1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how will the US-China Phase 1 Trade Deal impact Singapore's economy; and (b) how can local manufacturers that export parts for US goods leverage on the new agreement to boost their businesses.
2 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of local exports declining in the past nine months (a) how many businesses and employees have been affected in the past year; (b) whether outreach has been made to businesses to assess the impact and assistance they may require to stay afloat; and (c) what progress has been made on efforts to expand our export market in the past year.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: I will group the answers into two parts: first, global developments and their potential impact on Singapore's economy; second, the Government's strategies to grow Singapore's economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Twenty-nineteen was a volatile year for the global economy. The IMF downgraded the 2019 global growth forecast five successive times – in each of its quarterly reports since October 2018 – to 3.0%, down from the 3.6% achieved in 2018. Fortunately, the global economy avoided several worse scenarios including an all-out trade war between the US and China, but downside risks remain. As a small, open economy, Singapore was affected by these macroeconomic conditions. Our non-oil domestic exports declined by 10.1% on a year-on-year basis between January and November 2019. Advance estimates show that Singapore’s economy grew by 0.7% in 2019, slower than the 3.1% recorded in 2018.
Looking ahead, MTI expects Singapore's GDP growth to pick up modestly to between 0.5% and 2.5% on the back of a slight uptick in global economic growth and a gradual recovery in the global electronics cycle. Even though we are cautiously optimistic, there remains several uncertainties in the global economy.
The biggest uncertainty is the relationship between the US and China. This is the most important bilateral relationship for both countries, and indeed for the entire world. We welcome the announcement of the Phase 1 trade deal, especially the cancellation of further tariff hikes in December 2019. Averting further trade tensions is positive news for all countries. We hope that this is the first step towards putting the relationship back on a stronger footing. We look forward to learning about the details of the Phase 1 deal on 15 January 2020, and working with both countries to grow our economies.
Another uncertainty pertains to Brexit, for the UK and the European Union are collectively our third largest trading partner in goods, and our biggest trading partner in services. Mr Seah Kian Peng had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) for the next sitting on the implications of Brexit on Singapore and Singaporean companies. I would like to take this opportunity to address Mr Seah's question as well. Based on the terms of the draft Withdrawal Agreement, the immediate impact of Brexit is likely to be limited. This is because, until 31 December 2020 at the least, the UK will functionally be treated as an EU Member State and remain a party to the EU's international agreements, including the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) which had just come into force. However, this may change depending on what the UK Parliament decides in these coming weeks. In addition, what happens after 2020 has not yet been determined. Singapore is therefore working with the UK on an economic agreement to maintain continuity in our economic relations after the EUSFTA no longer applies to the UK.
I wish to remind Members that these uncertainties are not unrelated. What is happening between the US and China, the UK and the EU, and other economies like India, Chile and Hong Kong, are manifestations of a deeper unhappiness over the inequitable distribution of gains from globalisation, and a concern that tomorrow will not be better than today. This is why the multilateral trading system – which has underpinned decades of economic integration and free trade – is itself under significant stress.
Since 11 December 2019, the WTO's Appellate Body has been non-functional because there are not enough appellate judges to meet the quorum. The WTO's appellate function is an existential one for the multilateral trading system, because it ensures the robust enforcement of multilateral trade rules. Without this binding and neutral mechanism to resolve trade disputes, the risk of a fragmented trading system will grow. There will be severe consequences for all WTO members, including Singapore, should trade, talent and data flows become disrupted. The strategic question confronting the world is whether we continue to turn inward and less open, or we find a new balance that enables economies to remain open and connected, while ensuring that our people benefit equitably from such integration.
Apart from these challenges, there are also unanticipated issues that may affect the global economy, such as the situation between the US and Iran. Any escalation between the two countries may portend further instability in the Middle East which could have negative implications on the global economy, including Singapore.
I should add that this is not all doom and gloom for the world. There are also many exciting opportunities to harness. For example, the digital economy is a major opportunity for us in Singapore. Digitalisation enables small countries like Singapore to transcend our size and geography, and helps our enterprises to penetrate new regional and global markets. Within Southeast Asia alone, the digital market is estimated to exceed US$300 billion by 2025 – almost the same size as the current Singapore economy and right at our doorsteps! And although the IMF has downgraded the global growth forecasts, Asia remains a bright spot with growth estimated at 5.1%.
In sum, there will be both uncertainties and opportunities in the year ahead. It is incumbent on us to ensure our ship is seaworthy, set our sails to catch the wind. The Government will help Singapore businesses navigate the challenges and seize the opportunities. This includes helping Singaporean companies to expand into overseas markets, as well as providing customised support for companies to press on with productivity improvements, innovation and the training of our workers.
Singapore has to adopt a long-term perspective in our economic strategies, even as we tackle the short-term headwinds. Allow me to elaborate on three strategies that the Government has taken to grow our economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
First, we are strengthening Singapore's fundamentals to distinguish ourselves amidst the uncertainties.
In July last year, I shared with Members some of the factors that have enabled Singapore to stand out from the competition. Our stable political environment and united leadership empower us with the capacity to plan for the long term; the rule of law and pro-innovation regulatory environment provide certainty for businesses to thrive; our superior connectivity with the rest of the world allows us to look to the world for opportunities; our strong tripartite partnership and a skilled workforce that continually upgrades and generates new ideas, acquire new skillsets and knowledge that can redefine what is possible for a country with no natural hinterland.
The international community recognises these strengths. This is why the Economic Development Board (EDB) has attracted more than $8 billion of investment commitments in 2019, despite the global economic uncertainties. These investments are in high value-added sectors, such as electronics, aerospace and pharmaceuticals. I have not included investments from other sectors in the above figure, such as the $9 billion expansion plan for the two integrated resorts. These investments will create many good jobs for Singaporeans, and they reflect the global business community's confidence in our future.
Moving forward, we will continue to deepen our linkages with key markets, and transcend our geographical boundaries by pushing into new dimensions of connectivity that include the flows of data, talent, ideas and technology.
Second, we are helping Singapore companies and workers to internationalise and turn the world into our hinterland. The preconditions are in place, thanks to our excellent connectivity and our extensive network of 25 FTAs with 64 trading partners, which collectively account for more than 85% of global GDP and more than 90% of Singapore's trade.
Last year, as of September 2019, we gave out 800 companies grant support for their foray into overseas markets through the Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) scheme. In the same period, about 1,700 companies were supported in growing their businesses both domestically and overseas through the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) programme in the areas of capability development, market access and manpower development for internationalisation.
These transformation efforts have translated into higher pay and better career progression opportunities for our workers. As businesses grow, they will create more good jobs for Singaporeans. To further strengthen the linkage between enterprise transformation and benefits to our workers, we will include commitment to worker outcomes as a mandatory condition for companies that apply for EDG funding from 1 April 2020. These outcomes may include wage increases, job creation, job-redesign, or hiring of older workers. It will reinforce our message of building an economy that is both pro-enterprise and pro-worker.
Besides the EDG, there are also employee-specific schemes like the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) to help mid-career PMETs reskill and embark on new careers, and the Global Ready Talent (GRT) programme to equip workers with skills relating to internationalisation. Through these programmes, we hope to prepare more Singaporeans to compete and succeed across the region and in the world.
The Government will announce further initiatives to help our businesses transform and build stronger capabilities at this year's Budget.
Third, we are pursuing new growth opportunities. Through the work of the Future Economy Council (FEC) and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), we are developing new industry niches in areas such as additive manufacturing, robotics and sensors. These build on our existing strengths in sectors such as electronics and precision engineering, and will enhance Singapore's position in the global value chains.
We are also partnering industry players to develop new capabilities in promising growth areas such as agri-food, urban mobility and precision medicine. For example, we will be establishing the Agri-Food Innovation Park (AFIP) in Sungei Kadut, to bring together high-tech farming and R&D activities in areas such as urban agriculture and aquaculture. Through this, we hope to create new career opportunities and grow a new generation of technopreneur farmers.
To capture opportunities in the digital economy, Singapore is co-leading the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce or JSI. The JSI will establish multilateral rules to help companies navigate the complex e-commerce landscape. We are exploring deeper collaborations with key economic partners like Chile, Australia and New Zealand, through a new generation of \"digital economy agreements\" to open up more opportunities for our companies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a small country, Singapore cannot completely insulate ourselves from ups and downs in the external environment. But there are steps that we can take to strengthen our economic competitiveness and build stronger capabilities in our enterprises and workers. Our success has always been predicated on our will to make the best of what we have, and our resolve to turn adversity into opportunity. If we continue to stay united and work together as one people, we can all look forward to a brighter tomorrow for all of us.
\t
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like the Minister for answering both questions and covering a wide range of topics with regard to those questions. I have two supplementary questions.
One, can the Minister share, in his view or MTI's view, whether the US-China tensions will continue to ease off in 2020 and whether it will still continue in terms in the tensed landscape as well as what its impact will be on Singapore companies?
Second, the Minister mentioned about multilateral agreements that will continue to be beneficial for the world. Can the Minister share with the about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), whether there are any developments on that front and how Singapore playing on that front and whether Singapore can benefit?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first take the question on the US-China tensions. We are encouraged by the conclusion and the impending signing of the Phase 1 agreement between US and China. I have spoken to both my counterparts in US and China. I think the significance of the deal goes beyond just the lines of agreement and the specific line items in the agreement. I think both the US and China are very clear that this is a basis for them to establish the strategic trust between both countries because a deal is a deal.
\t
\tMore important is how we implement the deal and along the way, there will be further negotiations between them. And I am quite certain of that. So, we are cheered by the conclusion of the Phase 1.
But having said that, we are very clear – and I think both the US and China are also very clear – that the challenges between the two countries go beyond the trade numbers. They have differences between themselves; how they see they should structure their economies in terms of subsidies; they have differences in how they see trade relationships; they have differences in how they see the subsidies for their technology, research and development, so on and so forth. So, there are deeper structural issues that have to be settled between the US and China. I think that we will have to wait for the strategic trust to be built up for them to move on to the next step of their agreement.
Given the political dynamics in the US in 2020, we can also expect some surprises along the way.
So, while we are cautiously optimistic, we are cheered by the trade, the Phase 1 trade deal, I think there are many other issues that still need to be resolved in time to come between the US and China.
On the second question, on RCEP, last year at the Asean Leaders' Summit, the 15 RCEP countries have essentially concluded all the tax-based negotiations. There are a few outstanding, bilateral market access negotiations between some of the RCEP countries. The leaders of the 15 countries have given their commitment to sign the agreement in Vietnam in 2020 and all the officials are working hard to realise that. In fact, the legal scrubbing for the text have commenced and our team is currently now in Jakarta working with our counterparts on that.
The door remains open for India to join RCEP and I think that is the common position for all the 15 member states. I think every one of the 15 member states would welcome India's continued participation. We have continued to keep India in the loop for all the discussions and also the legal scrubbing.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Question No 3, Sir.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: There has been a request to take Question No 3 and Question No 4 together, so Minister for Manpower will answer Question No 3 and the Minister for Trade and Industry, Question No 4. And we will take the supplementary questions immediately after the response to Question No 4. Minister for Manpower.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Jobs Filled by Singaporeans, PRs and Foreigners in Industries Covered by Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will detail the number of new jobs filled by Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners respectively for each industry covered by the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) henceforth; and (b) whether it can provide these statistics for each ITM since the inception of the respective ITMs to date.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) were launched progressively from late 2016, with the majority launched in 2018. Changes in workforce profile depend on a variety of factors which can be structural or cyclical in nature. To assess the impact of ITMs, it will be more meaningful to look at employment outcomes over the medium and long terms.
Nonetheless, we can look at employment change across the 23 ITM sectors from 2015, before the launch of ITMs, to 2018. Between 2015 and 2018, total employment in these sectors, excluding foreign domestic workers grew by 19,500. This was made up of: (a) an increase in employment of Singapore Citizens (SCs) by 39,300; (b) increase in employment of Permanent Residents (PRs) by 8,600; and (c) a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500.
These numbers are encouraging because we have been making the effort to secure jobs for Singaporeans. We are making progress on this front. Singaporeans have consistently worked hard to update our skills and stay relevant. Between 2015 and 2018, the training participation rate of the resident labour force aged from 15 to 64 increased from 35% to 48%, which shows that more Singaporeans are upgrading and updating their skills. From 2016 until September 2019, Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) have also helped 93,000 locals move into new jobs through the Adapt and Grow initiative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Factor Productivity (TFP)’s Contribution to GDP Growth in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the contribution of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) to GDP growth in each of the past 10 years; (b) what has been the growth in TFP in each of the past 10 years; (c) how does Singapore's TFP performance compare to that of other developed countries; and (d) what drivers and restraints of Singapore's recent TFP growth has the Ministry identified.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me take Parliamentary Question No 4.
Between 2008 and 2018, Singapore's Total Factor Productivity (TFP) grew by 0.5% per annum. This is about 12% of our GDP growth of 4.5% per annum over the same period. Since 2016, TFP growth has increased to 0.9% per annum or around 27% of GDP growth.
Singapore's TFP performance was stronger than or comparable to most OECD countries. Between 2008 and 2018, France's TFP rose by 0.3% per annum, while Finland's TFP growth was 0% per annum. TFP growth in Germany and in the United States were similar to ours, at about 0.5% per annum.
The pick-up in our TFP growth in recent years can be attributed to our economic restructuring efforts, which are important to raise productivity and to transform our industries through innovation and internationalisation. Initiatives like SkillsFuture to upskill our workers and support lifelong learning would have also contributed to this.
Transforming our economy and raising TFP are long-term efforts. We are making progress, but we must continue to focus on these areas in the years ahead, building on the strong tripartite partnership between Government, employers and the Labour Movement.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A few supplementary questions for the Minister of State for Manpower. The first question pertains to the data that was shared. The Parliamentary Question seeks information for each of the ITMs – I understand Minister of State said that the ITMs are launched in different years so it would be more useful to provide data in a certain manner. But, there is information provided for Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners between the years 2015 and 2018. Within these years, which ITMs is the Minister of State referring to vis-à-vis the numbers: 39,000 Singaporeans, 8,600 PRs and 28,500 foreigners. So, which ITM is the Minister of State referring to?
The second question is the statistics for Adapt and Grow, regarding the 93,000 locals. I understand \"locals\" would mean PRs and Singaporeans. Can the Minister of State confirm that? Can he also share the number of Singaporeans and PRs on Adapt and Grow between these years.
My third question pertains to how information on the ITMs is presented. The roadmaps are not consistent in terms of jobs for Singaporeans, PRs or foreigners, for example. I will give you an example. Construction ITM, if you go on the respective YouTube channels and you see reference on construction, it is very clear, good jobs for Singaporeans, no two ways about that. You go to the Retail ITM, they talk about a future-ready workforce and a professional and skilled workforce. Ostensibly, this would mean a whole range, beyond Singaporeans. Infocomm and Media ITM talks about creating new PMET jobs, 13,000 new PMET jobs and it goes on. So, every ITM is different; understandably so, but will the Ministry in future, in going forward, present that data very clearly for each ITM? PRs, this many; Singaporeans, this many. And there are obvious reasons for this. The conversation becomes more fact-based and you do not have a corrosive conversation about Singaporeans losing jobs to foreigners and so on.
\t
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The ITMs relate to all the 23 ITMs that you asked for. As I mentioned earlier, the ITMs were only launched in 2016 with the majority of them coming on stream in 2018. The data is still preliminary, so it will take time. It is more meaningful and impactful to measure them as we talked about medium term and long-term developments. Many of these developments are transformative, we are transforming industries, we are transforming companies, doing job redesign, so, it will take time. But the initial indicators look promising. But I do agree and that is why we have not gone into detail yet because it will take some time to stabilise the data.
Currently, MOM provides employment statistics by local-foreigner breakdown in broad sectors: Manufacturing, Construction and Services in our annual market labour report. Those are already available; data between local and foreigner breakdown.
Currently, we need to also follow industry classification of employment statistics which follows statistical standards aligned to international convention and ensures compatibility with employment statistics that we have published in previous years so that it becomes meaningful. It is not just meaningful to put out statistics but you have to also put out comparability. So, we are making progress, but there is still a lot of work to do as we transform. It will take time for data to stabilise and it is something that we can look to and study how we can present this better in the medium and long term. So, I take the Member's point.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, perhaps I can ask three further questions on this matter of ITMs. Firstly, have the ITMs made any impact on our economic growth and our job creation? Secondly, have the economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans? And thirdly, have the economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans more than foreigners?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me address Mr Liang Eng Hwa's three questions holistically. That is the reason why I think it is useful for us to consider both the ITM question and the Total Factor Productivity question together, because all these questions pertain to our strategies to grow our Singapore companies and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Pritam Singh alluded to this issue of the benefits – in fact, asked by Mr Liang Eng Hwa as well – the benefits of our growth towards Singaporeans and on Singaporeans.
Let me take the second question first, which is fundamental. Have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans? And more importantly, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked, have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans more than foreigners?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the short answer to both questions is a resounding yes. This Government puts Singaporeans at the heart of everything we do. We pursue growth not for growth's sake alone. We pursue growth so as to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I believe Singaporeans understand and support the Government's position.
At the same time, we must acknowledge the anxieties that lie behind the Members' questions.
Responsible political leaders must try to allay those anxieties, not prey on people's fears for political advantage. We have all met Singaporeans who are concerned about the future, especially in times of economic uncertainties. Some may have been displaced and are looking for a new job, others may still be employed but are wary and worry whether they are ready for the future.
In short, we have many Singaporeans who worry whether tomorrow will be better than today.
To all fellow Singaporeans, I will say this: we understand your worries and we will walk this journey with you. The Government will always have your backs. This is why we have invested so much in SkillsFuture and programmes like Adapt and Grow and the Professional Conversion Programmes. This is why continuing education has been our priority. If we take 20 years to prepare for our first job, it is not enough for us just to assume that the next 30, 40 years of our career lifespan, we do not need any fresh new injection of training and skills.
\t
We do all this to help Singaporeans to prepare for future jobs so that those currently employed can remain future-employed. And as I have always said when I was in NTUC, we are not satisfied to put today's unemployed into today's job. Neither are we satisfied to put today's unemployed into tomorrow's job. We want to prepare tomorrow's unemployed, put them into tomorrow's job, ahead of time.
We are also aware that mature Singaporeans in the middle of their careers may be more anxious about the future. Many of them may not have done any upgrading since they started working 20 years ago after their studies. And I want to assure this group of Singaporeans that the Government will do more to support them in staying skilled and employable, not just for now but also for the future. We will talk more about this in the Budget. It is not just about lifelong employment; it is about lifelong employability.
The crux of the Members' questions is this: have we gotten the local-foreigner workforce balance right, not just in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality? These are questions that the Government and our economic agencies constantly ask ourselves. Too few foreign workers, especially PMETs with skills required for our growth sectors, mean that our businesses cannot seize the opportunities out there and, in the process, create better jobs for all Singaporeans. Too many and there will be a push-back, especially if Singaporeans feel unfairly treated. It is a never-ending balancing act with difficult trade-offs. I often ask Singaporeans when I meet them: if we can only bring in one more foreigner to complement the Singapore workforce – one more – who will we bring in? Someone who is above our national average or someone who is below our national average?
The most memorable answer that I have ever been given was by a young student. He told me, \"Minister, Sir, the answer is simple. Bring in the above average one to grow the economy, but below me.\" This summarises the fears, concerns and aspirations of our people.
We know we need the above average foreigner to complement our domestic workforce so that we can build a more competitive economy and to provide better jobs and better pay for all Singaporeans. But we also know that foreigners will compete with us and we need to provide some safeguards for our people. This is an evergreen challenge. How do we grow our existing companies and bring in new investments that can create good jobs for Singaporeans?
Let us suppose a Singaporean worker is earning $5,000 today. And we have an option to bring in a new investment that will create two new jobs: one paying $7,000 and another paying $10,000. The Singaporean can only get the $7,000 job today because he does not yet have the skill or experience for the $10,000 job. Should we take the investment?
The Singaporean may feel frustrated. He may think that he is being unequally treated because the foreigner earns more than him now. We understand these sentiments. We also want the $10,000 job to go to the Singaporean. But if we do not accept that investment for this reason, it will go elsewhere and both the $7,000 and $10,000 jobs will disappear from Singapore. The Singaporean will continue to earn $5,000 and he will have fewer opportunities to rise to a higher paying job. But what is even more important is that his son or daughter currently in school receiving one of the best education in the world will not be able to aspire to the $7,000 or $10,000 job. So, which is the better outcome and what should we do and do right by Singaporeans, not just for this generation but for the next?
Now, is this story very far-fetched? No. It has happened before. Indeed, in every generation throughout our history as an independent nation. We can learn from how the previous generations deal with this challenge and dilemma. In the 1970s, this happened when we went out to attract the electronics industry. Over a span of three years, the first three semi-conductor companies in Singapore – National Semiconductor, Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments – created more than 7,000 jobs, but our people did not get the best paying jobs immediately. They certainly did not get all the best paying jobs immediately.
Indeed, many of our Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Singaporeans worked under higher paying foreigners. This was because, at that point in time, we lacked the skills and experience to take the highest paying jobs. But we did not reject those investments as a result. Instead, we worked hard. We learned, upgraded our capabilities, but at no time did we fear. And in time, we took over many of these higher paying jobs, including the better trained and educated children of the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations. Many of those early engineers and technicians went on to become senior executives in this sector and, in turn, they mentored a new generation of Singaporean technicians and engineers in the semiconductor industry that we have today.
Today, the same thing is happening in the ICT and software industries. ICT and software will underpin many other industries that we desire to have in the future – banking, finance, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, precision medicine and so forth. They all need highly specialised skills and knowledge.
When global companies like Google, Grab and Facebook invest here, the reality is that we do not have enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills and experience to fill all the jobs they are going to create. We have raised our intake of Computer Science students in our Universities in recent years, but there is a limit to further increases. Not every student has the interest or aptitude to study computer science and we also need to groom talent in other sectors for our economy.
Young Singaporeans who are coming out from Universities and Polytechnics to join these new companies are better educated and have much better opportunities than the previous generations before them. Colloquially, as we say, our future generation does not need to take over the jobs of the previous generation, earning the salaries of the previous generation. So, do we go out and attract these investments like Google, Grab and Facebook not just for this generation, but, more importantly, for the next generation?
What should our choice be? I say we go for it. Land the investment first, just as our previous generations did in the electronics industry. Create those jobs in Singapore first. Otherwise, we will lose the $7,000 job and we may never get the $10,000 job. Work hard, train our people, upgrade our skills to take over that $10,000 job as soon as possible. But do not exploit the sentiments to create envy, anger and frustration towards that foreigner who is now taking the $10,000 job.
I ask the House, frankly, do we agree with this approach? Do we hold that we should reject the investment on the grounds that the investment will result in more foreigners in Singapore and some earning more than Singaporeans in the same company? Would we reject the investment from Google, Grab and Facebook?
I think most Singaporeans understand and accept why we cannot reject such investments on that basis. Singaporeans are fair-minded. What Singaporeans want is a fair chance to get that $10,000 job as time goes by, if not as soon as possible. What Singaporeans do not want are unfair employment practices where Singaporeans are passed over for non-meritocratic considerations. The Government understands these concerns and we stand together with fellow Singaporeans on this matter.
This is why MOM has the Fair Consideration Framework and is continually updating the system to ensure a fair, level playing field for Singaporeans. This is our commitment to Singaporeans. MTI and our economic agencies will watch over the enterprises to get them to train up and groom Singaporeans as part of this commitment to Singapore. I believe the vast majority of our companies know the deal. They play ball. They groom Singaporeans not just because we asked them to but because it makes business sense for them to localise and avoid concentration risks for business continuity as well as to grow the Singapore eco-system and win the support and respect of fellow Singaporeans and for generations of Singaporeans to come. That is how successful enterprises have done well in Singapore.
However, we do know that there are some black sheep amongst the enterprises. Their employment practices must change. If not, we will come down hard on them. They know this. We have taken actions against them and we will not hesitate to do so again.
Businesses also understand the need to be responsible employers. They keep asking the Government to relax the foreign workforce controls because they want to expand their businesses. They tell us that they cannot get enough Singaporeans to do all the jobs available. Our answer to them is simply this: work with us. Help us to manage the sense of fair play and opportunity for all Singaporeans. Our businesses understand this and they are responding.
This Government is on the side of all Singaporeans. We will grow our economy and attract investments to create many good jobs for Singaporeans. We will continue to devote resources to help our people stay competitive through lifelong learning and skills upgrading so that they can continue to stay relevant and move into higher paying jobs.
Unlike other countries, Singapore does not need to fear competition and Singaporeans do not need to fear competition. We know we have to remain open to the world. We know that a Singapore that is closed in cannot survive. We have the resilience to overcome challenges and the means to help ourselves. And this is important. We have the means to help our workers. Not every country can say that. Not many countries have the political mandate, the political will or the necessary resources to do that for their workers. That is why their workers push back against global integration, trade liberalisation and so forth.
But we are different. And we can continue to distinguish ourselves through our tripartite partnership to make sure that our workers are never left behind, that while we seize these new opportunities, our workers will have every opportunity to get that $10,000 job as soon as possible. So long as we have the drive and stay united as one people, building on the strong tripartite partnership, we will win together as Team Singapore.
Overall, this balanced approach has worked for Singaporeans. Between 2015 and 2018, local employment increased by nearly 60,000 for the whole economy. The PMET share of local employment increased to 57%, one of the highest rates in the world. It means that for every 100 locals in the workforce, 57 of them are in PMET jobs, one of the highest in the world. And the trend is continuing to grow in that way because we understand the aspirations of our next generation. If 70% of our people are going to graduate with degrees and diplomas, you can see the tremendous pressure on the aspirations for the next generation.
Our youth unemployment is amongst the lowest amongst the advanced economies, a testimony to the fact that our education system is providing the right foundation for our people to take up those jobs that are being created in the new economy. This is not something that happens naturally in every country. In fact, in many other countries, many of them in the Asia Pacific, you will see youth unemployment as one of the most significant challenges for those countries.
What about growth in earnings? Growth in real average monthly earnings for employed local workers was 3.2% per annum during this period, higher than the 2.4% per annum in the preceding three years, higher than most advanced economies such as the US, which is 0.5%; Japan, 0.8%; Germany, 1.2%. We are at 3.2%.
\t
But let us not be complacent. It requires a lot of hard work, and a lot of hard work on the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) as well.
ITM is a system that we put in place for us to pool together companies, trade associations, unions, Government, research institutions – all five partners – coming together to transform the industries. Because the old way of competing just by increasing the factor input of labour and capital can only go so far.
The next lap of our economic development will require us to increase our productivity, not through the injection of capital and labour, but through innovation, the revamp of our business model, internationalisation, the economies of scale that we can achieve through expanding our economy, not just in Singapore but beyond. All these are important work for us to work together to use the ITM as the platform to raise the total factor productivity so that our workers can continue to enjoy sustainable real wage growth in the years going forward.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that I have given a comprehensive answer on the questions that both Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked. The answer is yes. We have done the right things by getting that balance right and the Government will continue to calibrate this balance carefully. That balance is struck by considering three factors: the needs of our industries and enterprises, the needs of our workers of this generation and the opportunities for our children in the next generation. If we get this balance right, as we strive for this Goldilocks balance, we must firmly reject extreme positions, one extreme position being to open the floodgates and drown Singaporeans. But neither can we take the other extreme position to close our borders and reject foreigners in our workforce.
Above all, in this House, we must firmly reject efforts to stoke anti-foreigner sentiments by spreading falsehoods or creating invidious comparisons out of context. This is not the kind of politics we want – with far-right parties in the European continent stirring hate and fear against foreigners for political advantage.
This is not how Singapore transformed ourselves from Third World to First, and this is not how a confident and capable Singapore should face the future. Yes, the future will pose many challenges. But the future will also pose many exciting opportunities. We will continue to work with Singaporeans to steer the Singapore ship through the stormy seas and we will make sure that we will not allow opportunists to stir fear and hatred amongst ourselves.
The real competition is not between the Singaporean versus the PR here versus the foreigner here. The real competition is Team Singapore comprising Singaporeans, PRs and foreign workers here, competing with the rest of the world to give our fellow Singaporeans the best chance possible to win not just in Singapore but across the entire globe, that the wages of our Singaporean workers will continue to grow faster than the rest of the other people in other countries. On that note, let us work together to go through these difficult moments.
\t
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State for Manpower and one supplementary question for the Minister for Trade and Industry.
Firstly, on the massive number of jobs created because of the ITMs. My two questions – firstly, as we create all these jobs, how do we ensure we level the playing field to ensure that the firms that create these jobs consider Singaporeans fairly? The second question is: now that we have the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) as well as other employment pass criteria in place and the FCF has started since 2014, is MOM considering reviewing it and looking at tighter measures to ensure that recalcitrant companies who do abuse that, are watched carefully?
For the Minister for Trade and Industry, can I have his assurance – and I also urge him – that as we plan our strategies to attract investments and as we plan our winning moves for the future, can we ensure that our various economic agencies put Singaporeans – not just jobs for Singaporeans but quality jobs for Singaporeans – front and centre in all their strategy papers?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, our manpower policies have benefited many Singaporeans over the years. We have also benefited from the international trade flows and international flows. As shared by the Minister for Trade and Industry earlier on, the calibrated flow of foreigners to supplement our workforce has also been useful, especially as it takes time to build skills that emerging industries need. I use the term \"calibrated workflow\" because we know – and the employers also know – that it cannot be free flow. We use a combination of policy levers to manage the outcome of foreign manpower and to safeguard good employment outcomes for our people. For example, we raised the S Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2019 and 2020 as well as the Employment Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2017. This helps us keep pace with rising local wages and enhance the foreign workforce complementarity to the local workforce.
We are also reducing the Services sector dependency ratio ceiling (DRC) and S Pass sub-DRC over 2020 and 2021 to push businesses to become more manpower-lean and improve job quality. As a result, local PMET employment, as the Minister has shared, has risen. The PMET share of local employment rose from 54% in 2015 to 57% in 2018. Citizen unemployment is 3% in 2018 and has averaged 3.1% since 2015. We have also seen growth in median income at 3.8% per annum since 2015, which is higher than the 3.3% in the preceding three years.
So, I think it is important that as we look at these outcomes, while we talk about headline outcomes, it is also the individual work that we do on the ground, like the Adapt and Grow where we manage, support and help job-match Singaporeans to all these new jobs. These are also important aspects in which all these things play a role on how we upgrade our workers, how we invest in them, how we put in place infrastructure to ensure that our workers are trained to sufficiently perform in these jobs. It is this combination of small efforts that we have on the ground that contributes to the overall outcomes.
To the Member's question on how to keep the playing field fair, Sir, we also take a firm stand against employers that discriminate against Singaporeans. Just last week, the Minister for Manpower announced plans to update the Fair Consideration Framework and businesses that deliberately exclude qualified Singaporean job seekers will suffer stiffer penalties.
But Members will have to wait, unfortunately, because the Minister will announce more details next week. I think it is important that when it comes to job growth, we remind ourselves that we are squarely focused on Singaporeans. But we must not be blind to the needs of businesses as well and how good jobs are created today. So, I hope that Members in this House, too, will agree that we all need to be honest with our people that the competition for jobs and for investments is out there; it is international. We want to secure the best outcomes for Singaporeans by not shutting out foreigners but by giving our people the best available support to develop themselves and ensure that businesses practise fair employment and give Singaporeans a fair chance.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just have four supplementary questions for Minister Chan. Firstly, on Total Factor Productivity (TFP), does MTI monitor the outliers of TFP – those countries which are performing above the OECD average on TFP – to look at patterns that we might possibly be able to learn from? For example, there is a fair bit of academic evidence – not conclusively, of course – to suggest possibly that the R&D share of GDP could actually be an indicator of TFP growth and high TFP contribution. Is that something that MTI looks at – the outliers of TFP and what we could learn from them?
Secondly, in terms of the health of the economy, which the Minister spoke about, what is MTI's sense looking at forward economic indicators, such as PMI, confidence indicators, the totality of forward-looking indicators in terms of whether the economic growth is going to improve or actually stagnate or decrease in the first quarter of this year, looking at the forward-looking indicators that we have?
Thirdly, the Minister also spoke about PMETs and I think one problem that many Members of the House do come across in our work is this phenomenon of under-employment of PMETs who lose their jobs for whatever reason in their 40s or 50s and end up taking a job at a substantially lower pay which may or may not fully utilise the qualifications they have. Would the Minister consider looking into creating an under-unemployment indicator to measure how we are doing in terms of under-employment? There is currently a time-based under-employment indicator, but that just measures part-time work. Will some thought be given to a measure of under-employment in terms of pay and qualifications, so that at least we know how well we are doing on this front, going forward, given that this may be a structural issue that Singapore and other economies face as well?
Lastly, the Minister spoke about youth unemployment. What is the Minister's sense of how we are trending in terms of the time taken for our youth who come out of Universities, Polytechnics, ITEs on the time that they take to find permanent employment, as opposed to contract employment, as opposed to internships? Anecdotally, we do hear that there are some challenges there. For example, one resident I encountered said that his daughter, who graduated from one of our Autonomous Universities six months ago, is still looking for a job. Of course, that is just one data point, but what is the trend that the Minister sees on this front, going forward?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you do not mind, maybe let me complete the answers for Mr Patrick Tay's question, and then, I will go on to the four supplementary questions from the Member Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the economic agencies will put Singaporeans front and centre in our search for investment and the creation of quality jobs. The answer is Y-E-S, in capital letters. Yes, we do that. We have always done, we are doing that and we will continue to do that. Yes.
Let me just share a bit about the work of EDB, ESG and so forth.
People have asked me, \"Why do we not go and take all the investments that are queuing up at our doors?\" And that is a simple way to do so. But for every investment that we take into Singapore today, we not only consider the land constraints, the carbon constraints, the energy usage and all that kind of things but, most importantly, as the Member has said, we ask ourselves – is this going to create a good job for Singaporeans? Can our Singaporeans take on this job? If not now, if not immediately, can it be in the near future? If not this generation, can it be the next generation, in the fastest possible time? And we have always abided by that principle. Because what is the point of creating the jobs in Singapore if Singaporeans do not have the chance of ever doing it? What is the point of having a good job in Singapore if Singaporeans never have a chance to do it? But how long will it take? It depends.
Edwards Lifesciences, making heart valves. When they wanted to make heart valves, they needed seamstresses. We do not have many seamstresses in Singapore anymore. We went out to search for many homemakers who at least still know how to sew. Train them. Heart valve is not a joke. Each one is $20,000 to $30,000, with high quality control. So, we look at the job and see whether Singaporeans can do it.
\t
I will give Members another example on the other side of the spectrum. ExxonMobil and Shell, they have been in Singapore for decades. Today, we are very proud, the Heads of ExxonMobil and Shell operations in Singapore are both Singaporeans. But they did not get to the top job to head the ExxonMobil and Shell operations in Singapore in one step. Mr Gan Seow Kee and Ms Goh Swee Chen went around the world, took on various appointments in ExxonMobil and Shell, acquired the skills and experience and, today, these top jobs are helmed by Singaporeans. We are very proud of them.
But we never feared, because when ExxonMobil and Shell first came to Singapore, we were far away from taking any of those top jobs. But today, we have people there. So, that is my assurance to Mr Patrick Tay and all the brothers and sisters in the Labour Movement. You have an ex-Secretary General as Minister for Trade and Industry now.
To the four questions that Mr Leon Perera asked, first, outliers. Indeed, we look at all the outliers. We look at everyone that does better than us and ask ourselves: why are they doing better than us? But I want to caution against reading too much into some of the statistical anomalies. Because, statistically, the TFP is a residual, after you take away the capital and the labour inputs. In fact, as an example, during the Global Financial Crisis, when we rebounded from the Global Financial Crisis, that particular year, our TFP was over 9%. It cannot be accounted for by all the labour and input factors. It is probably accounted for, largely, by the growth momentum and economies of scale, not even just by R&D and so forth.
But we are highly cognisant of the fact that, going forward, for us to improve our productivity, we need to emphasise much more on research and development, and not just research and development but the translation of the outcomes of research and development into commercial enterprises. And we are going to do that. That is why I talked about, just now, the revamping of our business models, internationalisation and so forth. All these will add up to strengthen our Total Factor Productivity beyond a residual of what can be accounted for by capital and labour inputs. So, that is the answer to the first question.
The second question: do we look at forward indicators? Of course. MTI looks at all sorts of indicators and, definitely, forward indicators. But having said that, the Member asked what is the outlook for the economy this year. We can take a leaf from the economic performance last year. How did we avoid a recession last year? Last year, a large part of our economy was actually under the water. The downturn in the global electronics cycle has hit our Semiconductor and Electronics sectors. The structural and cyclical factors have also pulled down our performance in the Retail sector.
On the other hand, there are three sectors, three shining examples holding up the economy – Banking and Finance, Professional Services, ICT. By design – this is a design feature of our economy – we have diversified our economy. And because we have diversified our economy, we have avoided the extremes of either recession or very sharp ups and very sharp downs. That is how we have to continue to navigate carefully. Diversification gives us resilience but diversification also comes with a cost. When the global electronics cycle goes up, if we have just depended on the global electronics cycle, we might get a 20% growth in that sector. But that is not sustainable. So, we have diversified our economy as we matured over the years and, today, our performance is much more stable, providing a stable platform for us to continue to invest to create good jobs for Singaporeans tomorrow. That is the answer to the second question.
To the third question, let me amplify what I have just said. We spent 20 years of our life preparing for the first job. We spent 20 years of training and education preparing every Singaporean child for the first job. But let us ask ourselves, how much do we invest in the next 40, 50 years for the subsequent second, third, fourth, fifth job? This is a challenge which the whole world is waking up to, but not the whole world has the means and the organisation to tackle this. We will announce more plans to tackle this in the Budget.
We know that people in their 40s and 50s, including those in the ICT sector, they need a skills top-up, they need a refresh. In fact, when I was in Switzerland some years back as the NTUC Secretary-General, I learned one thing from the Swiss. They never plan to top up their skills at 55 and 60 years old to extend the career lifespan of their people. They told me it is too late. The correct approach is that every 10 years or so, if we can afford it and have the organisation, we should top up the skills of each and every one of our workers. This is the same thing I challenged the Public Service to do. Even if someone wants to join the Public Service for 50 years, we cannot assume that the same skill sets will be necessary and sufficient for the 50 years.
Continuous training must be in our DNA and then we can get into lifelong employability and not lifelong employment. So, we will do more because we understand and I would say that we would start with the 40s and 50s but, if we have the chance, to extend it to even the 30s, as time comes.
Youth unemployment. It is a theoretical argument as to how to calculate under-employment. But what is even most important is not how we calculate under-employment. What is most important to get people out of under-employment is to grow the job opportunities for them to go on and take on better-paying jobs. This is why, in MTI's strategy, we are spending so much effort to strengthen the mid-sized companies, so that they can create more and better-paying jobs, more opportunities, for the rest of Singaporeans who are not in such high-paying jobs to get into those jobs.
So, yes, we will look at how to get the statistics but I will go beyond what the Member suggested. And, in fact, we have done that. We will go beyond to make sure that we create those good jobs to pull Singaporeans out from the lower productivity sectors, so that they can enjoy the good wage growth that is commensurate with our economic growth. That is our promise to all Singaporeans.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Last question, Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, my original Parliamentary Question really was a question seeking data. The Minister for Trade and Industry spoke of the local PMET share going up from 54% to 57%. My question really is, can we expect in future, either by way of Parliamentary Question or by the Government on its own accord, dividing that into Singaporeans and PRs? If the Government's approach is, \"No, we are not going to provide that data\", can the Minister please share that detail with us here? Because it is pointless for us to keep asking for the data if the Government is not going to provide it.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we have anything to hide. We have just shared the data.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Sir, if that is the case, then for the 60,000 local jobs, how many were for Singaporeans and how many went to PRs?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: We can get the Member the numbers but let me say this. What is the point behind the questions? First, has local unemployment increased with all these efforts? The answer is a resounding no. Our people are getting good jobs. Are our wages going up? Yes, and it is faster than many other countries. Those are the proof points to show that we are doing right by Singaporeans. I am always very cautious about this constant divide – Singaporeans versus PRs. The insinuation seems to be that somehow Singaporeans are not benefiting. I have just spent the last half an hour explaining and sharing with this House how we are working hard to make sure that Singaporeans do so.
It is not the data. It is the point of the question. And I would like to remind this House, the ultimate competition is not pitting Singaporeans against the PRs; it is about Team Singapore comprising Singaporeans and PRs, and even the foreign workforce complementing, competing to give Singaporeans the best chance possible.
How many of the increased jobs go to Singaporeans? Enough for us to keep the unemployment rate at the level which many countries would say it is fiction. And that is how we have done it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Enforcement and Other Measures after Ban of PMDs on Footpaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport given the ban on users of personal mobility devices from all footpaths, whether there are plans to distinguish the different types of public paths so as to avoid confusion.
6 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to regulate the usage of electric bicycles on the roads in terms of age, insurance coverage, traffic rules and others.
7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many people have been warned for riding e-scooter on footpaths since 5 November 2019; (b) how many e-scooter riders have been summoned for speeding and other offences since 5 November 2019; (c) how many e-scooter riders have signed up for the trade-in grant to convert to e-bicycles or other personal mobility devices; and (d) how many more kilometres of cycling paths will be built by end-2020.
8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government has committed additional resources to police the ban of PMDs from footpaths from January 2020 such that the public will not witness the same level of day-to-day flagrant breaches of law by errant e-scooter users as seen prior to the announcement of the ban.
9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in light of some food delivery riders switching from e-scooters to electric bikes (a) whether the Government is putting in place additional measures to ensure that the increase in electric bike riders will not lead to more accidents or road traffic or active mobility offences; and (b) whether such riders will be given sufficient training sessions to encourage all to ride responsibly and considerately.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 to 9 together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: The decision to ban e-scooters on footpaths is to restore footpath safety. Since the implementation of the ban on 5 November 2019, the number of accidents involving e-scooters on public paths has dropped by about 30%. As we step up enforcement, we can expect further reduction in such accidents. From a recent telephone poll commissioned by REACH, two out of three respondents agreed that safety on footpaths had improved since the ban. I believe Members of the House would have received similar feedback from friends and residents.
Till 31 December 2019, LTA had issued about 6,000 advisories to remind riders on the new regulations and more than 300 summons against reckless riders.
Since 1 January this year, LTA has imposed strict enforcement. Those caught riding an e-scooter on footpaths are liable for fines up to $2,000 and/or face imprisonment of up to three months, if convicted. LTA has expanded its team of active mobility enforcement officers, including Auxiliary Police Officers, from 100 to 182 officers. Recruitment efforts are underway and LTA targets to enlarge the team to 200 soon. LTA has also deployed technology trials using roving CCTVs to complement existing enforcement efforts. As of 5 January this year, 27 errant riders have been caught.
We are aware that the ban of e-scooters on footpaths has an immediate impact on the livelihoods of some riders. This is why we launched the Transition Assistance Package. This includes the e-scooter trade-in grant (eTG), to help food delivery riders switch to alternative devices. There are about 6,120 food delivery riders who have done at least one delivery over the 30-day period prior to the ban and are therefore eligible for the grant. Amongst them, about 34%, or 2,100 do four deliveries or more per day. As of 31 December 2019, LTA has received 3,550 applications from eligible riders and approved all applications after accounting for duplicates. Twenty percent of these applicants have already transited to alternative devices. To facilitate the transition, food delivery companies have offered free bicycle rentals to the riders who are waiting for their new devices.
Other partners have also leaned forward. Workforce Singapore and NTUC’s e2i are providing career placement support for riders who wish to transit to a different job. MSF and People’s Association have offered temporary financial assistance to affected riders in need.
As some e-scooter users may switch to using power-assisted bicycles (PABs), NTUC launched a fully subsidised safe riding programme to support food delivery riders in making such transition. As of end-December 2019, 130 riders have completed the NTUC programme. This is useful as on-road accidents involving PABs are not uncommon. From January to November last year, there were 21 such accidents. LTA is working with Traffic Police on greater public education and awareness efforts.
\t
\t
We are updating the regulatory regime for PABs. All PAB riders must comply with road traffic regulations such as travelling in the direction of traffic, wearing helmets and riding safely. Their PABs need to be registered and only LTA-approved models are allowed to be used in Singapore. These LTA-approved models are pedal-assisted PABs and without throttles, where gradual motor assistance is provided as the user pedals, but is gradually reduced and cut off as the PAB reaches a speed of 25 km/h. In addition, they have to comply with the EN15194 device safety standard for electrical and fire safety.
Since November 2019, we have caught 70 non-compliant PABs. Non-compliant PABs caught will be seized and forfeited. The offenders can face a maximum fine of $5,000 and/or imprisonment of three months.
Over the last few years, we have strengthened our active mobility regulatory regime, including mandating e-scooter registration. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has been a great help. The Government has accepted the latest set of AMAP recommendations. I will shortly introduce a bill to amend the Active Mobility Act to strengthen the regulatory regime. This includes setting minimum riding ages, requiring third-party liability insurance coverage and introducing mandatory theory tests.
At the same time, we are upgrading the cycling infrastructure. First, we have implemented improved markings on footpaths to clearly distinguish them from cycling paths. There will be logos indicating \"No PMD\" at selected intersections of footpaths and cycling paths to indicate that e-scooters will not be allowed on footpaths.
Second, we are stepping up the construction of cycling paths to improve first-and-last-mile connectivity within towns. We had previously announced a plan to extend the network of cycling paths from 440 km to 750 km by 2025 and 1,300 km by 2030. We will accelerate the pace of implementation by a few years. We are discussing with HDB, NParks and the local Town Councils on a practical timeline. We are also discussing with our MOF colleagues to secure additional funding for this purpose. Our preliminary estimate is that we may have to spend more than $1 billion to complete the island-wide cycling path network. We will provide more details at the Committee of Supply.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank Members of this House for their advice and many suggestions. I look forward to their continued support.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, and thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the comprehensive reply. I just want to ask a few supplementary questions. He mentioned about 3,000, if I can remember correctly, that have opted for the scheme to convert their e-scooters to other PMDs. Can I ask how many of these are for e-bicycles and others? The second supplementary question is about the bicycle lane that he had announced. He has not announced how many more kilometres; he has just announced that it is being accelerated. But what are the planned parameters? Are you going to increase another 100 km by the end of this year or is this something that is not sure as yet?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I thank Mr Ang for those supplementary questions. For the first one, out of those who have applied for the eTG – which is about 3,600 applicants – about 74% of them opted for e-bikes, about 25% opted for bicycles, and less than 1% for personal mobility aids. As to the exact number of kilometres of cycling path that we are going to develop by the end of this year, like I have mentioned, we will share more of these details during the Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust under Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how is the public interest threshold of online statements of falsehoods determined and measured under the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA); (b) whether the Ministry will consider recommending that Ministers state which public interest criteria under section 7(1b) of POFMA are met and how so, when requesting for a direction to be issued; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider creating a central listing of all issued directions on the POFMA website.
11 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Ministry's position on perceptions of a partisan political bias over the recent applications of POFMA and how this may impact public trust in objectivity and independence of the Government's instruments of combatting online falsehoods; and (b) what steps are being taken to maintain public trust in light of such perceptions, especially given the critical role of public trust in buttressing society against coordinated, malicious fake news.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your consent to take Question Nos 10 and 11 together?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you. In recent weeks, four Government Ministries have issued Correction Directions under POFMA to address false statements of fact made by various parties about issues of fundamental importance to Singaporeans. The falsehoods allege that the Government mismanaged public funds, abused police powers and discriminated against Singaporean citizens in favour of foreigners.
Failing to deal decisively with such falsehoods will erode and even undermine public trust in our institutions, with serious consequences for our democracy. The Government and indeed Members of this House have a duty to ensure that our citizens are not misled or misinformed by such falsehoods, and that is precisely why POFMA was enacted.
In all of the POFMA cases so far, Correction Directions have been issued. These Directions require that the facts be placed alongside the original posts so that Singaporeans can read both versions and draw their own conclusions.
Would the Member not agree that the best way to maintain public trust in Government and our institutions is to juxtapose the truth with the falsehood, and allow our citizens to decide what the facts are? And would the Member also not agree that the law should apply even if those who have put out the falsehoods thus far happen to have political affiliations?
Furthermore, POFMA requires that the Minister provide the basis in accordance with existing laws for her or his determination that a statement is a falsehood. In the recent cases, the falsehoods and the reasons for using POFMA were made clear in the clarifications that were issued by the respective Ministries. If the recipient of the POFMA Direction disputes the facts, quick and inexpensive recourse to the Courts is available. These provisions ensure transparency and accountability in the POFMA process.
Finally, the Nominated Member also asked if there are plans to create a central listing of POFMA Directions. All Government Corrections issued under POFMA are already compiled in a section of the Government’s fact-checking website, \"Factually\". In addition, the POFMA Office website has a list of the press releases issued together with the POFMA Directions.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the very considered responses. The Minister had assured the House and the public in May last year when we were debating on the POFMA Bill that the Bill will not be far-reaching using the example of the 39 take-down orders under the Broadcasting Act since 1996. I think he mentioned that it was an average of one a year. POFMA has been used five times within a month, and just two months after coming into effect. Will the Minister please clarify if this considered far-reaching or not?
The second question I have is: the Minister has clarified that POFMA has a central listing on its website. But could I ask the Minister to clarify if the POFMA Office will provide a full description of the public interest rationale each time that POFMA is used according to section 7(1b) of POFMA. There are actually six specific public interest thresholds that are listed there in the Act.
Last but not least, could I ask the Minister: we all agree that we are seeing an alarming rise of fake news. Can the Minister enlighten us on the number of fake news that are monitored and flagged by the POFMA Office and the various Ministries every month? I know that Thailand's anti-fake news centre talked about 8,000 fake news that were monitored and flagged just within the month of November 2019 alone. Can the Minister assure the House and Singaporeans that the Ministries and the POFMA Office are also monitoring and flagging news to use POFMA on, whether non-partisan or partisan? For example, the fake NUS Facebook group ran for a while without being \"POFMA-ed\" until Facebook, itself, took it down.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member asked several questions. Let me try and deal with them. First, is the use of the legislation appropriate, measured and fit for purpose? And I think the question is yes. I do not think that you should go by the sheer number of times that it has been used in this period. I think it is a confluence of factors that has led to that. But if you look at the facts of the matter, it is very simple.
In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the public interest consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.
So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.
The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying \"without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest\", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. What that means therefore is when the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will have the evidence to support the public interest case. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information\", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue No 115, Correction by Written Statement section.]
I think the final point is on tracking and numbers. We do track but I do not think we have the resources to go around policing this in great degree. But I would add, if indeed the numbers are anything like what the Member has cited for Thailand, if it runs into thousands, then four or five POFMA cases is, I think, quite proportional and not at all far-reaching.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister. I just have two supplementary questions. The first one is: does the identity of the person making the false statement matter for the public interest test, that is independently of other factors? And I would hope that the Minister could make clear that it is virality, the damage that the statement causes that matters and not who says it. Otherwise, I am very worried that it might look as if the Government is setting up speed traps where perhaps Opposition politicians drive but not elsewhere. And that is a real concern, I think.
Second, would the Minister agree that for the falsehoods which are not viral or rapidly damaging – the slow drip problems – could it be more effective to combat these with education and information rather than a Correction Order? And Parliament had agreed that these powers under the POFMA were necessary to quickly correct falsehoods that might turn a spark into a flame. But those powers do not seem as well-suited for educating the public about our financial reserves or about our labour market policy.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am concerned about the time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Carry on. I think if you need an extension, the Leader of the House will move the extension. Leader, would you like to move the extension?
Mr S Iswaran: Not quite the response I had expected. [Laughter.]
\t
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of Question Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable Question for Oral Answer Number 12 to be completed.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order 22(1), Questions for Oral Answers set down on the Order Paper for today be taken until the completion of Question No 12 at this day's sitting.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust under Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework","subTitle":"Answer resumed","sectionType":"OA","content":"The following questions were moved earlier \t—
Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how is the public interest threshold of online statements of falsehoods determined and measured under the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA); (b) whether the Ministry will consider recommending that Ministers state which public interest criteria under section 7(1b) of POFMA are met and how so, when requesting for a direction to be issued; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider creating a central listing of all issued directions on the POFMA website.
Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Ministry's position on perceptions of a partisan political bias over the recent applications of POFMA and how this may impact public trust in objectivity and independence of the Government's instruments of combatting online falsehoods; and (b) what steps are being taken to maintain public trust in light of such perceptions, especially given the critical role of public trust in buttressing society against coordinated, malicious fake news.
\t
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I think the Member had a few questions on first the question was the identity of the person or entity who puts out the falsehood matter. As I have explained very clearly the process, and I think this was widely convassed during the debate on the Second Reading, the focus is on the fact, or falsehood as it were, in accordance, and do we have the existing legislation that backs that assessment and secondly, whether there is a public interest concerned that merits action. That is a judgement made by the Minister, the domain Minister advised by his officials.
Therefore, the answer is, and I think what the Member is alluding to, is the fact that the first few POFMA actions appear to have been issued against individuals who are either politicians or affiliated with political party or political parties. I would say that that is a convergence, some might say unfortunate convergence or coincidence, but also indicate to a certain pattern of communication that exists out there. But whatever the case may be that is the situation today but it does not mean that that is going to be the situation going forward. Because ultimately whether there is a falsehood, there is a public threshold and if so, then what is the appropriate course of action.
The point was also made about falsehoods that are not viral whether we can use alternative mechanisms. I think in talking about, in discussing this matter we have to look by virility, which was one of the points, but remember we also talked about the virulence of the falsehood. And you have to take both into account, because there will be instances where the nature of the falsehood is such that it goes to the core of the credibility and the standing of our institutions and it deserves a response under POFMA. And such a response has the additional impact of ensuring that future such commentary would be guided or advised by this action. So, there is a multiplicty of factors and I think it would be a too blunt to just look at it in terms of one criterion like virility.
Having said that I think the Member's point was do we have alternative mechanisms, and I want to assure him that we continue to be actively involved in the education of our citizens on this matter. In fact, both Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Walter Theseira have raised this point before during the Second Reading. It is an important point that we have an educated, discerning citizenry, we must ensure they are well informed.
I would add that we have also, if Members would have noticed, in some cases issued statements rather than a POFMA direction. And that has also occurred in the last several weeks. So, I think if you look at it in totality, we have to take into account the overall impact and then we have to consider what is the proportionate response and then, be prepared to take it and if it so happens that some of the people involved are politically affiliated, well, that is the consequence of their actions.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister again. In terms of the thousands of fake news that are possibly floating around the Internet – and you have turned my question around to answer my other question which is pretty brilliant, I must say – yes, it does not seem far reaching when you turned it around to say that way. But my question was actually given there are thousands of fake news floating around in the Web, does the POFMA Office monitor and flag the non-partisan news and statements that are made. Because there are so many out there, one of which that came to my mind was the fake NUS group and we did not do anything until Facebook took it down themselves. So, my concern is – and the Minister could be right it could just be a convergence of consequences and circumstances – but to have four or five directions POFMA that so partisan in nature, you would understand why there are really genuine concerns from the ground, especially like I said, there are actually thousands of fake news out there that could also be in the public interest to actually POFMA them.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not mean to turn it around. I was merely using the facts that the Member cited to make the case. But having said that I think the key point here is first do we monitor. As I said the resources are limited but yes there is some effort to monitor because we have to ensure that having set out this legislation and its intent, we do follow it through in practice. But in some ways it is no different for the other kinds of activities that we have too. If you take, for example, things to do with online gambling and so on, we try to do some pre-emptive, but we also have to to rely sometimes on reports or inputs coming in and our POFMA Office people combined with several other agencies make the assessment and so on.
So, the answer is yes there is some effort to monitor but, primarily, I think we are looking at those cases which are egregious and those that are egregious will pop up quite naturally and we know what they are and we can deal with it.
The other point was, what was it again? But I was not sure what you were getting to.
\tMs Anthea Ong: There are thousands of fake news out there that are non-partisan but actually are in the public interest to be POFMA-ed.
\tMr S Iswaran: That is an interesting point because the Member seems to be making the argument that, if instead of four against the previous four cases, we now had eight and four were non-partisan, that would look better?
\tWell, I beg to differ. But I would say that I think basically we monitor. I think if the Member's point is, are we only training our sights on certain types of people or organisations, the answer is no. The Member can actually see that from the kind of actions that are being taken. And I think, as I have said and I am prepared to re-state this, which is that our response will be targeted and proportional. I think we have to look at it in the context of all that we have described and we have to take appropriate action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Obligations Placed on Digital Advertising and Internet Intermediaries under Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the rationale for the obligations placed on digital advertising intermediaries and internet intermediaries under the Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements issued by the POFMA Office on 2 October 2019.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements sets out measures that prescribed intermediaries, such as social media platforms, must implement to ensure the transparency of online political advertising.
The Code requires these prescribed intermediaries to ensure that online political advertisements carry disclosure notices to inform readers of the person or organisation that had placed or paid for the political advertisements. Intermediaries are also required to put in place other accountability measures, such as the maintenance of a database of online political advertisements, and the provision of channels for members of the public to report advertisements that are undisclosed.
In drafting the Code, the POFMA Office held consultations with the intermediaries and took reference from other jurisdictions, including the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, and the transparency measures imposed on political advertising in France and Canada.
Today, digital advertising tools are used pervasively on social media platforms. Moreover, digital advertisements can be micro-targeted at specific groups using a variety of indicators. We believe that Singaporeans should know, and indeed that our citizens would want to know, who is behind the political advertisements that they see online.
The Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements will enhance the transparency of online political advertising, hold advertisers accountable and enable our citizens to make informed decisions on the information presented to them through political advertisements.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A few Supplementary Questions for the Minister. First, let me clarify that I have no issue with public disclosure of the originator of any online advertisements and so I agree totally that the public deserves to know who is behind the advertisement.
My concerns are a few. One, the Code of Practice is issued under POFMA which presumably means that the concern is fake news but would the Minister confirm really that this Code of Practice will apply to all online advertisements whether or not the contents contain any news alleged to be fake or not. That is the first question.
The second question, if you look at the Code of Practice at 6(c), this is the part where the companies have to maintain records for viewing by the POFMA Office. That means not for public viewing but by the POFMA Office and the details of the information include copy of the advertisement, name of the originator, the amount paid for the advertisement, description of the advertisements' intended target audience or viewers reached, number of views and so on. So, my question is if the advertisement has nothing fake or alleged to be fake in it, what is the interest of the POFMA Office to know these things.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for agreeing that disclosure is important. I think that is a good starting point. The question is then whether this disclosure requirement applies to all advertisements because it is a code under the POFMA Act and the answer is yes, it does. And I think if the Member read the POFMA Bill, she would know that there is an over-arching coverage to the Bill which includes amongst other things a need to have disclosure and, or requiring disclosure in advertising because this is an important part of the way communication is conducted today. In the event that there is falsehood in the advertisement, POFMA can be potentially be applied as well.
Then, I think the Member asked about under 6(c), there is a list of details that are required and why the POFMA Office needs these. This is a requirement imposed on the intermediaries to keep the information. It does not mean that POFMA Office has to have access to this information but the information must be available so that in the event that action is required, the relevant information is available.
I would add that the Member might want to look at practices, for example, by Facebook which today in fact has the same kind of disclosure requirement and they make them publicly available and they have a register on it, including almost everything that the Member just described. So, our objective is to ensure the information is captured because if you do not spell out clearly, and then, if you want it after the fact it may not be available which may then thwart the intent of the legislation.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of question time.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask a final Supplementary Question?
\t
\tMr Deputy Speaker: The last one. One. Go ahead.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Okay, one. I would like to ask the Minister despite his allusion to the fact that the POFMA Office will only go back if there is a suspected falsehood in the advertisement, the fact is that there is nothing in the Code that stops the POFMA Office from going back at any time to look at their record, even if the advertisement has no problems. And in that sense it is a good way to discover the election strategy of the political opponents of the ruling party.
\t
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member has a very active imagination, and I compliment her on it. But the fact of the matter is, if you think about today's, let us just take it in practical terms. Today, if you want to take out political advertising through, let us say, the English social media platforms. Google is not taking them; Twitter is not taking them; and it is a global policy not to take political ads; and Facebook is making full disclosure – more than the disclosure that we require through this Code.
So, I am not sure how this affords us greater intelligence. By the way, the intelligence will be available through Facebook's actions, for example. It is available for all to see. So, I think the Member might be barking up the wrong tree on this.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Transport.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 13-49 & 51-79 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 50 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (Act 6 of 2014)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) on behalf of the Minister for Transport; 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":"Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"with respect to shared mobility services and to make consequential and related amendments to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition), the Parking Places Act (Chapter 214 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (No. 40 of 2018)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) on behalf of the Minister for Transport; 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":"Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Active Mobility Act 2017 (Act 3 of 2017) to deal with personal mobility devices and other vehicles in relation to public paths and to make related amendments to the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) on behalf of the Minister for Transport; 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":"Geographical Indications (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014)\", (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":"Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to give effect to the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, opened for signature on 7 August 2019 in Singapore, and to make related 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":"Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act (Chapter 122A of the 1998 Revised Edition), and to make consequential amendments to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018)\", (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":"National Environment Agency (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the National Environment Agency Act (Chapter 195 of the 2003 Revised Edition)\", (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":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) 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\".
This Bill contains a number of amendments to several Acts. Most of the amendments are minor and technical in nature. One amendment, which I will seek to introduce at the Committee stage, is for the purpose of amending un-commenced legislation so that common law developments are not abolished once the legislation is brought into force. Let me take Members through the amendments.
First, Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 55(7)(b) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, or BMSMA for short, to correct a typographical error.
The existing section 55(7)(b) of the BMSMA provides that an individual cannot be appointed as a treasurer if he is already the chairperson or secretary; and the re-appointment would result in the individual holding office as a treasurer for three consecutive terms.
The two limbs of section 55(7)(b) should be disjunctive, and not conjunctive. Clause 2 of the Bill corrects this typographical error, by substituting the word \"and \" between the two limbs with the word \"or \".
Next, let me touch on the amendment to the Control of Plants Act.
The existing definition of \"prohibited pesticide\" in section 2 of the Act refers to the Tenth Schedule to the Food Regulations. However, the Food Regulations have since been revised, and the previous Tenth Schedule is now the Ninth Schedule.
Clause 3 of the Bill introduces an amendment to the Control of Plants Act to update the existing reference from the Tenth Schedule to the Ninth Schedule.
Third, let me come to the amendments to the National Arts Council Act and the Singapore Sports Council Act.
Clauses 4 and 7 of the Bill amend each respective Act such that it will no longer be mandatory to appoint a Deputy Chairman for the National Arts Council or the Singapore Sports Council. Instead, the Minister will have the flexibility to appoint a Deputy Chairman in appropriate situations. This flexibility will allow MCCY to better address the needs of these two statutory boards. A savings provision has been included to preserve the appointment of existing members and office-holders of the NAC and the SSC.
The Singapore Sports Council Act will also be amended to provide that the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Sports Council may be appointed as a member of the Council, in an ex officio capacity.
Next, let me turn to the amendments to the Penal Code.
Clause 5(1) of the Bill rectifies a potential technical drafting gap that could arise once section 8 of the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, or CLRA for short, comes into force. The amendment is for the sole purpose of removing this potential technical drafting gap, which I will explain to Members.
The existing section 40(2) of the Penal Code allows for the right of private defence to be raised as a defence to non-Penal Code offences. This right of private defence is currently set out in Chapter IV of the Penal Code.
The CLRA moves the provisions relating to the right of private defence to the new Chapter IVA of the Penal Code. Before this move can take effect, a new reference to \"Chapter IVA \" must be inserted into the existing section 40(2) of the Penal Code as a consequential amendment, to clarify that the provisions relating to the right of private defence will continue to apply for non-Penal Code offences.
This amendment is intended to preserve the status quo under the current Penal Code, so that the right to private defence can be raised as a defence for non-Penal Code offences.
I will also be proposing an amendment to the Bill during Committee stage, to amend section 26D of the Penal Code, which has not yet been brought into force. This amendment will ensure that when section 26D of the Penal Code is brought into force, there will be no change or deviation from the current law on wilful blindness, which was the intention when this House passed the CLRA.
Let me explain this to Members.
Section 26D of the Penal Code was introduced under the CLRA to codify the common law definition of knowledge. Its current form reflects the Penal Code Review Committee’s decision not to provide for the concept of \"wilful blindness\" as part of section 26D. The Committee had assessed the case law, and especially the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2011 in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 1156, and concluded that \"wilful blindness\" was simply an evidential tool used to infer that an accused had knowledge. The Committee concluded that there was thus no need to provide for the concept of \"wilful blindness\" in section 26D.
After the passage of the CLRA, however, the Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 254. The Court of Appeal held that \"wilful blindness\" is properly described as a mental state falling short of knowledge but which is legally deemed to be equivalent to knowledge. The Court described this as an \"extended conception of wilful blindness\", where \"it can almost be said\" that the accused persons knew the fact in question. This position represents the law today.
Therefore, if section 26D is brought into force as it was originally drafted, this would abolish the \"extended conception of wilful blindness\" under this case authority. This outcome would be contrary to the policy intention of section 26D, which is to codify the law, rather than to change or narrow the position under the law.
I will therefore be proposing an amendment to section 26D to preserve the position under the current law, which includes the \"extended conception of wilful blindness\". The amendment does not in any way prejudice accused persons, as it does not expand the common law.
For completeness, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should point out that the Court of Appeal had explained that there are three elements to the \"extended conception of wilful blindness\", and these are namely: one, the accused must have had a clear, grounded and targeted suspicion of the fact to which he is said to have been wilfully blind; two, there must have been reasonable means of inquiry available to the accused person, which, if taken, would have led him to discovery of the truth, at least in the context of the fact of possession; and three, the accused must have deliberately refused to pursue the reasonable means of inquiry so as to avoid having such negative legal consequences as might arise in connection with his knowing that fact.
The Court of Appeal limited this \"extended conception of wilful blindness\" to the context of knowledge for the purpose of proving possession under section 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act in this case, and recognised that it may be different with respect to knowledge of the nature of the drug under section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
However, Members would note that the proposed amendment to section 26D does not set out all these three elements. This is to allow for further development of the doctrine of \"wilful blindness\" by the common law. This is important because the Court of Appeal had suggested that the doctrine might apply slightly differently in practice, depending on what specific fact an accused is said to have been wilfully blind towards.
Next, let me turn to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises Act. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises Act, or SCORE Act for short, such that SCORE’s financial year will run from 1st April of each year to 31st March of the following year. This will align SCORE’s financial year with that of the Government and other MHA agencies.
Finally, as part of SCORE’s rebranding exercise, an amendment will be introduced to the SCORE Act to allow SCORE to perform its functions or carry out its duties under one or more business names specified by the Minister for Home Affairs by notification in the Gazette.
SCORE’s new name will be announced once the rebranding exercise is complete.
Sir, in conclusion, this Bill amends the six Acts in the manner that I have just described, including the amendment at the Committee stage, for the reasons I have outlined. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 5 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 5. Senior Minister of State for Law.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments, as I have outlined earlier, to clause 5, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Yes, please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the amendments* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, on the grounds on which I have outlined earlier in my opening speech.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 4, line 17: after \"5.\", to insert \" —(1)\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 4, after line 18: to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"(2) The Penal Code as amended by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 (Act 15 of 2019) is amended by inserting, immediately after the word 'intentionally' in section 26D(3), the words 'or with wilful blindness'.\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 6 and 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; 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":"Banking (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, in a constantly changing environment, our legislation needs to be reviewed regularly to keep pace with changes. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) therefore reviews the Banking Act from time to time to ensure that the regulatory framework for banks continues to foster safety and soundness in Singapore's banking system while making sure that requirements are not unduly burdensome.
In this round of amendments, MAS is changing two long-standing regulatory practices which have lost relevance over time.
First, the Bill will remove the requirement for banks to segregate their accounting books into the Domestic Banking Unit (DBU) and the Asian Currency Unit (ACU). This DBU-ACU divide has traditionally been used to distinguish the domestic and offshore operations of banks and merchant banks.
The second change, the Bill will rationalise and consolidate the regulation of merchant banks under the Banking Act and subject them to a licensing regime, under which they will be licensed as a class of financial institutions distinct from banks.
The Bill will also makes other amendments to enhance MAS' regulatory and supervisory powers to tackle new and emerging risks. These include expanding the grounds for revoking bank licences, and introducing new powers for MAS to impose requirements on outsourcing arrangements of banks and merchant banks.
I will now go through the main amendments in the Bill.
First, the removal of DBU-ACU divide. MAS has engaged the industry extensively on the proposed amendments and has taken into consideration their feedback on the implementation timeline.
The divide has existed since 1968. DBU and ACU have their origins in the creation of the Asian Dollar Market in Singapore. Like the Euro market located in London, the Asian Dollar Market served as a major source of funding for investment, trading and risk-management needs for the region and beyond.
The DBU is used to book domestic transactions, which are mostly denominated in Singapore dollar. The ACU is used to book offshore transactions and these are denominated in foreign currency.
MAS' regulatory requirements for banks and merchant banks in turn apply depending on whether the activity was booked in the DBU or the ACU.
Foreign banks that wished to participate in the Asian Dollar Market through their ACU had to meet high standards of admission and have reputable home regulators exercising oversight of their global operations. Those that also engaged in domestic businesses in Singapore through the DBU were then subject to additional prudential requirements from MAS, such as limits on large exposure and equity investment.
The DBU-ACU divide provided a way to safeguard domestic financial stability, without unduly impinging on the growth of offshore banking activities conducted out of Singapore.
It also provided a simple basis for awarding developmental incentives to encourage the growth of offshore banking activities out of Singapore.
While the DBU-ACU divide has served us well for decades, it is no longer relevant and will be removed because of the following reasons:
First, regulatory reforms since the Global Financial Crisis have put all banks around the world on a sounder footing. These developments mean that there is less need to distinguish between banks' offshore and domestic banking activities. All home regulators including Singapore will now require their banks to meet enhanced standards on a group-wide and global basis, which includes their branches and subsidiaries in Singapore. So, for example, new global rules have raised the amount and quality of capital with the introduction of a minimum 4.5% Common Equity Tier 1 capital adequacy ratio requirement, and have introduced minimum standards on the amount of liquidity buffers that banks need to hold. Global regulators have also agreed on a common framework to control large exposures to a single counterparty or a group of connected counterparties, limiting these exposures to 25% of Tier 1 capital.
Second, MAS has also enhanced its regulatory framework over time which has made the divide less meaningful. For example, banks in Singapore are required to meet liquidity requirements based on all-currency and Singapore dollar criteria, rather than DBU or ACU. MAS has also introduced the framework for domestic systemically important banks. Designated banks are subject to additional supervisory measures covering both their domestic and offshore businesses. So, a lot has changed in terms of the regulatory environment.
Globally, you have higher standards now after GFC that covers all banks, offshore as well as onshore. Secondly, within domestic regulation, standards have risen and also blurred the lines between what is DBU and what is traditionally ACU. And the third reason is MAS' developmental incentives have also broadened. In the past, MAS' incentives were focused on the ACU to encourage the growth of offshore banking activities out of Singapore.
Today, MAS assesses the developmental merits of an activity much more broadly, and no longer based on domestic versus offshore distinction. As a result, the DBU-ACU divide is no longer useful, and will impose a compliance burden on banks with little benefits to prudential soundness or systemic stability.
Therefore, the Bill will remove DBU-ACU divide and make corresponding consequential amendments to the relevant provisions in the Banking Act. These include amendments to – (a) rank uninsured non-bank deposits in insolvency by the currency denomination of the deposits, that is, Singapore dollar or a foreign currency, rather than by DBU or ACU; (b) apply asset maintenance ratios on Singapore dollar non-bank deposits, instead of DBU non-bank deposits; and (c) remove the regulatory limits imposed on the Singapore branches of foreign banks for equity investments, immovable property and large exposures. These limits are no longer necessary. MAS will rely on the consolidated supervision by these banks' home supervisors to manage such risks at the bank group level.
The second amendment is the consolidation of merchant banks' regulation into the Banking Act.
Merchant banks are a class of financial institutions approved under the MAS Act. Unlike banks, merchant banks are not allowed to accept deposits or raise funds in Singapore dollar, from the public.
Hence, when merchant banks were first introduced in Singapore in the 1970s, they engaged primarily in capital market services, such as corporate finance and fund management. They were therefore subject to a less stringent approval regime under the MAS Act.
Subsequently, we encouraged merchant banks to participate in the Asian Dollar Market, by allowing them to apply to operate an ACU for their foreign currency activities. They were then subject to certain requirements in the Banking Act.
Merchant banks have since been subject, therefore, to two pieces of legislation, namely, the MAS Act as an approved financial institution and then by the Banking Act by virtue of their ACU activities.
As we remove the DBU-ACU divide, we are taking the opportunity to have the Bill also streamline the regulatory framework for merchant banks by consolidating them under the Banking Act. The Bill will introduce a new Part VIIB in the Banking Act to set out a new licensing framework for merchant banks as a class of financial institutions distinct from banks.
The third amendment, the Bill will also introduce new or revised provisions to strengthen MAS' regulatory oversight of banks and merchant banks. As these rules apply to both banks and merchant banks, I will refer to them collectively as banks in this section. The key highlights are as follows:
First, expand grounds for revocation of bank licence. In line with the international regulatory standards and practice, MAS has the power to revoke bank licences under certain circumstances, such as when a bank – (a) is carrying on its business in a manner likely to be detrimental to the interests of the depositors of the bank; (b) is contravening the provisions of the Banking Act; or (c) in the case of a foreign bank branch in Singapore, has had its licence in its home jurisdiction withdrawn by its parent supervisory authority.
As our banking landscape changes, new risks emerge, and our regulatory framework has to evolve to better manage these risks. As a result, it becomes necessary to expand the grounds for MAS to revoke a bank licence to better protect depositors, enhance MAS' enforcement powers over banks and uphold trust and confidence in our financial system.
So, the three new grounds are as follows.
First, contraventions of provisions of the MAS Act. The MAS Act contains important regulatory requirements such as those relating to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, of which non-compliance is regarded as a very severe breach of our regulatory requirements;
Two, in the case of a foreign-owned bank incorporated in Singapore, when the parent bank's licence is withdrawn by the parent supervisory authority. This is in recognition that foreign banks are increasingly operating in Singapore through subsidiaries instead of just branches. It mirrors the current power MAS has over foreign bank branches today.
Three, when MAS regards that it is in the public interest to do so. This is a ground that is currently available for revocation for most other financial institutions regulated by MAS, but not for banks. This additional ground is also in line with practices in other international jurisdictions such as Australia and Hong Kong.
Next, the Bill enhances MAS’ oversight of certain services such as outsourcing services obtained by banks.
When banks enter into outsourcing arrangements, MAS expects the bank to maintain the same risk management standards as if the services were performed by the bank itself. This includes similar standards and practices in ensuring customer information is safeguarded.
The Bill will enhance MAS' oversight over outsourcing arrangements by introducing a new section 47A in the Banking Act. The new section will empower MAS to impose on such arrangements, risk-proportionate, legally binding requirements, such as requiring a bank to include in its agreements with the service providers: the right of MAS to audit the service provider; the obligations of the service providers to protect the customer information against unauthorised disclosure, retention or use; and the bank’s right to terminate the arrangement under specified circumstances.
MAS has considered the practices in other leading jurisdictions in setting out these requirements.
These powers are practised in Australia and the EU. They are timely in light of the increased prevalence and complexity of banks' outsourcing arrangements today.
The Bill will provide for the powers and MAS will be consulting on the detailed regulations in due course.
Finally, the Bill will also introduce several other amendments to support MAS’ regulation and supervision of banks. These are:
First, in line with global regulatory standards, some of the key prudential requirements imposed by MAS include requiring banks to have a stable and sustainable funding structure for their activities and to address risks arising from related party transactions. These requirements are currently issued under a general provision in the Banking Act, unlike other important requirements, such as minimum capital requirements which are issued under specific Banking Act provisions. The Bill will formalise MAS' current powers and raise the signature of these two requirements.
Second, banks in Singapore are permitted to disclose customer information only in certain specified circumstances, such as when the customer has provided written consent, pursuant to Court orders, or to the bank's external auditor.
Banks are audited by external auditors but external auditors are, in turn, assessed by ACRA, which evaluates the quality of the audits performed by the auditors. So, ACRA is the auditor of the auditor. So, we are amending the Third Schedule of the Banking Act to allow ACRA access to complete bank audit working papers, which includes customer information, and that would enable ACRA to review the auditors more effectively. For example, ACRA can evaluate if the external auditor has assessed the credit quality of customers and the adequacy of provisions appropriately, against market information. This amendment will help raise the quality of bank audits and support MAS' supervision of banks. ACRA officers with access to the information will be subject to confidentiality requirements.
Sir, this Bill will rationalise and streamline the regulatory frameworks for banks and merchant banks, and strengthen MAS' regulation and supervisory oversight of both classes of financial institutions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments, which update the Banking Act, have been through two rounds of public consultation. The MAS has also published a detailed response to the feedback received on the proposed amendments. I commend the transparency and rigour of MAS' consultation process. I am heartened that, increasingly, we not just see public consultations on Bills but also detailed responses on the feedback we received.
Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill and also offer some suggestions.
The amended section 20(1) will expand the grounds for revocation of bank licences, allowing MAS to revoke a bank licence if it \"is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so\" under section 20(1)(d).
In response to a question on when MAS would consider it to be in the public interest to revoke a bank licence, MAS responded that it will consider the factors set out in the MAS' Enforcement Monograph. This includes whether there was ineffective governance, widespread control failures, pervasive non-compliance, gross misconduct, or serious breaches of applicable law.
The Enforcement Monograph is a guidance document that is not strictly legally binding. Revoking a bank licence is a very drastic step and, yet, the considerations stated in the Enforcement Monograph are not legally binding. Why?
Can the Minister also confirm it will only revoke bank licences on the ground of \"public interest\" for the most serious cases of ineffective governance, widespread control failures, pervasive non-compliance, gross misconduct, or serious breaches of applicable law, as stated in the Enforcement Monograph?
Next, under the new section 57FD, key appointment holders and 20% controllers of credit card or charge card licensees are to be approved as \"fit and proper\" by MAS before being officially appointed. The definition of \"fit and proper\" is set out in MAS' Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria.
Can the Minister clarify why, compared to section 15B where key appointment holders, 20% controllers, 12% controllers and indirect controllers of designated financial institutions have to be approved by MAS but under the new section 57FD, only key appointment holders and 20% controllers of credit card or charge card licensees have to be approved by MAS?
Can the Minister also share how actively the \"fit and proper\" requirement is enforced? Have there been individuals that have been denied appointment or removed from their roles for not meeting the \"fit and proper\" requirement?
Lastly, the new section 27(2) sets out a list of related parties that are subject to MAS' requirements on related-party transactions. This includes at section 27(2)(e) \"any person in a senior management group of the bank\".
MAS has also stated that \"senior management group\" will include \"family members of the executive officers\". In response to a question on the definition of an \"executive officer\", MAS replied that the definition of an \"executive officer\" is not meant to be descriptive. Instead, MAS expects banks to assess and identify their executive officers. It also stated that it is good practice for the bank to document how it determines the list of \"executive officer(s)\".
MAS is seeking to increase its oversight of banks; yet, the strengthened regulations could very easily be circumvented by the banks' own definition of \"executive officer\". It seems strange that we have gone to the effort of strengthening our regulations only to leave the final necessary step in the hands of the banks.
Will MAS consider requiring in subsidiary legislation that banks document how they determine the list of \"executive officer(s)\" given that it is currently already recommended that banks do so but only as good practice? This would be preferable to leaving it open-ended and subjected to interpretation.
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill that seeks to remove the two-tiered banking system that has been in place since 1968. It also seeks to consolidate the licensing and regulation of merchant banks under the Banking Act, in an effort to update and strengthen our regulatory framework in light of international and industry developments.
Yet, there is one significant and glaring development that we must talk about in updating the Banking Act. As we speak, ongoing wildfires in Australia have burnt through five million hectares of land costing A$240 million in claims so far. Severe floods have ravaged much of Jakarta last week. With the growing prevalence of the climate-induced events in the world and specifically to our region, there is an urgent need to safeguard financial assets, yet be innovative in legislative interventions to reduce future risks to Singapore's banking industry.
Do not take my word for it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Network for Greening our Financial System (NGFS) formed by a group of central bankers and supervisors worldwide, noted that climate risks, I quote, \"could be larger, more widespread and diverse\" than any other structural change. Given that it will come from all sectors and geographies, it is clear our financial system is exposed. Regulatory frameworks around climate-related risk management will allow for a systematic adoption of practices for the accelerated transition towards a sustainable banking sector. As a founding member of the NGFS, MAS must lead and contribute in this area.
In his speech on \"Green Finance for a Sustainable World\" last November, Minister Ong highlighted three key areas to build a financial industry resilient to climate change risks, namely: measuring, mitigating and disclosing these risks. I agree broadly with the identified areas but the devil, as we know, is in the details.
First, measuring risks. We know that bookkeeping carbon emissions produced by assets on a bank' balance sheet is always a challenge. However, here in Singapore, existing avenues, such as the Carbon Pricing Act, already allows banks to obtain carbon emissions-related data and estimate their borrower's exposure to carbon regulation and transition risks. Facilities with higher than 2,000 tCO2 emissions report their emissions to NEA. Such data should be used for carbon risk assessment and be mandated for reporting by SGX-listed companies. Jurisdictions like Hong Kong already require this. We should institute this so that our banks have clear and comparable data to measure the risk exposure of their public-listed clients.
As a former corporate banker myself, I would even push for data collection beyond just carbon emissions data. Our bankers must also obtain information from borrowers to understand where business value could be at risk. The 2011 floods in Thailand are a critical example of how risks could be embedded in the supply chain and may not be obvious through a carbon data metric. Operating loss from the floods incurred by Toyota and Honda increased by 37% and 55% respectively in 2011.
Metric selection is also critical. Climate change risk has a long-tail and is widespread. Credit risk metrics have historically been insufficient in addressing tail-end risks. Metrics that simply average potential risk across multiple years underestimate potential impact. Solely focusing on high-carbon assets is a good first step but still insufficient. Stress testing portfolio risk is also an important part of risk management. Stress test scenarios should be centrally-developed, not individually designed, to ensure that there is alignment to the Paris Agreement target and geographically-relevant worst-case scenarios.
Second, mitigating risks. We must applaud Singapore banks for moving quickly in announcing policies to cease financing new coal power plants. Two out of three banks will not be increasing their exposure to the transition risks of this industry. As more large banks and insurers decide to divest from coal power development, banks that continue to consider such projects are exposed to increasing risks that will be harder to mitigate.
While The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) has Responsible Banking Guidelines and a haze toolkit, these are voluntary standards. Bangladesh already has a mandatory environmental risk management guideline for Bangladeshi banks. In terms of international alignment, we note that only one Singapore bank is a signatory to the Equator Principles and none has signed the UN Principles of Responsible Banking. Mandatory standards in Singapore and international alignment are key signposts that our banking industry is robustly equipped to mitigate environmental, social and governance risks, particularly around climate change.
Lastly, disclosing climate risks. As this Bill considers the publication requirements of banks under clause 12, we should also consider the disclosure of climate risks. The Governor of the Bank of England said that \"to bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial decision making, climate disclosure must become comprehensive\". Investors are demanding more. Commonwealth Bank of Australia was sued for misleading investors by failing to disclose climate-related risks in its 2016 annual report .
According to WWF Singapore's recent review of ASEAN Sustainable Banking Regulations, only Malaysia has firmly expected banks to assess, mitigate and publicly disclose their portfolio-level exposure to material environmental and social (E&S) risks, including climate risk and information on transactions assessed/escalated/approved with conditions. Singapore should be requiring our banks to do the same. Accounting for climate risks is hard work, but there are existing networks like the Pilot Project by UN Environment Programme Finance Institute (UNEP-FI) on Implementing Recommendations by the Taskforce for Climate Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as well as the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) that can support our banks in this process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, given the above, I would like to seek the Minister's clarifications on the following.
Will we consider a timeline for mandatory TCFD disclosures for financial industries as well as listed companies, since voluntary regimes are typically not useful in generating comparable and usable industry-wide information? Is the Minister looking at a supervisory engagement roadmap on climate change? Will MAS support the banking industry with centrally-developed stress test scenarios that incorporate the views of experts and civil society? Will the Minister consider leading an ASEAN taskforce that embarks on a bottom-up modelling of business risks from climate change across our region, including the supply chain impacts across borders?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the UNEP and DBS released a report called \"Green Finance Opportunities in ASEAN\" in 2017. Green investments needed in the ASEAN region amounted to US$3 trillion between 2016 and 2030. Beyond this being a business opportunity, accelerating the growth of green finance reduces instability to our financial system in the future. As NGFS has noted, \"the impacts of climate change could be irreversible, if not mitigated.\"’
According to their 2018 Sustainability Report, DBS provided S$2.4 billion of sustainable funding. While our banks have been highly positive on the green finance opportunities, there is still much we can do.
A number of countries have established national green banks to provide initial funding to develop clean energy, transport, energy-efficient markets. The Green Bank Network, based out of Washington DC, currently consists of 15 national, state or city level member banks that aim to catalyse green financing. This includes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) of Australia. The UK government seeded the UK Green Investment Bank in 2012 that continues to deploy green capital successfully.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we debate today on improving and strengthening our banking industry with this Bill, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on our plans for national green banks and green financing, including the standards for green loans, much like we have in ASEAN Green Bond Standards which recommends disclosure and external review of impact.
The financial industry has been all abuzz with the opening of five digital bank licences by MAS. In our licensing considerations for these digital banks, we have made provisions to enable new players that have regional reach and diverse customer bases. We must, therefore, incentivise and harness the innovative essence of these new digital partnerships not only to encourage the collection and use of new data but also to create new sustainable financing solutions.
For example, ING Real Estate Finance and a partner launched ING REF Sustainable App in 2016. Within two years, it helped identify €35 million of potential energy cost savings within its real estate portfolio. Can the Minister please clarify if sustainable finance will be a key component of our digital bank roadmap for Singapore?
Prime Minister Lee noted in his recent New Year message that \"A Singapore turned inward cannot survive\". Indeed, we are and always will be an open economy. Financial services directly contribute a significant 13% to our GDP in 2018 or S$64 billion. Its indirect contribution fuelling the rest of the economy is clearly way more.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the eminent economist Prof Hyman Minsky, famous for predicting the subprime crisis and the \"Minsky Moment\", noted that financial crises are caused by hidden risks building up on balance sheets. Given what we now know of climate change and its impact from science and data, we absolutely cannot let such risks build up with little or no visibility.
Large institutional investors like Aviva Investors share the same view. Its Chief Investment Officer said recently, quote \"understanding climate risk isn’t an exercise in trying to save species and habitats – this is also about protecting people's retirement income and their investments.\"
Smart regulation has allowed MAS to be nimble and adaptable as a world-class regulator and central bank. MAS is also known for its \"regulatory sandbox\" approach, or sometimes described as \"regulation running alongside innovation\". I am aware MAS is planning a public consultation exercise in 2020 – earlier than later, I hope – to inform the upcoming, finally, guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment.
We must act with the fierce urgency of now. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on what I have outlined above and his assurance that MAS' regulatory roadmap is running alongside, if not ahead of, this climate crisis so as to build a climate-change resilient, robust and responsible financial industry for Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, let me now address the questions of the Members.
Mr Louis Ng asked why the considerations for revoking a bank licence on the ground of public interest are not set out in legislation, given that revocation is a drastic step. Mr Ng also sought confirmation that MAS would only revoke bank licences on the ground of public interest for the most serious of cases.
Revoking a bank licence is, indeed, a very drastic measure. MAS is very cognisant that it is the most severe regulatory action that it can take with respect to a bank. MAS, therefore, has a strong and inherent incentive to use this power judiciously, as a licence revocation means the bank will have to stop business, affecting its customers as well as other stakeholders, such as shareholders and employees. If it is not done right, or not based on strong grounds, it will affect our credibility and reputation as a global financial centre.
Therefore, as far as possible, MAS has set out specific grounds on which it may revoke a bank licence in the Banking Act. These include situations where a bank has contravened the Banking Act or is carrying on its business in a manner likely to be detrimental to its depositors' interest.
In all cases, MAS will consider the circumstances for licence revocations set out in the Enforcement Monograph, which provides guidance to the industry on the underlying principles guiding MAS' use of enforcement actions.
That said, as the banking sector will continue to evolve, it is not possible to anticipate all circumstances under which MAS may revoke a bank licence. The ground of public interest thus provides MAS with the option to take timely action in unanticipated circumstances to protect the public interest.
Let me cite an example. In 2016, MAS withdrew the merchant bank status of BSI Bank and Falcon Bank – both were merchant banks – because both banks had committed serious breaches of MAS' anti-money laundering requirements and there was gross misconduct by their management and staff.
MAS also considered at that time the wider public interest in closing these banks in order to safeguard Singapore's reputation as a clean and trusted financial centre and to send a strong deterrent message that such breaches and misconduct will not be tolerated. Those powers were provided under the MAS Act in relation to merchant banks. This latest amendment to the Banking Act will extend the use of the public interest ground to the revocation of bank licences.
I have mentioned earlier that the public interest ground is in line with practices in other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Hong Kong. This ground is also not unique to banks, as MAS already has the same revocation power on public interest grounds for other classes of financial institutions it currently supervises. Mr Ng can be assured that the proposed public interest ground for bank licence revocations will be reserved for the most serious of cases.
The next set of questions relates to the powers for MAS to approve 20% controllers and key appointment holders, and to remove key appointment holders, of credit card or charge card licensees. Mr Louis Ng asked why the approval requirements for credit card or charge card licensees differ from that of banks.
MAS calibrates its licensing and regulatory requirements to be commensurate with the risks posed by financial institutions. Credit and charge card licensees conduct limited business activities, while banks conduct a wider range of activities, such as deposit-taking and lending, in addition to credit and charge card issuance. Hence, the thresholds for MAS to approve controllers and key appointment holders are tiered accordingly.
Mr Ng also requested more information on the enforcement of the \"fit and proper\" requirement by MAS. The requirement is an essential component of MAS' regulatory framework. Applicants must declare their fitness and propriety when they apply for MAS' approval. MAS conducts checks on these individuals before approval and may take action to remove such individuals where necessary. So, it is actually actively being implemented.
Mr Louis Ng also asked whether MAS would consider prescribing a list of executive officers in subsidiary legislation to prevent banks from circumventing MAS' requirements on related party transactions. As Mr Ng has rightly pointed out, an executive officer of a bank in Singapore and his or her family members would be considered as related parties of the bank. \"Executive officer\", in relation to a bank, is already defined in section 2 of the Banking Act. This qualitative definition is familiar to the industry. The term is also used in other sections of the Banking Act as well as other MAS-administered legislation.
This approach is preferred to a listing of job titles or designations as it is able to better capture persons holding managerial roles and responsibilities and is less likely to be affected by differences in nomenclature among banks or changes in specific designations over time. In fact, if we are too definitive in spelling out all the designations, our worry is, it makes it even easier to circumvent. It is much better that the industry, which already understand the definition, live by the definition and the spirit of the definition. MAS assesses that the risk of circumvention now, based on the banking industry's understanding of the definition, is low, given the common understanding of the scope of an executive officer.
Lastly, Ms Anthea Ong raised a few points on building a sustainable and resilient financial system, such as developing standards for green finance and leveraging technology and innovation to enhance sustainable finance efforts.
These issues are actually not within the scope of this Bill. I will, nevertheless, respond briefly to them in this session. I will be happy to address them in greater detail on other suitable occasions, such through a Parliamentary Question or the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.
MAS announced its green finance action plan in November 2019, at a FinTech festival with big international audience. Singapore's financial sector can play a decisive role in promoting sustainable development opportunities and powering this transition, especially in Asia. Finance, innovation and technology together can be a force for good, to overcome challenges and address climate change. To be a leading centre for Green Finance in Asia and globally, MAS is taking steps that are very in line with what Ms Anthea Ong has spoken about, namely: first, build financial system resilience to environmental risk; and second, develop green finance solutions and markets.
To answer Ms Ong's question, we are not looking to specifically set up national green banks which are probably not necessary. But green financing has the potential to be a mainstream activity of all traditional banks; and
Third, leverage innovation and technology.
For a start, MAS will be issuing environmental risk management guidelines to set out its supervisory expectations on governance, risk management and disclosure across the banking, insurance and asset management sectors. The consultation paper, as alluded by Ms Anthea Ong, will be published in the first quarter of 2020. So, yes, we are embarking on an engagement process with the industry and the public starting with this consultation paper in the first quarter of this year.
MAS is also working to anchor green expertise in Singapore, such as Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) researchers and investment analysts from asset managers, through mandates under the Green Investment Programme, as well as professional service providers that conduct ESG rating, assurance and certification of green financing solutions, through various grants. MAS will promote the adoption of green financing solutions, such as green bonds and loans, through all these measures.
In assessing the digital bank applications, MAS will be looking at how they can contribute to sustainable financing, which is a key growth strategy for Singapore's financial sector. Looking at the potential tenderers, I am sure many of them will also be eager to portray and present their green credentials to MAS.
These initiatives will support the mobilisation of resources to activities that promote sustainable development in Asia and globally.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating the purpose of this Bill, which is to rationalise and streamline the regulatory frameworks for banks and merchant banks, and strengthen MAS' regulatory and supervisory oversight of both classes of financial institutions.
With that, Mr Deputy 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 Ong Ye Kung]. (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":"Healthcare Services Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the objectives of the Healthcare Services Bill are to safeguard the safety, welfare and continuity of care for patients. These are all matters of paramount importance. Today, premises which are used as hospitals, medical clinics, nursing homes and clinical laboratories in Singapore are licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA). The PHMCA was enacted in 1980 and sets minimum standards for licensees' premises, personnel as well as processes to safeguard patient safety and welfare. The PHMCA was last amended in 1999 and the regulatory framework needs to be refreshed and updated to address today's rapidly-evolving healthcare landscape.
While Singapore has one of the longest life expectancies in the world, there has also been a rise in the number of unhealthy years lived because of ageing-related illnesses and chronic diseases. Hence, to provide more appropriate and accessible healthcare to our ageing population, there needs to be a shift in care models to align ourselves with one of my Ministry's \"Three Beyonds\" – \"Beyond Hospital to Community\". There will, therefore, be more vertical and also horizontal integration across traditional healthcare settings. For example, nursing homes may now be able to also provide dementia care and geriatric clinical services within one location. And that is for the better, because it puts the related and complementary services under one umbrella.
These integrated models of care are difficult to license under the present premises-based licensing framework of the PHMCA, and therefore, the licensing framework will need to be improved to accommodate such new and also evolving models of care.
Secondly, patients, especially the aged sick, may want more convenience and cost savings in their clinical care for some minor ailments or follow-ups to their chronic conditions. This may be possible today when hospitals or medical clinics provide telemedicine or mobile medical services, on top of their premises-based care. In other words, they provide premises-based care and, on top of that, also provide telemedicine or other mobile medical services. There is, therefore, a need to move beyond just regulating premises or to be premises-based in the regulation framework, to also be able to look at regulating services delivered beyond the premises, if we want to ensure the safe delivery of such services into the community or done remotely, as I have mentioned, through telemedicine.
At the same time, we also need to ensure that the welfare and well-being of vulnerable individuals or patients can be enhanced, and that the elderly and the frail patients are well looked after. This will include the assurance for the continuity of care for patients, and the introduction of additional safeguards to prevent abuse.
Finally, there are new scientific and technological advancements leading to the emergence of innovative diagnostic methods and also therapies, such as cell, tissue and gene therapy, clinical genomic testing, and proton beam therapy. There is, therefore, a need to have an enhanced governance structure to more closely monitor and also track the delivery of such newer services, including looking after the appropriateness of care and the information that is being provided to patients.
Taking into consideration the above issues with the changes that are needed in the evolving healthcare landscape that I have mentioned, it is timely that the Ministry is now introducing the Healthcare Services Bill to replace the existing PHMCA, so as to have better levers to regulate the safety and care provided by the existing, and also the evolving and newer, healthcare services providers. This Bill will, therefore, seek to achieve a few objectives.
First, to provide greater flexibility and modularity in licensing, to enable the development of new care models that centre around patient needs. Second, to better protect patient safety and welfare by strengthening licensee governance and also introducing additional safeguards. Third, to strengthen continuity of care and ensure more appropriate and robust licensee accountability.
In putting up this Bill, MOH conducted extensive public and stakeholder consultations between 2017 and 2018, and also studied developments in the local landscape, as well as the regulatory regime that exists in several overseas jurisdictions. We received a lot of useful feedback from licensees, patients and the public, and some of these ideas have been incorporated into the new regulatory regime that now finds its way into this Bill.
Some examples include the bundling of specific licences for GPs to accommodate their core work, as well as allowing licensees to co-locate with certain registered healthcare professionals to facilitate the provision of complementary healthcare services. I would like to take the opportunity here to thank all those who contributed actively throughout this process in the consultation exercises, helping with ideas, with suggestions to jointly shape and create the new healthcare services regime.
Sir, let me now go through the key features of the Healthcare Services Bill and highlight the areas of changes from the existing legislation.
First, let me start with the scope. We will clearly define the scope of the regulatory regime and the move towards a services-based licensing framework.
The scope of the Healthcare Services Bill extends to the regulation of any service by direct providers of \"healthcare services\" as defined in clause 3. This includes services that diagnose, assess or treat diseases or illnesses; provide nursing or rehabilitative care; or assess the health of individuals. Services that will require licensing will be set out in the First Schedule.
Licensable services are largely similar to the services already provided by the premises-based licensing regime currently under the PHMCA. In addition, however, the Bill will introduce licensing requirements for certain non-premises-based services, such as telemedicine, emergency ambulances, and new specialised services, such as cell, tissue and gene therapy and clinical genetic testing.
While the scope of the Bill is broad enough to include standalone allied health, nursing, traditional medicine and also complementary and alternative medicine services, we will not, at this stage, be licensing these services for the time being. However, my Ministry will continue to closely assess these services, particularly from the perspective of risks to patient safety and welfare. If sufficiently serious concerns arise, these services can then be licensed by including them in the First Schedule. In that case, the same regulatory regime as is now set out in the Bill would then apply.
Government entities, such as SAF medical centres and SCDF ambulances, are exempted from this Bill. They are bound by internal Government standards and rules, which are generally equivalent to or more stringent than the current licensing standards. There are also staff disciplinary frameworks to deal with errant personnel in the case of such Government services.
The Bill's scope also does not include beauty and wellness services as these services do not diagnose, assess or treat diseases or illnesses and are of minimal patient safety risk. Entities that do not provide direct patient care, such as Third Party Agents referring patients to healthcare services licensees for their care, will also not be regulated as licensees under the Bill. But this would be an area that we will review, and at the appropriate juncture, if necessary, can always include into the Bill through suitable amendments.
As we transit into the Healthcare Services Act, we will move away from the current premises-based licensing framework, which, as I have mentioned at the outset, is a lot more rigid and inflexible, confined only to one licence per premises and also limited to those in physical brick-and-mortar premises. Hence, Part 2 of the Bill introduces a services-based licensing framework which is more flexible and also more modular.
This approach will better suit the business models of providers, who would just have to take the licences based on the services that they wish to provide. For example, a provider can decide if he wants to hold a suite of service licences for a nursing home, a clinic, telemedicine and health screening.
Secondly, as we move towards regulating new services and care models, we will enhance institutional governance and institute additional safeguards to ensure patient safety and welfare. That, ultimately, is the raison d'etre behind this Bill. The strengthening starts first from our licensing regime and under clause 11 of the Bill, the Director of Medical Services, who is defined as the \"Director\", will be required to consider multiple factors in deciding whether to grant or to renew a licence. This includes, but is not limited to, whether the applicant is a suitable person and his ability to provide clinically, as well as ethically, appropriate patient care.
Other factors that may also be considered include the applicant's prior conduct when participating in various public schemes, such as the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), MediSave or MediShield Life schemes, as well as the track record of compliance with regulatory requirements under the Bill and also under other laws relevant to the provision of healthcare services in a safe and appropriate manner.
Clause 23 also requires the key appointment holders of a licensee, such as its governing board or key management, to be suitable persons. Key appointment holders must possess the appropriate skills and competencies to carry out effective governance functions.
While the licensee is ultimately accountable for overall compliance to the Bill, clause 24 requires the licensee to appoint a suitably qualified individual as the licensee's Principal Officer – defined as the PO – or the Clinical Governance Officer (CGO), to strengthen accountability as well as clinical oversight at the different layers of its management.
However, even as powers and responsibilities are set out under the different layers of governance under the Bill, healthcare professionals will be given autonomy to exercise discretion in the execution of clinical decisions for patient care, to serve the patient's best interests and also in accordance with professional ethics and considerations. We will, therefore, introduce provisions in the regulations for due consideration to be given to the views of practising professionals for clinical care matters.
Clause 25 of the new Bill will also require certain licensees providing higher patient risk services, for example acute hospitals, to set up specific internal committees to monitor the quality as well as the ethics of the services. These specified committees include the Quality Assurance Committees, the Service Review Committees and the Clinical Ethics Committees, each dealing with different aspects of clinical, ethical and quality considerations. Procedural details for these committees will be carried in the Regulations.
Stakeholders had raised concerns on whether these governance requirements impose additional burden on smaller licensees, such as the GP clinics. This is a relevant concern, but this will not be the case, as the requirements that are set out are appropriately calibrated to the scale and also to the complexity of the licensee's operations.
In addition to setting up proper governance structures and imposing standards on key appointment holders, we also need to ensure that the employment of healthcare workers – those who work or who are employed by the licensees and who deal with patients on a day-to-day basis – are also properly managed and there is appropriate oversight. This, I would say, is especially so when catering to the vulnerable patient groups. Such patients may be at risk of abuse, particularly when they require substantially long stays at a healthcare institution.
Therefore, this Bill introduces safeguards in this area at clause 28 to impose employment restrictions on certain licensees. Let me explain that. Such licensees will be prohibited from employing any individual convicted of prescribed egregious criminal offences involving violent acts, and must provide the information of all prospective staff to the Ministry for screening with the Criminal Records Office. We understand that we should not treat all past offenders in the same way, or to assume that they are automatically recalcitrant. Employers who wish to employ past offenders of prescribed offences in the appropriate case may apply to seek the approval of the Director, who will consider each such case on its own merits. I would add that this employment restriction is not new. It is similar in nature to the approach taken under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act.
Additionally, the employment restrictions will be limited only to settings where patients are at higher risk if they require, for instance, substantially long stays or are mentally and physically vulnerable. This would include long-term residential care services like nursing homes, inpatient palliative care services, and the Institute of Mental Health.
Next, the Bill will also introduce a number of measures to ensure that patients are well-informed and are aware and not misled by errant healthcare providers.
Clause 29 will enhance naming restrictions to provide better clarity to patients on the healthcare services provided. Hence, non-licensees will not be able to use names that create a misimpression of providing licensable healthcare services when they either are not or should not be doing so. Likewise, licensees will also be prohibited from using names of services that they are not licensed to provide.
Clause 30 will disallow unrelated, unlicensed services to co-locate with or within a licensed service, unless MOH approves. The intent behind this is to prevent or, as far as possible, mitigate public misperception that such unlicensed services, such as wellness and spa services, are either endorsed or licensed, because of their close physical proximity and association with the licensed healthcare services.
Clause 31 will strengthen the advertisement controls under the Bill to prevent non-licensees from advertising licensable healthcare services. Therefore, only licensees and authorised persons appointed by a licensee will be allowed to advertise licensable healthcare services and, in doing so, will have to comply with the prescribed requirements to prevent advertisements that are false, misleading, or laudatory and lead to a consumption of unwarranted treatments; and also those that cause a mismatch of expectation between the advertisement and what the public sees.
Besides having levers to regulate the licensees, the Bill will also enhance existing powers of the Ministry, carried at clause 36, to gather data for patient safety, welfare and public interest purposes.
Clause 37 will then empower the Ministry to publish information acquired in the course of administering this Act. In this regard, we intend to publish a list of non-compliant licensees and unlicensed providers, and we hope that by making such information available to the public, we can help patients make more informed decisions.
Thirdly, we will put in place rules and powers to ensure the safety and continuity of care for patients through the introduction of \"step-in\" arrangements.
Part 4 of the Bill will specifically introduce provisions to achieve this by empowering MOH to directly \"step-in\" or appoint a \"step-in\" operator to take over the operations of a licensee who is in serious financial trouble, or is contravening or is not complying with the provisions of the Bill, or is otherwise carrying on its operations in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of patients or customers, but nonetheless wants to or persists in carrying on these operations. The primary purpose is to protect patients’ safety and welfare against a recalcitrant provider endangering patients and also preventing an abrupt discontinuation of residential healthcare services.
For this reason, the \"step-in\" provisions will only apply to a list of designated residential healthcare entities that will be prescribed in the regulations. These will include nursing homes, hospitals and inpatient palliative care centres. \"Stepping-in\" will also be a temporary arrangement until the service has been stabilised, and the patient's safety and welfare are no longer compromised.
I would add that \"step-in\" powers are not unique to this Bill. Other regulatory frameworks for essential services, such as those in the financial services or transport sector or the like, also provide similar powers. And I would argue that the case for this is perhaps even more compelling in the healthcare setting given that lives as well as the continued delivery of care to patients, whose welfare and interests are at risk, remain at stake.
The Bill will also ensure licensee accountability by broadening our range of regulatory sanctions and strengthening our regulatory toolkit.
Clause 39 provides powers to stop the provision of services that are detrimental to patients. While such powers presently exist in the PHMCA, they are limited to cases where the service endangers the health, safety and welfare of patients. Under the Bill, we will also be able to stop services that go against the rules of professional conduct and ethics. So, for instance, if a disciplinary tribunal under the Singapore Medical Council has found that a particular treatment should not be provided for specific indications as there is insufficient clinical basis or evidence, MOH can issue stop orders for all licensees to cease any provision of such treatment accordingly.
To exercise oversight and control over non-compliant licensees, we will have a wider range of regulatory actions and higher penalties for offences in the Bill. Clause 20, therefore, allows various regulatory actions to be taken against non-compliant licensees, as opposed to the PHMCA, where we could only revoke or suspend the licence. So, there is a broader range in the toolkit which allows for more flexible arrangements, given the nature of each particular situation. Penalties for offences have also been updated and aligned with comparable offences under other more recently enacted legislation.
Next, let me turn to the proposed implementation of this new regime. MOH intends to take a phased approach on the Bill, targeted to be from early 2021 through to the end of 2022 – a phased, graduated implementation of the regime under this Bill. Regulation of licensable healthcare services will be effected, therefore, in three phases, so that providers will be given sufficient time to understand the regulations and also, in some cases, to ramp up its own resources to meet the relevant regulatory requirements. The first phase will bring PHMCA laboratory licensees under the Bill’s regulatory regime. The second phase will involve medical clinics and other ambulatory care services, as well as ambulance services. In the third and final phase, hospital and long-term care services, as well as other new licensable services, will be regulated by the Bill.
MOH will assist all licensees and ensure a seamless transition to the new licensing regime. We will also continue streamlining our regulatory processes to reduce the burden on licensees as far as possible.
Sir, let me conclude by making the point that in implementing the regulatory regime under this Bill, MOH will continue to engage licensees in the same manner as it had done in coming up with the rubric under this Bill to ensure that they will have a seamless transition from the PHMCA into the regime under this Bill. We strive to enable new and innovative healthcare service models as well as the use of technology to develop within safe and reasonable boundaries.
The Healthcare Services Bill will allow my Ministry to evolve its regulatory framework in tandem with the changing needs of healthcare demands and also the changing healthcare landscape. Together, we can achieve the key objectives of protecting patient safety, welfare and also assuring continuity of care. My Ministry remains committed to ensure that healthcare in Singapore is safe, of good quality, affordable, as well as accessible.
As we continue to build on our regulatory transformation journey to enable new healthcare services and care models to support our ageing population, I would like to urge the Members of this House to give your support to the Healthcare Services Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, which is timely, given the vast changes in the way that healthcare is organised and delivered.
As the Senior Minister of State has just elaborated, a key feature of this Bill is the change from the current fixed-type licensing framework, which is based on physical premises, to a framework which is modular, with the flexibility of customisation based on the services provided. This is a major and necessary transition, which will accommodate newer healthcare services and also healthcare delivery modes. Not only will this new licensing structure enable the Ministry to better regulate and govern our growing healthcare sector, it also facilitates innovation while offering patients better protection.
As with any major transition, the process of porting over will involve some work for current licensees. So, my first question is to ask if the Ministry would share how it will help existing medical service providers, especially the smaller players, with this conversion to the new licensing regime. Will the overall licensing revenue be increased with the enactment of the Bill? And how are we helping our licensees to meet the expected costs?
Is there also a significant difference between the regulatory costs to MOH and the licence fees and, if so, who is paying for this gap? I seek the Minister’s assurance that costs for healthcare providers will not be increased inordinately such that patients are the ones that end up paying for this shortfall. And if for some reason under the new structure, certain licensees’ fees are, in fact, reduced, would the Ministry consider measures which will encourage such savings to be passed on to patients?
In regard to co-location of services, I would like to seek clarifications over what determines whether co-location with non-licensees will be permitted. With the continuing push from healthcare to health, I think the demarcation between health and wellness services continues to be blurred. And what about beauty and aesthetic services?
Since we are talking about new paradigms in healthcare, what about digital providers? For example, if you provide a telemedicine platform, how do we regulate how these services co-exist in the digital sphere?
Next, I would also like to ask how the Ministry intends to deal with certain service entities, such as ambulances and also standalone telemedicine providers, under this new regulatory framework.
I had previously voiced my concerns about the costs and level of expertise of private ambulance providers. So, will there be stipulations regarding the construct and equipment on board medical transport and emergency ambulance vehicles? How about the training qualifications and expertise of the personnel providing such services? Will the Government regulate the range of their charges and also their fees? Users of such services, we note, are usually in a vulnerable state and are in an unfavourable position to research, compare and negotiate fees.
As for telemedicine, it is a service which can be provided from anywhere to anyone so long as there is an Internet connection. This remote medical service will attract many new providers and big IT conglomerates to this sector. How will the Ministry ensure the quality and integrity of such services so as to safeguard our patients? There are so many aspects which have to be considered and made clear. For example, under which circumstances would a medical professional be permitted to make a diagnosis and prescription remotely, and when should such face-to-face interactions be required? What about the liability risks for practitioners in telemedicine? And would inter-country services be allowed and under what sort of regulatory framework?
Another area of concern which has been brought up in the past is how this Bill would deal with Third Party Administrators (TPAs) and medical concierges, although I do note that these do not fall within the scope of this particular Bill. However, both provide some form of healthcare-related services by referring patients to designated or to preferred providers. Currently, this is discouraged under the Code of Ethics, which also limits their application, but there is presently no law which specifically regulates their use. I would like to seek clarifications regarding these services either under the current proposed framework or future frameworks.
Last, it should be remarked that one notable aspect of this Bill is what it omits, and the elephant in the room is that the setting out of the legal framework for a National Electronic Health Record system is not included in this Bill. As we strive to become a Smart Nation, a unified electronic health record is a critical step towards a truly future-ready healthcare system. The hacking of the SingHealth computer system has understandably led to a pause in this regard, but it should not inflict a mortal blow to our efforts to have a robust and comprehensive digital health record system which will have many benefits for all Singaporeans, both in sickness and in health.
On this note, would the Minister share an update on the measures MOH will implement to ensure that licensees protect health information in medical records?
Going digital and implementing the National Electronic Health Records will enhance continuity of care for patients and boost productivity, but patients understandably are also more concerned about their data privacy and their data protection. In the past, one had to physically break into a clinic or hospital to steal patient data. Today, these crimes can be conducted far, far away from their targeted victims and many more patients’ data can be obtained in one fell swoop.
At the macro level, how then are we fortifying our digital defences to keep up with and keep out fast-evolving cyber attacks on our databases? On the ground, how is MOH working with individual licensees to boost their cybersecurity? What kind of technical assistance, funding and resources are available to help them set up secure systems and maintain their digital systems? I look forward to these clarifications and I support the Bill.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill was first enacted in 1980 and amended in 1999. Thus, it is, indeed, time to review and update to ensure patient safety through licensure, provision of more safeguards and, of course, keeping abreast of the new healthcare landscape and modalities we have today. Moreover, there are a variety of new services since then on offer and things have changed, for example, medical transportation, video conferencing, tele-conferencing and even tissue and bone banking. The migration from a premises-based to a service-based model makes sense because we are trying to integrate a lot of our healthcare services. I have a few clarifications.
Firstly, for cord blood and stem cells, how will these products be tagged? As it will usually be identified or linked to an individual, will it be under the name of the mother or the baby or the fetus?
Secondly, under Part 2, licensing of healthcare services, clause 9, it is stated and I quote, \"it is an offence for a licencee to provide a licensable healthcare service at any premises other than licensed premises, or using any conveyance other than a licensed conveyance\". Can the Minister comment and elaborate on the offering of House Visits services by GP and Family Practitioner colleagues, for example, as well as home care services by hospice doctors and nurses? In that same context, are there any requirements for locum healthcare services staff who move from premises to premises offering services and taking care of patients with consultations?
Thirdly, pertaining to telemedicine, can the Minister also clarify with some details? Does this apply to only within Singapore? How about when our medical staff are consulted on the regional and international platforms? At Singapore General Hospital, for example, we provide Maritime Medical Advice or Radio Medical Advice to ships in the waters around Singapore and even as far as the coverage of parts of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Please advise on the definition and coverage of these services as well.
Fourthly, on clause 26, pertaining to the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC), can we understand a bit more on this and also the component members and how many members will the CEC have? What are their other terms of reference? Also, will there be any difference in the components and also job scope as compared to the Ethics Committee that our institutions already have today?
Fifth, how fast can the \"step in order\" or the \"expedited step in order\" be approved and obtained in the event that it is required?
Sixth, can the Minister also explain with some details of the Quality Assurance Committee? How is it going to work? What are the main objectives and desired goals and how will they function?
Seventh, with the move from premises-based to service-based licencing, many are concerned with the rise in the costs they have to pay. What will be the framework or formula for this conversion and can the Minister ensure that the hike will be within reasonable limits? This is especially so with the current economic climate, as we update this Bill to execution.
Eighth, pertaining to the process of mapping services at the healthcare premises, how fast can the request for new services be processed? Also, will the spectrum of point of care tests permissible be reviewed from time to time to incorporate the latest and the updated?
Finally, the ninth point, on the co-location of licensed and unlicensed services within the same premises, can the guidelines be made clear and succinct? This is because I feel that this can be a potential area for abuse and also misinterpretation. Take, for example, the beauty and wellness industry. It is not within the scope of this Bill. Neither is Traditional Medicine and Complementary Medicine. But these are exactly some of the services which may potentially co-exist on the same premises as a licensed service. So, therefore, there could be some loopholes there. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I do support this Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I note that MOH has proceeded cautiously in presenting this Bill. According to the MOH website, it started consulting on this matter in 2016 and published a draft Bill two years ago for scrutiny and feedback.
The Bill today is quite different from the draft Bill in some respects, which the Senior Minister of State explained briefly earlier.
While I agree that Government oversight of healthcare services is necessary to protect patient welfare, I have some queries and concerns about the Bill. These concerns relate to the Bill's phased coverage, price transparency, quality assurance and the National Electronic Health Records System (NEHR).
First, the Bill's phased coverage. Clause 5 states that the Bill does not apply to any healthcare service provided by the Government. And earlier, the Senior Minister of State did explain that Government-provided services included those under the Singapore Armed Forces and the Singapore Civil Defence Force. So, I take it that restructured hospitals, polyclinics and also primary care providers will be covered under the Bill. It is a question of at which phase they are included.
Again, related to the issue of coverage, I was originally a little puzzled by the First Schedule because it stated only certain specific types of healthcare services which will be required to licensable, particularly clinical support services and some specialised laboratory-type services. I was puzzled because I had previously raised concerns about the private ambulance services used by consumers and also the feedback from residents about poor quality service and also hidden charges not being feasible at the time of booking. But I believe that, if I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, he mentioned that this would come under phase 2 of the implementation. So, I would like him to confirm that emergency ambulance services and such related conveyance services would be actually included for regulation under phase 2.
Related to that, in last year's Committee of Supply when I raised this issue, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about price transparency that the Healthcare Services Bill would include this issue in its regulation and it would mandate the publication of common fees charged, as well as give more transparency to the bill components to be paid by consumers so that they would know upfront what those costs would be. So, do I take it then that with regard to private ambulance services, this would be actually done under phase 2? If that is the case, then when would that be done? And in the meantime, would there be anything put in place to protect consumers? For example, are we still relying on the Voluntary Accreditation Scheme to try to get some standards into that industry?
Next, Sir, I move on to the important issue of quality assurance for consumers. The Bill states upfront in the explanatory statement and the Minister also mentioned earlier that one of the Bill's aims is to strengthen safeguards for the safety and welfare of patients who receive healthcare services.
Since the day I became an elected Member of Parliament nine years ago, I have, from time to time, come across families who have been devastated by unsuccessful medical procedures. Some of their family members died unexpectedly while others sustained permanent disability in their prime and have been lying in rehabilitation hospitals for years. Of course, it must be said that the cause of such tragic outcomes may not be the inadequacy of healthcare services but other causes, such as the nature of the illness itself or inherent risks of certain medical procedures. Nevertheless, healthcare is an area where there is asymmetry of knowledge, with patients placing high trust in professionals. It is critical that the public must be assured that investigations into complaints are fair to the consumer and independent of professional and institutional interests. At the same time, professionals need justice as well. And we recall the High Court's decision in July last year to reverse the conviction on an orthopaedic specialist by the Singapore Medical Council. To this end, can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how this Bill will enhance confidence in the fairness of the quality assurance processes for all parties?
My final point, Sir, concerns the implementation of the NEHR system. I note that during the public consultation on the Bill, a lot of time was spent dealing with the issue of potential data leaks. This is understandable in view of recent incidents.
In responding to the feedback, the Ministry stated that patients concerned about the confidentiality of their medical data could possibly opt out of having their data inputed into the NEHR by healthcare service providers. Could the Ministry please update the House on the status of this opt-out option.
Sir, I look forward to the clarifications from the Ministry on the points I have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.15 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.55 pm until 5.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.15 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
HEALTHCARE SERVICES BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The update is timely. In the 39 years since the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act was enacted, the healthcare landscape has seen significant changes, including a shift toward digital and online services.
At the same time, Singapore faces an ageing population and an increased prevalence of chronic diseases. The demand for healthcare services is set to increase. Furthermore, there is a growing need for alternative models of care beyond face-to-face consultations or healthcare provision at physical, brick-and-mortar locations.
We cannot take for granted Singapore's high quality healthcare infrastructure. The service-based licensing model will help ensure that people in Singapore continue to have access to safe and well-regulated healthcare services, even as the services take on alternative forms.
The mandatory nationwide healthcare records database will also ensure continuity of care for patients across service providers. Sir, I have four clarifications.
First, plans to mandate the contribution of data to NEHR have been in the news as early as 2017. However, these plans were deferred in the wake of the SingHealth cyber attack in 2018, which highlighted the risks posed by weak spots in the system.
Since then, disciplinary action has been taken against top management and key individuals, the NEHR has been subject to reviews, and Minister Gan has assured this House that the Ministry is \"taking many precautions\" to ensure that the system is \"robust before everyone is required to submit (data)\".
Under the Bill, NEHR data can only be accessed for the provision of healthcare services, or with the approval of the Government. Third parties such as employers and insurance providers cannot access the data unless the patient permits.
The Ministry has also said it will implement safeguards to ensure the confidentiality of patients' NEHR records. These include the provision of access logs to patients, regular audits on NEHR access and penalties for unauthorised access. However, as with all electronic databases, the NEHR faces a risk of data breach. From a national security perspective, it would also be dire should NEHR data fall into the wrong hands. This was demonstrated by the Singhealth cyber attack. On an individual level, patients may fear having their sensitive medical information leaked since this could have repercussions on their employment prospects or social lives.
Can the Minister clarify how the use, access and transfer of patient data will be monitored by the system? Furthermore, how will the Ministry seek to prevent abuse of authority by healthcare professionals who have access to the system?
Can the Minister also share what recourse is available for a patient who suspects that there was unauthorised access to their records?
If that patient subsequently suffers perceived injustice at his or her workplace or discrimination by his or her insurer, what recourse is available then and on whom does the burden of proof fall? Who would bear the costs of any follow-up action?
Finally, would a patient be responsible for probing or proving any alleged system abuse, or will the Ministry be actively monitoring the system and taking enforcement steps against breaches identified?
Second, given the concerns with data privacy and protection, there are understandable reasons why certain patients may not want their data uploaded onto the NEHR. These patients must submit a request to the Ministry, and requests will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Can the Minister share the criteria for assessing these requests? Would it be possible for Minister to decline a patient’s request and if so, on what grounds?
I understand that there must be a balance and must be struck between encouraging participation in the NEHR and upholding patient choice and confidentiality. Can the Minister provide assurance that the opt-out process will not be unduly difficult for patients? Can the Minister share what measures are in place to ensure that the opt-out process is relatively quick and easy for patients?
Can Minister also provide an estimate of how long the review and opt-out process might take?
Third, under the Bill, the licensing regime for healthcare service providers will transition from a premise-based to service-based one. As such, an establishment might require multiple licences depending on the services provided.
Can Minister provide some details about the projected costs for this transition? Would establishments who offer more than one type of healthcare services now have to foot higher administrative costs because they will need to hold more licences?
If there are any increase in costs, can the Minister clarify the proportion of the burden that will be borne by the end-user, the service provider, and the Ministry?
Can Minister also clarify whether there will be efforts to streamline the licence application process for establishments that might require multiple licences?
Lastly, the Bill has step-in provisions relating to residential care services such as hospitals, nursing homes and in-patient palliative care services. The step-in provisions allow the Ministry to take over the operations of providers at the risk of insolvency, or who are unable to resolve systemic patient safety or welfare concerns.
In particular, section 33 provides that the Minister has the power to issue a step-in order. Can Minister clarify how and when this power will be exercised? Will the Minister have access to a committee of industry experts who may be able to advise him on such matters?
Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is a necessary move to adapt our legal framework to the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape, so as to continue ensuring the well-being and care of people in Singapore. Moreover, it places us in a better position to embrace even more novel models of care.
I hope the above queries will aid in sharpening Singapore’s approach to the provision of healthcare services, thus securing Singapore’s continued leadership in healthcare globally.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to strengthen governance in the healthcare sector amidst the rapid evolution in the industry, to ensure better patient safety and continuity of care. However, I do have a few questions and suggestions.
First, I support the proposed services-based licensing framework, as it addresses the limitations of the current Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act, which only regulates services provided at brick-and-mortar healthcare facilities. The introduction of Industry 4.0 and 5G telecommunications is already beginning to disrupt existing modes of healthcare delivery. New healthcare services can now be delivered entirely through mobile and online channels. The Bill’s new licensing framework is therefore timely as it will provide healthcare providers with the flexibility to \"modularise\" and apply for relevant licenses based on the services that they provide, rather than be confined to a physical premise.
However, while the new framework provides much needed flexibility, I am concerned with the corresponding licensing costs – how will they be impacted under the new regulatory regime? Can the Ministry provide licensees with a way to cluster and package their applications, to help them manage their licensing costs? We should bear in mind that the end-consumers would inevitably bear the brunt of any cost increase, and businesses often have an easy excuse to raise prices once regulatory costs increase. Even if the switch to the new framework will only result in an increase in licensing costs for a small number of operators, there is still a strong case to be made for the Ministry to consider absorbing the increase, as it is not uncommon to see prices increase across the industry just because someone in the market has raised their charges.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad to note that the Ministry will provide ample flexibility in the Bill to help with the on-boarding of newly regulated services, such as the creation of a regulatory sandbox for telemedicine services. The sandbox will be beneficial to help us in adapting our regulations as telemedicine technologies evolve.
The introduction of 5G technology will see telemedicine and tele-surgical services become the next key growth drivers in the healthcare sector. Already, news reports out of China have emerged, claiming that doctors in the Chinese PLA General Hospital have carried out China's first 5G-based remote surgery on a patient 3,000 km away. I am sure that it is only a matter of time before such technologies are trialled here in Singapore, and having our own telemedicine regulatory sandbox will help strengthen our position as one of the leading healthcare hubs in the region.
However, new technologies will also bring about new questions pertaining to liability. Will the scope of the telemedicine regulatory sandbox be wide enough to provide a sandbox liability regime? With the introduction of artificial intelligence revolutionising how illnesses are diagnosed, will our sandbox regulations differentiate between decisions made by human doctors and those made by Artificial Intelligence? If so, who will be liable for decisions made by AI? With this sandbox, we have the opportunity to actively shape telemedicine regulations and answer the tough questions surrounding AI-related liability questions in the healthcare sector. I urge the Ministry to do so, so that we can pave the way for our businesses to remain as innovative leaders in the region.
Another opportunity for adaptive regulations under this Bill is to create a sandbox for the regulation of the entire spectrum of professions who provide Mental Healthcare Services. Industry practitioners within the mental healthcare space, such as psychologists and psychotherapists, have been providing me with feedback on their wish for the entire industry to be fully regulated as a healthcare service.
From what I can understand, only psychiatrists are fully regulated today, as they are considered doctors. But mental healthcare services span across a wide spectrum of professions, many of which lack full regulations. An example of this are psychologists. Although classified by the Ministry as allied health professionals, psychologists are yet to be regulated under the Second Schedule of the Allied Health Professionals Act which was passed in 2011. Other professions within this industry that are unregulated include counsellors and psychotherapists. The lack of regulation among the many professions within the industry is troubling, as members of the public do not know the differences between counsellors and psychologists, and may seek treatment from someone without the proper certification and expertise.
We should support the industry's call for fuller regulations. Perhaps the Ministry could consider regulating the entire industry as an allied health service under a sandbox, to be implemented in the final phase of the Act's implementation. The Labour Movement stands ready to work with the Ministry to engage mental healthcare practitioners working across the entire spectrum of the mental healthcare industry, and work towards drafting the implementation and regulatory details, and to park this under a sandbox regime to provide all parties with the necessary flexibility.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill's proposal to strengthen governance over licensees by ensuring that they have competent and effective governing bodies. This is especially vital for medium and large corporations who are responsible for the healthcare delivery of tens and hundreds of thousands of patients every year.
However, while bigger companies will be able to easily adapt to the new governance measures, smaller players, such as our local General Practitioners (GPs) will find it much harder to comply. Under the new measures, licensees must appoint those with the appropriate skills and competencies in the areas of finance and business management. How will this new regulatory requirement affect the operations of our 1,700 GP clinics, many of whom might just be a small team of one doctor and a few clinical assistants? Will GPs be allowed to double, or even triple-hat, as the Licensee, Principal Officer and Clinical Governance Officer?
Another new area of regulation which may impact smaller players more disproportionately than larger players, is in private ambulance services. Under the Bill, private ambulance services will have to classify themselves either as Emergency Ambulance Services or Medical Transport Services and comply with the respective sets of requirements. Medical transport ambulances, for example, will not be allowed to be fitted with sirens and blinkers, while emergency ambulance services will be held to higher standards of emergency care.
While I commend the Ministry's on-going efforts to provide a voluntary accreditation scheme to facilitate a seamless transition to the new licensing framework, how will the introduction of the new regulation affect the supply of ambulance services in Singapore? Will regulations be too onerous for smaller players to invest and upgrade their existing fleet of ambulances to serve as emergency ambulances? What will happen in cases where someone calls for a medical transport service, but the patient’s condition worsens along the way and it becomes an emergency?
Finally, I would like to voice my support for the Bill's proposed safeguards to apply background checks for certain licensees, to protect vulnerable patients and those who require long-term stay. This is certainly important, as any case of patient abuse would severely damages the trust that the public has for our healthcare industry. I would like to clarify if the provisions under section 28 will apply to all professions of workers employed or hired by the licensee, or will the safeguards only apply to those directly involved in the delivery of healthcare services. Also, how will the background checks be conducted if the worker in question is a foreigner?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the healthcare sector is poised to undergo disruptions, brought about by the advent of new technologies. The proposed licensing framework and measures under the Bill are timely and will help to strengthen Singapore's position as the premier healthcare hub of the region. However, as we transit to the new framework, it is important that we ensure that we keep regulatory costs low and not overly onerous to smaller players. We should use this as an opportunity to ambitiously widen our regulatory sandbox and tackle the tough questions on liability that will inevitably arise. With that, I support the Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the rise in demand for various healthcare services and the rapidly changing landscape in medicine, it is indeed timely that this Bill is introduced. This is especially with the growing number of elderly persons in our population which would increase the demand for certain services.
I note that the Bill would introduce a services-based licensing regime to replace the one that is premises-based licensing. Overall, I hope Minister can tell this House how these changes will impact on healthcare services in terms of operating cost, because invariably this cost may be passed on the consumers?
I would like to ask if the Ministry is reviewing all persons who are current key appointment holders in the private healthcare setting to ensure that they are qualified persons under the new Bill? Since the licensing will be services-based, should the Ministry require all licensed persons in a healthcare premise to display a photograph alongside their licence so that patients know who is who?
With the proliferation of new healthcare services, how do we ensure that patients are only treated by qualified persons? Should we educate patients to always ask to see a license? For example, if they are doing medical consultations online, or if they are being treated by someone other than a doctor or nurse such as a technician operating certain equipment. Or if they are getting their blood drawn by someone who goes clinic to clinic, whose responsibility is it to check for a valid licence – the clinic or the patient?
I would also like to ask how the Ministry views someone who, for example, holds a doctorate in liberal arts but subsequently takes up say physiotherapy but uses his title Dr so and so. This may create a mis-impression that he is a medical doctor. How do we prevent such misconceptions? In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Medical Services these days are getting more and more complicated. Hence, to introduce a services-based licensing regime to replace the current premises-based one is a step towards the right direction. May I know how these changes will affect healthcare services in terms of operating costs? Because quite often, these costs will be passed on to the patients.
In addition, how can we ensure that patients know whether the medical personnel who treat them are licensed or not? Should all medical personnel display a photograph alongside their licence? If the patient is doing online consultation, or if he is not treated by a doctor or a nurse, should the patient check the person’s licence first?
I look forward to the Minister's replies. I support this Bill. Thank you.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Healthcare Services Bill seeks to accomplish a number of things. To introduce a services-based licensing regime for providers of healthcare services replacing the old premises-based licencing regime; to strengthen the safeguards for the safety and welfare of patients; to improve the governance requirements for providers of healthcare services; to enhance regulatory powers in relation to providers of healthcare services, including allowing intervention in failing providers in order to stabilise operations and ensure continued patient care.
These are all steps in the right direction. Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim, my party Chair, has made a number of points about the Bill with which I agree and which I shall not repeat here. My speech will focus on what else can be done to contain healthcare inflation.
Part 57 2(R) of the Bill empowers the Minister to regulate the sector so as to require price transparency towards patients and customers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to Mercer Marsh Benefits 2019 Medical Trends Around the World Report, based on surveys of insurers regarding types costs and frequency of medical conditions that were claimed for by company employees in 2018. Singapore's medical Trend rate, which measures medical cost inflation was 10% in 2018, 10 times the Singapore economy's estimated 2018 inflation rate of 1% at that time.
In a parliamentary reply from 2018, the Government figure for healthcare inflation measuring the growth rate of prices for healthcare related goods and services paid by patients after Government subsidies was about 1.2% between 2013 and 2016. A media report from late 2018 quoted the Life Insurance Association of Singapore (LIA), have been found that average private hospital bills were increasing by 8% a year compared to less than 3% for public hospital bills. Though I note, that the 3% figure is still far higher than general inflation.
Medical or healthcare inflation is a challenge faced by many countries around the world. It is partly driven by the increasing availability of advanced, cutting edge drugs, treatments and diagnostic techniques, which are expensive. How do we control medical inflation and curb any tendency towards over-treatment and over-prescription without shutting the door to Research and Development and innovation in the medical sphere? So, the rest of my speech will focus on ideas to answer this question. I will speak on several themes related to this question.
Firstly, I would like to speak on price transparency, which is one thrust being explored around the world. The movement towards price transparency aims to make market mechanisms work to curb healthcare inflation through market competition. In November 2018, MOH started publishing fee benchmarks for private sector professional fees, which are not mandatory caps, but which place some onus on healthcare service providers to justify their fees. And prior to this, MOH has been providing similar guidance to public hospitals since – I believe – 2017. MOH now publishes information on 222 common surgical procedures like hip replacement and colonoscopy, comprising 85% of all procedures. Details include, depending on the type of data set, the public or private setting, hospital wards type, bill size, operation fee, surgeon fee, anesthetist fee, facility, average length of stay and implant breakdown.
Data is in some cases published according to the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile. However, it is not clear what causal effect these measures have had to date – this publishing. I would like to ask, since MOH started the publication of this data, does MOH have any evidence or indications as to what the effect has been to assess the return on that investment.
At the level of theory, a few observations can be made. Not all patients would have the skills, time and inclination to study prices and make informed decisions on that basis. This problem gets compounded when that patient is faced with a medical emergency or pressing problem where familiarity with one healthcare provider or physical proximity may weigh on the decision more than any prior study of pricing.
Moreover, many patients may be confused as to the link between pricing and quality. That may not only be willing to pay more for better quality but may misunderstand higher pricing to mean higher quality. Many patients who are more broadly consumers may use price as a surrogate for quality in the absence of other information. Would the MOH consider the following further measures? Firstly, publishing data by hospital, but also with data on the outcomes for those procedures at those hospitals where relevant and where there are sufficient data points. By outcome measures, I mean for example, but not necessarily, re-admission rates, safety of care, mortality, patient experience, waiting times and so on and so forth. This will help patients make the link between price and quality.
I am aware that this needs an investment in data systems and expertise to capture data well and risk adjust to take into account the differential complexity of patients. This will take time. Doctors need to be reassured the system is fair or everyone will start to turn away or decline to treat complex or poor pre-morbid patients. But it could well be worth the investment and at the very least should be studied since what we want is value and this means price or fees as a function of outcomes.
Secondly, can MOH consider creating a simple app or website for patients to key in the counselled projected charges broken down by facility, doctor and so on, so that patients can see in simple charts the variation from norms and can such price comparisons be made a mandatory part of the financial counselling? Under pressure of time or stress a patient may not shop around when initially choosing a healthcare service provider, but this idea may give them some food for thought for considering their healthcare service provider the next time they have the same complaint.
Next, I turn to mechanisms to curb over-treatment and over-testing. There may be a natural tendency to over-prescribe, over-treat or over-test, in lieu of strong controls and pressures from customers and regulators. Earlier, I touched on how patients, as customers, may not always be in the best position, be well-incentivised or sufficiently resourced to exert pressure on healthcare providers to keep prices in check in a skillful way. Insurance coverage may also distort choices by both providers and patients.
What can regulators do? MOH's Agency of Care Effectiveness has been issuing care and drug guidance since 2017. However defining over-treatment is notoriously complex, as some cases require more extensive – and expensive – testing and treatment than others. Having said that, can we do more to monitor and publish trends relevant to curbing unnecessary treatment by focusing on specific kinds of procedures?
For example, according to the \"Health at a Glance: Europe 2018\" report by the OECD and European Commission, Portugal created a national commission to monitor C-section rates and indexed funding to hospitals partly to C-section rates. Italy has similar financial incentives to hospitals with lower C-section rates and publishes information on C-section rates at different hospitals.
The same report details how Denmark, Sweden, the UK and Finland have high day surgery rates for a number of common procedures. Studies have shown that day surgery can reduce the cost of surgical procedures substantially compared to in-patient surgery.
The report states: \"In Sweden, one of the main factors that has contributed to the expansion of day surgery over the past few decades has been clinical leadership in the adoption of evidence-based guidelines to streamline pre- and post-operative surgical procedures and promote safe and effective use of day surgery. Nationwide collaboration and support from national authorities have helped to set up and disseminate new standards, while leaving sufficient autonomy to enable adaptation to local circumstances. The expansion of day surgery has helped achieved substantial savings...A 2016 review by the National Board of Health and Welfare showed that the costs of the 11 most common types of procedures would have been 14% higher if the share of day surgery had not increased between 2005 and 2013.”
Sir, I would like to ask if the government could consider publishing data on lower cost procedures at major healthcare service providers and perhaps even making tweaks to funding models to incentivise these lower cost approaches where relevant. This can be done initially by focusing on procedures where there is the most volume vis-à-vis potential to impact on cost.
The issue of day-surgery or outpatient surgery is a good case in point. It would seem that only medical care is covered by insurance and patients then have to pay out-of-pocket for transport, home nurse visits, perhaps some tele-monitoring and even meals. Can insurance funding models be changed such that cash is paid to cover these costs pegged to but not equal to what it would have cost to do this on an inpatient basis, so as to incentivise outpatient surgery?
Also, ambulatory or outpatient surgery centres need a formal arrangement with the hospital for transfer in case of adverse events. In terms of the regulatory regime, is there a sufficient nudge for hospitals to embrace ambulatory care for surgery?
I would also like ask if the MOH's Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) looks into flagging out cases that, for want of a better term, can be termed \"unnecessary innovation\". For example, an NPR article from 2017 in the US recounts how one pharmaceutical producer marketed a single pill that combined two over-the-counter (OTC) drugs as an innovation because it was easier to take one pill than two. A month's supply of the two inexpensive drugs cost about $40. The company billed insurance $3,252 for the new pill.
Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will turn to the promotion of generics and biosimilars. In the Mercer Marsh study quoted earlier, it was noted that Singapore's medical inflation is partially driven up by supply-led factors such as high-cost pharmaceuticals and biologics. I ask a Parliamentary Question on the use of generics in the public healthcare system last year. The reply stated that, and I quote, \"in 2017, to better guide institutions and doctors in use of generic drugs, we introduced a basket of clinically and cost-effective generic drugs, which can replace a more expensive branded equivalence. MOH and the Health Sciences Authority monitor new generic drugs that enter the local market and add them to the basket on a regular basis.\"
I have two suggestions. Firstly, can healthcare providers be required to include in bills information about the cost of treatment, had a generic been used? Alternatively, a simple app or website could provide information on HSA-approved generics in respect of differential pricing. Secondly, can the proportion of use of ACE-endorsed bio-equivalent, lower cost alternative drugs for key conditions and procedures, be these generics or biosimilars, also be made public, broken down by healthcare provider?
Fourthly, on waste reduction. One expert at an event in Singapore on healthcare costs said that waste in OECD countries amounts to as much as one-fifth of healthcare expenditure. I would like to discuss one example. The US FDA has long known that many drugs remain safe and potent for years longer than their published expiration dates. The FDA and the US Department of Defense created the Shelf Life Extension Program (SLEP) to test the stability of drugs in the federal government stockpiles and then extend their expiration dates where justifiable. A 2006 study of 122 drugs tested by the programme showed that two-thirds of them were stable every time a lot was tested. Each of them had their expiration dates extended on average by more than four years. But the same type of drugs in hospitals or pharmacies get thrown away when they expire.
Does our healthcare system destroy significant quantities of drugs due to expiry? If so, could we consider something like that US Shelf Life Extension Program, to use clinical data to extend the life of drugs.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I laud MOH's move to repeal the current PHMC Act and replace it with the upcoming Healthcare Services (HCS) Bill, which aims to transit from a premises-based licensing framework to a service-based one.
This is a progressive move which will cater to new models of healthcare delivery, in tandem with medical technology advancement, the growing needs of an ageing population and increased chronic disease concerns.
This augmented Bill will provide improved patient safety in the changing healthcare landscape through more efficient governance while allowing for new and innovative healthcare services to be deployed on online and mobile platforms.
However, I do have some questions concerning the Bill.
I understand that although Allied Health and Non-Physician Healthcare, Traditional, Complementary and Alternative medicine fall under the HCS Bill, they will not be licensed for the time being. I ask if the Minister will elaborate on the future plans and timeline as to when these aspects will be covered because it may affect healthcare professionals practising in these areas, or perhaps under what kind of circumstances will an actionable response be considered to include them in the Bill.
Furthermore, I would like to ask how MOH plans to transit healthcare institutions from the PHMC to the HCS Act. How will the existing services be mapped out and what will be the differences in standard requirements as well as the impact on healthcare institutions and professionals? How will the consequences affect licensed sites which are currently co-locating with the non-licensed services such as Traditional, Complementary and Alternative medicines or Allied Health services?
Next, I refer to part 1 of clause 5 of this Bill which states that the Bill does not apply to and is not related to any healthcare service provided by the Government. Can the Minister explain the rationale for this exclusion and how can we be assured that healthcare services not governed under this Bill will provide similar patient safety and governance standards, for example, ambulance services provided by SCDF and medical services provided by MINDEF? Would an inclusion instead enhance safety and align standards across the country with MOH providing an independent oversight as a ministry with expertise in healthcare?
Also, part 2 of clause 22 requires that the Director keep and maintain a register of licensees. May I ask if this list will be made public with their licensed scope of practice made known to patients?
Part 3 of clause 28 in the Bill imposes restrictions on licensees who employ staff to work in healthcare services which cater for the frail and vulnerable patient groups. I would like to clarify if the existing staff currently working in these premises will be screened as well or if the Bill only refers to new hires? What is to be done if the existing staff do not meet the current requirements stated in the new Bill?
I understand that the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee chaired by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has made five key recommendations to improve public sector data security, and these include enhancing technology and the relevant processes to protect public data, strengthening data detection and responsiveness to data incidents by building data security competencies across the public service, ensuring improved accountability and transparency, and lastly, sustainability of data security efforts.
These recommendations are targeted to be implemented fully in three years' time and I applaud the committee for the extensive review. I thank the Government for taking full responsibility and accountability for the lapses and using these lessons as opportunities to strengthen our public data security.
So, with these initiatives set in place, I seek clarification as to whether MOH has plans to introduce mandatory National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) core data contribution by licensees and if so, can the Minister provide a timeline so that private healthcare facilities may be better prepared in the eventuality that these recommendations are implemented?
At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore. I have a few queries regarding the change from premises-based to service-based licensing for pharmacy services.
How can MOH ensure that there is no overlapping scopes and standards across different regulations? Take for example, hospital outpatient pharmacies which provide dispensary and medication delivery services for walk-in patients as opposed to their own hospital patients. Although the type and the level of services provided are similar, the same pharmacy is subjected to two different Acts. Respectively, hospital patients which fall under the PHMC Act as compared to the walk-in patients which fall under the Health Product Act.
Another example is the tele-pharmacy services provided in hospitals for hospital patients versus those provided by retail pharmacies for patients in the community. Although these services are similar, they are subjected to different Acts with different licensing requirements and standards. I seek clarification as to whether the overlapping of regulatory scopes might cause confusion and inefficiency in running these different services.
Finally, I would like to ask how will the new HCS Bill impact pharmacy licensing for health screenings, telemedicine services and collaborative prescribing services in the community as they fall under the list of licensable services of this Bill. How will this impact future pharmaceutical services such as pharmacists looking into providing vaccination service in the community?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the above-mentioned concerns. Thank you, and I support the Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the evolving healthcare landscape necessitates updates and changes to our licensing framework. Moving from the current premises-based, fixed licensing model to a services-based, flexible modular one will enable our Government to strengthen its governance over the medical sector. The refreshed structure is needed to manage new services and ensure patient safety and well-being.
Telemedicine, an emerging area, is a field that I am particularly concerned about. It is a broad field, encompassing video communications, digital storage and transmission of medical information in the form of text, data and images, remote patient monitoring, health apps on mobile devices and more.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would share more about the aspects of telemedicine the Bill is intended to regulate and the provisions included to future-proof the Bill for developments in this fast-changing field.
Since patients are not physically examined in person by the physicians, there is a higher risk of the doctors missing the detection of certain symptoms, resulting in misdiagnosis. As it is, it is already a challenge for the accurate detection of many illnesses and diseases as they manifest similar symptoms. How will the Ministry ensure the quality of diagnoses? Should something go wrong, how can patients seek help and redress?
This leads to another issue. Will doctors be held to the same standard for telemedicine? I think it is important that medical personnel and patients have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and rights for this nascent service.
I am also curious whether there will be any pre-requisites before a doctor can proceed with the provision of tele-medical communication. For example, should the doctor and patient have a pre-existing relationship, that is, the doctor had seen the patient in a face-to-face consultation at least once before?
Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since patients are not physically examined in person by the physicians, there is a higher risk of the doctors missing the detection of certain symptoms, resulting in misdiagnosis. As it is, it is already a challenge for the accurate detection of many illnesses and diseases as they manifest similar symptoms. How will the Minister ensure the quality of diagnosis? Should something go wrong, how can patients seek help and redress?
This leads to another issue. Will doctors be held to the same standard for telemedicine? I think it is important that medical personnel and the patients have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and their rights for this nascent service.
I am also curious whether there will be pre-requisites before a doctor can proceed with the provision of tele-medical communication. For example, should the doctor and the patient have a pre-existing relationship, that is, the doctor had seen the patient in a face-to-face consultation at least once before?
(In English): Another concern is the prescription of medications. Will remote prescriptions be permitted and what is the Ministry’s assessment of the risks of abuse and fraud?
Since telemedicine can be practised wherever there is Internet connection, I would like to ask if this Bill will regulate cross-border consultations. Just as the Internet facilitates international trade of goods and services, will this occur in our healthcare? We can order almost everything from food to furniture, participate in courses, receive legal advice and accounting services online without taking a step out of our homes. Will telemedicine proceed similarly and what controls will the Ministry put in place to protect Singaporeans?
Next, I would like to enquire about the tightening of naming restrictions. Approval will be required for terms such as \"Singapore\" or \"National\" for new companies but existing entities do not have to make any changes to their names. In order to get around this constraint, new companies may buy out or take over existing ones with the coveted terms. This is a loophole which must be plugged. May I suggest that a certain time period, such as five to 10 years, be given to such companies to continue operating, after which the terms \"Singapore\" and \"National\" must be removed from the name, unless they receive fresh approvals from the Ministry.
With this, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of the Bill for the reasons articulated by the hon Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong in his speech. I commend MOH for extensive public consultation on the Bill for two years before presenting it in Parliament.
I have five queries and I will take them in sequence. First, the scope of the definition of \"healthcare services\" under the Bill. Healthcare Services is defined under clause 3 quite widely and it also includes services provided not for reward. I would like to know if the intent is to also to \"capture\" services provided by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) or non-profit organisations (NPOs) running senior activity centres, eldercare centres and neighbourhood link centres.
As the hon Senior Minister of State knows, there is a wide diversity of services provided at these centres. Some focus on social well-being which is quite clearly outside the ambit of the definition. Where it gets a little more difficult is where elderly residents are offered frailty assessment, advice on physiotherapy or rehabilitation. Sometimes, this is done not just at centres but during house visits too. If the intention is to include these corporations, how many of these centres are not currently licensed under the PHMCA? What form of assistance can be given to these organisations to help them subscribe to the new licensing regime under HCS.
Next, suitability of key personnel running the licensee's business. Clause 23(1)(a) of the Bill provides that a licensee must ensure that every key appointment holder of the licensee is, in the opinion of the Director, a suitable person to act in that capacity in relation to the licensee. This is, as the hon Senior Minister of State mentioned, to ensure that high governance standards are observed. The wording in the clause however introduces a subjective test because the operative word is \"the opinion of the Director\". Not only that, in addition to the above requirement, under clause 23(1)(b), the licensee must also ensure that the composition of key appointment holders satisfies the skills and competencies requirements prescribed or specified in a code of practice.
In contrast, for the appointment of a Principal Officer or Clinical Governance Officer under clause 24, there is no requirement imposed to ensure that these officers are suitable in the opinion of the Director.
Clause 23(2) would allow the Director to direct a licensee to remove a key appointment holder who he is satisfied is either: (a) not suitable; or (b) does not possess the skills or competencies prescribed or specified. May I please ask why is it necessary to have a subjective test imposed under the clause? How will licensees be given notice of the Director's approach to the issue of suitability? How will appeals to the Minister on such decisions under clause 48 be determined? Would the Minister be able to revisit the issue de novo? Or should he decide based on the reasonableness of the Director’s opinion, even though he may personally disagree with it?
Next, how does the Bill assist in relation to ensuring that licensees adhere to reasonable levels of corporate governance and financial management to ensure that the entities are going concerns? Is it contemplated that the principal officer or key appointment holders take personal responsibility? This is the case in the financial services industry. The hon Senior Minister of State made reference to essential services in his speech. In the financial services industry, they have a senior manager's regime and key appointment holders have specific responsibilities. Or will it be a licensing condition imposed on the licensee?
Fourth, Exclusion of Traditional Medicine, Complementary and Alternative Medicine from licensing requirements under the proposed HCS. I understand from the Senior Minister of State that the decision is made, on a risk-based assessment, not to license these practitioners at this point in time. I also note that the TCM practitioners continue to be regulated under the TCM Act. However, there are other disciplines of traditional medicine, such as homeopathy or Ayurvedic medicine, which are not currently regulated. Bringing Traditional Medicine, and Complementary and Alternative Medicine within the HCS regulatory framework may promote integration of services with mainstream medicine which may be beneficial to patients.
The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that the industry would be monitored on a risk-based approach going forward. I suggest the enlarging of the monitoring to also include an assessment of the potential for providing integrated services to patients.
Finally, regulatory burden and costs. I understand that during the consultation phase, there were fears expressed that there could be increased regulatory burden and fees. I further understand that the Ministry will not be collecting more revenue from existing providers. Hence, this Act is meant to be revenue neutral. May I please ask whether under the HCS, the regulatory costs attributable to the Government is anticipated to go up. If so, should it not be recovered from the licensees?
Notwithstanding my queries, I support the Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir. This Bill is timely in view of the developments and breakthroughs in the medical sector. Technological advances are accelerating changes in how our healthcare services are delivered and the types of treatments available. The updated legislative framework will enable the Ministry to better govern our healthcare sector and ensure quality of care.
I have only one concern for this Bill and this is regarding the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR).
Going forward, all healthcare institutes, including laboratories, must input patient data into the NEHR. While this will ensure continuity in terms of treatment for patients and allow medical professionals to have a holistic grasp of their health conditions, there are also potential downsides. For example, if any physician were to arrive at an erroneous conclusion and make a wrong diagnosis, this may have an impact on subsequent consultations or any follow-ups by other medical practitioners referencing the patient's medical history. The consequence of such a mistake may be serious, leading to more issues down the line.
Would the Minister share what preventive measures are in place to minimise such incidents? In addition, I am also concerned about the security of the database and potential system failure. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on measures to boost the robustness and resilience of the NEHR.
With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill introduces a new regime of regulating healthcare services in Singapore. Previously, the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act was the principal act governing the regulation of clinics and hospitals in Singapore. While it worked in a time where medical services were bound by space and time, an expanded regime is necessary with the advent of telemedicine and other similar healthcare services. Instead of licensing by physical location, the licences under this Bill are based on the kind of services provided.
Even though there is increased flexibility in the kinds of services that can be packaged under a licence, clause 29 prevents the public from being misled by the name of the healthcare service provider.
Also, as evinced by the First Schedule, not all healthcare services are licensable healthcare services. How will non-licensable healthcare services be regulated? This is important to protect those who may use or need such services. In this period of transitioning from the old regime to the new regime, how will the Ministry help healthcare providers whose services straddle, for some time, the old and new regime?
While this modular service-based system provides more flexibility, compliance with regulations may become more difficult as licensees need to look through more regulations to know which are applicable to them and which are not. The exercise may also increase the time needed to scan through a code of practice to pick up and implement relevant or salient points. Given enhanced regulation, how will the Ministry help to keep the costs of running healthcare services down? This is crucial as it was reported in June 2019 that healthcare cost inflation in Singapore in 2018 was 10 times that of the economic inflation rate.
Part 3 of the Bill also sets out positions the licensee has to have, that is, the Principal Officer and Clinical Governor Officer. The requirements for these will be set out in the code of practice per clause 23(1)(b). These positions do not appear in the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. How does the new system compare with the current system? Would the Minister please explain the rationale and thinking behind the structure and change to this governance model?
Also, in the course of my work as a lawyer, which I now declare, I have worked alongside CEOs of hospitals. They have much to deal with in the day-to-day running of the hospital and regularly attend to unprecedented situations. Given their plate is already so full, I would ask MOH not to require that the CEO of the hospital be the Principal Officer or the Clinical Governor Officer, and that the CEO be able, if appropriate, to delegate the role to a suitably qualified colleague.
Also, will current licensees with leaner manpower such as general practitioners struggle to meet this criteria?
Besides changing the mode of regulation from locale to service-based, this Bill also puts in place measures to ensure the quality of care provided. One such measure are committees. There are three committees mentioned in this Bill – the quality assurance, service review committee and the clinical ethics committee. The quality assurance committee is also present under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. Sections 11(3) to 11(5) of that Act is similar to clauses 51(3) to (5) of the Bill. It provides that the quality assurance committee is not competent nor compellable to disclose information in court or produce documents requested or produced solely for the purpose of the quality assurance committee. This appears to be a form of privilege which protects information and reports, preventing them from being used in medical negligence lawsuits for instance. The quality assurance committee needs to be able to assess the true state of affairs with candidness and transparency, this provision allows healthcare service providers to be candid with them and work together with them to ensure that healthcare attains a degree of standard. As this committee is not novel, would the Minister share with us how well these committees have worked in the past regime and what can be done to improve its function in the new regime?
Another committee is the clinical ethics committee. Clause 26 requires a case to be referred to a clinical ethics committee where a patient is recommended to go for a service in a prescribed category. To prevent committee-shopping, clauses 26(3) and (4)(b) specify that a person must not provide the proposed prescribed service if any clinical ethics committee to which the individual’s case is referred is not satisfied that it is ethically appropriate.
Besides having committees, another measure designed to protect the public in the provision of healthcare services is step-in orders. From clause 33(1), step-in orders are used to prevent a disruption in care of the patients due to financial matters such as insolvency, lack of licence after a suspension or revocation, or where the licensee carries out things against public interest or in contravention of the Act. This order by the Minister allows partial or total takeover to protect the public's interest.
As the powers are intrusive and the threat of a step-in being invoked pre-emptively can cause uncertainty for all involved, would the Minister provide some examples to illustrate the severity involved in circumstances of public interest? Essentially, what is the threshold required?
In addition to the committees and the possibility of step-in orders, the Codes of Practice provided for under clause 38 allow for greater flexibility. This is particularly valuable where technology is rapidly changing.
Sir, similar to the current Private Hospitals and Clinics Act, the Bill also provides for powers of inspection, search and seizure and other investigative power. Clause 41(6) of the Bill did not appear in the Act and requires any person present at any premise to render all necessary assistance and cooperation for entry, inspection, investigation. This is especially important where the data or information is stored electronically. This is because in such circumstances, human assistance through the provision of passwords can greatly aid the speed and ease of accessing important information, allowing for better enforcement with less resources.
In conclusion, Sir, health is important to every person. Healthcare services are often not \"good to have\" but necessary. As healthcare services impact us directly, a good healthcare network is an important line of defence for the people of Singapore. This Bill changes the landscape and expands the horizon of the regulation of healthcare services. No longer bound by locale, this modular system provides more flexibility to adapt to rapidly-changing technology. Besides ensuring that our regulatory regime is able to cope with and harness the benefits of technology, this Bill also puts in place measures to protect public interest in the provision of healthcare. And therefore, I support the Bill.
Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill, as well as for their constructive comments and suggestions. I thank in particular Mr Perera where he says that the Bill represents steps in the right direction. I will address the various issues raised by Members.
There have been several questions on the regulatory scope and the types of services that will be licensed. Let me address these points.
The Bill seeks to be clear and transparent in the scope of \"healthcare services\" that can be regulated. Our primary focus as we implement the Bill is on services that provide clinical care for a condition or a disease.
Mr Murali Pillai has asked if community-led initiatives, including those provided by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), will be in scope and be licensed under the Bill. And I think Mr Pillai mentioned senior care centres, for instance.
These entities, including Senior Activity Centres, provide services which are predominantly social in nature and they will, to that extent, not be regulated under the Bill. But sometimes these centres also provide services that are clinical in nature. For example, they might have a doctor located within the senior centre, and if the doctor is engaged to provide clinical services in that centre, then that doctor will require a medical clinic licence, or will have to be employed by a clinic licensee.
Ms Irene Quay, Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Melvin Yong asked for timelines on the licensing of allied health, mental health and traditional medicine services, as well as non-doctor-led home and community based services, so that the providers would have sufficient time to prepare for regulation.
Sir, let me be clear that there will be sufficient time and notice. Indeed, the framework for any regulation, even for these services which are yet to be in scope, will be as set out in this Bill. So, they will know the parameters and the landscape and rubric of the Bill, even before it applies to them.
Second, as to when these other services will be included, MOH will be adopting a calibrated and risk-based approach to progressively license healthcare services. We do not at present have any plans to license these services but will closely monitor the landscape. If significant patient risks, for example, emerge in these services, then we can decide to license these services, but as I said at the outset, the broad framework will already be as set out in this Bill.
In addition, before we move to regulate any new services, Members can be assured that MOH will engage and consult with the relevant stakeholders on the proposed standards to ensure that they are contextualised for that particular service. So, we might have the framework set out in this Bill, but for the particular types of services and spectrum of different services, the precise way in which they will come in might have to be contextualised. And we will have a programme to engage and to consult, before they are added into scope.
Ms Quay has asked why Government entities like SCDF-owned ambulances and SAF medical centres are excluded from the Bill's scope. As I have mentioned at the outset, these entities serve critical national functions and they do themselves come under separate internal governance structures and standards. I would add that Government entities providing healthcare services are subject to stringent internal standards, and in some cases, more stringent than what is being proposed by this Bill. Let me give some examples.
The SCDF serves highly-critical cases and they hold their services to higher standards. SCDF mandates a six-monthly paramedic skills certification test and quarterly Continual Professional Education sessions to improve and also broaden the knowledge, skills and competence of their emergency medical services crew.
In contrast, the draft ambulance Regulations require Emergency Ambulance Service Crew to attend lectures, simulation, practical sessions or clinical discussions at least once every six months and paramedics are required to be re-certified every two years.
For SAF clinics, all personnel are qualified according to national requirements. Medical officers are trained to national standards, and are also Singapore Medical Council (SMC)-registered with working experience in the restructured hospitals. There are regular refresher courses for staff, as well as regular audits for the clinics.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked for clarifications on how this new framework might deal with Third Party Administrators (TPAs) and medical concierges. The current scope is limited to regulating providers of direct healthcare services. TPAs and concierge services are principally administrative in nature – they are agents of the principal medical providers and are not engaged in direct patient care. So, they will not be licensed under this framework.
However, MOH is monitoring the patient safety risks and studying the landscape of these services further, before deciding on the appropriate framework, if any, to regulate these entities. If the licensing of TPAs and concierge services in some form is found to be needed, an amendment to the scope of this Bill can be made at the appropriate juncture to include them, again, with the appropriate contextualisation.
In the meantime, professional guidelines, such as the SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG), provide guidance for medical practitioners contracting with TPAs to ensure the objectivity of the medical practitioner's clinical judgement and the provision of the required standard of care. So, for Members who are familiar with the ECEG, you will know that advertisements are prohibited, save for certain circumstances set out; and at the end of the day, the judgement of the medical practitioner – how he looks at the patient, how he treats the patient – should be unimpaired and unaffected by any TPAs. Medical practitioners are ultimately responsible for their agents, if any; and if TPAs advertise licensable healthcare services, they would be subject to clause 31 of the Bill, and can only advertise on a licensee's authorisation and must comply with all relevant advertising rules.
Ms Quay also raised an issue on possible overlaps between the different Acts, and cited an example of hospital pharmacies being subject to both the current Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA) and in future this Bill, as well as the Health Products Act (HPA).
The HPA governs the position when a pharmacy serves walk-in customers or walk-in patients. In such a situation, where the patient is not coming from the hospital where he would have had a prescription and had been seen by doctors, different standards would apply. In fact, we would expect that different standards should apply.
If a pharmacy is part of a hospital and only serves in-hospital patients, then its licence will be part of the hospital's. The hospital being the primary licensee. The pharmacy would not need a separate one. Hence, I should clarify that the scenario that Ms Quay contemplates occurs only when a hospital pharmacy also chooses to serve walk-in customers in addition to serving the hospital's patients. That being the case, the pharmacy would be expected to abide by the retail pharmacy standards set out under the HPA.
That said, I have taken on-board Ms Quay's comments about the rationalisation and MOH and HSA will continue to streamline our processes to seek to avoid duplicative work by licensees to comply with the requirements of both this Bill as well as the HPA, including for tele-pharmacy services, and will no doubt consult with Ms Quay and the Society further on this point.
So, to give an example to Ms Quay, the 2019 Singapore Standard for Supply and Delivery of Medication is a common national standard for all healthcare providers and retail pharmacies if they want to supply and deliver medications.
Dr Chia, Mr Yong and Ms Joan Pereira have asked about services that will be regulated for the first time under the Bill – in other words, not previously or hitherto regulated, but introduced for the first time under this Bill – and these include services like telemedicine and ambulance services, and asked how these services will be regulated prior to the roll-out and implementation of this Bill.
To Dr Chia and Ms Pereira's questions on telemedicine, we should view telemedicine as an extension of the practice of medicine, provided through a platform different from the traditional clinic setting. Nonetheless, this is the practice of medicine and it remains regulated by existing standards such as the ECEG. In addition, the National Telemedicine Guidelines set out specific guidelines relevant to telemedicine that registered doctors and healthcare professionals would have to abide by.
I would reiterate that the broad principle is that doctors are expected to provide the same quality and standard of care as in-person medical care. The fact that there is now, or there could be, a more convenient medium by which the care is delivered or the patient is communicated with, should not be a reason in itself to lower that standard. The doctor should clearly indicate the limitations, in an appropriate case, of the telemedicine services at the start of the consultation, and might in fact need also to refer that patient to a face-to-face consultation if he forms the view that he is unable to take proper history, to assess the patient properly and to form a sufficient judgement in order to discharge his expected standard of care.
Moving forward, we will continue to refine the telemedicine regulations, have them tested, looked at and assessed in the context of the industry as well, to make sure that they are as appropriate and as relevant to the ground practice as possible. On this score, MOH has set up the Regulatory Sandbox to work closely with telemedicine providers to co-develop service-specific regulations. This will not only ensure that we remain in tandem with the practice of telemedicine, but that also patient safety and welfare would be adequately safeguarded.
Some Members have asked about cross-border healthcare services including the use of telemedicine. Let me clarify that the Bill does not have extra-territorial powers, but if the telemedicine provider provides services, from wherever he might be, where such services are received in Singapore, then those services must be licensed under the Bill, and all foreign doctors working for the provider of those services, must be registered with SMC.
There is, of course, this question of how do you enforce and how do you deal with potentially errant providers who exist outside of Singapore. MOH will continue to improve patient engagement and education on the benefits and some of the obvious limitations of telemedicine, including consuming healthcare services provided from abroad where, as I have said, oversight and regulatory enforcement is not as readily available, so that patients will know. They can make an informed decision as to which healthcare services to use or to consume for their treatment.
Mr Melvin Yong raised questions on licencing for new healthcare services, cutting edge healthcare services like through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). MOH is of course aware of the increasing role and importance of AI in healthcare. It is nonetheless an evolving area, and we are monitoring this space closely and also engaging the relevant stakeholders – those who develop the AI, those who use the AI – to try to find the best possible guidelines and also to develop them in tandem with the industry to assure patient safety.
Mr Melvin Yong made valid suggestions on the prospect of expanding the regulatory sandbox to these cutting edges areas to explore new frontiers and to test the boundaries, and to see what works and what does not work in the safe context of the sandbox. We will do so, so that we can then introduce these regulations after they have been found to be workable and, most importantly, safe for the patients.
Moving on to the private ambulance sector, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Melvin Yong raised questions about this. As Mr Melvin Yong mentioned, it is an area that was not previously regulated. As such, progressive efforts have been made to ensure that private ambulance operators will be able to ramp up and be regulated under this Bill. The point is, if overnight, everyone is subject to this Bill, you might then find, as I think one of the Members mentioned, some questions as to whether every ambulance operator will be able to deliver the same level of services. So, we take a more gradated and calibrated approach on this. Let me just elaborate on a couple of the measures.
In 2017, we issued standards for emergency ambulance and medical transport services so that operators will have clarity on the regulatory requirements that they must meet. This process where we expect to see ambulance operators come into scope in the second phase, in fact, started some years ago so as to socialise these requirements to them, to acclimatise them to the standards that they would have to meet.
MOH recognises that private operators may require support to ramp up their capabilities and to meet these standards. Hence, a year later, in 2018, the Voluntary Accreditation Scheme (VAS), which Ms Sylvia Lim referred to in her speech, was launched to help familiarise private operators with the applicable standards for clinical governance, for personnel, and also for vehicles early, so that steps can be taken to raise the clinical service standards, and they know what the benchmark and the bar would be. Further, training schemes have also been introduced and facilitated by MOH to upskill the existing manpower to meet the new requirements for paramedics and also emergency medical technicians.
At present, more than 50% of private ambulance operators have come on-board the VAS. MOH will continue to work with other operators to prepare their vehicles, as well as skilling up their manpower. As such, ambulance services will be licensed in the second phase, as I mentioned at the opening speech, of implementation, and ambulance operators under VAS will be seamlessly ported over as licensees under the HCS Bill.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Sylvia Lim asked questions about costs and fees of private ambulance operators. We understand and we share those concerns. MOH will be working with the VAS ambulance operators to develop and publish an appropriate range of fees charged, so that consumers can have more transparency and can better make up their minds and have informed choices of the providers to use. We intend to publish those fees before these ambulance operators are phased in under the second phase. And, in fact, we target to do so in the course of this year.
Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Melvin Yong have asked how the Bill impacts existing PHMCA licensees and whether its requirements to enhance governance will place an unnecessary burden on licensees.
Members will, of course, know that that is not the intention of this Bill. But at the same time, healthcare services, especially those that are newer, will need to be properly regulated. The rationale for introducing the enhanced governance requirements is to ensure that the licensees are well managed, so that they can effectively and safely serve their patients' needs.
At the same time, we recognise that the scale and complexity of licensees and the kind of services that they offer, the scale of their operations and their set-up will differ. The requirements will, therefore, be attenuated to take into account the nature of the licensee's business, so as not to unnecessarily increase regulatory burden on all of them in equal proportions.
Let me first address the queries from Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Christopher de Souza, and I think, indeed, also from one or two other Members, about the officeholders stipulated under this Bill.
The Bill requires all licensees to appoint a Principal Officer (PO), and certain licensees providing more complex and technical services must also appoint a Clinical Governance Officer (CGO). The PO is akin to the manager appointed by the licensee under the present PHMCA regime and is responsible to assist the licensee in ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Bill. The PO is required to have sufficient organisational authority and management skills to adjust operations and make decisions, while the CGO is intended to oversee the technical and clinical aspects of the service. MOH will be satisfied as long as the PO and CGO are able to discharge their duties appropriately and we will not require specific personnel, such as the CEO, to be the PO or CGO in each case. Similarly, for small GP clinics that likely do not provide any complex specialised services, one individual can fill the role of the licensee and the PO, and a separate CGO will also not be required in those cases.
Mr Murali Pillai queried on whether there are objective criteria to determine the suitability of key appointment holders. Mr Murali Pillai would have seen clause 2(3) of the Bill which sets out the factors that will be considered in deciding whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a key appointment holder, PO or CGO. It provides, what I would regard as the no-fly zones, the broader outliers. So, there is financial suitability, there is the question of whether there is a prior conviction, antecedents and so on. But, at the same time, we also do not want to be overly prescriptive in the quality of the candidate that comes forward. So, to that extent, there is an interplay between the criteria that are set up here and what the Director of Medical Services might subjectively determine as to their suitability in each case.
We also intend to provide clear guidance of instances where persons will be found to be unsuitable, so that licensees will be apprised of the applicable criteria. This can be done through regulations and, as Members know, clause 38 of the Bill also provides for a Code of Practice as regards the relevance of all licensees to these requirements. It can be published in the Code as well.
Should a licensee appeal to the Minister against any decision to reject the appointment of his key appointment holders, the PO or CGO, the Minister will consider each case based on its own facts. I think Mr Pilliai raised the point about the appeal and how the Minister will consider it. Clause 48(7) (b) of the Bill, which provides for appeals to the Minister, allows the Minister to vary, substitute the decision of the Director, as the case might be appropriate, upon the appeal.
As for Mr Murali Pillai's point on ensuring that key appointment holders are competent in corporate governance and financial management, we agree. That is the reason really to ensure there is a PO and a CGO that deal with the technical and clinical aspects of the practice. And MOH plans to include such requirements in the Code of Practice, as I have said, under clause 38 of this Bill, which will guide licensees with a bit more specificity on the levels of skill and competencies required. But as I have said, at the same time, not being overly prescriptive so that it becomes something that you just have to tick all the boxes. That is not the intention.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Prof Fatimah Lateef have asked for details on specified committees for quality assurance and clinical ethics. I believe Ms Sylvia Lim also raised questions on the quality assurance committees (QACs). Let me deal with those questions.
QACs are already an existing requirement under the current PHMCA. They provide a protected environment, as Mr Christopher de Souza said, without prejudice, for healthcare professionals to be open about an adverse event to identify the problems, learn from it, and correct errors without fear of being sued based on the materials that are discussed there or the discussions or candid sharing at those occasions. Through the learning environment that the QACs foster, proper root-cause analysis can be conducted and professionals can come up with solutions that will prevent the recurrence of such errors. That, after all, is the intention.
Over the years, QACs have served their functions well in reviewing adverse clinical events. Ms Sylvia Lim asked specifically on the functioning of the QACs – how they are performing, and whether, ultimately, they will provide proper oversight of the way in which procedures are handled or the way in which patients might then raise complaints. I think I heard Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned also the case of Prof Lim that went before the Court of three Judges a few months ago.
The QACs' function is in reviewing adverse clinical events and recommending initiatives to improve the quality and the standard of care. That is quite different, and it does not affect the other avenues available to a patient, either through SMC's disciplinary proceedings or, should the need arise, for civil compensation under the civil Courts. Those still exist and nothing in this Bill prejudices that or changes the options available to a patient. Therefore, the oversight of a case or oversight of professional misconduct or conduct of a medical practitioner still falls with the SMC and the rubric and the regime that are there still exist. The QACs exist separately and, as I have explained, for a different purpose and outcome.
The Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) have a different role to play. They review ethically-challenging cases and ensure that ethical care and treatment are provided in the context of the facts of that case and the treatment, modality or options that have been considered. There will be a list of prescribed medical treatments that require CEC review, where the care management of patients is likely to be complex; where societal values could be either undermined or challenged; and where the values of the medical practitioners might be challenged as well.
To give some examples to Members of what we have in mind, for instance, where there is a proposed surgical separation of conjoined twins, that will be something that the CEC should review. Or, for example, in the creation of a saviour sibling to save one sibling, that should also be considered by the CEC. Those are relevant matters that fall within the rubric of both clinical as well as ethical considerations that the CEC would be well-placed to review.
Next, let me talk about the step-in mechanisms and employment restrictions which various Members have raised.
As I have mentioned at the outset, the rationale for these powers is, ultimately, to protect patients and ensure that they receive not only appropriate but also continual care, notwithstanding the performance of the healthcare service provider.
Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng raised queries as to when the step-in powers could be triggered. They will be triggered when it is in the patient's interests to do so. Ultimately, of course, that is a multi-faceted and dynamic assessment of the facts in each case. We would like to, however, assure the House that the step-in powers will be activated sparingly and as a measure of last resort for the specified licensees.
Other alternative measures as may be appropriate in the circumstances – like penalties or warnings if the situation is not at a sufficiently grave stage, or the appointment of a new management team to rectify the issues – these are measures which could be considered, and within reason, before a step-in order is made. Licensees will be given an opportunity to make written representations before the step-in order is activated, unless it is an extreme case where an expedited or urgent step-in order is required.
These powers can make a real difference in protecting patient safety and ensuring the continuity of care. For example, there may be cases of certain specified service providers with financial difficulties who may find it difficult to afford to continue its services and patient care. This, in turn, translates into undermining the safety of patients and adversely affecting their welfare.
Members would know that under the existing PHMCA, MOH can only take regulatory actions, such as revoking or suspending the licence, which was not feasible given that this would interrupt continuity of care for the resident patients.
Under the Bill, step-in powers will now enable MOH to intervene in the operations instead to address the problems and improve continuity of care for patients. MOH will also \"step-out\" once the service is stabilised and patient safety is assured.
On Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Irene Quay's queries regarding the restriction on employment of certain individuals in long-stay settings, the mandated background checks are to be conducted by licensees on all prospective staff, and existing employees will not be affected. The objective of the check is to prevent individuals who have committed egregious crimes – it might be causing hurt, grievous hurt, or more serious crimes like rape – from being employed and potentially harming vulnerable patients in these settings.
For foreigners – and I think some Members asked about the efficacy of this regime for foreigners – the background check really would have to be on a best-efforts basis, as and when information arises and can be determined.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked for an update on the measures, including cybersecurity measures, to assist licensees in protecting health information in their electronic medical records. And Ms Irene Quay also asked when MOH would be mandating contribution of patient health information to the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR). I think one of the Members calls it the \"elephant in the room\" that is actually not in the Bill. And, indeed, it is not in the Bill. Let me, however, take some time to just assure Members and address some of these concerns, nonetheless.
First, clause 27 of the Bill requires licensees to implement measures to protect their medical records and ensure that the records are accurate and remain up-to-date. As MOH encourages more licensees to digitalise their medical records, we will also be working closely with the licensees to study further ways to safeguard the collection, storage, access, use and, of course, sharing of health information.
This will no doubt include developing cybersecurity guidelines specific and customised to the various healthcare services and exploring efforts to better support smaller healthcare providers as they take steps to improve their cyber and data security positions. We will be engaging the licensees on this effort and will be releasing more details on this in the first half of 2020.
As for NEHR, Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked if this would represent a mortal blow to NEHR. It does not. But, nonetheless, MOH will want to ensure that all necessary safeguards are in place to handle the evolving cybersecurity threats and also ensure that where various cybersecurity reviews for the NEHR have been commissioned, the appropriate enhancements would be made to the system.
As such, as has been announced previously, the mandatory contribution to the NEHR has been deferred until all the enhancements have been completed, and we are satisfied that the system is assessed to be sufficiently robust. MOH will make further announcements on this at the appropriate juncture.
Next, let me turn to queries raised by Prof Fatimah Lateef and Ms Irene Quay on the co-location between licensed and unlicensed services.
As I explained at the opening speech, the prohibition on the co-location is to prevent parties from being misled into consuming the unlicensed services under the impression that it is part and parcel or adjunct to the licensed services. This is no different from the current position under the present PHMCA.
However, where the services are complementary to each other between the licensed and the unlicensed services, some examples I mentioned earlier, this concern is mitigated. And in these circumstances, we will be prepared to make an exception for certain healthcare professionals to co-locate with licensees. So, for example, a physiotherapist can co-locate with an orthopaedic clinic, so that more holistic services can be provided, such as in that case. In other circumstances, we will review on a case-by-case basis.
The Bill also contains other measures which will assist patients in making informed decisions when selecting healthcare services.
So, Ms Irene Quay cited the register of licensees in clause 22 of the Bill. This register will be accessible by the public, making it easy to check, for them to determine if a provider is, in fact, licensed by the MOH or not.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Melvin Yong asked how we can prevent patients from being misled by unqualified providers into thinking that they are qualified when they are not and then go and seek their services.
First of all, the licensee is responsible for ensuring that their personnel, all their personnel are appropriately qualified and competent. If a licensee permits unqualified personnel to provide healthcare services, MOH could investigate and take the appropriate regulatory actions.
Second, clause 31 plays a part by limiting advertising of licensable healthcare services to licensees only and, as I mentioned at the start, to persons acting on the authority of a licensee.
Third, clause 37 allows MOH to publish information to ensure patient welfare, or for public interest, and this includes publishing a list of unlicensed providers.
That said, ultimately, public education will play an important role to prevent or reduce and, as far as possible, remove all of such mis-impressions. MOH has and will be enhancing efforts, as we implement the Bill, for public education. When in doubt, I would advise patients to check on the registers maintained by the professional boards, such as SMC.
Mr Melvin Yong raised a query on the regulation of mental health professionals. Professional associations, such as the Singapore Psychological Society and the Singapore Association for Counselling, provide advice on trained professionals in their respective fields. So, the scenario that Mr Yong is trying to avoid – where there is doubt as to whether someone is a counsellor or not, whether he is a psychologist or not – the associations can provide further avenues for assistance.
Ms Joan Pereira and Prof Fatimah Lateef have given useful comments on other Bill requirements, such as naming restrictions and point-of-care tests. We will consider these in implementing the Bill. And I would add to Ms Joan Pereira's point that should an entity today already be using one of these otherwise prohibited names, if the licensee does not change, the ownership does not change, and it is simply carried over into the new Bill, we will be prepared to allow them to continue using the name. But, of course, that will have to be revisited if they either sell the business or change the ownership in a material way.
Next, let me turn to healthcare costs which several Members, including Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Leon Perera, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Christopher de Souza, have raised. Concerns regarding the impact of the Bill on healthcare costs and, of course, passing on of these costs to the patients were raised, and I think those were valid concerns. Let me address them.
Let me start by saying that no single measure can really tackle the issue of healthcare affordability and I have taken on board Mr Perera's various suggestions. I will address them in a moment.
For now, let me just very quickly outline the various initiatives that have been done to keep healthcare costs low and sustainable for all Singaporeans. As I had mentioned, we adopt a multi-tiered approach – multi-tiered, multi-pronged, and I would say also multi-faceted approach – to controlling costs, with the basic assurance that no Singaporean would be denied access to basic healthcare due to financial difficulties. That is the assurance that would be given. The multi-tiered approach that we take will include enhancing the 3Ms – which we have done at various stages and which we will continue to do – MediSave, MediShield Life and MediFund; and also extending significant subsidies, including the CHAS scheme.
Looking ahead, we are also enhancing the role of insurance in long-term care, such as with the launch of CareShield Life from mid-2020.
We have also put in place other measures to curb the increase in healthcare costs. These include requirements under Integrated Shield Plan insurers for new rider plans. We have also developed and published fee benchmarks, as Mr Perera himself noted, for private sector professional fees for common surgical procedures.
Finally, the Agency for Care Effectiveness also publishes guidances on clinically and cost-effective patient care. Mr Perera no doubt has cited a number of different studies. I think, at various juncture he mentioned studies from various places, data published from various sources, some experts speaking at a conference, delivering a paper and some results from programmes and studies somewhere. I am not prepared at this stage to agree to the conclusion of these studies because they need to be contextualised. We need to look at the details, we need to look at who studied it and what the assumptions might be. If Mr Perera would be happy to share these studies and the other details that he had mentioned in his speech with us, we can do a more careful study and look at the options open in terms of adopting some of these measures in Singapore.
But where I think we are on common ground between Mr Perera and the Bill, is the need to ensure that we promote price transparency. As Mr Perera mentioned at the outset, indeed, that is specifically provided for in the Regulations. The Bill supports this by seeking to improve price transparency, such as requiring licensees to display common charges; by mandating financial counselling and itemisation of bills for certain settings, such as procedures conducted by hospitals or specialist clinics; and also establishing the Service Review Committee to monitor utilisation and clinical outcomes of certain high-cost and more complex services, such as proton beam therapy, for example, to ensure that not just is the care provided appropriate but it is also cost-effective, to take into account and to assuage Mr Perera's concern that not all high cost procedures are necessarily good quality procedures and, perhaps, not all good quality procedures are also at the same cost-effective level.
So, all these factors, they operate dynamically and they all have to be taken to account, depending on the nature of the service that has to be delivered and, of course, the patient's safety and the requirements of each individual patient as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, are you likely to wrap up within the next five minutes?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, I am. May I continue?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.
","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 period of up to 30 minutes. Mr Tong, you have another two minutes. If you are unlikely to finish within two minutes, then I will ask for an exemption of Standing Order 48 for you.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thought you said five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Time is moving [Laughter]. Order. Minister Desmond Lee can apply for exemption.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): I think this application alone will take another three minutes. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Senior Minister of State's speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Senior Minister of State's speech. – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Healthcare Services Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the point that Members raised about cost and that it be not transferred, ultimately, to patients is a point that we are indeed concerned about. To give one example, to reduce the administrative workload for all existing providers as we implement the Bill, MOH conducted extensive stakeholder engagements – part of what we did in that two years leading up to the preparation of this Bill – to understand and do a deep dive of their licensing needs and map these, as far as possible, to the new Bill licences and the requirements in this new regime.
On Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Christopher de Souza’s query on how we will help providers, specifically the smaller ones, transition from the current PHMCA to the future HCS Bill, let me assure the House that MOH will support and guide all licensees to ensure a seamless transition to the new licensing regime.
This will be done at each implementation phase, where PHMCA licences will be swapped out for equivalent licences under this Bill, without the need for existing licensees to file any applications or pay additional fees.
MOH will continue to provide clear instructions and appropriate channels for stakeholders to ask questions, clarify their doubts or come and seek assistance from us on the transition to the new regime.
Various Members – Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Irene Quay, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Melvin Yong and also Dr Lee Bee Wah – have asked how this Bill impacts operating costs and in particular whether licensees will pay more fees as a result of the new landscape. Again, let me assure the House, and I think one of the Members said, and I echo that, that this is not intended as a revenue generating mechanism. It is necessary because of the measures that I have set out at the opening speech, that the new regulatory landscape is necessary to deal with evolving changes to the healthcare landscape. MOH would not, under this new regime, overall be collecting more licensing fees on an aggregate basis, compared to the position today.
The general principle is that licence fees are pegged at a level commensurate with the cost of manpower and resources incurred from the expected inspections and the audits to be done. MOH has and will continue to streamline our licensing processes to keep our regulatory costs down, as well as reduce excessive regulatory burden on licensees.
In fact, based on our preliminary assessment as we map the services across to the new HCS Bill requirements, based on our assessment, more than 95% of existing providers today will see either no change or a decrease in the amount of fees that they will have to pay. So, there is really no reason or basis for providers to pass on any of these costs to patients. The remaining providers who will see an increase are mainly providers who will be providing new licensable services regulated under this Bill.
For existing providers facing higher fees, MOH will put in mitigation measures to support the transition and this would include implementing the increase gradually over three licensing renewal cycles. So, we will space out as far as possible the increase, spread it out over three renewal cycles.
Sir, let me conclude. The Bill introduces a regulatory regime that is sufficiently nimble and flexible to protect patient safety and welfare, but at the same time, take on board the rapidly evolving changes to the healthcare landscape. At the same time, it will accommodate new healthcare services, new care models and also nurture innovation. This will ensure that healthcare services provided in Singapore will be able to address the existing and also the future needs of our population.
Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Well done, Senior Minister of State, you have kept it within five minutes.
[(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)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building a Sustainable and Vibrant Community Arts Eco-system","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Building a Sustainable and Vibrant Community Arts Eco-system.
The arts strive to enrich the individual, encourage self-expression, while at the same time seeking to reach out, communicate and bring people together. The National Arts Council (NAC) Arts and Culture Nodes at various venues island-wide energise and excite Singaporeans. A wide array of quality arts programmes, for people of all ages and walks of life, are available. With the SG Arts Plan in place, the arts scene has been thriving, as artists chart professional careers and arts groups grow in strength.
I have three recommendations to build a sustainable and vibrant community arts eco-system.
One, to build under-one-roof performing arts housing for music, dance and theatre. Sharing resources, putting the same genre of performing arts under one roof. For example, different hubs that are specifically designed for the music, theatre or dance groups will allow the groups to effectively share resources and rehearsal spaces.
The Stamford Arts House is a multidisciplinary arts centre with a focus on traditional arts. Currently, the centre houses various professional arts companies of different arts forms. The Government can consider this: a shared acoustically treated recital hall for the orchestra and ensemble, a black box for theatre performances, dance theatre with treated flooring and height for dance companies. This will re-energise the building, and audiences just need to visit one particular location to watch the performance of a particular art form.
Earlier on, in September 2019, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey Yam Keng, announced that Arts freelancers will have an arts resource website, and will also have dedicated working spaces at Goodman Arts Centre and Stamford Arts Centre. In addition to this, perhaps we can also consider a central shared warehouse for the arts community, where props and sets can be stored, shared or reused. This is one of the ways we can do our part to save the Earth from climate change, reducing wastage and disposal issues.
Two, to reconsider and revisit the plan to reinstall the arts radio and TV channel. Traditional media such as the radio and television still play an important role in sharing content, and informing the public. We used to have an arts radio station – Passion 99.5 FM. Back then, the NAC launched this radio station on 31 December 1997 to increase awareness of the arts and provide the arts community with a public voice. It featured magazine programmes on arts and culture. However, the station was shut down in December 2003 because its listenership was too small to attract sustained sponsorship and advertising revenue to cover its operating costs.
Today, we have an increasing number in arts events and attendance. We ought to deepen and further the reach of our performances and productions through the mainstream media. There is now larger number of performing arts events offered over the years. According to data released by the MCCY on 22 January 2019, the numbers have increased from around 7,700 in 2011 to more than 9,500 in 2017. Also, more than 11 million attended non-ticketed arts and cultural events in 2017, an increase of nearly 20% from the year before and the highest turnout in seven years. The content creators from mainstream radio stations and TV channel can even work hand in hand with the social media for audience development purpose and wider audience reach.
Three, to foster and further the establishment of community arts groups with school, institutions, alumni and students. Partnership between schools, institutions and community arts group establishes a vibrant and sustainable ecosystem. Community clubs can provide the space to support these alumni arts groups. With these arts groups housed in the CCs, they can regularly engage in activities and perform, contributing back to the larger community. The potential of working together between the arts groups is limitless. With more collaboration opportunities, this will encourage and inspire these arts groups to reach the pinnacle of excellence. However, I understand that a few community clubs have closed down the arts groups housed in their venues. So, where will all these groups go to?
In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, since the Arts Council launched the SG Arts Plan, the number of arts professionals and arts groups have been increasing continuously. With a thriving arts scene, people of all ages can enjoy arts. Based on these developments, I hope the Government can better integrate resources and create more shared spaces so that we can further develop a vibrant arts ecosystem.
I have three suggestions.
Firstly, a one-stop arts house allowing professional resources to be shared. A recital hall, a dance studio, and a black box for theatre performances can be put under one roof. Audiences just need to visit one location to watch different genres of arts performances. This is not only convenient in terms of location selection, but also conducive for interaction and exchange.
The Stamford Arts House is a multidisciplinary arts centre with a focus on traditional arts. It has drawn traditional arts groups to base there. Siong Leng Musical Association, Ding Yi Music Company, Indian dance groups and Malay modern dance groups are located at the centre.
In September 2019, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Baey Yam Keng, announced that arts freelancers would have an arts resource website, and there will be two co-working spaces. In addition to these, perhaps the Government can consider a chamber music recital hall and piano rooms with sound insulation facilities in the music centre. In the dance and theatre centre, we can have a black box and a dance studio and even a common storeroom for props which can be reused. This will help reduce wastage and is environmentally friendly. We can set up a shared warehouse to house props and sets. By doing so, spaces can be used more efficiently and sustainably, and it is good for the environment by cutting wastage. Kill two birds with one stone.
Secondly, reconsider and revisit the plan to reinstate the arts radio and TV channel. The mainstream media can play an important role in promoting different arts genres. Hence, I suggest that we revisit the plan to reinstate the arts radio and TV channel.
In 1997, NAC established Passion 99.5 FM to support our Singapore music. Unfortunately, sponsorship and advertisement income dropped due to economic downturn, and it was shut down in 2003.
However, things are different today. According to data released by the MCCY on 31 January 2019, the number of arts performances have risen from around 7,700 in 2011 to more than 9,500 in 2017. I think with the increase in number in arts events and attendance, we ought to deepen the reach of our performances and productions through the mainstream media.
Besides traditional media, content creators for mainstream radio stations and TV channels can even work hand-in-hand with the social media team for wider reach. These are critical for audience development and the development of our arts scene.
Lastly, foster and further the collaboration between Community Clubs and schools. Community Clubs gather people of different ages and backgrounds together. Hence, it is a good place to promote arts, allowing community arts to join hands with school arts. The establishment of alumni arts groups will be a win-win situation for multiple parties, for example, symphony orchestras, Chinese orchestras, dance groups and theatre groups. The community clubs can be the extension and complement of the school arts scene, providing a good arts platform for the residents.
With more collaboration opportunities, arts groups can exchange ideas, work and explore together, and become more creative. This will make the whole arts scene more vibrant and dynamic.
It will take a long time to build an arts ecosystem. We should not only bring arts to the people, but also allow Singapore’s arts community to groom more top-notch arts professionals. To that end, we must build a vibrant community arts ecosystem.
(In English): With the mainstream media’s support, having shared resources for performing arts of different genres, as well as partnership between community arts groups and schools, these help to achieve synergy to build a vibrant community arts eco-system.
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 Terence Ho for his suggestions to improve the vibrancy and sustainability of the arts and culture in Singapore. MCCY and our cultural institutions recognise the importance of fostering the sustained and sustainable growth of Singapore’s arts and culture over the longer term. We have been and are committed to working closely with partners from the private and people sectors towards this end.
I will start by addressing Mr Ho's first and third suggestions on the use of spaces for the arts and culture. I agree that it is important to ensure efficient use of physical spaces in land-scarce Singapore. The Gross Floor Area (GFA) that is dedicated to artists and arts companies has grown almost five-fold over the last 30 years. Venues such as the Goodman Arts Centre (GAC), Stamford Arts Centre (SAC), Aliwal Arts Centre, and the Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre, currently provide our arts community with many creation and presentation spaces. However, demand for art spaces continues to increase and remains high. Given our limited resources with rising rental costs and increasing competition for space, co-location initiatives and shared spaces are necessary to ensure that our existing spaces are effectively used for the benefit of more arts practitioners.
Multi-purpose studios, performance venues, office spaces and storage rooms are co-shared at our arts centres. This arrangement not only maximises available spaces but also allows the arts community to strengthen their networks, facilitate exchange of ideas, and increase opportunities for collaboration and partnership. For example, the GAC offers arts practitioners the use of facilities such as a Black Box, dance studio, and acoustically-treated music studios. GAC's multi-disciplinary tenant mix was a purposeful design by the National Arts Council (NAC) to catalyse diverse and quality artistic works, create greater synergies and collaborations amongst the various art forms, and introduce appreciation of different art forms and genres to audiences. Today, GAC is an energetic arts enclave, drawing in the public interested in experiencing the diverse range of art forms and arts activities on offer. We agree with Mr Ho's suggestion that NAC can grow the Stamford Arts Centre's potential to similarly develop into a vibrant and attractive arts venue with the mix of performing arts groups which share its spaces.
NAC will continue to review arts spaces under its care and will prioritise shared and common spaces that benefit more groups. As Mr Ho mentioned, there are two co-working spaces for arts freelancers at GAC and SAC. They will be officially launched in the coming weeks, which would further contribute to the dynamism of our arts spaces. Mr Ho's idea of a shared warehouse is a good one that NAC will explore as a way to diversify our art space offerings. Given our limited arts GFA, however, we would also encourage our arts practitioners to consider how they can pool their resources to rent commercial spaces, or for members in the arts community with existing facilities to open them up for sharing with or rental to others.
Aside from arts spaces under NAC, we also work closely with corporate and community partners to unlock new space for arts practitioners. One such partner is the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which encourages developers to allocate space in malls for arts, sports and social groups with strong community links through its Community Sports Facilities Scheme. Arts groups like Wild Rice, Singapore Dance Theatre and The Rice Company Limited are examples of organisations that have successfully benefited from this scheme through retail operators like CapitaLand, Far East Organisation and Frasers Centrepoint. We hope that more developers and venue owners could support this scheme and provide space for artists to flourish and contribute to their communities.
Other partners are the Community Centres and Clubs (CCs). Mr Ho would be familiar with community orchestras and bands that have been formed and housed at our CCs such as Keat Hong Chinese Orchestra at the Chua Chu Kang CC and West Winds at the Bukit Batok CC. These groups are dedicated to developing young talents and are useful platforms for many to continue pursuing their passions even after leaving school.
In addition, NAC also works with the People’s Association (PA) to facilitate co-location of arts groups within community facilities such as Our Tampines Hub and Wisma Geylang Serai. As Mr Ho noted, the arts groups in such venues can contribute to the vibrancy of their neighbourhoods and grow their community stakeholders. NAC and PA are open to considering more of such co-location opportunities if there is a good fit between our CCs and the needs, priorities, and commitment of arts groups, including alumni arts groups. On their part, arts groups should be responsive and adaptive to the needs of local audiences and community stakeholders such as grassroots organisations and space owners.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to Mr Ho's other suggestion, namely the reinstatement of a radio station and TV channel to promote the arts. I agree with Mr Ho that it is important to promote the arts to as wide an audience as possible and to give everyone the opportunity to experience our vibrant culture and for it to become a part of all Singaporeans’ lives.
NAC already works with mainstream media platforms to showcase the arts. For example, Hear65, a national movement launched in 2018, partnered with local radio station UFM 100.3 in 2019 to present six shows profiling our local artists, drawing an audience of over 1,500 and 80,000 views online. In addition, Mediacorp as our national broadcaster continues to make arts content accessible and enjoyable to the public across its free-to-air and digital platforms, where appropriate. Arts and culture-related programming that have been broadcast recently include SPOP Sing!, Lights. Camera. Singapore., and Singapore Talent Night, which showcased performances by local artists who performed at River Hongbao 2019. MCCY and NAC will continue to explore opportunities to work with mainstream media to reach out to radio and TV audiences.
However, with the increasingly widespread use of technology, coupled with global trends on declining TV viewership and radio listenership, it is important to also tap on digital platforms and channels to complement traditional media to transform the way in which audiences engage with our arts and culture. As Minister Grace Fu announced at the 2019 Committee of Supply debate, MCCY, NAC and NHB are developing new digital initiatives such as the one-stop online Cultural Concierge for arts and culture activities and content and the Cultural Resource Ontology to facilitate easier public access to our cultural resources. We are actively digitising our national collection and making this accessible through platforms such as NHB's Roots.sg as well as the National Library Board's National Online Repository of the Arts (NORA).
Most recently, the Esplanade launched a multimedia site Offstage in October 2019, hosting behind-the-scenes, broadcast, interactive and archival content of the performing arts. Through such initiatives, we seek to bring our arts and culture to new audiences while simultaneously engaging existing audiences in new and meaningful ways.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to realise our shared vision of a vibrant and sustainable arts landscape in Singapore, it is in our arts and cultural groups' own interest and responsibility to ensure their long-term relevance and success. This can range from developing audiences to appreciate their work, to creating new works of art which can appeal to a wider audience and continually enhancing their governance and financial processes to attract and retain donors and sponsors. MCCY and NAC are committed to working with our arts practitioners towards this end.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.24 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":"Policy to Withhold Graduation Certificates from Students with Unpaid School Fees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Education (a) over the last three years, how many students' graduation certificates have been withheld by schools; (b) what are the common reasons for withholding the certificates; and (c) whether the Ministry will review such practices.
14 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will review the policy of withholding the original PSLE certificate of students who have not paid their school fees.
15 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education what are the actions taken by a school when a student is unable to make payment of the school fees and under what circumstances will financial assistance be granted to the student.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I have shared my views on this issue with several members of public who wrote to me. One of the replies has been posted online and reported by the media. I do not have a lot to add, but let me reiterate some of the key points.
The monthly cash payment for primary schools is – $6.50 for miscellaneous fees, with another $6.50 which is payable by Edusave. So, out of pocket expenses on fees is $6.50.
The amount is low because school education is highly subsidised. But a small payment is still required, to demonstrate that as parents and families, we have a part to play. In fact, most families take this payment very seriously, and it inculcates in children the value of commitment and playing our part, however small.
Many of us in the House will remember our school days when we queued up to pay miscellaneous fees to our form teacher. In my case, it was $3 per month. My teacher would always remind me that what we paid was not enough to buy chalk, but still we should do our part. I would then collect the chit – a different colour for each month – and show it to my parents. I think that whole ritual had inculcated some good values in many students, and certainly me.
Notwithstanding, some parents accumulate arrears for various reasons. I do not agree with the view that this is because MOE and schools are uncaring. Quite the contrary, schools and teachers are often in the frontline of reaching out to students from vulnerable families and assisting them, including paying home visits and bringing the children to schools.
Some of us in our community work come across such families, and wonder why assistance has not been extended to them and whether we are doing enough outreach. But please remember we are all part of the solution, and cannot place the onus solely on schools and teachers. When we know of such cases, surface them to the school, or our community partners, and help will be extended to them. Parents can step forward and request for help if they need financial assistance.
There is a view that it is difficult to apply for financial assistance in school. However, the application process is not difficult. When families need assistance, teachers and staff would help in filling up the forms.
MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) covers not just the school and miscellaneous fees, but also meals, uniforms, textbooks and transport – a large portion of the form is in fact to tick the menu of assistance required. Further, if parents produce a ComCare approval letter, MOE FAS will be automatically granted without the need for any further supporting documents. If one child is granted the MOE FAS, the child’s siblings in our schools will automatically benefit from FAS too.
If after all the above steps have been taken and the parents still accumulate arrears, that is when the original PSLE results slip will be withheld as a last resort. The child will still apply to secondary school and progress like everyone else. Schools are also sensitive about this when distributing the results slip, and will make sure that everyone gets their results the same way.
But I accept the feedback that the child who receives a copy of his results slip instead of the original may feel awkward or embarrassed, through no fault of his. We do not want the children to bear responsibility for the arrears accumulated by their parents.
Further, the current practice of withholding the original results slip may not be fully effective in urging all parents to pay miscellaneous fees. Every year, about 2% of cohort who are still accumulating arrears, and did not apply for MOE financial assistance, are affected. In 2019, this works out to 645 students.
MOE will therefore review the practice, while continuing to underscore the responsibilities of families to pay a small miscellaneous fee. The review will be concluded in time for the next PSLE results release.
Incidentally, I checked on the child in question which had triggered public attention on this issue. The school had reached out to the parents earlier, given them the FAS application form and brochure, but the parents did not apply. On the day of the PSLE results, she had received her results in the same way as everyone else, except hers was a copy. Teachers did not observe her to feel embarrassed or emotionally affected. She has since been successfully placed in a Secondary school of her choice near her home. The parents have submitted the FAS form and she is receiving assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent UN Climate Talks (COP25) on Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with the failure of recent UN Climate Talks (COP25), what are the implications for Singapore.
17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he will provide an update on the progress made at the 25th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP25) which took place in December 2019; and (b) what further steps can Singapore undertake to do its part to create a more green and sustainable global environment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: COP25 was the longest COP on record, with intensive and protracted negotiations. But Parties failed to reach an agreement on a number of issues, most notably Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – a key agenda item on carbon markets and trading, and the only remaining track that has yet to find a successful resolution since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.
An agreement on Article 6 on carbon markets will enable countries to pursue cost-effective mitigation options beyond their shores. Put simply, it will enable countries with limited mitigation potential to buy carbon credits from countries where the cost of mitigation is lower. The latter countries are usually those with green lungs and such a system will incentivise them to maintain them. The Article 6 framework can also generate much needed funding for vulnerable developing countries to cope with the impacts of climate change in the future.
It is crucial that countries agree on a clear, balanced and credible set of rules that protects environment integrity and upholds the goals of the Paris Agreement. Badly designed rules may create loopholes and lead to an increase in global emissions. At COP25, we were close to an agreement, but more work remains for it to be agreed upon by all Parties. Singapore will continue to work closely with other countries, including the incoming UK COP-26 Presidency, to secure a credible outcome on Article 6 at the COP-26 in Glasgow.
Notwithstanding the failure to reach agreement on this key issue, we did make some progress at COP25. Countries successfully adopted the overarching decisions at COP25, which I was pleased to co-facilitate with Spain's Minister for the Ecological Transition Teresa Ribera, at the request of the Chilean COP25 Presidency. Amongst other things, the decisions recognised the role of multilateralism, at a time when it is under strain. They will serve to keep countries, with diverse interests, united in their resolve to work together to address challenges of the global commons, like climate change. They called on countries to consider the emissions gap and to submit their updated climate pledges. The decisions also acknowledged the role of climate finance by the developed countries, which is essential for concrete action. Beyond the call for action, discussions will be convened in new areas of concern like the Ocean and its climate impact.
While the outcome at COP25 fell short of expectations, the decisions adopted in Madrid will keep the drive to address climate change alive. The continued momentum on global climate action is especially important for small countries like Singapore, which depend on a strong global response to tackle climate change. I was particularly struck by the support and energy of our civil society, particularly the youths, private sector representatives, and academics, who were all united in their efforts to address climate change. As we head towards the next COP in Glasgow, the challenge will be to maintain this spirit of inclusive multilateralism in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.
As a small low-lying state that is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, Singapore will play our part to support the global effort to address climate change.
Internationally, Singapore remains committed to faithfully implementing our Paris commitments. We have committed to slow down and ultimately cap our CO2 emissions around 2030. We will update our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and communicate our long-term low emissions development strategy in 2020. We will also continue to contribute to global efforts led by international organisations such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reduce emissions, as well as collaborate actively with international partners, such as the UNFCCC, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), ASEAN and city-networks, such as the C40, to share our experiences and the use of best practices across the globe.
Regionally, we will continue to partner and support fellow developing countries to ramp up capacity-building and other support mechanisms to support their efforts to enhance climate action. For example, in October 2019, as part of our Climate Action Package, we co-organised with New Zealand a workshop on the Paris rulebook to help countries in the region better understand their obligations under the Paris Agreement, and to identify concrete actions and strategies that can be pursued. Next week, we will be co-organising a workshop on updating NDCs for ASEAN countries.
Nationally, we will continue with our efforts to develop Singapore in a sustainable and socially-inclusive way, do our part to reduce our emissions, and strengthen our climate resilience for the transition to a low-carbon future. Singapore has implemented an economy-wide carbon tax last year – the first in Southeast Asia to do so – as a key plank of our mitigation strategy. The revenue will be used to support emission reduction projects and help businesses become more resource and energy efficient. Despite limited access to alternative sources of energy, we will leverage long-term planning, innovation, and international cooperation to address climate change. By pursuing circular economy approaches, and rallying stakeholders towards sustainable growth, we can continue to create opportunities for our businesses and our people, in an increasingly resource- and carbon-constrained world. Last year, we launched a Zero Waste Masterplan and enacted a Resource Sustainability Act to design waste and wastefulness out of our economy. Our efforts to promote a circular economy, where materials are retained and reused in the value chain for as long as possible, will help to reduce our carbon footprint and complement our efforts to address climate change. We will continue with our sustainability efforts this year by focusing on food and how we can work together to secure a more resilient and sustainable supply of food for our citizens.
Climate change is an existential challenge for Singapore. To ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy a vibrant and liveable city, we must put sustainability at the centre of everything we do. Yet, climate change is not something that we can tackle by ourselves, and we will also do our part as a responsible global citizen and contribute to international and regional efforts to address climate change and create a \"greener\" and more sustainable global environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Impersonation Scams in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the trend of impersonation scams in the last three years; (b) whether there is an increasing number of elderly victims; and (c) what more can the Ministry do to deter such scam cases and better protect the elderly from such scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: Over the last three years, there has been an increase in the number of scam cases reported and amounts cheated. Three types of impersonation scam are of particular concern. They are: (i) China officials impersonation scam; (ii) social media impersonation scam, where scammers use compromised or spoofed social media accounts to pretend to be a victim’s family member or friend; and (iii) tech support scam where scammers pretend to be staff of telecommunications companies or law enforcement officers to deceive victims into installing malicious software onto their computers.
There were 401 cases of China officials impersonation scam reported between January and November 2019, a significant increase compared to 188 cases in the whole of 2017. The amounts cheated have also gone up, from at least S$12.8 million in 2017 to at least S$18.8 million between January and November 2019. The age distribution of the victims used to be quite evenly spread. However, in recent years, we see younger victims being targeted, with more than half of the victims in 2019 being young adults below the age of 30.
As for social media impersonation scams, there were 71 cases reported with at least S$168,000 cheated in 2017. That number jumped to 672 cases with at least S$7.2 million cheated between January and November 2019. The age distribution of victims has been fairly even over the past three years, with victims in their 20s to 40s accounting for around 60% of all such victims in 2019.
The number of tech support scam cases reported increased from 53 in 2017 to 224 in the period from January to November 2019. The amounts cheated have also gone up, from at least S$36,000 cheated in 2017 to at least S$12 million between January and November 2019. Both the elderly and the young have fallen prey to such scams.
Criminals are constantly evolving their methods to deceive people into parting with their money. No amount of Police resources will be enough. The key to the fight against scams is a discerning public. We should be sceptical of incredulous inducements promised by scammers, transact only on reliable platforms, and develop a habit of checking with the actual authorities when approached by dubious entities purporting to be officials.
To this end, the Police partner the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness. For example, there is a regular \"Scamalert\" segment on \"CrimeWatch\" dedicated to educating the public on scams. A Scamalert.sg website was launched in 2014 to inform members of the public about the latest scam types. The website has had over 1.7 million visits to date. In 2016, the Police and NCPC launched an Anti-Scam Helpline (1800-722-6688) for the public to seek scam-related advice. Direct mailers containing scam-related information are sent to households.
The Police also work with the Residents' Committees and grassroots volunteers to spread scam alerts to residents, through community events like block parties, roadshows, festive events and Community Safety and Security Programmes (CSSPs). One such CSSP focusing on the elderly is the Silver Watch Group. Launched in 2013, the initiative aims to impart elderly residents with crime prevention knowledge by keeping them informed of the latest crime situation and encouraging them to share relevant advice with their peers.
Everyone has a part to play in the fight against scams. Members of the public are urged to stay vigilant, and report possible scams promptly to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High-Speed Rail Project and Singapore-Johor Bahru Rapid Transit System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the latest development pertaining to (i) the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High-Speed Rail project and (ii) the Singapore-Johor Bahru Rapid Transit System.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Both projects are currently suspended.
The Kuala Lumpur – Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) Project is suspended up to 31 May 2020. Malaysia has requested that both sides discuss the way forward for the HSR Project during the suspension period. To date, Singapore has not received any formal proposal from Malaysia.
The Johor Bahru – Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link Project is suspended up to 30 April 2020. In October 2019, Malaysia conveyed to Singapore its intention to proceed with the RTS Link Project, but with some changes. However, Malaysia was not ready to formally share all the details of its proposed changes with Singapore. We are nevertheless in close discussions on Malaysia’s proposed changes, including the consequential changes to (a) the RTS Link Bilateral Agreement between the two Governments, (b) the Agreement between Singapore's SMRT Corporation and Malaysia's Prasarana Malaysia Berhad to constitute a joint venture Operating Company or \"OpCo\", and (c) a Concession Agreement for the two Governments to appoint this OpCo as the RTS Link operator. When the details of their complete proposal are made available to Singapore, we will make a thorough assessment and give it serious consideration.
While Singapore is not obliged to accept Malaysia's proposed changes to the two projects, we keep an open mind and will assess them objectively when we receive them to ensure that they meet Singapore’s requirements, including financial and operational considerations. We remain of the view that both are fundamentally good projects for both countries and will benefit both our peoples.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Income Mobility and Reduce Income Inequality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what measures are being undertaken to enhance income mobility in addition to reducing income inequality.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government is committed to strengthening social mobility in Singapore. This is why our approach has not been to rely narrowly on redistribution to reduce inequality, but also to put in place a broad range of measures to maximise opportunities for all Singaporeans, and enable them to earn their own success.
Our first priority is to ensure a strong, dynamic and resilient economy. Only when our firms are increasing productivity can workers find good jobs with sustained wage increases. We are therefore continuing to help our businesses restructure and succeed in new markets through innovation and enterprise.
Beyond the economy, we are addressing social mobility holistically by intervening upstream. This means investing heavily from the preschool years, enabling multiple pathways to success both in the schooling years and working life, and integrating and rejuvenating our neighbourhoods.
We are starting early to give every Singaporean the best possible start in life, regardless of family background, because the first few years of a child's life are critical. That is why we have made major enhancements to preschool subsidies, and are expanding the KidSTART programme to provide upstream and integrated support for children from low-income families.
We will continue to invest in our education system, to enable every individual to pursue their diverse aspirations and realise their full potential. We are broadening and enhancing our learning pathways through new Work-Study Programmes in our Polytechnics and ITE. Polytechnic graduates can upgrade their skills and earn more through the SkillsFuture Work-Study Post-Diplomas, while ITE graduates will be able to upgrade beyond a Nitec over the course of their career. At the same time, we have recently increased the quantum of bursaries for University and Polytechnic students from lower-income families.
We have also embarked on SkillsFuture to build a culture of lifelong learning and skills mastery. Individuals and companies have stepped forward and training participation rates have increased in recent years. But there is still much more work to be done. We will continue to invest in SkillsFuture to help our workers prepare for the rapid transformations that are taking place across all industries.
We are paying closer attention to lower-wage workers, and those who are at risk of being displaced. This is why we have ramped up the Adapt and Grow initiative, which helps job-seekers acquire new skills and take on new jobs. For lower-wage workers, we will continue to enhance their skills and productivity through various measures including the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme, and the Progressive Wage Model.
Our neighbourhoods are a key pillar of social inclusion and mobility. We have made sure that our public housing estates are not stratified or segregated, and built common spaces where residents from all walks of life interact and create shared experiences. We are now stepping up our efforts for families in rental housing, and doing more to help all working Singaporeans own their own homes.
Growth, mobility and inequality are key concerns for all advanced economies. In Singapore, we have put in place a holistic set of measures to enable everyone to move up the ladder. We have achieved broad-based income growth. Over the last five years from 2013 to 2018, real income growth averaged 3.3% per annum for our low-income households1 and 3.4% for our middle-income households. We have also done better than many other countries in social mobility: 14% of those with parents who were in the lowest income quintile when they were growing up, managed to move up to the top quintile of income earners by their early 30s.
The Government will continue to review and enhance its programmes to ensure that all Singaporeans, whatever their starting point, have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Lowest 20% and middle 20% of households by income. Data refers to household income from work (including employer CPF contributions) among resident employed households. Source: DOS"],"footNoteQuestions":["20"],"questionNo":"20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Data Leaks on Confidential Operations of MINDEF and SAF","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the assessment on the impact of the data leak which occurred at ST Logistics and the ransomware attack on HMI Institute of Health Sciences to confidential operations of MINDEF and SAF; and (b) what is the follow-up action that is in place following the two incidents.
22 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the personal data leak affecting 2,400 MINDEF and SAF personnel (a) when did ST Logistics first discover the phishing attack; and (b) when did MINDEF come to know about the leak.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: On 10 October 2019, MINDEF discovered that emails received from ST Logistics contained malware, and alerted their management, whereupon ST Logistics as a first precautionary move blocked outgoing data and emails possibly affected by the malware. The company’s IT team and external support teams then carried out forensic investigations to provide MINDEF with the affected data for an impact assessment. It was established on 13 December 2019 that personal data of 2,400 MINDEF/SAF personnel could have been leaked. The affected personnel were notified from 21 December 2019.
In the second incident, HMI Institute discovered a malware infection in one backup server on 4 December 2019, and alerted MINDEF on 9 December 2019. With the help of a cybersecurity firm, HMI investigated the infection and ascertained the individuals from MINDEF/SAF and other organisations whose personal data were on the affected backup server. Although the likelihood of data leak to external parties was assessed to be low, the 98,000 MINDEF/SAF personnel were informed from 21 December 2019.
Both incidents were confined to the systems of the vendors, and did not affect MINDEF's own systems or result in the loss of classified military information.
MINDEF takes a serious view of these cases. We expect our vendors to protect all personal data that has been entrusted to them. Prior to these incidents, MINDEF had begun including personal data protection clauses in all new contracts involving personal data. We had also been working with vendors, including HMI Institute and ST Logistics, to progressively apply such clauses to existing contracts.
We will further strengthen oversight of our vendors. Taking reference from the recommendations of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC), we will implement a framework to ensure that vendors protect our data well. MINDEF will also implement a tiered cybersecurity framework to ensure that vendors handling more sensitive data are subject to more stringent cybersecurity standards, which may include regular audits. As the risks will continue to evolve, we will continually monitor developments and enhance our cyber and data security measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Homelessness Problem as Reported in Study of Over 1,000 People Sleeping in The Rough","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how is the Ministry addressing the homelessness problem highlighted by a recent study that found over 1,000 people sleeping in the rough.
Mr Desmond Lee: Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Anthea Ong have also filed questions on addressing homelessness for the next sitting. I will address them together with this reply.
MSF considers a person to be homeless if he does not have access to housing. This includes people who have no home. It also includes rough sleepers who have homes but face difficulty returning for various reasons such as serious hoarding, or conflict with family members or co-tenants. We seek to assist all homeless people and rough sleepers in need of help, to ensure their safety and well-being.
Homeless people often grapple with multiple complex issues that require Government and community support. However, some of them may not know where to seek assistance; while others may decline help or avoid contact with social services and Government agencies. Therefore, MSF adopts a community-based social work approach to assisting the homeless. Since late 2017, MSF has been partnering various community groups1 and Government agencies in regular night walks so as to better reach out to and engage homeless people and rough sleepers, and share with them that there are shelters and services available. We would refer them to appropriate help agencies that can work with them on their immediate needs as well as underlying issues, so as to improve their circumstances. This collaboration led to the formal launch of the PEERS Network, which stands for Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers Network, in July 2019.
Partners in the PEERS Network refer homeless people that they have reached out to and befriended to help agencies and shelters to help them attain stable housing and address other longer-term issues such as employment and family conflicts. MSF funds Social Service Agencies to provide shelter and social support at Transitional Shelters2 to homeless persons who require social work intervention to address their underlying issues. Social workers at the Transitional Shelters work with residents on their financial, employment, health and family issues, and help them to secure long-term stable housing. We aim to help residents at Transitional Shelters move into stable long-term accommodation within six months. An extension of stay can be granted if social workers assess that the residents need more time to work on their issues.
I would like to thank all our partners for working closely with us to provide better support for the homeless.
A small proportion of rough sleepers encountered by MSF have no family support and are unable to care for themselves, and may be considered to be destitute. We offer them care and rehabilitation at Welfare Homes, with the aim of reintegrating them back into the community. Statutory powers under the Destitute Persons Act are exercised only as the last resort in instances where the individual's safety has been assessed to be at risk, or the individual lacks mental capacity to make informed decisions for his welfare.
MSF has also collaborated with our PEERS partners to set up \"Safe Sound Sleeping Places\", or S3Ps, to provide rough sleepers a safe environment to rest for the night. S3Ps are ground-up initiatives set up with the goodwill of our community partners. They are sited in the premises of our community partners, which are located near to where the homeless persons sleep rough. To ensure the safety of others resting at the S3Ps, our community partners generally require rough sleepers to meet some basic conditions, such as refraining from consuming alcohol. Rough sleepers can stay at S3Ps until their issues have been resolved, they have been referred to Transitional Shelters, or they have secured longer-term housing options. S3Ps complement existing shelter and residential options, making it easier for government and social service agencies to engage homeless people and rough sleepers in a timely manner.
There are currently seven S3Ps with space for up to 56 individuals, with two more S3Ps in the pipeline. About 1 in 5 of all rough sleepers whom we reach out to on joint night walks with PEERS partners have accepted shelter at S3Ps. For the others who decline shelter, MSF and our partners continue to engage them, to persuade them to take up shelter.
MSF has also strengthened coordination between Government agencies to ensure that all rough sleepers whom we encounter are offered assistance. An inter-agency taskforce, consisting of 11 Government agencies3, was set up in May 2018. It reviews policies, programmes and protocols to address issues faced by homeless persons and rough sleepers. It also looks into upstream measures to prevent those at risk of losing their homes from becoming homeless. The taskforce builds on MSF's ongoing work to strengthen social service delivery, as well as the work of an earlier taskforce which had been set up in 2007 to strengthen inter-agency coordination on rough sleeping issues.
Ms Anthea Ong asked about the joint tenancy requirement for HDB's public rental housing. Minister Lawrence Wong will address this in his reply to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's other Parliamentary Question on this same issue.
Our strong partnership with the PEERS network partners has enabled us to reach out to more homeless persons and rough sleepers in need, and to offer our support. MSF will continue to bring together more community partners into the PEERS Network, and support those who are willing to open up their premises as S3Ps for homeless people and rough sleepers.
If members of the public encounter any homeless individuals, they can play a part by calling the ComCare hotline at 1800 222 0000, or refer them to the nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : MSF has participated in joint night walks with eight community partners. These partners are: Homeless Hearts of Singapore, Catholic Welfare Services. Paya Lebar Methodist Church, Trolley Ministry (Youth with a Mission), Mummy Yummy, St Andrew’s Cathedral, Presbyterian Community Services, and Pasir Ris FSC.","2 : There are three MSF-funded Transitional Shelters run by appointed SSAs: New Hope Shelter for Displaced Families and Individuals, Transition Plus @ Jalan Bukit Merah, and AWWA Transitional Shelter. Only New Hope’s Transitional Shelter takes in both individuals and families, while the other two takes in families only. The three shelters have a combined capacity of 150 families and 84 individuals. As of end-Nov 2019, there were 62 families (41% out of the total capacity of 150 families) and 67 individuals (80% out of the total capacity of 84 individuals) in the Transitional Shelters.","3 : The 11 agencies represented on the taskforce are: MSF, MHA, SPF, ICA, MOM, MND, HDB, NEA, NParks, SLA and AIC."],"footNoteQuestions":["23"],"questionNo":"23"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of HDB's Co-tenancy Policy on Homelessness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development whether the rationale requiring co-tenancy for public rental flats is still relevant today in light of its contribution to homelessness.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB requires two singles to share a rental flat under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) to ensure prudent use of our limited land and fiscal resources. This allows our rental flats to serve more low-income Singaporeans who require housing assistance.
There are multiple complex issues behind homelessness, and co-tenancy is not the only contributor. In fact, HDB's recent survey indicates that the vast majority of its single tenants under JSS are able to live together amicably. Many of these tenants have no family support. By living together, they can benefit from companionship and provide mutual support. Rent is also more affordable, as it is shared.
HDB offers partitions in the JSS rental flats to provide more privacy for the single tenants. For the few who are unable to get along, HDB will assist with mediation with the help of Grassroots Organisations and the Community Mediation Centre, or facilitate a change in co-tenant or flat if required.
HDB will continue to work with MSF and the Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) Network to find sustainable housing options for homeless persons, based on their individual circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Interim Findings of Incident Involving NSF during Parachute Training in Taiwan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Defence what are the facts and interim findings surrounding the training accident involving Pte Joshua Quek on 18 December 2019.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: PTE Joshua Quek undertook a night static line parachute jump as part of the Basic Airborne Course on December 18, 2019 when the training incident occurred. The jumpers' parachutes are attached to the aircraft by a cord called a \"static line\". As jumpers exit the aircraft, the static line becomes taut, and deploys the parachutes automatically. This training activity is standard airborne training conducted by militaries to teach soldiers the fundamentals of parachuting for combat deployment.
PTE Quek successfully landed within the designated landing area but sustained injuries to the neck during the course of that jump. He was attended to immediately by SAF's on-site medical officer, and subsequently evacuated by the on-site ambulance to the nearest tertiary hospital.
A formal Board of Inquiry, supported by the SAF Inspector General's Office (IGO), has been convened by the Army for a full investigation of this incident. In the meantime, all static line parachute jumps has been suspended, pending the findings of the BOI.
Without prejudicing the ongoing formal inquiry, let me now share findings from investigations thus far, with the caveat that these findings are preliminary and the BOI's report will be the final and conclusive one.
The cause of PTE Quek's injury occurred when the static line swept across his neck when he exited the aircraft. This is a known risk for static-line parachute training and termed \"static line interference\". It occurs when the line is too slack and interferes with the jumper's exit from the plane. The SAF conducts about 6,000 static line parachute jumps every year. Since its inception in 1974, the SAF has graduated approximately 27,000 BAC trainees. This is the first known \"static line interference\" incident resulting in serious injury.
To ensure that static line interference does not occur, there are established drills and safety protocols in the training manuals and TSR for both the jumper and the jump-master. For all jumps, a qualified jump instructor is required to be on board the plane with two qualified Jump Masters (JM) at the exit door to check that these measures and other safety aspects are adhered to.
Preliminary findings suggest that the static line was not pulled taut as required and interfered with PTE Quek's exit from the plane causing a neck injury. Detailed investigations are underway to determine why this occurred and if adequate supervision was given during PTE Quek’s jump.
Thus far, we know that PTE Quek had successfully undergone the requisite pre-jump qualifications, training drills and safety briefs prior to taking part in the series of live static line parachute jumps and the specific jump on the night of 18 December. The incident occurred during PTE Quek's fifth and final jump for the course. He had completed the previous four static-line jumps successfully in the days prior to the incident.
Upon arrival at the hospital, a Magnetic Resource Imaging (MRI) revealed a cervical spine injury. In the morning of 19 December, PTE Quek successfully underwent surgery to relieve the pressure on his spine. A planned second surgery on 21 December to stabilise his cervical spine was also successfully completed without complications. PTE Quek is currently still in the ICU for close observations.
The cervical spine injury sustained by PTE Quek had resulted in neurological deficits including weakness of his upper and lower limbs. Some partial recovery of motor functions has taken place since the second surgery, but PTE Quek will require continued rehabilitation and physiotherapy for long term recovery as well as to reduce the damage from the injury. Currently, he is able to breathe on his own, conscious and alert and able to talk with his family.
PTE Quek's family was informed of the incident on the night of 18 December and his mother was flown to the hospital the next day. His father and brother joined him a few days after. SAF personnel are also on site to provide PTE Quek and his family medical, counselling, logistical and other forms of support.
The Board of Inquiry will comprehensively ascertain the detailed circumstances and possible contributory factors for the incident. It will examine all existing safety processes and procedures, whether they were adhered to and recommend areas for review and enhancement where needed. Static line parachute jumps will remain suspended until the completion of the formal inquiry and only resumed when their recommendations have been implemented.
A team of SAF doctors are working closely with the specialists at the hospital to monitor and assess PTE Quek’s condition. While his condition is stable now, the medical opinion is that he stills needs close monitoring over the next few weeks. He will be brought back to Singapore when the specialists deem it safe to fly. All of us, of course wish PTE Quek a continuous and progressive recovery. Our prayers and hopes are with him and his family. MINDEF and SAF will continue to extend our full support to PTE Quek and his family on his road to recovery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Massive Traffic Jams at 2019 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon and Preventive Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the massive traffic jams caused during the 2019 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon held from 29 November to 1 December 2019 (a) on what grounds have the road closure and diversion plans been approved; (b) whether consideration has been given to the three other major events happening downtown that weekend; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to review and enhance regulations and requirements for such future events.
27 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a comparative review of the issues and disruptions that arose from the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon (SCSM) 2019 held from 29 November to 1 December 2019 in the evening for the first time, against previous years; (b) what are the learning points; (c) whether the Ministry anticipates any inconvenience to individuals near the SCSM 2020 event venue; and (d) whether any changes will be introduced to SCSM 2020 and similar events to mitigate the problems caused by SCSM 2019.
28 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the reasons for the massive jams during the 2019 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon; (b) why has this situation not been anticipated; (c) what are the lessons learned; and (d) how can such massive jams be avoided in future large scale events such as marathons.
29 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the severe congestion caused by a recently held marathon (a) how does the Ministry balance the supporting of major sporting events and inconvenience to road users; (b) how can commercial organisers be made liable to mitigate against severe congestion; and (c) whether organisers who fail to address road congestion issues previously be prevented from running similar events in future.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon (SCSM) is the most anticipated race on Singapore's running calendar and last year marked SCSM's 18th edition. In order to create more conducive running conditions and a better race experience for participants, as well as bring more spectators out into the streets to enjoy the race, the SCSM was organised as an evening race for the first time on Saturday, 30 November 2019. There was a marked increase in the number of participants and spectators, with nearly 30,000 participants running in the marathon and half-marathon events, and more than 70,000 supporters cheering on the runners at the designated spectator zones and along the route.
MCCY and SportSG supported this event as an opportunity to enhance the significance of the event for Singapore from a social, sporting and economic perspective. We aspire to showcase Singapore's vibrancy and character to the world through SCSM as a World Marathon Majors event, alongside the iconic marathons held in Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London, New York and Tokyo. In Singapore, our runners participate in the SCSM to celebrate their resilience and purpose. There is a growing number championing worthwhile causes, such as those helping to raise awareness and funds for people with Parkinson's and the disadvantaged in society. We would like to embrace a spirit of care, inclusion and resilience in our society by encouraging more Singaporeans to be a part of this year-end event.
From the onset, SportSG and the organisers Ironman Asia recognised that the evening timing would be a complex and major undertaking and took the preparations seriously. Preparations for the SCSM 2019 began shortly after the conclusion of the 2018 event. A joint operations committee involving the organisers and various Government agencies, such as LTA and the Traffic Police, was set up to develop and implement traffic plans and minimise inconvenience to the public. A detailed traffic impact study was conducted, and plans took into careful account accessibility for essential services such as hospitals and fire stations. Additional traffic measures were put in place in view of major concurrent events such as the U2 Concert at the Singapore Sports Hub and the Christmas Wonderland at Gardens by the Bay. SportSG also coordinated with the Singapore Tourism Board to engage affected businesses and stakeholders since the start of 2019, where road closure information was shared early with over 150 affected stakeholders to help with their own preparations.
In the weeks leading up to the race, the event organiser ramped up road closure announcements on mainstream and social media platforms. It also beefed up call centre operations to address public queries on the road closures. On event day, 500 Auxiliary Police Officers were deployed at critical road junctions to redirect motorists and advise on alternative routes. Emergency services were facilitated through regardless of the road closures. Roads were progressively opened as the race proceeded, in as safe a manner as possible.
MCCY takes the public feedback seriously. We will work with the event organiser and relevant agencies to study these points, including suggestions to de-conflict the SCSM with other major events, and the need to enhance public communications on the road closures. Given the scale of the Singapore Marathon and our ambition for it to be amongst the World Marathon Majors, we recognise that the logistics will pose inconvenience to stakeholders and members of the public in the initial years, and we will keep aiming to improve how future editions are organised. But we hope that with the support of Singaporeans and by working closely with partners, we can build up the SCSM into an event that all Singaporeans can be proud of and look forward to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Dementia in Singapore in Past Five Years and Distinguishing Dementia from Other Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the prevalence and incidence of dementia in Singapore over the past five years; (b) whether our health services are adequately resourced to manage dementia patients given our ageing population; and (c) what has been the progress in the establishment of dementia-friendly communities.
31 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what lessons are learnt from the implementation of the Community Mental Health Masterplan (CMHM) and National Mental Health Blueprint (NMHB); (b) whether these lessons will influence the next CMHM and NMHB; (c) whether the Ministry will consider running public consultations for these plans; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider distinguishing dementia from mental health conditions under the plans, since they each require different strategies, treatment and support to be dealt with.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2007, MOH implemented the National Mental Health Blueprint to improve early detection and treatment for persons with mental health conditions. Subsequently, the Community Mental Health (CMH) Masterplan was launched in 2012 to place more focus on mental health care in the community for persons to receive care closer to home.
Through these plans, MOH has increased accessibility and capacity of mental health services in the healthcare institutions and community, facilitated early identification and access to interventions. For example, the Agency for Integrated Care has worked with community service providers to set up 41 community outreach teams to educate the public on mental health conditions and dementia, and refer those with such conditions to the appropriate health and/ or social services. We have also increased access to mental health and/ or dementia services in 12 polyclinics.
According to the Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WiSE) study 2013, one in 10 seniors aged 60 years and above is estimated to have dementia. We recognise that there are differences in the needs of persons with mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, and those with dementia. However, the broad approach is similar, that is to increase access to appropriate care, through early identification, build capabilities and capacity in the community to identify and treat such conditions. With this approach, we have strengthened dementia services in the community.
For example, we have established eight Dementia-Friendly Communities (DFCs), to create an inclusive society for persons with dementia and their care-givers. These are neighbourhoods which are equipped to better support persons with dementia and their care-givers to continue living well at home, where residents, grassroots leaders, businesses and the community are trained to recognise dementia signs and symptoms. We are on track to expand the number of DFCs to 15 by 2021.
In addition, MOH has more than tripled the number of Dementia Day Care places since 2015. These Day Care Centres can serve up to 3,400 persons with dementia each day. Working care-givers, in particular, can have peace of mind, knowing that their loved ones are well-cared for in the day.
MOH has also increased dementia capability and capacity in the acute hospitals. We have piloted new specific inpatient dementia services in three acute hospitals (Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Changi General Hospital and Institute of Mental Health) and two Community Hospitals (St Luke's Hospital and Saint Andrew's Community Hospital), to cater to patients of varying severity. We are now working to expand such inpatient dementia services to more hospitals to strengthen hospitals' capabilities in inpatient dementia care. Since 2012, we have also grown outpatient Memory Clinic capacity in our acute hospitals, to ensure that persons with dementia have access to early outpatient assessment, detection, multi-disciplinary intervention and care-giver support. For long-term care, new nursing homes developed by MOH are designed with dementia-friendly features to cater to the needs of persons with dementia.
We are currently adopting a whole-of-Government approach to review the overall strategy on mental health together with other ministries and stakeholders, and will also consider consultation with relevant stakeholders. The review will take into account learnings from the implementation of our existing mental health plans, such as recruiting more mental health service providers and addressing mental health stigma, to improve awareness of mental well-being and strengthen access to mental health support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-schools Offering Inclusive Education for Special Needs Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many pre-schools currently offer inclusive education for special needs children; (b) whether the current capacity is sufficient to meet demand; and (c) what is the support given to schools to adopt an inclusive model.
Mr Desmond Lee: Inclusive preschools strive to provide children with developmental needs the opportunity to enrol in pre-schools alongside their typically-developing peers.
Today, many preschools already strive to adopt a more inclusive approach and enrol children with mild to moderate developmental needs. To support this inclusion within pre-schools, the Government funds the provision of the Learning Support (LS), Development Support (DS) and Development Support Plus (DS-Plus) programmes. Under these programmes, professionals, such as Learning Support Educators, Early Intervention teachers, therapists and psychologists, provide intervention for children with developmental needs in their pre-schools once or twice a week. They also guide pre-school teachers in adapting their teaching methods and activities, to better engage and integrate these children in the classroom setting.
The DS and LS programmes are currently offered at about 550 pre-schools. ECDA is working with sector partners to increase the number of pre-schools that offer DS and LS. The DS-Plus programme was launched in July 2019 to offer more intensive support and will be rolled out to more preschools over time. With the extension of DS-LS and DS-Plus programmes to more pre-schools, we would be able to offer families more timely and accessible support.
Currently, the majority of children with moderate to severe developmental needs attend both the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and pre-schools to ensure that their needs are holistically met. A small number of pre-schools, such as Kindle Garden and Canossaville Pre-school, cater to these children in an inclusive setting. MSF has set up an Inclusive Pre-school Workgroup (IPWG) involving people, private and public sector partners, to learn from the experiences of local and international inclusive pre-schools. The IPWG will develop recommendations on how to better support children with moderate to severe developmental needs within pre-schools.
To support pre-school teachers, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) works with the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) and other training institutes to equip them with the skills to support children with developmental needs within an inclusive environment. In pre-service training, early childhood teachers are taught the basics of identifying and working with children with developmental needs, including where to get additional support if needed. In-service teachers can also tap on subsidised post-diploma training and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses to deepen their knowledge and skills in this area. NIEC also offers the Specialist Diploma in Early Childhood Learning Support (SDELS) and the Advanced Diploma in Early Childhood Intervention (Special Needs) (ADESN) to equip those who wish to take on specialist roles as Learning Support Educators and Early Intervention teachers respectively to support children with developmental needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Release of Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) has completed its deliberations; and (b) when will the EBRC report be released to the public.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) has not completed its deliberations. When the EBRC has completed its work, the report will be presented to this House and released to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating or Educating the Public on Digital Marketing Practices for Unhealthy Products Such As Junk Food and E-cigarettes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to regulate the digital marketing of unhealthy products including junk food and e-cigarettes through online platforms that target youths; (b) whether the Ministry collects data on digital marketing of such products to different demographic groups; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider mounting public education campaigns to educate young consumers about such marketing strategies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Regulations on the marketing of unhealthy products apply to both digital and non-digital media domains.
For example, advertising and promotion of tobacco products such as e-cigarettes is prohibited, including through online platforms.
On unhealthy food, marketing to children has been regulated via the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice, with additional Guidelines for Food Advertising to Children. In addition, the Ministry of Health announced in October 2019 that we will be introducing a product grading system for pre-packaged sugar-sweetened beverages, and will prohibit product advertisements for the least healthy ones on all local mass media platforms, including online channels.
We will look into how we can monitor digital marketing more closely. We also agree with Prof Lim's suggestion to educate young consumers about marketing of unhealthy products, together with like-minded partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rates of Obesity in Children and The Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the current rates of obesity in children, adults and the elderly respectively; (b) how do these figures compare with those of previous years; and (c) what has been the progress and effectiveness of measures to reduce obesity among Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on the 2017 National Population Health Survey, the prevalence of obesity1 among adult Singaporeans aged 18 to 59 years was 8.9%, and that among seniors aged 60 to 74 years was 6.9%. This has remained stable since 2013. The proportion of overweight2 children in our mainstream schools, aged six to 18 years, has increased from 11% in 2013 to 13% in 20173.
MOH and HPB work with other Government agencies to combat obesity through the promotion of physical activity and better diets, such as eating more healthily and reducing daily sugar consumption. This is also in line with our overall strategy in Singapore's War on Diabetes.
To promote healthier diets, HPB has introduced programmes such as the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) and Healthier Dining Programme (HDP) to increase the availability of healthier options, as well as campaigns such as the Eat, Drink, Shop Healthy Challenge to incentivise healthier purchases. To further create a healthy food environment, HDB and HPB collaborated to include the provision of healthy meals as a consideration in Price-Quality tenders for new eating houses, awarding more points for tenderers that offer healthy meal options. In partnership with MOE and ECDA, HPB has also implemented healthy meals programmes4 in all mainstream schools and eight in 10 preschools, to inculcate healthy eating habits from young. These efforts are complemented by health education outreach in schools in partnership with stakeholders such as South-West Community Development Council, Sengkang General Hospital, and National Youth Achievement Award (NYAA) Council; and at workplaces where HPB works with industry partners to roll out relevant workplace health promotion programmes such as workshops and health coaching.
These programmes have contributed to better diets. From the National Nutrition Survey 2018, Singaporeans are consuming fewer calories, better-quality carbohydrates consisting more wholegrain, fruits and vegetables, as well as substituting saturated fat with unsaturated fat. However, our sugar intake remains high at 60g per person per day. As such, we will be introducing new regulatory measures for pre-packaged sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), namely nutrition labelling and advertising prohibitions for less healthy SSBs.
To encourage exercise, HPB, SportSG, and People's Association offer a wide range of physical activity programmes and sport facilities island-wide. MOE also makes facilities and sports equipment available beyond the formal curriculum time to encourage better utilisation. There are targeted programmes, such as those that cater to at-risk Professional, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) at the workplace to increase the adoption of a more active lifestyle. For seniors, Active Ageing Programmes (AAPs) are also made available at over 600 locations island-wide where the elderly can participate in group exercises and health workshops.
Recognising how our living environment can influence behaviours, our infrastructure agencies such as MND, MOT and others have strived to build a city that encourages active lifestyles and mobility. This includes more than 350 parks and gardens, 200km of covered link-ways, and 440km of cycling paths and park connectors; and there are plans to further enhance the living environment to support a more physically active citizenry. All these efforts have led to encouraging results – 80.9% of Singaporeans had sufficient total physical activity in 2017, up from 73.1% in 2013.
Reducing obesity in our population requires coordinated and continuous efforts from all relevant stakeholders. In the long term, such efforts may also lead to a reduction in the prevalence of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension and their accompanying complications. MOH will continue to monitor the trends in obesity, physical activity, and nutritional habits of Singaporeans, and work with the other Government agencies and the wider society to tackle this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Obesity is defined as having a body mass index equal to or greater than 30 kg/m2.","2 : Childhood overweight is defined as ≥90th percentile of BMI-for-age.","3 : Source: Ministry of Education, students from Primary Schools to Junior College/Centralised Institutes.","4 : Healthy Meals in Schools Programme (HMSP); Healthy Meals in Preschools Programme (HMPP)"],"footNoteQuestions":["35"],"questionNo":"35"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaboration amongst Government Agencies to Test and Share New Technologies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how are the different Ministries and agencies collaborating to test and share new technologies; and (b) what are the platforms available for agencies to check on new technologies being piloted to accelerate our collective learning and adoption capabilities.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Ministries and agencies collaborate to test, share and deploy technologies in three ways.
First, we do so by taking a citizen-centric approach, so that technology solutions work across agency boundaries to serve citizens well and solve their problems. For example, under the \"Moments of Life\" initiative, a common platform bundles Government digital services from multiple agencies so that citizens need to transact only through one channel rather than with many different agencies.
Second, we build horizontal platforms to share technology resources. The Science & Tech Policy and Planning Office (S&TPPO) is looking at creating a drones-as-a-service platform, for applications like aerial mapping and facade inspection. The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG) is developing the Government Technology Stack and Government Data Architecture, to share software services and data safely and efficiently across agencies. SingPass, for instance, is used by all agencies to transact securely with citizens. SingPass is also being used by businesses, such as NTUC Income and AIA, to allow customers to access their digital services.
Third, we pool in-house technical capabilities to serve whole-of-government needs. Centres of Excellence or CentExes have been set up in various engineering fields, to pool expertise within the Government, and build them up in numbers and quality. For example, GovTech serves as the CentEx for Info-communications Technology and Smart Systems; and JTC serves as the CentEx for Building and Infrastructure.
CentExes play a functional leadership role in their respective domains. Besides supporting other agencies' engineering needs, they lift engineering standards and disseminate best practices across the public service by a common process of masterplanning, competency and training frameworks. The Public Service Division and S&TPPO also supports learning among agencies, through the organisation of learning circles and capability building workshops.
Beyond in-house capabilities, the public sector also makes use of various platforms to learn from and partner the industry and research community. IMDA's Open Innovation Platform matches problem owners, from both public and private sectors, with problem solvers from industry and the research ecosystem. A*STAR's National Robotics Programme forges public-private partnerships to undertake R&D to use robotics to address various public sector challenges.
The public sector will continue to work collectively to make the best use of technology to serve citizens and businesses, and improve the quality of city living. We will also work closely with companies and researchers, so that as a nation, we may overcome our natural constraints and raise our economic competitiveness through technological innovation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quality and Unique Mental Health Care and Support for Differently-abled Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Yip Pin Xiu asked the Minister for Health what are the measures to ensure that differently-abled individuals such as individuals who are deaf, mute or autistic receive quality mental health care and support that meet their unique needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Persons with different abilities are handled by various groups of healthcare professionals in the public healthcare system. Efforts have been made to facilitate early detection and referral for management of mental health conditions for all individuals in Singapore, including for persons with special needs, who may have higher rates of co-occurring mental health conditions than the general population. For example, general practitioners are trained to diagnose and manage stable mental health conditions while psychiatrists and psychologists manage conditions that require more specialized management. Community outreach teams also reach out to individuals who are at risk of, and diagnosed with, mental health conditions, to provide support for these individuals in the community.
More specific help is available to individuals with different sensory needs. For example, students with hearing impairments are assisted by school psychologists in their respective special schools to support their mental health needs.
Children with developmental and intellectual disabilities, including those with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), can access services by the Child Development Programme (CDP), where a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals provide a holistic approach of assessment, diagnosis, and interim therapy, including attending to behavioural and mental health needs. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has also set up a Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) to provide professional services for children aged six to 18 years with developmental delay and/or intellectual disability with co-morbid mental health conditions. Adults with intellectual disability and/or ASD can also be referred to the Adult Neurodevelopmental Service (ANDS) at IMH, which carries out assessment and treatment of behavioural issues or co-existing mental health conditions in these individuals.
MOH will continue to work with our healthcare providers and partners to ensure that every individual has access to quality mental health care, including for those who are differently-abled, and to ensure that the care and support is tailored to the unique needs of this group.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Grab's Upfront Cash Programme Offered to Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry will review Grab's Upfront Cash Programme offered to their delivery riders to determine whether the administrative charges are reasonable; and (b) how do the charges compare to rates offered by moneylenders and banks for unsecured lending.
Mr K Shanmugam: Grab's Upfront Cash Programme has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Law. We are engaging Grab to find out more about this programme. Let me provide a brief description of the UCP based on what we have gathered from Grab.
The UCP is a programme offered to selected Grab's third party service providers, which include GrabCar and GrabTaxi drivers and delivery partners. These service providers derive their income from two sources. First, they earn fees paid directly by users. Second, Grab pays out incentives when they complete certain requirements. For example, a delivery partner may earn an incentive upon completing a certain number of trips within a stipulated time period. Under the UCP, such a selected delivery partner can request to receive their incentive payments in advance, before completing the requirements. If Grab accedes to such requests, it charges the delivery partner an upfront administrative fee before disbursing the balance incentive payment.
The Member asked how the charges for Grab's UCP compares. As there are differences in the features, terms and conditions of various products, we would like to caution against making direct comparisons. Nevertheless, let me share briefly the rates offered by Grab. According to Grab, the administrative fee ranges from 5% to 10% of the advance incentive payments granted, and no further fees or interest charges are imposed. Under the regulatory framework for moneylending, licensed moneylenders are permitted to charge an upfront administrative fee of not more than 10% of the loan principal, as well as a nominal interest of up to 4% per month and other prescribed fees. Banks offer a wide range of credit products and charges vary, according to the tenor, risk and other features of the product concerned.
We will study further with Grab before assessing what measures need to be taken. We strongly encourage individuals to review the terms of the UCP carefully and assess their ability to complete the requirements and meet the financial commitments before participating in the programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) Method of Construction in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many projects have adopted the Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) method of construction; and (b) what is the amount of Government grants that have been disbursed to support PPVC-related firms and projects since its implementation; and (c) what are the challenges faced when adopting PPVC.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 2013, more than 50 public and private sector projects have adopted the Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) method of construction. We have taken a multi-pronged approach to promote the adoption of productive construction methods like PPVC. The intent is to help lower the cost premium of adopting such technologies in the long-term.
First, we have generated lead demand by stipulating productivity conditions as requirements for selected Government Land Sales sites, and requiring public sector projects to adopt productive construction methods, such as PPVC.
Second, we have provided incentives to help defray the higher cost of PPVC adoption and build industry capabilities. The Productivity Innovation Project (PIP) scheme, which funds up to 70% of the qualifying cost for innovative technologies, is one such initiative. To date, nine firms have tapped on the PIP scheme to support PPVC-related projects, with more than $15 million disbursed. We have also provided $5 million for PPVC-related training.
Third, we have built up our supply base to increase our local production capability. We have 32 approved PPVC suppliers now, as compared to three suppliers six years ago.
Fourth, we have built industry capabilities in PPVC adoption. This is a joint effort with the industry and the institutes of higher learning, led by the iBuildSG Tripartite Committee. Besides training, BCA also conducts regular workshops, seminars and site visits and publishes guides on PPVC adoption for the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Ballot Chances for New Flats for Those Who Wish to Buy a Flat Near Their Parents But Failed in Previous Attempts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development for those who wish to purchase a HDB flat and live near their parents in mature estates, whether HDB will review and consider granting additional ballot chances to these applicants for each failed attempt in securing their flats from Built-To-Order (BTO)/Sale of Balance Flats (SBF)/Re-offer of Balance Flats (ROF) exercises.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Families who wish to buy a new HDB flat to live with or near their parents already enjoy priority in their flat application under the Married Child Priority Scheme and the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme. This includes those who wish to buy flats in the mature estates.
Flats in the mature estates tend to be more popular and limited in supply. Flats in the Sale of Balance Flats and Re-offer of Balance Flats exercises are similarly limited. Hence, we are unable to extend additional ballot chances to families who apply for these flats.
Besides new flats, families who wish to live with or near their parents may also buy a resale flat and qualify for the Proximity Housing Grant of up to $30,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Children who Do Not Meet Attendance Requirement for Basic and Additional Childcare Subsidies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to basic and additional subsidies provided to families of Singapore citizen children enrolled in ECDA-licensed childcare centres (a) what is the current percentage of children who do not meet the 75% attendance requirement triggering the right on the part of Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to effect a clawback of these subsidies; (b) what are the main reasons for the children being unable to meet the attendance requirements; and (c) what steps have or will be taken to address this issue.
Mr Desmond Lee: To ensure affordable childcare for all families who need them, pre-school subsidies are provided for enrolled Singapore citizen children. The requirement is that they attend pre-school at least one day in the month, and not the 75% attendance rate as mentioned by the Member. The vast majority of children enrolled in pre-schools meet this very basic attendance requirement.
Regular pre-school attendance is important so that the child can fully benefit from the pre-school experience. This goes beyond learning to read and write, and extends to other aspects of child development, such as social and emotional learning and motor skills development.
Based on ECDA's interactions with preschools, reasons for low attendance are mostly non-financial in nature. Examples include parents' work arrangements, poor child health, lack of awareness on the importance of regular pre-school attendance, and competing priorities, such as the need to send multiple children to different schools.
For children with low or irregular attendance, pre-schools are strongly encouraged to engage the parents to understand the family's circumstances, and where needed, refer them to Family Service Centres and Social Service Offices which can assist the families who may benefit from social services support. Under KidSTART, selected pre-schools are supported with additional resources to help children from lower-income families address barriers to pre-school attendance and their overall socio-developmental needs. KidSTART currently supports 1,000 children across all KidSTART programmes, and will expand to reach another 5,000 children over the next three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Malaysians Working in Singapore on Work Permits and Sectors They Work In","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Malaysian workers are working in Singapore on work permits annually over the past five years; (b) which are the three main sectors that they are working in; and (c) what proportion of these Malaysian workers do not live in Singapore but instead commute between Singapore and Malaysia on a daily basis.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM publishes annual statistics on local and foreign workforce numbers. However, MOM does not provide a breakdown of the number of foreign workers by nationality as it is not in Singapore's interest to do so.
Malaysian workers can be found across all sectors. This is not surprising, since our work pass framework allows Malaysian workers in all sectors, subject to the respective sector's Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) controls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sudden Surge of Workplace Fatalities in November 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower on the sudden surge of workplace fatalities in November 2019 (a) what industries do these workers work in; (b) what are the reasons behind the spike in fatality numbers; and (c) what more is the Ministry doing to prevent such workplace fatalities.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There were nine fatal workplace accidents in the month of November 2019, compared to an average of four per month in the past three years. The unusually high number of cases is a cause of concern for the Ministry. Therefore, we had probed deeper to uncover if there were any specific reasons or trends for the spate of accidents.
Of the nine fatalities, four were from the construction sector, two from marine, two from services, and one from manufacturing.
There was no dominant trend that contributed to the spate of accidents in November. Nonetheless, MOM, together with the industry partners, stepped up on engagement and enforcement efforts in November. We worked with the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (SCAL) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council to organise an Industry Safety Timeout as a reminder to all contractors and workers to remain vigilant while at work. To send a strong signal to the industry, Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad led a team of enforcement officers on a surprise visit to a worksite, where the officers uncovered multiple WSH lapses. In response, we issued a full Stop Work Order. MOM's Stop Work Orders stay in force for a minimum of three weeks to ensure that the company's leadership appropriate actions to correct their safety practices and risk assessments. We expect companies to rectify all unsafe conditions and demonstrate to us their ability to better manage WSH on site before MOM lifts the Stop Work Order.
We will ramp up inspections by conducting 400 inspections until February 2020, targeting high-risk industries, such as construction, marine, as well as manufacturing. We will also conducted checks on similar equipment that were involved in two of the fatal accidents to prevent recurrence. These unfortunate accidents highlight the need for occupiers and employers to be more diligent in their risk management and mitigation, and not take WSH for granted.
Beyond the immediate-term engagement and enforcement efforts, we need longer-term measures to motivate more employers and occupiers to take greater ownership of risk awareness and mitigation. In 2020, we are progressively implementing the recommendations set out in the WSH 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee report. They include publishing the safety performance of firms, and establishing a framework for public sector developers to disqualify unsafe contractors, including first-level sub-contractors. These moves will align businesses' commercial interests more closely to workplace safety. This will spur companies to be more serious in risk management and preventing accidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Mentally-distressed Patients with Occasional Outbursts that Target Neighbours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health how does the Ministry help a mentally distressed patient whose condition is mild but who has occasional bouts of outbursts that target neighbours.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH has worked with Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to develop services to support persons with mental health conditions under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. For example, AIC acts as a \"first touchpoint\" for agencies, service providers and members of the public to refer persons suspected to have mental health condition(s) for further support. AIC with the support of relevant stakeholders could refer such persons to the appropriate medical and social services.
In addition, AIC worked with community service providers to set up community outreach teams and community intervention teams. The community outreach teams educate residents on mental health conditions and, support persons with mental health conditions by providing basic emotional support, follow-up and service linkage to health and social services. As of March 2019, we have 41 community outreach teams which have reached out to over 234,000 people.
The community intervention teams provide allied-health services such as performing mental health needs assessment and psychosocial therapeutic intervention for persons with mental health conditions. 21 community intervention teams have been developed and deployed as at March 2019.
Persons with mental health conditions will benefit from having strong family and social support from an inclusive community besides receiving mental health treatments.
For neighbour disputes, the Community Mediation Centre and Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals are platforms where various stakeholders can be engaged to find a resolution. If suspected mental health conditions are highlighted at these platforms, the persons could be referred to AIC for further support.
AIC has supported and referred over 2,900 persons for health and/ or social services as of March 2019, of which some were involved in neighbour disputes. Such cases are generally challenging to address as the causes are usually multi-faceted and complex, and require multi-stakeholder support and involvement. Nonetheless, there have been cases where persons involved in disputes and, suspected to have mental health conditions, were successfully supported through multi-agency efforts between AIC, community mental health partners and healthcare institutions and other agencies such as the Singapore Police Force, Housing and Development Board and grassroots organisations. The government cannot address such issues, which are usually not just medical in nature but may also involve social issues, alone. Time and a whole of community effort is often required to address such issues for a more caring and inclusive society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of and Preventive Measures Following Incidents of Personal Data Lost to Hackers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding incidents of personal data lost to hackers due to data privacy law breaches (a) what is the number of incidents in the public and private sectors respectively in each of the last three years; (b) what is the number of persons affected annually; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a registration and licensing scheme for software services providers, similar to the requirements imposed on accounting and legal firms, financial institutions and medical services providers.
Mr S Iswaran: The Personal Data Protection Commission (\"PDPC\") investigated five cases in 2017, 13 cases in 2018 and 16 cases in 2019, involving private sector organisations due to hacking. In the public sector, four cases of data breaches due to hacking were reported in 2017 and three cases in 2018. No case was reported in 2019. These numbers include cases where malware was planted, and databases were held ransom or data was exfiltrated.
Of these reported cases, in some instances completed investigations have demonstrated that personal data was exfiltrated due to hacking and breach of the PDPA. These affected 48,000 individuals in 2017 and 1.5 million individuals in 2018. The number for 2018 comprises primarily the data breach involving Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd and its data intermediary, Integrated Health Information Systems Pte Ltd. For similar cases involving the public sector, 35,000 individuals were affected in 2017, and 900 individuals were affected in 2018.
Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations are required to put in place security measures to safeguard the personal data in their possession or control. Data security requirements are also imposed on public agencies through the Public Sector (Governance) Act and the Government's Instruction Manual on ICT.
Both private and public sector organisations have to fulfil their respective obligations regardless of whether they decide to outsource any functions to software services providers. If they do so, they should carry out due diligence to assess the capability, track record and suitability of software services providers.
The PDPA requires each private sector organisation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) to ensure that the organisation complies with the PDPA. To better safeguard themselves against data breaches, organisations should firstly ensure that their DPOs are trained to develop and implement policies and practices for the organisations to meet their obligations under the PDPA. Secondly, they should register their DPOs with PDPC to keep abreast of relevant personal data protection developments. Thirdly, organisations can also apply for IMDA's Data Protection Trustmark, to verify that they conform to personal data protection standards and best practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling Fault Line Formation from Immigration and Socio-economic Status Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what has and will the Government do to prevent (i) fault lines from class and immigration issues to develop (ii) erosion of our Singapore identity and (iii) gaps in the socio-economic status of Singaporeans.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since Independence, we have built a cohesive, fair and just society together. Diversity is a major feature of Singapore society, but we do not let our differences divide us. We have been proactive in our approach to social integration, especially in Singapore's multi-racial, multi-religious context. Our housing policy on ethnic integration and our national education system are examples of how we bring people together – regardless of their backgrounds – in public housing estates and schools. Our parks, libraries, hawker centres, sports facilities and museums are important common spaces open to all, so that Singaporeans from different walks of life mingle easily together.
This is how we built a strong unifying Singapore identity, despite having the diversity that comes from being an immigrant nation. More recent immigrants to Singapore might differ from earlier immigrants in terms of education, skills or countries of origin, but by continuing to be open and inclusive, we can sustain the social harmony we enjoy today. By and large, Singaporeans value this approach. A recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study showed that almost 90% of respondents felt they could learn a lot from foreign cultures and appreciated people of different nationalities living in the same neighbourhood. A previous IPS study also found that Singaporeans generally had diverse social ties across age, race and nationality in their personal social networks.
However, social cohesion and harmony is not something we should take for granted. Potential fault-lines arising from class and social inequality are a concern worldwide. In Singapore, our efforts to create jobs, raise incomes across the board, and lift up the least well-off in society have worked well for the vast majority of Singaporeans. Nevertheless, we remain vigilant as social mobility is slowing globally and mitigating the effects of social inequality never ends. Education and training are central pillars in the Government's effort to build a society of opportunities for all Singaporeans throughout their lives. The SkillsFuture movement and programmes like KidSTART are key in maintaining social mobility.
The work of social cohesion is not something that Government does, or can achieve, alone. Businesses, community organisations and individual Singaporeans have a part to play. Initiatives like UPLIFT work with community partners to strengthen support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our youths have been running ground-up projects to support disadvantaged groups. The SGCares movement and Our Singapore Fund promote whole-of-society activism by supporting ordinary Singaporeans with different ideas and talents to contribute to the common good. Similarly, to promote local-foreign understanding, the National Integration Council works with partners to carry out a wide variety of integration programmes. With the support of the People's Association and its grassroots network, the NIC also runs the Singapore Citizenship Journey and mobilises Integration and Naturalisation Champions to help induct new citizens into our society by helping them internalise our shared heritage, values and norms. Through the Community Integration Fund (CIF), the NIC supports ground-up projects that foster positive interactions and mutual understanding between locals and foreigners through community service, sports and cultural activities.
By engaging each other face-to-face, and working side-by-side, we can ensure that Singapore society continues to stand strong and united.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Promote Financial Literacy among Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education what are the efforts to promote financial literacy among school students, particularly in respect of the choices they will need to make later in life that impinge on retirement adequacy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE recognises the importance of financial literacy education for our students, and works with MoneySense to deliver it in the following ways: In Primary schools, financial literacy education is anchored on the teaching of core moral values. Students are taught basic concepts and values such as delayed gratification, differentiating between needs and wants, spending within our means, thrift and savings. These are delivered through the Form Teacher Guidance Period and Character and Citizenship Education lessons.
In Secondary schools, students learn about simple financial planning, the responsible use of credit, and are equipped with knowledge of consumer rights, in order to become responsible and discerning consumers.
At the Pre-university level, financial literacy is infused in A-Level Economics. Students learn how to weigh costs and benefits, and consider constraints and perspectives in making well-informed decisions. Pre-university students can also access a financial education module through MOE's online learning platform, Student Learning Space, under Character and Citizenship Education.
At the Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education, all Year 1 students will undergo a mandatory financial education module to equip them with basic financial knowledge and practical tools, and cultivate good financial habits. Students learn about key financial concepts such as budgeting and compound interest, and acquire a basic understanding of national schemes, such as the Central Provident Fund, and how it can be used to meet their housing, healthcare and retirement adequacy needs.
Similarly, at the Autonomous Universities, financial education is available through course modules in finance and investment, as well as various campus activities, workshops and talks which build awareness of good money management and financial planning before they enter the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Course for Security Guards To Be Made Available in Mandarin and Malay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Education whether the Recognition of Security Threat course for security guards can be made available in Mandarin and Malay besides English, especially for those in the industry not conversant in English, but still having to undergo the compulsory course and testing in English.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) course in \"Threat Observation (Recognise Terrorist Threats)\" is designed to equip learners with knowledge on international and local terrorism trends, and to identify threats, whether person-borne, vehicle-borne, or object-based.
It is conducted in English because security officers need to be able to communicate effectively in English, which is the working language in Singapore, in the course of their duty. For example, there will be situations where security officers have to use English to perform security checks, report potential terrorist threats to the authorities, and relay evacuation instructions to the general public.
Learners who are less proficient in English can consider undergoing Workplace Literacy training offered by SSG-funded training providers to upgrade their proficiency in the language.
49 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Law (a) whether he can provide an update on the success rate of debt recovery by the Official Assignee over the last 10 years; and (b) what has been the Official Assignee's track record in recovery of overseas assets held by insolvent persons.
Mr K Shanmugam: Bankruptcy refers to the legal process whereby the debts that a person who is unable to pay are resolved. It provides an orderly regime for the resolution of unpaid debts, and seeks to balance the interests of debtors, creditors and the wider society, by: (a) Ensuring that bankrupts are held accountable for their debts, but allowing them to make a fresh start in their financial matters after a period of time; and (b) Providing incentives for creditors not to over-extend credit and for debtors to not borrow more than they can repay.
Under the bankruptcy regime, the Official Assignee, or OA, serves as the trustee of the estate of bankrupt individuals, assisted by the Insolvency Office. One of the duties of the OA is to investigate the affairs of the bankrupt, and thereafter to recover and realise his assets for distribution to the bankrupt's creditors.
The debt recovery rate is the ratio of the total dividends paid to creditors over the total debts owed, and depends on the bankrupt's ability to pay. In general, bankrupt individuals have limited ability to pay their debt. Hence, the OA will make reasonable efforts to realise assets for creditors as long as it is financially viable to do so. The OA has to exercise prudence as any cost incurred by the OA is paid out of the bankruptcy estate or the public purse for shortfall. The debt recovery rate for bankruptcy cases averaged 4% over the last 10 years.
Less than 1% of bankruptcy cases administered by the OA involve overseas assets. For such cases, the OA will adopt a pragmatic approach in deciding whether to embark on recovery work, as this can be resource-intensive and often have little or no likelihood of success. In general, the OA will only proceed in attempting to recover the assets if information provided about the assets is complete and not speculative. If creditors prefer, they may also choose to appoint a Private Trustee-in-Bankruptcy to carry out the recovery and realisation of assets.
In 2009, the Ministry introduced the Debt Repayment Scheme, which is a pre-bankruptcy scheme, to provide an alternative approach for debtors to pay off all or some of his debt through a repayment plan over a period of time. Debtors with a regular income and whose unsecured debt do not exceed $100,000 can be considered for the scheme. The scheme benefits both the debtors, who can avoid bankruptcy if he meets his obligations under the Scheme, and the creditors, who will receive no less than what they would have otherwise received had the debtor gone into bankruptcy. Around 30% of debtors in bankruptcy proceedings are referred to the DRS. The recovery rate has averaged 85% since the scheme’s commencement.
While the OA will make reasonable efforts to help creditors recover debt, the amount recovered depends on how much the bankrupt is able to pay, and it is necessary to balance the creditor's interest against allowing bankrupts to make a fresh start in their financial affairs. On this note, we encourage lenders to exercise prudence in extending credit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals by Singaporean Adult Children to Waive CPF Repayment when They withdraw Their Names from Flats Co-owned with Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the last five years, how many appeals have been made each year by Singaporean adult children to waive the CPF repayment by their parents when they withdraw their names from the flat co-owned with their parents; (b) how many of these appeals have been rejected; and (c) whether CPF Board will consider reviewing this policy to allow flexibility for the Singaporean adult children to exercise options that allow waiver of full lump sum repayment by their parents.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To ensure members' retirement adequacy is not compromised, CPF savings used for the flat, including the interest that would have been accrued had the monies not been withdrawn, should be refunded to their CPF accounts upon the sale of the flat. This applies when a CPF member who co-owns a flat with his parent withdraws his name from the flat, as the transaction is akin to a sale.
We recognise that many members initiate such ownership transfers as they are planning to purchase a matrimonial HDB flat. For such cases, allowance is given for the member to transfer ownership and make the required CPF refund six months after he has taken possession of his new flat. This transition period could stretch to a few years if the member is buying a Build-To-Order flat. Similar to flat purchases, the refund can be made using the parents' CPF savings, or by taking up a HDB or bank loan if eligible. The monies refunded to the member's account can also be used to pay for the new matrimonial flat.
Over the last five years, CPF Board has received around 200 appeals annually on average to waive the CPF refunds, upon transfer of flat ownership. For members who are unable to make the CPF refund in time, CPF Board and HDB will work with them to explore their options, which will depend on the specific circumstances of their family. For example, they may have a sibling who can take over their share of the co-owned flat, or their parents may wish to right-size to a smaller flat that is within their budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Reconsider Allowing PMD Users and Pedestrians to Co-use All Parts or Lanes of Park Connector Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in light of the footpath ban for PMDs (a) whether the Ministry will reconsider its present position of allowing both PMD users and pedestrians to co-use all parts or lanes of the Park Connector Network (PCN), whether marked \"PCN\" or with the sign of a foot; and (b) if so, what measures will now be taken to ensure strict and safe segregation.
Mr Lawrence Wong: A large part of the Park Connector Network (PCN) will be subdivided between footpaths and shared paths. Currently, we have marked out these separated paths on about 30km of the PCN, and expect to complete the rest by this year. In line with the latest active mobility regulations, NParks will not allow personal mobility devices to be used on footpaths on the PCN; they will only be permitted on the shared paths. NParks will also update and harmonise the markings and signage on the PCN with those of LTA's cycling path network. This will provide clarity and consistency to all users.
NParks will also continue to work with LTA and the community to promote the safe and orderly use of our PCN. In particular, NParks will continue to implement safety measures, such as additional lighting, speed regulating strips and advisory signs at high usage areas. Where there is sufficient width in the PCN, NParks will also implement physical separators such as grass verges between the footpaths and shared paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Collection for Usage Rates of Government-Paid Childcare Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can start collecting data on both the usage rates of Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL) for working mothers and fathers respectively and the number of children the employee has.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Government-Paid Child Care Leave (GPCL) scheme, employers pay for the first three days of leave taken by their employees, while the Government reimburses employers for the fourth to the sixth day of leave taken. We therefore track take-up of the scheme by the number of people who take four or more days of leave. This is to strike a balance between collecting data for analysis, and avoiding excessive burden on employees and employers to submit more data than is necessary to qualify for childcare leave.
As employers only claim reimbursement from the Government for employees who take four or more days of leave, we do not require them to submit information for employees who only take one to three days.
We also do not require employers to track the number of children that employees taking childcare leave have, as employees are eligible for childcare leave as long as they have at least one citizen child under the age of seven years old.
As further data analysis would better help us understand the needs of working parents, we are continuing to refine our methods to gather more accurate and complete data for policy purposes, including matching data-sets across agencies, and surveying parents to better understand their use of childcare leave. We seek to do so without burdening employers and employees with excessive data submission.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirements on Home Renovation Contractors to Make Sure Structures Put up Do Not Encourage Mosquito Breeding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what building requirements do home renovation contractors have to satisfy to ensure that their structures prevent mosquito breeding; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider only granting permits for renovations when the relevant Government agencies are satisfied that such preventive measures are in place.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Developers of new buildings and owners who undertake major renovations of their premises are required to avoid features that may result in water stagnation and become potential mosquito breeding grounds. For example, installation of roof gutters is prohibited for new developments. Trays and receptacles are not allowed to be placed beneath or on top of any air conditioning unit. Floor traps also need to be installed with anti-mosquito devices to prevent mosquito breeding in the water seal.
These requirements are specified in the Code of Practice on Environmental Health (COPEH). The National Environment Agency and the Building and Construction Authority will only grant technical clearances and approval for the proposed building plans respectively, when Qualified Persons appointed by the building owners or developers have ensured and declared that the building plans are in compliance with the COPEH.
Everyone, including residents, contractors and premises owners, has a part to play to prevent mosquito breeding. We need to remain vigilant, and continue to work as a community to suppress the Aedes mosquito population and keep dengue cases in check.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Misleading Food Labels Detected in Past Three Years and Measures to Ensure Compliance with Food Labelling Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the number of misleading food labels detected in the past three years; (b) what actions have been taken against the respective food manufacturers or importers; (c) what is the percentage of food products that the Singapore Food Agency conducts random checks on each year; and (d) what more can the Ministry do to ensure food products comply with food labelling requirements.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts regular food safety inspections to ensure that food sold in Singapore complies with our food safety standards and requirements. On average, 60,000 of such inspections are carried out in a year.
As part of SFA's inspection regime, SFA also carries out random sampling and laboratory testing of pre-packed food for sale in Singapore to ensure that they are accurately labelled with the name of food, ingredients, net content and source. This information is important for tracing and recall, in the event of food safety concerns, such as food contamination and allergens. Proper food labelling also helps consumers make informed food choices at the point of purchase. Food manufacturers and traders must ensure that the naming of food products adhere to food labelling requirements. Companies that do not comply will be subjected to enforcement action.
Over the past three years,1 SFA has detected a total of 260 cases involving misleading food labels from its regular inspections and investigations into public feedback on possible mislabelling. Enforcement action taken against offenders include the issuance of warning letters and composition fines.
To promote the understanding of food labelling requirements, SFA has worked with our Polytechnics to provide courses and consultancy on food labelling to the industry and public. For example, SFA has collaborated with Singapore Polytechnic on the \"WSQ Follow Good Food Labelling Practices\" course, which the industry and members of the public can attend. In addition, SFA conducts outreach programmes on food labelling in partnership with industry associations, such as the Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association. Information on food labels is also available via SFA's website.
The assurance of food safety and quality is a joint responsibility. While SFA will continue to be vigilant and ensure that regulatory measures are in place and properly enforced, the industry is responsible for adhering to food labelling requirements, and consumers should exercise discretion when choosing food products based on the information provided on the label. Members of public who have queries on food labels may also contact the relevant companies for more information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : From 1 January 2017 to 27 December 2019."],"footNoteQuestions":["55"],"questionNo":"55"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Companies that List Outside of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister (a) how many Singapore companies have chosen to be listed on stock exchanges outside of the Singapore Exchange (SGX) in the past 10 years; (b) how many companies have (i) listed and (ii) de-listed from the SGX in the past 10 years, broken down by Singapore and foreign companies; and (c) what are the strategies to encourage more companies, local and foreign, to be listed on the SGX.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Mr Ang's question is about the prospects and strategies of SGX. We are in a leading position in the trading of Asian equity and commodity derivatives, foreign exchange and fixed income. In cash equities, SGX remains one of the most international exchanges globally with overseas companies making up 43% of total market capitalisation. SGX is also the largest and most international Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) market in Asia ex-Japan, with REITs from US, Europe listed on its mainboard.
However, Singapore's cash equities market has not grown as fast as the derivatives and REITs markets. Wider trends play a big part. Globally, Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) fell 20% to a three-year low, and number of IPOs in Asia hit a five year low1. This is because companies are staying private for longer2, as they have alternative sources to fund growth and expansion.
At the same time, more companies are delisting from public equity markets. In the US, for instance, for the first time since 2006-2007, the value of listed companies going private in 2018 exceeded the value of private companies going public, causing a net outflow from the US public markets.
Specific to Mr Ang's questions, from 2009-2019, 279 new companies listed on SGX, of which 60% are Singapore companies. However, over the same period, we saw 302 delistings of both Singapore and foreign companies. Unfortunately, there are no ready statistics available to Mr Ang's specific question on the number of Singapore companies listed overseas.
SGX is taking a number of initiatives to encourage more equity listings. There is no silver bullet solution, and SGX will need to undertake a multi-prong approach over a period of time to re-invigorate the local equity market. The key measures are:
First, increase the number of market makers and liquidity providers to enhance market liquidity, and admit new Mainboard issue managers and Catalist sponsors3.
Second, develop cross-border partnerships and expand SGX's global footprint. SGX has partnered Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and Nasdaq to boost capital raising opportunities for technology companies. These partnerships have generated a healthy pipeline of companies looking to secondary list on SGX.
Third, SGX has introduced the Dual Class Share structure to enhance Singapore's value proposition as a listing destination for new high-growth technology companies.
Fourth, work with private market platforms to build the IPO pipeline. Such platforms can provide growth companies access to a wide network of investors for financing needs just prior to IPO.
Finally, step up investor outreach efforts to generate investment ideas and interest.
MAS supports SGX's efforts. It has launched the S$75 million Grant for Equity Market Singapore or GEMS, in February last year. MAS will co-fund the listing expenses of companies in high-growth and technology sectors as well provide grants to widen the research coverage of SGX listed stocks, especially of small and mid-cap companies. Since the grant inception, MAS has approved seven listing grant applications. Research houses tapping on GEMS have committed to hiring close to 50 fresh graduates and experienced research analysts over the next three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Financial Times report – Global drop in IPOs stirs fear for shrinking public market (30 December 2019)","2 : Studies have shown that the average age of US tech companies going public was 11 years in 2014, compared to an average of four years in 1999. Source: Bloomberg TV – Blackrock’s Wiseman Sees Companies Staying Private Longer (25 October 2019); Mckinsey report – Grow fast or die slow: Why unicorns are staying private (May 2016)","3 : SGX currently has 47 Mainboard issuer managers and Catalist sponsors, out of which 31 are active in underwriting/sponsoring IPOs on SGX Mainboard/Catalist. There are seven new Mainboard issue managers and Catalist sponsors in the past two years. W Capital and Evolve Capital are the latest two companies authorised by SGX in 2019."],"footNoteQuestions":["56"],"questionNo":"56"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Sharp Price Increases for Imported Meat, Vegetables and Other Food Items on Local Retail Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the retail prices of pork, vegetables and other food items have been impacted by sharp increases in prices from our imported sources; (b) what are the reasons for the increases; and (c) how can such impact be mitigated for consumers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Food price inflation has been relatively stable in recent months. Overall non-cooked food prices rose by 1.3% on a year-on-year basis over the October to November period, slightly higher than the 1.0% increase in the third quarter of 2019. In terms of specific categories of food, the prices of chilled pork fell by 0.3% while the prices of vegetables rose by 2.3% over the same period. The increase in vegetable prices during this period could be due in part to weather-related disruptions in Malaysia, a key import source.
Although weather-related and seasonal factors are not within our control, the Government helps to reduce the impact of such factors on food prices by diversifying our food supply sources. This includes working with industry to buy from different countries and building up local capacity where it makes economic sense. By buying from different sources, Singapore can reduce the impact of food supply shortages and price changes.
The Government will also continue to work with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to promote consumer awareness and help consumers get better value for money. One of CASE's latest projects is a mobile app, Price Kaki, to help consumers compare the prices of common household items, such as groceries and cooked food, so that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions. CASE started a pilot of the app in September 2019 and plans to roll it out nationwide in early 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Noise Pollution Caused by Vehicles with Modified Engines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many complaints have been received from the public over the past three years about noise pollution caused by vehicle owners who modify their engines; and (b) what is LTA's process in handling such complaints and ensuring that necessary enforcement is meted out to prevent future occurrences.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Vehicle noise is caused by a variety of factors, such as illegal modifications, vehicle design or driver behavior. Since 2017, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has received 4,377 complaints about noise pollution suspected to be caused by illegally modified vehicles. LTA takes public feedback seriously and looks into all such complaints. Over the past three years, LTA has taken action against 3,792 illegally modified vehicles based on such complaints, as well as part of its regular enforcement efforts.
Any person who illegally modifies vehicles can be fined up to $5000, imprisoned up to three months, or both. The penalties will be doubled for repeat offenders. Members of the public can report incidences of illegally modified vehicles to LTA through LTA's feedback channels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fare Cap on Surge Pricing for Private Hire Car Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Mohamed Irshad asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider introducing a fare cap on surge pricing for private hire car operators.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Last year, when we reviewed the point-to-point (P2P) regulatory framework, the idea of setting a cap on surge pricing re-surfaced. There were mixed views on this and on balance, we decided that P2P fare regulations should focus on fare transparency. This will allow commuters to make informed decisions based on the fares set by operators. There are two safeguards to protect commuter interests. First, we only allow dynamic pricing for flat fare bookings, where fare levels must be displayed upfront, before the commuter books his ride. Second, commuters will continue to have the option to street-hail, or book taxis, according to the metered fare system, for which the fare structure, including the booking fee, requires PTC's approval.
Fare levels affect the supply and demand for P2P services. This is why dynamic fares are more effective in ensuring that commuters can find rides during peak hours. There are many forms of P2P services, each requiring different fare levels, for example, larger or premium vehicles for higher fares. Given the range of service offerings and the dynamic nature of market conditions, it is best to leave fare levels to market forces. PTC does not intend to start regulating fare levels and setting caps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Safety of Workers During Construction of Cross Island Line Tunnel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport in relation to the building of the Cross Island Line tunnel at a depth of 70 metres below ground, what kind of challenges does the Ministry anticipate that will have an impact on the safety of workers during the construction of the tunnel and what measures will be put in place to ensure their safety.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Tunnelling underground requires deep expertise, complex machinery and precise execution, regardless of the depth. The challenges faced by workers constructing the Cross Island Line tunnels are similar to those faced for the existing Downtown Line and upcoming Thomson-East Coast Line tunnels. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the deeper Cross Island Line tunnels do not pose any additional health and safety risk to workers.
LTA supervises every tunnelling project closely. All tunnelling works must conform to prevailing fire, safety and health regulations. LTA also works with its contractors to ensure that there are multiple safeguards in place for workers. This includes the use of personal protective equipment, provision of adequate lighting and ventilation, as well as the regular rehearsal of contingency plans. These plans include the emergency evacuation of workers from the tunnels to the surface.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Virtual Private Network Tokens and Info-communications Equipment Reported Lost or Stolen by Ministries and Government Agencies in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Prime Minister in the past five years (a) how many virtual private network tokens and info-communications equipment have been reported lost or stolen by the various Ministries and Government agencies annually; (b) how many police reports have been made; and (c) whether there have been unauthorised accesses or attempts made resulting from the loss of such security devices.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Central tracking of lost ICT equipment was implemented from 2017 onwards, with GovTech's formation in late 2016. From 2017 to 2019, there was an average of 182 reports of lost ICT equipment per year, including Public Service access cards, laptops and about 55 virtual private network (or VPN) tokens. There are over 140,000 public service officers, most of whom are issued ICT equipment for work.
All cases are reported to the Police. User account and VPN access are disabled once the ICT equipment is lost. Data in Government laptops, thumb drives and portable hard disks are also encrypted while tablets and mobile devices are password protected to prevent unauthorised access. There has been no known unauthorised access to Government systems arising from the loss of ICT equipment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline and Guidelines for Regulation of Crypto Derivatives Exchanges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister with the recent MAS consultation paper on the regulation of crypto derivatives for Approved Exchanges (a) whether MAS will establish a timeline for eventually imposing regulations on non-approved exchanges; and (b) whether MAS will issue guidelines to financial institutions offering crypto derivatives for retail investors and, if so, whether these guidelines will apply to crypto exchanges or other intermediaries.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Our basic consideration for crypto-derivative products is that they are not suitable for most retail investors because they do not have intrinsic value and are subject to sharp price swings driven by speculation.
Hence, MAS took a calibrated step to regulate crypto derivative products that are listed and traded only on Approved Exchanges, which are subject to regulatory requirements and supervisory oversight. But we do not extend the regulation of crypto-derivative products beyond Approved Exchanges. This would confer misplaced confidence in these highly volatile products, and lead to a wider offering of such products to retail investors. Our approach has worked so far as trading in crypto products in Singapore remains limited and only a small number of retail investors are involved.
Notwithstanding, MAS has issued circulars to all financial institutions to comply with additional measures if they offer crypto products to retail investors. These include requirements for warnings tailored to the risk of transacting in crypto products in informational materials provided to investors, restrictions on advertisement, and additional margins to be collected from retail investors to mitigate the risk of large losses from trading in volatile and leveraged products.
Investors should, however, be aware that these measures do not apply to entities which are not regulated by MAS. Many trading platforms operate online and are situated overseas. These are outside of MAS' regulatory oversight. Investors that trade on these platforms need to exercise caution and understand the risk of such products.
MAS has also issued advisories to warn members of the public of the risks of investing in crypto products. We will continue to work with the media to highlight these risks and to raise public awareness of potential scams.
International regulatory standards in the area of crypto products are still evolving. MAS is watching these developments closely and is participating actively in international regulatory discussions on how the risks posed by crypto products are best addressed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Billing Arrangements for Customers Who Switch to New Electricity Retailers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Energy Market Authority (EMA) monitors Open Electricity Market providers to ensure that customers who have switched understand the full terms governing their new billing arrangements; (b) whether EMA has received complaints from customers regarding difficulties in making payment arrangements and avoiding penalty charges; (c) why providers are not required to offer the same payment mechanisms that SP Services offers; and (d) what can be done to ensure customers can seamlessly transfer their billing arrangements.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: A key priority for the Energy Market Authority (EMA) when rolling out the Open Electricity Market (OEM) is to ensure that the terms and conditions of retailers' price plans are clear and easy for household consumers to understand.
Thus, EMA requires all OEM retailers to provide a Fact Sheet using a standard template for every price plan that they offer to household consumers. The Fact Sheet highlights the key features of a price plan, including the billing arrangement and any penalty charges, such as late payment or early termination fees. All OEM retailers must make their Fact Sheets easily available on their websites and on EMA's online Price Comparison Tool. They also need to obtain the consumer's explicit acknowledgement that he has read and understood the Fact Sheet during the sign-up process.
EMA monitors the situation via consumer complaints, Mystery Shopper Audits and Consumer Satisfaction Surveys. Thus far, the overall level of satisfaction has been high. There has been very few complaints about payment arrangements.
Retailers are given the flexibility to offer different payment arrangements to meet the needs of their customers. The more traditional payment arrangements offered by SP Group, such as GIRO, credit card and AXS Stations, are usually available. Some provide new payment methods such as PayNow, which is not offered by SP Group. Others have chosen to engage SP Group to bill and collect payment on their behalf, thereby saving their customers the need to change their billing arrangement. We encourage consumers to consider all these options and choose one that best suit their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Flats Allowed to be Sold in Last Two Years before They Reached Minimum Occupation Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development in the last two years, what is the number of HDB flats that have been allowed to be sold before meeting the Minimum Occupation Period and what are the reasons for the exception being made.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In the last two years, HDB has given approval to about 2,400 households to sell their flats before they had fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP).
The reasons for such exceptions include financial hardship, divorce or the demise of the owner. Approvals are given on a case-by-case basis, after HDB has assessed the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families.
65 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the efforts made by NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and Workforce Singapore in working with the food delivery companies to provide job search support for delivery riders affected by the PMD ban; (b) whether the Ministry tracks the number of delivery riders who have sought job search support; (c) how many delivery riders have become unemployed as a result of the PMD ban; and (d) what are the plans to support those who remain unemployed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Various Government agencies worked together with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and food delivery companies to come up with the Transition Assistance Package, or TAP for short, to help food delivery riders transition to using alternatives to e-scooters, or to other jobs.
As riders do not need to inform the food delivery companies when they have decided to stop taking deliveries, there is no clear-cut way to track the number of affected riders who have become unemployed. Instead, our approach has been to proactively reach out to those who may be looking for other jobs.
For affected food delivery riders who are looking to change jobs, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) have deployed career coaches on-site at food delivery companies on more than 70 occasions, and have organised a curated job fair to assist affected riders with their job search efforts. The food delivery companies have been helpful in disseminating information on these career events to their riders. Affected riders can also tap on various employment facilitation programmes under the Adapt & Grow initiative such as the Place-and-Train Programme, which provide opportunities for jobseekers to be hired and receive training for new jobs.
To date, more than 180 affected riders have approached WSG and NTUC's e2i for job search support. The agencies have been actively engaging affected riders on employment assistance available to them if they wish to switch jobs, though many have not stepped forward for job search assistance. Should they subsequently decide to come forward, we will provide them with the necessary job search support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Law whether the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) has been effective since its formation and what steps can be taken to improve its processes to make it more expedient and to produce outcomes that can be more effectively enforced.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) were established on 1 October 2015. The CDRT is an avenue to a variety of remedies for persons whose enjoyment or use of their place of residence has been unreasonably interfered with by their neighbours.
The CDRT was established as an alternative to other avenues of recourse for disputing neighbours. These other avenues include: (a)\trecourse under the criminal law such as filing a Magistrate's Complaint for offences under the Protection from Harassment Act or Penal Code; (b)\tobtaining private law remedies, such as injunctions or damages, through the tort of private nuisance or applying for a Protection Order; and (c)\tmediation.
The CDRT processes are designed to be efficient and accessible. It costs $150 to file a claim before the CDRT. Simplified procedures are used. Proceedings employ a judge-led approach and representation by lawyers is generally disallowed.
Between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2019, 349 claims were filed in the CDRT. Three hundred and nineteen claims were disposed of by the CDRT within this period. Two hundred and thirty- five of these claims were resolved amicably – these comprised 167 claims which were withdrawn/discontinued, and 68 claims where Consent Orders were granted. As for the remaining 84 claims that were disposed of, these comprised 38 claims where the CDRT granted orders after trial and 46 claims where the CDRT dismissed/struck off the applications.
CDRT orders – like any other court orders – are to be taken seriously. If a party does not comply with a CDRT order, the CDRT may issue a Special Direction for the offending party to comply with the order within a specified time. A person who does not comply with a Special Direction commits a criminal offence punishable with a fine of up to $5,000, a term of imprisonment of up to three months, or both. Non-compliance can also result in a court order excluding the offending party from his or her place of residence. These are very serious consequences, and rightly so. From 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2019, a total of 15 Special Directions were issued.
We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the CDRT in dealing with neighbour disputes. If the Member has any specific feedback on how to improve the CDRT's processes, that is also welcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Rule for Not Allowing Residents in HDB Flats to Keep Cats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for not allowing people living in HDB flats to keep cats; and (b) whether the Ministry is reviewing this rule.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB's pet ownership policies have to strike a balance between residents who are pet lovers and those who are not. Irresponsible pet ownership can lead to disamenities in the community and cause unhappiness. In the case of cats, disamenities include shedding fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, and caterwauling by roaming cats.
Notwithstanding these concerns, HDB recognises that there are many residents who are cat lovers and who would like to keep cats in their flats. Hence HDB will continue to review and update its pet ownership policies, together with NParks/Animal & Veterinary Service which is responsible for the broader issue of animal welfare and licensing.
While we would like very much to accommodate the wishes of all pet owners, we also have to take into consideration the views of other home-owners, and take a holistic and balanced approach in addressing this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints about Nuisance from Stray Cats and Proposal to Standardise Regulatory Treatment for Stray Cats and Stray Dogs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether complaints arising from stray cats being a nuisance has increased in the past three years; (b) whether the Ministry will consider licensing cats for HDB flats; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider applying the same regulatory treatment to stray cats as that for stray dogs in HDB estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The number of stray cat-related feedback has remained relatively stable since 2017. NParks works with stakeholders such as Town Councils, animal welfare groups (or AWGs), and other public agencies to jointly manage stray cat-related feedback across Singapore.
NParks works with its AWG partners to humanely manage both the stray dog and cat populations. Similar to the Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage programme for dogs, the Stray Cat Sterilisation Programme sterilises and microchips stray cats in HDB and private estates, as well as industrial and commercial areas.
Pet licensing primarily serves to enable the traceability of animals for the purposes of disease control and to protect public health. At present, NParks only requires dogs to be licensed as they are the most common cause of rabies transmission from animals to humans globally. All pet dogs, whether they reside in HDB flats or otherwise, must be licensed for this reason. NParks is intending to strengthen the traceability of pets, including cats, as part of its broader review of the pet sector. It recently concluded a public consultation exercise that invited suggestions from stakeholders and members of the public on this issue, and will review its licensing policies accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Estates with Concentrations of Particular Nationalities and Proposal for Ethnic Quotas for Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for National Development (a) which private estates have the highest concentrations of particular nationalities; (b) what are the proportions of the various nationalities in these estates; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing ethnic quotas for private estates to facilitate harmonious relations with Singaporean households in the same areas.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Private residential estates located in the central region of Singapore tend to house a higher proportion of non-citizen residents on average, given that the region is closer to many workplaces. The nationality proportions of non-citizen residents in such estates are dynamic, and will change constantly as tenants move in and out.
We recognise the importance of having diverse and well-integrated residential estates across the island, and are looking at various ways to achieve this. Imposing a quota on private estates, as suggested by the Member, is an option. But this is not something that can be easily implemented, and will have major implications for the property market and for all private property owners.
Aside from this, we are using other urban planning levers to achieve a better mix in our private estates. For example, we intend to inject more public housing in the city centre, which largely comprises private residential estates today. In addition, our strategy to inject more industry and jobs outside the city centre will also help to spread out the non-citizen resident population across the island.
We also have various integration strategies to facilitate harmonious relations between Singaporeans and foreigners, not only in neighbourhoods but also at workplaces, schools, shared public spaces, and through volunteering or community work. The National Integration Council works with community groups, immigrant associations, employers, trade unions, and schools to help foreigners understand our local laws, norms and culture, and encourage interactions with Singaporeans. There are more than 1,400 Integration and Naturalisation Champions under the People's Association reaching out to new immigrants in the neighbourhood to help them settle into the community. Residents can also do their part to reach out to their new neighbours and help them settle in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Appeals to CPF Board to Withdraw from MediSave beyond Annual Withdrawal Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Health (a) in each year over the past five years, how many Singaporeans have made appeals to CPF Board to withdraw more from their MediSave accounts that is beyond the annual withdrawal limit; (b) how many of these appeals are for rare illnesses or medical conditions; and (c) what is the range of additional withdrawal quantum appealed for.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Each year, about 1.2 million Singaporeans make withdrawals from MediSave for various medical expenses. CPF Board receives between 500 to 600 appeals from Singaporeans each year to use their MediSave beyond withdrawal limits for inpatient and outpatient treatments.
The quantum of withdrawal appealed for varies, depending on various factors such as whether there are complications in treatment, or whether non-standard drugs and treatments are needed.
There were about four to five MediSave appeals over the last three years for rare diseases, which affect fewer than one in 2,000 patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Administrative Burden for Private Clinics to Enrol in CHAS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can encourage more private clinics to accept CHAS cards by lowering the administrative burden for private clinics to enrol in the programme.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the introduction of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in 2012, the number of clinics participating in CHAS has more than doubled. In 2018, there were over 1,000 CHAS general practitioner (GP) clinics and 700 CHAS dental clinics island-wide. About 90% of cardholders would also have access to at least one CHAS GP clinic within 400m of their homes.
To participate in CHAS, clinics must complete an e-learning module to familiarise themselves with the scheme. GP clinics must also be accredited for MediSave so that they can make MediSave claims for patients. We have streamlined the processes involved in enrolling in CHAS as well as allowed clinics to register for and complete their e-learning modules while their application for accreditation is being processed.
CHAS is a voluntary scheme, and clinics may choose not to participate in CHAS for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, we will continue to encourage GP clinics to participate in CHAS and help play a bigger role in providing affordable primary care to Singaporeans. We will also continually review how our processes can be streamlined, so that it is easy for them to do so. Clinics with specific suggestions may write in or call the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to provide their feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Mynah Population in Yishun","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the population trend of mynahs in Yishun in the past three years; (b) what are the findings and results of the tree fogging pilot project in 2016 to deter mynahs in Yishun; (c) how does the Ministry enforce the laws against bird-feeding and, to date, how many perpetrators have been penalised; and (d) what other measures are being deployed to deter or reduce the mynah population in Yishun.
Mr Lawrence Wong: NParks only started localised surveys on the myna population at hotspots in 2019, so we do not have historical data to compare. But based on this survey, we estimate that there are currently about 800 to 900 mynas roosting at hotspots near Yishun Avenue 3.
The 2016 pilot in Yishun found that tree fogging had limited long-term effects as the mynas returned once the fogging stopped. Instead, NParks has been working with various stakeholders to implement a sustainable myna management strategy. This involves a holistic suite of measures such as habitat modification, and the reduction of food sources made available by humans.
Habitat modification involves the directional pruning of trees to discourage mynas from roosting in the affected areas and shepherd them away from residential areas. Roost trees may also be replaced with tree types that are less preferred by the mynas. These are trees with crowns that are less dense, but will still provide greenery and shade. These measures have been effective in reducing myna roosts in Potong Pasir and Ang Mo Kio. NParks is working with the Nee Soon Town Council to implement similar measures at Yishun.
Food made available by humans is also a key driver of myna population growth. In this regard, NParks monitors bird feeding hotspots and works with the Town Councils and NEA to carry out targeted enforcement operations. This includes the use of video surveillance to catch offenders in the act. In 2019, NParks issued 145 enforcement notices to bird feeders. NEA also works with food centres and coffee shops in HDB estates to ensure proper food waste management, as the presence of improperly disposed food waste exacerbates the situation.
Agencies will continue to work closely with the Nee Soon Town Council to manage the myna situation at Yishun. The public must also play its part by maintaining the overall cleanliness of the environment and not feeding wild birds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Imposing Resale Levy on Those Who Previously Purchased Subsidised HDB Flats and Presently Intend to Buy Executive Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development for a person who has bought a subsidised flat directly from HDB and sold it before 19 May 1997 and presently intends to purchase an Executive Condominium (EC), what is the rationale for imposing on this person a requirement that he pays a resale levy based on 20% of the purchase price of the EC.
Mr Lawrence Wong: While Executive Condominiums (ECs) are built by private developers, they are sold with initial eligibility and ownership restrictions. These restrictions include an income ceiling and a minimum occupation period, similar to those applicable to HDB flats. Taking these into account, developers put in lower bids for Government land sales for EC sites. This reduces the land costs and thus the selling prices of EC projects, compared to private condominiums of similar size and location.
Since second-timer EC buyers benefit from this subsidised price, they are subject to a resale levy like second-timers who buy a new flat from HDB. This reduces the subsidy that second-timers receive compared to first-timers, thus ensuring a fairer distribution of housing subsidies.
The resale levy payable depends on the prevailing policy applicable to a second-timer buyer at the time they sold their first subsidised flat. Those who sold their first subsidised flat before 19 May 1997 but opted not to pay a graded resale levy at the point of sale would have to pay a premium on the purchase price of their next subsidised HDB flat or new EC unit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Dislodged Tiles in HDB Flats in December 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of reported dislodged tiles in HDB flats in December 2019; (b) whether the cooler temperature in December has resulted in more cases; and (c) how can HDB assist to keep the repair costs affordable.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The total number of reported cases of dislodged floor tiles has come down in 2019 compared to the previous year. On a monthly basis, there were indeed more cases reported in December compared to the other months of the year. Specifically, HDB received about 580 reported cases in December compared to the monthly average of 247 cases for 2019. This was likely due to the colder weather and temperature fluctuations during that month, which could have caused the tiles and the substrate to contract and expand at different rates, resulting in the loss of adhesion between the tiles and the substrate.
Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of their flats, including repairs for general wear and tear. Nevertheless, HDB will help flat owners repair dislodged tiles originally provided by HDB for a period of up to 15 years.
For cases beyond 15 years, flat owners will need to do their own replacement of tiles. HDB can provide owners with a list of registered repair contractors, whom they can then engage on a private basis. HDB can also help owners with the removal and disposal of the affected tiles and if necessary, with the laying of protective sheets over the affected area. Residents who need financial assistance with the cost of dislodged tile repairs can seek assistance from grassroots organisations and Community Development Councils (CDCs). HDB will assist such residents by referring them to these community organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Reach Out to and Monitor Well-being of Elderly Persons Living Alone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the various initiatives to reach out to and monitor the well-being of elderly persons living alone, particularly those in the lower income brackets; and (b) whether these programmes have been effective in reducing the number of lonely elderly deaths where bodies are undetected for extended periods of time.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government works with community partners on multi-pronged interventions to support our seniors, especially those living alone and with low income, to age well in the community.
First, we reach out to seniors proactively to check on their well-being. As part of regular home visits, Silver Generation Ambassadors (SG Ambassadors) assess seniors' health and social needs, and inform them of the various Government policies and schemes to support them. The SG Ambassadors also encourage well seniors to take part in active ageing programmes, and refer frail seniors to relevant agencies for their care needs. SGO's engagements complement the efforts of Senior Activity Centres (SACs) that reach out to seniors in the community, particularly those in the lower-income group.
Second, programmes are in place to support seniors' needs, especially for seniors who live alone or are low-income. A key focus area is befriending. The network of SG Ambassadors, grassroots leaders and social service agencies connects seniors at risk of social isolation to community befrienders. The befrienders visit seniors at least twice a month, supplemented with phone calls. Seniors may also be referred to CareLine, a 24/7 hotline that provides tele-befriending services as well as emergency response to seniors in distress, which is especially helpful for those living alone. There are also various community-led initiatives which complement formal befriending services, such as the \"Neighbour Cares\" programme in Jurong East. Under this pilot, resident volunteers keep a lookout for any visible signs of distress from vulnerable seniors in neighbouring units.
Third, seniors with complex needs will receive more intensive follow-up. Community case management services coordinate services required by seniors who have weak social support or complex social-health needs. The Social Service Offices work closely with community partners to provide financial support to needy seniors. Community outreach teams provide seniors at risk of dementia or depression with basic emotional support and coping strategies, including where to seek help if needed. Family Service Centres also provide counselling and support services to families with seniors to help them with relationship problems, as well as financial and emotional difficulties. Seniors with care needs, and who have no or little family support, are also supported by Senior Group Homes, Sheltered Homes and Nursing Homes, which provide residential and socio-emotional support.
We do not track the number of lonely elderly deaths where bodies are undetected for extended periods of time. Building communities of care is a whole of society effort. The efforts outlined above aim to enable our elderly to live well and leave well in the community. MOH will continue to work with our community partners, Government agencies and fellow Singaporeans to support our seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Access to Government eGazette Limited to Paid Subscription and Five-day Archive","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information what are the considerations behind the current arrangement of making the Government eGazette only available for the past five days and requiring a paid subscription to access the archive online.
Mr S Iswaran: Previously, documents that were electronically published in the Government Gazette on the e-Gazette website were available for free access by members of the public for five days. This was an agreement between the Government and Toppan Leefung Pte Ltd (Toppan), formerly known as the Singapore National Printers Pte Ltd, that had been in place since September 1998 when the e-Gazette website was implemented. Toppan was granted a non-exclusive licence to publish documents in the Government Gazette in electronic form. As Toppan had invested in procuring, configuring, maintaining and operating the system which was used for the publication of Government Gazettes on the e-Gazette website, it was allowed to recover costs by imposing subscription fees for access to the e-Gazette archives.
The documents on the e-Gazette website are mostly legislation. Current and earlier versions of all legislation are also available on the Singapore Statutes Online website hosted by the Attorney-General's Chambers. This website provides 24/7 free public access.
In this digital age when citizens get most of their information online, Government notices should be made more easily accessible to the public. We have reviewed our arrangements with Toppan. By the end of January 2020, all publications on the e-Gazette website will be made available to the public without charge, including publications that have been published for more than five days.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Senoko Energy's Request for Rescue Package","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government has responded to Senoko Energy's request for a rescue package and whether our energy market is in trouble.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Senoko Energy Pte Ltd (Senoko) has clarified publicly that its current financial situation does not require additional funding from the government in the foreseeable future, and that its outlook on the local power industry remains positive.
Power generators have long asset lives of about 30 years. During this period, the investment of power generating companies (gencos) are subject to cyclical fluctuations in demand and supply, given that Singapore's electricity market is a competitive one. We are currently in a situation where there is an excess supply of generation capacity. Over time, this oversupply should ease as demand rises and old capacity is retired.
To help the gencos weather the present circumstances, EMA has introduced several measures. For instance, since August 2018, flexibility was provided for gencos to retire their steam plants. EMA also worked with the gencos to reduce their contracted Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) supply and divert their excess LNG purchases. The LNG terminal tariff payable by the gencos was also lowered, which would provide gencos with cost savings. In addition, EMA developed a scheme to support gencos to maintain high operational reliability and adopt good labour management and capability building practices.
Over the longer term, to ensure our electricity market remains economically efficient and resilient, EMA is also working on initiatives such as introducing a Forward Capacity Market to procure in advance the generation capacity we need to ensure reliable electricity supply. This should also provide a more steady income stream for gencos.
Ultimately, EMA's primary responsibility is to maintain a well-functioning and sustainable market that promotes competition and an electricity supply that is efficient, reliable and secure. EMA cannot be responsible for the commercial viability of individual firms. EMA will continue to work with the gencos to ensure that information is available to help them make the best decisions, and ensure that our energy market remains resilient and competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Match Senior Singaporeans with Singaporean Teens for Mentoring","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider matching Singaporeans senior in age with young Singaporeans in their teens such as to mentor them so that both the elder person and the young person can benefit through a mentor-mentee relationship.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: MCCY recognises the importance of mentoring. Youths who receive mentorship are more likely to be active in the community, more resilient when facing setbacks, and have higher levels of self-esteem and self-confidence. We also recognise that many seniors have the life experience and wisdom that could make them good mentors to youths. Hence, increasing mentoring opportunities, including mentoring of youths by older persons, is one of the key actions we are developing under the SG Youth Action Plan.
For example, MCCY and the National Youth Council are supporting the Mentoring Alliance, a ground-up initiative comprising 11 youth sector organisations that aims to promote a local mentoring movement and foster positive youth development. Mentoring Alliance has recruited about 200 mentors, including seniors, who mentor youths in areas such as resilience building, pro-social skills and marketplace exposure. We support these efforts through the National Youth Fund.
As part of the SG Youth Action Plan, we are also partnering with Young NTUC's Youth Career Network (YCN). Young NTUC's YCN aims to provide young polytechnic and university graduates with career support and guidance in Singapore, and has recently expanded its focus to include ASEAN. This is an area where the experience of our seniors in ASEAN would benefit a new generation of Singaporeans seeking out opportunities in our region.
Inter-generational mentoring can also go both ways, where youths aid our seniors in areas where our youth have expertise. For example, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has launched digital experiential learning journeys since 2018, where youths guide seniors to become more digitally ready. During these tours, youth volunteers from Youth Corps Singapore (YCS) personally teach seniors on using e-Payments, banking apps and cyber security tips.
Beyond these current initiatives, MCCY has funding for good ideas that bring Singaporeans together, such as Our Singapore Fund. We welcome Singaporeans who are interested to promote inter-generational bonding to come forward with their ideas and energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of \"Platoon Commander Interviews\" to Address Mental Health Issues of NSmen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Defence whether he can provide an update on the efficacy of \"Platoon Commander Interviews\" as an avenue to address mental health concerns of National Servicemen and whether such interviews can be extended to enlistees holding the rank of officers.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The SAF has a support system in place to monitor our national servicemen's mental well-being and extend support to those facing challenges in their personal lives or adjustments to military life. Besides counsellors and para-counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists, ground commanders too play an important role within this support system.
The Platoon Commander (or PC) Interview is one example. Carried out at regular intervals during Basic Military Training (BMT) and in units, this is a platform for one-to-one conversations between servicemen and their commanders. Based on our experience, it has helped our commanders to identify servicemen under their charge who are experiencing NS-related or personal problem or other mental health concern. The commanders would then extend first level advice and support or refer the servicemen for counselling or other professional interventions where necessary.
Mr Ong asked if PC interviews can be extended to NSF officers. While regular interviews are not mandated for officers, all commanders engage their officers regularly to identify and support those who require assistance, including those with mental health concerns. Apart from these informal interviews with their superiors, the whole support network of counselling and helplines is available and accessible to officers. As part of our overall support system, there are trained para-counsellors in every unit to provide frontline counselling services as well as a 24-hour counselling hotline for all servicemen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"LTA's Plan to Expand Shared Path Network by 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport with regard to LTA's plan to expand the shared path network in Singapore to 750 kilometres by 2025, whether priority may be given to constituencies which do not presently have a shared path network.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) had previously planned to extend the network of cycling paths from 440 \tkilometres to 750 kilometres by 2025 and 1,300 kilometres by 2030. We have decided to accelerate the pace of implementation, and in so doing, LTA will prioritise towns with high e-scooter populations and without existing intra-town cycling networks. LTA will work with local Advisors to ensure that new cycling paths meet their residents' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Build Noise Barriers along Stretch of PIE Adjacent to HDB Blocks between Bukit Batok Road Exit and Toh Guan Road Flyover","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider the feasibility of building noise barriers along the stretch of Pan-Island Expressway running adjacent to the HDB blocks between the Bukit Batok Road exit and Toh Guan Road flyover and/or implementing any other measure to reduce the traffic noise generated in the area.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is currently studying the feasibility of suitable noise mitigation measures along the highlighted stretch of the Pan-Island Expressway facing the housing blocks. The study includes options, such as noise barriers and noise-reducing pavement mix. LTA will decide on the measure(s) when the assessment is complete. LTA will consider factors such as the distance between the buildings and the road, and overall cost effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action Taken against Riders Using Throttle-operated Electric Bikes in Last Five Years and Types of Such Bikes Approved Since Passing of Active Mobility Act in 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year in the last five years, what is the number of cases where action has been taken against riders found using throttle-operated electric bikes; and (b) whether any type or case of throttle-operated electric bike has been approved for use since the passing of the Active Mobility Act in early 2017.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority has not approved any type of throttle-operated power-assisted bicycle (PAB) for use in Singapore since 2017. This is due to safety concerns with sudden accelerations associated with throttle-operated PABs. Action was taken against 1,863, 1,648, 406, 485 and about 837 cases of non-compliant PABs in 2015 to 2019 respectively, the majority of which involved throttle-based PABs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up of E-scooter Trade-In-Grant by Delivery Riders since Introduction of Transition Assistance Package","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Transport since the introduction of the Transition Assistance Package, how many delivery riders have switched to bicycles, power-assisted bicycles or personal mobility aids through the e-scooter Trade-In-Grant.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Transition Assistance Package was designed to help food delivery riders switch out of e-scooters, through the e-scooter trade-in grant. As at 31 December 2019, LTA has received 3,550 applications from eligible riders and has approved all applications after accounting for duplicates. 74.6% of applicants applied to switch to power-assisted bicycles, 24.8% to bicycles, and 0.6% to personal mobility aids.
So far, about 790 riders have successfully switched to alternative devices. The rest will progressively switch when they receive their new devices. In the meantime, their food delivery companies have provided them with free bicycle rentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of National Day Parade Tickets to Migrant Workers and New Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Yip Pin Xiu asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the National Day Parade (a) whether a meaningful number of tickets can be allocated to migrant workers given their contributions to the prosperity of our country; (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider the number of years of service in Singapore as criteria for the allotment of these tickets; and (c) whether the Ministry plans to allocate a certain number of tickets for new citizens for the purpose of integration.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: As demand for tickets to the National Day Parade (NDP) are much higher than capacity, the priority of allocation will continue to be for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, as the NDP is a key national event to celebrate our nation's independence together. Some previews are also reserved for school children as part of their national education.
Over the years, the NDP organising team has been expanding the overall capacity to respond to the high demand. Since 2016, a second Preview was added. Last year, the mobile column was extended into the heartlands. NDP celebrations have also been organised around the venues at the Padang or Floating Platform. These fringe and satellite activities allow tens of thousands more, including our migrant workers, to join the celebrations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporean and Foreign Sex Workers Arrested and Prosecuted for Public Solicitation in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year in the past 10 years, of the sex workers (i) arrested and (ii) prosecuted for public solicitation of prostitution, how many were Singaporeans and foreigners respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Soliciting in public is an offence under Section 19 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, or \"MOA\". Offenders are liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $1,000, and repeat offenders are liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $2,000 or maximum imprisonment of six months, or both.
Between 2009 and 2018, Police made 281 arrests for public solicitation, which resulted in 181 prosecutions. The annual figures from 2009 to 2018 are in Table 1.
Approximately one in four arrested persons and one in five prosecuted persons were Singapore citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations Governing Cash Advance Programmes Offered by Employers or Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) what regulations govern cash advance programmes offered by employers or contractors; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering a cap on interest rates instituted for such programmes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Employers may provide advances of salaries to their employees prior to festive occasions, or upon request by their employees. The recovery of such cash advances are regulated under the Employment Act. Under the Act, employers are allowed to recover the monies through salary deductions of no more than 25% of the salary each month, for up to 12 months. The Employment Act does not provide for interest to be charged for such cash advances.
Cash advance programmes offered by businesses to their contractors involving a sum of money lent in return for a larger sum may come under the ambit of the Moneylenders Act, depending on the nature and terms of the programme. Entities which offer cash advances as a business of moneylending require a licence or exemption under the Act. MinLaw may grant such licences or exemptions and impose conditions, including interest rates caps, as appropriate, taking into account the nature and terms of the programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Suitable Eye Exercise and Diet to Help Seniors Take Care of Eyesight to Delay Onset of Cataract","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can implement a set of guidelines for suitable eye exercise and diet to help seniors take care of their eyesight to delay the onset of cataracts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Cataract is one of the leading causes of blindness commonly associated with ageing. The risk of developing cataracts is higher if one regularly smokes or drinks alcohol, or has chronic diseases such as diabetes. MOH has efforts in place to promote general eye care amongst seniors.
First, in prevention, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) conducts regular health talks in the community to equip seniors with bite-sized information to improve their physical, mental and functional health. Maintaining good eye health is one of the key topics, and seniors are taught the importance of good vision, early detection and management of common eye conditions, such as cataract and glaucoma, as well as simple eye care tips. Seniors can also obtain information on eye care and nutrition via the HealthHub website or app.
Second, on early detection, we encourage our seniors to attend regular health screenings. In 2018, MOH partnered Temasek Foundation to roll out Project Silver Screen (PSS), a nationwide functional screening programme for seniors to check their vision, hearing and oral health. As part of the screening, seniors are advised on good eye care practices, and those with abnormal vision screening results are referred to an optometrist or eye specialist for further assessment. Since January 2018, more than 61,000 seniors have benefited from PSS, with about 20% referred for follow-up eye care services. In addition, patients with diabetes, who are at higher risk of developing eye disorders, including cataract, are recommended to undergo regular eye screening as part of their routine care in polyclinics and Primary Care Network (PCN) General Practitioner clinics.
Third, on accessibility, we have set up clinical eye care services in the community, particularly for seniors who may be less mobile. For example, MOH has worked with the public healthcare institutions (PHIs) to establish mobile eye services in the community, which provide in-depth visual testing to detect a wide range of eye conditions including cataract. The PHIs have also established six Community Eye Clinics (CECs) island-wide since June 2018, to provide prompt eye assessment and treatment for persons with stable eye conditions that do not require complex care by specialists. Specific to cataract management, optometrists and doctors at the CECs would also provide advice on monitoring symptoms, good eye health habits and appropriate follow-ups.
The above measures enable earlier detection and appropriate management of cataract and other vision disorders, so that our seniors can maintain their quality of life as far as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Children Injured in Motor Accidents as a Result of Not Being Secured in Child Seats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether hospitals collect data on the number of children injured in motor accidents as a result of not being secured in child seats; (b) if so, what is the number and percentage of children involved in such accidents in each of the past 10 years with a breakdown according to the age groups of (i) below one year old (ii) between one and two years old and (iii) above two years old; and (c) if not, whether hospitals will start collecting such data.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on data1 from the National Trauma Registry, between 2012 and 2018, the number of children aged 9 years and below2 who were treated in public hospitals for traumatic injury due to a motor vehicular accident ranged between 106 and 225 cases per year. We are not able to ascertain from the Registry's data whether children injured in motor vehicular accidents were a direct result of them not being secured in child car seats and/or seatbelts.
Among those treated in public hospitals, more than half were known to have used car seats and/or restraints, while the status of the remainder is unknown.
Motorists and their passengers should use appropriate restraints at all times while riding in motor vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data available from 2012 when the National Trauma Registry was set up. Data on the use of child seat/seatbelt were based on reports by patients or parents. ","2 : The law mandates that a person below 1.35 metres in height should be properly secured by an approved child restraint appropriate to their height and weight, or a body restraining seat belt when seated on a booster seat cushion or when using a seat with an approved adjustable seat belt when travelling in a motor vehicle. Reference: Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276) Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011 S 688/2011. Based on height-for-age charts for boys and girls aged 4 to 18 years old, the median height-for-age is 1.35m at an age of 9 years. Source: Health Booklet, Health Promotion Board."],"footNoteQuestions":["9"],"questionNo":"9"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Duration to Process Appeals to Withdraw from MediSave Accounts Beyond Annual Withdrawal Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) over the past three years, what is the average duration taken to process appeals by persons who wish to draw from their MediSave accounts beyond the annual withdrawal limit; (b) what are the common reasons for those unsuccessful appeals; and (c) whether there have been appeals by similar persons for consecutive years and, if so, how are these appeals managed.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Appeals for additional MediSave withdrawal beyond these limits are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration circumstances of the patient and his family, such as whether more complex treatment was required, as well as the family's social and financial situation.
In some appeal cases, the patient may already have low MediSave balances, or expect recurrent treatment in future years, and additional Medisave withdrawal may not be the only or the best solution. To ensure that these patients have enough MediSave for their future needs, we may instead refer such cases to Medical Social Workers for other forms of support, such as MediFund. For cases that are likely to face more complicated and challenging social and financial issues, MOH may work with other agencies, such as MSF and HDB, to coordinate support for these patients.
In other cases, the patient may have sought unsubsidised care resulting in unexpectedly large bills. In such cases, we would encourage the patient to also work out alternative payment arrangements, such as payment through an instalment plan, instead of prematurely depleting their MediSave balances which would be needed in future.
As it takes time to obtain information and assess a patient's financial and clinical circumstances, it generally takes around one month to process an appeal after we have received it.
We will continue to review MediSave withdrawal limits and our healthcare financing schemes to ensure that they remain adequate and relevant. No Singaporean will be denied access to necessary and appropriate healthcare because of an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MOH's Response to Recently-released Community Blueprint to End HIV and AIDS Transmission by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what is the response of the Ministry to the recently released community blueprint to end HIV and AIDS transmission by 2030, especially the recommendations to triple the number of anonymous testing clinics and improve access to newer HIV medication.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The \"Community Blueprint to End HIV transmission in Singapore\" has provided the community's perspective on the impact that HIV has on patients and their families, and recommendations to ending HIV in Singapore. The Ministry of Health (MOH) shares the community's aim in supporting people living with HIV and ending HIV transmission in Singapore.
Various initiatives are currently in place to support HIV prevention and control efforts. These include programmes to increase awareness of HIV and lower barriers to testing, improve linkages to care for persons who test positive, and increase the affordability of HIV treatment. MOH has been working with Action for AIDs to engage with the community stakeholders on the Blueprint, and will continue to work with the community to strengthen the strategies to reduce HIV transmission, including measures to increase access to HIV testing and medication.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and Average Waiting Times for Outpatient Appointments at IMH, Specialist Outpatient Clinics, Polyclinics and Government-funded Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current median and average waiting times respectively for patients to outpatient appointments with (i) psychiatrists (ii) clinical psychologists and (iii) counsellors at Institute of Mental Health, Specialist Outpatient Clinics at restructured hospitals, polyclinics and under Government-funded programmes such as Assessment and Shared Care Team (ASCAT), Community Resource Engagement and Support Team (CREST) and Community Intervention Team (COMIT), respectively; (b) what is the professional to patient ratio for each of the above professions in each of the above medical centres and programmes; and (c) what are the measures taken to reduce waiting times.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2018, the average overall median waiting time for new subsidised appointments across the public hospitals was 27 days1 to see a psychiatrist, and 28 days2 to see a psychologist. However, anyone requiring urgent mental health assistance or who wishes to see a psychiatrist, may contact the Institute of Mental Health's (IMH) 24-hour Mental Health Helpline3 or seek medical help at the 24-hour Emergency Services located at IMH. MOH does not have specific numbers of counsellors practising in Singapore as many healthcare professionals and social workers provide counselling as part of their work. For cases requiring community support, patients can be referred to Community Outreach Teams and Community Intervention Teams, and these cases are usually contacted within two weeks.
There are around 2484 psychiatrists and 4735 psychologists practising in Singapore, which translates to 4.4 psychiatrists and 8.36 psychologists per 100,000 population. To reduce waiting time, the hospitals have implemented measures such as reviewing work processes to optimise appointment slots and efficiency of clinical operations (for example, calling patients prior to their appointment), tightening the triaging of urgency of cases, tiering services to the appropriate level of care, and right-siting of non-emergency or more stable cases to primary and community-based care to enable specialist services to focus on more complex cases. As of March 2019, we have set up 41 community outreach teams and, 21 allied health-led community intervention teams to provide mental health support in the community.
MOH will continue to work with public hospitals and service providers in the community, including schools, social service agencies and family service centres, to ensure that we provide holistic and timely support for persons with mental healthcare needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: MOH Statistics.","2 : Source: Public Hospitals.","3 : 24-hour hotline: 63892222.","4 : Source: SMC 2018 Annual Report.","5 : Source: Singapore Register of Psychologists, maintained by the Singapore Psychological Society.","6 : As registration for practice is not compulsory for psychologists, actual numbers may be higher."],"footNoteQuestions":["12"],"questionNo":"12"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographics of Patients Receiving Psychiatric Treatment and Mental Health Support at IMH, Polyclinics, Specialist Outpatient Clinics and Government-funded Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health in the last three years, what are the demographics of patients receiving psychiatric treatment and mental health support at the Institute of Mental Health, polyclinics, Specialist Outpatient Clinics at restructured hospitals and under Government-funded programmes, such as the Assessment and Shared Care Team (ASCAT), Community Resource Engagement and Support Team (CREST) and Community Intervention Team (COMIT), respectively, broken down by (i) number of patients (ii) duration of inpatient stay or treatment length (iii) types of mental health condition (iv) age (v) income and (vi) time taken between onset of symptoms and treatment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The five most common mental health conditions that were seen at public hospitals were schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and substance abuse. At the polyclinics, depression, anxiety and insomnia were the three most common mental health conditions. Schizophrenia and depression were also common mental health conditions receiving service from the community intervention teams funded under MOH.
For the whole public healthcare system, the average age of subsidised patients for the different mental health conditions seen was between 40 to 50 years old1. MOH does not track data on income nor time taken between onset of symptoms and treatment as the patient might have seen providers outside the public healthcare system. However, based on the Singapore Mental Health Study (2016)2, a self-reported survey, the median time taken between the onset of symptoms and seeking help is 11 years for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD); four years for bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse, two years for Generalised Anxiety Disorder and one year for Major Depressive Disorder. Stigma and lack of mental health literacy may be contributory factors to the delay.
There are various initiatives by the Government, as well as healthcare and community providers to proactively reach out to raise awareness of mental conditions and provide information on avenues to seek help, facilitate early identification and access to interventions. We have community outreach teams to educate the public on mental health conditions and dementia, and refer those with such conditions to the appropriate health and/ or social services. We have also increased access to mental health and or dementia services in 12 polyclinics.
Over the last three years (2016 to 2018), the average number of subsidised patients who received inpatient treatment for mental health conditions was about 6,900 per year, with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 21 days per admission. The average number of subsidised patients seen as outpatients for mental disorders was about 60,000 per year.
MOH will continue to work with public hospitals and service providers in the community, including schools, social service agencies and family service centres, to provide holistic support for all persons with mental healthcare needs and to ensure timely access to quality care and support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Ministry of Health.","2 : The study involved face-to-face interviews with a sample size of 6,126 participants from 15,900 randomly-selected residents. "],"footNoteQuestions":["13"],"questionNo":"13"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Mental Health and Allied Professionals in Social and Health Manpower Development Programme and Community Mental Health Masterplan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any manpower development plans for mental health and allied professionals in the Social and Health Manpower Development Programme and Community Mental Health Masterplan and, if so, what is the progress of these plans; (b) what are the targets the Ministry has for (i) psychiatrist to population ratio (ii) clinical psychologist to population ratio and (iii) counsellor to population ratio; and (c) when does the Ministry expect to achieve these target ratios.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Local training programmes are available for psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors. Under MOH's Health Manpower Development Plan (HMDP), over the past three years, an average of three overseas experts from a variety of professions visited local healthcare institutions to advise and teach aspects of mental healthcare each year. In addition, under the HMDP, an average of 13 local mental health professionals were sent to overseas centres to study and learn different models of care delivery each year. A Skills Framework (SF) was established in January 2019 to guide the developmental pathways of psychologists, including clinical psychologists. This framework for psychologists is administered by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). MSF had also set up a Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce (STT) to drive, coordinate and implement tripartite collaborations for manpower development initiatives, including that for psychologists.
Currently, there are about 2481 psychiatrists and 4732 psychologists in Singapore. This translates to 4.4 psychiatrists and 8.33 psychologists per 100,000 population. Within the public health sector, the number of psychiatrists and psychologist increased by 8% to 1824 and 7% to 171 respectively in the last three years. MOH does not have specific numbers of counsellors practising in Singapore as many healthcare professionals and social workers provide counselling as part of their work. Whilst there is no international consensus on the number or ratio of mental health professionals to population, the MOH will continue to monitor the numbers to ensure appropriate access and quality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: SMC 2018 Annual Report.","2 : Source: Singapore Register of Psychologists, maintained by the Singapore Psychological Society.","3 : As registration for practice is not compulsory for psychologists, actual numbers may be higher.","4 : Source: SMC 2018 Annual Report."],"footNoteQuestions":["14"],"questionNo":"14"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Funding Provided to MediaCorp for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how much funding is provided for MediaCorp on the annual basis for the past five years; (b) how many (i) TV and (ii) radio programmes have been funded by the Government for the past five years; and (c) whether the funding is sufficient given the decreasing amount of advertising dollars that MediaCorp can generate over the years.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government has allocated about $310 million annually to support Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) programmes over the last five years. The funding supports the provision of an average of 3,000 hours of TV programmes a year across MediaCorp's Free-to-Air TV channels and in the four official languages. The funding also supports the development of capabilities and digital platforms to complement PSB programming. PSB funding for radio supports the Malay and Tamil radio stations Warna, Ria and Oli, dialect news broadcasts on Capital 958FM, and programming on Symphony 924FM and CNA 938FM.
The Government recognises that the media landscape and media consumption habits are rapidly changing. The entry of many international content providers into the market has also intensified the competition for local viewers. These changes have brought about challenges for public service broadcasters around the world.
In light of these trends, MediaCorp is taking steps to innovate and transform its business model and content offerings to better serve its audience. The Government regularly reviews its funding for PSB programmes to ensure value for money and that Singaporeans continue to enjoy high quality PSB programmes that meet the diverse needs of our communities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Train Singaporeans to Pursue Career in Information Technology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is being done to train Singaporeans to pursue a career in information technology.
Mr S Iswaran: Digitalisation creates exciting opportunities for both Singaporeans and enterprises who seek to benefit from the growth of the digital economy. MCI and IMDA have a range of initiatives to help Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds seize new employment opportunities in information technology, as well as manage career challenges caused by digital disruption. These include upskilling courses for ICT professionals, reskilling courses for working Singaporeans who wish to move from other sectors into ICT job roles, and programmes to encourage students to embark on an ICT career. These initiatives are designed to help match and prepare Singaporeans with the demands and requirements of the new ICT job roles, so that they can fully benefit from the emerging job opportunities.
For working adults hoping to pursue an ICT career, the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) programme provides training for ICT job roles that are in demand by the industry. To date, more than 93,000 training places have been taken up or committed since TeSA started in 2016. In total, more than 4,300 companies have upskilled their existing ICT workforce and a further 900 have employed individuals trained through TeSA. TeSA's Company-Led Training Programme works with private-sector companies to provide on-the-job training to fresh graduates and experienced professionals. Trainees build up their tech skills by working on industry projects and through interactions with tech practitioners and business users. As of October 2019, 50 companies have participated in the programme since its inception, and all trainees have secured full-time jobs upon completion of their training.
For ICT professionals who wish to upskill themselves in emerging areas with strong industry demand, such as Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Cybersecurity and Internet of Things, the Critical Infocomm Technology Resource Programme Plus (CITREP+) helps them gain specialised ICT skills through short-form training and certifications.
In addition, MCI and IMDA are stepping up efforts to ensure that mid-career PMETs and those hoping to take on an ICT job role are able to adapt to challenges brought about by technological changes in industry. The Tech Immersion and Placement Programme (TIPP) provides an immersive training course delivered by industry practitioners. As of October 2019, about 1,400 trainees have completed TIPP with a more than 90% job placement in companies ranging from start-ups to large enterprises. Mid-career professionals are also encouraged to leverage TeSA's integrated career services, a career support ecosystem, to get career guidance, mentoring, and support for better job matching.
Our trade associations are also actively contributing their efforts to help locals. Under the Career Compass initiative, the Singapore Computer Society has provided experienced ICT mentors to partner with career centres managed by Workforce Singapore. SGTech has also been helping to manage some Professional Conversion Programmes with platform companies, such as Salesforce, to help train and place locals into jobs. MCI and IMDA will continue to provide Singaporeans with the means to reskill, upskill, and seize better job opportunities in the digital economy.
In an increasingly technologically driven world, we must support future generations of Singaporeans to lead and thrive in the digital age. To interest school-going Singaporeans to develop ICT skills, IMDA has programmes such as the \"Code for Fun\" enrichment programme to inspire students and develop their computational thinking. IMDA's tertiary talent development programme provides scholarships and global exposure opportunities for tertiary students through immersion programmes and international competitions. For example, the Industry Preparation for Pre-graduates (iPREP) equips ITE, Polytechnic and University students with relevant skillsets for an ICT career through work attachments and overseas internships. Tertiary institutions have also expanded the number of places offered in ICT-related programmes to encourage more students to specialise in information technology.
MCI will continue to work with our partners to enable Singaporeans to take on good ICT jobs and fully benefit from Singapore's growing digital economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Countries with Mutual Agreements with Singapore Allowing Residents to Work in Each Other's Country","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many countries have mutual agreements with Singapore to allow residents to work in each other's country; (b) which are the countries that allow Singaporeans to work in their countries; (c) what is the number of Singaporeans who have worked in each of these countries; and (d) in these countries, what are the professions/positions they are in.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As there are no reporting requirements, we do not have the exact number of Singaporeans who are working in specific professions abroad. However, Singaporeans can work overseas under three broad categories of commitments.
Firstly, under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), Singaporeans working in companies with overseas presence may work in other WTO members as intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) for a specified number of years, depending on the commitments made by the host member.
Secondly, Singaporeans may work in other countries with which we have Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). For example, Singaporean professionals can work in the United States via the H1B1 visa, which was made available to Singapore under the United States-Singapore FTA. Our FTA partners may also make more favourable commitments on Singaporean ICTs, such as by extending the number of years in which Singaporean ICTs may work in their country, going beyond their commitments made in the WTO GATS.
Thirdly, mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) signed by our professional bodies allow Singaporean qualifications and licences to be recognised overseas, and vice versa, enhancing the mobility of our professionals. For instance, through the MRA between Singapore's Institution of Engineers and the Royal Netherlands Society of Engineers signed in July 2018, Singaporean Chartered Engineers whose qualifications are recognised may practice in The Netherlands and vice versa.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Flat Owners Unable to Sell Their Flats within Grace Period after Collection of Keys to New Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many flat owners could not sell their flats after the grace period given to them after the collection of keys to their new flats; and (b) whether the number has been the increasing for the past three years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Existing flat owners who are collecting the keys to a new or resale HDB flat have up to six months to sell or transfer their interest in the existing flat. The number of households unable to do so today is around 600, similar to 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Executive Condominium Scheme for Better Control over Pricing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will review the Executive Condominium (EC) scheme to take over the full development of ECs instead of opening land sales to private developers so as to have better control over the pricing of ECs to meet the aspiration needs of Singaporeans.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Executive Condominium (EC) Housing Scheme was introduced to provide an affordable option for higher-income Singaporeans who aspire to own private housing. That is why ECs offer similar design features and facilities as private condominiums, and are treated as strata-titled private housing after 10 years. Given this objective, it would not be possible for HDB to take over the development of ECs.
The Government has put in place various measures to ensure that ECs remain affordable. For example, initial eligibility and ownership restrictions, such as an income ceiling and a minimum occupation period, are imposed on EC buyers. This helps to reduce the land cost of the EC projects, as well as their selling price. Currently, the prices of ECs are about 25% cheaper than private condominiums of similar size and location. EC buyers also benefit from the CPF Housing Grant when making their purchase.
We will continue to monitor the situation, and ensure that the EC Housing Scheme serves its original intent, and meets the aspirations and needs of potential home-buyers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Involving Members of Public in Reporting Decaying or Unhealthy Trees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can (i) issue a set of pointers to help the public look out for trees that may be decaying or unhealthy and (ii) provide a hotline number for people to report such instances so that the community can be an additional check to the already tight regime of inspection done by NParks.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Assessing the health and structural integrity of trees is best carried out by trained personnel with the requisite experience and expertise. For instance, natural features on certain types of trees could be mistaken by the public as signs of tree decay or disease, when these trees are in fact healthy. Members of the public who have feedback on public trees can contact NParks at 1800-471-7300, or through the OneService app of the Municipal Services Office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Ban on Keeping of Pet Cats in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development whether it is timely now to remove the ban on keeping pet cats in HDB flats and to regulate cat pet-keeping instead to minimise disamenities for neighbours.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB's pet ownership policies have to strike a balance between residents who are pet lovers and those who are not. Irresponsible pet ownership can lead to disamenities in the community and cause unhappiness. In the case of cats, disamenities include shedding fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, and caterwauling by roaming cats.
Notwithstanding these concerns, HDB recognises that there are many residents who are cat lovers and who would like to keep cats in their flats. Hence, HDB will continue to review and update its pet ownership policies, together with NParks/Animal & Veterinary Service which is responsible for the broader issue of animal welfare and licensing. While we would like very much to accommodate the wishes of all pet owners, we also have to take into consideration the views of other home-owners, and take a holistic and balanced approach in addressing this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Non-residential Buildings in Singapore Not Green Mark Certified and Plans to Engage Building Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what percentage of non-residential buildings in Singapore are currently not Green Mark certified; (b) whether there is a system for end users and the public to provide feedback on buildings that have their air-conditioning set to temperatures lower than necessary; and (c) how does the Ministry engage these building owners on their building's ambient air temperatures.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Buildings contribute up to a quarter of Singapore's carbon emissions. The \"greening\" of buildings play an important part in ensuring Singapore continues to develop sustainably and meet our international climate change commitments. Singapore is targeting to \"green\" 80% of our total building gross floor area (GFA) by 2030 and to date, about half of Singapore's non-residential building GFA has been greened to meet minimum sustainability standards.
Today, users of air-conditioning in commercial buildings are encouraged to set their indoor temperatures at around 25 degrees Celsius through voluntary schemes like the BCA Green Mark (GM) scheme. The GM scheme recognises buildings for maintaining indoor temperature in air-conditioned space at 24 to 26 degrees Celsius. Under the scheme, recognition is also given for the installation of energy efficient air-conditioning systems. The latest Third Green Building Masterplan, launched in 2014, also focuses on changing the way building tenants and occupants consume energy.
Aside from commercial buildings, the Government also works closely with industries on cooling efficiency. Starting from 2020, NEA will set Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) for chilled water systems in industrial facilities. This will help companies reduce their energy consumption, save on energy costs, and avoid carbon emissions.
To continue our efforts in combating climate change, my Ministry will work with BCA on programmes to encourage owners and tenants of non-residential buildings to reduce energy consumption and lower their carbon footprint.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Profile of Workers in General Waste Collection and Materials Recovery Sub-sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the current total number of workers and corresponding workforce profile in both general waste collection and the materials recovery sub-sectors; and (b) what are the various deciles for both monthly basic and gross wages in the two sub-sectors.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on the 2016 Waste Management Industry Manpower Study commissioned by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Workforce Singapore (WSG), there are about 7,900 workers in the general waste collection sub-sector, and about 6,500 workers in the materials recovery sub-sector.
The study contains wage data for individual job functions in the general waste collection and materials recovery sub-sectors. This includes managers, supervisors, machine operators, waste and recyclables truck drivers, collection and sorting crew. The core operational roles of the workforce would be the waste and recyclables collection and sorting crew, as well as supervisors and drivers.
For waste and recyclables collection workers, the annual basic wages are $11,960, $14,040 and $16,952 at the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile respectively. The corresponding annual gross wages are $19,458, $25,193 and $31,144 respectively. For recyclables sorters, the annual basic wages are $10,400, $11,700 and $14,400 at the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile respectively. The corresponding annual gross wages are $13,173, $16,200 and $23,464 respectively.
For waste and recyclables collection supervisors, the annual basic wages are $30,875, $35,490 and $38,545 at the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile respectively. The corresponding annual gross wages are $45,935, $52,538 and $64,468 respectively. For sorting and recycling plant supervisors, the annual basic wages are $22,198, $29,300 and $40,430 at the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile respectively. The corresponding annual gross wages are $32,500, $45,061 and $57,000 respectively.
For waste collection and recyclables truck drivers, the annual basic wages are $22,100, $23,660 and $28,860 at the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile respectively. The corresponding annual gross wages are $36,000, $44,476 and $52,741 respectively.
The next Environmental Services Industry Manpower Study, which will cover both Cleaning and Waste Management sectors, will be commissioned by the NEA in 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and Average Amounts of Unused Balances in Post-Secondary Education Account Transferred to CPF Ordinary Accounts for Each Cohort in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education regarding the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) (a) for the last three years, what percentage of each cohort had unused balances in their PSEA which were transferred to their CPF Ordinary Accounts; and (b) for the cohorts in (a), what are the median and average amounts of unused balances so transferred.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past three years, about 90% of PSEA accounts have balances that can be transferred to the CPF-OA. It is not a bad thing to have some balances to transfer to CPF-OA, because the monies can then be used for housing and other purposes.
The median and average amounts transferred were $460 and $742 respectively in 2016, $782 and $943 in 2017, and $748 and $1,013 in 2018. The amounts are increasing as the relevant cohorts have different starting balances and received different amounts of top ups before they reach 30 years of age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Singaporeans Obtaining First Degree from Local Public Universities and Private Universities in Last Five Years and Their Median Starting Pay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Singaporeans have obtained their first degree from the local public universities as opposed to private universities in Singapore in the past five years; and (b) what is the median starting pay of graduates, excluding medical and dental school graduates, from public and private universities in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE has been monitoring the number of students in private education institutions (PEIs) offering external degree programmes closely. This is because unlike Autonomous Universities and publicly-funded degree courses, we do not have direct oversight of the institutions and their programmes. However, we do regulate them to ensure that systems and processes are in place to protect students' interest.
Over the years, we have tightened the regulations on these PEIs. One of the new requirements introduced two years ago was to conduct graduate employment surveys and make results public so students can make more informed choices. The latest survey results showed that the median starting salary for graduates of private Universities is $2,650, compared to $3,500 for Autonomous Universities, and $2,501 for Polytechnic graduates who have completed their National Service.
Over the past five years, the number of Singaporeans who were admitted into PEIs undergoing full-time degree programmes have decreased from 8,200 to 6,100.
This is partly because of the tighter regulations and transparency in graduate outcomes. More importantly, between 2014 and 2018, the cohort participation rate was raised from 32% to close to 40%. The annual number of Singaporeans admitted into full-time undergraduate programmes in our AUs increased from 14,800 to 17,100 over the same period, even while cohort sizes have fallen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Ensure Singaporeans' Readiness in Technology-driven Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) what is being done to ensure that Singaporeans will be ready for an economy heavily driven by technology; and (b) what is being done now to train Singaporeans to take up jobs in the field of information technology.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our approach is not to teach technology or information technology through a single subject but through a multi-faceted, immersive experience.
At the Primary and Secondary levels, students have many opportunities to develop their interest in information technology including through enrichment programmes, such as Code for Fun and Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Secondary students can participate in technology-related Applied Learning Programmes (ALP) and formal Computing subjects.
Moving ahead, these opportunities will be expanded further. For example, starting in 2020, all primary students will now participate in the Code For Fun enrichment programme. Also, starting in 2023, some primary schools will offer ALPs in technology-related areas, such as health science, robotics and coding.
We also need to recognise that the foundation of technology-related competencies lie in Mathematics and Science, which are also traditional strengths of our education system.
We must therefore continue to focus on these subjects in school, and encourage students with the interest to take up STEM subjects or courses. For example, those with a special talent or interest in computing can offer O-Level and A-Level Computing in selected schools, and develop key skills to pursue their interest further at the post-secondary level.
The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) offer many STEM-related pathways in engineering, information technology, data analytics and artificial intelligence. They regularly refresh the curriculum to ensure that they are up to date with the latest developments in technology and industry demands.
The IHLs also ensure students possess baseline competencies needed in the digital economy. For example, all Polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) students have to complete a module on data analysis for problem solving, and students at National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and Singapore Management University (SMU) all undergo modules on computational thinking.
Even after leaving school, Singaporeans can continue to stay abreast with technology through various SkillsFuture courses. These subsidised courses are offered across different proficiency levels, and help Singaporeans stay relevant in the digital workplace. Singaporeans who wish to move into ICT jobs can also take advantage of TechSkills Accelerator programmes to acquire relevant and in-demand digital skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Adoption of Absentee Payroll under Workfare Training Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower since the absentee payroll under the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme was first introduced (a) how many companies and workers have benefited and what is the total amount disbursed on a yearly basis; and (b) what is the breakdown of the companies by industry sectors that have benefited from WTS.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the past five years, an average of around 3,000 companies and 31,000 workers have benefited from absentee payroll funding1 each year under the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme. The average amount disbursed yearly is about $6 million. See Table 1 for details.
The breakdown of the top industry sectors with the most number of companies benefiting from absentee payroll funding is in Table 2. These are broadly sectors with a higher proportion of low-wage workers.
28 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) conducts feedback exercises with workers who have filed a discrimination or workplace harassment report with TAFEP which resulted in follow-up action by TAFEP or the Ministry; and (b) if so, what are the results of the feedback, particularly as to whether complainants are satisfied with the outcome of their case and the follow-up action taken.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) investigates all complaints received. Where warranted, cases are referred to the Ministry of Manpower. Where action has been taken against the employer, TAFEP will keep the complainant updated on the outcome. Many have been thankful and appreciative of the help and support to address their concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of and Action Taken against Employment Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the refusal by employers in the retail sector to interview and/or hire a qualified job applicant on grounds that he or she wears articles of religious faith constitutes a violation of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices; (b) how many complaints of discrimination on these grounds has TAFEP received in the past five years, broken down by industry; and (c) what actions has TAFEP taken against these employers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: All employers are expected to abide by the principles of fair employment practices set out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which makes it clear that recruitment and hiring practices are to be based on merit and the ability to perform the job. Religious wear should generally be allowed at workplaces, unless employers have uniform or dress code requirements which are suited to the nature of their work, or for operational and safety reasons. Such requirements should then be communicated and explained clearly to employees as well as job applicants.
In the past five years, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received a total of 16 complaints related to the wearing of religious articles, or less than 1% of all the complaints received. Table 1 shows the breakdown by industry of the complaints received.
Most complaints arose due to insensitivity on the part of the employer or interviewer in communicating company’s dress code and practices. All the employers have heeded TAFEP's advice and made the necessary rectifications to their employment practices.
TAFEP investigates all complaints of workplace discrimination, including unreasonable restrictions against religious wear, and will work with the Ministry of Manpower to take enforcement actions against substantiated complaints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Private Sector Bonuses and Their Correlation with Civil Service Bonuses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry keeps track of private sector bonuses given out each year; and (b) whether the Ministry has discerned any pattern whereby private sector bonuses tend to be causally correlated with civil service bonuses.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Manpower conducts annual surveys on wage practices, and publishes the data in our annual Report on Wage Practices. The report includes data on the quantum of the annual variable component (AVC) – in other words, the bonuses – given by private establishments.
As we reported in the 2018 Report, the performance of establishments and individuals were employers' main considerations when determining bonuses. These factors are not affected by civil service bonuses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number and Percentage of Divorce Cases where Shared Care and Control of Children is Awarded","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for 2017 and 2018 respectively, what is the respective breakdown of the number and percentage of divorce cases where shared care and control of the children is awarded.
Mr Desmond Lee: We are working with the Family Justice Courts and the Syariah Court to collate the data and will share this when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Requests for Personal Protection Orders Made by Foreign Spouses against Their Husbands in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) of all requests for Personal Protection Orders in each year for the past three years, how many and what percentage have been made by foreign spouses against their husbands; and (b) how many and what percentage of such requests by foreign spouses have been approved.
Mr Desmond Lee: Persons who seek legal protection from family violence may apply at the Family Justice Courts (FJC), for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) under the Women's Charter.
Based on the most recent complete dataset, FJC received 2,811 PPO applications in 2016, of which 203 applications (7%) were filed by foreign wives against their husbands. One hundred and one orders (50%) were issued, while the remaining applications filed by foreign wives in 2016 were mainly withdrawn, dismissed or struck out.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the speech given by the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran) during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question \"Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust Under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework\" at the Sitting of 6 January 2020: (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the public interest consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.
So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.
The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying \"without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest\", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. What that means therefore is when the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will have the evidence to support the public interest case. [Please refer to \"Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust Under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework\", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue No 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr S Iswaran circulated with leave of Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in accordance with Standing Order No 29 (5): (proc text)]
After my statement during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question “Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust Under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework\" at the Sitting of 6 January 2020, I wish to make the following factual correction. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.
So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.
The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying \"without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest\", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. When the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will set out why POFMA is used. That includes an express statement, as required by POFMA, that the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3541,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200106/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Healthcare 6Jan2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Healthcare 6Jan2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3542,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200106/vernacular-Joan Pereira Healthcare 6Jan2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Healthcare 6Jan2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3543,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Terence Ho Wee San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200106/vernacular-Terence Ho Adj Motion 6Jan2020 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Terence Ho Adj Motion 6Jan2020 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}