, respectively. I just want to add that what is arbitrable does not necessarily mean that it will be the subject of an arbitration because it is still defined by the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Second, he asked whether the arbitral awards for patent validity disputes can serve as a basis to amend the patent on the Register.
In my speech earlier, I had explained that the arbitral awards only affect the parties to the arbitration agreement, and will not affect the status of IP rights on the Registers. This is because we take the view that decisions that affect the status of IP rights on the Registers should only be made by the courts or the relevant Registrars from the jurisdictions that issued those IP rights, since these are decisions affect the world at large concerning the registration and not just the parties to the arbitration proceedings. This is true not only of patents, but of other forms of registrable IP rights, such as trade marks and also registered designs.
Mr de Souza asked how an arbitration award involving intellectual property rights affects a third-party holder of a security interest. Such an award does not affect any existing right or liability between a third-party holder of a security interest and a party to the arbitral proceedings, whether arising in contract or arising by operation of law. And this is clarified in the new section 52C(3) of the Arbitration Act and section 26C(3) of the International Arbitration Act.
I turn now to the other queries that had been raised.
Mr Tay also asked whether more could be done to help SMEs and start-ups navigate the IP registration and dispute resolution regime.
I thank Mr Tay for looking out for the interest of the Labour Movement, and I think Mr de Souza also asked some questions about training and whether the users of the system will have the knowledge and know-how.
The IPOS website provides useful information on the IP registration system. If anyone requires further assistance, they can always call IPOS for help with queries or make an appointment to see an officer at IPOS.
For assistance with IP-related disputes, there are legal clinics at IPOS, where there is a panel of lawyers available to provide preliminary advice on, for example, infringement or opposition matters. To assist those seeking such advice, they can obtain reimbursement from IPOS for the consultation fee for the first session.
IPOS also runs complimentary IP business clinics that allow participants to speak with private business consultants on IP strategies, franchising and licensing, audits and valuation, among other issues related to or arising from IP rights.
Mr de Souza asked about the efforts to strengthen our legal industry, so that they can benefit from these reforms.
My Ministry and the relevant agencies will be engaging stakeholders in the IP and legal sector, to explain how these changes can benefit them, how they will operate in this new landscape, and how they could make use of it.
This will not just extend to practitioners, but also businesses in the business environment, big and small companies who use the system, and whom our IP regime is really intended to support. In other words, the stakeholders who benefit from the IP regime.
I think Mr de Souza also raised a point about costs, and I think the point that Mr de Souza made was why is it that the Bill provides for indemnity cost under certain conditions in clause 6, but only for geographical indications. Similar amendments to those – I think he referred to clause 6(b) which amends the Geographical Indications Act – they will also be made in this Bill at clause 28, to the Registered Designs Act, and clause 34, to the Trade Marks Act, to bring them onto the same footing as what Mr de Souza refers to. And that can be found at clauses 28 and 34 respectively for the Registered Designs and the Trade Marks Act.
Sir, in conclusion, the reforms introduced will enable IP rights owners to resolve their IP disputes efficiently in court and at IPOS, whether they are individuals, SMEs or large corporations. This will give IP rights owners greater assurance of the enforceability of their IP rights, and also increase the overall quality of granted patents in Singapore. These reforms are part of our continual efforts to improve our IP regime, to support our innovative and creative industries.
I wish to thank the Members who have spoken and who have supported the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.57 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
On 14 June 2017, an ordinary house fire escalated rapidly to an inferno that engulfed the entire Grenfell Tower in London. Firefighters took 60 hours to extinguish the fire. The fire claimed 72 lives, destroyed 151 homes and rendered more than 200 residents homeless. While the inquiry is still ongoing, fire safety experts have discovered many serious fire safety breaches, such as the installation of over 100 non-compliant fire doors and the use of non-compliant external cladding, which contributed to the tragedy.
More recently, on 15 April 2019, a fire broke out at the Notre Dame cathedral and spread rapidly. The fire was put out only after three hours of intense firefighting. While the structure was saved, the cathedral’s spire and most of its roof were destroyed and its upper walls severely damaged. Investigations are still ongoing, but it is already evident that the cathedral lacked fundamental fire-prevention safeguards, such as firewalls and sprinkler systems. Some of these safeguards were deliberately omitted due to design considerations and these regulatory decisions are now being called into question in the aftermath of this tragic loss.
These devastating incidents remind us of the catastrophic damage that can be caused by fires and the importance of strong regulatory regimes to prevent such tragedies in the first place.
In Singapore, our fire fatality rate remains low, as compared with cities, such as Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo. We have succeeded in reducing it by half from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018. In comparison, New York’s fire fatality rate was 15 times higher in 2018 and Tokyo’s was nine times higher. That said, we should not be complacent, and think we are immune.
We would do well to remember the recent blaze at Jalan Buroh, where a fire engulfed a liquid petroleum gas facility about the size of two football fields. One worker perished and two others were hospitalised for burn injuries. The fire also caused significant damage to property. In fact, it could have been worse, given the large amounts of liquid petroleum gas nearby and if not for the valiant response by our SCDF firefighters.
Our fire safety regulatory regime plays an important role in preventing fires and mitigating their impact. Let me briefly explain the regime.
The Fire Safety Act sets out general provisions related to fire safety, such as various regulatory requirements and the responsibilities of relevant parties, including industry professionals and building owners.
There is also a Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in Buildings, simply known as the \"Fire Code\", which sets out specific fire safety standards that must be complied with when a building is being constructed or when it undergoes additions and alterations works, or A&A works.
SCDF regularly updates the Fire Code. It was most recently updated in May this year.
The Fire Safety Act, on the other hand, was last amended in 2016. It is timely for us to review the Act again.
Indeed, in recent years, we have observed developments which give impetus to bringing the Act up to date, among others:
(a) an increase in the height of buildings and urban density in Singapore, which makes firefighting operations even more challenging, as well as increase the potential damage from fires; and
(b) the introduction of new building materials and products, which may pose higher fire risks.
We have, therefore, reviewed the Act and the Amendment Bill will have the following thrusts: one, to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore; two, to increase the accountability of all parties involved in the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; three, to enhance SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers to prevent and rectify non-compliances; four, to optimise SCDF’s capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on the areas which present higher fire safety risks and outsource more routine and straightforward functions; and five, to provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety standards.
Let me now explain the key amendments. I will start with our proposal to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore.
Currently, SCDF requires new buildings and buildings undergoing A&A works to conform to the prevailing Fire Code. However, older buildings that have not undergone A&A works are not subject to the latest requirements. Many, therefore, have not upgraded their fire safety measures for a long time. On top of that, some have occupants with reduced mobility, such as the elderly and patients. While these buildings have some measures which provide baseline fire safety, overall, they have a higher fire risk profile. The safety of the occupants and the public who visit such buildings can be enhanced by installing selected upgrades. SCDF needs to be given these powers to direct such upgrades.
To achieve this, clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 20 and inserts a new section 20A, which will empower the Commissioner of Civil Defence to issue an order to require building owners to install fire safety measures, if these measures are assessed to be necessary for public safety.
SCDF is keenly aware that this will impose additional costs on building owners. In exercising this power, SCDF will be judicious and will take a risk-based approach in identifying buildings and the fire safety upgrades that will be required of them. For now, we have identified around 500 buildings. These are mostly commercial, industrial and Government buildings, based on factors, such as the age of the buildings and the profile of the occupants.
One example is Ling Kwang Home, which houses elderly residents. The Home was built in 1983, in compliance with the 1982 Fire Code. Since then, newer versions of the Fire Code have introduced additional provisions for healthcare facilities, such as the requirement to have at least two areas of refuge on each floor to facilitate fire evacuation. But as the Home has not undergone A&A works, it has not been subject to these new requirements. For the sake of its residents, the fire safety measures of the Home should be upgraded. SCDF has worked with the Home to identify the critical measures required and I am pleased to share that the Home has voluntarily commenced works, even though the Bill has not been passed yet.
Building owners who encounter practical difficulties may approach SCDF to explore options and SCDF may provide flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We will also provide an avenue for appeal.
Let me now move on to the second proposal, which seeks to prevent and stop the use of non-compliant regulated fire safety products. To do so, we will tighten controls over the entire supply chain.
Let me give the background to this proposal. In May 2017, a fire occurred at an industrial building along Toh Guan Road, which resulted in one fatality. SCDF’s investigations found that the composite panels used as the building’s external cladding were not compliant with the required standards, which contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. SCDF then undertook a comprehensive verification of the fire safety of buildings that could potentially have used similar cladding and found other lapses. We then convened a cladding review panel, which proposed various measures to tighten control over the supply chain.
The parties involved in the supply chain for fire safety products include: (a) manufacturers and suppliers; (b) laboratories that test the fire safety performance of the products and issue test reports; (c) certification bodies that review the test reports and issue Certificates of Conformity (CoC) that certify the fire safety performance of the products; and (d) installers of these products.
These supply chain actors all have a part to play in making sure that only products and materials that meet SCDF’s prescribed standards in the Fire Code are used for our buildings.
However, under the current Fire Safety Act, SCDF can only take limited enforcement actions against some of the parties, for example:
(a) the owners and occupiers for failing to appoint an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer to prepare the required plans and supervise fire safety works;
(b) any person who commences or carries out or authorises the commencement or carrying out of fire safety works without the approval of Commissioner, or without the supervision of an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer; and
(c) Qualified Persons, Fire Safety Engineers and Registered Inspectors who do not carry out their responsibilities in ensuring that the fire safety works are in accordance with the Act requirements.
We cannot prosecute other parties involved in the supply chain, nor can we issue rectification orders, even if the product has been found to be non-compliant. For example, under the current Act, SCDF is unable to take action against: (a) the manufacturers and suppliers; (b) the test laboratories that issue a false test report; and (c) the certification bodies that issue a CoC that falsely represents that the product meets the required standards.
Clause 26, therefore, inserts a new Part Five on regulated fire safety products, which will introduce enforcement levers over all actors in the supply chain:
(a) the new section 32C makes it an offence for any person to supply a non-compliant fire safety product;
(b) the new section 32 makes it an offence for any test laboratory to issue a false test report;
(c) the new section 32B makes it an offence for any person who is not an accredited certification body to certify these products and for accredited certification bodies to falsely issue a certificate of conformity; and
(d) when non-compliant products find their way into the market or into our buildings, the new section 33A empowers Commissioner to issue directions to any party with possession, charge or control of the product to recall, cease supply, remove or dispose of the product, as well as to rectify any contravention.
In addition, there may be situations where SCDF reasonably suspects certain products or materials to be non-compliant with the required standards. However, SCDF currently only has the power to order building owners to test the products, whereas there are instances where the culpability may lie with the certification body or the CoC holder.
The new section 33 will, therefore, empower the Commissioner to require a certification body or a CoC holder to test any fire safety product, including installed products.
If the certification body falsely issues a CoC or does not cancel the CoC after knowing that the product does not meet the applicable standards, or if the party refuses to comply with SCDF’s order to test the product, the new section 33B allows the Commissioner to order the certification body to cancel any existing CoCs.
In addition, if the Commissioner has reason to believe that any person is supplying or offering to supply non-compliant fire safety products despite knowing that they are non-compliant, or falsely representing these products to be compliant, he can order the certification body not to issue any more CoCs to this person, including for other products. If the certification body does not comply with SCDF’s orders, the Minister may gazette these products as non-compliant.
These new powers, Mr Speaker, will allow SCDF to deem products, which SCDF reasonably suspects to have fire safety risks, to be non-compliant, thereby allowing SCDF to use its enforcement levers.
I will now talk about SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers.
Apart from non-compliant fire safety products and materials, fire hazards also pose significant risks to public safety. Examples of fire hazards include overcrowding, non-maintenance of fire safety measures and obstruction of fire escape routes. They materially increase the likelihood of fires and the dangers when fires break out.
Currently, when dealing with fire hazards, SCDF must first issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and can only take action against the errant parties if they fail to comply with the Notice.
Given that some fire hazards may pose serious fire safety risks, clause 9 inserts two new sections.
Section 12A will make it an offence for building owners or occupiers to cause or fail to abate or prevent these fire hazards and section 12B will make it an offence for any responsible party to cause any fire safety measure in the premises to not be in proper working order or to cause an obstruction of fire escape routes.
This thus provides SCDF with an additional option of taking immediate prosecutorial action against those responsible for serious fire hazards, rather than being able to only issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice.
Next, SCDF currently has some powers under the Fire Safety Act to enter premises linked to offences under the Act, to conduct investigations. However, this is not the full suite of powers needed in an investigation. SCDF has to work with the Police to conduct certain tasks, such as to take statements from relevant parties.
We will empower SCDF to be able to pursue investigations independently, so as to expedite the investigation process. Clause 7 inserts a new section 8CA, which empowers the Commissioner or an authorised SCDF member to examine persons and require them to attend before SCDF for investigations into any offences under the Act.
In addition, clause 6 amends section 8 to empower SCDF to enter any premises to obtain evidence related to the breach of a licensing condition by an alarm monitoring services licensee or to the commission of any offence under the Act.
SCDF is the subject matter expert on fire investigations and these amendments will facilitate their investigations under the Act.
The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for five serious offences under the Fire Safety Act. These are:
(a) unauthorised change of use of premises which may then render existing fire safety measures in the building to become inadequate;
(b) failure of the Fire Safety Engineer to ensure that the engineering solution proposed for the building satisfies fire safety performance requirements;
(c) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to supervise fire safety works;
(d) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to submit relevant reports and certificates; and
(e) failure of the appointed Registered Inspector to inspect and or verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans.
The enhanced penalties will be aligned with similar offences under the Fire Safety Act as well as other Acts, such as the Building Control Act and the Planning Act. For example, the penalties for an appointed Registered Inspector who fails to inspect and verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans will be increased from a current maximum fine of $10,000 and/or six months' jail term, to a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or two years' jail term. This was benchmarked to a similar offence of an appointed accredited checker who fails to check detailed structural plans and to verify design calculations under the Building Control Act.
I will now explain the fourth set of proposals that will optimise SCDF's capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on complex areas which pose higher fire safety risks and outsource more routine and straightforward functions.
SCDF conducts fire safety enforcement inspections of buildings. These can be categorised into scheduled and non-scheduled inspections.
The fire stations send their officers to conduct scheduled inspections of premises within their jurisdiction, in order to allow the officers to familiarise themselves with the buildings and provide them with an opportunity to engage the owners and occupiers.
On the other hand, non-scheduled inspections arise from ad-hoc feedback. Annually, there are about 4,000 non-scheduled inspections. Around half involve offences that are straightforward and can be easily established through visual inspections. Examples include obstruction to fire exit staircases and non-maintenance of fire extinguishers.
To enable our SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections, clause 8 will allow SCDF to appoint suitably-trained individuals to conduct fire safety building inspections and to exercise certain enforcement powers, such as the issuance of Fire Hazard Abatement Notices, for simple and straightforward cases. For a start, SCDF is looking to appoint a small team of around five third-party officers to conduct these tasks. These appointed officers will be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code in their exercise of these powers.
SCDF will exercise careful discretion in the scope of work to be outsourced and retain control over all fire safety enforcement actions. SCDF will also implement safeguards, such as random audits, and require appointed officers to wear body-worn cameras when they carry out inspections. This will ensure that the appointed officers conduct their inspections professionally and minimise the risk of any abuse of authority.
Next, SCDF relies on third-party fire alarm operators to monitor and verify alarms in higher-risk premises before deploying SCDF's resources. During the recent Jalan Buroh fire, the alarms at the premises detected the fire and immediately alerted both the fire alarm operator and SCDF. The fire alarm operator quickly confirmed the fire incident and SCDF then dispatched its resources.
Given the important role of alarm operators, as well as the projected 2% to 3% annual increase in demand for such services, clause 17 inserts a new Part IIIB on the licensing of persons providing alarm monitoring services. This will allow SCDF to regulate the operators, set minimum service standards and ensure service continuity.
Lastly, I will cover proposals that will provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety requirements.
Clause 10 repeals and inserts a new section 20, which requires designated buildings or classes of buildings to have a Fire Certificate in order to be occupied or used. This will provide clarity and consistency for all emergency preparedness requirements. SCDF will provide a one-off notification to owners of buildings that have been newly-designated.
In addition, clause 2 amends section 2 to revise the definition of certain terms. For example, the definition of the Fire Code will be amended to make clear that the current version published on SCDF's website is the latest version. An electronic version of the Fire Code which is published on SCDF's website will enable faster updates and facilitate access to the latest Fire Code by the industry.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s low fire fatality rate can also be attributed to our robust fire safety regulatory regime, besides the fire-fighting efforts of our SCDF.
The amendments I have spelt out are required to ensure that we continue to have an effective regime, thereby ensuring an even safer Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Fire Safety Act seeks to minimise fire hazards. Fire has the potential to harm many more people in addition to the one who started it. Persons in the adjacent unit to where the fire started may also have their property affected and their lives threatened. The blocking of the fire escape passageways affects the people who use that passageway – not just the family in front of which the items are placed. Fire safety is a team effort and this Bill strengthens that resolve. It does so in several ways.
One, it strengthens the enforcement powers. New sections 12A and 12B in clause 9 makes specified fire hazards a direct offence instead of needing a notice to be issued as a preamble to an offence. This means that people cannot take for granted that they will be served the notice to comply before getting charged with an offence.
There is also increased punishment if a person continues to contravene the Act. For example, the new section 2(4), as amended by clause 2(j) of the Bill, makes it a continual non-compliance with the Act a separate offence. The new section 20A(3)(b) in clause 10 also provides for enhanced sentence for a continuing offence for non-compliance with an order to install fire safety measures. These measures increase the cost of non-compliance, ensuring that it is not more cost effective to commit an offence than to comply with an order.
Clause 10 of the Bill allows the SCDF to issue notices to building owners to provide or install fire safety measures even if they are not going through renovations if they are of the view that it is necessary for public safety. If old building structures are required to comply with the new safety code, the measures are potentially extremely onerous, especially if a renovation was not planned. For instance, it was reported in CNA that International Plaza would need to have fire escape staircases leading to the outside of the building and Ling Kwang Home for Senior Citizens would require fire compartmentalisation to facilitate horizontal evacuation. Would the minister elaborate on how the measures will be tailored to the need of the safety of the public in those buildings and how the owners will be assisted in complying with the measures imposed?
Additionally, the meaning of \"public building\" is amended in clause 2(g) from a definition that focuses on the purposes of the building to whether or not \"the public or a section of the public has access as of right, or by virtue of express or implied permission with or without payment of a fee\". This is ideal as buildings can be multi-purpose and focuses on the rationale behind the categorising of a building as a public building, that is, safety of\tthe\tpublic. Will current\tbuilding\towners who are affected by the change of definition of \"public building\" be notified and advised on how to comply with the new requirements? Currently, places where people assemble for religious or educational\tpurposes are expressly excluded from the definition of \"public building\" in paragraph\t(d)(i).\tBy way\tof\tillustration,\tunder\twhat circumstances\twould\ta place\tof\tworship\tor\tschool be considered a public building? Would the Minister\talso elaborate on what would be considered a section of the public?
Second, this Bill regulates more stringently the provision of fire safety devices and fire alarm monitoring services.
The regulatory framework for fire safety devices is meant to ensure accountability. For instance, the compliant-fire-safety product needs to have a certificate which can only be validly issued to a Singapore citizen, a domicile of Singapore or a body corporate incorporated in Singapore. This makes sure that the law can be actively enforced, deterring\topportunistic\tmerchants\twho\tmay\tprey\ton unsuspecting customers by providing subpar products but escape from law enforcement by remaining outside Singapore. Furthermore, the new Part V in clause 26 of this Bill ensures that the whole certification, supply, installation and sales process meets the standards required. The new section 32 deals with false test reports used for certification. The new section 32A deals with giving false information to the accredited certification body. New section 32B ensures that certification process is only done by those authorised. And new section 32C regulates the supply of regulated fire products, ensuring that people do not advertise non-certified products as certified ones. New section 32D deals with installing an uncertified fire product as well as the manner in which a certified fire product is installed, making sure its quality is not compromised when it is being installed. Some offences, such as new section 32D(4), even have an enhanced offence with a jail term if harm to a person results because of that negligent or reckless act.
Sir, The Straits Times article entitled \"Stricter rules and factory checks for cladding on buildings\" dated 9 November, 2018, mentioned that, among other stricter standards, builders must conduct site testing for cladding. While the specific standard of conduct is not found in the Bill, the Bill requires certification and that installation be done not negligently and recklessly. Would the Minister elaborate on how and whether the processes required will be raised so as to prevent another unfortunate event, such as that in Grenfell Tower in the UK or CIT Building on Toh Guan Road? Would the Minister elaborate how the stringency of the tests will balance between time and cost efficiency while minimising the chances of a costly misstep?
Clause 17 of this Bill inserts Part IIIB of the Act which regulates alarm monitoring services. The new section 22M requires alarm monitoring services to take all reasonable steps to check if there is a fire before cancelling. This offence reflects the great responsibility and heavy reliance the occupants of the building have on the alarm monitoring service. If the person carelessly cancels the call, the results may be devastating. By regulating alarm monitoring services and requiring a minimum standard of conduct, this Bill increases the teamwork between all stakeholders.
On the issue of resource allocation, how is the Ministry raising awareness of the MyResponder app which allows members of the public to respond or send pictures of a fire? Additionally, how effective are public education efforts on how to manage chute fires, on where to find water sources to put out a fire and on how to react when a fire is at the entrance of the unit? Given the usefulness of the fire extinguisher in the event of a fire blocking the only escape pathway out of a house, what is being done to increase the take-up rate for fire extinguishers?
In the recent months, the number of fires caused by Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs) and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) have increased significantly. There were 54 reported such fires in the first six months of this year. That is equivalent to about 73% of the total number of cases last year and more than the total number of such cases in 2017. These fires, at least in residential premises, seem to have increased in severity. Thirty-one people were injured in 36 fires versus 11 people in 23 fires in the beginning of last year. These numbers do not include the fires in July that were also caused by PABs or PMDs based on investigations or preliminary investigations – 3 July in Tampines; 9 July in Upper Boon Keng Road; 14 July in Yishun; 18 July in Bukit Batok which cost someone’s life; 22 July in Ang Mo Kio where three units were destroyed; 27 July, again in Boon Lay Drive. About six fires reported in the media as of 28 July.
The numbers seemed to have increased at a significant rate but, unlike chute fires which are the highest cause of fire, fires caused by PMDs are not easily fought by a layman. These\tfires\tcaused\tby\tPMDs\toften\tneed\tfirefighting resources and have robbed many a family of their home, property, pets and even a loved one. The potential numbers are astronomical. There were more than 85,000 electric scooters registered at the end of June. Some of these do not have meet the UL-2272 certification requirement. They are like possibly ticking time bombs, unpredictable as to when and where the next fire will happen.
Would the Ministry consider working closely with MOT to hasten the time-frame by which all PMDs must meet the fire safety requirement?
At this juncture, I want to take this opportunity to put on record the stellar work of the SCDF officers. In Jalan Buroh, on 21 June, the SCDF battled for about six hours a fire the size of two football fields, involving an unprecedented number of highly flammable LPG cylinders, fighting hard to contain and to put it out. In Woodlands, on 9 April, SCDF officers forced entry into the unit, rescued a woman, a teenager and two children trapped in the kitchen area, evacuated residents of other flats and put out the raging fire. In the process, one of the SCDF firefighters was injured with burns. In the fire in Ang Mo Kio on 22 July, the SCDF rescued from the burning flat a mother and her young children who were huddled in a room, too afraid to get out after hearing the explosion of the PMD. In the early hours of 18 July in Bukit Batok, SCDF officers in the call of duty wore breathing apparatus, cut through the iron gate, prised open the wooden door, rescuing a man who lay unconscious on the floor and his wife from the burning flat. These are just some examples of the life-saving courageous work that our SCDF officers do. It is not easy, especially when situations do not pan out the way everyone hopes for, yet, these officers continue to be vigilant day in and day out, night in and night out, ready to put out the next fire, risking limb and possibly life, and saving lives. We appreciate the work that they do. And having worked in the GPC, we understand first-hand the good work that the SCDF officers do.
In conclusion, Sir, fire safety is a team effort which is necessary to keep everyone in Singapore safe. It involves the people who design the building, the builders and those who install fire safety devices, those who distribute and manufacture the fire safety devices, those who provide alarm monitoring services, tenants who place items in the passageway or engage in activities that potentially create an unreasonable fire hazard. In all, because no man is an island, I hope that we live together responsibly in our island city, working hand in hand to minimise fire hazards. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a densely populated country with many tall buildings, we must take fire safety very seriously. There are cases when fires occurred in HDB and commercial units and did not spread. That is due to the equipment of necessary fire safety features, strict regulations in our fire safety code on usage of construction material that restricts flammability and permeation of flames and, of course, the efficiency of SCDF in reacting to fire emergencies. I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the SCDF for their good work in keeping Singapore safe.
Older buildings without the necessary fire safety features remain at risk. The UK Grenfell fire disaster, while far from home, remains a stark reminder to developed countries of what could happen if building developers use inappropriate construction material and scrimp on fire safety features. An entire building was demolished, scores of people died, survivors left homeless and in despair. The incident prompted questions and concerns from myself and my colleagues about whether this could happen in Singapore. Over the years, we talked about the need for greater vigilance against fires and, personally, I had advocated for the installation of safety features like smoke detectors in all public rental flats, a project which kick-started last year and is currently underway. SCDF also identified and ordered some buildings to remove external cladding that did not meet fire safety requirements. Today, I am glad to see the results of a comprehensive review that will bring about many enhancements to current fire safety policies. Everyone in the supply chain has a role to play and must be held responsible, not just the engineers, architects or the Registered Inspectors. Contractors, sub-contractors, material suppliers, testing labs – all need to carry out their work professionally and honestly. Those who fall short shall be taken to task by this Fire Safety Act.
As our buildings get older, extreme weather conditions and lack of maintenance could affect and even speed up the ageing process. It is imperative that safety checks are done regularly on these buildings. I am glad to note that SCDF will soon be able to appoint authorised third parties to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections.
Understandably, SCDF may not have the resources on top of their regular duties, and plan to outsource this operation. I note that these authorised third parties would comprise auxiliary police officers, retired SCDF and police officers as well as other public servants. I would like to ask how often will these routine checks be conducted. What criteria and benchmarks would SCDF use to determine whether selected candidates are suitable for the roles? Would SCDF also consider registered fire safety engineers from the private sector and, if so, would they be required to submit a tender for their proposed services? In some industries, the competition in fees is so fierce that the fees become ridiculously low. As a result, the quality of the checks suffers. I hope SCDF will not let this happen to the fire safety checking profession.
How often will these third-party operations be audited by the SCDF? With the requirement for body-worn cameras, will the footage be reviewed regularly? What are issues that SCDF foresees that would justify the need for body cameras? These inspections and reviews would cost time and resources, so who will pay for it? Will the Government shoulder the expenses or is it the building owner who has to pay for these inspections and rectifications?
SCDF has identified some 500 old buildings to undergo critical fire safety upgrades necessary for public safety. What is the timeframe given for the building owners to comply? And what if they fail to do so? What if they dispute the order and drag out the case? Would this then result in the occupants and visitors being exposed to a fire safety issue whenever they are in the building?
On the other hand, there may be some practical reasons causing failure to comply. Perhaps, the building owner may not have other plans for the property, or he or she could be away and the stand-in is unable to make the financial decisions. What will be done to speed up the process? Can the Minister share the projected timeline for the completion of fire safety upgrades in all these 500 or so buildings? Every single person has an important role to play in fire safety. Should they act irresponsibly and recklessly, thus putting the lives of other people in danger, they deserve a heavier punishment as a form of deterrence. I note that harsher penalties will apply to certain offences that compromise fire safety. But what about the people who practise dangerous PMD-charging habits and put themselves and their fellow occupants and neighbours in danger? We need to hold people accountable for practising unsafe charging practices, selling or buying not original and non-complying PMDs, batteries or chargers. This has been in the news lately and many of my residents are very concerned.
First half year, 49 fires, one death and it is still counting. I hope multi-agencies, SCDF, MOT, HDB and even MOE should come together and take bold and decisive action.
I am glad to hear from the Ministerial Statement just now that MOT will bring forward the compliance of UL2272 PMDs to 1 July next year, but this does not mean there will be no fire incidents.
We need to have more education such as the proper way of charging, use of original parts, non-leaking batteries, non-faulty chargers, and no illegal modifications, and so on. For those who buy or sell non-compliant PMDs or modify their PMDs, they deserve harsher punishment. There are also a lot of people who shop online. How is the Ministry going to regulate this?
Many residents also ask: is there any place that buyers can send their PMDs for checking for compliance, just like Vicom checks for cars. Residents want to be law-abiding, but they do not know how to go about it.
For MOE, I hope you can include compulsory modules in school on safe riding, correct etiquette, and the right way of charging, and so on.
If we cannot tackle the current PMD problem satisfactorily, I would like to give a bold suggestion – ban PMDs totally, PMA excluded. Then step by step, issue licences to those who need them only after they have attended the compulsory courses, passed the exam, bought the third-party insurance.
Just by registering PMDs alone is not good enough. We need the riders to be licensed, and the licenses can be revoked if they cause serious injuries or death. These are the bold and decisive actions that I hope our multi-agencies can serious look into it. Sir, I support this Bill. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I appreciate that the authorities are paying close attention to the fire safety issue. To inspect more buildings, SCDF will train third-party fire inspectors. These inspectors will wear a body camera at work so that SCDF can evaluate whether their work is up to standard. These inspectors are mostly auxiliary police and retired Home Team personnel. Will SCDF hire fire safety engineers? Who will pay for the relevant expenses?
There were 49 PMD-related fires in the first half of this year. I lived in the countryside when I was a kid. I remember that when villagers gathered together to chit-chat, their face would turn whenever the topic of tiger came up. Similarly today at coffee shops, when residents gather together to talk, their face would turn when the topic of PMD comes up. Some will get very angry. One resident said: “In the daytime when I walk on the pedestrian path, I always feel very intimidated. I will have to keep looking to the right and left so that I won’t be knocked down by PMDs. At night, I even have nightmares because I do not know when my neighbour’s PMD will catch fire”. This is the suffering that our residents have to endure ever since the PMDs are introduced into Singapore. I hope that all the Government agencies can work together to solve this problem.
The fire safety standard should be implemented as soon as possible and best if it can be implemented right away. Penalty should also increase. We should also help PMD users to check if their PMDs are compliant to the standard and teach them the correct ways to charge their PMDs.
However, some people bought their PMDs online. How do we regulate that? If we cannot tackle the current safety problems brought about by riding a PMD or charging it, I would suggest we ban the PMDs temporarily. Of course, PMAs are excluded.
In the future, we should only issue licences to those who have attended the mandatory courses and passed the exams, bought third-party insurance, and whose PMDs are compliant to the fire safety standard. Otherwise, how can we ensure the safety of pedestrians and HDB residents? I hope that the relevant authorities can look into this matter seriously. I support this Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the fire safety culture in Singapore needs to be improved. There is a common occurrence of HDB bin chute fires, and electrical fires caused by overloading and charging e-scooters and batteries. The density of our high-rise environment makes fire safety critical. As such, I am supportive of the rationale of this Bill to give further authority to the SCDF to require fire safety enhancements to buildings, to regulate fire safety products and to enhance SCDF investigation powers.
Nevertheless, I wish to make some observations and seek clarification on three issues: first, imposing fire safety upgrades on existing buildings; second, the handling of the recent cases concerning non-compliant claddings; and third, the proposed use of third-party officers as routine inspectors.
First, fire safety upgrades on existing buildings.
Under the proposed section 20A of the Act, the Commissioner of SCDF will be empowered to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades. This will effectively mean that buildings that were compliant with fire safety requirements at the time they were constructed, may have additional requirements imposed on them. In the MHA press release of 8 July, it was stated that in imposing these additional requirements on existing buildings, SCDF would adopt a judicious, risk-based approach in identifying buildings for fire safety upgrades. It was further stated that in deciding whether to impose such requirements, SCDF would consider the buildings’ fire risk profile and factors such as building age, purpose and the profile of its occupants. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier also mentioned earlier that about 500 such buildings have been identified.
Sir, I appreciate the need to have robust fire safety requirements to prevent loss of life and limb and why this additional power given to the Commissioner of SCDF is critical. I also understand the sentiments of Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on this matter just expressed. At the same time, I note that SCDF has mentioned that it would be judicious in its approach. There is indeed a need to assess each older building to determine whether the upgrades are critical for safety, or are good-to-haves which may be costly and have limited utility.
Let me illustrate the point generally. About six years ago, a cluster of seven HUDC blocks in my ward at Serangoon North built in the 1980s underwent privatisation. In connection with this exercise, the residents were advised that they needed to do Additions and Alterations Works to bring the cluster up to the current requirements of the Fire Code. The residents then undertook the works, such as installing fire doors at every staircase landing and making enhancements to their lifts. These works caused ground frustration as they affected residents’ daily lives in terms of inconvenience, dust and lift shutdowns, and also involved expenditure. After the estate was privatised in 2014, discussions resumed to obtain approval for an en bloc sale of the estate. Within three years, the estate was sold en bloc to a developer. If you were to visit the site today, you will see that all the former blocks have been demolished. That leads to a reasonable question: to what end then were the fire safety enhancements made to the old blocks?
Moving forward, while the HUDC privatisation are over, there may be older buildings that are expected to be sold to developers or be otherwise redeveloped. Can MHA elaborate on the judicious risk-based approach that SCDF will undertake in deciding whether certain upgrades are critical?
Next, the recent cases of non-compliant cladding.
The fatal fires at Toh Guan Road and London’s Grenfell Tower were a wake-up call. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking what preliminary lessons could be learned. The Minister’s reply then was that the SCDF would study the investigation report of the London Fire Brigade when it was released, to see if changes to our fire regulations were needed. In addition, he touched on the existing regulatory regime for construction projects, where the registered Qualified Person (QP) was responsible for ensuring that building materials conformed to the prevailing Fire Code. Among the requirements were that all claddings used in buildings had to meet the stringent Class Zero industry standard. It was further stated that after the QP signed off, a Registered Inspector would have to inspect the building to ensure that all fire safety requirements had been met. It was only thereafter that SCDF would issue a Fire Safety Certificate, allowing the premises to be occupied.
It was thus surprising that in the months thereafter, SCDF issued notices to owners of more than 40 buildings that their claddings were non-compliant with the Fire Code. I assume that many of these buildings would have been issued with Fire Safety Certificates by SCDF, indicating that they were compliant with requirements.
Be that as it may, SCDF has since reviewed the regulatory regime and identified points of weakness that led to non-compliant materials being used. These gaps involved the upstream supply chain, from manufacture and storage to testing and supply; there were instances of materials of different gradings being mixed and stored in the same place without proper distinguishing marks. To address this, the Bill introduces the new Part V on regulated fire safety products to tighten those weaknesses in the supply chain.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Regarding SCDF’s investigations into the cladding cases, I note that for the Toh Guan incident, the cladding supplier and its marketing manager have been charged in court with several counts of cheating and the case is pending before the Courts. Are SCDF investigations still ongoing into other cases of non-compliant cladding being supplied and used, and whether other offences were disclosed?
Sir, whatever happened upstream, the downstream purchasers of these materials may well have been unaware and acted innocently to complete the projects with the non-compliant materials. In cases where Fire Safety Certificates were issued by SCDF before occupation, these parties would also have relied on the certificates to assume they were compliant. SCDF subsequently cited these buildings for having non-compliant cladding, requiring replacement with compliant materials. Could the Ministry explain what role SCDF played in assisting or supporting these innocent parties during the rectification works?
Finally, third-party officers.
I have a query about third-party officers to be appointed. Under the proposed section 8F, Commissioner SCDF can appoint third-party enforcement officers to do routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. MHA has stated that the rationale for this supplementary resource is to allow SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections. These third-party officers would be deemed public servants under the Penal Code and receive the protections under the Penal Code. According to the proposed Section 8F, such persons are to be individually appointed and could include employees of a public authority. Would these third-party officers be restricted to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, or would foreigners also be eligible for these deployments? At the steady state, how large a force of third-party officers does SCDF expect to maintain?
Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explained how these outsourced inspectors would take over visits to premises. Is there any concern that SCDF may lose valuable ground knowledge by outsourcing routine inspections?
Finally, Sir, let me conclude. I am supportive of the Bill and would also like to take this opportunity to thank SCDF for its important and life-saving work. Nevertheless, for a better understanding of how the regime would work, it would be most helpful if my queries could be addressed.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Sir, the International Technical Committee for the Prevention and Extinction of Fire publishes statistics on fire safety regularly, collated from about 30 to 40 countries each year. Singapore’s fire casualty rates consistently rank among the safest worldwide.
From 2013-2017, Singapore reported an average of 0.76 fires per 1,000 people – significantly lower than the average of about 2 per 1,000. The impact of our fires on human life was also less severe, with only 0.04 fire deaths per 100,000 people; the average is about 1.4 per 100,000. So, we are building on a strong base of fire safety with this Bill.
But I want to highlight an area where we can do more. I propose that with the powers under this Bill, the Government mandate that all HDB flats install home fire alarm devices, with the initial installation costs in existing HDB flats to be paid for by the Government.
As of 2018, we have nearly one million owner-occupied HDB flats in Singapore. Nearly all were built before Home Fire Alarm Devices became mandatory for new flats in June 2018. Like many Singaporeans, I live in an older HDB flat. Home Fire Alarm Devices were not common in Singapore when my flat was built. They were not even a consideration for my parents or the older generation when they moved in. Perhaps we can assume that the vast majority of HDB flats have no Home Fire Alarm Devices.
Sir, the costs of installing Home Fire Alarm Devices in one million HDB flats will be significant, but reasonable compared to other large social welfare programmes. We have seen published equipment costs of $50 to $80 for a Home Fire Alarm Device with a 10-year battery. If we assume the cost to be on the upper end of this, we are looking at a programme cost of about $80 million for equipment, perhaps that amount again for installation costs, and public education, for a total of maybe $160 million. Sir, in the $1.1 Billion Bicentennial Bonus announced this year we gave lower income Singaporeans a cash payout of up to $300. In 2018, there was the SG Bonus which gave all Singaporeans a cash payout of up to $300. We are clearly prepared to spend even larger sums than $160 million on the welfare of Singaporeans. We have the financial capacity. So, why should we do it?
As an economist, I normally find myself suggesting that Government should spend money cautiously and should not interfere unnecessarily in private markets. But I think there are a few inherent market failures in the private provision of fire safety. Singaporeans lack information to make wise choices on home fire safety. There are benefits not just to homeowners, but also external benefits to the community. Taken together, I do not think we will invest the right amount in home fire safety if we just leave it to the private market.
So, first, Singaporeans have little experience with Home Fire Alarm Devices and they do not know the costs and benefits of installing and maintaining these devices. In some developed countries these devices have been mandatory for many years. But not in Singapore. There is a learning curve. There will be, for example, nuisance alarms. Homeowners may have to adjust their cooking habits, such as ensuring that ventilation prevents cooking smoke from triggering the alarm. Education is necessary. We cannot leave it up to the community to make a wise decision just on their own.
Second, there are real benefits of installing Home Fire Alarm Devices to homeowners and to the community. In a recent paper titled \"The association between smoke alarm presence and injury and death rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis\", published in the Fire Safety Journal in 2016, researchers found that homes with working Home Fire Alarm Devices had half the death rates from fire compared to homes without working devices. Other research finds that Home Fire Alarm Devices are the least likely to be installed or working in homes which face higher risks, such as those occupied by elderly residents.
Third, I am sorry to say, light touch interventions may not help improve fire safety. In a paper titled \"Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function\", published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2001, researchers found that programmes that educate the public on Home Fire Alarm Devices have only modest effects in increasing installation rates. Community programmes that gave away Home Fire Alarm Devices actually had no effect. Perhaps there is a psychological explanation. For most of us, a home fire is a remote risk which simply is not salient, PMD fires aside. It is not a financial cost issue for many. It is actually a mental bandwidth cost issue. We have other things to do and installing a Home Fire Alarm is a low priority. If we aspire towards a high rate of Home Fire Alarm installation, I am forced to the conclusion that only a mandatory, Government-funded programme is likely to have significant effects.
Fourth, we have an ageing population that inherently faces higher risks from home fires. Cooking fires are more likely to be forgotten by the elderly. Physical limitations make it more likely that accidents will happen with oil lamps and incense. Some psychological conditions often found in the elderly, such as hoarding disorders, may also contribute to fire risks. Our ageing population also tends to live in older flats, which have older wiring and electrical infrastructure. Assistance devices for the elderly, such as motorised wheelchairs, rely on lithium batteries which must be charged. And if a fire does break out, an older population is less able to react quickly to put out the fire or to escape. The extra seconds or minutes that a Home Fire Alarm Device gives for warning could be critical.
Finally, cost. If we are agreed that installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices will benefit HDB residents and the community then we should do this so as efficiently as possible. I believe there will be considerable economies of scale from having installation carried out by contractors appointed through a rigorous tender process. The contractors will buy in bulk and they will develop standardised processes for installation. This will be much cheaper than having residents individually engage contractors.
Sir, while on the topic of costs, we should be aware that there are opportunistic parties which will exploit our drive to fire safety for private gain. These opportunists take advantage of our citizens’ lack of information on fire safety. Many residents have encountered door-to-door salesmen selling fire protection equipment. Some of these salesmen have falsely claimed to be agents of the SCDF, the local Member of Parliament, or other authorities. The equipment may be sold at grossly marked up prices. Education is no barrier to this. A friend, who has a PhD, bought a fire extinguisher from such a salesperson, thinking that they were acting with the support of the authorities. So everybody can be fooled by this.
Of course, it is good to have fire safety devices at home. But we should try to avoid enriching rent-seekers in the process. Indeed, without proper education, it is unlikely that installed Home Fire Alarm Devices will be maintained effectively. A resident who experiences false alarms because the device is installed too close to cooking smoke, for example, may just disable the device instead of relocating it. I do not think we can rely on these private opportunists to educate the public properly.
Sir, what about mandating Home Fire Alarm Devices in our private condominiums and other private property? I think this is also important, but the economies of scale are very different. There are a huge variety of floor plans and designs of private condominiums and homes. The economies of scale from a centralised, coordinated programme are likely to be much smaller, compared to HDB housing where a standardised process for installation can be developed. Of course, if we can work out a plan for supporting private property owners, we should also consider mandating installation in all residential private property, to make the nation fire safe.
Sir, I encourage the Ministry to set as a Key Performance Indicator the percentage of Singapore homes with working Home Fire Alarm Devices. We should use the powers under this Bill to mandate that all HDB flats install Home Fire Alarm Devices, and to ensure that installation rates are high, we should use public funds to pay for the first round of installation. I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is credit to the Singapore Civil Defence Force and to the Government’s approach to incorporate fire safety provisions at the building design stage that we have one of the lowest fire fatalities rate in the world. This Bill will further strengthen our fire safety regime by enhancing SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers and optimising SCDF’s resources.
It is commendable that the Ministry believes that, while the number of fire incidents has been stable, the fire safety regulations must be updated regularly to keep pace with the times, especially with evolving fire safety risks. It is crucial to preempt and plug possible developing gaps in the fire safety regime.
There is a developing gap that the Bill may not have adequately addressed. This is a gap emerging from the convergence of three trends: one, an ageing society, two, ageing HDB buildings, and three, the adoption of new technologies.
Back in November 2017, I asked MTI in Parliament whether the batteries for Personal Mobility Devices are covered under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations as controlled goods, because the number of fires caused by PMD batteries charging overnight was increasing. Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon acknowledged then that there was a slight increase in incidence of such electric fires and said this was something SPRING could look into.
Since then, the slight increase has become quite a worrying spike. The number of people injured in such fires in residential premises increased to 31 in the first half of 2019 compared to 11 in the first half of 2018. A 41-year old man died recently in July after being rescued from such a fire in a Bukit Batok HDB flat in the wee hours of the night.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport has already addressed the issue of fires related to PMD batteries in the Ministerial Statement earlier. It is good that the ban on the use of non-UL2272 PMDs on public paths has been brought forward. Hopefully, this will greatly mitigate the problem of fires involving PMD batteries.
But even as we solve this problem of PMD fires, there will be unexpected fire safety challenges cropping up in the near future with regards to the adoption of new technology. Our homes are becoming charging points for all kinds of devices and there will be more to come with fast improving drone and smart home technologies.
Furthermore, ageing HDB flats built for Industry 2.0 and 3.0 will face problems with electrical load and lack the most modern fire safety features. An ageing population will also require a rethink of fire safety provisions and contingencies, as seniors are less alert and less mobile in fire situations. I will highlight four issues here in the context of the fire safety provisions enhanced by this Bill.
The first issue is the retrofitting of HDB flats with smoke detectors.
This Bill empowers SCDF to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades, particularly fire alarm systems. It is said that SCDF will adopt a judicious, risk-based approach and this provision is largely targeted at ageing commercial and industrial buildings.
However, at the same time, the Ministry has acknowledged it is important to install smoke detectors in residential buildings and has mandated the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Device (HFAD) in all new residential homes including HDB flats from June 2018. There is also an exercise to retrofit HFADs to benefit 50,000 needy households in public rental flats for free.
If this is so important, would the SCDF work with HDB to retrofit all public housing flats with HFADs? If it has to be done in phases, as I imagine such a major exercise requires, flats that have undergone or are undergoing the Home Improvement Programme renovations should be retrofitted first. This will benefit the vast majority of the population and protect most Singaporeans.
After all, the PMD fires experience has shown us that neighbours are the ones who need to be alerted early to such quick and ferocious fires, even if the fires are contained by units designed as fire compartments. For example, in a PMD-related fire in a flat in Ang Mo Kio last month, four people had to be rescued from a neighbouring flat, while another 60 people were evacuated. Perhaps a smoke detector would have done the job of alerting the four people early to give them time to evacuate.
The second issue is the consideration of upgrades to cater to seniors living in HDB blocks.
The Fire Code has been revised to require super high-rise residential buildings, which go beyond 40 storeys, to have refuge floors with holding areas at 20-storey intervals and two fire lifts to facilitate evacuation of persons with disabilities and seniors by firefighters. However, even this may not be enough in view of ageing HDB flats and the ageing population.
In a fire on the 48th floor at Pinnacle Duxton in May 2018, many residents, especially seniors, chose to use lifts to evacuate despite knowing the risk. A senior citizen aged 64 years walked down three floors before giving up and taking the lift. Many ageing HDB blocks are 10 to 24 storeys high. A senior citizen like the one at Pinnacle Duxton who gave up after walking down three floors would face the same problem of evacuating an older, relatively low-rise HDB block.
Would the retrofitting of such blocks with refuge floors with holding areas, say at one of the staircase landing or fire lift lobby of common corridors every four to five storeys, better cater to an ageing society?
We should also be more concerned with HDB studio apartment and 2-room blocks built for senior citizens. These blocks have smaller units that are packed more closely together, which means a fire could potentially spread more quickly compared to other HDB blocks. This is aggravated by the concentration of senior citizens in such blocks.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the SCDF has a separate protocol or plan when it comes to fire incidents in studio apartment and 2-room HDB blocks housing senior citizens?
I have made the point about retrofitting all HDB flats with smoke detectors. I believe studio apartment and 2-room HDB blocks should be prioritised for such retrofitting, as our senior citizens require protection most urgently. Furthermore, the SCDF should extend the HFAD Assistance Scheme to HDB dwellers, especially our senior citizens who reside in studio apartments and 2-room flats.
The third issue is fire safety audit checks on HDB residential buildings.
This Bill will allow authorised third-party officers to conduct routine fire safety and building inspections and these officers would wear body cameras and be subjected to SCDF audits. This is a good move, not only because it frees up SCDF officers for complex enforcement checks, but also because it allows SCDF to scale up routine fire safety checks.
This means two things can be done for ageing HDB flats. First, the frequency of routine fire safety checks can be increased for ageing HDB flats. Second, SCDF officers can focus on mapping the specific fire risks of ageing HDB blocks in light of the ageing population, so that fire safety features can be customized for each block. As the Ministry would know, HDB block designs are very diverse because of our public housing place-making efforts and efforts to cater to different demographic and income groups. But this also means that fire safety risks differ from block to block.
Also, the actions of residents, by placing items in common corridors or modifying their flats during renovations, affect the fire safety risks differently. An ageing population also means that more items will be placed in common areas and more renovations will be done. General rules will apply, but there will be varied situations that require on-the-ground interpretation. This will require SCDF to conduct more complex inspections.
Other than mapping the fire risks of ageing HDB blocks, there is also the need to map the specific risks of HDB blocks with ageing residential profile. With new big data and data visualization technologies, it should not be too difficult for HDB to provide regularly updated information to SCDF on HDB blocks that house more senior citizens across the city. Armed with such knowledge, the SCDF and the police could deploy additional resources to assist in evacuation and support of senior citizens in the event of fire in blocks with higher concentrations of elderly residents. If this is going to be a protocol for the SCDF and the police, it would be important to communicate this to Singaporeans for peace of mind.
The fourth issue is regarding the powers of SCDF officers to enter into HDB flats to investigate and intervene in fire safety violations. This Bill will strengthen the SCDF's investigative powers and allow officers to enter any premises that may have evidence linked to the Fire Safety Act offences. The question is, will SCDF officers be empowered to enter into HDB flats to investigate fire safety violations and what are the likely violations in such scenarios?
I am asking this because I have seen a few cases of hoarding while assisting with constituency work in Aljunied GRC, where HDB flats are piled up high with flammables such as newspapers and cardboard boxes. The residents responsible for the collecting and hoarding of such materials are usually suffering from mental illnesses. Neighbours are understandably very concerned about fire safety. Due to the stigmatisation of mental illnesses, it has been difficult for many of the suffering residents to seek help themselves. Their family members are also at a loss. In one case I witnessed, multiple agencies were involved to try to resolve the matter – social workers from the Family Service Centre, healthcare workers from the Institute of Mental Health, HDB officers, Police officers, SCDF officers, Town Council officers, Resident Committee members. However, there was very little they could do unless the suffering resident volunteered to be helped.
I would expect the number of such cases to increase as the society ages, especially with the increase in incidences of dementia. It is a delicate matter. On the one hand, forceful entry into the premises to investigate and intervene into fire risks may aggravate the resident's condition. On the other hand, the resident and the neighbours cannot be expected to live with the fire risks indefinitely. I would like to ask whether SCDF would use its powers to enter HDB flats in such scenarios to investigate and intervene to mitigate the fire risks and whether SCDF has developed protocols and plans on how to manage residents suffering from mental conditions but causing fire safety risks in an appropriate manner.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, our society is ageing, our HDB flats are ageing, yet we are adopting new technologies that increase fire risk. The spike in PMD fires and injuries caused by the fires is a timely reminder of the convergence of these trends. This Bill is a timely response, but even as we strengthen SCDF's powers we need to review and update our fire safety regime for the trends taking shape in the near horizon. I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I have seen firsthand the amazing work our SCDF does and let me start by thanking them for keeping all of us safe and for risking their lives to save ours. I support the strengthening of SCDF's regulatory and enforcement powers and the increase in penalties for fire-related offences.
The Bill will empower the Commissioner to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades, such as fire alarm systems. I strongly support this as the fire alarm system provides early warning to occupants and can potentially save lives. A lot of lives. My question is, if we agree that having a fire alarm system saves lives, why do we not have it for our HDB flats? It seems even stranger that we have fire alarm systems in our HDB multi-storey car parks where nobody lives and not in our HDB flats where hundreds of people live in? Why? I know the reply will be that \"under our Fire Code, all residential units are designed as fire compartments, typically using fire-resistant walls and floors and fire-rated main entrance doors, to mitigate fire spread.\" But we know that this is not the case in recent fire incidences.
Sir, majority of fire injuries in 2018 were caused by fires in residential buildings. Worryingly, there was a massive 50% increase in the number of fire injuries from 60 injuries in 2017 to 90 in 2018. All four fatalities caused by fire in 2018 also occurred in HDB flats. Last year, I asked whether the MHA will review the Fire Code and consider including in the Fire Code the installation of central fire alarm systems in HDB flats. Minister Shanmugam responded that all new residential units and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety will be required to install Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). This is a commendable move as the alarm will provides early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, so that they can take immediate steps to evacuate or extinguish the fire.
Moving forward, does the Ministry have plans to further require all other HDB units to install HFADs? We still to remember that a HFAD will only alert the residents of an individual unit. Again, without a centralised fire alarm system the only way of alerting other residents in the block of the fire is for our firemen or policemen or perhaps Grassroots, to go unit by unit, knocking on each and every door. This is incredibly inefficient which possibly prolongs the exposure of residents to smoke which is well-known to be the most common cause of injury in fires. According to a study, it is the \"inhalation of noxious gases rather than thermal injury\" that leads to a fatality. I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating centralised fire alarm systems in every HDB block.
Next, to make our HDB flats even safer, I hope that MHA mandates that every unit be fitted with a fire-rated door, even those facing an external corridor. I understand that the current thinking is that for flats, for units that face an external corridor, the smoke will dissipate outwards and away from the other units and hence SCDF's assessment is that there is no need for a fire-rated door to be installed for such units. But this was not the case for the fire that broke out in an Ang Mo Kio flat on July 22, that was raised earlier as well. SCDF said it rescued four people, including three children, from the neighbouring unit while police and SCDF personnel evacuated about 60 people from the affected blocks. This was a HDB unit facing an external corridor and the neighbouring units were affected.
We recognise the effectiveness of fire-rated doors in slowing down the spread of fires and smoke, why then do we not make this a requirement for all units? I understand that there will have cost implications. However, given that residential fires are a real risk, the dividends of our investment in fire-rated doors will come in the form of lives saved and injuries prevented, which is priceless.
For the centralised fire alarm systems, I also appreciate that there might be concerns about false alarms and people tampering with the alarms systems but again in this case, the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Fire alarms in all units, a centralised fire alarm system and fire-rated doors will all help to save lives. I hope MHA will consider my recommendations.
Lastly, with regard to the appointment of third party officers. The new section 8(F) provides for the appointment of \"supplementary enforcement officers\", or third parties to take charge of \"routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections\". The rationale behind this amendment is for the SCDF to focus its resources on \"more complex\" enforcement matters instead. I would like to seek a few clarifications on this new provision.
First, these third party officers have very broad and diverse powers and tasks. Can the Ministry clarify how these officers will be selected and \"suitably trained\" to ensure they can understand and perform their responsibilities just as effectively as an SCDF officer?
Second, I understand that these third party officers will be subject to audits conducted by SCDF. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share more about the scope and frequency of these audits? Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister have oversight of the audit findings?
Third, can the Ministry consider implementing a reporting mechanism to ensure that third party enforcement is being carried out in a fair and effective manner? What other safeguards would be put in place to keep these officers in check? Such checks and safeguards will be useful in ensuring that third party officers are compliant with the provisions of this Act and carry out enforcement properly. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill, which will better protect our people from fires.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, fire is a horrific event and the amendments to this Act are timely and will strike a balance between empowering the SCDF, which has always been working tirelessly to keep us all safe from the scourge of fire, to continue upholding high fire safety standards and ensuring public safety as well as managing the costs for building owners and industry stakeholders.
In Singapore, most fires are the results of accidents and in some cases, negligence but we should also be on guard against sabotage and attacks, including those related to criminal and terrorist activities. We can draw from lessons from fire incidents in other countries.
First, allow me to comment on the need for critical fire safety features for all buildings. Last month, the Kyoto Animation arson attack in Japan tragically took 35 lives, all employees in their 20s and 30s. The building had just passed a fire safety inspection in October last year but as it was designated a small office building, it was exempted from installing fire sprinklers, indoor fire hose reels and protected staircases leading to external areas – all safety features which could have helped reduce the number of lives lost and which are, thankfully included in this Bill.
Hence, I fully support the proposal to require owners of older buildings to upgrade and install critical fire safety features to keep up with the latest Fire Code. In particular, I hope to see wider adoption of smoke detection and sprinkler systems in all buildings by owners. Such features are necessary regardless of the size or the designated building use. As the Kyoto Animation fire had shown, regulators should not make exemptions as precious lives are at stake and fires consume buildings both big and small.
The Ministry has indicated that it is prepared to be flexible and may accept alternative solutions for buildings which encounter technical problems installing such features. I appeal to SCDF to adhere to its high standards. Understandably, owners will be concerned with costs but alternatives which compromise on safety should not be permitted.
I have a question regarding the evacuation of persons with mobility problems. The new regulations require at least two compartmented rooms for horizontal evacuation, but only for healthcare buildings primarily. What about other buildings? With our rapidly ageing population and integration of persons with disabilities into our workforce, we can expect more persons with mobility issues in our workplaces as well as other buildings, including residences. What provisions do we have in the protected stairways to enable the safe evacuation of the less abled or the disabled?
Let me move on to fire safety products which many other Members have already brought up. Now, fire safety products used in buildings do play a very important role and we are all aware of the examples of the Toh Guan Road industrial complex fire in May 2017 and London's Grenfell Tower inferno just one month later. The external cladding in both cases accelerated the spread of the fire and I and including others have raised this concern in this House previously. Grenfell Tower also had similar deficiencies as the Kyoto Animation building in lacking a fire sprinkler system and having only one stairway, which the survivors later reported were blocked and full of smoke, an indication that the fire doors had failed.
The amendments which are specified in Part V of the Act to empower SCDF to go upstream to punish suppliers which provide non-compliant products and building materials and ban their use is certainly a step in the right direction. Such a move would enhance the fire safety of materials used in new buildings. However, in the meanwhile, what about downstream consequences? Would the Ministry consider conducting from now, spot checks and audits on existing buildings and require replacements should there be deficiencies due to less stringent fire safety standards applied in the past or perhaps because of deterioration over time? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill and look forward to the clarifications on these issues.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Act to empower the SCDF to take a wider range of actions for fire safety, in particular, the enhancement of its investigative and enforcement powers.
Without regular enforcement and meaningful penalties, complacency sets in and over time, increasing numbers of business owners and residents engage in inconsiderate and risky behaviours. These include the failure to maintain fire safety equipment or evacuation routes, allowing the overcrowding of people and goods, and using poor quality electrical devices from suppliers, or using the devices inappropriately. Most fires can be prevented but it requires the cooperation of everyone. We need more consistent public education and outreach programmes to teach and remind all residents of safe practices and installations.
One of the biggest fire safety challenges in residential premises is the cluttering of passageways by plants, household items, trolleys and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). I am sure all my parliamentary colleagues have been receiving complaints about this problem. Residents need to be reminded that they must keep a 1.2-metre free passage for emergency access. In addition, no flammable items should be kept along common corridors or in staircases.
I would like to ask the Minister what measures we have in our arsenal against recalcitrant offenders. Some homeowners can be very stubborn and treat the areas outside their homes as their properties. Such obstructions have been the source of inconvenience and disputes among neighbours for many years. So far, it has not been easy to resolve these problems as certain homeowners have been uncooperative and even refused to turn up for mediation. I hope the Ministry could provide tools and avenues to Town Councils and homeowners to resolve such problems expeditiously.
As SCDF wants to focus on higher fire risk areas, it intends to outsource routine inspections and enforcement to authorised third parties, such as retired police officers and other public servants. I fully support this move. I would like to suggest that inspections be stepped up, particularly in residential estates. If the inspectors spot problems in the common areas, appropriate action can be taken, education as priority.
However, it is difficult for inspectors to detect flammable items hoarded within one's home. I am concerned that we will face more cases of hoardings among older residents with our rapidly ageing population. There have been a number of fires due to the large quantities of flammable items hoarded by the elderly in their flats. The behavior of these residents certainly poses a great risk to other neighbours. If these homeowners are unable to modify their behavior, would the Government consider providing them with alternative accommodation with more fire safety features? It is unfair and unsafe to subject their neighbours to such fire risks, especially when these families have young children or elderly with mobility problems.
The last point I would like to make is on the installation of fire alarm systems and sprinklers in our HDB common areas and neighbourhood shops. I appeal to the Government to install and maintain these systems in all our HDB estates, old and new, as an additional safety measure and to minimise potential fire damage. I hope these fire safety systems will become standard features in all buildings in Singapore.
I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Although the number of fire incidents has remained stable in recent years, every fire poses a significant risk to lives and properties. It is therefore imperative that we review and update our fire safety regulations periodically. While I support the Bill, I have a few questions.
First, I support the new provisions in the Bill to empower the SCDF to mandate building owners to install fire safety critical upgrades, if deemed necessary for public safety. Currently, changes to the Fire Code can only be applied prospectively to new buildings, and to existing ones that undergo addition and alteration (A&A) works. But when a fire breaks out and spreads, it does not discriminate between older or newer buildings. Therefore, we must ensure that occupants in all buildings are safe.
However, the costs involved for building owners to comply with the latest Fire Code can be significant. As indicated by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier, there are some 500 buildings that would be required to undergo such fire safety upgrades. These buildings have not undergone any A&A works for some time, and some pre-date even the 1991 Fire Code. It is likely that some of these buildings may require a substantial overhaul to comply with the latest Fire Code. Will the Ministry provide assistance to these building owners to help them become compliant to the latest Fire Code?
Due to our ageing population, these older buildings, some of which are in my constituency, are looking at installing lifts to better serve the needs of their elderly occupants. But since they have not undergone any A&A works previously, major overhauls, such as having to build an entirely new fire escape stairwell, are needed to comply with the latest Fire Code. This presents the building owners with an extremely prohibitive cost, when all they want is to simply build a lift to cater to the mobility needs of their ageing occupants. So, they tell me, \"We cannot install the lift because, if we install the lift, we need to comply with the latest Fire Code. But if we do not install the lift, then we are in compliance with the old Fire Code.\" Can the Ministry look into how we can help these older buildings lower the prohibitive costs of fire safety compliance when undergoing such A&A works?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support also the provisions in the Bill that will provide SCDF with the ability to appoint authorised third parties, called Supplementary Enforcement Officers, to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. Singapore is a dense city state. While there is no official census on the number of buildings in Singapore, a study done by NTU in 2005 estimated that there were close to 160,000 buildings in Singapore. I am sure this number has grown significantly in the 14 years since the study was concluded. Allowing SCDF to outsource routine checks would, therefore, allow the agency to better optimise its resources.
However, outsourcing comes with the risk that poorly trained enforcement officers would tarnish the reputation of SCDF. Members would have heard of various issues associated with outsourced enforcement officers. Therefore, it is important that we provide these supplementary enforcement officers with the appropriate training, both in terms of technical skills and the soft skills of engaging building management and members of the public. Could the Ministry therefore share more on the training that these supplementary enforcement officers would undergo?
Beyond training, another way to reduce issues associated with outsourced enforcement officers is to engage officers, individuals, who already have a wealth of relevant experience. This is where the Labour Movement can come in. Our unions have many members who are retired fire wardens, safety officers and facilities management officers, many of whom will be keen to return to work with some form of training. I urge SCDF to work closely with our unions and engage these experienced officers as possible supplementary enforcement officers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while we had a lengthy discussion earlier on PMDs, I would be remiss if I do not raise the issue of fires relating to the charging of PMDs and Power Assisted Bicycles (PABs) in a debate about Fire Safety. With the recent spate of PMD-related fires, it is important that we continue to educate the public on the need to ensure that their PMDs are compliant to the safety standards,and on safe charging habits. While I note that SCDF has infographics about fire safety tips for PMDs and PABs on their social media channels, more work needs to be done to increase awareness, in particular, for those who are not on social media channels. Perhaps, the supplementary enforcement officers could double up their roles and educate the public on proper fire safety practices, when conducting their inspections. SCDF and LTA should also work closely with vendors of these PMDs and PABs to educate their users on the proper charging of their devices at the point of sale.
While education and awareness are important, but they alone are insufficient. I do agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that so many non-compliant PMDs in our housing estates, there is a risk of a PMD-related fire every day. From the investigation into the past PMD-related fires, I would like to ask if the SCDF has found any useful patterns or any early warning signs of high fire-risk PMDs. If so, can we focus our inspections on these devices?
Mr Deputy Speaker, fire safety is the joint responsibility of everyone in the community. So, while we increase the regulatory powers of SCDF as part of our periodic review of the fire safety regulations, it is important that we extend support to those impacted. I urge the Ministry to do more in helping owners of older buildings to become compliant with new regulations, and to engage our unions to employ experienced officers as supplementary enforcement officers. With that, I support the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. It is crucial that our fire safety laws are regularly updated to respond to the changing nature of fire safety risks and challenges, especially in light of the significant number of fires in the last month alone.
I understand that the proposed amendments will attend to some 500 old buildings that are mostly commercial and industrial. However, all four fire fatalities last year took place in residential buildings. The majority of the 90 fire injuries attended to by SCDF last year involved fires also in residential buildings. In addition, a total of 2,411 fire incidents happened in 2018. In contrast, 515 fires took place in non-residential premises. I would therefore argue that there is also a need to update and reinforce fire safety measures in residential buildings, especially for our elderly and disability populations.
In May this year, an 83-year-old woman who was also a wheelchair user was found dead in her Bukit Panjang flat from a fire sparked off by a lit joss stick. The investigation revealed that she was unlikely to have been able to evacuate on her own when the fire broke out. Her daughter, who had gone out to buy lunch, came back to find the flat on fire. Her mother, who had been diagnosed with dementia, was unable to get out of the flat, and succumbed to smoke inhalation. She was one of the four elderly who died in home fires between 2015 and 2017. A 2008 Norwegian study found that those over 70 years old are four times more vulnerable in the event of a fire.
Indeed, the need to address fire safety issues within our built environment is all the more urgent, given that by 2030, one in four of our population will be aged 65 or older. That is 1.8 million people. By 2050, this number is projected to reach 3.08 million. This means that in three decades, 47% of Singapore's total population will be 65 years old or older.
Fires are a particular risk for two vulnerable groups within the elderly segment.
The first group. There are 82,000 people who live with dementia at home. This number is expected to grow beyond 100,000 by 2030. How we support them with fire safety measures could make a big difference to how long they can remain independent.
The second group. There are 103,758 in 2015, approximately 10% of the population aged 65 and above who are illiterate. These seniors may not understand the fire evacuation maps even if they are prominently displayed in their blocks, in the event of a fire.
Fire safety is clearly not the responsibility of SCDF alone – the responsibility is one to be shared across Ministries and the community. I would like to take this opportunity with the debate on this Bill to discuss how we can do more for the vulnerable groups in our community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is safe to say that one fire that happens is one fire too many. Let us look upstream at some measures that can prevent fires from happening for our vulnerable communities.
First, we should rope in our 250,000-strong foreign domestic workers to be part of this effort because: (a) they are often care-givers to the elderly and disability populations, and children; (b) they are often at home during the day and could prove to be a valuable resource should a fire break out within the neighbourhood; and (c) they themselves are at risk in case of a fire outbreak. Currently, a foreign domestic worker spends a few weeks being trained in their home country on the usual cleaning and care-giving skills. As far as fire safety training is concerned, they are merely taught to inform their employer and call the emergency hotline number in times of a fire emergency. Nothing else. Aside from regular foreign domestic workers, employers also have the option of hiring pre-trained domestic workers who have undergone comprehensive training to take care of the elderly. Under the Eldercare Foreign Domestic Worker Scheme, they learn to assist them in daily activities, tend to them with medication and be trained in first aid. Again, fire safety does not feature in the training programme.
The Safety Guidelines for Foreign Domestic Workers by MOM have a singular focus on window-cleaning, following several high-rise fall incidents in the past. Employers are also encouraged to teach these helpers how to handle electrical appliances and preventive measures such as not touching plugs when hands are wet. Again, fire safety is not included in these guidelines. In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, our domestic helpers are also not taught how to use a fire extinguisher or the Automated Emergency Defibrillator (AED) or how to evacuate properly in the event of an emergency.
Community programmes organised by SCDF like the Community Emergency Preparedness Programmes focus on essential emergency procedures like fire safety and evacuation procedures among first-aid programmes as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think such programmes should be part of the training that our foreign domestic workers receive, particularly those working in households with vulnerable persons. We must equip them adequately so that they have the confidence to act decisively in case of fire and other emergencies which can be very valuable in saving lives, especially when caring for the young, elderly and differently-abled.
Second, we must harness the power of community. As we roll out Dementia Friendly Communities, the neighbourhood is aware of issues arising from dementia and can better support these individuals who live alone. The volunteers, also known as Dementia Friends, could support persons with dementia by checking in on them regularly and advising them on minimising the risk of fire hazards. In addition, fire safety training should also be given to the care-givers of these households, designated neighbours and these Dementia Friends.
Assistive technologies in the home environment such as gas shut-off valves and sprinkler systems are preventive measures. The Fire Code currently provides that sprinklers be placed in certain areas of HDB buildings but in a response to a Parliamentary Question posed in July 2018, MND replied that “SCDF’s assessment at this point in time is that there is no need to install sprinklers within the residential units.” Is there now a new position on this by SCDF, especially considering the 54 fires involving personal mobility devices in the first half of this year – a number that has more than doubled compared to the same period last year?
While I concede that there is a significant financial consideration in installing water sprinklers in each and every household, installing sprinklers in vulnerable households where the resident does not have the ability to quell the fire on his own or evacuate quickly must be an option to be seriously considered. Would the elderly lady on wheelchair, I mentioned earlier, in Bukit Panjang have lived if she had a sprinkler in her flat?
Last but not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in homes. Even as the national effort to install smoke detectors in all new residential flats is in place, fire extinguishers and smoke alarm installations are still only highly encouraged by the SCDF, and the take-up rates remain low. Yet, they remain essential tools to stop small blazes from growing bigger. Smoke alarms decrease the probability of fatal fire incidents dramatically. In the US and Japan, after home smoke alarms were made mandatory in 1976 and 2006 respectively, the rate of fatal fire incidents have decreased by 46% in the US and 41% in Japan.
Britain’s Fire Industry Association also found that 88% of fires tackled with extinguishers were put out. While having a mandatory fire extinguisher policy is believed to be difficult because of financial costs, a risk-based approach is needed. Fires happen more often than we think, Mr Deputy Speaker, as shared earlier especially in residential homes. And when they do, the cost of a fire extinguisher pales in comparison to the material and psychological damage caused.
One of my team members shared this story with me as I was writing this speech. Almost a year ago, he was woken up in the middle of the night by his neighbour whose flat had caught fire from an electric short circuit. The neighbour, despite being in a crisis himself, made sure that his daughter alerted the neighbours to leave their homes in case the fire spreads. The swift response by SCDF ensured that everything was soon under control. This neighbour and his family were not allowed to go back into their home until the investigations were over. Besides, smoke had spread throughout the flat making it unsafe to occupy. For a few hours, this neighbour and his family were able to rest in my team member’s flat to clean up and compose themselves before their friends came to take them in for the night, and then weeks after.
SCDF conducted various examinations to determine the origin and cause of fire, the Police conducted their on-scene investigations, and the insurance company surveyed and assessed the fire damage. The neighbours engaged companies for the repair and restoration works including the clearing out the smoke, rewiring of the house and painting. During the ordeal, the neighbour and his family felt like \"refugees\" for that few weeks when they had to seek refuge with their friends.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a beautiful story of community and kinship in this heartland encounter which is most heartening. Yet the burning question on my mind when he shared the story was: did his neighbour have a fire extinguisher in his flat? He did not. The blaze was so small when it first started from the electric wire, an extinguisher would have quelled it in seconds and the trauma and anguish of many weeks could have been averted.
If mandating for all is not an option, can we consider further incentivising homeowners to equip their homes with fire extinguishers and smoke alarms through offering discounts for conservancy charges or discounts for home fire insurance premiums? Can we offer schemes to subsidise such installations as mandatory for vulnerable households alongside the fire safety training I mentioned earlier?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the needs of our vulnerable groups must be front and centre in policy-making alongside the rest of the population, including when it comes to fire safety. How do we make sure that the elderly and persons with disabilities, or those with mobility difficulties are provided safe evacuation routes in the event of a fire? How can the Deaf, or hard of hearing become cognisant of a fire if they cannot hear smoke alarms? How can persons with mobility difficulties be evacuated off a high-rise building if lifts are not to be used, and they are unable to take the stairs? What more can we do for persons with dementia at home? We may not always have the right answers but we must not stop asking the right questions. For that is the only way for us to fireproof our future as a caring and inclusive society.
At this juncture, I would also like to join my fellow Members to thank the SCDF for the work they do for the country.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill. In the last two weeks, I witnessed three fires happening in my Boon Lay constituency. One at a rental flat, another at the void deck and one at a commercial shop premises. The causes of the fires across all three incidents were dissimilar and although no one was badly injured, scalded or perished, we should not be lulled into complacency and think that it will not happen to any of us, be it in our homes or at our offices.
I applaud the move in this Bill to introduce harsher and more deterrent penalties for five offences under the Fire Safety Act. In particular, the offences mainly involve the unauthorised change of use of premises which could cause existing fire safety measures to become inadequate, as well as instances where industry professionals such as registered inspectors do not responsibly supervise and certify fire safety work. The penalty for the failure of an appointed Qualified Person to supervise fire safety work will also be raised. Updating and raising these penalties will help address upstream, the causes of fires, and mitigate, if not, eradicate fires in built up areas.
By the same token, I support the enhancement of SCDF’s enforcement and investigative powers to hold responsible those who flout fire safety rules. At present, when dealing with fire hazards, SCDF must first issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and can only act against the errant parties if they fail to comply with the Notice. However, some fire hazards may pose \"serious and significant\" fire safety risks and where time is of the essence, to nip the problem at the bud. In such cases, I am supportive that SCDF will now have the option to immediately prosecute culpable parties. Its officers will then be able to investigate suspects for fire safety violations and take statements when there is reasonable suspicion of an offence.
Notwithstanding, I have two incendiary concerns and will provide suggestions to these two areas.
First, I am particularly concerned about the types, accessibility and sale of fire extinguishers. These days, you have various suppliers including many e-commerce sites hosted locally and abroad peddling fire extinguishers and fire extinguishing devices. I take cognisance of the fact that MHA will be introducing new measures to tighten control over the supply chain for regulated fire safety products. Can MHA share more about the roles and responsibilities of the different supply chain actors, how the new measures will improve fire safety, and the cost implication of these measures to the industry and to building owners? How about unregulated fire safety products and the control over such? In the same vein, how can the general public and consumer best verify the right type of fire extinguisher to procure and use for their homes, premises and offices and whether there is a way to validate the authenticity and efficacy of these products. In short, for the layman, how to know what type to buy, which size for their premises, from where and whom should they be purchasing the fire extinguishers and fire safety devices and products from.
Second, with increased adoption and installation of smart homes and more people having their own devices to detect smoke, burning and fires, can SCDF make it easier for personal home alarms to be linked to a central community system or even SCDF with the caveat that users have to pay if there is a false alarm or activation where resources are sent to respond to the activated alarm. With that, I support the Bill.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, the recent spate of fires in Singapore and the fatal fire in Jurong are timely reminders of the need to ensure that fire safety requirements for buildings remain relevant and effective to respond to fire safety risks. In densely populated Singapore and with the large number of buildings especially high-rise buildings, ensuring fire safety of buildings is key to protecting lives in the unfortunate event of a fire. Crucial aspects of a building’s safety are the possibility of safe escape and compartmentalisation. The condition of the building will also have impact on the speed a fire spreads or whether it is contained.
Although this is an extreme example, the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in the UK in 2017 is a sad case that demonstrates what could happen when all fire safety regulations of the building failed. From the cladding of the building, the quality of the renovations, outstanding fire safety issues, all these were a combination of factors that led to the disastrous consequences and the unnecessary loss of many lives.
The key amendments of the Bill seek to enhance the fire safety of buildings by strengthening SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers to optimise the use of SCDF’s resources and to streamline regulatory processes for greater clarity.
While I am supportive of the Bill, I do have some feedback and clarifications.
The Fire Safety Act, with the tightened safety regulations and certification processes for buildings, if approved, will require older buildings, which have not undergone additions and alterations (A&A) as well as buildings where the occupants are at a higher risk in the event of a fire, to install critical fire safety features. This is in compliance with the latest Fire Code, and it has been pointed out that some 500 buildings in Singapore that were built before the 1001/2002 Fire Code and have a higher occupancy load, require these features.
While we all agree that safety cannot be compromised, the stricter requirements will increase construction schedules and the cost will affect both the building owners and tenants. As fire safety experts, SCDF is best positioned and must take a practical approach to work with building owners to comply with the safety standards while managing costs.
Ensuring that buildings meet fire safety regulation standards is important but equally critical, is the building's fire detection and alarm system, evacuation plans and policy in the event of a fire. As the Bill will empower SCDF to investigate fire hazards and to mandate building owners to comply with fire safety regulations, how does SCDF ensure that buildings have in place appropriate building fire evacuation plans and policies? This is as crucial as the physical infrastructure and fire regulations of the building.
With the strain on manpower, I understand the rationale for the Bill to also seek to empower SCDF to appoint authorised third-party officers to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. This will allow SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement. While the tasks of building inspections and fire safety enforcement checks are routine, they do require SCDF officers to be on the ground and with this, will give them a good feel and assessment of the fire safety conditions of buildings. By outsourcing these tasks to authorised third-parties, I do hope that there will be a balance of using authorised third-parties for these tasks and still have SCDF officers stay connected with the ground conditions and more importantly, the insights of what is happening on the ground.
While the tasks of conducting inspections and enforcements are routine, they are also important tasks to ensure that the buildings meet the fire safety standards. And to this point, how will SCDF ensure the quality of the tasks done by the authorised third parties?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary did share that there would be measures to safeguard the quality of these parties, and these include audits as well as body worn cameras. Can more details we provided in terms of the benchmarks, criteria and the frequency of such audits? With many Singaporeans living in HDB flats, and giving the rise in PMD fire incidences within HDB flats and the blocks, can Minister also share the fire safety standards and measures to handle fire risks of HDB blocks and flats?
I do want to take the opportunity to also thank our SCDF officers for the work that they do and for keeping Singaporeans safe. To protect lives, it is essential that fire safety regulations stay relevant and that there is continued maintenance and testing of fire safety standards and inspection to ensure our buildings are fire safe. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I support the Bill.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in support of the Fire Safety Bill amendment, which include mandatory critical fire safety upgrades for existing buildings, and tightening regulations of fire safety products and materials sold in Singapore.
MHA should be commended for their progressive and pre-emptive responses to install Fire Alarm Devices, or smoke detectors in short, for new and existing residential premises carrying out fireworks from 1 June 2018.
SCDF, HDB and the People's Association (PA) have also been working together to install smoke alarms in flats let out under the HDB Public Rental scheme at no additional cost to tenants. More than 50,000 households will be covered by this assistance scheme, and installations implemented in phases to prioritise households with one member aged 60 and above.
I understand that there are also ongoing efforts by grassroots leaders and Member of Parliaments to educate residents on fire safety in their homes. It is therefore very regrettable that MHA is not insisting for smoke detectors (HFADs) to be installed in all existing residential premises that are not carrying out fire safety works. This is in spite of the fact that existing homeowners are strongly encouraged to install smoke detectors for their own safety.
I would like to express that encouraging homeowners to practice good fire safety habits is woefully insufficient and does not provide adequate coverage compared to homeowners who already have the devices installed. Consequently, I would like to ask MHA the reasons for the differing treatment and if there are any long-term plans to make smoke detector installations mandatory for existing residential premises?
In 2017, the President of the Fire Safety Managers' Association forewarned that \"in many cases of home fires, there have been cases of injuries or death due to smoke inhalation, which could have happened while the occupants were asleep. A localised smoke alarm will alert residents so that they can react to the fire at an early stage.\"
He also cautioned that the voluntary take up rate of fire alarms and extinguishers in homes has been low, despite encouragement from the authorities. A fire safety expert from a fire safety solutions provider in Singapore clarified that often, the deadliest fires are small fires that quietly smoulder and cause smoke while people are sleeping or are in a different room. Without the early warning provided by an alarm, people can be overcome by smoke even before the fire is discovered.
A 2015 report by the United States' National Fire Protection Association have found that the fatality rate from residential fires in homes with working alarms was 40% lower than in those without. Out of the 4114 fire calls responded in 2016 in Singapore, 68.5% were fires in residential areas, an increase of 62.9% compared to 2015. These fire incidences have resulted in three deaths and 60 injured in 2017, two deaths and 62 injured in 2016.
The predominant reasons cited by the SCDF for residential fires were materials set alight in rubbish chutes, bins or unattended cooking. Recently, we have observed an increase in PMD-related fire incidents. As we can see from the statistics I have cited, smoke detectors would be very effective as a preventive fire safety measure, as they would provide residents with an early warning sign.
So, my proposition to improve fire safety for all residential areas are twofold. A short-term plan would be for the SCDF to introduce a fire safety checklist to raise awareness and level of fire safety standards in homes. Furthermore, the Government should ramp up educational efforts in community and shared spaces on fire safety. Perhaps, volunteers from the neighbourhood watch zone or Silver Generation Ambassadors can be engaged to expedite efforts to encourage the take up of fire extinguisher or smoke detectors.
Consequently, certified smoke detectors, fire extinguishers or fire blankets should be made more accessible and affordable within the community for purchase as they are the first line of defence in the event of fire. For this purpose, a national procurement competition would be very suited to design and introduce a light-weight and all-purpose fire extinguisher easily used by the young and elderly.
Residents may not be aware that water cannot put out grease fire, and also, fire extinguishers are loaded with different dousing agents to fight specific fires. Some extinguishers are ineffective against certain fires, while others could potentially worsen the situation. Having an easy to use and light weight all-purpose extinguisher at hand will infinitely reduce the threat of a fire emergency.
Supermarkets can then be involved with the sale of this extinguisher to make it more accessible. This way, residents will not need to worry if the fire extinguisher they purchase is certified, as there are many types of uncertified extinguishers available online. I then move to ask if the revised Act will cover online sales of non-certified fire extinguishers and how do the authority plan to regulate this.
To continue with my proposition, a long-term plan would involve the execution of a five- to 10-year phase which will introduce new legislation, in view of increasing fire risks from an ageing population and from more extensive use of PMDs. The implementation process may be long, but we need to start with the first step. This new legislation shall include mandatory installation of fire alarms, both exterior along HDB corridors and interior in homes, while concurrently equipping all homes with a fire extinguisher or at least a fire blanket for economical reasons or practical maintenance.
I hope my suggestions provide much needed insight and I look forward to having them considered seriously and implemented.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Fire Safety Act. It is important to review our fire safety legislation periodically to ensure that it remains effective in the face of changes in our environment and user behaviour.
The Bill seeks to enhance the fire safety of buildings by empowering SCDF to require building owners to install critical fire safety features, such as protected exit staircases and fire alarm systems. I would like to ask if and how these features can address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Every year, over 2,000 fires break out in residences, with about half being rubbish chute fires. Our older HDB flats are fitted with individual rubbish chutes, which are quite different from the new flats where residents have to dispose of their rubbish through central chute systems. Central chutes are equipped with sprinkler systems to douse fires. However, the older individual chutes do not have these sprinklers. Does the Ministry have alternative safety measures to address this problem? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill seeks to enhance the fire safety of buildings by empowering SCDF to require building owners to install critical fire safety features, such as protected exit staircases and fire alarm systems. I would like to ask if and how these features can address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Every year, over 2,000 fires break out in residences, with about half being rubbish chute fires. Our older HDB flats are fitted with individual rubbish chutes, which are quite different from the new flats where residents have to dispose of their rubbish through central chute systems. Central chutes are equipped with sprinklers to douse fires. However, the older individual chutes do not have these sprinklers. Does the Ministry have alternative safety measures to address this problem?
(In English): Furthermore, we have a higher proportion of elderly Singaporeans living in such older HDB blocks. This is of great concern as they are less mobile, probably less alert and less sensitive to changes in ambient temperatures and the presence of smoke; therefore, they may be slower to detect fire threats. I hope the Ministry would consider ways to protect this vulnerable group of residents.
I am aware that the Government is installing HFAD in all HDB Public Rental flats and the installation of HFADs is mandatory for new residences and existing residential premises carrying out fire safety works. However, this still leaves the majority of residences, both HDB flats and private properties, not equipped with fire alarm systems, although owners are strongly encouraged to install them. Does the Ministry have data on the percentage of homes installed with such devices? Does SCDF have a list of approved HFADs and their suppliers for homeowners' reference? This is important as poor quality devices can lead to a false sense of security, which can be dangerous, or create false alarms.
Another challenge is dealing with fires in very tall buildings. The average height of our buildings has been increasing. It is very common now for our HDB blocks and condominiums to be over 40 storeys high. How prepared are we to deal with fires in such tall buildings, especially the elderly with mobility challenges? Can SCDF work with our grassroots organisations on fire drills and evacuation paths in our HDB and private estates? Would the Ministry share how successful SCDF has been in public education efforts and reaching out to our residents to increase their awareness of fire safety?
A recent spate of fires caused by PMDs has drawn our attention to the risks of these machines, so much so that PMD fires is fast becoming a new fire risk category. I urge the Ministry to work with MOT to implement a national scheme to allow PMD owners to trade in their unapproved models earlier for the approved ones, in consideration of fire safety.
Finally, I would like to request for home fire extinguishers to be made more easily available to home owners. While they can be bought online, if SCDF could work with supermarket chains, such as NTUC Fairprice, to sell fire extinguishers, they would be more readily accessible, especially to the elderly, many of whom do not shop online. In addition, the physical presence of fire extinguishers in these supermarkets would be a constant reminder to all customers of the need for fire safety. I hope the Ministry would consider this suggestion.
I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill and thank all SCDF officers for keeping us safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2 (5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day’s sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Sun.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken and for expressing their strong support for the Bill.
Members have raised many pertinent points on the importance of enhancing the fire safety of buildings and strengthening SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers to ensure that the fire safety regime continues to stay robust and effective for a safer Singapore. I will first respond to the comments pertaining to the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, namely: (a) tighter regulatory control over the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; (b) appointment of third-party officers; and (c) fire safety at public and industrial buildings.
I will then discuss the various suggestions Members have made with regard to broader issues relating to fire safety.
First, on the topic of tightening regulatory control over the supply chain of regulated fire safety products.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the roles and responsibilities of the supply chain actors and whether the tighter control would increase costs to the industry and building owners. I had earlier spoken on who the supply chain actors are and their respective roles. SCDF has consulted the affected stakeholders and has worked with them to ensure that the due diligence actions required of them are reasonable and practicable. In our view, these actions are not onerous and ought to be done even without the amendments to the Fire Safety Act. For example, certification bodies that certify regulated fire safety products should independently check the validity of the test reports submitted by the suppliers before issuing any Certificate of Conformity (CoC). The amendments serve to crystallise these responsibilities in law and to allow SCDF to take non-compliant parties to task.
Dr Chia asked about the audit regime for buildings. SCDF regularly audits and inspects buildings to check that their fire protection systems are in proper working order. If the systems are faulty, SCDF will not renew the building’s Fire Certificate and the building cannot continue to be occupied. With the proposed amendments, in addition to non-renewal of the Fire Certificates, SCDF will have the power to require regulated fire safety products to be tested and for rectification action to be taken for use of non-compliant products.
Mr de Souza also asked if we are enhancing the standards on the processes involving regulated fire safety products. Indeed, we are. For example, SCDF will henceforth require samples of cladding from each project site to be tested, over and above the current annual tests conducted on samples obtained from the warehouses. This ensures that the cladding panels installed at each building are compliant.
On this note, I will also address Ms Sylvia Lim’s question on how SCDF had assisted the building owners who were required to rectify the non-compliant claddings arising from the Toh Guan fire. SCDF had worked closely with them in their planning for the rectification works and ensured that, in the interim, fire safety is not compromised. Some building owners requested for more time to complete their rectifications. Where possible, SCDF had accommodated but imposed conditions, such as more frequent fire safety checks, to ensure that their fire protection systems are in working order. Arising from the Toh Guan fire case, other than the cases I have just mentioned, there are no other cases ongoing at the moment.
Several Members spoke about the appointment of third-party officers to carry out enforcement tasks on behalf of SCDF. While most support the move to outsource these tasks, some questions were raised on the selection and training of these third-party officers, as well as the safeguards to prevent potential abuses of power and misbehaviours.
This move is intended to allow SCDF to focus its limited resources on higher risk areas, so as to bring about better overall fire safety outcomes. While some inspections and enforcement tasks may be outsourced, I would like to assure Members that SCDF will maintain strong oversight over the work done by these appointed third-party officers.
First, only simple checks will be outsourced, such as checking for any obstruction to escape routes and that emergency lights are in working order. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, there are about 2,000 such inspections annually. At the onset, these third-party officers will only be able to exercise powers limited to evidence collection and in straightforward cases, such as obstructions of fire escape route, empowered to make enforcement decisions, including the issuance of fire hazard abatement notices. Until we are confident that these officers are competent in their duties, SCDF will continue to issue composition notices and collect fines. And as I mentioned earlier, SCDF is looking to start with a small team of around five third-party officers.
Second, the third-party officers will be selected carefully. SCDF will specify the skills and expertise required and consider past experience in public regulatory and enforcement work favourably. I note Mr Melvin Yong’s point on the availability of experienced officers in the Labour Movement and SCDF can certainly consider them. SCDF will also conduct training for the third-party vendor and will also be responsible for setting and administering the assessment of these officers. Only officers who meet SCDF’s requirements will be appointed.
Third, we have in place safeguards against potential misbehaviours. The appointed third-party officers will be required to don SCDF-approved uniforms and to display SCDF-issued authority cards while on duty. Similar to outsourced inspection officers from NEA, LTA and MOM, they will also be required to use body-worn cameras when on duty. The cameras will allow SCDF to investigate any allegations of misbehaviour. To Mr Louis Ng’s question on a reporting mechanism for these officers, SCDF will require them to report to SCDF Headquarters at the start and the end of their duty, to ensure that they are in proper bearing and to check that they have performed their duties properly.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about audits. SCDF will conduct random audit checks on these appointed third-party officers to ensure that they are professional in their discharge of duties. In addition, the appointed third-party officers will be deemed as \"public servants\" for the purposes of the Penal Code. They will be expected to perform at the standards required of all public servants and be held similarly liable for breaching their public duties. Any person who has been issued with an enforcement notice may appeal to SCDF. Upon review, if the decision made by the third-party officer is assessed to be wrong, SCDF may modify or withdraw the enforcement action that has been made.
We appreciate the timely reminder from Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim that we need to strike a balance between outsourcing simple enforcement tasks to appointed third-party officers and still having SCDF officers stay connected with the ground conditions and insights. We will ensure that our officers continue to walk the ground and keep a finger on the pulse of the situation.
I will now address the comments relating to the proposed power for SCDF to require building owners to install fire safety measures. Several Members spoke about the need to balance between ensuring fire safety standards of the buildings and taking a practical approach to help building owners manage the costs.
As mentioned in my earlier speech, we are acutely aware of the cost implications on building owners. SCDF will adopt a calibrated and risk-based approach in identifying buildings for mandatory fire safety upgrades. To answer Ms Sylvia Lim’s question, SCDF has limited these upgrades to buildings that have higher fire safety risks, based on factors, such as the age of the building, its size, as well as the occupant load and profile. Even within this group, building owners will not have to undertake the full suite of upgrades to meet the prevailing Fire Code requirements, but only install selected critical fire safety measures. This will help building owners manage costs.
For example, only healthcare institutions will be required to have at least two compartmented rooms on each floor, as highlighted by Dr Chia. Healthcare institutions have a high concentration of persons with mobility issues, complicating the safe evacuation of all persons out of the building during a fire. These compartmented rooms can serve as safe shelters for those who are unable to evacuate out of the building while awaiting the arrival of help. We recognise that persons with disabilities and the elderly may also be present at commercial buildings, but they are usually not in high concentration and can be evacuated out of the building with the help of other able-bodied persons. Furthermore, these buildings are equipped with fire lifts, which can be used to evacuate persons with mobility issues. Requiring the installation of compartmented rooms in these other buildings may, therefore, impose unnecessary costs on the building owners.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how SCDF will help building owners with these upgrades and how much time will be given for them to comply with the requirements.
We are mindful that these are occupied buildings and the costs involved can be high if the upgrades required are extensive. We are also conscious of the fact that there may be constraints, such as costs and site limitations, when carrying out upgrading works.
SCDF will work with the building owners to assess the timeframe for compliance, on a case-by-case basis and are prepared to give building owners up to two years to comply with the requirements. SCDF is also prepared to exercise flexibility to help the building owners meet the requirements. For example, building owners may engage a fire safety engineer to propose alternative solutions to address fire safety risks. If more time is required, building owners may also request for a timeline extension and, if there is a definite plan for sale or redevelopment in the immediate future, SCDF may consider waiving the requirements. To mitigate the risks in the interim, building owners may be required to undertake other measures, such as conducting more fire drills.
Dr Chia spoke of the need to ensure fire safety of buildings and appealed to SCDF to adhere to its high standards. Indeed, the public’s safety is not something we will take lightly. As much as SCDF wants to be flexible and accommodating to the building owners, we assure Members that SCDF scrutinises all proposals and alternative solutions carefully to ensure that fire safety standards are maintained.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether this new power will be used to address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Rubbish chute fires are typically minor and, given the enclosed area where the fire is, have less risk of spreading and a lower threat to human life. In fact, such fires can be easily put out by members of the public. I am heartened to share that in 2018, about 25% of such fires were successfully extinguished by alert members of the public. We will continue to educate members of the public on how to avoid and put out such fires and we will take action against culprits that cause them.
Ms Jessica Tan has rightly pointed out that other than the requisite fire safety measures for all buildings, it is also necessary for building owners to be prepared to deal with fire emergencies, such as having fire evacuation plans. That is why SCDF requires public buildings to put in place certain Emergency Preparedness measures, to ensure a high level of readiness amongst the occupants to respond and evacuate in the event of a fire. The measures include an emergency response plan that serves as a contingency plan for fire emergencies, such as an evacuation plan and the appointment of a fire safety manager to help building owners ensure a fire-safe environment.
As Mr de Souza has highlighted, the definition of \"public building\" will be amended to refer to any building to which access to the public or a section of the public is allowed. This means that the overcrowding of these buildings, such as places of worship and schools, will constitute a fire hazard and SCDF is empowered to take action to rectify the situation. The definition will also make it clear that even if a building is open to only a specific group of people, it will still be deemed a public building.
We have engaged the building owners who are affected by this amendment and notification letters will be sent after the new law kicks in. We will also work closely with the building owners to implement these measures, for the safety of the occupants.
Let me now move on to fire safety at residential premises. Members have provided several suggestions on improving the fire safety of residential premises, including the installation of sprinkler systems, fire-rated doors, smoke detectors and central fire alarm systems. Indeed, these are useful fire safety measures that can help prevent the spread of fires or enable early evacuation of residents. MHA and SCDF have considered similar measures in the past and deliberated deeply on the necessity of these measures in the context of our residences.
Let me first explain our assessment of the fire safety risk of residential premises that informs our fire safety requirements. Residential premises have a lower occupancy load, compared to industrial and public buildings. And each residential unit is designed as a fire compartment to prevent the spread of fire. Also, residents are more familiar with the layout of the place, fire escape routes are more direct and are designed to have adequate ventilation. Over the years, additional infrastructure, such as rising mains and hosereels, have also been installed to aid fire-fighting operations, too.
At this point, I would like to reiterate the fire statistics. The number of fires at residential premises has decreased by about 14.5% over the past three years. Our fire fatality rate remains low. We have succeeded in reducing it by half, from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018. The concerns that Members have raised regarding the recent increase in number of fires, are due to one particular source. That is, PMDs. The Senior Minister of State for Transport has, in the Ministerial Statement, shared how MOT intends to address the fire safety risks of PMDs, through measures like bringing forward the deadline for compliance with the UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020 and the introduction of a mandatory inspection regime for registered e-scooters. The authorities will also strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes on safe charging practices, to enhance fire safety at home. We need to nip the problem in the bud, to stop the fires at its source. And we thus have to strictly regulate PMDs and their usage so as to minimise fire hazards.
That said, MHA and SCDF will continue to evaluate the risk environment, including taking into account our ageing population. We will work with building owners, including HDB, to assess the necessity to put in place additional measures that Members have suggested, such as sprinkler systems, refuge floors for lower rise HDB flats, mandatory smoke detectors and mandatory fire-rated doors, regardless of whether internal or external corridor-facing. We will also keep in mind the potential cost impact on homeowners, should we decide to mandate these requirements, which will require every household to install mandatory fixtures. Households which do not currently have smoke detectors, or which do not currently require fire-rated doors can decide to purchase one on their own, for their peace of mind.
Several Members asked why HFADs are not mandatory for all existing homes and also suggested for HFADs to be connected to a central fire alarm system. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also spoke about providing support to ensure that private residences have them as well. The purpose of having a HFAD within a residential unit is to provide early warning to the occupants inside the house in the event of a fire, so that they can quickly extinguish the fire or evacuate to safety.
While there may be some benefits to having HFADs linked to a central fire alarm system to provide early warning to the other residents, there are also downsides that I think Members should also be made aware of. Given the prevalence of smoke in our daily lives, such as from cooking or fogging activities, HFADs may give off false alarms. To give Members a sense of the potential challenge that we will face with false alarms, SCDF's records showed that for buildings with central fire alarm systems now, there were about 47,000 alarm activations per year, out of which less than 1% involved a real fire. If many HFADs are connected to a central fire alarm system, the high frequency of false alarms may cause undue stress and disturbance to the residents. We have considered Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion of imposing charges on homeowners for false alarms. While it may encourage greater care from the homeowners to minimise false alarms, it may also drive other forms of behaviours, such as disconnecting the HFAD from the central fire alarm system, or to completely remove them, so as to avoid false alarms. This will then defeat the purpose of having HFADs in the first place. So, a balanced approach has to be taken.
False alarms could be due to reasons, such as non-maintenance of the central fire alarm system, failure of the building owner to request for the alarm system to be temporarily disconnected before engaging in fogging activities, or just simply prank actions by some ill-intentioned persons. Regardless, regular citizens are affected.
While we are not mandating that all existing home owners install HFADS in their homes at this point, we strongly encourage our residents to do so. To Ms Joan Pereira's question on whether there is a list of approved HFADs, we do not endorse any particular model, but we recommend that home owners purchase HFADs with built-in batteries that can last up to 10 years. Some of these HFAD suppliers are listed on SCDF's website.
As Ms Irene Quay had highlighted, to support the needy, SCDF is working with HDB and the People's Association (PA) to install HFADs for existing flats under the Public Rental Scheme for free. This comes up to about 60,000 flats. Installation in existing flats requires the permission of flat dwellers. So far, 12,000 households have taken up the installation after one year of implementation. We will continue to encourage eligible households to come on board this scheme. Ms Anthea Ong had also pointed out that households with hearing-impaired occupants will not be alerted by the typical HFADs which give off an audio alarm. To cater to their needs, we will provide these households with HFADs that give visual alerts instead.
MHA will also study the need to expand the assistance scheme to broader groups of families and will work with relevant stakeholders to do so.
Some Members also commented on the need for fire extinguishers, fire blankets and certified smoke detectors to be made more accessible and affordable and proposed for these to be equipped in all homes. While these are not mandatory, we strongly recommend for homeowners to have them at home. Fire extinguishers, for instance, can be purchased at hardware shops in the malls. To Mr Patrick Tay's question on how the general public can ensure that they are purchasing the right type of extinguisher for their needs, SCDF's website currently includes material on the types of extinguishers and a link to a list of companies registered to perform servicing and maintenance of fire extinguishers. Ms Quay also suggested for a fire safety checklist to be considered for homes. We will take these suggestions into consideration.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the fire safety risks arising from hoarding and cluttering of common areas at residential premises. Mr Goh also raised this point, in light of our ageing population.
SCDF works closely with HDB and the Town Councils to address these problems. When SCDF receives feedback on hoarding in homes or the presence of cluttering which may constitute a fire hazard, SCDF will notify HDB or the relevant Town Council and will work with them to rectify the situation as soon as possible. In particular, Town Councils are responsible for the management of the local common areas and they are empowered to take action against recalcitrant offenders.
Ms Joan Pereira asked how prepared we are to deal with fires in high-rise residential buildings and how SCDF can work with grassroots organisations in raising public awareness of fire safety.
Indeed, taller buildings present greater challenges for fire-fighting operations. And this is why the Fire Code requires super high-rise residential buildings – buildings with more than 40 storeys, to have refuge floors or temporary holding spaces. These refuge floors serve as safe shelters for evacuees. In addition, such buildings are required to have at least two fire lifts, compared to only one fire lift in most high-rise buildings. Fire lifts can be manually operated by the firefighters and can be used to facilitate the evacuation of the less-abled and the elderly. This addresses questions raised by Ms Anthea Ong and Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
To address Ms Pereira's point about working with grassroots organisations, SCDF thus works closely with the grassroots leaders on the Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E) Committees and the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), so that they are familiar with the fire safety facilities and are able to facilitate evacuation.
Several Members have also spoken on the recent spate of fires involving PMDs and the need to enhance the fire safety requirements for such devices.
As I have briefly mentioned earlier, Senior Minister of State for Transport had spoken about MOT's and LTA's plans to bring forward the deadline for compliance with UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020. MOT is also planning for incentives to encourage the replacement and disposal of non-certified PMDs which have been found to be involved in most, if not all, of the recent spate of PMD fires. I strongly encourage PMD users to switch to UL-2272-certified products as soon as possible, even before the deadline, as the required standard has in place some measures to better safeguard fire safety, such as a system for power supply to be cut off once the battery is fully charged.
As for what PMD owners can do to prevent fires, we encourage users to adopt good fire safety habits, such as regularly inspecting batteries for signs of damage and corrosion and to avoid leaving charging devices unattended for an extended period of time. We will continue to work with LTA to educate the public on good fire safety habits. I would like to take this opportunity to remind PMD users to be vigilant when charging their devices, not to charge their devices or batteries near combustible materials or along escape paths and not to leave their charging devices unattended for an extended period of time.
Other than reviewing and strengthening our laws to ensure the robustness of our fire safety regime, I agree with Ms Anthea Ong that we must harness the power of the community. It is important to focus our efforts in public education and community involvement, to instil good fire safety habits and to help us become a fire-safe community. Ms Pereira, Mr Gan, Mr de Souza, Assoc Prof Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong have also touched on the need for public education in their speeches.
SCDF engages residents during its regular community roadshows and post-fire door-to-door engagement sessions to share fire prevention tips and what to do in the event of a fire. SCDF also leverages these community engagement platforms to encourage members of the public to step up as community responders to deal with small fires in the neighbourhood. Mr de Souza asked about the myResponder app. I am pleased to share that the number of registrations on the myResponder app has increased over the years, going up by 75% in 2018.
SCDF has also developed a suite of educational materials, on various aspects of fire safety, such as \"how to use a fire extinguisher\", \"fire safety at home\", typical fire hazards at residential premises and dealing with \"rubbish chute fires\". These materials are readily available on SCDF's website as well.
At the local community level, SCDF also works closely with grassroots organisations on community outreach events. Private residential premises are also engaged through the Safety and Security Days. We thank Ms Anthea Ong for her suggestion to work with other groups in our society – the foreign domestic workers and community volunteers. Indeed, foreign domestic workers are part of our community and can be valuable assets in ensuring fire safety at homes. We are continually working to improve and enhance our outreach efforts and will take this suggestion into consideration.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a major step towards enhancing our fire safety regime and the safety of the public. I thank Members for their strong support and for the suggestions raised today. MHA and SCDF will study them carefully and work with relevant agencies and stakeholders to ensure the continued effectiveness of our fire safety measures that will keep our public safe. Fire safety is also a collective responsibility. We cannot be complacent and take our low fire fatality rate for granted. MHA will continue with our multi-pronged approach to fire safety, and so, apart from enhancing our laws, we will continue with our outreach and engagement efforts to engage and educate the public on fire safety. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I beg to move.
Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her very well considered replies. Many Members asked the Ministry to consider mandating or subsidising various residential fire safety interventions, ranging from fire alarms to extinguishers and so forth. I understand the Ministry has, of course, already considered many of these suggestions and at the moment, I think, most of our suggestions will not be adopted. But I would like to ask whether the Ministry could consider conducting a risk-assessment, cost-benefit exercise and to publish the results of this exercise, considering some of the suggestions that we have made. I think there will be some reasons for this. One is that, this process will enhance fire awareness, it will also allow hon Members and the public to debate these issues more carefully the next time.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, we will welcome cost-benefit analysis, in particular from learned Members, from academia, to understand the situation better. As I mentioned in my speech, we have already started the installation of HFADs for public rental flats. We have done this for about a year. We have a stock supply of about 60,000 rental flats, after a year of implementation, we are now at about 12,000 households. We will continue to do this. We will encourage eligible households to get on board.
But when we are looking at existing households, we have to seek permission to enter the home to install the HFADs. So, like I mentioned in my speech, we will study the need to expand the existing scheme to broader groups of families. Definitely, the agencies are discussing this. Let us look at our implementation for the public rental flats, let us see what we can learn from there and then we will see how we can expand the scheme if necessary.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.00 noon tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Taking Busking to the Next Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, In one of my earlier speeches in this House, I said that, \"I'm often asked what special powers I wish I have. My reply has always been that I wish I have the power to turn back time. As much as I try to live a life without regrets, there will always be regrets, always a wish that we could have done things better, always a wish that we could have spent more time with our loved ones.\" Regret is truly an incurable ache.
I found myself thinking about this wish again a few months back because I wish I had more time with Yu Xuan and got to know her better. There are some people whom you meet for the first time and you immediately know that they are nice people, genuinely nice. Yu Xuan is one of them. She is a local artist and busker and passed away on 10 March this year. I had just met her two days earlier at an event and was mesmerised by her beautiful voice and her big heart. She had concerns about and suggestions on how we can improve the busking scene. I told her that I will look into it and catch up with her another time to discuss this further. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to meet her again but a promise is a promise and I fully intend to keep this promise.
Sir, I spent the past few months meeting with buskers and listening to their concerns and wishes. I also met with the National Arts Council (NAC) as well and learnt about the amazing work they do. I have never been involved in the arts scene before. As someone with two left feet and who cannot sing, dance, draw or paint, and I can tell you that my little daughters do all the above much better than me, I found myself in love with arts after these meetings. I met with people so passionate about what they do, so devoted and selfless. We spoke for hours and they were bursting with ideas and suggestions on how we can make things better not just for themselves but for everyone.
Sir, buskers light up our lives and they help to make Singapore a more vibrant place to live in. Unfortunately, some still view buskers as beggars and for some, busking is frowned upon. It is time to change this perception and recognise buskers as artistes and performers. It is time to fulfill the wishes of the buskers.
Let me start with wishes from three groups of buskers. Sir, I never got to meet Yu Xuan again but I met her band mates Tristan and Joey from The ETC. They became friends through music, with Tristan attending vocal lessons together with Joey and even taking lessons from Yu Xuan at one point. They started busking together in 2016 just to try it out. In their words, \"We sing from our hearts. Singing is like telling a story – when we sing, we interpret the songs and share our meaning and feelings with the audience.\"
They did face many difficulties and in particular, Yu Xuan had to overcome many health constraints to continue to busk but through busking she found meaning in life. Despite problems with her eyesight, then her kidney, then a stubborn cough, which damaged her vocal cords, then her spine, then her hearing, she never gave up. The ETC busk because they want to make people believe in music and comfort and surprised them with this unexpected outdoor encounter.
Sir, their wish is for the removal of the limit of only five busking sites to each successful applicant of a Busking Card. They shared with me how difficult it was for them to find a spot and at times, they spent the night moving in taxis from one location to another with all their equipment. It was especially difficult when Yu Xuan was in a wheelchair. They hope that instead of five busking sites, it can be five busking areas and in each area, have a few busking sites. This means that buskers can move within an area to find an available site more easily.
They also had an idea of an app, that shows the buskers what sites are taken and what sites are available, so buskers can move to the locations that are not being occupied instead of travelling all the way there to find that it has been taken. The app can also be made available to the public and they can see where performances are taking place and this will help promote the busking scene in Singapore. I can understand the complexity of managing such an app but I think it is an idea we should explore further.
Sir, Firdaus shares the same concern as The ETC with regard to the difficulty of finding a place to busk. I met this young man who recently graduated from Engineering and has been busking for the past three years. In his own words and on his signboard when he busks, \"I busk to make the world a better place\". Busking means the world to him and it gave him a platform to perform and express himself. Through busking, he realised his love for performing on the streets and how every song he sings can make a big impact on a person's life. For him, it is the most heart-warming feeling ever. But Firdaus is concerned that the current limited busking sites will cause a problem. Due to the limited space, chances are buskers will be performing close to each other and most of them will not be happy about it. They may be arguments between the buskers about noise and \"stealing\" away the crowd.
Due to it being first-come-first-serve, some buskers come as early as 11am to reserve the \"best\" spots, only start performing in the evening. Firdaus is concerned that the busking community will turn competitive and lose respect for one another. One suggestion he has is to have a ballot system for selected busking hotspots. This is done for Covent Garden in London, a world-renowned site for street performances. There are scheduled time slots for each performance area. Buskers who wish to play, put their names on a list and names are drawn to see who gets to choose the most desired time slots first. Names are drawn and slots are chosen until either nobody wants the left over spots or all have been chosen. Having a balloting system means that everyone will have a fair chance to busk at these hotspots instead of just a few buskers and the public will be able to see a range of performances instead of only the few who had \"choped\" the spots. I suggest we implement this for the busking sites in front of Ngee Ann City and at Clarke Quay for a start.
We can also be fairer and have more diversity of performances in Singapore. Not all buskers are singers and I met Jonathan who together with Edwin are known as The Annoying Brothers. They started busking five years ago to push the boundaries of how a circus show can be presented in Singapore. Jonathan was a youth-at-risk. He started mixing with bad company when his parents were going through divorce. He shared with me that, \"I was lucky as I met someone who introduced circus arts to me, which kept me at bay. If not, I would not have become who I am today and may have ended up in jail. Because of that, circus arts became a huge passion of mine and I aspire to become a circus artist, with the aims of developing this art form in Singapore.\"
He also shared that, \"Busking also allows me to share my art with people who may not be able to afford shows in the theatre. When I busk, it allows them to be exposed to the arts and also pay how much they can afford or not pay at all and still enjoy the show. Busking allows me to make the world a better place and sometimes change someone's mood from bad to good because of my show.\"
One main issue he faces as a circus act busker is that he has way lesser locations that he can use. Examples of circus acts are magicians, jugglers, acrobats and dance groups. They require a huge amount of space due to the nature of their shows and to ensure public safety. The issue of the first come first serve also puts them at a huge disadvantage because many musicians or side walk performances come really early to perform and again \"chope\" the space. His kind of performances are usually only possible in the evenings. One thing he hopes for is for specific sites for circus acts at specific times. This will make it a little fairer and will allow for more diversity of performances.
Sir, in the past five years, Jonathan also saw that buskers were not talking to one another and he felt the need to connect the community of buskers. He started a Facebook group called Singapore Buskers with the aim of making the busking community more closely knitted. He wants to take it one step further and I am delighted to share that Jonathon together with fellow buskers Fadhil, Yong Kang, Benjamin, Fridaus and Marcus will register a Buskers Association that will help take busking to the next level in Singapore. The association will work closely with the NAC and will also be supported by Timbre. It is a beautiful collaboration between the people, public and private sector and I am delighted to support this.
I will also walk the talk in terms of my support for busking. In addition to the current site at Yishun Park, I am planning to have two new busking sites in Nee Soon East: one at the Yishun Park Hawker Centre and the other at our brand new Oasis Waterpark @ Nee Soon East. The area will also be a testbed for the balloting system for busking.
This new association will work closely with my team to manage these new sites, ensure that it is well run and look into any feedback and address any concerns from both buskers and residents.
Sir, in conclusion the buskers wish that: one, they can be allocated five busking areas instead of five busking sites; two, a busking app be created; three, we have a ballot system for certain busking hotspots; and four, we have specific busking sites for circus acts at specific times.
Sir, in the words of William Wan, \"A smile, a word of encouragement or, best of all, a contribution will go a long way in creating a supportive environment for these buskers to continue living their passion, while earning some money from it.
They do enliven the streets of Singapore, providing wholesome entertainment, lifting up our spirits and lightening our moods. Busking provides the colours in an otherwise grey concrete jungle.
Surely, such a simple but meaningful contribution to the arts is worthy of being treated as a \"real job for those who go down that road less trodden?”
Sir, one of the last songs that Yu Xuan sang was 海阔天空, a song alluding to one’s struggles to stay true to one’s ideals while facing the inevitable headwinds and storms in life. I guess it was apt that this was one of the last songs that she sang and this is perhaps symbolic of the struggles she faced and the struggles buskers face.
Singapore and Singaporeans will miss her beautiful voice in our heartlands where she used to busk. She will be remembered for sharing her love for music with everyone and for nurturing the next generation of buskers. She will be remembered for her passion for music, for never giving up and for her fighting spirit. This speech is dedicated to her.
Sir, buskers like Yu Xuan, Tristan, Joey, Firdaus, Jonathan, Edwin, Fadhil, Yong Kang, Benjamin and Marcus help make this world a better place and we should help make Singapore a better place for them too. I hope we can make their wishes come true.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Ng for his suggestions to improve the Busking Scheme in Singapore.
MCCY agrees with Mr Ng that busking adds vibrancy to our streets and public spaces, and showcases the creative energy and talent of our performers to public audiences. In managing the Busking Scheme, the National Arts Council (NAC) stands guided by the priorities outlined in Our SG Arts Plan. These include nurturing creative excellence, connecting communities through the arts and presenting Singapore’s diverse arts and culture to as wide an audience as possible.
NAC is committed to working with its partners to improve the Busking Scheme, and ensuring that it grows in a manner that benefits performers, venue owners and audiences alike. Since its introduction in the 1990s, the Busking Scheme has undergone several enhancements due to feedback from members of the public, venue owners, buskers and Government agencies. For example, NAC has increased the frequency and capacity of busking auditions in response to growing interest over the years, especially from younger performers who want to express their artistic interests.
Currently, there are about 300 endorsed buskers under the Busking Scheme, with one in two buskers below the age of 35. This is more than double the number and proportion in 2008.
To cater to this demand, NAC has worked with venue owners to increase the number of designated busking locations. Where there had only been three locations when the Busking Scheme was first started, there are now 81 locations across Singapore for busking – from Suntec City and Tanjong Pagar to Lot One and Downtown East.
Notwithstanding these developments, we recognise that the utilisation of busking locations can be uneven and there is sometimes intense competition for locations deemed to have higher footfall and visibility. NAC therefore welcomes suggestions from members of the community – like Mr Ng and our buskers. NAC will be happy to work with Mr Ng to trial allocation mechanisms such as balloting and the designation of sites for busking, in his Nee Soon East Division. In this regard, I am delighted to learn that Mr Ng has identified two new locations for busking in Yishun and invited interested parties like Timbre+ to pilot new busking models with him. NAC will also take up Mr Ng’s suggestion of using technology like apps, to share information.
To help us ensure that the busking scheme succeeds, owners and managers of busking locations must also be on board. They must be comfortable opening their venues for busking and with the type of busking acts being performed, for example circus acts, and also be confident that buskers will be respectful towards the space and the different members of the public who use it. Busking that is congruent to the identity of the space will help to create value and thereby help busking flourish with strong public support.
NAC is currently in discussion with some venue owners and managers to explore different models, including Mr Ng’s suggestion for buskers to be allocated busking areas instead of sites. This will shape the busking experience on their premises with them. For example, NAC is in discussion with Singapore River One, the venue manager for Singapore River, to explore ways to enhance the busking experience along Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay in a holistic manner. NAC is also working with *SCAPE, already a designated busking location in Orchard Road, to assess how current spaces can cater to a greater diversity of performances. NAC and *SCAPE intend to test new ideas to better support the aspirations of our buskers today, especially youth, such as through performance spaces that showcase budding youth talents. This, along with other ideas, are currently being considered as we work together with youths to co-create a master plan to develop the Somerset Belt into a vibrant youth district that supports their aspirations and interests.
I encourage other venue owners and managers to contact NAC if they are similarly keen to re-imagine how busking can add to the vibrancy of their spaces.
It is heartening that individuals who are passionate about busking have already decided to come together, to take greater ownership of the busking scene in Singapore. Therefore, I welcome the initiative of Jonathon, Fadhil, Yong Kang, Benjamin, Firdaus and Marcus to register a Busking Association. NAC is already engaging the new Busking Association to co-create and co-develop a code of practice for our busking community. This seeks to encourage good busking etiquette among our buskers, as well as sensitivity to the different groups who use the public spaces where busking takes place. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Ng spoke about the passing of Singapore artist and busker Yu Xuan in March this year. Those familiar with Xinyao would remember Yu Xuan, Joi Chua and Cai Li Lian’s rendition of the popular local composition “Friendship Forever” (细水长流). Buskers like Yu Xuan add vibrancy to our public spaces when they showcase their talents. Moving forward, the National Arts Council will continue to work with various partners – buskers, venue owners and managers – to enhance the busking scheme. I strongly encourage the public to take note of and support our busking scene, so that it will continue to flourish for years to come, just like the song \"Friendship Forever\".
(In English): In conclusion, I thank Mr Ng for his suggestions, initiatives and commitment to bring busking to the next level. We look forward to our continued partnership with him, the busking community and venue partners, as well as the support of the public, to achieve our shared vision for a vibrant and sustainable arts and culture scene in Singapore. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.29 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":"Use of Solar Panels and Solar Power by Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
36 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many domestic households have currently installed solar panels for electricity production; (b) how much electricity is contributed to the national power grid by these domestic households; and (c) how much carbon emission has been reduced as a result.
37 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Minister can provide an update on the blockchain-enabled digital platform that allows households with registered solar photovoltaic panels to sell renewable energy to businesses; and (b) whether there are plans to extend this to the open energy market.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: There are about 950 private residential solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and more than 1,400 installations on HDB rooftops islandwide, that are connected to the power grid. Together, they make up more than 80% of the total number of solar installations in Singapore.
These installations contribute about 0.16% of Singapore's electricity generation and reduce our carbon emissions by about 35 kilotonnes per year. This is equivalent to the emissions produced by the annual electricity consumption of almost 20,000 HDB 4-room households.
SP Group launched a blockchain-based platform called the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Marketplace in 2018. This REC Marketplace aims to enable the transaction of Renewable Energy Certificates, or \"green credits\", which are sold separately from the actual clean electricity generated. So far, various companies such as DBS and City Developments Limited have signed up to participate in the platform. We understand that the REC Marketplace is currently open to businesses only, but SP intends to extend the platform to residential consumers with solar PV panels at a later stage.
The Government has also implemented various initiatives to encourage the deployment of solar installations by households. We have simplified the process to enable households to sell their surplus electricity to the grid through SP Group as an intermediary. Households may also enter into commercial arrangements to sell their excess solar electricity to retailers, who can then on-sell the solar electricity to other consumers in the Open Electricity Market. In addition, HDB has awarded three tenders totalling 166 Megawatt Peak (MWp) of solar generation capacity, and will be awarding a fourth tender of 70 MWp shortly. These panels will be installed on over 4,500 HDB blocks, as well as on the roofs of other government buildings. By 2020, HDB aims to have 5,500 HDB blocks fitted with, or identified for solar installation.
Solar power is our most viable clean energy option, given our land constraints, urban density, and geographic and climatic conditions, which pose challenges in tapping on other alternative energy sources such as hydro, wind and geothermal energy. Hence, the Government will actively continue to work with all stakeholders, including households, to maximise solar energy adoption in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Eligible Voting Age for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister (a) if he will review the eligible voting age for Singaporeans under the Parliamentary Elections Act; (b) what is the consideration for retaining the current voting age; and (c) how many more voters will be eligible if the current voting age is changed to 18 years old.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): We have adopted a graduated approach in setting the various legal ages at which a person can undertake different responsibilities in Singapore. A person’s rights and responsibilities gradually increase as one matures, until the common law age of majority of 21, when a person comes of age to make decisions as an adult and engages in activities that involve significant personal responsibility.
As has been explained in this House before, voting in elections involves making serious choices, which requires experience and maturity. Voters elect the President who exercises the custodial and veto powers under the Constitution. Voters also choose their Member of Parliament, and in so doing, decide on the group of individuals who will eventually form the Government.
If we were to lower the voting age to 18 years old today, some 130,000 youths would become eligible to vote. The Government currently does not plan to lower the voting age. Nevertheless, we recognise that many youths want a voice in national matters and wish to make a difference. We will continue to keep such channels and platforms open for youths to express their views, and contribute to nation building. For instance, MCCY has launched the SG Youth Action Plan to give youths a platform to articulate their vision for the country, and propose policy ideas and partnership projects to achieve this vision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Hours of Children Programmes Broadcast on Free-to-air Television Channels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Communications and Information for each of the last three years (a) how many total hours of programming aimed at young children are broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the typical week, broken down by the four official languages; (b) within this, what is the breakdown between educational and commercial entertainment programming; (c) what are some examples of educational programming; and (d) how is the provision and financing of such content aimed at children regulated or monitored.
Mr S Iswaran: Over the last three years, free-to-air channels broadcasted about 90 hours of children's programmes per week. Of these, six hours were in Chinese, 78 hours in English, three hours in Malay and four hours in Tamil. Over the same time period, an average of more than 70% of children’s programmes per week were educational in nature.
Some examples of locally-produced educational programmes include:
Junction Tree: Singapore's first bilingual series for preschoolers, which uses vocabulary-based learning strategies and original songs to make mother tongue learning fun for young children. The programme was produced in consultation with educators and language experts;
Shahrukh & Warsan: An International Emmy-nominated history-themed Malay drama series about two children travelling back to the days of Singapore's founding fathers; and
Train Your Brain: A Mandarin, info-educational series that adopts an interactive approach and experiments to explore the way the brain works.
Mediacorp has made children's free-to-air content accessible on Toggle. To better engage young viewers on this digital platform, Mediacorp has consolidated children's programmes across the four languages onto the Toggle Kids' page. Toggle offers a safe digital environment that parents can trust. Mediacorp has also improved the site such that children can navigate Toggle easily.
Content on free-to-air TV channels are self-regulated by the broadcaster based on Codes issued by the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA). The Content Code for Nationwide Managed Transmission Linear Television Services Code requires children's programmes on free-to-air channels to be wholesome and promote good social and moral values, and respect for law and order. For example, coarse language must not be used in children's programmes, and scenes depicting the consumption of liquor or tobacco products are also disallowed unless an educational point is being made.
For children's programmes, sponsors are not permitted to incorporate their names into programme titles or segments, nor superimpose logos or signs into programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parity in Pensions and Singapore Allowance for Employees in Corporatised Government Agencies, Government Agencies and Government Departments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister in relation to persons who are receiving pensions from corporatised bodies of Government departments or statutory boards, whether the Government intends to procure these corporatised bodies' agreement to correspondingly increase the persons' pensions so that there will be parity between them and Government pensioners who will be receiving the Singapore Allowance and increases in the monthly pensions as announced in Budget 2019.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The pensions of Government pensioners who retired from the Civil Service are fixed based on their length of service and pensionable salary at the eve of their retirement. Government pensioners include pensionable officers who were transferred from the Civil Service to statutory boards and subsequently retired from the statutory boards.
The Government has given an ex-gratia Singapore Allowance since 1974 to help Government pensioners whose monthly pensions are below a gross monthly pension ceiling. The current Singapore Allowance quantum is $320 and the gross monthly pension ceiling is $1,250.
Corporatised entities are private firms. Retirees who continue to receive retirement benefits from private firms will follow the terms set out by these firms, which do not need to be the same as those provided to Government pensioners.
Retirees who receive retirement benefits from private firms may also be eligible for benefits, such as the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages, that are given to all eligible Singaporeans. These benefits can help the elderly retirees cope with their expenses and would be paid out on top of any benefit their firms provide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Objectives and Significance of Framework for Co-operation across Indo-Pacific Region Endorsed at ASEAN Summit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain the objectives and significance of the framework for co-operation across the Indo-Pacific region that was endorsed on 23 June 2019 at the ASEAN Summit in Bangkok.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Southeast Asia is no stranger to big power dynamics and proxy wars. We experienced them during the Cold War. However, today the strategic environment is more complex. The international system is much more interdependent. ASEAN Member States have deep connections to all the major powers. We will need clear-eyed realism and acute situational awareness to navigate in the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
As a group, ASEAN must maintain its strategic autonomy, and not allow Southeast Asia again to become an arena of great power rivalry. If ASEAN takes sides, or is forced to take sides, we will lose our independence of action, and end up making invidious choices which will be inimical to our interests in the long-run.
It is thus important for ASEAN to maintain our relevance and to uphold ASEAN Centrality in the regional architecture. Not just geographically, but also effectively in the role that ASEAN plays maintaining a stable region and engaging the major powers, so that they can participate in and contribute to the region’s security and prosperity. The current inclusive regional architecture seeks to achieve this. We have continuously refreshed and enhanced the alphabet soup of overlapping ASEAN-centric forums, such as the ASEAN Plus Three, East Asia Summit, ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus, and ASEAN Regional Forum.
We should continue to look for ways to strengthen the current ASEAN-led regional architecture. ASEAN’s external partners have put forth various formulations to articulate their respective visions of what they now call the Indo-Pacific region. ASEAN should not merely adopt one or other of these proposals in order to win favour with its author.
The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific was born out of the desire to formulate a coherent and cohesive response to these formulations. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers had a candid discussion on the draft of the Outlook at our Working Dinner on 21 June 2019 in the lead up to the ASEAN Summit.
The Outlook was adopted by the Leaders at the recent Summit. It will be a \"living document\", continually refined and updated to advance the existing, inclusive ASEAN-centric regional architecture as the strategic context evolves. It is underpinned by three principles: ASEAN Centrality and unity, economic development in the region, including through increasing connectivity, and upholding a rules-based order anchored on international law. All three principles are vital for Singapore’s own survival and prosperity as a small city-state.
The Outlook will not stop strategic forces from pulling individual ASEAN Member States in different directions. ASEAN unity – the pre-requisite for ASEAN Centrality – will be tested. Our inherent diversity will make internal coherence difficult, but ultimately more necessary too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficiency of Number of Nurses at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether there is currently a shortage of nurses in the public hospitals and, if so, what are the hospitals doing to address the shortage and ensure that the well-being of our patients is not compromised.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Nurses form the largest professional group in our healthcare workforce. Our overall registered nurse to population ratio of around 7.5 nurses per 1,000 population in 2018, is comparable to that in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.
Seven out of 10 of our practising nurses work in the public healthcare sector. In tandem with our expansion in public healthcare capacity, the number of nurses working in the public healthcare sector has increased from around 21,700 in 2013 to 25,600 in 2018.
To meet future demand for healthcare services in an aging population, we have expanded efforts to attract more Singaporeans to join nursing as well as to develop and retain serving nurses.
Some examples include (i) Raising the profile of nursing, such as through the Care to Go Beyond Campaign; (ii) Creating multiple pathways for mid-career professionals entering the profession, including professional conversion programmes; (iii) Raising the capacity and range of nursing training courses; (iv) Reviewing nurses’ remuneration to remain competitive; (v) And improving career recognition and progression.
To ensure that the nursing workforce is sustainable, we have also embarked on efforts to raise productivity. These include initiatives on automation, streamlining of nursing work, and shifting of care from hospitals into the community where appropriate.
The Ministry of Health will continue to regularly review our nursing manpower needs, taking into consideration demographic and disease trends. We will also continue to work with educational and training institutions and healthcare providers to ensure that we have a nursing workforce that can serve the needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategic Plan for Mental Health Education for Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry's strategic plan for mental health education and its de-stigmatisation; (b) whether the Ministry has considered re-framing physical health education to total health education that includes mental and emotional health; (c) whether feedback on the mental and emotional health of students are regularly collated and parents informed accordingly; (d) whether co-curricular programmes are recommended to schools to normalise mental health and improve help-seeking behaviours and, if so, what are these programmes; and (e) whether the Ministry will consider partnering external organisations to provide training and support to students' families.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE adopts a holistic approach to supporting student well-being, covering physical health, social and emotional development and psychological support when necessary.
We strengthen students' mental health through lessons on Character and Citizenship, Form Teacher Guidance Period and Physical Education. We build character in students through experiential learning platforms such as Co-Curricular Activities, Values-in-Action programme and outdoor education.
Our schools teach students social and emotional competencies such as relationship management, stress management and help-seeking skills, which are then put into practice when students engage in various school activities. The curriculum was enhanced recently to raise greater awareness of common mental illnesses, normalise help-seeking behaviour, reduce stigmatisation, and promote peer support.
Teachers monitor the well-being of students and work closely with parents and school counsellors to render additional support to those who need it. Schools also work with partners such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), mental health professionals and Family Service Centres to support students and their families within the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture Credits for Young Adults with Special Needs Aged 18 and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider allowing SkillsFuture credits to be made available to young adults with special needs from the age of 18 years old, instead of only from 25 years old, in light of the limited post-secondary education or training options for young adults with special needs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singaporeans with special educational needs (SEN) require differentiated support to prepare for employment. For those with mild to moderate SEN, many are enrolled in mainstream schools and the institutes of higher learning. Students with more severe SEN would enrol in the Special Education or SPED schools, and some have obtained vocational certifications such as Workforce Skills Qualification and ITE Skills Certificate. For those who require additional help, the Government provides further support through the School-to-Work Transition Programme, which offers training and internships to help prepare students with SEN for the workplace.
Students with SEN can use their Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to support their education and training needs, until they reach the age of 30. This is on top of the $500 SkillsFuture Credit which they will receive when they reach the age of 25. In 2017, MOE broadened the scope of PSEA to cover approved training courses offered by SG Enable for students aged 17 years and above. This provides additional support for SEN students when they undergo continuing training beyond their school years. We welcome further ideas and suggestions from members on how the PSEA and other schemes can be enhanced to achieve better outcomes for students with SEN.
Supporting young adults with special needs is a whole-of-society effort. I encourage employers to partner our SPED schools, post-secondary education institutions and SG Enable, to provide internships, training and employment opportunities. For example, SG Enable has been working with hotels to provide job-related training opportunities through the School-to-Work Transition Programme. We hope more employers can come on board and join this meaningful initiative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Numbers in Merdeka Generation who Require Permanent Help with At Least Three Activities of Daily Living","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Merdeka Generation Singaporeans require permanent help with at least three of six Activities of Daily Living; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider a disability assistance scheme for the Merdeka Generation that is similar to that for Pioneer Generation Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We estimate that there are currently about 9,000 Merdeka Generation seniors who require permanent help with at least three out of six Activities of Daily Living.
MOH is rolling out CareShield Life, which is a long-term care insurance that provides peace of mind and protection against uncertainty of disability care in old age. CareShield Life will provide life time payouts in the event of severe disability.
The majority of Merdeka Generation seniors are still healthy and able-bodied today, and will be able to join CareShield Life from 2021. To encourage them to join CareShield Life, the Government will provide a $4,000 sign-on incentive under the Merdeka Generation Package. Lower to middle income policy holders will also be eligible for subsidies that help keep premiums affordable. Those who still face difficulty paying their premiums can apply for additional premium support.
For those who already require permanent help with at least three out of six Activities of Daily Living, and are hence ineligible to join CareShield Life, they can apply for financial help through the new government-funded ElderFund which will be introduced by MOH in 2020.
In addition to CareShield Life and ElderFund, MOH will also roll out a new Home Caregiving Grant later this year and MediSave withdrawals for long-term care next year. Together with subsidies of up to 80% for long-term care services, all these initiatives will make long-term care more affordable for Merdeka Generation seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Recipients of Scholarships under Community Care Manpower Development Award","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health how many students, mid-career switchers, community care sector staff and general practitioners respectively have received scholarships under the Community Care Manpower Development Award since its launch and whether the numbers have been hitting the targets.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Community Care Manpower Development Award (CCMDA) was launched in April 2017. It supports the community care sector in attracting new entrants, and developing in-service staff. A budget of about $12 million was set aside to support the programme up to 2020.
To date, we have committed close to $8 million under the CCMDA to support around 250 individuals to pursue training and skills upgrading opportunities in fields such as nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and gerontology. Over 200 awardees are in-service staff, of whom about 10% are mid-career candidates. The other awardees comprise students and general practitioners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Save-A-Life Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Home Affairs how effective has the Save-A-Life (SAL) initiative been in saving lives.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) launched the Save-A-Life (SAL) initiative in August 2015. The initiative aims to increase the survival rate of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) victims by building a network of community first responders who are trained in performing CPR and in the operation of AEDs, to respond to cardiac arrest cases in their immediate vicinity.
Since the launch of SAL, more than 4,800 AEDs have been installed at the lift lobbies of HDB blocks. More than 200,000 people have been trained to perform CPR and to operate AEDs.
The SAL initiative has seen encouraging results. The bystander CPR rate, which is defined as the percentage of OHCA incidents where a bystander had performed CPR, increased from 50.7% in 2014 to 56.4% in 2016. The bystander AED usage rate has also increased, from 3.6% to 4.6% over the same period. These have contributed to the improvement in the OHCA survival rate from 4.1% in 2014 to 6.5% in 2016. We are working with MOH to get more recent data. In addition, the number of community first responders who responded to cardiac arrest cases via SCDF's myResponder mobile app increased from 214 in 2015 to 820 in 2017.
The SCDF will continue to work with the Ministry of Health and the Singapore Heart Foundation to encourage more public and private establishments to install AEDs. Members of the public who are trained in CPR and AED skills are also encouraged to download the SCDF myResponder mobile app and register themselves as community first responders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Unresolved Neighbour Disputes Brought from Community Mediation Centre to Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Law (a) how many unresolved neighbour disputes have been brought from the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) so far; and (b) how many orders of damages and their amounts, injunctions, specific performances, apologies and other orders have been issued by the CDRT since its establishment.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) is generally a voluntary process. It is most effective when the disputing neighbours are willing to work together with the mediator to resolve their dispute. When one neighbour decides not to participate in the mediation process, or when the mediation is unsuccessful, a complainant may seek redress through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) as a measure of last resort. The CMC itself does not refer cases to the CDRT (though it may advise certain complainants to do so).
The CDRT does not track data on whether neighbour disputes have been mediated at the CMC, before an application is made to the CDRT.
On the other hand, the CDRT does refer claims to the Community Mediation Centre for mandatory mediation, and has done so in 82 cases, or about 25% of the cases that have come before it so far. This accords with the approach that the CDRT is meant to be an avenue of last resort and that neighbours should first attempt amicable resolution of any disputes that may arise by seeking assistance from public agencies, or grassroots or community leaders. A solution that is reached by mutual agreement of the parties is more likely to be sustained.
The CDRT has received a total of 324 applications between its establishment on 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2019. Orders were made in 94 of those applications. However, we do not track data on the specific number of orders that relate to damages, injunctions, specific performances, or apologies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparison between Rates of Return for CPF Members' Self-directed Investments and for Pension Funds Invested by Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how do rates of return from CPF members' self-directed investments made via the CPF Investment Scheme compare with those from pension funds invested by professionals such as that in Australia and the US; and (b) what is the average return over three years, five years and 10 years and how do these compare with industry benchmarks.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) provides CPF members with the option to invest their CPF savings in a diverse range of investment products to enhance their retirement savings. CPFIS is targeted at CPF members who have the knowledge and time to invest, and are prepared to take investment risk. CPF members who are not prepared to take risk, or have neither the knowledge nor time to invest, should consider growing their CPF savings through the risk-free CPF interest rates.
The investment performance for each CPFIS investor varies depending on the investment decisions they make. For example, the asset type and basket of investment products purchased, market conditions at which the investments were purchased and sold, as well as the investment duration. For similar reasons, the performance of any investment fund may not reflect the returns of its individual investors.
Hence, to assess the investment performance of CPFIS-OA investors, we compare their returns against the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rates. This indicates whether CPFIS-OA investors make better returns than the alternative of leaving their CPF monies in the OA to earn the risk-free interest rates.
The investment performance of CPFIS-OA investors fluctuate year on year in line with market conditions. In FY2018, only 38% of CPFIS-OA members registered in their accounts total profits above the OA interest rate of 2.5% per annum, whereas in the year before that, 74% of CPFIS-OA members registered total profits above 2.5% per annum. Their realised returns may however differ from what was registered depending on the timing of specific investments.
It is not meaningful to compare the investment performance of CPFIS investors to pension funds in other countries as these funds may have different objectives and investment strategies from our CPF system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inflation Adjustments for Payouts Under Silver Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower whether the quantum of support provided under the Silver Support Scheme will be reviewed to cater for (i) inflation since its launch in 2014 and (ii) the findings of a recent NUS study which concluded that Singapore seniors each need at least $1,379 monthly to meet basic needs.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Silver Support Scheme was introduced as a complement to Workfare, to mitigate the effects of income inequality. It supplements the retirement income of elderly who had low incomes through life, and now have little or no family support. Eligible elderly receive cash supplements of up to $3,000 a year. More than 180,000 elderly have received a total of about $1.3 billion in Silver Support payouts since it was implemented in 2016.
The Ministry of Manpower is reviewing the Silver Support Scheme and will take into account factors such as inflation.
As we have explained previously in this House, Singaporeans meet their retirement needs through a combination of income sources, including their CPF savings, private savings, as well as support from family. The Government also provides a range of support, including through the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages, and GST Vouchers and U-Save rebates. For each of the schemes including Silver Support, the quantum of support is designed to be meaningful for their purpose and fiscally sustainable. We consider findings from a variety of sources where relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Industry Transformation Map for Construction Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development what has been the progress of the industry transformation map for the construction industry.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM) was launched in September 2017 to transform the construction industry into an advanced and integrated sector with widespread adoption of leading technologies. We are making good progress in the three key transformation areas, namely: (i) Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, or DfMA; (ii) Integrated Digital Delivery, or IDD; and (iii) Green Buildings.
DfMA moves traditional on-site work into a controlled factory environment off-site, and facilitates designing upfront for ease of manufacturing and assembly to improve construction quality and productivity. The adoption rate for DfMA was about 22% in 2018. BCA is exploring additional measures to reach the targeted DfMA adoption rate of 40% by 2020.
IDD leverages Building Information Modelling technology to integrate and reap time and costs savings across the entire building life cycle. BCA launched the IDD Implementation Plan last year, and has identified 26 IDD demonstration projects to date. We are aiming to meet the ITM target of having 40 to 60 IDD projects by 2020.
For Green Buildings, we have greened close to 40% of our gross floor area in buildings, and are aiming to meet the target of 80% by 2030. In September last year, BCA launched the Super Low Energy Programme to push for even greater energy efficiency in buildings. The programme was jointly developed with the industry and academia, and will encourage buildings to achieve 60% energy efficiency improvements over 2005 levels.
The construction ITM creates good jobs for Singaporeans in the transformation areas. Together with the industry, BCA offers funding support and training to upskill workers in the construction sector. In addition, through the iBuildSG Tripartite Committee, BCA is working with the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to update their curricula to better equip undergraduates with the competencies to support industry transformation. As of March this year, about 40,000 persons have been trained in the transformation areas, and we are on track to meet our ITM target of 47,000 trained persons by 2020.
Taken together, we have achieved a cumulative site productivity improvement of about 15%, and BCA aims to achieve our ITM target of 20% site productivity improvement by 2020, with the completion of more DfMA projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of AEDs in Public Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether NParks has plans to install automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in public parks.
Mr Lawrence Wong: NParks has worked with SCDF to increase the number of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in our parks and park connectors over the years. To date, 170 AEDs have been installed in our most frequented parks, including all nature reserves and regional parks, as well as park connectors with high visitorship.
The AEDs are located at key locations in our parks, such as visitor centres, play areas, fitness corners and F&B outlets. This allows for a quicker response should a cardiac arrest emergency occur. Park visitors may find the AED nearest to their location via SCDF's myResponder mobile application.
NParks is in the process of installing more AEDs across our parks, in consultation with SCDF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Children and Foster Parents in Foster Care Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of children in foster care and the number of registered foster parents in the last three years; (b) whether the Ministry is on track to achieve its target of 500 foster families for 2019; and (c) what measures are planned to boost the number of successful fostering cases.
Mr Desmond Lee: As at June 2019, we had 510 foster families, exceeding our target of 500 foster families. This is an increase of almost a third since June 2016, when there were around 390 foster families.
There were 542 children in foster care as of June 2019, compared to around 390 foster children in June 2016. This is an increase of around 40% over the past three years.
About 47% of children in care are looked after by foster families today. Our goal is to place two-thirds of such children in family-based care. To do this, we are taking a multi-pronged approach.
Firstly, MSF is working with Fostering Agencies, community organisations, religious groups and private organisations to raise awareness about fostering. We are also grateful that some of our foster parents readily step forward to share their experiences with interested families.
Secondly, MSF will continue to provide close support to foster parents throughout their journey. For example, we provide preparatory training to prepare foster parents before children are placed with them. Case workers and other professionals also provide assistance and support to the foster parents during the period of care.
We invite people who are keen to make a difference to the lives of vulnerable children through fostering to contact MSF to register their interest and find out more about foster care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Qualified Therapists for Special Needs Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the respective number of qualified therapists in Singapore for occupational therapy, speech therapy and physiotherapy for special needs children; (b) what proportion of these therapists are working in Government-funded organisations versus private practice; and (c) what is the current student intake at the institutes of higher learning IHLs for such specialised courses.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are approximately 3,600 occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech therapists registered with the Allied Health Professions Council (AHPC) as at December 2018. Slightly more than half of these therapists practice in the public healthcare sector, and about 20% work in private practice. In either of these contexts, the therapists may work with children with special needs.
Another 15% of AHPC-registered therapists are employed in MSF- and NCSS-funded Social Service Agencies (SSAs). These 230 occupational therapists, 150 physiotherapists, and 140 speech therapists serve a number of social service programmes, including Early Intervention programmes for children with special needs, and Special Education schools.
With the ramp-up in programmes serving children with special needs, MSF has funded three Therapy Hubs since 2015. These Therapy Hubs are run by SSAs. They train and deploy therapists to MSF- and NCSS-funded social service programmes, including those run by other SSAs which may not have sufficient scale to hire and retain their own therapists.
The three Therapy Hubs have expanded their capacity significantly in the past four years, growing from approximately 170 therapists in 2015 to 260 therapists in 2018. More than half of these Hub therapists, or over 150 therapists, support paediatric intervention in multiple settings, including Early Intervention centres, Development Support provided in preschools, and Special Education schools. We will continue to support the Therapy Hubs and other SSAs so that they, in turn, can do their best to support children with special needs.
On the current student intake, the occupational therapy and physiotherapy Bachelors' courses are run by the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), while the speech therapy graduate-entry Masters’ course is run by the National University of Singapore (NUS). The average total annual intake of these courses from 2016 to 2018 was around 220.
MSF and MOH will continue to work with the Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure that cohort sizes are commensurate with the demand for therapists from both the health and social service sectors, and that the content of the courses meets the needs of both sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Smoking-related Complaints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the total number of smoking related complaints received in each of the past two years; (b) of these, how many were caught smoking in prohibited areas; and (c) how effective have thermal cameras been in enforcing smoking restrictions in prohibited areas.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) received about 19,000 and 25,000 instances of feedback related to smoking in 2017 and 2018 respectively. In 2018, more than 30,000 tickets were issued by NEA for smoking in prohibited places, up from more than 22,000 tickets in 2017.
NEA has made about 90 thermal camera deployments in residential areas with persistent feedback on smoking issues since January 2019. The thermal cameras complement NEA's surveillance in smoking-prohibited places to detect unlawful smoking at common corridors, lift lobbies or staircase landings. These thermal cameras are able to detect objects emitting high heat and capture images of the smoking offence.
NEA uses the images captured by the thermal cameras along with other forms of evidence such as public feedback, for investigations. Thus far, about 70% of the deployments have captured smoking incidences, and NEA is investigating these cases. NEA will take enforcement action against smoking offenders whose identities have been established.
I urge smokers to be mindful of the health of others, and not light up in smoking-prohibited places. Families and friends of smokers, as well as the general public, can help reinforce the right social norms through reminders. Ultimately, we want to help smokers kick the habit for the benefit of their own health, their loved ones, and the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for SME Transformation Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what has been the take-up rate for the SME transformation programmes including SMEs Go Digital, Productivity Solutions Grant, and Market Readiness Grant.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Government has implemented many programmes over the years to help SMEs upgrade their capabilities and grow their businesses.
The SMEs Go Digital programme was launched in April 2017 to make it simpler for SMEs to adopt digital solutions. This includes providing step-by-step guidance on going digital through the Industry Digital Plans, pre-approving digital solutions with grant support, as well as offering consultancy and project management services. SMEs which are newly incorporated can take up foundational solutions with the Start Digital Pack. To-date, about 10,000 SMEs have benefitted from the programme.
The Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) programme helps SMEs in taking their first steps to tap global markets. The MRA supports companies in activities such as preparing for market entry and participation in trade fairs. Since its introduction in 2013, about 5,000 companies have tapped on this programme to bring their business overseas.
The Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG), introduced in April 2018, assists companies to adopt ready-made solutions like IT tools and equipment to become more efficient. The programme has been well received by businesses: around 6,400 projects have been supported so far, benefitting about 5,370 companies.
There are many other grant schemes available to support SMEs, but I would like to emphasise that companies should not be grant-focused and scheme-centric. The grants and assistance schemes are meant to enable companies to build up their capabilities and become more competitive. This outcome can only be achieved when companies start by having a clear plan on how they want to transform and grow to meet the needs of their customers.
As companies transform, they need to also invest in training their workers to help them pick up new skills and move up the value chain. The Government firmly believes that enterprise transformation must go hand-in-hand with worker training and skills upgrading. When we enhanced the PSG from 1 July 2019, we included a SkillsFuture Training Subsidy of up to $10,000 per company to encourage companies to embark on training when they undergo enterprise transformation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Tension in Straits of Hormuz on Singapore's Oil Trade and Electricity Tariffs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the tension building up in the Straits of Hormuz (a) how will any escalation of the situation impact on Singapore's oil trade; and (b) what are the plans to stave off any sudden spike in electricity tariffs caused to households by the resultant rise in oil prices.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Straits of Hormuz is a vital oil transit passageway. More than 20% of global petroleum consumed passes through the straits. While the International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced that emergency oil stocks are sufficient to cover supply disruptions for an extended period, tensions in the straits can put upward pressure on oil prices.
Oil trading volume has remained steady so far. However, as Singapore imports almost all our energy needs, our electricity prices cannot be insulated from movements in the global energy market. Within Singapore, we promote competition in our energy market so that Singaporeans can enjoy competitive electricity prices. The Open Electricity Market (OEM) is one such initiative. Since May this year, all households and small businesses have the option to buy electricity from a retailer of their choice under the OEM. Consumer feedback has been positive so far, with thirteen electricity retailers offering a good range of competitively priced plans and households reporting savings of about 20-30%.
We do not subsidise electricity prices upfront, as this may encourage over-consumption and disproportionately benefit wealthier households who tend to consume more. To help lower- and middle-income HDB households cope with their utilities expenses, we provide the GST Voucher – U-Save, which gives quarterly rebates on utilities bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Privacy of Drivers with New Satellite ERP System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Transport (a) what will be the measures to protect privacy of drivers when the new satellite ERP system is implemented; and (b) how will the Government store, process and analyse the data collected.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The design of the next-generation ERP system will incorporate appropriate security technologies and necessary controls to safeguard the privacy of drivers. This was a key requisite in the tender. The system anonymises and aggregates ERP data for traffic management and analysis. Collected data will not include driver identity. There will also be strict access controls to ensure that only authorised personnel are allowed to access the data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Criteria for Building Lifts at Overhead Bridges Given Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its criteria for building lifts at selected overhead bridges especially with an ageing population that faces mobility challenges.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: LTA has installed lifts at 47 pedestrian overhead bridges over the last five years. This programme will be expanded to benefit the public through 50 more pedestrian overhead bridges by 2022.
Given the high project cost, as high as $4 million per pair of lifts, we must be prudent and have to prioritise our efforts. LTA will focus on locations which most benefit seniors and commuters with mobility challenges, such as public transport nodes and healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Wearing of Headgear Worn in Celebration of Racial Harmony Day in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education with regard to the Ministry's recent guidelines on the wearing of headgear as part of ethnic clothes worn in celebration of Racial Harmony Day (a) whether the Ministry is aware of any public schools that do not allow the use of such headgear; (b) if yes, what types of headgear are not allowed to be worn; and (c) what are the reasons given by these schools for not following the Ministry's guidelines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Schools commemorate Racial Harmony Day annually, during which schools may have their students wear ethnic outfits. The practice in schools is that under those circumstances, students may wear the headgear if it complements their ethnic outfits.
However, Racial Harmony Day commemoration is not a full-day school programme. Students need to be appropriately attired for other lessons, including Physical Education, laboratory or workshop classes where ethnic gear can have safety implications.
This year, there were some misunderstandings when those requirements were conveyed. The schools subsequently contacted the parents concerned, and clarified the matter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Average Daily Intake Amounts of Oil, Sugar and Salt","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last five years, what have been the average daily oil, sugar and salt intakes per capita; and (b) whether the Ministry has set targets for Singaporeans' oil, sugar and salt consumption over a particular timeline.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Health Promotion Board (HPB)'s National Nutrition Survey tracks fat rather than oil consumption. In the 2018 survey, total fat consumption per person was 98 grams compared to 91 grams in the 2010 survey. Saturated fat, which is unhealthy, has decreased from 38% to 36% of total fat consumed while daily trans-fat intake halved from 2.1 grams to 1.0 grams over the same period. The World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation is that no more than one-third of dietary fat should come from saturated fat, and to eliminate all artificial sources of trans-fat from the food supply.
Average daily sugar intake per person increased slightly from 59 grams in 2010 to 60 grams in 2018. This is in excess of the WHO recommended upper limit of 50 grams (or 10 teaspoons) per day. Pre-packaged drinks remain the largest single contributor of sugar in our diet.
The average salt intake amongst Singaporeans was nine grams in 2018, compared to 8.3 grams in 20101. While the methodologies to estimate salt intake in 2018 and 2010 were different, both figures clearly show that Singaporean's average salt intake exceed the WHO recommended intake of five grams per day. The majority of our salt intake comes from sauces, seasoning, and salt added during food preparation.
Much remains to be done to reach WHO's recommended targets. MOH and HPB will continue to promote healthier diet and increase the availability and accessibility of healthier choices. Citizens too can play their part through healthier food and lifestyle choices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Food-based assessment of salt intake was done for the first time in 2018, while a different method (based on 24-hour urine collection) was used to measure salt intake in 2010. "],"footNoteQuestions":["67"],"questionNo":"67"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Co-funding for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Treatments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is aware of the number of couples seeking assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) treatment overseas and their reasons for doing so; (b) whether co-funding for ARTs treatment can be extended beyond public hospitals to private hospitals and clinics; (c) what are the reasons for the decreasing ART co-funding with each attempt; and (d) what is the process for women of age 45 and above appealing for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and the average time taken for an approval.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are three public healthcare assisted reproduction (AR) centres – National University Hospital, Singapore General Hospital and KK Women's and Children's Hospital. Today, Singaporean couples who undergo assistive reproductive technologies (ART) treatments at these centres can receive co-funding of up to $7,700 per fresh cycle and $2,200 per frozen cycle, for three fresh cycles and three frozen cycles. A frozen cycle costs less than a fresh cycle because a fresh cycle requires the whole ART process like egg stimulation, egg retrieval and fertilisation. While the co-funding for each fresh cycle and frozen cycle differs, the amount of co-funding does not decrease with each successive ART attempt.
We have sufficient capacity at the public healthcare AR centres for co-funded ART treatments. Couples can commence their ART treatments when they have completed their necessary applications, counselling and tests and assessed to be medically ready.
Patients who prefer to seek treatment at private hospitals can use MediSave to help offset the costs, up to the prevailing withdrawal limits. The Ministry does not have information on the number of couples seeking ART treatment overseas.
The current age limit for ART treatment in Singapore, including in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), is set at 45. Women aged 45 years and above who wish to undergo ART treatment may appeal to the Ministry of Health, through their ART practitioner. In assessing the appeal, MOH may seek advice from its panel of experts where necessary. The average time for processing an appeal is currently about a week.
As advancements in ART have improved the safety of ART procedures, the Ministry is reviewing the maximum age limit for women to undergo ART treatment in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action against Perpetrators who Spread Fake News on Social Media that Cause Racial Disharmony","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether any action will be taken against perpetrators of fake news on social media which is intended to cause racial disharmony.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has always taken very firm action against individuals or groups who create racial disharmony.
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.
For example, in January this year, 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. This is not the only example. I will circulate to Members a list of cases involving racial and religious insult that occurred in the past five years.
Where a person communicates a falsehood that is likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups of persons, he may be prosecuted.
I will give an example. A few weeks ago a number of persons made postings falsely alleging racial discrimination in security checks of public transport commuters. They are being investigated. Likewise, investigations are ongoing against persons relating to the rap video which attacks Chinese.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action against Companies whose Heavy Vehicle Drivers Accumulate More Than Three Speeding Summons Per Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider taking legal action against companies whose heavy vehicle drivers accumulate more than three speeding summons per year.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under law, drivers are personally liable for violating traffic rules. This is understandably so. Third parties, including employers, could be liable in specific situations: for example, if the employer got the employee to drive while under suspension.
In addition, there are obligations on companies that own heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicle owners are required to ensure that the vehicles are fitted with speed limiters that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit of 60km per hour. If the speed limiter is absent, not in good working order, or tampered with, the owners could be charged under the Road Traffic Act. First-time offenders are liable for an imprisonment term of up to three months or a fine of up to $1,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Employment Assistance Schemes Targeted at Various Age Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last two years, what has been the average and median length of time for workers in the different age groups to secure employment; and (b) whether the various employment assistance schemes provided to help workers in these different age groups to secure employment have been effective.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The median duration of unemployment among all residents aged 15 years and over was eight weeks in 2017 and 2018.
In general, the median duration of unemployment rises with age, from about five weeks in 2018 for those aged 15 to 24 years, to 13 weeks in 2018 for those aged 50 years and above. The detailed breakdown of these figures is available in MOM's Report on Labour Force in Singapore, published in January each year and available on MOM's website.
Through the Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) offer employment facilitation services such as career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching. They also provide a suite of employment support programmes to help jobseekers take up new jobs and careers. In 2018, about 30,000 jobseekers found jobs through the A&G initiative, an increase of about 20% compared to 2017. Of these, close to 16,000 were aged 40 and above, with nearly 9,000 aged 50 and above.
To support mature and older jobseekers in their efforts to secure good employment, the A&G initiative offers enhanced rates of training or wage support to employers that hire jobseekers aged 40 and above. For instance, the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) help workers to reskill for new career opportunities as economic transformation continues apace. PCPs provide training and salary support to help jobseekers reskill and move into new occupations or sectors, with higher support for those aged 40 and above. Another A&G programme is the Career Support Programme (CSP), which provides salary support to encourage employers to hire mature retrenched PMETs.
The Member asked if our employment assistance schemes have been effective. Overall, the Adapt and Grow initiative has produced encouraging results. In 2018, close to 5,000 individuals (including mature and older jobseekers) were placed through PCPs. Most PCP participants did well, with about nine in 10 remaining employed 18 months after being placed, and about two-thirds receiving higher wages than before due to the skills they had acquired. As for CSP, over 1,200 individuals were placed in 2018. About seven in 10 CSP participants remained in employment 18 months after being placed.
While we are heartened by the good progress of A&G, we are also working to do better in three areas. First, we will strengthen A&G's outreach so as to raise awareness of the support available to jobseekers. Second, we will continue to monitor the outcomes of existing programmes, and review or enhance them as necessary to improve their effectiveness. Third, we are moving upstream to help at-risk workers to stay relevant and re-skill for new roles.
MOM and WSG will continue to monitor labour market outcomes for workers in each age group, and will work closely with our tripartite partners to help Singaporeans secure good jobs through the A&G initiative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Action against Residents who Refuse to Take Part in Mediation to Resolve Neighbourly Disputes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development what further action does HDB take when complaints against neighbours persist especially against one particular resident and neighbours do not wish to participate in mediation or pursue the matter in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Most disputes between neighbours can be resolved amicably with some help from grassroots leaders and community partners. The disputing parties can also seek formal mediation at the Community Mediation Centre to reach an amicable resolution. As a last resort in intractable cases where parties are unable to resolve their disputes by voluntary mediation or other informal means, the aggrieved party can file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT).
HDB will do its best to assist if the disputes involve any breach of common property rules, or if the disputes involve residents who are posing a danger to others. In such cases, HDB will raise the matter with the relevant government agencies, or with the Town Council to enforce the rules. In cases which involve hoarding behaviour, MND has also put in place an inter-agency taskforce, which includes HDB, to work with the community to minimise disamenities to neighbours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Penalties Imposed on Convicted Wildlife Traffickers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent record seizures of illegal wildlife trade totalling S$66 million, whether there is a need to review the legislation and penalties imposed on convicted wildlife traffickers such that they are commensurate with the value of the illegal shipment.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In Singapore, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, or ESA, governs trade in wildlife, to meet our obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under the ESA, wildlife traffickers could be fined up to $50,000 per specimen for the illegal import, export, or re-export of CITES-regulated species (up to a maximum fine of $500,000), and/or face imprisonment of up to two years.
NParks will review these penalties as part of its continual efforts to ensure that our measures remain robust and effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks in Integrity of Work Permit, and Employment and S Pass Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2018/19 whether any forensic review has been done to ascertain the integrity of the Work Permit and Employment/S Pass systems for the period of 2 June 2011 to 31 December 2017 since there were no reviews conducted by the Ministry of activities performed by the IT vendor staff using the privileged operating system user account during that period as flagged by AGO.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Following AGO's finding, MOM reviewed the operating system administrators’ activity logs from January 2018 (earliest available). We found no unauthorised activity. Given the heightened cybersecurity risks, we acknowledge the value of more regular reviews and now conduct them on a monthly basis.
Although the same type of review was not conducted between June 2011 and December 2017, MOM has in place various measures to mitigate the risk of unauthorised activity undermining system integrity.
Since the commissioning of the Work Permit System and the Employment Pass System in 2004 and 2008 respectively, all personnel, including IT vendor staff, have been segregated into applications and system administrator roles, with separate access rights for different part of the systems. This reduces the risk of a malicious breach of system security or data integrity as no individual has sufficient access to the system to manipulate it without being discovered. There are also regular reports and automated checks to ensure that applications are functioning as intended.
Since 2011, the Ministry has also recorded the sessions of all administrators. The primary purpose of the session recordings is to support investigations if a system anomaly is detected, or malicious activity is suspected. Given the volume of data amassed from the recordings, MOM takes a risk-based approach and reviewed sessions of higher risk activities. No unauthorised activity has been detected thus far.
A forensic review is an in-depth investigation triggered by a suspected malicious activity or security incident, in order to uncover details about the specific incident. As no unauthorised activity was detected, there was no basis to order a forensic review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training and Accreditation for Home Defect Inspectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the measures to ensure that home defect inspectors are adequately trained and accredited; and (b) whether BCA will introduce a licensing framework for this profession.
Mr Lawrence Wong: BCA encourages the construction industry to improve on workmanship quality through the Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) and Quality Mark (QM) schemes. CONQUAS assesses the structural works, architectural works, and mechanical and electrical works of a new building project. QM assesses the workmanship quality of the internal architectural finishes of every dwelling unit to ensure consistent workmanship quality.
Home buyers can use the CONQUAS and QM scores as a guide and benchmark for quality when they purchase a home. Beyond that, some home buyers also engage private sector firms to undertake home defect inspections. These home defect inspectors are not regulated or licensed by BCA. Our focus is to put in place tighter quality controls at the start of the building process. That is what the CONQUAS and QM schemes aim to achieve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Reduce Negative Impact of Climate Change on Older HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development in light of the research collaborations which HDB has signed with material science company Evonik and technology company V-Key (a) whether any of the new applications will be adapted to benefit older flats; and (b) if it is not viable technically to do so for older flats, what plans does HDB have to reduce the negative impact of climate change on older flats or to expedite their replacements.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB's research collaborations with Evonik and V-key are still at an early stage. If the trials show that the technologies are viable, HDB will study how they can be incorporated into the design of new HDB blocks, and potentially retrofitted in existing HDB blocks as well. Technical feasibility and cost effectiveness will be key considerations.
In the meantime, HDB has implemented various measures to ensure a comfortable living environment in our towns and estates. Some examples include designing our HDB blocks to optimise natural ventilation, orienting HDB blocks to reduce heat gain, and providing more greenery in HDB estates. We will continue to study how to mitigate the negative impact of climate change on our flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US-China Trade Tensions on Singapore-owned Companies Operating in China or US","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has been the impact of the current US-China trade tensions on Singapore-owned companies operating in either China or the US; and (b) what is likely to be the impact of these trade tensions on these companies' domestic operations.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our economic agencies have been engaging our companies closely. Generally, Singapore companies operating in the US or China have told us that they have not been significantly affected by the US-China tensions, either in their operations overseas or in Singapore. Their responses to the ongoing trade tensions have also been mixed – some companies are putting their investments on hold until there is greater clarity, while others are actively looking to diversify their businesses across different regions. In short, our companies are adopting a range of measures.
The US-China trade tensions are not the only cause of the present slowdown. We are also experiencing the downswing in the global electronics cycle, which has affected externally-oriented sectors like wholesale trade and precision engineering. As I had shared with the House last month, the Government is closely monitoring the situation, and will provide support to the companies where needed.
Even as we weather our immediate challenges, we must maintain a steady course for the long-term. We must continue to transform our economy, by implementing the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), and investing in new capabilities such as digital and technology. We must also raise the productivity of our workers through SkillsFuture and continuous learning. By working together and investing for the future, we will emerge stronger from the present storm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Measures to Reduce Impact of Loud Traffic Noises on Residential Housing Situated Near Expressways","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the agencies are looking at new measures to reduce the impact of loud traffic noises on residential housing situated very near the expressways; and (b) whether Ministry is looking at new technologies to reduce such traffic noises and improve the quality of living in such areas.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has completed trials on the effectiveness of noise barriers and low noise pavement mix. The trials showed that these measures could potentially reduce noise for residents living near expressways. LTA intends to roll out some of these measures progressively.
When rolling out these measures, LTA has to consider multiple factors such as site-specific conditions and overall cost effectiveness. For example, noise barriers would not be suitable in locations where they may obstruct motorists' view.
In addition, LTA will continue to explore with other agencies new measures which can effectively mitigate the impact of traffic noise and improve the quality of living of our residents living near expressways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations for Safe Charging of Powerful Batteries at Residences and Workplaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs given the prevalence of the use of more powerful batteries for phones, PMDs and other devices and the risk of accidental fires being caused by the overcharging of these batteries, whether the SCDF will consider issuing regulations for the safe charging of such batteries at residences and work places.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since 2016, there have been 230 fires involving electronic devices. 91% of these involved personal mobility devices (PMDs), power assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility aids (PMAs). The remaining involved smaller devices, like power banks, mobile phones, laptops and tablets.
Sixty-seven percent of the fires related to mobility devices occurred at HDB residential units. Six percent occurred at private residential units, and the remaining took place at non-residential premises, such as industrial and commercial buildings.
Imposing regulations on how to charge batteries safely will be difficult given the widespread use of electronic devices, and the wide range of devices, which would make any such regulations difficult to craft and enforce. Consumers should be aware, however, that the charging of electronic devices carries some inherent risks. We strongly encourage consumers to exercise vigilance when purchasing and charging electronic devices. They should buy from reputable sources and adhere to the safety advice on the charging of the devices.
In particular, given the larger batteries in PMDs, PABs and PMAs, users should be especially careful when using and charging these devices. They should regularly inspect the batteries for signs of damage and corrosion, and avoid leaving the devices being charged unattended for an extended period of time. I urge all users to refer to SCDF's website for best practices.
Also, PMD users should switch to UL2272 compliant devices as soon as possible, as they meet higher safety standards. For example, they prevent overcharging by cutting off the power supply to the batteries once they are fully charged.
SCDF will further step up its efforts to educate users to adopt good fire safety habits, in partnership with LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Phasing Out Announcement of Names and Registration Numbers of Voters on Polling Day","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Prime Minister whether the practice of announcing the names and registration numbers of voters on polling day will be phased out under the e-registration system since verification can be done discreetly on screen in a multi-lingual format for both voters and polling agents alike.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, the voter’s name and serial number as stated in the register of electors must be called out by election officials, immediately before the ballot paper is issued to the voter. This allows the polling agents present to check against their own copies of registers and verify that the voter is eligible to vote at the polling station. This is separate from the e-registration process and ensures that only voters who are assigned to vote at the specific polling station are issued with ballot papers. There is no plan to change this after the implementation of e-registration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Commuter Graciousness Index and Plans to Engage in Public Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the latest Commuter Graciousness Index results; (b) what is the frequency of these surveys; and (c) whether there are plans to engage in public education at regular intervals to remind all commuters to be gracious.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts the Commuter Graciousness survey every one to two years. The latest survey shows that the percentage of commuters noticing gracious behaviour on public transport has increased, from 52% in 2016 to 56% in 2018.
Fostering a gracious and caring commuting culture takes time. We will press on with our efforts to promote gracious commuting behaviour. Since 2009, LTA and its partners have been organising the annual Graciousness Campaign. For this year's campaign, LTA worked with students from the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) to conceptualise trendy new outfits for LTA's public transport mascots, also known as the Thoughtful Bunch. The new styles convey the message that anyone can be like the Thoughtful Bunch. The refreshed publicity materials and engagement activities help to create greater awareness among our commuters.
There are also efforts led by the Public Transport Council (PTC) to encourage commuters to step forward and lend a helping hand to fellow commuters. For instance, PTC and the Singapore Kindness Movement recently announced a new Caring Commuter Award to recognise caring acts by commuters. PTC is also expanding its Heart Zones to more MRT stations and bus interchanges, to connect commuters with other commuters who need help travelling to their destinations.
Ultimately, we all have a role to play to look out for one another, and to make all commuters feel welcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Deter Reckless Driving of PMDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport what legal tools can be used to deter the reckless driving of PMDs especially where such reckless PMD usage causes or could cause serious injury to pedestrians on footpaths or serious collisions with vehicles carefully driven by drivers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for the question, which has been addressed by the Ministerial Statement on Personal Mobility Devices delivered on 5 August 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on MRT Train Delays Not More Than Five Minutes for Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what are the incidences of MRT train delays of not more than five minutes for each of the MRT lines in each of the past three years.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The number of short delays between two to five minutes is tabulated below:
Performance continued to improve, in tandem with overall improvements in rail reliability. Such minor delays did not exceed one per day, with the exception of the East-West Line which is our longest MRT line.
While delays below two minutes are logged, we do not track the statistics as they have less to do with reliability issues. For example, they could be due to trains being held back slightly to allow more passengers to board and alight.
Tracking the absolute number of delays is no substitute for the use of Mean Kilometres Between Failure, or MKBF. The latter measures the average distance travelled by trains between delays lasting more than five minutes. This allows performance to be compared between lines of different lengths and operating intensities. MKBF is an objective and internationally recognised measure of rail reliability, which is why we use it to benchmark our performance against leading metros around the world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Footpath Widening Projects to Accommodate Pedestrians and PMD Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Transport in light of the increasing use of PMDs in housing estates (a) what is the status of existing projects to widen footpaths in housing estates and what is the completion date for the projects; (b) whether there are further plans to upgrade or widen more footpaths to accommodate both pedestrians and PMD users more safely; and (c) if so, what is the timeline for these plans.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for the question, which has been addressed by the Ministerial Statement on Personal Mobility Devices delivered on 5 August 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for More Bus Lanes to Facilitate Safer and Smoother Bus Journeys","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to implement more bus lanes islandwide to facilitate safer and smoother bus journeys.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Today, we have a total of 211 kilometres of bus lanes, and LTA plans to build more.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is rolling out a suite of bus speed improvement measures to facilitate safer and smoother bus journeys. For instance, LTA has started to implement Transit Priority Corridors (TPCs), featuring bus lanes, bus-only roads, and signal priority for buses. The first TPC was implemented at Bencoolen Street in 2017, and more will be progressively implemented from 2020 onwards. The North-South Corridor will be Singapore's longest TPC. When completed by 2026, it will save bus passengers an average of 10 to 15 minutes of travel time.
LTA is also exploring an enhanced traffic light control system which can give priority to buses based on real-time traffic demand. LTA is also trying out three-door buses to speed up boarding and alighting. Together, these measures will deliver smoother and safer bus journeys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Rioting Incidents Per Year from 2010 to 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many incidents of rioting occurred per year from 2010 to 2018.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of incidents of rioting from 2010 to 2018 are as follows:
8 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Law since the inception of the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) (a) what is the total number of cases that have been heard by CDRT and the breakdown for each year to-date; (b) what is the percentage of the total number of cases where an order on mandatory mediation is made; and (c) what is the total number of exclusion orders made.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) were established on 1 October 2015 as a forum to facilitate the resolution of disputes between neighbours after other avenues such as community mediation have been exhausted.
Between 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2019, the CDRT received a total of 324 applications. Out of these 324 applications, 294 cases have been disposed of, while 30 cases are still pending as at 30 June 2019.
The breakdown of cases received by the CDRT for each year to-date is as follows: 27 cases were received in 2015, 80 cases were received in 2016, 57 cases were received in 2017, and 108 cases were received in 2018. Between 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019, 52 cases were received.
The CDRT has made a mandatory mediation order in 82 cases. This represents about 25% of the cases thus far.
To-date, the CDRT has not made any exclusion orders. Two applications for an exclusion order were received in 2018. However, in both cases, the CDRT declined to make the exclusion order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Users of Home-based and Community-based Eldercare Services and Average Out-of-pocket Expenditure after Maximum Subsidy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the typical profile of people who use home-based eldercare services; (b) how many activities of daily living (ADLs) do people who use home-based eldercare services typically require assistance with; (c) how many people use other types of subsidised services in addition to home-based eldercare services; and (d) what is the average out-of-pocket expenditure, after receiving the maximum subsidies they are eligible for, for people using home-based and community-based services together and separately.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on records submitted by care providers to MOH, in the fourth quarter of 2018, around 16,000 Singapore residents were using subsidised home and/or community care services, of which around 7,000 used subsidised home care services.
Around six in ten subsidised home care clients were female. Around half were aged 80 and above, around three in ten were aged 70 to 79, and the remainder were aged 69 and below. The vast majority of home care clients would be home-bound with chronic conditions or disabilities, and require assistance with some Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), in particular in the area of mobility. Around one in ten home care clients also use community-based care services such as day rehabilitation or respite care services.
Depending on the needs of patients, the most commonly used home care service is home nursing, which is on average, about $95 per visit before any subsidies and about $20 per visit for a client receiving the maximum subsidy. The Integrated Home and Day Care (IHDC) pilot introduced in 2016 bundles both home- and community-based services, and gives us an estimate of the expenditure of clients using services in both settings together. Depending on the bundle, the fees range between $1,100 to $2,300 per month before any subsidies, and about $300 to $600 per month for a client receiving the maximum subsidy. Singaporeans who need further financial assistance after subsidies can apply through the medical social workers or the providers for MediFund or other assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Seven-year-old and 12-year-old Children Contracting HFMD in the Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years, what is the absolute number and the percentage of (i) 7-year-old children and (ii) 12-year-old children who have contracted Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) at least once during their life.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) is a common childhood illness that is usually mild. Most children recover from HFMD on their own without treatment. As HFMD infections are not reportable and the majority are mild, MOH does not track the number or percentage of children who have contracted HFMD at least once during their life.
The key to controlling the spread of HFMD is to maintain high standards of personal and environmental hygiene, and to seek medical treatment early when the child is unwell. MOH works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE), Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and People's Association (PA) to ensure that educational institutions, including childcare centres, remain vigilant and take measures to minimise the spread of infectious diseases. Parents should also ensure that their children with HFMD remain at home for the duration of the illness as advised by the doctors, to prevent spread to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Posting and Collection of Merdeka Generation Packages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether Merdeka Generation Package recipients who have been asked to collect their Merdeka Generation Packages from community clubs or events are entitled to ask for the packages to be sent to them by post instead and with exactly the same benefits as those collecting from community clubs or events.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Merdeka Generation (MG) Package recipients who had been invited to collect their MG Packages from community clubs or events but were unable to do so, will have their packages sent to them by post instead. Whether they receive the package at community events or by post, all eligible MG seniors will receive the same MG Package benefits and MG welcome folders. As of 26 July 2019, all the MG packages have been delivered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability and Plans to Raise Awareness of Egg Donor Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health in cases where women are unable to conceive due to issues with their egg quality (a) what is the egg donor scheme that is currently available and whether there is sufficient awareness about it; (b) whether there are plans to raise such awareness; (c) what can be done to enhance the egg donor scheme to encourage and ensure the availability of more donors; and (d) whether mothers with spare eggs or women who froze their eggs but no longer need them can donate the eggs to other women who need them.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: For women who are unable to conceive due to issues with their egg quality, there are several avenues currently available to them in obtaining donor eggs for their assisted reproduction (AR) treatment.
Altruistic egg donation is allowed in Singapore. However, due to the invasiveness of the ovarian simulation and egg retrieval procedure, there are a limited number of egg donors. AR practitioners would generally counsel their patients to seek egg donations from relatives or close friends. Alternatively, egg donations can also be received from unrelated donors, and these are frequently from women who are already undergoing their own AR treatment.
AR centres are mandated to provide counselling for couples before the start of any treatment, and to discuss, amongst other issues, the couple's wishes regarding the eggs or embryos that remain after their treatment is completed. Women who wish to donate their remaining frozen eggs or embryos to other couples can do so, and the AR centres will facilitate the egg donation at the appropriate time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on BTO Flats Purchased under Single Singapore Citizen Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development how many Singaporeans have bought BTO flats under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme since its inception and how many have gone on to get married, with the figures broken down by gender.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 20,100 Singaporeans have booked a 2-room or 2-room Flexi flat in HDB's sales exercises under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme since its inception in July 2013. The proportions of male and female flat buyers are roughly equal.
Amongst these flat buyers, about 440 subsequently registered a marriage in Singapore, of whom about 80% are male.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Buildings without Family-friendly Facilities and Plans to Encourage Owners to Retrofit Such Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) currently, how many public buildings frequented by families do not have family-friendly facilities such as a lactation room or a diaper changing room; and (b) what is being done to encourage the owners to retrofit such facilities in these existing buildings.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since April 2014, new buildings that are frequented by families such as transport hubs, sports complexes, community clubs and larger shopping malls of more than 10,000 square metres in gross floor area, are required to provide family-friendly facilities under the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA) Code on Accessibility. Such facilities include lactation rooms and diaper changing stations. Existing buildings which undergo major retrofitting works also need to meet these requirements. To date, about 90 buildings have been newly developed or have undergone major retrofitting, and all have met the requirements. However, the actual number of buildings with family-friendly facilities is likely to be higher, as other building owners may have moved to provide such facilities on their own as part of their renovation works, for example, in malls. BCA does not track such buildings if they did not undergo major retrofitting works. From 2020, lactation rooms will also be required in more building types, including healthcare facilities.
BCA provides funding support under the Accessibility Fund for private building owners who wish to retrofit pre-1990 buildings with family-friendly facilities. For each eligible development, the Fund supports up to 60% of the retrofitting cost, up to a cap of $300,000. In addition to funding, BCA also worked with MSF to introduce a voluntary certification scheme in 2018 – the Universal Design Mark for Family-Friendly Business – to recognise businesses that provide family-friendly facilities and services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study to Determine Existence of Pattern of Dengue Cluster Formation for Preventive Action to be Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA has done any study to determine the existence of a pattern of where dengue clusters form so that preventive action can be carried out.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environmental Agency (NEA) has conducted scientific studies to study the risk of dengue transmission across Singapore. One example is the use of big data and geographic information systems to analyse mosquito breeding and dengue transmission patterns. These studies have found that the risk of dengue transmission increases with higher population density, Aedes aegypti population, extent of urbanisation and historical incidence of dengue. This provides a useful guide for NEA's vector control operations. For instance, before the traditional dengue season every year, NEA deploys additional manpower to areas identified as higher risk to conduct intensive source reduction activities to remove mosquito breeding habitats.
Throughout the year, NEA conducts routine inspections and search-and-destroy operations guided by data collected by the Aedes surveillance system, which comprises 50,000 Gravitraps deployed islandwide. Developed in-house, Gravitraps are designed to attract and trap adult female Aedes mosquitoes, the vector responsible for the transmission of dengue, chikungunya and zika. The surveillance system shows that a persistently high Aedes aegypti population increases the risk of localised dengue transmission and the odds of a dengue cluster forming. An additional 14,000 Gravitraps are progressively being deployed to increase the area of coverage.
Everyone has a part to play in preventing the spread of dengue. Between January and June this year, about 70% of mosquito breeding habitats detected in dengue clusters were found in homes. The community must play its part and step up the eradication of mosquito breeding habitats by practising the 5-step Mozzie Wipe-out regularly. Effective source reduction by all stakeholders is key to preventing the formation of dengue clusters and disrupting the transmission cycles of the dengue virus in our community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Incentivise Businesses to Rely on Sustainable Packaging Material Instead of Single-use Plastics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures will be put in place to incentivise businesses to rely on sustainable packaging material instead of single-use plastics; and (b) what steps are being taken to deter or reduce the usage of single-use plastic containers or plastic bags in Singapore.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Packaging waste, including plastics, is one of the three priority waste streams in Singapore. To tackle this issue, my Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) have adopted a holistic approach to reduce the excessive use of all types of packaging, not just single-use plastics. We do not target plastics alone. The NEA conducted a life-cycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposables and found that substituting plastics with other types of single-use packaging materials is not necessarily better for the environment. As such, our focus is to promote the use of reusables.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) recently launched the nation-wide \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign to drive awareness of the impact of excessive consumption of disposables and the need for reduction. Some 1,600 premises, ranging from retailers, food and beverage establishments, supermarkets, hotels, Community Development Councils, grassroots organisations, schools and non-governmental organisations, have come forward to partner NEA. Partners commit to actions such as prompting customers to bring along reusables, encouraging them to decline disposable cutlery with online orders and displaying campaign visuals at cashier points. NEA has also launched the 'Towards Zero Waste Grant' to support individuals, interest groups, non-Governmental organisations, grassroots organisations and corporations to initiate or scale up waste reduction and recycling initiatives.
Moving upstream, starting next year, NEA will require brand owners, manufacturers and importers of packaged goods, as well as supermarkets with an annual turnover exceeding $10 million to report information on the packaging they place on the market, and their plans for reducing, reusing or recycling packaging annually. This will increase companies' awareness of the potential for waste reduction in their business operations. Companies should take action to reduce the amount of packaging used, and minimise waste generation at source. This mandatory reporting framework will also lay the foundation for an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for managing packaging waste including plastics, which NEA will put in place no later than 2025.
Besides reducing waste, we are taking actions to increase our recycling rate. For example, we are working with the industry to tap on the Towards Zero Waste Grant to roll out 50 reverse vending machines starting this year. Through this initiative, we hope to engage the public to consciously recycle used PET bottles and aluminium cans.
At the same time, we are developing the local recycling industry. We want to better extract resources from waste and close the waste loop through a circular economy approach. NEA is currently studying recycling solutions and technologies, and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. This may include mechanical recycling to turn waste plastics into plastic pellets for manufacturing new products, or chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into chemical feedstock or fuel. The Government will work with industry stakeholders to explore how these technologies can be applied to Singapore, such that it is both environmentally and economically sustainable. These are efforts which could help grow local enterprises and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Everyone needs to play our part to reduce packaging waste, including single-use plastics. We can do this in different ways. For example, we can opt out of receiving disposable cutlery when ordering food for takeaway or delivery, or we can bring our own reusable bags and containers and take only the plastic bags we need. The support of the public, businesses and the community is key to successfully reducing our packaging waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Food Waste Generated in 2018 and Progress on Its Segregation and Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in 2018, how much food waste has been generated by (i) residential households (ii) food industries (iii) food and beverage outlets (iv) markets and supermarkets and (v) other sources respectively; and (b) what is the progress for implementing food waste segregation and treatment in each of these sectors.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In 2018, 763,000 tonnes of food waste was generated. Of this, half was from residential households. The remainder was from other sources, which includes food manufacturers, hotels, shopping malls and hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) does not track the specific amount of food waste generated from food industries, food and beverage outlets, markets and supermarkets.
Food waste segregation and treatment for residential households are currently undertaken on a voluntary basis. From August to October last year, my Ministry conducted a household food waste segregation pilot at Tampines GreenLace. The initial results from the pilot were encouraging and more than 4000 kg of food waste was collected over three months. The pilot has been extended upon the request of residents and my Ministry is currently monitoring the extended pilot together with our partner Zero Waste SG.
For commercial and industrial premises, 23 premises have obtained funding support through NEA's 3R Fund to install on-site food waste treatment systems. Another 23 premises have been segregating their food waste and sending it for treatment at the Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Facility, where it is co-digested with used water sludge.
From 2024, my Ministry will require commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste to undertake food waste segregation for treatment. From 2021, developers of new developments where large amounts of food waste are expected to be generated will also be required to allocate space for on-site food waste treatment in their building plans. These regulations will be put into effect through the Resource Sustainability Bill that is to be introduced in Parliament.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Food Delivery Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry regulates food delivery companies; and (b) how does the Ministry work with food delivery companies to ensure that food is delivered in accordance with food safety guidelines.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Food delivery companies are responsible for ensuring that the food they deliver is transported in a manner that does not compromise food safety. This includes maintaining the cleanliness of the vehicle, as well as the receptacle and equipment used for the transportation of food, and storing food at the correct temperature. Failure to do so would constitute an offence under the Sale of Food Act and the Environmental Public Health Act.
To ensure food safety, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been engaging food delivery companies on the need to adopt good practices in food hygiene and safety. SFA will continue to monitor the industry closely and will tighten requirements to maintain food safety standards if this becomes necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teaching of Bahasa Indonesia as Optional Module in Institutions of Higher Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education to what extent do Institutes of Higher Education (i) offer the teaching of Bahasa Indonesia as an optional module and (ii) facilitate exchange programmes and internships in Indonesia for such students.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) offer a range of language programmes, including ASEAN languages such as Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, and Vietnamese.
As Malay is one of our official languages, it is offered more widely in our IHLs – at four Universities and two Polytechnics. Bahasa Indonesia is available at the National University of Singapore and the Singapore University of Social Sciences as optional modules.
Our IHLs also offer overseas exposure to various countries, including those in our region, to develop cross-cultural competencies in our students and help them appreciate the growing economic opportunities in our region.
The IHLs send students to participate in exchanges and internships in Indonesia every year. Last year, 120 students went. We hope to increase this number over time as economic opportunities in Indonesia grow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amendment of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to Ensure Clearer Standards on Well-being of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will be amended to ensure that there are clearer standards on the well-being of foreign domestic workers, namely (i) stipulated mandatory rest times (ii) setting out minimum amounts and quantity of food to be provided by employers and (iii) setting out minimum standards for foreign domestic workers' accommodation including that for shelter, amenities, ventilation, safety and privacy.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) stipulates provisions under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) that safeguard the well-being and employment conditions of foreign domestic workers (FDWs). It requires employers to provide adequate food and rest, as well as proper accommodation with sufficient space and privacy for their FDWs.
Employers of FDWs receive clear guidelines on what constitute adequate food and acceptable accommodation, and these parameters are reflected on the MOM website. For instance, employers must provide FDWs with three meals a day and examples of what the daily food intake could be for breakfast, lunch and dinner are detailed on the MOM website. Employers are also responsible for providing proper lodging that accords adequate shelter, basic amenities, sufficient ventilation, space and privacy that safeguard their FDWs' safety and modesty. FDWs and employers are informed of these guidelines at the Settling-In Programme and Employer Orientation Programme respectively.
As each household would have its own unique and varied needs for domestic work, it is not practical to stipulate fixed hours of rest and work for FDWs. For instance, a household with very young children or frail seniors may require greater attention from the FDW at different times of the day, while a household with teens and older adults may not. We encourage employers and FDWs to maintain open communication and work out arrangements that are agreeable to both parties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mediation Cases by Tripartite Alliance Dispute Management Subsequently Withdrawn in Last Three Years Due to Payment or Resolution through Formal Settlement Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to cases registered for mediation by the Tripartite Alliance Dispute Management in each of the last three years that were then subsequently withdrawn due to payment, part-payment or resolution through a formal settlement agreement (a) what were the respective average and median proportions of the settlement amounts compared to the amounts initially claimed; and (b) how many claimants were not paid the settlement amount in full within four weeks of registering the settlement agreement in the District Court.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) has concluded about 15,000 salary claims lodged between April 2017 when it was established and December 2018. Two-thirds of the claims were either resolved through payment from employers in a private settlement or by way of a settlement agreement which when registered with the District Court can be enforceable. Of the remaining one-third, about half were referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals for adjudication as the disputes could not be resolved through mediation, and the other half were withdrawn by the claimants because they found that their claims were weak or invalid.
Initial claims are not always accurate or valid. The ratio of settlement to initial claims is therefore not a meaningful indicator. During mediation, TADM mediators will work with the parties involved to verify the actual amount of salary arrears. Claimants may settle for less if the employer is in genuine financial difficulty. Nonetheless, vast majority of the settlements were close to or same as the valid amounts claimed.
Once a settlement agreement has been reached, TADM will actively monitor payment by calling the claimants within three working days of the scheduled payment date, which is arrived at by mutual agreement between the two parties. Sometimes, the claimant is not contactable or cannot remember when he was paid. More importantly, when a claimant reports to TADM that he did not receive any payment after the agreed payment date, TADM will immediately engage the employer concerned and remind the employer to pay up. The matter will also be reported to MOM for possible enforcement follow up.
Ninety-three percent of the claimants have reported that they received full payment based on the settlement amount. Another 4% reported partial payment, and the remaining 3% reported no payment. Enforcement action is taken against all employers who do not pay up, including suspension of their work pass privileges. The more egregious employers are prosecuted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Industry or Service Sector Employing Most Number of Senior Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which is the industry or service sector that currently employs the most number of senior workers and what is their ratio against the total number of employees; and (b) what are the additional measures that the Ministry will adopt to encourage companies to retain their older workers before they consider applying for foreign workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In 2018, the sector that employed the most number of residents aged 55 and over was Wholesale Trade (54,500), which includes businesses, such as brand owners, distributors of other companies' brands, trading arms of manufacturers and retailers, and large commodities trading houses. These workers accounted for 23% of all employed residents within the sector, which is similar to the overall proportion of employed residents of this age group (24%) in Singapore.
To enhance the employability of senior workers, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has in place a number of measures, and these are also regularly reviewed. For instance, the Special Employment Credit (SEC), which has been extended till end 2020, provides wage offsets of up to 11% to employers that hire older Singaporeans aged 55 and above, earning up to $4,000 per month. Employers can also receive support of up to $300,000 per company under the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant to redesign jobs and workplaces to make them easier, safer and smarter for senior workers. Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, the Professional Conversion Programme and Career Support Programme provide higher levels of training and salary support to encourage employers to hire mature Singaporeans aged 40 and above.
These pro-senior measures have encouraged and supported companies in hiring older Singaporeans. Over the years, our employment rates of senior workers or residents aged 55 to 64 years have improved significantly. It grew from 57% in 2008 to 67% in 2018, and ranks favourably compared to OECD countries.
In addition, we are continuing to calibrate the foreign workforce policy to keep our labour market tight so as to ensure that Singaporeans, especially senior workers, continue to access good jobs and opportunities. We have cut the foreign worker Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) and S Pass sub-DRC in the Services sector to 35% and 10% respectively by 2021. Last year, MOM also convened the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to review retirement and re-employment ages. The Workgroup is finalising its recommendations; more details would be announced by September.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Professional Conversion Programme and Measures to Help Companies and Employees Vulnerable to Technology Disruption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of companies that have actively supported the Professional Conversion Programme; and (b) what more can be done to help companies and employees who are vulnerable to technology disruption to actively upskill and reskill their employees.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Since the launch of Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative in 2016, more than 2,000 companies have partnered with Workforce Singapore to place more than 10,000 individuals through the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs). These PCPs provide training and salary support to employers who hire and reskill mid-career jobseekers for new PMET jobs. Currently, there are over 100 PCPs in about 30 sectors. We will continue to expand or develop new PCPs in growth sectors.
Although some tasks within jobs can be performed by automation, few jobs can be fully automated by technology, in particular those that require flexibility, creativity and social interaction. While technology may reduce manpower reliance in some areas, technology can also create jobs of better quality.
Where possible, it is better to intervene upstream before workers are retrenched. Workforce Singapore (WSG), together with the economic agencies, engages companies on their reorganisation plans and manpower needs to help them reskill and redeploy employees whose jobs are at risk, so that these employees can take on new job roles. Last year, about 1,300 at-risk workers were retrained for new job roles through re-deployment PCPs. WSG will make a bigger push in sectors that are restructuring. We will also press on with efforts to raise awareness of the A&G initiative and encourage companies to step forward to work with WSG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sector Employing Most Number of Employment Pass Holders and S Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) which is the industry or service sector that currently employs the most number of employment pass holders and S Pass holders respectively; (b) what is their respective ratio of employment pass and S Pass holders against (i) Singaporean employees and (ii) Singaporean employees of equivalent education and experience; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a quota by nationality of source to avoid high concentrations of employment pass and S Pass holders.
Mrs Josephine Teo: S Pass holders in the Services sector are already subject to quotas capped at 15% of the firm's total workforce, (excluding Employment Pass, or EP, holders). This will be reduced to 13% from 1 January 2020, and to 10% from 1 January 2021. Within the Services sector, Food Services has the highest utilisation of S Pass quota. S Pass holders also have to meet minimum qualifying salaries, which are regularly reviewed to reflect local salary changes. This is to ensure locals are not disadvantaged when their wages go up. We updated the S Pass salary criteria in 2019, with a further increase in S Pass qualifying salary to be made in 2020.
While we do not subject firms to quotas on the number of EPs they may hire, we require them to consider all applicants fairly. Under the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), we scrutinise the EP applications of firms suspected to have discriminatory hiring practices, including firms with very high single-nationality concentrations. Those found to have such practices will have their work pass privileges curtailed. Like S Pass holders, EP holders are subject to minimum qualifying salaries, which were updated in 2017.
Locals hold the majority of jobs paying above $3,600 (minimum qualifying salary for EPs). In most other sectors, the EP shares are around or below one-quarter with the exception of Infocomm in the Services sector where the share of EPs is about one-third. These ratios may fluctuate but have not trended up in the last few years.
Local employment outcomes – employment rates, unemployment rates, wage growth – have remained healthy. We continue to help local jobseekers expand opportunities for career mobility through a range of programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Twenty-fifth and 50th Percentiles of Annual Leave Entitlement Received by Employees and Management","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower what are the 25th and 50th percentiles of annual leave entitlement received by (i) rank and file employees (ii) management and executives and (iii) all employees respectively.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not have records of the data requested.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Occupiers Unable to Make Claims under Home Protection Scheme in Last Three Years Due to Lapse of Policy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower in the last three years, how many HDB occupiers were unable to make claims under the Home Protection Scheme because the policy lapsed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: From 2016 to 2018, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) helped to pay the remaining mortgage for about 3,000 HDB flat owners who passed away, became terminally ill or suffered from total permanent disability. Another 20 claims were unsuccessful as the members' HPS policies had lapsed.
We have put in place several measures to minimise the risk that HDB flat owners lapse on their HPS coverage.
(a) HPS premiums are automatically deducted from the flat owner's CPF Ordinary Account (OA). This minimises any out-of-pocket payments for the HPS premium.
(b) Flat owners can tap on their co-owners' CPF-OA savings to help pay the HPS premium.
(c) If flat owners miss their premium payment despite the above measures, CPF Board will offer a two-month grace period for the flat owner to pay the HPS premium. CPF Board will send letters to remind the flat owner to top up his CPF-OA and will prioritise new OA contributions for HPS premiums over mortgage instalments during this grace period.
The flat owner's HPS coverage will lapse if he does not pay the premium by the end of the two-month grace period. For flat owners whose coverage has lapsed and are using CPF to pay their mortgage instalments, CPF Board continues to send letters every six months reminding them to re-apply for HPS coverage.
In the few cases of unsuccessful claims where the HPS has lapsed, dependants can seek HDB's assistance to reduce or defer mortgage payments until the family regains financial stability, or right-size to a more affordable flat if they choose to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Maximum Age Cap for Coverage under Dependants' Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) when will the next review of the maximum age cap for coverage under the Dependants' Protection Scheme be; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered that the current generation is starting families at a later age and hence may still have dependants at age 60.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS) is a term-life insurance scheme that provides CPF members and their family a basic level of financial relief at affordable premiums in the event of terminal illness, total permanent disability or death.
The decision to offer DPS coverage up till 60 strikes a balance between providing insurance protection for the member's dependants and his need for adequate retirement savings:
(a) First, raising the maximum coverage age beyond 60 would result in significantly higher premiums due to higher mortality rates after age 60. DPS premiums are paid out of members' CPF accounts, and paying for significantly higher premiums would compromise members' retirement adequacy.
(b) Second, after age 60, the need for DPS is significantly reduced as most members are less likely to have children who are financially dependent. Those who started families later and may still have dependants are likely to have accumulated savings in their CPF accounts which could be bequeathed to their dependants.
Members who prefer additional insurance protection may use cash to purchase insurance products from private insurers.
We will, however, continue to review other aspects of the scheme to ensure that DPS continues to be relevant to members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs by Employers Since its Introduction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower since the introduction of the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs (a) how many employers have adopted the Standard; and (b) what is the utilisation rate of the unpaid leave among eligible employees.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs was introduced in March 2018. As of end June 2019, about 700 employers with 242,000 workers have adopted the Standard.
We collect data on the utilisation of paid leave rather than unpaid leave. This is because employees are more likely to utilise their paid leave first before considering unpaid leave to minimise loss of income. We will consider the need to also collect data on unpaid leave in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Trend of New ComCare Recipients over the Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the trend of new ComCare recipients over the last five years; (b) what is the proportion of recipients who require ComCare support beyond the initial support of three months; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that the level of support is adequate relative to changing costs of living.
Mr Desmond Lee: The table below shows the number of unique households receiving ComCare Long-Term Assistance1 (LTA) and Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance2 (SMTA) from FY2013 to FY2017. MSF does not have readily available data on the number of new recipients for ComCare LTA and SMTA from FY2013 to FY2017.
In FY2017, 66.5% of households on ComCare SMTA received assistance for a total duration of longer than three months.
MSF regularly reviews the cash assistance rates and the ComCare eligibility criteria. In our review, we look at daily living expenditure data of low-income families collected by the Department of Statistics. We also consider input from community stakeholders, such as social workers and frontline officers. We most recently increased our ComCare cash assistance rates from 1 July 2019. Apart from monthly cash assistance for their daily living expenses, households may also receive employment assistance, assistance with their household bills and medical bills, and referrals to other Government agencies and community partners for relevant services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : ComCare Long-Term Assistance provides long-term support to those who are permanently unable to work due to old age, illness or disability, and have little or no means of income and family support.","2 : ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance provides temporary financial support to low-income individuals or families who are temporarily unable to work, are looking for a job or are earning a low income and require assistance."],"footNoteQuestions":["29"],"questionNo":"29"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3021,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190805/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Fire Safety 5 Aug 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Fire Safety 5 Aug 2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3022,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190805/vernacular-Joan Pereira Fire Safety 5Aug2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Fire Safety 5Aug2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3023,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Baey Yam Keng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190805/vernacular-Baey Yam Keng Adj Motion 5Aug2019-Chinese-edits.pdf","fileName":"Baey Yam Keng Adj Motion 5Aug2019-Chinese-edits.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}