1 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider building more smoking rooms in all buildings with public access so as to contain second-hand smoke.
2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider implementing restrictions against smokers who smoke whilst on the move, such as walking or cycling, as they leave behind residual second-hand smoke.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Smoking has been a significant and long-standing public health issue in Singapore. Over the last decade, the prevalence of smoking has hovered around 12%-14%, and an average of six Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each day.
The Government has taken a multi-pronged approach to tackle tobacco addiction, such as by curtailing access to cigarettes, sustaining public education and imposing taxes on tobacco products. Nonetheless, we recognise that smoking will continue in Singapore and throughout the world and smokers need time to wean themselves off their habit. We must, therefore, continue to remind those who smoke of the health effects and also to be considerate in their actions.
Smokers have generally observed the smoking prohibition in public places, such as hospitals, clinics, sports complexes, office buildings and shopping malls. With smoking already disallowed in most buildings with public access, the Government has no plans to mandate the provision of smoking rooms in such premises.
Notwithstanding this, the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act allows for the provision of indoor smoking rooms in certain types of publicly-accessible premises, such as in entertainment outlets, provided that the smoking room is independently ventilated and not required to be used by any person in the course of his work. The need for smoking rooms should be determined by the managers of these premises as they have a legal duty to uphold the smoking prohibition rule within their premises. Premises managers may also set up designated smoking areas (DSAs) in the outdoor areas of their premises, provided these are not places where smoking is prohibited.
To the Member’s question on imposing restrictions on those who smoke on the move, the Government has already taken steps in that direction. Since 2013, smoking on pedestrian overhead bridges and under covered walkways has been prohibited. In the latter part of this year, the Orchard Road precinct will be gazetted as a smoke-free zone where smoking will no longer be allowed at all in public areas, except at a number of DSAs. This means that smokers will not be able to light up while walking within the zone.
The issue of smoking is one that requires all sectors of society to play their part. Families and communities must come together to encourage smokers to quit and keep them on a smoke-free path. Premises managers must observe their legal obligation to help enforce the smoking prohibition within their premises in consideration of their non-smoking clients and staff. Smokers should also be considerate when smoking in public places, and smoke only in permitted areas so as not to adversely affect the health of others.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have one supplementary question. On the ground, many people are still walking or cycling and smoking, affecting those behind them. Will the Ministry consider holding a campaign to educate our smokers to be more gracious in public by exercising care to keep second-hand smoke from blowing towards others?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I want to thank the Member for her suggestion. We will look into this. Let me say that, in a way, we have already started this when we set up DSAs in Orchard Road last year to study the effectiveness of reducing smoking in publicly accessible areas, and to encourage the smokers to be considerate and smoke only in the DSAs. We are evaluating the results of this study and the results will be taken into consideration when we decide on the future plans for DSAs.
More importantly, beyond campaigns and to encourage smokers to be considerate, we hope that we can also help smokers to completely quit smoking. And in this regard, the Health Promotion Board has educational campaigns to raise awareness about the harmful effects of smoking. It also has a \"I Quit\" campaign that it administers to help smokers to quit in more easily adaptable steps by breaking them down to help them in their journey to quit.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
\tMr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Passers-by and pedestrians who currently walk past outdoor designated smoking areas will also breathe in second-hand smoke. If we could have some DSAs within the buildings, it could reduce the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. At the same time, it will protect the smokers from the elements. While we are trying to do our best to reduce smoking, it takes time. Meanwhile, we should provide an avenue where both parties could co-exist but without affecting each other negatively.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, most of the buildings with public access are already smoke-free areas. We have no intention to mandate smoking rooms in these places. Notwithstanding this, the premises owner can designate smoking areas as long as these are not areas where smoking is prohibited. So, beyond five metres from the entrance or exit of a building which is a smoking-prohibited area, they could designate a DSA. This is actually being done, for instance, in Orchard Road, where we have implemented DSAs.
With regards to having a smoking area within a building, the issue is that, if you have a smoking room in a building, it will reduce the level of exposure of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), but not completely. This ETS could seep into other parts of the building and it could pose a health hazard and a health risk to persons in the enclosed space. That is the reason why under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act, we only allow smoking rooms in certain publicly accessible areas or premises, such as at Changi Airport Terminals' transit area, as well as in pubs, discotheques and so on, and also in office premises, but subject to very strict requirements. Which is that these premises must have a separate ventilation system where the smoking room is, and it must not be an area where staff is required to be in, in the course of their work and so on. If these can be complied with, then the premises owner can designate a smoking room.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): A supplementary question: a common complaint from residents is of neighbours smoking in their balconies or out of the windows of their flats, leading to smoke wafting into the flats of residents. What would the Ministry recommend to residents who suffer from such second-hand smoke?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Smoking within residential premises, in the home, in private space is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. We do not have smoking prohibition within the homes themselves. Our advice would be for the affected resident to have a discussion with the neighbour to try and resolve this amicably. If not, the resident may get assistance from a Community Mediation Centre.
Let me also say that enforcement alone is not the panacea to curb inconsiderate smoking behaviour. At the end of the day, we need to urge and get the smokers to be socially responsible and to be considerate when smoking so as not to cause disamenities to others. Families and friends of the smokers as well as the public, in general, could help to reinforce the right social norms, through nudges and reminders, in order to be able to try and address such issues.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): I take the Senior Minister of State's note that enforcement is not the panacea and it probably cannot solve all the problems. But without enforcement, it will not be a proper deterrent for many of the smokers because, clearly, they are socially not that responsible. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there would be considerations if the public can do more. For example, since there are not enough enforcers on the ground, if members of the public do have evidence of frequent smokers at the same location, can they submit that for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to take actions against those offenders?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Indeed. Even as enforcement alone is not the panacea, we will continue with our enforcement actions. We also work with the Town Councils as well as grassroots organisations to educate smokers and encourage them to be more considerate.
Having said that, if a resident has information or sees acts of errant smokers smoking in prohibited areas, they could provide the information to NEA. NEA will conduct investigations.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, why is the pilot project DSA set up in Orchard Road? Are we protecting the tourists or the residents? Secondly, I have quite a lot of residents asking whether DSAs will be set up in housing estates or not because that is where many of our residents have given feedback that they had been affected by second-hand smoke.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We piloted the DSAs in Orchard Road last year because Orchard Road has a very high footfall or pedestrian traffic. This is an area where many people may be subjected to second-hand smoke. That is a key reason why we have done it there. We are studying and evaluating the results, as I have said. We will take these into consideration in deciding on future plans for DSAs.
Indeed, we are exploring the feasibility of designating other areas as smoke-free zones in order to achieve the Government's long-term goal of prohibiting smoking in all public areas. We need to study the results of the DSA pilot in Orchard Road to determine how effective it is in reducing smoking in other public areas, getting smokers to be considerate to smoke only in the DSAs, as well as the location, design of DSAs and so on.
With regards to DSAs in residential areas, as I have said, we are looking into the feasibility of expanding designated non-smoking areas, but we will look at the study and see how we can scale this up.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, there is still a lot of people who are still smoking in our public parks and park connectors, and a lot of people who smoke when they are walking to work or to the Mass Rapid Transit stations. I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry would look into increasing the messaging on this concern.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think this is quite similar to the questions posed by the other Members, including Ms Joan Pereira, about having a campaign to educate smokers. First, we have extended smoking prohibition to common corridors, covered linkways, pedestrian overhead bridges. So, it is illegal to smoke in these places. If there are persons who are doing this, as I have said, we do carry out enforcement actions, particularly in hotspot areas. But beyond that, Members can provide us with further information on such errant smokers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost Efficiency of Large Infrastructure Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –
3 To ask the Minister for Finance what are the efforts to review cost efficiency of our large-scale infrastructure projects.
4 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Finance what are the specific measures in place to ensure that costs are judiciously managed in the construction of large infrastructure projects, such as Changi Terminal 5, Tuas Mega Port and the Jurong Lake District.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Question No 3.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: There are comprehensive measures in place to ensure the cost efficiency of publicly funded infrastructure projects, with greater scrutiny on projects that are of higher value or risk.
Projects that exceed $100 million, which make up over two-thirds of our infrastructure expenditure, are subject to scrutiny by the Ministry overseeing the project as well as the Ministry of Finance (MOF) before they are allowed to proceed. To help MOF perform this role, the Centre for Public Project Management (CP2M) was set up in 2011 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors who review the scope, design and cost reasonableness of the proposals. Changes may be made to revise the project scope or optimise the project design to achieve greater value-for-money. After the project passes the review by MOF, approval must be obtained from the Development Planning Committee (DPC), which comprises three Cabinet Ministers.
If a project is estimated to cost above $500 million, it is put through a rigorous Gateway Process. This includes projects like Changi Terminal 5 (T5) and Tuas Port. Such projects undergo a few stages of reviews by the Development Projects Advisory Panel (DPAP) supported by CP2M, before they are submitted to the DPC for approval. DPAP comprises senior public officers, academics and industry practitioners with deep technical expertise and experience in major infrastructure developments. This allows us to draw on the expertise and best practices in both the public and private sectors. The first stage of review assesses the strategic business case of the project and allows MOF and DPAP to be involved upstream in project planning. The second stage seeks to refine and optimise the overall design, including the space take-up, construction method and procurement approach, to achieve greater value-for-money.
The Gateway Process also allows agencies to work with DPAP to come up with alternative solutions that can achieve better or similar outcomes at lower costs over its lifecycle. One example is the construction of the Tuas Terminal Phase One where the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore came up with a method of reusing excavated and dredged materials from other sites for its land reclamation. This saved a few hundred million dollars by reducing the amount of sand needed.
The measures to manage large infrastructure project costs do not end at project approval. When a tender is called by the project agency, this is usually done through competitive open tender which allows price discovery. There is also a robust assessment of the cost-benefit tradeoff before an award decision is made by the tender approving authority, which typically comprises senior officials. For example, the award decisions for large infrastructure contracts called by the Land Transport Authority are approved by its governing Board.
At any stage after a project is approved, re-approval is required if there are material changes to the project scope, or cost increases exceeding 10% or $100 million, whichever is lower. The agency involved is required to provide justifications for the changes, which are scrutinised again by MOF before seeking re-approval from DPC.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Should the public be interested to track the yearly outlay on these mega infrastructure projects, how would they be able to see that in the yearly Budget release, given that the combined infrastructure spending budget for the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) was only $15 billion in 2016, whereas the expected spending on these mega infrastructure projects are in the tens of billions?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, the projects are reflected in the Budget Book, which is year by year. So, each year, you look at the relevant Ministries' budgets. For mega projects, it is spread out but, typically, will be found in the budgets for MOT, MND and for the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. If the Member is asking whether the Budget Book sets out the expenditure in the next 15 or 20 years, you will not get that. What you will get is the expenditure for that year, but you can track it on a yearly basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): A point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State in view of the comments made yesterday about the funding of T5 and the views of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) that T5 should not be pre-funded with taxes or a tax levied on passengers, for example. Does the Ministry have any position on this?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Sorry, can I just check: when the Member referred to comments yesterday, whose comments yesterday? Or was he referring to The Straits Times report this morning, I think?
\tMr Pritam Singh: These comments were made yesterday. It was also reported today in The Straits Times, and I believe it was a senior official of IATA who made those comments.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I think what the official had commented on was something about how you should not have pre-funding. Is that what the Member is referring to?
\tMr Pritam Singh: That is correct.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Okay. My comments at this stage would simply be that when it comes to mega projects, we have to look at what is the most optimal way to do the funding. We are still in the process of doing that. We do not rule out different ways of doing the funding but we are not committed to a single model. So, in short, we will try and find the most optimal way to do the funding and spread it out over the proper period of time.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers. I was wondering, in terms of cost efficiency, to what extent is the lifetime maintenance cost of a large infrastructure project considered as part of that efficiency, given that these projects may last many years and the design of the project may impact the ongoing cost required to upkeep and maintain it for future years.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: That is a very valid and pertinent question, and it is something that MOF is studying. Because our view is that when you look at the cost of a project, you must consider not just the initial development but how much that project is going to cost you over time. So, we are looking to see how that should be dealt with and reflected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Trends of Fresh Polytechnic and ITE Graduates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) in respect of the percentage of Polytechnic and ITE graduates securing permanent, full-time employment within a year of their graduation (a) what has been the statistical trend over the past 10 years; and (b) what are the reasons behind the trend.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Mr Speaker, every year, the Ministry of Education (MOE) surveys the employment rates of polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates six months after they complete their final examinations. The employment rate has remained high over the past 10 years. Each year, subject to some fluctuations due to the performance of the economy and job market, around nine in 10 graduates found jobs.
Having said that, there have been some significant shifts in the choices of graduates. Over the last 10 years, the percentage of polytechnic and ITE graduates who chose to go into further studies, instead of working, has gone up by over 10 percentage points.
This is driven by various efforts of the Government to expand education pathways for students. There are more places at polytechnics for ITE students, and more places at universities for polytechnic students.
As for those who choose to enter the labour force, there has also been a shift. Full-time permanent work has come down, while freelance, part-time and temporary work have gone up. To illustrate this, the percentage of polytechnic and ITE graduates who reported that they were in full-time permanent employment fell from 77% in 2007 to 58% in 2016, a 19-percentage point change.
About half of the decrease is due to students choosing to do part-time work while they prepare for further studies. A similar proportion chose not to do full-time permanent work voluntarily. They could be doing freelance work or have other reasons to lead them to choose to work part-time or take up temporary employment. The small remainder – about one percentage point – represents an increase in those who are involuntarily doing part-time work or are still looking for employment.
The strong desire to further their studies, higher incidence of students choosing to do freelance work or start their own business and students taking longer to look for work, are possible explanations for these changes. MOE will be doing an in-depth study into these trends and understanding the underlying forces driving the decisions of students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): One supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Some economists have opined that technical jobs may be more at risk from trends, such as automation, robotics, artificial intelligence. Does the Ministry feel that the outlook for these jobs is more at risk going forward because of these developments as compared to other kinds of jobs, for example, graduate jobs?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Our preliminary analysis and the information that we have, suggest that the trends are reflective of the behaviour and aspirations of students as well as the opportunities that are being made available, rather than a specific push as a result of the factors described by the Member. But we will continue to study the matter to ensure that there are factors that we can address to benefit the students as best we can.
Mr Sppeaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the change in trend and having more students willing to continue and pursue further studies, would this actually impact the Earn and Learn Programmes that we are trying to encourage more of the Institutes of Higher Learning students to take up over time?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, again, preliminary data suggests no, the Earn and Learn Programmes are doing quite well, with benefits being observed and appreciated by the students, the employers and also by the faculty supervising the process.
It is early days in terms of the shifts with respect to the behaviour I described in the first part of my answer, so we will continue to study it. But so far, the Earn and Learn Programme appears to be doing well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Full-time ITE Students on Internships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the current percentage of full-time ITE students being able to secure internships and part-time jobs to add value to their training throughout their course; (b) how does ITE's Career Services Centre help place ITE students in internships; (c) what measures are in place to expand internship opportunities for ITE students; and (d) how many ITE graduates eventually work in the industries that they have been trained for.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Currently, internship modules have been made compulsory in 68 out of 98 courses in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). This means that more than half of the full-time students now enrolled in ITE would have done an internship by the time they graduate. ITE targets for all full-time National Institute of Technical Education Certificate (Nitec) and Higher Nitec courses to include internships by 2020.
Given the vocational nature of ITE courses, hands-on training is already an integral part of the curriculum for its students. Students may take up internships to reinforce their learning in the workplace. ITE matches students’ internships to internship places based on factors, such as their course of study, interests and also where they stay.
ITE has a dedicated team that will continue to engage its industry partners and trade associations to expand internship opportunities for its students. It will also raise the quality of internships and make it a meaningful experience for students by introducing structured mentorships, defining learning outcomes and jointly conducting performance management with the industry partners.
Based on the results from the 2016 Graduate Employment Survey of the ITE graduates in full-time permanent jobs, around 55% reported that they were working in jobs related to their course of study. Beyond training targeted at entry into specific industries or even related jobs, ITE graduates are also equipped with the skills that are transferrable across industries and sectors. This gives them greater adaptability as the national manpower needs shift due to technological change and economic restructuring.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions, two quick ones. The first one is with regard to the internship statistics that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain whether there is any differentiation between the traineeship programme that is being done in ITE where employers wish to send their employees to ITE and sort of fund them? Is it separate from the internship statistics that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier?
Secondly, in terms of the Education and Career Guidance (ECG) that is provided in ITE, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share a bit more about the resources that have been allocated to ITE in terms of career guidance and career counselling, and if she can shed a bit of light into how successful they are and how much of the resources that have already been put in to encourage more ITE students to take up internships, and also to encourage employers to take in ITE students as part of their internship programme?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, for his two supplementary questions.
Let me touch on the first question. When the Member asked about trainees sent by corporations to ITE, this is in appreciation by the employers that ITE's training is vocational by nature. The Member is really asking about companies sending their workers to go to ITE for training, maybe at night or part-time learning, and so that is a separate programme viz-a-viz sending ITE students to companies. So, if the Member could file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ), we will be very happy to provide more information on that component.
The second question is on ECG. ECG was rolled out about two years ago and, by now, we have close to 100 education and career guidance counsellors in the polytechnics, ITEs and also secondary schools. Every ITE and polytechnic campus is assigned six ECG counsellors and the remaining counsellors are assigned to secondary schools where four secondary schools will be looked after by one counsellor. These counsellors are recruited based on key considerations, such as their experience in the sector, and many of them would have very rich experience in industry.
Having said that, we pay a lot of attention to their professional development, which is why, every month, we will arrange for the ECG counsellors to attend briefings and training, not just classroom training but also field trips to the various industries, like Jurong Island or even LaunchPad@Jurong. It is important that they have insights into the latest labour market information and also understand the key industry trends, as well as the developments in the 23 Industry Transformation Maps.
In the school, the ECG counsellors, for example, ITE will work very closely with the lecturers ‒ actually they are called class coaches ‒ and arrange for the ECG counsellors to have coaching sessions with the class, as well as one-on-one sessions, if the students need.
Other than the ECG counsellors ‒ because every campus is assigned six counsellors ‒ in order for students to really understand the benefits of internship, the lecturers play an important role. And this is why in the ITE we pay a lot of attention to pre-internship briefings for students to set the right expectations, share common expectations and also guidelines of the internship arrangement.
Even during the internship, ITE lecturers will pay regular visits to the students to make sure that the learning outcomes are fulfilled. And after the internship, we will conduct feedback surveys to understand if their experience has fulfilled the learning objectives that were outlined before the internship. Through our surveys, we may cease partnership with partnership companies that have breached the terms of the internship partnership agreement or have consistently received poor student outcomes. So, the welfare, the learning outcome of the student, are at the heart of our ITE internship programme.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: Can the Ministry share if it intends to increase the number of ECGs in the ITEs from the six currently? I see the importance of internship for the ITE students, especially as it helps them to go into the industry as well.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: The ECG initiative is about two years old and we are looking at it very closely in terms of how it has helped our students better understand how they can navigate and also make an informed decision for their education and career pathways.
Other than the one-on-one coaching with the students, where the ECG counsellors can also make a good impact is sharing the philosophy of what pedagogies are with the lecturers and the class coach, so that they can also impart and facilitate these decision makings by the students accordingly.
I must add that other than the ECG counsellors, the companies play an important role. To this end, not just the Ministry of Education, but even the Ministry of Trade and Industry agencies like SPRING Singapore, through their small and medium enterprises (SME) Talent Programme and their SME Mentors' Programme, work very closely with ITE to extend meaningful internship opportunities for ITE students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): I have a supplementary question for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary. It is good to know that there are internship programmes at the ITE. It is good to know that there are also target objectives for the institution. But I would like to know whether these targets have been deployed and brought down to the lecturers. Are these lecturers also being measured on whether they have done the internship programmes correctly on them?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: The lecturers and the class coaches play an integral role in terms of preparing the students well mentally before they go into an internship. This is why we conduct pre-internship briefings for students, so that the expectations of both the students and also the companies' side are fairly aligned.
In addition, the ITE lecturers will pay regular visits to the partner companies to make sure that the students are doing well during the stint. After the internship stint, the ITE campus will conduct a post-internship survey where students can provide feedback on how their internship stint had been in terms of fulfilling the specified learning objectives by the ITE campus, whether it is East, West or Central, and also the class itself.
We will review all feedback and I want to assure the Member that lecturers play a key role. But this is not the only thing that the lecturers are doing. They are also teaching the students the curriculum and so on. So, if the Member has a particular question about key performance indicators for lecturers, he may wish to file a separate PQ and we will be very happy to provide more detailed information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introduction of Regulations with Advent of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Machines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister with the advent and drive towards the use of artificial intelligence and autonomous machines, whether new laws and regulations will be promulgated or existing ones reviewed to ensure we address the issues of ethics, morality, provision of kill switches as well as liability.
8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister what policy principles and legal frameworks are being developed to update Singapore's governance and laws to address the issues arising from autonomous algorithms and devices.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, as artificial intelligence (AI) applications become more pervasive, it is being applied to different domains with very different types of risks specific to the domain concerned. The regulatory approach would thus also have to be domain-specific.
For example, in transportation, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Traffic Police require autonomous vehicles (AVs) to first pass a rigorous safety test within a controlled environment before they can be tested on public roads at specific times and places. This progressive testing allows developers to advance the technology without exposing other road users to safety risks. Conceptually, this is similar to how a human driver has to be trained and tested before being given a driving licence. In addition, LTA requires mandatory motor insurance for AVs to cover third-party liability and property damage to protect the interests of all road users and property owners. Developers are also required to share key data with authorities to allow them to monitor the progress of the trials.
In the Government, we have developed machine learning algorithms that can detect and identify trading accounts suspected of syndicated activities. This is unlike AVs, where there are issues of physical safety. However, we still need to rigorously test the software before use, as well as maintain and update the AI engine continuously, by performing human checks on the results from time to time. For example, before any account is suspended, there will still be a human process to check through and ensure that the punitive action is justified.
In other sectors, the Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is working with sectoral regulators to discuss issues of AI governance and study the policy and legal implications. Where we see the need to step in to protect the public’s interest, we will implement domain-specific safeguards.
AI is a key enabler of Smart Nation. To exploit its use and manage its risks well, we need people with a deep understanding of the technology. We intend to continue to raise such capabilities within the Government, industry and our research and development (R&D) institutions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to ask if the Government would consider doing an overall national detailed study on the potential impact of AI and technology to get the conversations going and also pave the way for the ethical developments of technology. This is because there are growing concerns on various issues, such as liability, privacy, consent, safety, security, diversity as well as transparency.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, the Member will be reassured to know that many of the sectoral-specific bodies, whether they are trade or professional associations, are already interested in this process and have begun such discussions either in terms of their public consultation or in collaboration internally with the Smart Nation Office and other offices.
This is likely to be an ongoing discussion and attempt to look at the issues that are thrown up by new forms of technology, such as AI. The issue is to make sure that we make this process fit into the existing domain's specific laws, operational issues and regulations. So, we have a multitude of issues going on.
The Smart Nation Office will continue to study the matter and, especially as new technology and technological opportunities become available, we will continue to become engaged with the various regulations and domain-specific partners.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I would like to ask whether these studies and frameworks will be forward-looking and include drawer plans and scenarios for technologies that may not have reached the market yet but which would have a significant disruptive impact. I have three illustrations for the Senior Minister of State's consideration.
Firstly, what happens when multiple autonomous algorithms interact? What is the impact for competition law if trading algorithms start to collude?
Secondly, for example, what are the implications for the criminal law and the idea of mens rea ‒ the idea of guilty intention ‒ when you have AI?
Thirdly, would there be a role for more aspirational principles of AI, such as studying, say, Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions.
For the first question, indeed, we are continually studying various frameworks and trying to draw up drawer plans. But it is hypothetical and we will have to look at the technology as it emerges. There is no specific individual plan for AI. AI is a big basket of different types of technologies and opportunities. There is a plan or strategy for the investment around R&D. But in terms of the regulatory and legislative space, we will have to look at the capability and its impact on the various domains. So, we will continue to do so.
The example the hon Member brought up in the second question around multiple algorithms colluding, the regulatory framework would be no different from today, because those algorithms would have to have someone who had owned them, written them, supervised them and benefited from the collusion and criminal activity and so on and so forth. So, the existing legislation and laws would need to apply to the humans or the corporate entities that own and operate such AI.
This then leads us to the hon Member's second supplementary question, which is that criminal law for AI would be an issue if we had what is described as \"strong AI\" ‒ AI that is sentient, conscious ‒ that is, a general purpose AI where it is able to take its capabilities developed for one task and direct it to another possibly criminal task. We are a long way away from that. AI, in today's use, is what we call \"weak AI\" or task-specific AI. So, any criminal issue, we would have to ask the legal faculty around us, but I presume will be directed at the person who owns, operates or benefits from such a device or tool of technology.
The hon Member's third question was about the aspirational issues around AI and Asimov's Laws of Robotics. Indeed, we are aspirational around AI. We think it has a significant possibility of enabling both the Smart Nation vision as well as significant benefits for our economy and society over the next 20 years. As for Asimov's Laws, they are a fictional device used in science fiction, but nevertheless inspiring for how we should think about these types of problems. We are a long way away from the situation predicated in the Asimov literature which is where a strong AI is sentient, conscious and able to understand issues around harm, human beings, the rank order of relative issues between society and humanity and morality.
So, today, as far as Asimov's Laws are concerned, we have no need because we do not have sentient-strong AI. Neither have we the technical capability to programme in such laws today. But they are a useful thought experiment about how we should think about the regulations around this space.
Of note, the literary device of Asimov's Laws in his writing was often used as a way to describe what happens when they fail and what happens when poor regulations or poorly thought-out laws fail in terms of the opportunities around robotics and AI. So, in much of the literature, the day was rescued by Dr Susan Calvin, who was a brilliant engineer. I think the salient lesson is that if we can recruit more females, more young women into engineering, it would serve our Smart Nation and AI vision far more than the use of his three laws today. [Applause.]
\tMr Speaker: Coming back to non-fictional issues, Mr Zainal Sapari.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inconsistent Naming Approach for Merged Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) why there is inconsistency in the approach adopted in finding an appropriate school name for merging schools depending on whether they are primary, secondary or junior colleges; (b) whether the respective schools' stakeholders, including alumni, staff, parents and pupils, are engaged in the process of naming the merged schools; and (c) whether the Ministry is willing to reconsider the names of merged schools to manage ground sensitivities.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, Sir, in naming merged schools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) considers a group of factors, including the schools’ history and heritage, stakeholders' interest and the sentiments of the schools involved. This results in three naming approaches to considering the unique situations of each pair of merging schools: retaining one of the two names, adopting a new name, or having a combination of names.
For primary and secondary schools, MOE also considered the age profile of its students. The combination of both schools’ names may also be repetitive, for example, North View and Northland Secondary. Hence, where it is meaningful to do so, MOE has combined the English names of both schools, for example, Loyang View Secondary School, which is a combination of Greenview and Loyang Secondary School.
For the junior colleges (JCs), a similar group of factors, including the age profile of the students, was considered. On balance, a decision was made to have a combined name to allow the merging JCs to move forward as a combined entity.
MOE worked closely with the schools to take into account the interests of stakeholders, including staff, students, alumni, parents and the School Advisory Committees. The school leaders engaged stakeholders on various key elements of the merger, such as the programmes and values to be retained, as well as the names.
We will not revisit names which have been announced. We should let the schools focus on their teaching and learning programmes to benefit their students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I know the renaming of merged schools is not an easy exercise. I would like to ask: what support will MOE be giving to affected schools' alumni to help them retain their school's history?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: The opportunity to celebrate and commemorate the heritage of the schools that are being merged is something that we want to leverage on. Schools will be developing heritage corners, looking at opportunities for students and alumni to become involved in the development of material, whether on display or for reference for future generations of students.
The effort will be personalised and localised through the schools, the alumni associations and the School Advisory Committees. I do not think there is a going to be a one-size-fits-all because the historical trajectories of the various schools and the various alumni groups are quite different. So, we will work with both schools, both sets of alumni to try to find some way of commemorating the heritage and history of both schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjustment to Textbooks and Curriculum to De-emphasis Academic Outcomes in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education (Schools) to what extent are the textbooks and curriculums in primary and secondary schools adjusted to align with our goal of de-emphasising the outcome focus on academic scores and emphasising more on broad-based learning.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, the national curriculum is designed to prepare our students for life and work. To achieve this, the national curriculum is broad-based and based on four important principles: holistic education, strong fundamentals, engaged learning and future readiness.
Our holistic education equips our students with a broad range of competencies needed for life and work. Besides the cognitive aspect, we also focus on the aesthetic, moral, physical and social domains.
We ensure our students gain strong fundamentals in literacy and numeracy, as well as develop good values and their social and emotional competencies. These essential areas form the bedrock our students are able to draw from for their continual and lifelong learning beyond school.
To bring about engaged learners, teachers design lessons that use different pedagogies to help students develop a strong mastery of the discipline, appreciate the relevance of their learning and then apply it in life.
Our curriculum is forward-looking. It is regularly reviewed to ensure that the learning outcomes remain appropriate for our students and are responsive to future needs.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) textbooks are closely aligned with the objectives of our curriculum and are, therefore, designed to support our students’ holistic development and not just for them to pass exams. Our teachers use a wide range of teaching resources to ensure that students learn from different modalities and immerse them in varied experiences. They also participate in outdoor learning and are given the chance to apply their knowledge in authentic situations. At times, they need to draw on technology to synthesise concepts in new contexts.
For example, in our Science textbooks, students learn about the lives of scientists and the passion and perseverance they demonstrate in pushing the frontiers of scientific knowledge. The youngsters also get to appreciate and discuss the impact of science and technology on the environment. In Geography, students go on field trips to experience how theoretical concepts come alive.
Even though these learning outcomes may not be tested in examinations, they are equally important aspects of development and they are given due emphasis in our curriculum.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her comprehensive answer. While I understand the importance of fundamentals and MOE is trying to develop a holistic approach for the students, the question that a lot of parents have is: are we doing too much and too early?
At a recent education award ceremony, I had quite a lot of parents coming to tell me that they find that if they do not send their children in Primary 1 and Primary 2 for tuition, they are already left out of the train, and they find it very hard to catch up. Even the parents have difficulties following the methodologies to teach their own children. So, do we need to break that cycle in order to help the students, or are we teaching them too much?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Miss Cheryl Chan for her supplementary questions. I would like to assure her that in recent years, we have been moving towards an education system that is more flexible and diverse, an education system that offers our students more choices and the chance to take greater ownership for their learning, not just in school, but beyond school.
I also want to reassure Miss Chan that in reviewing and adjusting our curriculum, MOE is always mindful of the support that our students need for their learning journey, and that different students have different needs and varied abilities. MOE works with teachers, Heads of Departments (HODs), and school leaders. Teachers have been reminded not to over-test and not to over-teach. To that end, MOE provides support to help HODs and teachers set test papers at the level that is appropriate for students, and at the level that meets the learning objectives.
I want to add that, for national examinations, the majority of students will be able to answer the bulk of the questions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rollout of SGSecure in Condominiums and Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the SCDF emergency preparedness exercise and rollout of SGSecure in condominiums and private estates; and (b) whether there are plans to place automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at public spaces in private estates.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): SGSecure programmes are accessible to everyone, whether they stay in public or private housing.
An example is the Emergency Preparedness (EP) Day event held at various locations across the island. EP Days are conducted at public areas with high human traffic and all are welcome to attend. Other outreach activities include school assembly talks and counter-terrorism seminars and exercises in workplaces and religious organisations.
To reach out to more members of the public, Home Team officers are also conducting house visits. These visits are currently focused on Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, but we will progressively include private estates and condominiums.
We are also planning a pilot programme to install automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in selected condominiums. This is an extension of our Save-A-Life initiative, introduced in 2015 to enhance community response to cardiac arrest cases. So far, more than 2,000 AEDs have been installed in HDB blocks in 36 out of 89 constituencies.
We are in the midst of identifying suitable condominiums to be part of this pilot. The installation of the AEDs will be packaged together with SGSecure and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/AED training.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first one is: we know that condominiums are confined communities, so are there trials or tests that are being done to see how prepared they are in times of emergencies? The second question is: how can the community play a more active role to help in the rollout of the entire CPR/AED programme?
\tMr Amrin Amin: On the first question, emergency preparedness is an ongoing and whole-of-society effort. We do not specifically track the emergency preparedness of condominiums. However, surveys, such as the national security awareness survey, have found that our residents are generally aware of the different emergency scenarios that they might encounter, and our residents have also been taking practical steps to prepare themselves to respond to an emergency situation, such as by having a first-aid kit at home.
A vast majority, over 90%, also believe that everyone has a role to play in ensuring our nation's safety and security and are willing to help during emergencies. These are encouraging findings, but we can always do more to raise the level of preparedness. That is why the Home Team is working with the People's Association (PA) to identify condominiums to ensure that the message gets to them.
On the second question on what part the community can play, the installation of more AEDs, be it in HDB or private estates, will only be effective if residents know how to use it, are able to use it and respond in emergency situations. Our grassroots volunteers are an important group of people who are not only the community first responders, but they can also help to encourage other residents to pick up CPR/AED skills through programmes, such as the Emergency Preparedness Day.
For programmes like our pilots to install AEDs in condominiums, we will work closely with the relevant grassroots advisers, neighbourhood committees and condominium management corporation strata titles to reach out to residents. This is very important because the survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Singapore is low at around 5%. This is a 2015 figure. It is in all our interests to ensure that this programmes succeeds. So, the message is for all residents to open their doors to our Home Team officers to ensure that they are able to receive the CPR/AED training.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I would like to clarify what are the criteria or conditions required in the decision to determine if the condominiums are suitable for the installation of AEDs? This may be something we want to work towards, and I, in any case, would like to volunteer the condominiums at Bukit Batok East for this programme.
\tMr Amrin Amin: Thank you very much. We note the Member's interest. We intend to identify four constituencies jointly with the PA for this pilot, and these constituencies will be spread across the island. From these constituencies, we will need to identify suitable condominiums to be part of the pilot.
We would need to look at, for example, the location and condominiums where the AEDs can be installed at publicly accessible security posts. These are factors that will be taken into account. We will also need to see the type of management and how receptive they are, and we would encourage condominiums to also maintain their AEDs and equip some of their residents with CPR/AED skills.
We will work closely, as I mentioned, with the grassroots advisers, neighbourhood committees and the management corporation strata titles. This is a whole-of-community effort. We look forward to Members' support.
\tMr Speaker: I would like to volunteer as well. Mr Pritam Singh.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on PolCam 2.0 Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the implementation status of the Police's PolCam 2.0 project across Singapore; (b) what specific abnormalities can the system detect; (c) what information and analytics does the system collect on a routine and on-demand or ad hoc basis; (d) what privacy concerns does the Ministry have with regard to the system; and (e) how have these concerns been mitigated.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): As of 2017, the Police have installed about 5,000 cameras under the Police Camera (PolCam) 2.0 project, in town centres, neighbourhood centres, hawker centres and linkways leading to transportation nodes, such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and bus interchanges.
PolCam 2.0 includes cameras which are designed to detect some anomalous events. These include public order situations like persons fighting and sudden congregation or dispersal of crowd. The system will then alert the Police operators, and Police resources can be dispatched, if necessary. The system can also identify suspects and allow officers to quickly search for images to facilitate investigations. The technology continues to be refined.
Polcams, including the versions before PolCam 2.0, in general, have proven to be very useful in helping the Police deter and solve crimes, including unlicensed moneylending, theft and outrage of modesty. As at the end of 2017, video footage from Polcams have helped the Police solve more than 2,300 cases.
The deployment of cameras is crucial in deterring and dealing with crime and any terrorist activity. The Police will continue to install more cameras. Our approach has broad support from the public and has resulted in people feeling safe. Public confidence and trust in the Police Force remains high. In a perception survey conducted in 2016 by the Police, about 95% of respondents feel safe in their neighbourhoods and trust the Singapore Police Force (SPF) as an organisation. Among the survey respondents who felt safer than before, the installation of Polcams in the estates was one of the top factors contributing to their perception that the neighbourhood is safer.
SPF has data protection safeguards and controls on the use of Polcam footage. The footage is securely stored, and only authorised persons are allowed to access them. Any officer found accessing the footage for unauthorised purposes will be severely dealt with.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I just have three supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, is there a more restricted regime in respect of privacy for data collected under PolCam 2.0 compared to PolCam 1.0 in view of the range of information that is collected?
Secondly, how often are audits carried out to ensure that the information collected under PolCam 2.0, in particular, is secure and only used for the purposes for which it is collected?
The third question is how soon is data wiped out under PolCam 2.0, compared to PolCam 1.0?
\tMr Amrin Amin: On how soon the data is wiped out, I am not able to reveal that because of operational considerations. As for the audit and the regularity of audit and the other question on whether the regime is more restricted, we already have a very strict regime. The whole point is to ensure that we maintain public trust and confidence, and audit is something that we do very regularly. We have strict protocols and we ensure that, as I have mentioned, access is restricted and tightly controlled. Any persons found using the footages or accessing the information for unauthorised purposes will be severely dealt with.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): One question for the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there are 5,000 cameras already implemented. How many are there to go?
\tMr Amrin Amin: The Police plan to install 11,000 cameras at 2,500 locations island-wide under the PolCam 2.0 programme and this will be done over the next few years. As I have mentioned just now, we have installed about 5,000 cameras. So, we have about 6,000 more to go, under PolCam 2.0.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: This is a final supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe the question was not answered. How often are audits conducted to ensure that the information is secure?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I think it is sufficient to say that audits are conducted on a regular basis. We have strict protocols on this. I am not at liberty to discuss exactly how the Police conduct their internal operations, but it would suffice to say that audits are done on a very regular basis. Checks are also conducted as and when there is a need, for example, when there are irregularities. I hope that answers the Member's question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Call to Allow Airbnb in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –
13 To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider working with Airbnb to come up with a meaningful way of regulating private homes from being rented out by balancing the interests of home owners and neighbours, given that is an important part of the travel experience, especially for the millennials.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Question No 13.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of National Development and the Urban Redevelopment Authority have held meetings and discussions with various stakeholders on the issue of short-term accommodation. There are different views among home owners who are keen to put out their units for short-term accommodation and those who are concerned about privacy and safety in their homes. There are also competing interests between hotel operators and short-term stay platform operators like air bed and breakfast (Airbnb).
Nevertheless, from these discussions, we believe there is scope to allow short-term accommodations in Singapore, subject to proper safeguards and controls. We are working out these regulatory parameters and will consult the public on the proposed measures before finalising them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Newer Property Developments in Collective Sales","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider putting a minimum number of years before a development project can qualify for an En bloc collective sale; (b) how many developments that are less than 30 years old have undergone En bloc sales in the past three years; and (c) whether the Ministry considers this to be a waste of resources.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the main objective of the collective sales framework is to give owners the choice on whether to go for redevelopment. Such redevelopment allows rejuvenation and land use optimisation in residential developments. The collective sales framework imposes higher consent thresholds for newer developments. The Land Titles (Strata) Act requires buildings less than 10 years old to obtain 90% consent from owners before allowing the collective sale to go through, compared to 80% for older developments.
Of the 40 developments sold En bloc in the past three years, 13 were less than 30 years old at the point of sale. That said, most of them were more than 20 years old at the point of sale and were small developments of less than 20 units each. In terms of the number of housing units, around 240 units, or 6% of the approximately 4,000 units sold En bloc in the last three years, were less than 30 years old.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I would like to ask the Minister whether is there any concern on the continuous En bloc sales recently?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I believe we have a framework where the En bloc decisions are in a way left to the market to decide. That is the framework that I have put in place in the Land Titles (Strata) Act. The consent thresholds are clearly specified but there are also safeguards in place. Even if the consent thresholds are reached, the developer will have to submit their development plans to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) for approval. URA will go through the plans, look at planning considerations, make sure that heights and unit sizes are kept to regulations; that adequate provisions, for example, are made for parking, and we have now put in place a new provision, which is, to do a traffic impact analysis before the developer gets planning approval.
So, with all these frameworks in place and safeguards, we would allow En bloc developments to go through if, indeed, the consent thresholds are reached, if the market feels that an En bloc is economically viable. But there are safeguards and controls in place which I have just described.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Motor Dealers Stockpiling Motorcycle COEs to Resell at Higher Price","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport with regard to feedback on motor dealers stockpiling motorcycle COEs to resell at a higher premium (a) what is the progress of LTA's investigation into this issue; (b) what is the Ministry doing to address this issue; and (c) whether the Ministry will shorten the validity period of these COEs to curb their speculation.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, currently, motorcycle dealers bid for Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) under their name and hold a stock of Temporary COEs (TCOEs). This is the preferred model for the motorcycle market as it allows buyers to take delivery of their motorcycles immediately.
Our data does not reveal any irregular stockpiling of COEs, or the use of the stockpile, by the dealers, with the exception of the period shortly after the tiered Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for motorcycles was introduced. In that instance, dealers might have kept some of the TCOEs garnered before the announcement of tiered ARF to register more expensive motorcycles. The TCOEs have all been used up or expired. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there is a trend on the COE for motorcycles going up. Based on the feedback from one of my residents recently, he said that they are very concerned because of this stockpiling of COEs. So, he suggested that the Ministry may wish to consider two things. The first is to increase the deposit. Because currently, deposit is only $200; that is why dealers go and stockpile and take a chance. Secondly, whether we will shorten the six-month registration period, because if it can be shortened, people will not want to stockpile.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary questions. Since the implementation of the tiered ARF for motorcycles, the category TCOE quota premiums have increased from around $6,000 to all-time high of about $8,081 in the second bidding exercise of March 2017, before dropping to about $3,500 in August 2017. So, Members can see that the COE premium actually fluctuates, depending on factors, such as demand and supply. However, we do notice that the Category D TCOE premium was at $8,001 for the second bidding exercise of January 2018 and we will be watching the trend closely.
With regard to the Member's question on whether to shorten the validity period of the TCOE to three months instead of the current six months. The reason why we are not doing so is because if we do shorten the validity period of the Cat D TCOEs, it basically reduces the time available for the dealers or individuals to secure a vehicle before their TCOEs expires, and dealers may have to maintain a large inventory of vehicles to meet the shorter validity period. This might increase business costs.
With regard to the Member's question on the deposit, the reason why it is tagged at $200 is because the quota premium for motorcycles is much lower than that of normal cars. However, like I have mentioned, we do monitor all these very closely and, if necessary, we may look into changing the COE policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Transport Network Improvements with Development of Punggol Digital District","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport with the launch of the Punggol Digital District, (a) what are the road and rail transportation network improvements which will coincide with the development of the Punggol Digital District to ensure good connectivity for residents of the North East as well as commuters to the Punggol Digital District; and (b) whether the Cross Island MRT Line will be built in time for the build-up of the Punggol Digital District.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has made several provisions to ensure good transport connectivity to and within the Punggol Digital District (PDD). A new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North-East Line will open in 2023, when the first phase of PDD developments is ready for occupation. Enhancements will also be made to the bus network. To cater to increased vehicular traffic, we are expanding the Tampines Expressway (TPE) and Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) road interchange linking to Punggol and Pasir Ris and building a new Tampines Expressway (TPE) and Seletar Link interchange. There will also be covered walkways and cycling paths in the area to encourage active mobility. We are also working towards the deployment of autonomous buses and autonomous on-demand shuttles in PDD from 2022 which will improve first-mile-last mile connectivity for those living or working there.
These provisions will enhance the connectivity of PDD significantly in the lead up to 2030, when the Cross Island Line in the Punggol region is expected to be ready.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State. May I know, what is the expected number of commuters that the Ministry is planning for, who will travel into PDD; and what is the expected timeline of the inflow of commuters, with the progressive completion of different offerings in PDD?
Separately, does the Ministry have in mind a general transportation mix that it expects commuters will use to travel into PDD, for example, x% by car, x% by bus or rail, if the Senior Minister of State could give an indication on whether there are certain pending parameters?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Ms Sun Xueling for the supplementary questions. I do not have the exact makeup of the commuter mix at this point of time. But suffice to say that LTA will continue to work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) as well as the various Government agencies and stakeholders when planning for the transportation network in PDD, and also to study the demand of residents as well as commuters to that area. We will continue to work with local advisors to ensure good connectivity for the residents and also address any concerns or feedback along the way.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I would just like to enquire again with regard to my first two questions on the expected number of commuters that the Ministry is planning for who will travel into PDD.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I thank Ms Sun Xueling for the query again. Like I have mentioned, I do not have the figures right now, but I will be happy to reply to Ms Sun Xueling separately with regards to the exact figures.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): One supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State is that he mentioned that by 2022, there will be autonomous vehicles or buses and shuttle buses serving PDD. Is that going to be island-wide? What is the potential for such autonomous vehicles being deployed across the island and will there be a displacement impact on drivers who currently take on such vocational jobs?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Ang Hin Kee for the supplementary question. The deployment of autonomous vehicles will be done in phases. We do understand the concerns on the ground with regards to displacement of bus captains as well as taxi drivers, for the project in PDD is going to be confined to within the district where it will provide the last-mile and the first-mile connectivity. But, of course, the technology of autonomous vehicles is advancing very quickly and we are watching the space very closely. Eventually, in years to come, it may extend to other parts of Singapore as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Misappropriation of Seniors' Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the Community Kin Service (a) what safeguards and measures are in place to ensure that seniors' funds do not get misappropriated by social workers; (b) how will the Ministry deal with cases of misappropriation; and (c) whether the Office of the Public Guardian will be able to recommend follow-up actions should misappropriations be suspected or discovered.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is piloting the Community Kin Service, which will enable voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to better support seniors who display signs of declining mental capacity and who do not have family support to handle their finances so that they can continue residing in the community.
Under the scheme, the VWO can apply for a Court Order to manage a fixed sum of money to meet a senior’s daily care needs. Once appointed by the Court, the VWO will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and required to submit periodic reports. Appointed VWOs should have established financial procedures, with clear accountability for staff delivering support and handling the finances of the seniors. OPG will check that the seniors’ monies are used prudently and only for the purposes of meeting their care needs, in accordance with the terms set out in the Court Order.
In addition, the Mental Capacity Act has existing safeguards to protect persons who lack mental capacity. If there is indication that anyone has acted in any way which compromises the person's best interest, including exploiting the person financially, the Public Guardian will investigate and take appropriate action. Where necessary, the Public Guardian may apply to Court to protect the personal or financial welfare of the person and refer the case to the Police for further investigation if any criminal conduct is suspected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications received for HDB Season Parking for Persons with Disability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many applications have been received for HDB season parking for disabled car park lots since this scheme was implemented; (b) of these, how many applications are unsuccessful; and (c) what are the reasons for the unsuccessful applications.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, the Car Park Label Scheme (CPLS) was introduced in 1980 to assist drivers with physical disabilities to board and alight from their vehicles. CPLS was extended in 1996 to include caregivers who drive passengers with physical disabilities. Drivers with CPLS label can park in dedicated car park lots that are marked with the accessible symbol of a person in a wheelchair. There are two types of labels: the Class 1 label is for drivers with physical disabilities; and the Class 2 label is for passengers with physical disabilities.
The Class 1 label allows drivers with disability to park in accessible parking lots for as long as they need, with no time limit. The Class 2 label allows the caregivers who are drivers to park in a designated lot for up to an hour, to assist their passenger with disability to board or alight, as the case may be. Thereafter, the vehicle must be shifted to a standard parking lot to free up the accessible lot for other eligible users who require it.
SG Enable administers CPLS and processes over 3,000 applications annually. More than 90% of these are successful. For those that are not, the main reason is because applicants are assessed by medical professionals to be able to board and alight their vehicles from an ordinary car park lot, and do not need the wider space provided by an accessible lot to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against Illegal Moneylenders who Make Unsolicited Calls or Messages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Communications and Information since the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Act (a) how many complaints have been received against illegal moneylenders who make unsolicited telephone calls, or send unsolicited fax, SMS messages and emails; and (b) what is the procedure to lodge complaints against these unsolicited communications.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), includes provisions that regulate unsolicited communications from businesses. The Do Not Call (DNC) Registry was established under PDPA so that individuals who do not wish to receive unsolicited marketing calls and messages can register their telephone and fax numbers. Organisations are required to check with the DNC Registry and refrain from calling, faxing or sending marketing messages to the numbers on the Registry.
Sir, the DNC Registry provisions of the PDPA came into force in January 2014. Since then, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has received and investigated some 14,000 DNC-related complaints against businesses, of which more than 4,600 resulted in PDPC taking enforcement or other regulatory action.
In addition, Sir, PDPC has received around 10,000 complaints each year related to suspected unlicensed moneylending, which is a serious criminal offence under other laws. These complaints were referred to the Police, who are the relevant authority to investigate unlicensed moneylending offences. Members of the public who receive or are aware of such activities or communications should lodge a Police report or call the National Crime Prevention Council's \"X Ah Long\" Hotline at 1800-924-5664. Members of the public are urged not to reply or respond to these short messages service (SMSes) or phone calls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Positioning Singapore to be Global Centre for Data Storage and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information what measures are being taken to ensure Singapore is well-positioned to be a global centre for data housing and the provision of value-add services for data.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, with the world becoming more digitally connected, global data flows have surged. Cross-border data flows generate significant value and growth to economies. Singapore, like other countries, is also tapping on this opportunity to grow our digital economy, by strengthening our position as a key digital connectivity hub.
According to Cushman and Wakefield's Data Center Risk Index, Singapore is the Asia Pacific region's most robust market for data centres. Singapore holds half of Southeast Asia's data centre capacity and is a major Asia Pacific hub for submarine cables, with 19 cable systems connecting us directly to more than 33 countries.
We will strengthen our digital connectivity hub status further. Government agencies, such as the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) are working together to attract more investments in critical infrastructure, such as data centres and submarine cables. To strengthen our international connectivity, IMDA is doing more to facilitate the landing of major submarine cables in Singapore, while EDB is engaging global technology companies and leading data centre players to invest in data centres here. IMDA and EDB are also working with JTC to plan for sufficient land and power in data centre clusters to support quality data centre investments.
It is also important that we continue to research into new solutions that can strengthen our status as a digital connectivity hub. For instance, IMDA's green data centre programme uses new technologies to improve the energy efficiency of our data centres. This is essential in our tropical climate and will help us meet the growing demand for data centres that are more energy-efficient.
In order to drive our Digital Economy ambitions, we need to ensure that we continue to be a forward-looking jurisdiction for the use of data. Domestically, we have a robust yet balanced framework for the protection and management of data, especially personal data. This helps to engender consumer trust and confidence in organisations' handling of data. In turn, this trust facilitates and enables more innovative uses of data by companies and allows society to derive greater benefits from the responsible use of data. This is why we are working on rolling out a Data Protection (DP) Trustmark certification scheme for companies that adopt best practices in managing personal data. We are also currently reviewing the Personal Data Protection Act to further develop our regulations to support our data ambitions.
Internationally, we also recognise that data-related economic activities often straddle borders, as services, particularly digital services, can easily scale regionally if not globally. Therefore, we are also actively working with other countries and participating in international data protection fora to shape standards to facilitate responsible and seamless data flows across borders.
For instance, in 2017, Singapore submitted our Notice of Intent to participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross-Border Privacy Rules System and the APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors System. In time to come, organisations which have received the relevant certifications will be able to transfer data to similarly certified organisations overseas seamlessly. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, there is also good progress being made in recognising the value of balanced policies so as to reap the benefits of data in the digital economy.
Mr Speaker, we will continue to review our policies and regulations to strengthen Singapore's global digital connectivity hub status.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior of State for his detailed answer. Regarding his exposition on enhancing Singapore's connectivity to the rest of the digital world, is there a philosophy to build ahead of demand so that we can keep on seizing opportunities and remain among the first movers? I say this because we could be a key node in the 21st century data world, just as we have been for petrochemicals in the latter half of the previous century.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, in contrast to my previous answer to the Member's supplementary question, the short answer is yes. We have, indeed, built ahead of demand with respect to both the data centre capacity as well as the submarine cable carrying capacity. Today, our capacity has not yet been fully utilised but we will continue to engage with making sure that we have the capacity to meet all the functional needs of the various consumers/stakeholders in this space.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Students Applying for Permanent Residency and Subsequent Citizenship in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how is the trend among foreign students applying for Permanent Residency in the last 10 years; (b) what is the percentage of success; (c) how many stayed on and continued to work in Singapore and subsequently take on citizenship.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, from 2008 to 2017, 7,251 foreign students applied for Permanent Residency (PR) on their own merits. Close to 82%, or 5,932, have been granted PR. Of these PRs, 1,072, or 18%, have subsequently taken up citizenship as at the end of 2017. Eighty-five, or around 1%, have renounced their PR.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I have one follow-up question. Can the Second Ministeer share in terms of the nationalities of the students who have been successful and have taken up citizenship?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Can I ask Mr Saktiandi to repeat his question? I did not quite hear it.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat: The question I have is the nationalities of the students who had been successful in getting their PR and also those that had been successful in getting their citizenship as well.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I do not have the detailed breakdown. But suffice to say that they would have to reflect the profile of the foreign student population in Singapore. By and large, unless my memory serves me wrong, I think a good majority of them come from Asia. The important thing to point out is that in assessing whether an applicant should be granted PR or Singapore Citizenship, an important consideration is the applicant's ability to integrate with the local population as well as his potential to contribute to our society. These considerations apply to all applicants, including the foreign students.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The key objectives of the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill are to enhance the regulation of plumbing works and drinking water quality.
A vital part of any country's water supply management is ensuring water quality. Singaporeans enjoy the convenience of clean and wholesome water at the turn of a tap. This does not come easy, but is achieved through forward planning and careful implementation of sound policies and programmes.
The Bill before the House today seeks to ensure that the quality of the water supplied to Singaporeans remains uncompromised, even with changing conditions.
Plumbing is essential for our access to potable water. While the Public Utilities Board (PUB) ensures the safety and adequacy of the water it produces, owners of premises are responsible for the maintenance of their building's internal pipes and water tanks. Plumbing is also important for the protection of public health, as a well-functioning sanitary system channels used water away effectively.
Currently, PUB regulates water service plumbers who carry out works on the potable water system, but not sanitary plumbers who carry out works on sanitary appliances and facilities, as the latter were deemed less complex.
While this regime has not caused issues thus far, our water and sanitary plumbing systems are becoming more integrated and complex, particularly in large-scale and high-rise buildings, with concealed piping systems becoming more common. There is also increasing adoption of alternative water systems in commercial and industrial developments like NEWater and rainwater harvesting.
All these systems must be built properly by competent plumbers to prevent cross-contamination between the potable water system and the non-potable or sanitary systems. While we have not experienced cases of cross-contamination, this has happened elsewhere, such as in Alameda City, California, where a cross-connection between the city’s drinking water supply and a non-potable irrigation well rendered parts of the city’s water supply undrinkable for days.
We will, therefore, strengthen the regulation of critical plumbing works and ensure that plumbers have the skills and knowledge to undertake complex works.
For instance, sanitary pipes need to be laid such that they are both air-tight and water-tight, otherwise public health may be affected. The Bill will expand PUB's current licensing scheme for water service plumbers to include sanitary plumbers under the revised Licensed Plumber (LP) scheme. PUB will specify eligibility requirements, such as training and competency requirements, for all LPs. Home owners, consumers and developers will be assured of the quality of work carried out by these trained and licensed plumbers. The Bill will also provide for PUB to give directions to LPs as well as professional engineers to rectify works which contravene requirements.
To ease the change to the LP scheme for incumbent plumbers, the Bill provides for a six-month transitional period from the effective date of the LP scheme. During the transitional period, eligible incumbent plumbers can continue to carry out their respective vocations pending receipt of the new LP licences.
Since the announcement of the proposed LP scheme in April last year, PUB has been working closely with the industry to facilitate the entry of plumbers into the LP scheme. To date, 96% of the 863 existing plumbers, who are either PUB's Licensed Water Service Plumbers (LWSPs) or plumbers registered with the Singapore Plumbing Society (SPS), are already qualified to be LPs. The remaining plumbers are either undergoing the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Academy's Builder Certificate Plumbing and Pipefitting Course and/or PUB's two- or three-day conversion course. They will qualify as licensed plumbers after passing the requisite assessments.
Other than helping existing plumbers upgrade their skills, we also want to encourage new entrants to join the profession. Since the announcement of the scheme, 25 persons of varying backgrounds, ranging from those with GCE \"O\" level qualification to degree holders, have successfully completed the requisite courses by BCA Academy and PUB.
Among them is 55-year-old Mr Lim Choon Sin, currently a mechanical and electrical contractor with GCE \"O\" level qualifications, and 36-year-old Mr Tan Jixiang, an engineering graduate, who will qualify as LPs when the scheme comes into effect.
We recognise that not all plumbing work needs to be regulated. PUB has drawn up a list of simple plumbing works which do not affect the integrity of the water supply or sanitary network. For instance, the changing of the flushing mechanism within a flushing cistern and the changing of taps need not be carried out by an LP. Such excluded works will be set out in subsidiary legislation. Consumers can refer to the PUB website for the list of such works. For works that do require an LP, they will also be able to refer to the website for the online database of LPs when the new scheme takes effect.
Mr Speaker, I will next cover the regulation of drinking water. It is crucial for public health and safety reasons for there to be regulatory oversight over the quality of drinking water. Regulation of water quality is currently the responsibility of the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Drinking Water Unit (DWU) and PUB.
However, NEA's existing powers do not cover drinking water that is provided free of charge. The Bill seeks to close this gap by expanding the regulatory scope to cover all water suitable for drinking that is provided in the course of business, and to the public, except for water that is already regulated by other agencies. Besides this, DWU officers will be provided with powers, similar to those that PUB officers already have, to enter premises to conduct investigations of water quality incidents, which will enhance the DWU officers' response time in dealing with such incidents.
As the public looks to PUB for any water quality-related matters, PUB remains the primary responder. Upon receiving feedback from the public, PUB will first investigate and, if they determine that the issue is caused by a failure of the technical integrity of the water supply, PUB will then take action against the appropriate party. If the failure was the result of any other cause, then the matter will be referred to DWU.
DWU will also continue to have oversight over the quality of the drinking water provided by PUB. With these enhancements to our regulatory system, we can be assured that our drinking water will continue to be clean, wholesome and safe.
Besides these, the Bill includes other amendments to improve operations and allow for the smooth functioning of PUB. For instance, the Bill provides PUB with the powers to regulate the transport of dangerous cargoes as well as board vessels to investigate offences so as to protect water quality in our reservoirs and waterways.
Mr Speaker and Members of the House, let me conclude. The proposed enhancements to the Public Utilities Act are forward-looking and aim to ensure that good and safe water continues to be conveyed and enjoyed by all Singaporeans. We have seen from water crises around the world how things can go from right to wrong very quickly, often with just one misstep in the long complex chain of supplying water. One example is the contamination case in Flint, Michigan, in the United States where lead from ageing pipes leached into the water supply. Once public confidence in their water supply is lost, it is hard to regain, and affected communities take years to recover. We are determined never to let this happen and will continue to strengthen our water system so that Singaporeans will always have access to good, wholesome water. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, these proposed amendments to the Bill are timely because water and sanitary plumbing systems are getting more integrated and complex, with constantly-evolving building designs. Plumbing works have become more integrated and concealed, presenting higher risk of cross-contamination between the water and sanitary systems if not built properly by plumbers. Furthermore, many of our homes are getting older, they will need repairs and upgrades and these have attracted many smaller contractors, and even freelancers, working on jobs into our homes. I am not sure all of them are, indeed, qualified persons under the existing Act.
Our water supply, sanitary and drainage system is an important artery, just like the blood vessels that deliver oxygen-rich blood from the heart to the body tissues. We need to get people who are competent, and with proper training and knowledge, to ensure that all homes are well-served.
I fully support the Bill which seeks to license the plumbers, including sanitary plumbers, so that the home owners can be assured that they have competent people doing the plumbing works or repairs. I am pleased to understand that SPS and the Singapore Sanitary Ware Importers and Exporters Association have been in conversation with PUB. We all know how messy it can be if you have problems with sanitary plumbing works and it is good that PUB is ensuring that these plumbers get the right training. I would like to ask the Minister if the courses offered at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) are continually reviewed to ensure that they keep pace with the industry needs. I believe if we get plumbers who are competently trained in different areas of plumbing, then it would also be good for home owners as they do not have to run around scouting for different plumbers.
Some unlicensed plumbers, including those from across the Causeway, may be cheap, but they may be doing work through trial and error, or based on whatever experience they have amassed. They may not properly understand the mechanics in plumbing. For example, I heard from a home owner who, for several years, have to suffer from water hammer or noises from his water pipes because they were not properly installed before they were concealed. What is worse is that there is no way to seek redress as he could not locate or contact the plumber.
Next is the issue of the quality of the material. Many residents told me that many plumbers nowadays come from across the Causeway. They come in vans and cars or even carry a few pieces on motorbikes. How do we ensure that the materials that they use, such as pipes and fittings, are meeting Singapore's standards? Is PUB working with our Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to address this problem?
Next, is their workmanship up to the standards required by PUB? And there are some other concerns raised.
First, the transition period, the six-month transition period: is this sufficient? Is there sufficient capacity to train all existing plumbers? Next, will the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and PUB exercise stricter control over our renovation contractors and ensure that only licensed plumbers are allowed to carry out plumbing works? The last concern is how to ensure that this will not be just another layer of rubber stamping. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Plumbing systems are like the city's arteries. Hence, licensing plumbers is a timely move.
The Government should make sure that the plumbing courses offered on the market are comprehensive and keeping up with the times. Only by doing so can we ensure the quality of our plumbers.
Many people these days look for plumbers on the Internet. Many plumbers from neighbouring countries come directly to our homes. Some local plumbers told me that some licensed plumbers would pass on the jobs to unlicensed plumbers after getting the jobs. How can the Government prevent unlicensed plumbers from operating in Singapore?
Another problem is that plumbing materials can be easily brought in from other countries, even unauthorised models. Will the authorities pay attention to this problem?
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): The Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction and consumers can expect to benefit from having peace of mind knowing that public health standards are maintained and their interests are better protected.
The importance of a plumbing system in a modern and densely populated city like ours cannot be understated. A badly designed or maintained water reticulation or sanitary system is a recipe for disaster. A case in point was the contamination of the water supply system in a mixed development in Bukit Timah in August 2000, where over a hundred people were sickened by contaminated water in the incident.
While legislation and licensing can help raise the competency of the plumbing industry, experience does matter when it comes to giving consumers peace of mind. In the water contamination case cited earlier, the plumber appointed by the management corporation was licensed but he could neither anticipate the potential risk of the badly designed water supply system nor prevent the contamination from happening.
Under clause 21 of the proposed amendments in this Bill, those who are licensed under the existing LWSP scheme and who also hold the SPS registration certificate, will automatically qualify for the new LP scheme. The rest of the practising plumbers would have until 30 September 2018 to bring their necessary qualifications up to par to qualify for the new LP licence. That will entail attending sanitary and water service plumbing courses conducted by PUB, as well as to pass an assessment test. The courses and assessment are on top of attaining a baseline BCA Builder Certificate course in Plumbing and Pipe-Fitting or equivalent.
Mr Speaker, the above prerequisite to obtain a LP licence would be too onerous for freelance plumbers and those old-school plumbers who fashioned their trade based on good old fashion hard work, honesty and work experience gained over the years. Some of these seasoned plumbers are non-English speaking and may only converse in their native mother tongues or dialects, but they are armed with a wealth of knowledge and experience honed from the school of hard knocks. For some of them, plumbing may be the only tools of the trade they know, and their livelihood would come to an end in two months’ time, if they are unable to qualify for an LP licence.
While I support the Bill, I wish to seek the indulgence of the Minister to look into making some provisions for these plumbers so that they can carry on working until such time when they decide to call it a day. Some of their work involves only replacing old pipes, nothing complicated and nothing to design.
Can PUB offer the prerequisite courses and assessment for the new LP licence in a language other than English? Can the assessment test be administered in dialects? Can PUB make an exception to waive the prerequisite courses and assessment for plumbers who can prove they have the necessary work experience and have been working in the industry long before even some of us in this Chamber were born?
Mr Speaker, this group of old-timers in the plumbing trade is shrinking over time, just like our pensioners. When the compulsory MediShield Life was introduced, pensioners were worried they would be worse off but it turned out that their entitled medical benefits under their respective pension schemes remain unchanged. MediShield Life coverage, although compulsory, does not kick in for some pensioners.
Would the Ministry consider making a similar exception to allow this group of old-school plumbers to continue to ply their trade without the compulsory LP licence, after PUB has made the necessary assessment of their competency? Can PUB issue these plumbers with a non-renewable provisional licence of three years, for example, so that these seniors can have ample time to make other plans and wind down their trade over time?
We are an ageing society. We are witnessing the passing of a generation of tradesmen and craftsmen from an era gone by. The good old hawker, the Yellow Top taxi driver, the old-school plumber, to name a few, would probably ply their trade one last time in this decade or so. No one is more disrupted than these senior tradesmen and craftsmen as we embrace the digital economy. Could we not give these Pioneer workers a longer runway to adapt, change and to wind down their trade?
There is a Motion in the Order Paper today calling for this House to recognise our seniors as a gift to our society. It calls on the Government to continue to strengthen support for our seniors to age with dignity and to spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive. Mr Speaker, allowing some of our seniors to continue their old trade in their sunset years, even for a fixed period of time, would send a clear message that this Government does support our seniors to age with dignity.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It addresses one of the dilemmas for home owners who are in need of the services of a professional plumber. The Bill, while it imposes on the plumbers to be properly trained and updated on their skillsets, needs to address one important area that would greatly help the thousands of households who would be looking for professional licensed plumbers.
There are a few ways home owners would commonly go about to get a plumber. One is recommendation from friends or relatives. The other is to look up the listing via the web, including the PUB website, and the third is to turn to the Town Council or management corporation strata title (MCST) for assistance. Many licensed plumbers would tell you they can do everything. But by the time they get to your house, you know they are simply trouble-shooting the problem. I will share an example. Assuming you want a plumber who can handle a water-hammer issue in your home. You will realise that many of them may not be trained in this area of work.
So, while I commend the Bill for spelling out the licensing requirements of the licensed water and sanitary plumbers, I hope the PUB can do more by giving them certification in specialised areas. Get our plumbers to specialise in areas like tackling water hammer, regulating water pressure, water tank pumps and so on, so that, besides the general training, they can each add value by having a specialisation.
It is good that licensed plumbers be proficient in both water service and sanitary plumbing works. It offers added convenience for consumers, who may otherwise have to engage multiple service providers. I hope PUB can give more information on its website. Currently, the PUB website gives the following: licence number, name, block unit number, street name, postal code, business telephone and business hours. But what is helpful is to also indicate their areas of specialisation.
Plumbing as a vocation and means to make a living was fairly popular in post-war Singapore such that, by 1956, SPS was founded to represent the interests of this industry. Many self-employed plumbers picked up and refined their plumbing skills through gaining experience on the job.
Today, many of them are senior citizens but continue to be very active in the industry. Their job serves as their livelihood in their twilight years. My concern is that in our bid to upgrade industry standards, these plumbers, who are senior citizens, may inadvertently be deprived of their jobs if they have difficulties learning all the required skills to get certified. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I note that registration and invitations for the courses are all being done by email. My concern is that this can be a challenge for this group of elderly plumbers, many of whom may not be Internet-savvy. They may also not be aware of the procedures to get licensed or even the need to be licensed. Can I ask if the Ministry has any measures to help those SPS-registered plumbers who are not Internet savvy? In addition, what about those who are not registered with SPS and what will be done to reach out to them to get the necessary qualifications? On this note, I would like to ask if the Ministry has a target to have a minimum number of licensed plumbers as a ratio to the number of flats in Singapore.
Although the licensing scheme for plumbers was announced last April, some of these freelancers may not be aware that only PUB LPs licensed under this revised scheme will be allowed to install, fix and maintain plumbing systems for water service and sanitary works. There are only three months left. How many have obtained their qualification? For those who have yet to undergo or still undergoing the course, would they be allowed to continue with their livelihood in the interim period? And, if they are unable to complete the course due to learning difficulties, can the duration be extended? Next, as some of these plumbers may not be proficient in English, could the courses be conducted in other languages as well?
The cost of the Builder Certificate Course is significantly subsidised under the mid-career enhanced subsidy. Nevertheless, it still comes up to over $600, a sum which is hefty to the low-income and needy. This course is required by plumbers without acceptable plumbing qualifications and many elderly freelance plumbers will likely fall into this group. Will assistance be available to those who have difficulties affording it?
(In English): I hope that those affected by this upgrade will see this as an opportunity to pick up new skills and formalise their knowledge. Ultimately, it would help open opportunities and equip them with modern plumbing skills. The Builder Certificate course will be a worthy investment. Given that there are so many new flats, the demand for their services would certainly increase. Ultimately, consumers, too, will benefit from having a larger pool of professionals who provide quality plumbing services to tap on.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome this move to revise the licence for this LWSP scheme requiring all sanitary plumbers to be licensed under a new LP scheme, along with water service plumbers. Efforts to streamline regulations and combine both types of plumbers under a single scheme can only lead to enhance professionalism for the plumbing industry.
Enhanced professionalism of our plumbers can only lead to a more reliable water system with fewer faults. These points will benefit all Singaporeans and I stand in support of this Bill.
I understand that the interim period given to plumbers to undergo training for the new licence is six months from 1 April to 30 September this year. After this period, plumbers who have not undergone additional training will not be able to offer their services.
I would like to ask how this six-month duration was determined and the factors considered to ensure that this length of time is sufficient. The Senior Minister of State had mentioned earlier that 96% of plumbers will be able to obtain their new licence. But can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that the other 4% will be able to complete their training and obtain a new licence by the deadline of 30 September?
Next, I would also like to ask what steps PUB had taken to ensure that our nation's plumbers have been well-informed of these changes and what steps will be taken to ensure a smooth transition for this group. Were stakeholder consultations conducted prior to the Bill and, if so, what were some of the concerns raised and how were they addressed? Other groups which I believe would be affected that the Senior Minister of State had also mentioned include the handymen who want to upgrade themselves and obtain a plumber's licence. I understand that the information has been published on the PUB website. But as many in this group are older in their years or less educated, they may need additional assistance navigating these changes and I hope that the Senior Minister of State and the Ministry will consider this.
Next, I also understand that LWSPs are required to attend a mandatory refresher course once every three years. Will sanitary plumbers, once under the new LP scheme, be also required to take this course?
Lastly, from the consumers' point of view and as many Members have raised, let us, say, if I am renovating my house and need a plumber, how would I know if my usual plumber has obtained a new licence? Would the new LPs carry around a card? Furthermore, let us, say, if I need repairs for the water pipe in my house, how would I know if I am required to engage the services of an LP or if a freelance handyman would suffice? Notwithstanding the above clarification, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill. The new licensing framework for plumbers will make Singapore's qualified plumbers more professional, and it is conducive to the improvement of industry standards. This will also help ensure the quality of water and sanitary services provided to Singaporeans and maintain the standard of our public sanitation.
As the plumbing systems are getting more complex, plumbers must be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure the standard and safety of our water, and the health of the water users. For example, plumbers must understand the relevant regulations, the designs provided by developers and house owners, and know under what circumstances they should apply for permission from PUB. The new measures will also allow Singaporeans to enjoy more convenience, both in terms of water service and sanitation works. They only need one plumber to carry out these two types of work.
Although PUB allows unlicensed freelance plumbers to continue to do simple works, such as clearing pipes, changing taps or the hose to the taps, installing, changing or dismantling basins, and replacing floor traps or the cover of the drainage, this new regulation will, nevertheless, greatly affect their livelihood.
Many plumbers are experienced older workers who speak dialect mostly. One of the licensing conditions is that they must have BCA Academy’s Builder Certificate for plumbing and pipe fitting. The minimum requirement for applying this course is to have a “workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4 Certificate”. Just like my other colleagues have mentioned, can the authorities consider helping this group of plumbers because the written English test is not to their advantage? Is there any way that the Government can help improve their English standard?
I would like to ask whether PUB can provide these plumbers with more convenient channels to undergo training and upgrade, so that they can obtain the certificate soon.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether foreign plumbers who conduct water or sanitary works are also going to be licensed. Moreover, does PUB have enough inspectors to check on whether works are done by qualified plumbers?
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for their support and comments on this Bill. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng have spoken on helping existing and would-be plumbers to continue to serve in this important trade and facilitating their entry into the new LP scheme. We share this important objective. Let me first address the issue of providing sufficient time for transition to the new scheme.
PUB announced its intention to roll out the new licensing scheme some 10 months ago, in April last year. Even prior to the announcement of the scheme, PUB had engaged SPS extensively. After the announcement via several media channels – newspaper, radio, television, including in vernacular languages, as well as circulars – weekly public briefing sessions were held for 10 consecutive weeks to share details with interested stakeholders. All of PUB’s LWSPs and members of SPS were invited to the sessions. Other plumbers and members of the public also attended the sessions.
To facilitate the transition to the new scheme, additional runs of BCA Academy's Builder Certificate course and PUB’s short inhouse conversion course were mounted. As noted in my opening speech earlier, to date, over 96% of the 863 existing plumbers, who are either LWSPs or plumbers registered with SPS, have already obtained the qualifications to become LPs when the legislation comes into effect. In fact, among the 800-odd plumbers who have qualified to become LPs, more than 70% are aged 50 and above. Among them, there are plumbers who are in their 80s and have qualified to become LPs.
Of the remaining plumbers, around 10 will complete the Builder Certificate course by the middle of this year and around 20 will need to successfully undergo PUB’s two- or three-day inhouse conversion course.
Additionally, as noted in my speech earlier, another 25 who have the requisite experience but were neither licensed nor registered with SPS, have completed the necessary courses and will be able to become LPs when the Act comes into effect. Essentially, these are plumbers with the requisite experience but did not have the licence. They will be licensed when the Act comes into effect. During the six-month transition period, water service plumbers and those currently or formerly registered as sanitary plumbers with SPS may continue practising their respective trade pending their licence.
For those who have not completed their licensing requirements by the end of the six-month transition period from the effective date of the legislation, they can approach PUB which will assist them on a case-by-case basis.
While we encourage and help as many as possible to upgrade their skills and be certified, there continues to be a role for those who do not have the new licence. First, they can carry out plumbing works as long as they are working directly under an LP who will manage and sign off on the works. Second, they can carry out non-critical simple plumbing works for consumers on their own, such as clearing chokes and installing sinks, bathtubs and showers. There will continue to be a market for such work and a full list of unregulated works can be found on PUB’s website.
Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Louis Ng expressed concern that some plumbers, especially the older ones, may have difficulties getting certified due to language requirements or financial difficulties. Sir, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A minimum working proficiency of English is necessary, so that licensed plumbers can understand the regulatory requirements, read plans and submit forms to PUB.
While the courses are conducted in English, the instructors take a practical approach in helping participants understand the content. To accommodate plumbers who cannot manage the written assessment of PUB's two- or three-day conversion course, PUB facilitates oral assessments in other languages, such as Mandarin.
PUB has also worked with the BCA Academy to recognise the \"Workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4\" certificate for entry to the Builder Certificate course. So far, the plumbers who have engaged PUB are willing to take this course.
Take the case of 50-year-old Mr Anthony Cheng Lai Swee. He used to work for plumbing companies that carry out plumbing and sanitary work and is now doing freelance sanitary plumbing works. When the LP scheme was announced last year in April, he was initially concerned that he did not have the minimum proficiency in English to register for the Builder Certificate course. In the end, Mr Cheng decided to register for the “Workplace Literacy and Numeracy Level 4” course and passed the test, which allowed him to register for the Builder Certificate course. He has since completed the theory part of the Builder Certificate course and will be taking the practical part in March 2018. Mr Cheng was glad that SPS and PUB have been assisting and facilitating him to transit to the LP scheme.
(In English): As for financial assistance, PUB waives the fees of its conversion course for all existing plumbers on their first attempt and, beyond that, on a case-by-case basis. For the Builder Certificate course, a variety of subsidies may be used to offset up to 85% of course fees, such as the SkillsFuture Mid-career Enhanced Subsidy. Individuals can also use their SkillsFuture Credit. Most plumbers whom PUB has engaged thus far have no issues with the course fees. Nonetheless, if any plumbers face difficulties, I encourage them to contact PUB, and we will see how to further assist them.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh expressed concerns over unlicensed foreign plumbers operating in Singapore. It is illegal for foreigners to work in Singapore without a valid work pass. Foreign plumbers with valid work passes who wish to practise in Singapore will need to be licensed. Let me emphasise that consumers who engage the services of unlicensed plumbers do so at their own risk. Plumbing systems have a significant impact on the quality of tap water and on public health. Enforcement action will be taken against the unlicensed plumber and the consumer. I urge consumers, when hiring plumbing services, to go to the register of LWSPs on PUB's website, or call PUB's 24-hour Call Centre at 1800-CALL-PUB, to find these plumbers or verify their status. This register will be expanded to cover all LPs once the new scheme is implemented. LPs will also be required to carry an authorised licence card from PUB for verification.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also brought up LPs subcontracting works to non-licensed plumbers. While LPs can do so, they must directly supervise and sign off on the works carried out by the unlicensed plumber. Should there be any non-compliance with the requirements and standards stipulated by PUB, the LP who signed off on the works would be held responsible. More importantly, even as we enhance the regulatory system, PUB will work with SPS to enhance consumer education so that consumers will be aware of the importance of using LPs for critical plumbing works.
Ms Joan Pereira suggested encouraging LPs to develop specialised skills in specific fields of work. While the LP scheme requires plumbers to be proficient in both water and sanitary plumbing works, they are free to elect the field of work that they wish to practise in.
Currently, to help consumers make a better choice when engaging a plumber, the register of LWSPs on PUB's website also indicates the types of services that some plumbers are offering. When the new scheme takes effect, PUB will extend the listing of types of services offered for sanitary plumbing on the register of LPs on PUB's website as well.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether the courses offered at ITE are continually reviewed to keep pace with industry needs. The courses offered are in accordance with Singapore's current plumbing standards, and PUB will continue to work with educational institutions like ITE and BCA Academy to ensure their courses keep pace with industry needs. To answer Mr Louis Ng, LPs are also required to attend PUB's refresher courses once every three years to be kept abreast of the latest industry standards.
To conclude, the amendments to this Bill are an important step forward to ensure that Singaporeans continue enjoying clean and safe water. Therefore, I call on Members of the House to give their support to this Bill.
[(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. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.] (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":"Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) was last extended in 2014. As Members know, it will lapse after five years unless extended. Let me, first, give some examples of how CLTPA has been used, before I go into the specific amendments.
In 2017, CLTPA was used to cripple two gangs operating in Singapore. The first comprised mainly young Indian gang members, most of them in their teens to the 20s, led by a headman in his 30s. They carried out armed attacks against rival gang members. They also attacked a fellow gang member as punishment for leaving the gang. A member wanted to leave. They ambushed him. At least 10 of them assaulted him. Then, the headman called up all the others and said, \"If any of you dare to leave the gang, the same thing will happen to you. You will be attacked as well.\" The Police got on to the case. The members did not want to testify against the headman and CLTPA was used. They were prepared to give evidence; they were prepared to testify but they did not want to do so in public. They feared as to what would happen to them.
The second gang comprised Chinese males in their mid-20s to 30s. Many of them had antecedents for very serious criminal offences. They attacked others, used weapons to settle their disputes. They attacked innocent club patrons, including women. The attacks were quite brazen. They also openly threatened club staff.
Again, in both cases, the victims were unwilling or unable to identify the attackers. The gang members were prepared to give evidence but not in Court, for fear of reprisals. And really, without CLTPA, it would have been difficult to deal with the gangsters. So, that is, if you look at gangsters.
We also used the CLTPA again in the context of drugs. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) uses it, and many drug trafficking syndicates have been crippled using CLTPA. Often, because they fear attacks on them and their families, the couriers will not want or refuse to testify in Court. And if we let that situation develop, it will affect our ability to deal with the leaders of the drug syndicates.
So, the use of CLTPA has helped us keep the drug situation under control. But, and I have given instructions on this, the approach has to be that, wherever we can, we must use the criminal justice system and not CLTPA. And that is the approach that is taken.
In fact, if Members look at the Detention Orders (DOs) that are issued under CLTPA against drug traffickers, in 1998, there were 192 such DOs. Last year, none. Zero. Sir, with your permission, can I put up the slides? I will just show two slides to Members.
Mr K Shanmugam: The first one is on drugs. It is a very simple picture. But we want to retain the CLTPA as a tool of final resort, if necessary. It is useful to give Members a picture of the total number of detainees, not just for drugs but the total number.
In 2010, seven years ago, the number was 317. Members will see from the chart, it is now just about 103. Again, the approach is, where we can, we move to the criminal justice system and use CLTPA as sparingly as possible.
I have to tell the House, while the drug situation is under control, the challenges are significant and they remain. I have spoken at length over the last few years about drugs, the issues in the region, in the world and in Singapore. If you look at the World Drug Report, for this region, if you look at the sources of methamphetamine in East Asia and Southeast Asia in 2015, East Asia and Southeast Asia were amongst the highest globally among regions and we have achieved an unwelcome record in that we have overtaken North America for the first time as a source.
Southeast Asia, together with East Asia, is also the second-highest source of opium. The seizures of heroin and morphine related to the production of opium in Southeast Asia grew by nearly 90% in the five years between 2010 and 2015. We turn to ketamine. The seizure of ketamine, if you look at what was seized in the world and what proportion was seized in this region, 97% of all ketamine seized in the world was from this region in 2015. So, that is the nature of the problem that we face. I have shared with Members before that 50 million people passed through our airports. Another 150 million passed through our checkpoints. We have to be very, very serious about the drug situation. So, the Misuse of Drugs Act is very effective. But we have this CLTPA as a backup.
The third situation that I would share with Members is the unlicensed moneylenders (UML). CLTPA has also been used against persons involved in loansharking activities. We have been clear about that in this House. The Moneylenders Act was amended in 2010. It gave the Police broader powers to tackle the UML situation.
We attack the UML situation from different aspects and that has resulted in, again, a drop in the number of DOs issued for UML. If Members look at 2004 to 2010, on average, during that seven-year period, we issued about 20 DOs per year for UML. If Members look at 2011 to 2017, that has dropped to about two per year. Again, we have used the Court processes to prosecute UML offenders. But again, there will be cases where the runners will refuse to testify against the kingpins. The towkays, those higher up in the organisation, they operate behind the scenes, they do not have direct dealings with the debtors.
In 2015, for example, the Police arrested the mastermind of a loansharking syndicate. Many of the syndicate members were also arrested. The main operators were based in Malaysia and Thailand. They do so to avoid arrest and detection. The lowest tier – the harassers, runners and bank account holders – they operate out of Singapore out of necessity.
That syndicate alone was responsible for more than 600 cases of harassment since 2006. Members of Parliament (MPs) will know this; residents come to you. These people who harass would set fire to the residents' doors, they lock them up – serious safety issues; they splash paint, they break flowerpots, they scribble graffiti and, of course, they deliver \"hell notes\" as well. The whole idea is to frighten the debtor or whoever is in the house and, sometimes, it is somebody else who have moved in, and they frighten everyone around, innocent people as well. Again, the syndicate members were unwilling to testify against the leader and other more senior members.
Fourth, we also use the CLTPA sometimes to detain members of syndicates. There was a case: global match-fixing syndicate. The head made it known to his members that he would kill or harm any person who betrayed him and the syndicate. One person was, in fact, attacked on his orders. The syndicate members were quite unwilling to testify in Court against him. But his criminal activities were dangerous, detrimental to our public safety, peace and good order. So, we used the CLTPA.
Unlike other countries, our physical size, smallness, also makes it difficult for us to relocate witnesses in such a way as to assure them and their families of their physical safety. In bigger countries you can do that. So, given our local circumstances, our law enforcement agencies will not be able to totally satisfy witnesses that their concerns will not bear out.
That is a brief summary of the types of situations where we have used the CLTPA. Let me now take the House through the proposed amendments.
The Bill provides for the Minister to detain any person for a period not exceeding 12 months or place the person under a Police Supervision Order (PSO) for up to three years – we can it DOs and PSOs. This can be done if the Minister is satisfied that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order.
The Court of Appeal accepted, in the Dan Tan case, and I quote, \"section 30 of the CLTPA is similar to sections 8(1) and 10 of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in that power has been given to the Minister, to make the decision as to whether the detention would be in the interest of public safety, peace and good order.\"
The Court of Appeal also said the phrase, I quote, \"persons associated with activities of a criminal nature\" is wider than persons who had committed a crime. So, the current approach gives a degree of latitude to the Minister on what activities could be the subject of a DO.
I have thought further about this. Should we continue to leave it as it is? Or would it be better to list the type of criminal activities in a Schedule to the Act? I have decided that we should actually just list it. That gives more clarity to the public and everyone on which types of activities could be the subject of a DO. So, clause 3 states that the Bill applies to \"activities of a criminal nature\" that will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts this Fourth Schedule. The activities that are currently proposed to be listed have been either activities which have been previously dealt with under the Act or previously been mentioned in Parliament as being within the scope of the Act. Activities relating to participation in or facilitation of activities for Organised Criminal Groups are also included.
The new Fourth Schedule will also set out the powers of the Minister in respect of DOs and PSOs. It will list the types of criminal activity in relation to which the Minister can make DOs and PSOs under section 30 of the Bill. But, of course, section 30 sets out the fundamental requirements. In exercising the power, the Minister will thus have to be satisfied, which is the current position, that the facts satisfy the criteria set out in section 30. That is still necessary. In addition, it has to be criminal activities that are listed in the Schedule.
Let me now deal with clause 3. Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 30(2) which states that every decision of the Minister on a matter under section 30(1) is final. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the effect of this proposed clause. There have been suggestions that this legislatively overrules the grounds for judicial review stated in Dan Tan. That is not the case. Let me make that clear, let me explain. Anyone who knows the law will know that that cannot be the case.
This Bill allows for a DO or PSO on the Minister's orders, and it sets out the grounds and processes for making such an order. It sets out the rights of the detainee and the supervisee, including the right to have his detention or PSO reviewed or considered by an Advisory Committee.
The Minister has to be satisfied that the grounds for DO or PSO exist. The application of the facts to the relevant orders, and whether the order should be made under the CLTPA, have always been for the Minister to decide. The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan pointed that out, accepted that. It said that Parliament may decide to entrust the power and the responsibility to make a decision to a particular decision-maker and, in the case of CLTPA, that is the Minister for Home Affairs.
The Courts are not to substitute their views of the facts or engage in the exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis of detention. As I have said, that has always been the position under the CLTPA and accepted to be so by our Courts. Clause 3 sets that position out.
Judicial review is a different matter. It will be available in respect of CLTPA on the traditional, well-established grounds – illegality, irrationality and procedural irregularity. Again, these classic principles for judicial review have been set out in case law and have been applied for many years. My views on the applicability of judicial review are restricted to CLTPA. I am not proposing here to make general pronouncements on the applicability of judicial review to other legislation because different pieces of legislation have different wordings. My views and comments are directed towards the current Bill and the Act.
Clause 3 does not seek to affect the right of judicial review on the three well-established grounds Even if I did not say all these, it cannot, anyway. Anybody who knows the law will know that. These principles were accepted in the Dan Tan case.
So, let me summarise. The Court of Appeal accepted that under the Act, the Minister had the power and the responsibility to make decisions as to what the facts were, apply those facts to the relevant rules and considerations and exercise his discretion consequently. The Court of Appeal also said that the scheme of the Act is such that the evidentiary basis for the detention is not scrutinised by the Courts.
Third, as long as the detention is within the ambit of the legislation, the Court of Appeal accepted that the power to determine the factual basis for detention, as well as whether this is warranted in the circumstances, lay with the Executive. However, the Courts retain the power to review the Minister's decisions under the Act based on the classic judicial review principles, and I have said what they are, the three grounds. That continues to be the position; it is unchanged. So, it crystallises the position as it stands now.
The third objective of these amendments is to set out in subsidiary legislation the obligations on a person subject to Police supervision. This is currently in the main legislation.
By clause 4, we are seeking to make amendments relating to these persons who could be subject to PSOs. We want to remove them from the main Act and set them out in rules under section 49. Why? Because these conditions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the specific individual. For example, how do you rehabilitate them? To what extent is counselling necessary? It is very difficult to have these in the main legislation. So, we put them in the conditions, to tailor it according to the needs of the individual persons.
Section 33(1) and (2), which are repealed and re-enacted by clause 4, enables the Minister to impose different prescribed condition on each supervisee based on the different risks and needs of each supervisee.
Clause 4 also states that a person subject to supervision – conditions are imposed on him but he cannot comply with them because he is in prison or he is under a Court order – then, obviously, he must be excused from having to comply with the conditions.
Clause 5 repeals section 36 of the Act. Section 36 will no longer be required. These restrictions will be set out under the rules to be made under section 49.
Next, let me move to the provision of powers to CNB. Currently, CLTPA supervisees report to both the Police and CNB. But where there are breaches of PSOs, the orders, only Police Officers have the powers to investigate. Clause 7 will now provide CNB officers with the powers to investigate breaches of PSOs.
The Bill also seeks to renew the Act for a further five years with effect from 21 October 2019. The Act was last extended in 2014. It will expire in 2019. It seeks to provide for extension for five years.
Sir, I had earlier explained why we continue to need the CLTPA in Singapore. I think it is useful to consider Malaysia's experience. In 2011, Malaysia repealed its \"Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969\". This law allowed for preventive detention of criminals in the interest of public order, the suppression of violence and the prevention of crimes of violence. They repealed it and then they faced significant problems. The Malaysian Parliament then introduced the Prevention of Crime Act 2013, which reinstated preventive detention. One of the Malaysian newspapers reported the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as saying the following in the Second Reading in 2013:
\"After the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance and Restricted Residence Act, 9,095 detainees from Simpang Renggam detention centre were released and assimilated with the society. This year alone, there were 109 shooting cases and all of them involved the secret societies.\"
That just illustrates that there is usually a tradeoff. We prefer not to give such powers to the Executive. Then we must be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs. I think it is difficult to say one approach or the other clearly must be followed, but we must be clear. Often, arguments proceed on the basis that we can have the current situation of law, order and security without any tradeoffs and yet we can do away with CLTPA. That is not possible. So, you must be prepared to face it after that. The tradeoff that the Government has taken, which Parliament has agreed for many years, is that we give these powers, we impose safeguards and we look at the situation every five years.
Let me now just touch on the safeguards in the Bill. There are six that I will share.
First, any proposal by the Police or CNB to detain a person under the Bill or to place him under Police supervision will be looked at carefully, by both senior officials in my Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the Attorney-General's Chambers. The practice is that the Minister only issues a DO or a PSO after this process and upon considering the opinions of senior officials.
Second, the Minister must get the consent of the Public Prosecutor before making a DO or PSO.
Third, there is an independent Advisory Committee. It comprises prominent private citizens, including senior lawyers. They have to scrutinise the investigations and documentary evidence. The committee may examine detainees, supervisees, investigation officers (IOs), witnesses. They can also require further investigations of aspects of the case. Detainees and supervisees will have the opportunity to present their cases to the committee. They can be represented by legal counsel. The committee eventually makes their recommendations to the President, who may cancel or confirm the DO or SO. In exercising the powers, the President may also vary the order but the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet.
Fourth, DOs are reviewed annually by a different Advisory Committee.
Fifth, a different Advisory Committee yet again considers all cases of detention if they extend beyond 10 years. So, cases where persons are detained for more than 10 years are specially scrutinised to understand why such a period of detention continues to be necessary.
Sixth, of course, as I mentioned earlier, the Government has to come to Parliament once every five years to renew the Act. There have been calls in the past to make the Act permanent but we believe that the Act should be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years.
Now, in addition to the legislative amendments proposed, I would like to inform the House of another development. I mentioned the Advisory Committees (ACs) earlier. From March this year, 2018, the ACs will be chaired by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore. This does not require legislative amendment. I have spoken with the Chief Justice on this and he is agreeable to have Judges chair the ACs. Why is this being done? This is something that I have been wanting for years and we are now doing it.
The Advisory Committee, as I mentioned above, is an essential safeguard for the system. The ACs being chaired by sitting Judges will make the process more robust. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the necessity and proposed refinements to CLTPA.
The CLTPA is a necessary tool for Singapore to dismantle criminal syndicates. Secret societies continue to make up the majority of the detainee population. In 2016, 91 of 109 detainees were detained because of secret society gang activity. This is not surprising as strong loyalties and the pervasive network easily intimidate witnesses, making it impossible for an open Court trial.
Projecting into the next five years, the CLTPA still remains a necessary tool for law enforcers. This is because there is still a need to be able to carry out actions even though witnesses are afraid to step forward and even when it is impossible to procure evidence without undermining the territorial integrity of another jurisdiction. While international collaboration and technology, such as forensics and video recording evidence, may allow us to do what was previously not possible in terms of evidence gathering, technology has a flip side. It also enables intimidation of witnesses and made it easier for crimes to take on a syndicated nature, multiplying the propensity of harm and intimidation like a sinister phalanx formation.
This not a figment of imagination out of a comic strip. This is real. So, we need an arsenal of laws to deploy to deter and overcome the morphing nature of criminal syndicates. I listened to what the Minister said quite carefully and I agree with the Minister's views that the fear of witnesses coming to Court does prejudice justice, does prejudice law enforcement and the rule of law. I agree with this because of my own experience.
When I started off in the Legal Service at the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), when you know the suspect is very likely to have done it and the only witness to corroborate fears for his life or his family's life, then he does not come to Court. Drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act is a good example. The trafficker or the suspected trafficker may have drugs but who is he trying to traffic to? And, if the witness who is meant to have received the drugs so as to prove the trafficking case or the charge says \"No, I don't want to come, I fear for my life and my safety\", then it does prejudice the procedures.
Similarly, for the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act. A person could have trafficked the woman, abused her and she is very likely to have been someone from overseas and, therefore, fears for the life of her family overseas. What do we do with someone who, with all intelligence, shows very likely committed the crime but there is no witness to corroborate that? Do we just let him go without the facility of the CLTPA detention?
Also, when I sat as a junior judge and there was not a witness to corroborate the charge, then the burden of proof is not met, notwithstanding a lot of evidence against the person who has been charged.
And, even in private practice now, having a good witness is a real advantage to the case. So, from my perspective, I agree with the Minister that when you have situations where all the other facts and all the other evidence point to the conclusion that the person very likely did it and you do not have somebody who is willing to come forward because of fear of his life or the legitimate fear of his family's life, we need something like the CLTPA to plug that gap.
Of course, we need safeguards within CLTPA itself and, since the last time CLTPA was renewed, there has been a successful appeal on detention under CLTPA. This case impacts our debate on the Bill for two reasons: (a) it sheds light on the implications of clause 3 that says the Minister's decision is final, and (b) its observations birthed the new Fourth Schedule specifying the serious criminal activities as legitimate grounds for a detention under the Bill.
Newspapers have reported some concern raised over clause 3 of the Bill. However, in my view, those concerns can be ameliorated as the clause does not change the law. The Bill Supplement clearly says it is to \"clarify\" the law. What was reviewable in the past continues to be reviewable.
Clause 8 puts in the new Fourth Schedule which specifies the scope of criminal activities, the powers of detention and supervision orders may be exercised for. This promotes the rule of law as it delineates the parameters of the power clearly. It is necessarily wide so as to not remove the efficaciousness of the Act but allows for a more concrete understanding of the scope of power and what is sufficiently serious – an issue examined by the Court of Appeal in the Tan Seet Eng case.
One thing worth noting about the Fourth Schedule is the reference to section 48(1) of the Organised Crimes Act. It recognises the problems with syndicates and also provides the possibility for international activities with local links to be tackled, such as that of match-fixing in the situation of Tan Seet Eng. Nevertheless, it is important that this Act not be invoked merely because a criminal activity is specified in the list. For the interests of justice, the Act should still only be resorted to, not only in the most serious of those activities, but when an open Court trial is impracticable. A trial by the Court must still remain and continue to be the primary mechanism of law enforcement and judicial adjudication.
This Bill also makes some changes to the Police supervisory regime. One of them is regarding restrictions able to be imposed on a person under Police investigation or supervision. Currently, section 33(1) allows for the possibility to impose \"all or any\" of the restrictions, and subsection (2) provides for the Minister being able to vary, cancel or add restrictions specified under section 33(1). Clause 4 purports to make the regime more flexible by moving the restrictions placed on those on Police supervision from the main Act to subsidiary legislation. This seems to remove boundaries and categories on the kind of restrictions being imposed. As the previous structure also allows for some form of flexibility, would the Minister of Home Affairs kindly elaborate on the rationale behind this change?
Besides detention without trial and supervision orders, this Bill criminalises strikes for employees of essential services, something which drew public attention in 2012. Although the repercussions of that strike then may not have been as deeply felt, a protracted strike on essential services can be quite severe. Therefore, notwithstanding this Bill, it is important that channels of dialogue for amicable settlements of disputes between providers of essential services and their employees remain open and effective.
As this Bill continues to provide a necessary tool to maintain Singapore’s public safety, peace and good order, and the very fact that we need to deploy muscular laws to deter criminal syndicate activity on our shores and based on my own experience as a legal practitioner in the Government and in the private sector, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the prospect of locking people up for an undetermined duration is incongruous with the rule of law. Should a state have such powers? Insofar as CLTPA is concerned, the answer has been yes for reasons that have been enunciated in this House over many decades, albeit not without significant soul-searching and qualified support.
One important reason that underpins the qualified support for the CLTPA in Singapore through the decades has been the prospect of judicial review, which operates as an important safety valve to check against any excesses of the government of the day. The importance of judicial review with regard to CLTPA was publicly expressed recently by the Court of Appeal judgment in the matter of the international match-fixer Tan Seet Eng or Dan Tan.
Unlike many extensions the Government has sought for this Act since then, the one before the House today includes a few fundamental amendments, which are very significant and extend new powers to the Government for an Act which was ostensibly temporary.
At the outset, Mr Speaker, is an amendment to the Act even necessary? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at what transpired in the aftermath of international match-fixer Dan Tan’s short-lived release under the CLTPA after the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government and in favour of Dan Tan. Government critics focused on Dan Tan's re-arrest six days after the Minister cured the deficiencies in the original Grounds of Detention (GD) with a more detailed GD describing how Dan Tan’s activities had a direct relevance to public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. As stressed by the Court, that was the crux of the CLTPA – the Government had to show how Dan Tan's activities prejudiced public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something it had not sufficiently done in its original GD.
However, what was somewhat overlooked in the decision to re-arrest Dan Tan was the Minister's decision to revoke the DOs under CLTPA of three members of Dan Tan's global match-fixing syndicate. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in a statement on 18 January 2016, stated that \"the evidence against the three persons and their roles in the syndicate were recently reviewed, after the Court of Appeal gave its decision in Dan Tan's case.\"
It would appear that in light of the judgment in Tan Seet Eng, the Government became aware of the poor case against them in law, putting the three detainees on supervision orders instead. To that end, the purpose of the Act and, more importantly, the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary as it currently stands, would appear to be operating effectively, giving the Minister enough leeway to take decisive action against individuals who, in his estimation, pose a threat to ensure public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, while being in a position to clarify and apply the Act lawfully even if it means revoking DOs in light of the clarification of laws by the Judiciary. Quite simply, the system is working as it should. If so, what is the impulse behind this amendment Bill and is it justified?
Secondly, the Bill introduces a new limb to section 30 of the Act, legislating that a decision of the Minister would be final. I seek the Minister’s clarification on how this new clause 3 will interact with the prospect of judicial review for individuals detained under CLTPA in future, in view of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Tan Seet Eng.
While clause 3 does not explicitly exclude the prospects of judicial review, unlike section 8(2)(b) of the ISA, it is a fact that more, not fewer, judicial review cases are coming up for adjudication in our Courts, challenging the lawfulness of Government decisions. In recent years, these include questions on the legality of whether or when elections ought to be called in a Single Member Constituency or a Group Representation Constituency, the constitutionality of section 377A with regard to homosexuals, the constitutionality of the Government's decision to extend a loan to the International Monetary Fund, a challenge by some Hindu adherents on the banning of musical instruments during Thaipusam, and the challenge by a Sikh prison counsellor on prison policy covering Sikh inmates, amongst others.
In concert with a more educated population and a greater recognition of the critical role an independent Judiciary plays as a co-equal Organ alongside the Executive and Legislature, it is unsurprising that more Singaporeans are seeking the avenue afforded by judicial review for clarity on public law matters and for the Judiciary to have the final say on the legality of Government actions. I would hazard that even the front bench recognises and agrees with the critical role the Judiciary plays as a feature of a good government and good governance.
Mr Speaker, in a speech delivered at the American Law Institute in 2016, the Chief Justice referred to judicial review as, and I quote, \"the sharp edge that keeps government action within the form and substance of the law.\" However, it is well established under Singapore law that judicial review only covers the process and legality of Government decisions, not the merits of a decision which are properly empowered to the Executive, who, having been lawfully voted in by Singaporeans at each General Election, make decisions by virtue of their electoral mandate. To that end, a policy question or decision of the government of the day can only be overturned by the Courts on grounds of irrationality, illegality or impropriety, thresholds which are exceedingly high to begin with.
However, the law covering judicial review has not stood still even if Singapore law does not recognise some of the newer heads and principles that define judicial review in the United Kingdom (UK), such as the proportionality principle, ostensibly because some of these new approaches risk substituting the Executive's decision for the Judiciary's, a concern which, in light of our separation of powers schema, is a legitimate one.
But even so, the Chief Justice, in his speech to the American Law Institute which I referred to earlier, found it appropriate to share the Singapore experience with regard to a new head of judicial review recognised under Singapore law – that of substantive legitimate expectation – which concerns Government action that is contrary to a promise or an expectation that it has created or encouraged.
For the man on the street and the average Singaporean, the knowledge of a continual evolution of the law on judicial review is a welcome development. Justice must be seen to be done, and the evolution of the law on judicial review has required judges to make more, not less, enquiries on the facts and circumstances of a matter at hand so as to be able to decide whether the Government has made a lawful or unlawful decision.
In and of itself, it would appear intuitively logical for judges to have maximum access to the Minister or the Executive's thought processes even if they cannot replace it with their own. However, clause 3 appears to be going against the grain, closing the door and further limiting the Judiciary’s scope for judicial review for CLTPA cases. At this juncture, it would be useful for me to recite a short paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seet Eng which buttresses the point that even though the ambit of judicial review only covers the process and legality of how a decision is made, the role of the Courts is far from routine and administrative.
\"In our judgment, while it is one thing to say that the Court must not substitute its view as to the way in which the discretion that is vested in the Minister should be exercised, it is quite another to say that the Minister's exercise of discretion may not be scrutinised by the Court at all. We asked (the Government’s lawyer) if he was contending that the function of the Court was confined to verifying, as a clerical matter, that the paperwork was in order and included at least a bare recitation by or on behalf of the Minister that formally complied with the statutory formula. The (Government’s lawyer) said that was not his position and, in our judgment, rightly so. We have already referred to the decision of this Court in Chng Suan Tze where an objective approach was laid down. This plainly runs counter to any suggestion that the Court is confined to so narrow a role. Indeed, this recognises that a Court may and, indeed, should examine whether the power that is vested in the Minister is being properly invoked.\"
On clause 3 per se, the explanatory note to the Bill states that the Minister’s decision being final applies in any of these three instances:
(a) that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature;
(b) that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; and
(c) that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police.
Mr Speaker, all three instances operate to narrow the Judiciary's role with respect to judicial review. To this end, I would like to ask the Minister, in the event the Courts require the Minister to reveal detailed information on the background facts on any of the three instances to determine and assist the Court to decide on the lawfulness of a CLTPA detention for the purposes of judicial review, can the Minister confirm if the Courts will be able to do so? More fundamentally, would it not be more propitious for Parliament to extend real scope to the Judiciary to review the Minister's decision in the case of CLTPA detentions, particularly since detainees cannot challenge the evidence against them in an open Court, notwithstanding the Executive check available by way of the Advisory Committee under the Act?
I understand the Minister spoke about the constitution of the Advisory Committee in his Second Reading speech and the idea of including judges as part of the Advisory Committee. Just as a matter of clarification, does this not conflate the role of the Executive and the Judiciary? I would like the Minister's views on that.
The third point I wish to make extends to the inclusion of clause 8 which covers section 48(1) of the Organised Crime Act (OCA) in Schedule 4 of the Bill extends the reach of CLTPA, by way of legislation, to individuals who participate or facilitate a serious crime overseas. This is a significant shift in the reach and ambit of CLTPA and I do have some questions in this regard.
What is the threshold of participation or facilitation in a serious crime overseas as defined by section 48(1) of the OCA before the CLTPA can be employed against an individual? Does the Minister have any examples of criminals having facilitated or participated in crimes overseas only for the Government to be bereft of any legal options to bring such individuals to justice? More narrowly, would the detention of an individual arising from section 48(1) of the OCA under CLTPA require the Minister to include evidence or the results of investigations from a foreign counterpart in his GD or would some other standard apply and, if so, what would that standard be? Or would it be up to the Minister, in step with the amendment proposed in clause 3 that his decision is final and there is, for all practical purposes, very little scope for any enquiry into this matter, if any at all?
Finally, and in this context, does the Minister foresee the CLTPA to be employed against foreigners who commit crimes overseas and who may be members of or in the employ of a Singaporean or local criminal syndicate? Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite being named the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the CLTPA has been renewed multiple times since it was first enacted as an ordinance in 1955 to deal with secret societies and gangsters, as the Minister has explained, at a time when these societies were rampant in Singapore and presented a real material threat to public safety, peace and good order.
Over the years, many Parliamentarians − backbenchers, Opposition MPs and Nominated MPs − have said in this House that the powers the CLTPA gives the Government to detain a suspect without trial may \"nag\" at their conscience. Yet, time and again, this House has affirmed the CLTPA as a blunt but necessary tool, a tool of final resort, to battle against organised criminals in all their forms, a tool to protect law-abiding citizens who might be deterred from reporting or testifying about crimes due to the threat of reprisal.
I note from the statistics that the Minister has shown today that the number of suspects detained under the Act has fallen from more than 300 to just 100 in the past 10 years. I support, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hard choice that has ultimately, and always been made over the past few years, and multiple years actually, to revive the CLTPA. However, the amendment Bill before us today is different in certain respects. Allow me to focus my speech just on clause 3.
At first glance, this clause has trouble. Yes, the proposed Fourth Schedule helpfully lists, for the first time, the \"activities of a criminal nature\" the CLTPA covers. But clause 3 makes \"final\" the Minister's decision as to whether a person has been associated with CLTPA criminal activities, whether it is necessary for a person to be subject to Police supervision and, importantly, whether it is necessary for a person to be detained. I was originally concerned for two broad reasons.
First, the amendment proposed in clause 3 could effectively liken CLTPA section 30 with section 8B(2) of ISA. The ISA's 8B(2) expressly ousts \"judicial review in any Court of any act done or decision made by the … Minister\". Judicial review, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an important check on a Minister’s administrative power in CLTPA and legislation as a whole. It is confined at common law to reviewing the illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality of a decision-making process, Ministerial or otherwise.
It is thus reassuring that, today, the Minister has said that this judicial review will continue to be available. Without the Court's review, there is fear that investigators, however skilled they may be, may make errors, that they might prefer to proceed under the CLTPA where there is insufficient evidence to sustain charges under a host of other statutes. And Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say there are many. There is the OCA of 2015, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Remote Gambling Act, the Common Gaming Houses Act, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, just to name a few. And, of course, there is the Penal Code.
All these pieces of legislation, read together with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), allows for judicial supervision and due process, the hallmarks of the administration of criminal justice in Singapore. Therefore, there was my concern that the judicial review process would have been removed from CLTPA by this clause.
Mr Speaker, Sir, safeguards must always be put in place to ensure that the investigative powers are not misused and to weed out mistakes that can happen from time to time.
It cannot be said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the CLTPA's Criminal Law Advisory Committee can serve as a check on investigators' or the Minister's powers. After all, this particular body performs only an advisory function and has no decision-making powers of its own under CLTPA. I appreciate, Mr Speaker, that the Minister has clarified that, as of March this year, there will be a sitting judge who sits as the Chair of this Advisory Committee. But can I ask, for the purpose of clarification, whether the constitution of this committee and the purpose of this committee would change? Would it be transformed into a decision-making body? I do not suppose so, but I have that clarification. Nor should the onerous task of being a check on investigators fall on the President who confirms DOs under section 31 of the CLTPA. In these circumstances, what obligations can we expect to be imposed in due course on the Criminal Law Police Supervisees through subsidiary legislation?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was deeply concerned at first glance that history is repeating itself, when I first read the amendment Bill. I was reminded of the Court of Appeal's decision in 1988 in Chng Suan Tze vs Public Prosecutor where a case was legislatively overruled. I asked myself why should we wind the clock back 20 years to 1988? Why reverse the Courts when the Minister just yesterday so convincingly reminded us of the need to trust the Court’s wisdom, regardless of whether we agree with the decision?
Again, I am reassured today, that this is not the case. That the purpose of this amendment Bill is not to parliamentarily override the case of Dan Tan and the apex Court's decision. But if this is the case, may I just ask the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, as to why we are having the finality clause, or the words \"final\" to be included now, after all these years, within this statute? If it is not to reverse Dan Tan or other similar cases, why should we do so now? If the decision, as we know from the Court of Appeal case in Dan Tan, has always been for the Minister to decide, is it necessary to ensure that that decision is final in statute? Having the words, \"it is final\", why now? And why do we have this?
The apex Court's reasoning in Dan Tan at paragraph 74 bears mention, Mr Speaker, and let me just read out the most important sentences. The apex Court, or the Court of Appeal, said, in this case at paragraph 74, \"The CLTPA vests a potentially draconian power in the Executive…Public safety, peace and good order can cover a wide spectrum of possible scenarios. … It is true that Parliament has vested this power in the Minister; but … the Court is to closely scrutinise the grounds put forward by the Minister and consider objectively whether, on the face of these grounds, the decision is open to challenge on the basis of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety\".
In the face of what the apex Court describes as a \"potentially draconian power\", I fear, and I would like some reassurance, as to whether the proposed amendments may ultimately have the effect of limiting the scope of judicial check on the Executive.
As an example, on the of-chance if someone were to challenge a DO in Court, would the Court's role be confined to verifying almost as a clerical matter that the paper work is in order, that it includes a bare recitation by and on behalf of the Minister that his decision is such and, therefore, is final, and that he acts with the Public Prosecutor's consent? The apex Court in Dan Tan flatly rejected such a narrow role and held that the Court may and, indeed, should examine whether the power vested in the Minister is being properly invoked.
I ask, how would the public, Mr Speaker, Sir, be assured that the GD without trial or continuous Police supervision in a particular case is not procedurally improper, illegal and/or irrational? Given the Court of Appeal's reasoning, may I make one simple and humble recommendation? In addition to having, as we do now, as I have learnt just today, that there will be a sitting judge who chairs this Advisory Committee, may I suggest humbly that the written statement of the GD or Police supervision that is made under the CLTPA's section 31 and that is shown to the Advisory Committee be also made available to a judicial review Court if the case so arises? I ask for this because I know that, even in the case of Dan Tan, this particular written notice was not made available to the Court of Appeal.
Finally, let me end, Mr Speaker, Sir, with a word. Let me say that we should think of the fact that there will be others who will occupy the august office of the Minister. The Minister, as he reminded us even yesterday, is in a unique and special position, having been for many years a Senior Counsel and then a public servant. Should we be mindful of future Ministers of Law who may not have the same set of skills, who may not have had the benefit of doing criminal defence litigation work or even representing people who have been detained without trial? So, looking forward, if there could be any safeguards which limit this, that would be perfect.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to intervene. I thought if I dealt with one or two points in Asst Prof Mohan's speech, it might help the other Members in the House in their speeches so that we do not go off tangent.
I think the crux of the Member's points is that: is judicial review available, and is clause 3 seeking to curtail that?
First, judicial review is available. Second, it is available on the grounds that the Dan Tan case sets out. Let us be clear about it. Third, I think Asst Prof Mohan would be aware, if you ask any half-decent constitutional lawyer, he will tell you that it is available, that such a clause does not oust judicial review. It cannot do so. I am more than happy to confirm it.
So, judicial review, on the grounds they have set, they are not clerks looking at our records, they are judges, and they are entitled to judicially review our decisions, and they have set out on what grounds. And the Government accepts those grounds. Clause 3 does not oust that jurisdiction. Clause 3 simply sets out the current position which they themselves set out in Dan Tan that they will not substitute their views for the Minister's views on the facts. That is all that clause 3 does – crystalise the position as set out in Dan Tan. So, I hope Members will be aware of this as they make their speeches, otherwise, we will be dealing with an issue, of judicial review, which is not the focus of these amendments.
Why is it necessary to set out that it is final? That is the current position; so, we set it out clearly. The Minister's position will not be looked at by the Courts. It is there in the Dan Tan case. It is there in the other cases. So, we set it out. And so, the passages that the Member read out from the Dan Tan case on judicial review continue to apply.
I also should tell Members that, prior to me, the Minister was not a lawyer – and one of his complaints was that none of his three officeholders was a lawyer – Minister for Home Affairs. And yet, if you saw the charts on the number of detentions, a fair number of the trend took place during his tenure.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh. Keep it short.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order, when I made my speech just now, I did not declare that I was a lawyer in practice.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. Mr Speaker, this is the 14th time this so-called temporary Act in its various forms has come before Parliament, or its predecessor, for renewal for another five years. At the last renewal in 2013, this Act was extended for five years from 21 October 2014, which means that it is only due to lapse in October 2019.
The most controversial and draconian aspect of this Act is the fact that this law puts people behind bars without the usual due process. Like the ISA, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he can be detained in prison. To take away someone's liberty like this is not something we should ever take lightly to.
Under the existing section 30, the Minister can order detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. Under section 30, the Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to this supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years if he is satisfied that it is still necessary. We should also not regard supervision order lightly as such orders impose restrictions on a person's movements and activities, and they impact on his work and liberty.
The time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be renewed indefinitely. This must never be taken lightly.
Mr Speaker, in each of the previous occasions when Parliament debated the initial Bill and the subsequent renewals of the Act, many Members had spoken about their concerns about the undesirability of this Act and how soon Singapore can mature into a society where we can do away with this Act.
Many Members have also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes of criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and MPs' speeches in the Hansard that these range from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection rackets, to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts as well as communist domination.
Mr Speaker, today, at the 14th renewal of the Act, we are not asked merely to consider the extension of the Act based on identical provisions. The Ministry is proposing some important amendments. My biggest concern with this Bill is with the proposed amendments in section 30. The Bill proposes to make every decision of the Minister on the matter in the current section 35 final. The explanatory note to this Bill details three matters: (a) that a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature; (b) that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order; and (c) that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police.
These are the applying criteria leading to the Minister making a decision to make a detention or supervision order. The proposed amendment is a disconcerting change to the existing provisions of the Act. I take the view that the proposed amendment will take away the existing rights of detainees under the current law to seek judicial review by our Courts in respect of the appropriateness of the Minister's decision to order any detention or supervision, specifically whether the Minister was correct in deciding that the person was appropriately associated with the type of criminal activities coming within the Act, or whether the Minister was correct in his decision that it was necessary for the person to be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and order, or whether the Minister was right in deciding that it was necessary to subject the person to the supervision of the Police. I am concerned that, if passed, the Minister's decision on these aspects of his order can no longer be challenged even if the Minister's decision exceeds the scope of his powers.
In respect of the Minister's clarifications and his comments earlier, may I seek the Minister's clarification whether the amendment that the Government is seeking would bar the Courts from objectively reviewing the matters that the amendment wants to now declare the Minister's decision as final?
Until now, judicial review is available to detainees to challenge the Minister's order if, for example, the Minister had not acted in his scope of powers. An order can be scrutinised by the Courts if it is illegal, irrational or if there is procedural impropriety. This is confirmed again by the Court of Appeal case of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney-General. As the Court of Appeal held in that case, the Courts' power for review is not to review the truth of the allegations of fact found in the grounds given for the detention, but to scrutinise the grounds given to justify the detention to see whether the Minister acted within the scope of his powers.
Let me attempt to summarise what the Court of Appeal has stated on the scope of the Minister's powers as it is a helpful reminder of the present principles governing the scope of the Minister's powers under the Act.
One, the normal course of dealing with the criminals will be by way of prosecution in Court and recourse to CLTPA will be in limited circumstances where normal legal processes could not be relied upon due to reprisals to witnesses.
Two, the Court listed certain specific types of crimes and stated that the offences must have the following unifying characteristics: threat of violence and reprisal to intimidate witnesses; detainees associated with criminal activities of a serious nature, not just any criminal activity; the offences must pose harm to public order in Singapore. The Court of Appeal stated, by way of example, the activities of gangsters, secret societies and syndicated crime gangs involved in violent crimes all affect peace, safety and public order.
In the Dan Tan case, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and quashed his DO under the Act. The Court held that the facts and activities provided in the grounds were not sufficiently serious to fall within the scope of the Act, and also that it was not clear whether the activity stated had a bearing on the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. The Court of Appeal's decisive judgment confirmed the importance of the Court's role in ensuring that the Minister's order must fall within the scope of his powers under the current law. There is no doubt that the proposed amendment is a response to the Court's decision in Dan Tan's case.
Judicial review is an integral component of the rule of law. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in his speech on the rule of law at the annual meeting of the American Law Institute in May 2016 when he commented on the Court's judgment in Dan Tan's case, and I quote, \"Judicial review is the sharp edge that keeps the government action within the form and substance of the law\". Is this sharp edge going to be taken away from the existing section 30 of CLTPA by our amendments today?
New Zealand high court judge, Justice Matthew Palmer, in his speech touching on the rule of law and judicial review as the Kwa Geok Choo distinguished visitor at the National University of Singapore on 20 January 2016 said, \"I consider that the availability of the law of judicial review to test the legality of exercises of public power is a direct manifestation of the rule of law. If a public body purports to exercise public power in a specific instance, those concerned with the exercise must be able to ask an independent body – the Courts – whether the exercise of public power accorded with law. If it did, no harm is done by testing the question and, indeed, public confidence in law and government is enhanced. If an exercise of public power were not made according to law, then the rule of law requires that be addressed, as it is when any other decision-maker acts inconsistently with law. To leave the decision to the Executive branch, untested, is to leave the effective determination of the law – a judicial function – to the Executive.\" I agree with what Justice Palmer had said.
Is the change in section 30 really necessary? Is it right or fair to dispose of such safeguards now? After 13 renewals, is this not a step backward? I will leave this point on this note.
I next have a clarification for the Minister. I note that the Minister has told us earlier about the latest development that judges would be chairing the Advisory Committee. But I seem to recall that what the Minister has said may be different from his suggestion in Parliament in 1989. Under the present system, the advisory committee, with the judges as the chair, will still have to report to the Cabinet, which will advise the President. That is what I understand the present system is. And, for ease of understanding, may I just quote the Minister's remarks in his speech in 1989, at the Second Reading of the renewal Bill then.
\"The ISA can be justified under our circumstances. But the CLTPA, there may be more questions, and it has to be accepted that we cannot ever eliminate crime. We can only control it within acceptable tolerable limits.
So, the Minister has to focus on that and tell the House whether, at the present stage, the situation is such that secret societies, gangsters, the original justification, continues to exist at the same level of seriousness which justifies powers of administrative detention. If it does so, then I will still ask that the Minister consider one structural change to the existing provision. This is to ensure that CLTPA is not abused.
At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention; the Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decide on the detention but perhaps, powers of review be given to the Courts. The reason I say that is, if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then presumably, the Act can be worded such that the Courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision and then come down on the side of the Minister.
If Courts disagree and the judges disagree, then again, the Minister's decision will be overturned. So, remove it from the President to the Executive and give the power to the Courts. This is not to suggest that it has been abused but only to prevent CLTPA from being a convenient route where the Police do not have sufficient evidence against common criminals to prosecute them in Court and, therefore, use CLTPA. The Minister is a busy man. He has to rely on the reports that are put up to him by his Police Force. And the Police do not have the monopoly of virtue and morality more than any of us. So, that is an important point and that particular provision worries me.\"
So, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification whether what the Minister has in mind, as he introduced a short while ago, is similar to what he had said in his speech in 1989. But it seems to me to be slightly different. And, if it is different, perhaps I would like the Minister to share with the House why does he not propose to the House that we go the whole hog to what he suggested in 1989.
I next move on to the suggestion for the reduction of reporting period to the Advisory Committee.
Mr Speaker, currently, section 31 requires the Minister to refer every order to an Advisory Committee within 28 days of making the order. I would like to ask the Minister to review the timeline of 28 days. Why do we need 28 days? It seems like a long time for such a referral. I am sure that when an order is made by the Minister, the Public Prosecutor and the Police would have and should have already carried out proper investigation and inquiries to reach the conclusion that an order is necessary. So, the paperwork should not need much more time after the order has been given. I would like to propose that in the interest of justice, this period should be reduced to 14 days. This will also be in line with the extended period of detention accorded for a Police investigation under section 44(3) of the Act.
Finally, I read in The Straits Times' report of 10 January 2018 that the obligations and restrictions under PSOs will be shifted to subsidiary legislation and that this move will give the Minister greater flexibility in imposing the necessary conditions and curbs. I would like to ask the Minister what will be the changes in the conditions and curbs and the so-called flexibility that the Minister is seeking.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I do not agree with the proposed amendments in section 30 of the current Act. And for that, I am unable to support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a disputes lawyer occasionally dealing with criminal cases, including matters involving CLTPA.
The CLTPA was enacted in 1955 for an initial period of five years to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order. As highlighted in the title of the Act itself, the provisions of the Act were meant to be temporary to address threats to public safety and order in Singapore as necessary. In 1955, this was to address threats posed by secret societies and gangsters. Since then, the nature of the threats has expanded and evolved to include criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, murder, gang rape, robbery with firearms, syndicated crime organisations, unlicensed moneylending and human trafficking. These are all serious criminal activities that have been mentioned during the Second Reading of earlier amendment Bills to extend the Act. Because of this, Parliament has deemed it necessary to extend the Act for a further successive period of five years each time, which is now due to expire on 20 October 2019.
Whilst the extension of the Act continues to allow for preventive detention without trial, that concept itself nags my conscience, to use the words of Parliamentarians in the House before. In light of the hard facts that the threat of such serious crimes continues to exist to seriously threaten our public order and safety in Singapore, I feel compelled to support this Bill.
In arriving at this conclusion, I am aware that the statistics show that DOs are on the downtrend principally because the CLTPA is used as a matter of last resort.
My assessment though is that the current situation is reversible. The hon Minister's narration of how, just in 2017, two gangs were crippled using the CLTPA, is evidence of this. The elements that promote secret societies and gang-related crimes are far from being \"licked\". They have been around for decades. Their roots are deeply embedded within our society. We also need to be mindful about the crime and drug environment just outside our borders, too. In my assessment, there is a danger that secret society activities and gang-related crimes in Singapore may proliferate in Singapore if we were to allow these exceptional measures to deal with such problems to expire at this point in time. For this reason, I support the extension of the Bill for another five years.
Notwithstanding my position, I have a few queries for the Minister. This Bill seeks to amend the Act to extend the operation of the Act for a further five years beginning on 21 October 2019. Given that this Act is only due to expire on 20 October 2019, it appears rather early to seek an extension of the Act approximately 20 months before it is due to expire. This amounts to about one-third of the five-year extension period.
Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I be allowed to distribute a handout to hon Members of the House?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, hon Members of the House would note from the table the length of time between the First Reading of the amendment Bill and the expiry date of the Act for the period 1969 to 2013. It is apparent from the table that this is the earliest time before the expiry of the Act that an extension has been sought.
The sunset clause in the Act is a safeguard to ensure periodic scrutiny by Parliament. This allows Parliament to be apprised of the prevailing landscape, in particular, to consider the prevalence of serious crimes and weigh it against the need for public safety and order, so as to decide if the original justification and basis for the Act continue. Seeking an extension too early before expiry of the Act thus reduces the effect of the safeguard, as Parliament would not have the benefit of being apprised of the most current crime, security and drug situation in Singapore close to the expiry of the Act, to decide whether or not to extend it.
I recognise that the present Bill also seeks to make amendments to other provisions of the Act. However, these other amendments may be dealt with separately within the five-year period the Act is in force, so that such amendments would not take away from the issue of whether there is a basis for Parliament to extend the operation of the Act. This was done before on several occasions in this House. For example, in 1981, before extension was sought in 1984, the Act was amended to enable detainees to be temporarily released from custody so that they could engage in outside employment to facilitate their rehabilitation.
I would be grateful if the hon Minister could please explain why the Government has decided to seek an extension of the Act at this point in time, which is quite some time far away from the expiry of the Act. Recognising that Parliament would need to be apprised of the latest security landscape in order to consider the case for extension of the Act, what is the Government's policy framework that determines when Parliamentary approval to extend the Act would be sought?
I seek further clarifications on the proposed amendments to section 30 of the Act and hon Members have spoken about this, in particular, the decision to make the Minister's decision final. On the issue of whether or not a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, I understand from the Minister's clarification that the proposed amendment was meant to, if I could use the word, \"codify\" the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Tan Seet Eng, in that the Court recognised that the Minister is competent to determine whether a person's detention would be in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Is it also meant to \"codify\" the judicial review approach taken by the Court of Appeal, meaning to employ what is known as the traditional test of illegality, irrational or procedural impropriety on an objective plane? If so, would it not run the danger of the Court not being able to update its approach to judicial review of Executive action in the future as our society develops?
Another proposed amendment to section 30 is to define \"activities of a criminal nature\" to a list of activities specified in the Fourth Schedule. This is a departure from the previously taken position opting not to specify a list of offences or criminal activities for which the Act would be deployed. I understand from the hon Minister that this is to promote clarity on what kind of activities are contemplated.
In specifying a list of \"activities of a criminal nature\", I am concerned that this would unduly tie down the Minister's hands. As the then Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr S Iswaran said in this House in 2013, \"criminal groups reorganise and rework themselves constantly\" and \"new forms of serious criminal activities evolve in a borderless world, assisted by advances in technology\". Recognising this, specifying a list of the type of criminal activities may instead inhibit our ability to keep pace with creative criminals and possibly dampen the deterrent effect of the Act.
For example, it is very possible that illegal betting activities may entail activities of a sufficiently serious criminal nature to fall within the Act. As has been said in this House on a number of occasions, and which has been distilled by the Court of Appeal in the Tan Seet Eng's case, the main unifying features for offences for which this Act was meant to apply are: first, they feature situations where witnesses fear to testify because of reprisal against them; second, they are of a sufficiently serious nature; and third, they pose a threat to the public order in Singapore. In this context, the amendment to restrict the type or categories of criminal activity may cause us to be less nimble in tackling the evolving types of criminal activities. I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on this point.
One last point. I am heartened to note the Minister's confirmation that even in respect of the specified types of criminal activities listed in the proposed Fourth Schedule, the activities must still be one of sufficiently serious nature and involve issues concerning public safety, peace and good order of Singapore to fall within the ambit of section 30 to warrant detention. This is important to ensure that the powers are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Again, just to be clear, section 30, clause 3, is not intended to deal with judicial review. It is to deal with the Minister's position being final, which is the position today – final in the sense that you cannot appeal on the facts for a different view of the facts to another body. That is what it is meant. And if you look at the cases, that is the legal position. It is not intended to touch on judicial review, on the classic principles that had been set out. As to why we have set out in the Schedule, it is precisely for the reason that the Member has said, to put some constraint and put it out clearly which legislation. It may act as a constraint but it is also clear and it is better.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer working in a firm that practises criminal law. Sir, as my Workers' Party colleagues have said before me, we are unable to support the Bill this time.
Sir, at each renewal of the Act, Members of Parliament are asked to consider whether the prevailing circumstances are such that we still need this law.
On the one hand, we know that Singaporeans want Singapore to be a safe place to live in for ourselves and our families. At the same time, we are very mindful of the tradeoffs of giving the Government too much power to detain people without a fair trial as power can always be abused. This is all the more so when we are dealing with powers that deprive people of their liberty for years.
During the past renewals of this Act, the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the Constitutional right to freedom. We did not delight in taking this position but did so with a heavy heart. This time, however, our view is that the Government has gone too far. How so?
My colleagues Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan have already set out grave concerns about the Bill's apparent curtailment of judicial oversight. For my part, I will focus on three points: first, the timing of this renewal; secondly, the dangers of adding the Fourth Schedule to the Act; and thirdly, add my voice to the disapproval of clause 3 making the Minister's decision to detain final.
First, the timing of this renewal. I agree totally with the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai and am surprised that Parliament is being asked to extend the Act now, in February 2018, when the current Act only expires in October 2019, 20 months from now, towards the end of next year.
Past debates for renewals of this Act did not have such a long timeline. The hon Member Mr Murali Pillai produced a table. For my part, I did the counting from the Second Reading of the Bill, not the First Reading, which is in Mr Murali Pillai's chart. And from my counting, the last debate for renewal was in November 2013, less than a year before its expiry date in October 2014. The previous two renewals, in 2009 and 2004, were debated even closer to the expiry date – between one month and eight months of the Act's expiry.
Why is the timing of the renewal important? It is important because, at each renewal, Members are asked to consider the prevailing crime and order situation then, and to decide whether an extension of the Act is justified for another five years. The Government itself has refrained from making the Act permanent, which means that, at each renewal, Members must satisfy themselves that the Act is needed for the next five years.
Today, Parliament is asked to assess that the circumstances justify the renewal of the Act, from October 2019 to October 2024. Notwithstanding that the Minister earlier shared with the House on the crime situation both here and regionally, how do we know what the situation will be like towards the end of next year? Things can always change. How will Parliament make a reasonable assessment of prevailing circumstances so far ahead of time? Does this not make a mockery of the careful consideration Parliament is to exercise when assessing whether prevailing circumstances justify a renewal of this draconian law? In my view, it is premature of MHA to come to Parliament now to ask for a renewal of the Act.
Next, I move on to the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 introduces a new Fourth Schedule to include a list of offences which the Minister can detain a person for. In MHA's press release of 9 January, it is stated that the purpose of the new Fourth Schedule is to “restrict the powers of the Minister by clarifying the scope of criminal activities under the Act”. But as I read the Bill, this is not true. The Bill, in fact, increases the Minister’s powers.
Why do I say that the Bill increases the Minister’s powers? Yes, the current Act does not list which kinds of criminal activities would make a person liable to be detained. But that does not mean that the Minister currently has carte blanche to detain anyone he pleases. In the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal of Tan Seet Eng vs Attorney General [2016] 1 SLR 779 referred to earlier, the apex Court made it very clear that the Minister’s powers under the current Act are quite limited. In Dan Tan's case, the Court of Appeal did a thorough examination of the origins and purposes of the Act and also scrutinised Parliamentary debates on past renewals of the Act. The Court then came to some important conclusions.
First, the judges concluded that the CLTPA did not cover all offences but only criminal activities where trials in Court could not proceed due to threats of harm against witnesses or their families. Secondly, the detainee must have been involved in a criminal activity of a sufficiently serious nature to justify detention without trial. Thirdly, the criminal activity must pose harm to the public order within Singapore.
In Dan Tan’s case, the Court found that the GD alleged that he was the mastermind of a global soccer match-fixing syndicate, but the effect of his plans was felt in other countries and did not affect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Earlier, in the Minister's speech and interventions, he appeared to be somewhat watering down the effect of the Dan Tan judgment.
But if I may be permitted to make my own assessment of the significance of the judgment, the Courts made it very clear that it had a duty to objectively assess whether the Minister's Statement of Facts is coherent and within the legal scope of the Act giving him those powers. The Court stated very clearly that its role was not limited to applying a subjective test as to whether the Minister believes that he is making the correct DO, but it was much more than that. The Court had to look at the legal framework provided by the Act, what the Act is set out to achieve, the mischief it seeks to cure and whether the case made out by the Government on its face furthers that purpose. And because the Court was not satisfied that the first DO against Dan Tan furthered the purpose of CLTPA, the Court found that the Act could not apply to such a case and declared the first detention illegal, ordering him to be released.
Sir, bearing in mind what the Court has said, will this Bill now restrict the Minister’s powers, as MHA says, or, in fact, expand them?
Let us examine the effect of the inclusion of the new Fourth Schedule. The Schedule will likely short-circuit the assessment process of cases suitable for detention. In other words, the inclusion of the Schedule may enable the Minister to bypass answering questions as to whether a case is “serious enough” to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court. Concerns have already been raised publicly by several lawyers and academics that the Bill potentially allows persons to be detained for alleged activities of a more minor nature, now that there is a list of defined activities in the Fourth Schedule.
Another striking feature of the activities listed in the new Schedule is item 9, participation in, or facilitating, any organised crime activity as defined in the OCA 2015. What will this mean if the Bill is passed? This will mean that the scope of the CLTPA will be expanded to cover activities that are done overseas or that may not pose a threat to the public order within Singapore.
Earlier in the Minister's Second Reading speech, I noted that he was very careful to say the Schedule consisted of crimes or activities that have been previously mentioned in the House and it also brings in the OCA, which I take to mean he recognises that the inclusion of the OCA is something new, not discussed or contemplated by the previous discussions on the CLTPA.
Sir, under section 48 of our OCA, actions done abroad are considered to be “organised crime activities”, so long as they are done by an organised group with local links. These activities could take place completely in countries far away.
In addition, by referring to OCA in the CLPTA Schedule, the Government is importing into the CLTPA the concept of “serious crime” under OCA. But the OCA considers to be “serious crime” a wide variety of offences, including many crimes that are fundamentally economic or financial in nature. The list of such crimes includes Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud, dealing in goods for which customs duty is not paid, illegal betting, computer misuse and infringements of copyright and trademarks. Do such types of cases typically come up for DOs under CLTPA? I do not think so.
Sir, the OCA already has its own ways of dealing with organised crime, which MHA recommended and Parliament only recently adopted in 2015. By now linking the OCA to CLTPA, enabling criminal law detention for OCA cases, is the new Schedule not expanding the Minister’s powers under CLTPA?
The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan’s case has pronounced that the CLTPA is only meant to protect the public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Contrary to what MHA has said, the inclusion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 clearly expands the Minister’s powers to police criminal activities overseas and expands the kinds of activities that are subject to the Act. In effect, the Bill makes the Minister a global policeman, with no equal in the world. This is a position too arrogant for this House to support.
Sir, next, I move on to clause 3, which purports to make the Minister's GD \"final\". Sir, the attempt to make the Minister all-powerful under clause 8 is even more toxic when one looks at clause 3, which states that \"every decision\" of the Minister to exercise detention powers under section 30(1) \"is final\". Other Members have raised their concerns about the clause. I will only add a few points to the chorus of concern.
Sir, the Courts' powers in judicial review are already very limited. As my Workers' Party colleagues and other Members have said, the principles of judicial review are well-established. When a Court is asked to review a Government decision, it will overturn the Government's decision only if it finds that the decision was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. Our judges are well aware that they are not Ministers and should not be the ones exercising executive discretion. Earlier in his speech, I believe the Minister clearly understands these principles.
So, what is the justification for the Government to introduce clause 3? The Minister keeps saying and saying that it is not intended to change the legal position, it is meant to preserve judicial review. But it is a tenet of interpretation that Parliament does not legislate in vain.
Earlier, if I heard Mr Christopher de Souza correctly, he attempted to suggest that clause 3 was merely meant to clarify the current position. But if one looks at the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, it does not say as such. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says that this Bill seeks to amend the CLTPA for the following purposes and the first purpose is to provide that the Minister’s decision would be final on these points.
This is very troubling. If what the Minister is saying is correct, that is, clause 3 is not meant to change anything, then why introduce it at all? Why not leave it as the status quo, instead of causing confusion and possible problems down the road about what this clause is meant to cover?
Sir, it is quite clear that the Government is not infallible and does make mistakes. Dan Tan's detention illustrates this. Instead of welcoming the Court's clarification, the Government comes to Parliament with this finality clause. As MPs, it is important for us to pause and ask: what is the public interest here? Why is clause 3 necessary? Does the public interest not demand that we defend rigorously the Courts' Constitutional duty to ensure that the Government acts lawfully?
Sir, the CLTPA has been in force since 1955. And for more than 60 years, no Minister has come forward to ask for a finality clause on his DOs. We find this very troubling.
Sir, let me summarise. As I mentioned earlier, I have my reservations about the timing of this Bill, as I believe that to renew the Act now to take effect in October next year is premature.
More importantly, the Workers' Party does not see any justification to introduce a finality clause as proposed in clause 3. In addition, I find the insertion of the Fourth Schedule under clause 8 to be dangerous, as it clearly expands the Minister’s powers rather than restricts them as claimed by MHA.
The Bill will expand the scope of the CLTPA beyond its original intention of safeguarding peace and good order in Singapore. These clauses will repose in the Minister of Home Affairs too much discretion and power, not only at home, but well beyond our shores. We find this proposal untenable. For these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, unlike speakers before me, they are all lawyers. I am addressing this Bill from a layman's view, as someone who does feel uncomfortable with detention without trial.
In the 2017 and 2018 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore was ranked 13th globally for the Rule of Law, which I think is a good ranking on the state of our judicial system and how much we have upheld the principle of Rule of Law.
Today, we are here debating on this very difficult and important Bill, the extension of the operation of the CLTPA.
Mr Speaker, I recognise the tensions between wanting to balance protection of the rights of an accused and to ensure that our society is protected against serious crimes and to keep crime rates low. This provision, however, departs from two fundamental principles of the Rule of Law – the right to a fair trial and that individuals should be governed largely by the law and not by discretion.
It is true that the crimes which the CLTPA seeks to prevent are no doubt serious and involves complex considerations. But are there other options and measures that might be less intrusive than detention without trial, yet equally effective to address the problem which the CLTPA seeks to achieve? Has the Government, before taking the decision to extend the operation of the CLTPA, considered these options? Can the Government share with the House what these options are and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses?
Mr Speaker, my point is that if there are security measures that impose less deprivation of the accused's rights and at the same time are as effective as detention without trial in addressing the security issue, then such options that intrude less on the rights of an accused should always be preferred.
While the threats which the CLTPA address involve a severe nature, it does not lead to an automatic conclusion that the only way to deal with these serious threats is by detaining individuals without trial. It is a policy choice that we make and one that requires robust justification backed by concrete evidence.
Mr Speaker, as this House debates the extension of the operation of the CLTPA for the 14th time, I hope that as we continue to justify its existence and relevance to today’s context, we do not forget about having a meaningful debate on the reduction of our reliance on the CLTPA. I note from the Minister's statement that the number of people detained under CLTPA has gone low. However, as its name suggests, this Bill was meant to be temporary.
One of the justifications for the retention of this Bill is that there are difficulties with prosecuting those detained, as involved witnesses fear reprisals should they testify in Court. This is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. But it points to a larger discussion as to whether there is sufficient protection of witnesses in general under our laws rather than the continuing existence of the CLTPA. There have been proposed amendments to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to enhance protection of witnesses recently. The Cybersecurity Bill, which was passed yesterday in this same House, contains a provision to protect informants.
We should re-evaluate the necessity of the CLTPA in light of these new measures to protect witnesses and consider tweaking witness protection methods to better protect witnesses to offences which the CLTPA are applicable, rather than to continue relying on detaining individuals without trial as part of the overall security strategy.
Mr Speaker, detention without trial is by all means an exceptional measure which I principally disagree with. By further extending the CLTPA, I worry that it normalises and desensitises society to its extreme nature and further entrenches the necessity of the CLTPA. All in all, I hope we keep with the spirit of the CLTPA, which was originally set out only to be of a temporary nature meant to address a unique set of problems arising from a specific period of time.
Mr Speaker, I turn now to discuss the proposed amendments to the CLTPA.
One of the amendments, clause 3, states that the Minister's decision to detain an individual or subject him to a supervisory order is final. Many Members have talked about it, and the Minister has clarified. However, after going back and forth, I wonder if perhaps this particular change could be reworded or be removed to avoid any more misrepresentations, because we can hear that so many people, and they are all lawyers, who have been asking for clarifications and we do not want in future that it be misread.
Mr Speaker, the Minister has unequivocally said that the Judiciary is a co-equal and important branch of the Government. Its constitutional duty in reviewing the legality of the acts of the Executive must be respected and protected by other branches of the Government.
Each time the approval from Parliament to extend the operation of CLTPA is sought, the question of the sufficiency of safeguard of this Bill remains in the forefront. We have heard the Minister outlining the six steps of safeguarding. My position is that the safeguards to prevent an abuse of powers under the CLTPA is not sufficiently robust as the checks and balances are largely undertaken by the Executive, save for the consent of the Public Prosecutor and not by another independent arm of the Government.
Let me explain. Under section 30 of the CLTPA, while there is an Advisory Committee that will submit a report with recommendations on the Minister’s order to the President, the Advisory Committee's recommendation remains non-binding. As such, even if the Advisory Committee recommends that the individual not be detained, the Minister is not legally obliged to follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
Further, while the President may confirm, vary or cancel the Minister’s orders, the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet which also comprises the Minister who made that order. This seems almost like a case of the Executive checking on itself. So, if and when the Cabinet’s advice contradicts that of the Advisory Committee, how does the President make her decision? What if the President is of the same view as the Advisory Committee, but different from that of the Cabinet, what would happen next?
Mr Speaker, while there is no evidence that the powers of the CLTPA have been abused, the commitment to ensure sufficient independent safeguards is not to question the integrity of the decision-maker but precisely to prevent such an abuse and to refine decision-making. Given that detention without trial involves a serious deprivation of one’s liberty, should there not be more oversight rather than less?
Moreover, the introduction of the Fourth Schedule to limit the types of offences which the CLTPA is applicable is an implicit recognition that all powers must have legal limits. Consistent with the fundamental rule of law principle that all powers have legal limits, scrutiny of the Minister’s decision by another independent arm of the Government − the Judiciary − is an important check and balance.
With this, Mr Speaker, and at this moment through this debate, I find myself not able to support the terms that are proposed in these amendments.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now and suspend the Sitting for 20 minutes. I will take the Chair at 2.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.10 pm until 2.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the need to extend the CLTPA every five years is an important safeguard which ensures Parliamentary scrutiny to ensure there is continuing need for the Executive to exercise the exceptional powers under the CLTPA.
It bears reminding that the power to detain without trial under the Act is a significant exception to the fundamental rule of law principle enshrined under Article 9 of our Constitution that no person should be deprived of liberty without a fair trial.
Indeed, during the Second Reading debate in 2013 when the Act was last renewed, Minister S Iswaran provided the guarantee that “the Government will always make a rigorous case based on a thorough assessment of all circumstances and the criminal landscape each time we seek Parliament’s approval to extend the CLTPA”.
While I understand the continuing public order and security pressures that justify the exercise of these powers, we should never forget the extraordinary nature of the CLTPA and closely examine the grounds for the Act every time it comes up for renewal.
My Facebook post seeking public feedback on the Bill has generated a fair bit of comments. These amendments clearly concern many Singaporeans and I would like to raise four points for clarification, many of which come directly from members of the public.
The first point was about the judicial review and I am glad that the Minister has clarified this in his speech. That will allay a lot of the concerns on the ground.
My second point is on the Advisory Committee. Can the Minister provide information on the number of cases over the past five years in which the Advisory Committees make a recommendation not to detain but this recommendation was not accepted? If this has happened several times, my concern is that the objective of an independent advisory committee is undermined if a significant number of recommendations not to detain are ignored.
Why might the decision be made against adopting recommendations of the Committee which would have made its recommendation after scrutinising the investigations and documentary evidence, hearing the detainees present their case, and examining the detainees, investigating officers and witnesses? Can the Minister provide some examples as to why a recommendation is not accepted? Also, where its recommendations are not accepted, can reasons be publicly made for such a decision?
Another question raised is why there is a need for the CLTPA to cover the offences under the Fourth Schedule when these are already dealt with under their respective legislation? During the last renewal of the CLTPA, Minister S Iswaran, and today Minister Shanmugan as well, had explained that the CLTPA is intended to complement the other legislation like the OCA and Misuse of Drugs Act by addressing situations where it is not possible to prosecute persons in Court because witnesses are fearful or unwilling to testify.
One suggestion put to me is whether the other legislation can be amended to address the difficulty in securing witness testimony in open Court. Has the Ministry studied other solutions for addressing this problem which will lessen the need to rely on the powers under the CLTPA?
Next, the current sections 33 and 34 set out the restrictions on persons subject to a PSO. The Bill amendments will have the effect of moving these restrictions into subsidiary legislation. Many of these restrictions involve significant limitations on an individual’s personal liberty and freedom of movement. These include restrictions on place of residence, reporting requirements, restrictions on leaving Singapore and curfew requirements.
The rationale provided is that this provides the Minister more flexibility to impose obligations and restrictions on criminal law Police supervision. Given how intrusive some of these measures may be, it would be more desirable for these restrictions to remain under the principal Act where it can be subject to legislative scrutiny.
Can the Minister elaborate on the circumstances that have prompted the move of these restrictions into subsidiary legislation? Are there specific situations in which these powers have proven to be inadequate in providing supervision and what are some examples of further powers that may additionally be required?
Lastly, the new section 47(5A) will extend Police powers to investigate an arrestable offence under section 33(3) to CNB officers. As I raised during the Second Reading of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill last month, extending Police powers to Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers and now CNB officers are an expansion of Executive powers that should always be done cautiously. Can the Minister clarify if these amendments were prompted by challenges faced by the Police in responding adequately to section 33(3) offences?
Sir, I note with appreciation the Government's repeated assertions that the powers under the Act will be exercised judiciously. In the spirit of \"public safety, peace and good order\", I stand in support of this Bill, but I urge the Government to exercise its powers under the CLTPA with great restraint, to provide full GDs, to take into account recommendations of the Advisory Committees, and to also provide reasons when recommendations are not accepted.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The CLTPA should be, going by its name, a temporary one. However, in reality, the Act is not temporary at all. It has lasted for 63 years. Hence, many so-called human rights activists and organisations have called for repealing of the Act. Just last week, I received one such email.
However, I do not think we should be influenced by these human rights organisations. We should objectively study the benefits and shortcomings of this Act. Detention without trial is not unique to Singapore. After 9/11, the UK introduced the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act to allow the Government to arrest people who are suspected of international terrorism and to detain them indefinitely without trial or sentencing by the Court.
In fact, according to a 2014 study by the International Centre for Prison Studies, globally, there are as many as 2.5 million people who are detained without trial. There are more than 200 countries involved, including western countries, such as the United States (US), France, Denmark and Italy. In other words, the practice of detention without trial is not yet ready to be repealed completely at the moment. It is a bit sad. I am not trying to put in good words for bad guys. If the Act is still useful, we have the duty to provide certain safeguards for Singaporeans who are detained without trial.
First, I would like to ask the Minister whether MHA has observed a trend that there are more and more people who are unwilling to come forward to testify in today’s Singapore.
Second, can MHA consider publishing the number of Singaporeans detained under the Act, the reason, the length of detention, and how many have been detained repeatedly.
Third, can MHA consider strengthening the power, influence and responsibility of the Advisory Committee and publish the names of the Committee Members to increase transparency? Please allow me to continue in English.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we note that MHA has been judicious in exercising the powers under the CLTPA. There were 1,260 detainees in 1988 and it dropped more than half 10 years later in 1998 to 463, and, by 2008, the number has gone down to 290.
In 2013, MHA kindly accepted my suggestion to publish the number of CLTPA detainees and the type of criminal activities the detainees were associated with on an annual basis. In 2013, the figure dropped to 200 and it has been dropping yearly since then and reaching a record low of 109 in 2016. In 2017, it was even lower.
The declining numbers reflect what former MHA Minister Wong Kan Seng said in 2009 that CLTPA is \"only used as a last resort when a serious crime has been committed and a Court prosecution is not possible because witnesses are not willing or afraid to testify in Court.\" And a while ago, Minister Shanmugam has also given the same assurance.
As observed in the annual report of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) between 2013 and 2016, the types of criminal activities associated with CLTPA detainees were mainly drug trafficking, secret societies, unlicensed moneylending and a few others. However, the current CTPLA amendment Bill, amongst others, adopted a Fourth Schedule where a sizeable list of other crimes was also added.
I would like to clarify with the Minister whether MHA has the intention to use CLTPA for crimes like murder, gang rape, kidnapping, robbery with arms and other organised crimes. Is MHA observing that more and more witnesses are not willing or afraid to testify in open Court?
What are the additional principles that will guide MHA to decide when to prosecute the accused persons in open Court or dealt with under CLTPA? Taking the example of the high-profile murder of Kim Jong Nam in Kuala Lumpur, would this be an instance when CLTPA would be used, rather than an open Court trial?
I also note that under section 28 of CLTPA, the Minister has the power to amend any schedule, and correct me if I am wrong, that the Minister also has the power to amend the new Fourth Schedule by notification in the Gazette without going through Parliament. Does MHA have plans to amend the Fourth Schedule from time to time? For better accountability, could the Minister consider providing an explanation and rationale as and when the Fourth Schedule is amended?
In my early days with the Singapore Police Force, I had investigated a gang rape case involving teenagers, which would today fall under the CLTPA if the Bill is passed. There were challenges in gathering evidence as some of the accused persons and witnesses went into hiding outside of Singapore. Eventually, the case was resolved and the culprits pleaded guilty in Court. If they had been detained under CLTPA, the investigator would have an easier time, but it might have led to concerns by their parents and others over the lack of transparency.
According to the Singapore Prison Annual Report 2016, the number of detainees under CLTPA who were less than 21 years of age were two in 2016, five in 2015 and seven in 2014. Given the declining birth rate in Singapore, each child is getting more precious. Hence, would the Minister be able to clarify why was CLTPA used against such youths rather than charging them in Court? Do these youths have the means, influence and connection to intimidate the witnesses? Of course, the Minister's decision to appoint a senior judge as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee would enhance the standing of the Advisory Committee. However, the process is also important. Could the Minister elaborate more on the process of the hearing by the Advisory Committee?
If a detainee cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend himself, would MHA consider assigning him a defending lawyer? Yesterday, the Minister said that even a child rapist is entitled to his day in Court and to be defended. So, what more can we deny a CLTPA detainee a lawyer just because he could not afford to pay? Can the family members attend the hearing? How long does it take for the detainee and family members to be informed of the outcome of the hearing? I understand from the family member of the detainee that they may take up to six months before the hearing is made known to them. It is a pretty long period, given that the order is 12 months.
In addition, will MHA consider publishing the names of the esteemed Advisory Committee members for better transparency? In order for Singaporeans to trust the CLTPA processes and legalities, it is important that Singaporeans are kept well-informed.
The CLTPA is a tool which has clearly helped us to ensure the safety, peace and security of Singaporeans over the years. This five-year Parliamentary review is a check and balance for us to periodically ask ourselves if the Act is still relevant, and I support the extension of the CLTPA for another five years. However, it is necessary for us to reassure Singaporeans that safeguards are in place that the amended CLTPA is not abused. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice.
Mr Speaker, the obvious questions that arise in respect of this Bill include: (a) Is CLTPA still necessary? (b) Does the Act and the extension of the same give the Minister for Home Affairs unfettered powers to detain a person? And (c) Does this amendment seek to extend the Minister’s powers further?
The CLTPA provides the avenue to allow for the detention of persons involved in serious criminal activities where the normal criminal process is found not to be adequate or sufficiently robust to deal with them because of the threat of harm to witnesses or their families. Such situations would continue to occur, as organised and syndicated crimes as well as occurrence of violent crimes continue to exist. We need to be able to deal with such situations effectively to maintain public safety, peace and good order.
Although the legislation grants powers to the Minister, these powers are circumscribed by its provisions. The proposed amendments seek to define these powers further.
Firstly, section 30 of CLTPA provides for the Minister to make DOs or PSOs if the Minister is satisfied that a person is associated with activities of a criminal nature. It is relevant to note that the Court of Appeal, in the much-quoted Tan Seet Eng case, said that it did not accept that the CLTPA \"has a loose or open-ended remit\". The new Fourth Schedule will list the types of criminal activities in relation to which the Minister for Home Affairs can make orders for detention or Police supervision under the above-mentioned section 30. This list would make it clear to members of the public the specific criminal activities that the CLTPA can be used for.
Secondly, the proposed amendments codify the current case law on the finality of the Minister’s decisions on DOs and PSOs. The Act is an Executive regime and the Court of Appeal in the Tan Seet Eng case has held that Parliament can decide to entrust the power to the Minister to establish the facts of a case, apply those facts to the relevant rules and exercise his discretion accordingly. The finality clause that is proposed in this Bill, therefore, reflects Parliament’s intent to entrust all relevant fact-finding powers under the Act to the Minister and clarifies the current position of the Courts.
The amendment puts in statutes the Common Law position which has been the position all along. What is important to re-emphasise is that the judicial review process is still available. I, therefore, accept that there are safeguards in place to prevent unfettered use of these powers. Mr Speaker, for the foregoing reasons, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry proposes to extend the Act for another five years with effect from 21 October 2019. The rationale provided was that it is necessary and relevant for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order in Singapore.
Various studies rank Singapore as one of the top, if not the top, city in the world for safety and security. In the Gallup Global Law and Order Report 2017, Singapore was ranked top in the \"Law and Order Index\", ahead of other countries and cities like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Japan. The Economist's Safe Cities Index 2017 also mentioned that Singapore was ranked top for \"infrastructure security\" and \"personal security\", and overall second, behind Tokyo. When ranked by population size, Singapore is ranked top among cities with five to 10 million population, ahead of Toronto and Hong Kong. Interestingly, World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2016 also ranked Singapore first for \"Order and Security\" globally.
The question is whether we can maintain such a high level of security and safety without the extension. Can the Minister share instances in recent years where the powers provided under this Act had been proven necessary? I would also like to know if there had been cases where those involved in the defined criminal activities had continued to be members of triads or secret societies and committed offences repeatedly after their release.
I hope the Minister would also address concerns that permitting indefinite detention without evidence in Court or proof of criminal responsibility can be subjected to abuse of power, as mentioned by other Members in the House. Also mentioned by other Members, one area of concern is that the final decision lies in the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs. There are suggestions that it would be better to leave the decision to the Courts.
As a safeguard, every DO and PSO has to be reviewed by an independent Advisory Committee. After the Advisory Committee gives its recommendation, the Bill proposes that the President’s decision for the order depends upon the advice of the Cabinet. That is why there are questions as to why the President cannot act upon the independent committee’s recommendation without the Cabinet. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification and share his views regarding these questions.
Sir, I believe all Members in this House, including Members from the Workers' Party, will agree that prevention is better than cure. I believe that they, too, received residents' appeals in the Meet-the-People sessions or house visits or whatever occasion that calls upon us to not wait until things happen for the Government to take action because it will be too late. I believe the Members will not disagree on the good intentions of the Bill which has earned us the reputation as one of the safest cities in the world. With adequate measures in place, all Members can agree or disagree on how to ensure and prevent abuse of power. Once again, I call upon the House, do not wait for things to happen. It will be too late.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Speaker, a point of clarification. Ms Sylvia Lim had asked me what my view on clause 3 is. I think my view of clause 3 was clear in my speech. I said, since the last time the CLTPA was renewed, there has been a successful appeal on detention under the CLTPA. This case impacts our debate on the Bill for two reasons. One, it sheds light on the implications of clause 3 that says the Minister's decision is final. I have also said that newspapers have reported some concern raised over clause 3 of the Bill. However, this concern can be ameliorated as the clause does not change the law. The Bill supplement clearly says it is to \"clarify\" the law.
Following Ms Sylvia Lim's clarification of me, I have studied the Dan Tan judgment and my position remains that just because clause 3 inserts subsection (2) to say that the Minister's decision is final, it does not change the law. And the Court of Appeal in Tan Seet Eng, at paragraph 91 of the judgment, it was recognised, and I quote, \"there is a fine line between assessment of the merits of the decision that is an evaluation of fact and policy and the assessment of whether the principles of just administrative action had been met.\"
At paragraph 97 of the judgment, it goes on to say, \"In our judgment, while it is one thing to say that the Court must not substitute its view as to the way in which the discretion that is vested in the Minister should be exercised, it is quite another to say the Minister's exercise of discretion may not be scrutinised by the Court at all.\"
And here is the nub that the Court recognised, at paragraph 73 of the judgment, that \"the correct scope of judicial review for this purpose in the context of the Order for Review of Detention (ORD) applications concerned with the detention under the CLTPA is a traditional test. What an applicant must show is that his detention is unlawful on the grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.\"
Therefore, my conclusion, which is also evident in the first speech that I gave prior to the clarification, is that this inclusion of clause 3 only clarifies that the Court is not to substitute its own decision or look into the substantive merits of the decision. It does not change the judicial review ability of such an order.
Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken.
First, let me deal with the need for the Act. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has cited several surveys which tell us that we are among near the top for the \"safe cities\" index in the world, and we are right at the top in terms of law and order.
I have shared with Members the findings of another survey. Here, 93% of our residents say they feel safe when they walk in their neighbourhood at night; 92% say that they rate safety and security in Singapore as good or very good.
The reason is not just the CLTPA. It is the entire criminal justice system. Mr Kok Heng Leun, Nominated MP, cited the Rule of Law index, pointed out and said we were ranked 13th globally. But he left out the fact that, in that ranking, we were ranked first in the world for order and security; and fifth in the world for criminal justice.
He says we can borrow legislation from the UK to replace CLTPA. The UK is ranked 21st in the world for order and security, and 11th for criminal justice. But let us not get carried away with these rankings. They are not the gold standard, the Holy Grail, by which we should automatically judge ourselves. They are only indicative and, sometimes, some of the surveys, the methodologies are highly questionable. So, in the end, we really have to use our commonsense, the facts, as we can see them, what is in front of our eyes, the lived reality in the UK, Singapore and other countries.
As Members, many of us, in fact, all of us, should be on the ground regularly, we know what our residents want, we know what they feel. Will we be happy to have the same situation as the UK?
According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a knife or blade was used in a crime every 16 minutes, on average, in the UK in 2016. The number of incidents involving machetes has risen more than 60% in recent years. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said the menace of knife crime caused by London street gangs is a \"significant issue\". They are dealing or trying to deal with problems that we have kept at bay.
And if we look at America – people compare us sometimes – though you have got to look at city for city. In the Gallup Poll in 2017, Americans with a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Police stands at 57%, compared with our percentages in excess of 90%. Thirty percent of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night in an area within a mile of where they live. These are broad trends. They are not attributable to a specific factor or specific legislation.
But really, we have to think of what works for us and think carefully before we try to cut and paste systems from other countries and, frankly, not be colonised in our thinking. If something works well outside, sure, we should copy it and we do. But we do not copy it simply because it is somewhere else without giving due consideration as to whether it has worked well. And we need the self-confidence to ignore it when others shout loudly that they have the best systems in the world if the facts do not bear that out.
In terms of the timing of extension, Mr Murali Pillai asked: why are we extending the Act now? We are making a number of amendments and I am taking the opportunity to also extend the life of the Act at the same time. I think Ms Sylvia Lim also asked this question. The last debate was in November 2013. That is about four years and three months since the last debate.
We are putting it in a Schedule. I have explained why and I will explain why again. We are putting in more flexibility in terms of our PSOs, as I have explained. You want to tailor the conditions imposed on individuals for rehabilitation, for counselling and so on, it cannot be or it is difficult to have it in the main legislation.
So, since we are making those amendments, we are seeking an extension by explaining it clearly in Parliament. Otherwise, we would have waited. I agree, normally it should be nearer the renewal date, not right at the door but nearer. But since we are doing these other amendments, we are coming with a request for extension as well.
I will now deal with three main issues that Members have brought up. First, the finality clause; second the listing in the Schedule; and third, the safeguards in the Bill.
Several Members have spoken about the finality clause in the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether the finality clause was intended to exclude judicial review. Mr Kok Heng Leun worried that the amendments removed judicial oversight over the legality of the Minister's decision. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested we need independent Court oversight in the system. I think Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Dennis Tan also had questions.
Let us take a step back. Let me explain this by reference to some broader points and then I will deal with the specific points.
In a criminal justice system, you have trials, you have verdict: guilty/not guilty. For those who are guilty, the penal system provides for punishments. It generally works well in Singapore. It works well because people know that if you commit an offence, you are likely to be picked up. If you are guilty, you are likely to be found guilty in Court. And if you are found guilty, you will face penalties, and all of these will take place fairly quickly.
The exceptions to this process – ISA, CLTPA and, of course, provisions in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). It is a deliberate decision by Parliament to make those exceptions. Why? For ISA, the reasons have been explained. For the CLTPA, Ministers for Home Affairs have explained it regularly in this House and I have sought to do so earlier.
The real world comprises gangsters, kingpins, UML attacks, threatening of witnesses, what I said here about the UK. Let me read this out about Sydney. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald, about an incident, it is just one indication, one incident, but it tells you what happens, and why we do not have such things in Singapore. This is 30 January 2012, six years ago, an article: \"The leader of Comanchero, an outlaw bikie gang, is refusing to cooperate with police after surviving another attempt on his life, a shooting that also killed his son. Vincenzo Focarelli is in hospital with gunshot wounds, refusing to tell police who shot him and killed his son, Giovanni, 22, at Dry Creek in Adelaide Northwest last night. It was the fourth attempt on Vincenzo's life. He was shot in the leg in December, was also the target of a failed bomb attack by two men linked to the Hells Angels, who both died when the device exploded early. He reportedly taunted his rivals on Facebook a day after surviving the third attempt on his life, including boasting that he had nine lives. He can be seen dancing in a YouTube clip that appears to be promoting life in the Comanchero gang in Adelaide. Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle said, \"Police will do everything they could to prevent retaliation\", and this is after four times. The detective superintendent was quoted as saying, \"I would suggest it was a very planned, targeted attempt on his life\", he told reporters that day at an overnight press conference. \"It is a concern to us that retribution might take place, but we will do what we can to talk sense into these people.' \"
You can just imagine trying to talk sense into them. \"He (Vincenzo) has declined to provide us any information that might assist us in identifying the offender. That is a difficulty we face in these particular cases. The people that do know the information are often reluctant to assist the investigation\".
So, here you have a man who is publicly known as being part of a gang, whose life has been attempted on four times. His son has been killed, he is in hospital, he is refusing to talk. The police feared that there will be retaliation. The police say, \"We will try and prevent it\". But we know in the real world what happens.
The article goes on: \"South Australian Police Minister Jennifer Rankine will be briefed on the shooting by Police Commissioner. She said police are doing their best to deal with the scourge of outlaw gangs and South Australia had very tough anti-bikie laws. Hundreds of them have been arrested and charged. Hundreds of their associates have been arrested and charged. The frustration is these people have absolutely no regard for the law or, it would appear, for their safety or the safety of the community.\" The reporter points out that his son also had been attacked before but had refused to cooperate with police investigating the attempted murder. So, police then were going on a door-knocking exercise to try and get evidence.
We do not have these things for one simple reason. It is not that we are automatically different but we have become different. If there are gangs, and there are, we intervene very early and we break them up. We do not allow them to get to this situation. So, this is the tradeoff I talked about. There is no right and wrong approach but you have to be very clear about what the tradeoffs are. Supposing we remove the CLTPA, we are not immediately going to get to Sydney's situation straightaway; we have tough gun control laws as well, but you must expect a different law and order situation.
Some Members might recall, I think it was 2010, seven years now, over a period of three weeks, a series of young boys went on a rampage, different groups. I think one was in Downtown East, a young man was knifed to death, gang attack. And then at Bukit Panjang the following week, there was another attack. Three weeks in a row and people got upset, and they said \"What is happening? Do something about it\".
The Police took a number of steps, did something about it, but the CLTPA is an essential tool in the arsenal of doing something about these things. Otherwise, every MP will have to answer to your residents because our people value law and order and security very highly. And 93% of the people are not going to say in a survey they feel safe walking in their neighbourhoods.
Our people get upset with UML cases. When paint gets splashed, MPs would have to face them. When their doors get padlocked, when their doors get set on fire, they will come to the MPs and demand that action be taken. And the Government has got to be able to respond.
So, right or wrong, as I have been upfront about it, you can choose either path, as long as you are clear about the tradeoffs. Society, as a whole, must be prepared to accept the tradeoffs. I have come to accept that the path we are taking is probably better for Singapore and for society.
Let me again make a larger point. It is possible to make grand statements about liberty and security if you do not have to deal with real world problems.
Let me go to the US as an example. President Obama, when he was candidate Obama, he thundered \"Choice between liberty and security is a false choice\", meaning you can both have security and a full set of rights, including due process for all in the Courts in all cases.
Sounds very good, it is very noble. And he promised to close Guantanamo, signed an Executive Order in 2009 to close Gitmo, in fact. But then the US was having trouble finding anyone else who was willing to take all these people in Gitmo. Prisoners there were indefinitely detained without charge; citizens from 49 nations. Youngest detainee was 14, oldest was 89. The President then tried to move them into centres in the United States; there was a big outcry. Senators did not want Gitmo closed and they certainly did not want these prisoners on US soil for all the rhetoric from the US. Majority of the Americans also oppose bringing the detainees to American soil.
So, the President recognised the difficulty almost immediately after he took office. He is a constitutional law professor. So, he said in a 2009 speech after he became President, \"There remains the question of the Gitmo detainees who cannot be prosecuted and yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here – this is the toughest single issue that we will face\". And he said, even after the process is complete, there will be some who cannot be prosecuted because there will be lack of evidence but who, nevertheless, will pose a threat to the security of the US. And he said he is not going to release those individuals. So, that is where reality meets rhetoric.
If you look at Eric Holder, the former Attorney-General of the US, he was giving evidence in Congress about one of the masterminds of 9/11. He was asked what will happen if they tried the man and he was acquitted by the courts? His answer, \"We would like the courts to convict him but if for some reason he is acquitted, we will detain him.\" Again, the reality of the situation.
Members know, for years, we have been lectured about the ISA, particularly by the Americans. But when they faced 9/11, suddenly the situation is different. Of course, CLTPA is not in the same league as ISA. It deals with different situations. It is very different from ISA. The principle behind CLTPA is that there will be some types of criminals where due process will not get them to justice, considering the nature of their duties. Is it better for society to leave them out, or have the CLTPA and use it? Our current approach has led to the current levels of safety and security.
Safeguards, I have mentioned several, including the Advisory Committees, the structure of how we proceed. Now, in this context, let us turn to clause 3. Mr Pritam Singh said clause 3 operates to narrow the judiciary's role. How so? How does it narrow the judiciary's role? He asserts but does not explain. And I have said – I think by now I have said it about four, five times – there is no exclusion of judicial review.
The traditional grounds of judicial review remain. So, here we are. I have explained by reference to, first, logic, in that clause 3 deals with the factual basis for the Minister's decision. Judicial review is separate.
Second, I have explained that a half-decent –and I do not mean it in an insulting way – my basic point is, any lawyer ought to know that, regardless of what I say, clause 3 cannot oust judicial review. That is a fairly basic, fundamental point. Any lawyer ought to know.
So, I have explained it and I have given reasons. I am faced with an assertion from Mr Pritam Singh; and this is the best I can deal with it, unless there are some reasons given to me as to why he thinks, or Ms Sylvia Lim thinks or anyone else thinks that this narrows the judiciary's role.
The Court of Appeal itself says – I have repeatedly made that point; I even read out to Members the various passages – they made the points quite carefully. They set out the grounds for judicial review and we accept it, and nothing here affects those grounds. The Hansard can be referred to in Courts. And I am saying that as a Law Minister. Second, I say it as a matter of law, people will know it.
Third, the Court also said they will accept the Minister's decision on the facts. That is intended to be the structure of the CLTPA, and that is the right approach. That is all that clause 3 does. The Minister's decision is final. What does that mean? You cannot go and appeal to somebody else and say, \"Minister made these decisions. His findings of facts are wrong\". You can judicially review it on the grounds for judicial review.
The Courts are not to substitute their views of the facts or engage in an exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis for detention. This is all in the Court of Appeal judgment. That is not affected. This is, and has always been, the law.
Mr Pritam Singh asked whether the Courts can go behind the Minister's decision and review the background facts behind the decision for the DO. The Courts are not to substitute their views on the facts for the Minister's views. This is the current position. Read the Court of Appeal's judgment in Dan Tan. As Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have pointed out, the amendments are in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Mr Murali Pillai had some questions on the judicial review point. I have explained the approach, the philosophy behind the CLTPA, and that the facts are for the Minister to decide upon.
On safeguards, Mr Louis Ng asked for assurance that the amendments will not dilute the requirement that the Minister has to provide the full GD. It will not.
Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mahdev Mohan have asked about abuse of powers. I have talked about the inbuilt procedural requirements, the parties involved and the processes. In the end, when you have given such a power to the Executive, there is a concern that there is some scope for abuse. You try and cut it down. Philosophically, you can say I do not want to have those powers and I am prepared to take the tradeoffs. That is for Members to decide. But you should decide by accepting that if you do not have the CLTPA, then your law and order situation will get worse. How much worse? It is not possible to say, but it will get worse; and whether you are prepared to justify that and take that kind of society.
Let me move on to the Fourth Schedule. Ms Slyvia Lim asked whether having a list will reduce pressure on the Executive to explain and justify each decision. I do not see how this will be so, and again, a misunderstanding. The current requirements under the Act set out under section 30 what the GDs are. Those grounds remain. So, again, I scratch my head when people complain about the Schedule; those grounds remain. All that is being done is that, on top of that, in addition to those grounds, the Minister has got to show that the offence or the nature of the activities are also listed in the Schedule.
Previously, there was one requirement, you show that the facts or requirements of section 30 are satisfied. Now, there are two requirements, you got to show that the requirements of section 30 are satisfied and, in addition, that it has been listed in the Schedule. It is not the case that if it is listed in the Schedule, the person can automatically be detained. It has got to be shown that it was necessary to detain a person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order.
Ms Sylvia Lim had some points and I tried listening very carefully. I have to say I found the points a little difficult to follow. What I got out of the points under here was that: it increases the powers of the Minister. I think these statements are difficult to deal with because they have got to be backed by some reasoning and some logic.
So, I come back to this simple point: you have section 30. It says what the grounds are. That is the situation today. The Court of Appeal pointed out it is not unlimited powers for the Minister; it is not open-ended, but it gives a level of discretion. After the amendments, assuming they are made into law, what is the situation? You continue to need to satisfy the requirements in section 30. So, the detainee is no worse off, the Minister is no better off. The same requirements continue.
In addition, the Minister has got to show that it is listed in the Schedule. So, how does it increase the powers? I think rhetoric has got to match reality. And it is useful to read the clauses carefully before making speeches.
Previously, when there was no list, some Members rose up – at least one rose up – to say, \"Why don't we have a list?\" Now that we have a list, people say, \"Why are we having a list?\"
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked how the list is drawn up. Mr Louis Ng asked for the rationale behind the organised crime offences. The activities in the list include criminal activities that have previously been dealt with under the Act, as I have said, or which had been mentioned in Parliament as being within the scope of the Act.
Let us do a bit of thinking. Supposing the Minister lists shoplifting as an offence, and then, based on that, he goes and detains a 12-year-old on the basis that this is contrary to the safety and preservation of public order in Singapore. Do you think that will pass muster on any judicial review? So, one has got to be sensible about these things. It would not pass muster an hour before the legislation is amended, and it would not pass muster after tomorrow.
We included organised crime but it does not mean everything in the organised crime comes within the CLTPA. It cannot do so. But we wanted to pre-emptively, decisively prevent organised criminal groups from establishing a foothold in Singapore. Mr Christopher de Souza is correct to say that this recognises the problems associated with transnational criminal syndicates.
Let me deal with some of the other clarifications that have been raised. Mr Pritam Singh asked whether the Act will be used against foreigners who dabble in organised criminal activities that have an effect in Singapore. The CLTPA can be used to detain a person if he is associated with criminal activities, as stated in the Fourth Schedule, if detention is necessary in the interest of public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. That does not depend on the person's nationality. So, action can be taken against foreigners, if the conditions are met.
Ms Sylvia Lim says, again, in another rhetorical flourish, I will become a global policeman with the Bill. It makes a good sound bite. But it is useful for Members to read the Bill before they make speeches because we are dealing with serious matters involving the safety and security of Singaporeans.
I will repeat again. Not only must criminal activities fall within the list, a DO cannot be issued just because an offence under the OCA is disclosed. It must be brought back into Singapore in the sense that the Minister must find it necessary that the person is detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Within Singapore.
I do not know where this global policeman comes, except perhaps it makes for good reading on a website where one can put out these things, sound bites, without reference to the legislation, the Bill or the clarifications.
If, and only if, the criminal activities, wherever conducted, impact within Singapore in the way set out in section 30, we should ask.
Mr Pritam Singh asked what is the threshold of evidence for OCA crimes to fall under the CLTPA. The OCA does not provide for detention without trial. It requires witnesses to give evidence in Court. Where witnesses are not willing to do so for fear of reprisals, the CLTPA can be used as a last resort tool, provided section 30 is satisfied. That is the position today.
Mr Mahdev Mohan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the PSO obligations and why we are moving the list of obligations to a subsidiary legislation. The obligations, as I explained, you will want to look each supervisee and you will want to tailor the conditions according to the supervisee. Some people may need counselling, just as an example, some people may need rehabilitation. These are not detainees. There are conditions imposed on them to come back for urine tests and to be under general supervision.
If it is in the main legislation, we will need to amend the Act each time we want to add conditions in, based on evolving needs. These are all largely operational in nature and it makes sense to put them in the Schedule.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the extension of Police powers to CNB officers. Currently, both the Police and CNB supervise the supervisees but, as I explained earlier, only the Police have the power to investigate breaches of PSO obligations. The amendments will streamline the process, so that we would not need both the Police and CNB officers to be deployed to investigate breach of PSOs involving persons detained by CNB for drug trafficking.
Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked if the Government will publish the names of the Advisory Committee members. I think the members can choose to identify themselves if they wish, and some have done so. But the Government respects some of the members' wishes not to have their identities published. Sometimes, they are also concerned about the people they have to deal with and what might happen to their families.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Kok Heng Leun asked about the President's role. Matters relating to the CLTPA do not fall within the President's discretionary powers. The President acts on the advice of the Cabinet.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun also asked whether other legislation could be amended to address the difficulty in securing witness testimony in open Court. The general approach, I have said, where we can, we want to move towards trials. So, these and other suggestions have been considered and are not workable, we have found, because the nature of the trial process is such that it is difficult to have a secret testimony from one witness who cannot be cross-examined and whom the judge can talk to but no one else can talk. It is not the normal trial process. We pretty much have something similar now through the Advisory Committees. But we will review them.
Mr Ang Wei Neng also spoke about persons under 21 who were detained and said each child was precious. I wish to assure the Member that we only act when the risk of reprisals is there. Then, we act against these persons. And the persons detained are not quite innocent children. They used deadly weapons, they recruit other members, they attack people and, in a way, you need to remove them from society so that other people of similar age are not influenced by them. That is how you keep the problem under control. But, where possible, charge them in Court. If not possible, then use the criminal law, if it is necessary to do so.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh wanted to know if there had been cases where those involved in criminal activities had contributed to the numbers of secret societies and whether they committed offences repeatedly. Of those currently under detention, about 17% have been placed under detention previously.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the number of cases over the last five years in which the Advisory Committees made a recommendation to detain but this was not accepted. I can say this: Advisory Committees do, have done so, do recommend against DOs and, in the vast significant majority of these cases, the Government then accepts that advice and instead imposes PSOs. But there have been a small number of cases where the Government disagrees.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the Constitution and the task of the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC), and do they change by reason of these amendments. No, they do not. And they do not change by reason of the appointment of judges. In the past, our approach had been to appoint a very senior lawyer or retired judges. But I felt it would be good to appoint serving judges, but it does not change the nature of the Advisory Committee.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister K Shanmugam's speech\".
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr 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) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister K Shanmugam's speech.\" ‒ [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, as regards the points made by Mr Pritam Singh, so the question is, since I have explained what finality means, we cannot appeal against the Minister's decision on the facts, which is the current position, really, then, Mr Pritam Singh, as well as the other Members from the Workers' Party, and all Members, must ask themselves some questions.
First, what is the current position? Do Members agree that in the current position, there cannot be an appeal against the Minister's decision on the facts? These are fairly basic questions of law. Do you agree or do you disagree? The Court of Appeal has said you cannot appeal against the Minister's decision. The Minister's decision is not to be substituted. It is fairly clear. If that is so, then why do you disagree with the clause which sets that out? So, again, there has got to be some connection between rhetoric and reality.
Mr Pritam Singh also asked whether having Judges sit on Advisory Committees conflates the roles of the Judges and that of the Executive. No. Not at all. The Judges sit as part of the Advisory Committee, they give their views, look at the evidence. If they feel that some things need to be checked further, they can do so. They can call up the investigation officers, they can call for the files, they review these. I think we should welcome what the Government is doing. But if Mr Pritam Singh or anybody else feels that we should not do so, I would like to hear that. Please stand up clearly and say, \"No, we do not want Judges in there\". Say so and put it on record, if you mean what you say.
Separately, if the detainee feels that the grounds are not adequate and he wants to go for a judicial review, it is open for him to go for judicial review. And, of course, different Judges will hear that application, not the Judges who sat on the Advisory Committee. So, having Judges who are independent adds considerably to the robustness of the process.
Mr Dennis Tan referred to my speeches in 1989. But I think he conflated the 1989 and 1994 speeches. I made two speeches. I have not looked them up recently, but from my recollection, what we are proposing today to have Judges chair the Advisory Committees is similar to what I have suggested in, I believe, 1994. That is 23 and some years ago. I do not think I made that suggestion in 1989; I stand corrected.
At the same time, I think I suggested some additional appointees to the Advisory Committee. That we are not proceeding with.
Mr Dennis Tan also said this is a step back. I would welcome him to clarify why he says that. How is any of this a step back? Again, it is an assertion which is not being substantiated. I am standing here and saying that this does not oust judicial review. I am saying any lawyer would know that. I am referring to the judgments of the Court of Appeal. I am saying that the finality clause refers to the Minister's decisions on the facts, which the Court of Appeal acknowledged, and saying it is crystallising the current position. So, why is this a step back? It sets out clearly. It is better as we go forward.
Mr Dennis Tan also made this suggestion ‒ this is quite a radical suggestion ‒ remove the role of the President, give it to the Courts to review. Essentially, I think you need to be very clear about what is being suggested. Is the suggestion that then we do away with the CLTPA altogether? Because the Courts, as I told Members, is a trial process. Is that what you want? There is a fundamental difference from the CLTPA process which is why I took some time to explain how CLTPA and ISA are processes which stand outside the usual trial process. So, if you say substitute and bring the Courts back in, effectively, you are saying remove the CLTPA, just have the trial process. You are entitled to say it. But that looks to me the suggestion which, philosophically, is very different.
Ms Sylvia Lim made some other points on the finality and timing. Timing I have dealt with; finality I have dealt with. And I have said, on the Schedule, I do not see how it increases the Minister's powers.
Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked about the process of hearing by the Advisory Committee. In accordance with the CLTPA provisions, all orders made by the Minister for Home Affairs must be referred to the Advisory Committee within 28 days from its issuance. The persons issued with the orders will be informed of the GD. They will then appear before the Advisory Committee and could be legally represented. The Advisory Committee will consider and submit to the President a written report on the making of the orders and the recommendations. The President will consider the report once it is received and can cancel, confirm or vary the order, but acting on the advice of Cabinet. That is a very technical, clear meaning. Family members of the accused are informed by my Ministry on the outcome of the hearing once this process is carried out.
I should add this in answer to Mr Pritam Singh's question as to whether there is a conflation of the roles of the Executive and the Judiciary in introducing sitting Judges to the Advisory Committee; I think Ms Sylvia Lim said this in 2013. If I am wrong, I will be corrected. She made what was, in essence, a similar proposal that we have a sitting Judge review the merits of a DO in camera. She said, \"If I heard him correctly, he was actually suggesting that a current sitting Judge who was from the judicial branch actually be involved in the Advisory Committee which is also, in a way, what I suggested earlier, except that it was in relation to the Judge sitting alone. Sir, I would like the Minister's comment on that, whether the Government is considering getting a sitting Judge currently in the High Court to be involved in this process, looking at the merits of the DO.\" I said something like this in 1994 or 1989; Ms Sylvia Lim said something like this in 2013.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the provision of legal counsel to detainees. While the CLTPA is not covered by the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), detainees who cannot afford a lawyer can be referred to the Law Society and they will assist. They have pro bono services and the Ad Hoc Pro Bono Referral Scheme. So, the Law Society Pro Bono Services Office will assess the case and arrange for pro bono legal representation as appropriate.
Sir, I think I have dealt with all the points that Members have brought up. Given that some of the Members appear to have proceeded on a completely erroneous set of assumptions of law, and perhaps a misreading of the Bill, I wonder if they will now change their position when it comes to voting. Because, otherwise, they will be voting on a mistaken basis as well.
Mr Speaker: I will open the time for points of clarification. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, three clarifications I wish to make. In relation to clause 3, which introduces explicitly a finality clause into the Bill, the Minister keeps insisting over and over again that there is no change to the law, there is no intention to, he said, \"oust\" judicial view and so on and so forth.
But if the Government's intention is really to preserve matters as they are and, by that, I mean the extent of judicial review will remain the same as what it was in Dan Tan's case, why bother to legislate at all? Why not leave things just as they are so that everyone is clear that there is no curtailment or even a slight limitation or a change in the scope of judicial review? That would be the simplest solution I think the Government should adopt.
The second clarification, and this in relation to the Schedule, again, the Minister is saying that everything still relates back to section 30. In other words, we have a Schedule there but no matter which activity is being picked, the Minister will still have to be satisfied that section 30 is complied with. In other words, the activity affects the peace, good order and so on in Singapore.
But the fact is that the Fourth Schedule, by importing the OCA now, explicitly has an external focus, meaning that if you look at the OCA, section 48, it defines organised criminal activity to include activities that are primarily conducted overseas. So, this is where my \"global policeman\" phrase comes in.
In other words, the Minister can now look at activities done overseas and he would simply have to make a statement to say that he is concerned it will take root in Singapore and that would justify a DO under CLTPA now.
Once again, the same question will come up. If the concern of CLTPA remains the same, in other words, the primary rationale is to protect peace, safety and good order within Singapore, there is no need to make all these changes. The law already provides for the Minister to safeguard peace, safety and good order within Singapore under the current provisions.
Despite my own reservations about the timing of the renewal being premature, the Workers' Party would have been prepared to support a renewal of the Act if not for these two changes in clause 3 and clause 8.
So, it would be good if the Minister would clarify whether he is prepared to actually just go back to the status quo, ask for a renewal of the Act for five years, and then we can all support it because we all want Singapore to be a safe place.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: The first point is that I kept insisting that there is no intent to \"oust\". I made two points: first, as a matter of law, this clause cannot oust judicial review and I buttress it by saying that, go ask any lawyer.
Second, and because I have been advised so, and I know so, and I want to be very open about it, I am prepared to stand up here and say so, as the Law Minister and Home Affairs Minister, that there is no intention to \"oust\", and this clause does not oust judicial review. There are tonnes of cases that will say that.
It is not binary, therefore, why amend? Why not just stay on with the current situation?
But I am making an amendment on something else. On the Minister's decision being final, that relates to non-appealability and not getting the Courts or anyone else to substitute their views for the Minister's views. Is that the current position? Yes, it is. There is a difference between judicial review and a normal trial process or an appeal from the Minister. The two are very different. So, to say, \"I am worried that this is going to oust judicial review, so why are we making that amendment, I am worried that that amendment will oust judicial review.\" There has got to be a connection between the two.
What is the connection? I am dealing with the Minister's decision on the facts. Let me give an example. Go back to my example.
I sign an order detaining a 12-year-old who stole a can of beer, and say I am satisfied that this is necessary for the safety and preservation of good order, public order and safety and security. You think I can face any Court in Singapore and justify that? You think I can rely on the finality clause? The finality clause deals with something else. It deals with the decision on the facts. A 12-year-old, did they do these things? Judicial review is on illegality, irrationality, procedural irregularity. It does not save me from those. So, to say that \"I am worried that these consequences might develop and, therefore, please do not amend\", it does not seem to me a very logical argument.
Second, the Schedule. I think I spent a fair bit of time explaining. At present, there is one requirement. We require what is set out in section 30. We got to satisfy the conditions. Now, there are two requirements. We got to satisfy the conditions of section 30 and its conjunctive. You got to show that it is also listed in the Fourth Schedule.
I think whether you are a lawyer or not a lawyer, Members can understand that does not dilute the current position. It does not reduce. And I have explained why I am doing it. I feel it is good to set it out clearly. So, to come back and say why do you want to amend, why not leave the current situation? We think that this will improve the position, amongst others, of the detainees. Everyone is clear these are the offences, but you still got to satisfy section 30. So, come back to this example of OCA. Yes, OCA has many provisions. Some of them are external focus. But the Minister has to be satisfied. If he wants to charge somebody or he wants to proceed to investigate and the Police wants to proceed to investigate, and then the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wants to charge, they have got to satisfy the elements set out in the OCA. Supposing we want to use the CLTPA, then you do not have to go and look at the elements of the OCA as such, but you got to show that section 30 is satisfied, that, in some way, it impacts on the good order, safety, public security in Singapore. That is clear. That is commonsense actually.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, on the finality clause, does it not crystalise the position in law today in Dan Tan such that the Courts will be closed to consider new heads of judicial review in the future, particularly if the high watermark of not displacing the Executive's decision with their own, requires some nuance. Does the finality clause not close that off for the Courts?
Mr K Shanmugam: Again, assuming you accept my point that judicial review, as set out in Dan Tan's case, is not impacted by the finality clause, I have tried to explain my logic a number of times.
The finality clause deals with something else, which is, the grounds on which the Minister makes the order, the facts and evidentiary bases which the Court of Appeal has said it would not scrutinise. What it does is, the legislation makes clear that the Minister's decision on the facts should not be appealed from. That is what it does. So, it makes it clear that you cannot go, for example, to the Courts and say, \"I disagree with the Minister's decision on the facts for these reasons and I am effectively appealing and I am asking you to substitute your views for that of the Minister\". As to whether our Courts would go down the route eventually of saying, we will substitute our views for any views the Executive may have and we will disregard all existing law as to whether they could go down that route, I would be very surprised if they go down that route. And if they did, I think the government of the day will have a duty to come back to Parliament and talk to Members and say, is this a way we want the structure between the Courts, Parliament and the Executive? These are things for discussions for another day.
But so far, as you will read in the judgments, due respect is given by the Courts for the Executive and Parliament, and Parliament gives due respect for the Courts.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister for that. I do understand what the Minister is saying. But the point is: in the case of judicial review, because the common law continually develops, is this the appropriate time for us to legislatively say, \"Okay, this is where we are closing off certain matters in so far as the facts of the GD are concerned\"? If the judiciary moves judicial review along, should we not then come to Parliament, with the view, as the Minister suggested, to change the law even?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think the question to ask is, are we comfortable with the current position, there is a right balance between Parliament and the Courts? The Minister makes a decision, there is a series of processes, Advisory Committee, the Supreme Court has the powers of judicial review over the Minister's decision. The framework of that, the appropriate balance, is today set out partly in the legislation, partly by decision of the Court of Appeal and previous decisions.
Are we comfortable with that? We are. That is why we are putting it in law. If we are not comfortable with that, I will be standing here, looking you in the eye, and saying we need to change it, as this Parliament did for the Internal Security Act.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Mr Speaker, just a clarification to the Minister. Just now the Minister firstly suggested that I may have conflated his speeches between 1994 and 1989. I have here downloaded from the Hansard, sitting date 4 August 1989.
Mr K Shanmugam: As I said, I have not read them recently. I said I stand corrected.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Because that suggestion seems rather unfair to me.
Mr K Shanmugam: No, no, no, what I said is, I think I made the suggestion in 1994, but I heard you saying I said it in 1989. I do not recall saying it in 1989, I thought I said it in 1994, but I will stand corrected.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Minister. The Minister went on to say that I made the, if I remember correctly, \"radical\" suggestion that the Courts, the judges should replace the Advisory Committee. I think the Minister is mistaken. Actually, what I did as Members of the House may recall, is that I quoted from the Minister's speech in 1989, and if you were to bear with me, can I just read a small chunk of it here and it is very clear. And I will re-ask that question to the Minister again.
Let me quote Mr Shanmugam in 1989: \"At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention. The Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decide on the detention, but perhaps powers of review be given to the Courts. The reason I say that is if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then, presumably, the Act can be worded such that the Courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision, and then come down on the side of the Minister. If the Courts disagree, if the Judges disagree, then again the Minister's decision would be overturned. So, remove it from the President to the Executive and give the powers to the Courts.\"
So, this is not my suggestion. I do not wish to take the credit. Actually, let me ask the question again. I asked the Minister because he brought up to the House that he has asked Judges to chair the Advisory Committee. And I recalled that the Minister had suggested this in 1989. So, I wanted to ask the Minister why did he stop short of not going towards what he had suggested in 1989, and instead he has asked the Judges to sit as chair of the Advisory Committee?
Mr K Shanmugam: I was wondering which MP would refer to me and my speeches in 1989 and 1994. Thank you for that. But before we proceed, can I read this paragraph from the judgment of the Court of Appeal?
Paragraph 99: \"Where the Executive is acting within the ambit of the powers that have been vested in it by Parliament, then the Court's concern is not with whether it agrees with the way in which the powers have been exercised. To suggest otherwise is to displace the choice that has been made by Parliament as to which branch of the Government is to be entrusted with the powers in question. The Court's role in judicial review which engages the manner in which the power is exercised will then be limited to such things as illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety. This perspective is premised on a proper understanding of the role of the respective branches of Government, especially in this context of the Executive and the Judiciary in a democracy where the Constitution reigns supreme.\"
There are many other points but I think that encapsulates what I have been trying to say. I do not see how that is different from everything I have said. They have the power of judicial review on those grounds. But where it is within the province of the Executive, they will not intervene. And, as you see from other passages, they point out the decision on the facts it is for the Minister to make. That is why clause 3 is worded the way it is, and which is why I was somewhat confused with the arguments on judicial review from both sides – some of the PAP Members as well.
But I think it is good that we spoke about this because it helped me understand what the concerns were and helped me deal with it. To me, it was very clear. I was coming to deal with one set of issues and suddenly a different set of questions were raised.
Now, Mr Dennis Tan, I think we were speaking at cross purposes. In 1994, if I am not wrong, I suggested that the Advisory Committees have Judges but that is different from having a quasi-appeal process to the Judiciary which is in 1989. So, you were referring to what I said in 1989. I thought you were referring to what I said in 1994. What we are doing now, in terms of having Judges sit in the Advisory Committee, is similar to what I suggested in 1994. So, I misunderstood you because I thought you were referring to my suggestion today.
Now, I think the Member asked the broader question. The basic question is that I have said all these in 1989 when I was 30 years old. Why are we not going down that path today? One can give a short answer, which is, I am 30 years older today. I believe in the essence of what I said then – in criminal cases, the usual process is to be tried in Court and that the ISA and the CLTPA formed exceptions for the usual process and, really, it is best if we do not have such exceptions or restrict those exceptions. That is my view.
Over the years, I also realised another point that was not very central to my thinking, either in 1989 or 1994, but a bit of time spent in practice and on the ground brought home the reality of tradeoffs. If you are not dealing with people on the ground, dealing with day-to-day issues, one can get somewhat theoretical about these things. The law has got to work in a way where it delivers not just grand pronouncements, but actual results. The question of tradeoffs was not something I factored very strongly in my thinking in 1989 and 1994.
I suspect that for a lot of people who approached these pieces of legislation, the assumption is that we see Singapore as it is today, this is how it will be even if you make all these changes. Supposing we remove the CLTPA, nothing will happen. I am not saying that is your position, Mr Dennis Tan, but I am saying that, often, some of the people who approach these pieces of legislation approach it that way. I do not think you do and I do not think your fellow Members do because you have, in the past, supported the CLTPA. But I am explaining my position, the question of tradeoffs. The assumption is that nothing will change in the real world and you can change around with the CLTPA.
But in the real world, you have gangsters. I have read out to Members what happened in Sydney. I am sure that is not isolated. I am sure that is the lived reality on a very much regular basis for a lot of people around cities around the world. They threaten witnesses. The kingpins are quite untouchable by the normal process. So, question – and I make it plain in my first speech – you cannot say one route is right, one route wrong, but you can say there are these tradeoffs, are you willing to accept the tradeoffs?
The current situation of law and order that we have is based on the current legal framework and judicial and criminal legal system that we have. And if you remove the CLTPA or you tinker with it very substantially, you will get, I think, some tradeoffs. In terms of increased levels of criminal activity, whether they have increased, whether they will increase and how much they will increase by, that is something that one will only find out when you remove the legislation. But UML is a good example – you use it effectively, you use other legislation. I told Members now we are picking up two persons under CLTPA per year, compared with 20 or so before 2011.
The current structure is also a tradeoff in that society then accepts that there are some risks in vesting this power in the Executive, which is what we try to reduce, restrain by the safeguards. I have, for some time now, come to accept that the path we have taken is probably better for Singapore. But at the same time, I did feel that the Advisory Committees could be strengthened and they could be strengthened in the way I suggested in 1994, not in 1989, but 1994. That is why I spoke with the Chief Justice, whether he would be happy to agree to have three of his sitting Judges sit on the Advisory Committee, chair the Advisory Committees, and he agreed. We both felt it would be good for the process. So, from March this year, that will happen.
Mr Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his very detailed responses to us. Can I just ask two points of clarification which I think are important for both the Hansard and my understanding?
First, it is a question I raised earlier in my speech but I just wanted to say it again. Where there is a judicial review proceeding under the CLTPA, will the written statement of the grounds upon which the Minister made the order – whether it is for supervision or for detention, and which is then referred to the Advisory Committee – as well as the Advisory Committee's report, be shared with the judicial review Court? I ask as this will be very useful for their review and I note that, in the Dan Tan case, it was not made available to the Court of Appeal at that point.
My second point of clarification is: many of us know that the CLTPA is relevant and necessary, Mr Speaker, but why not make the amendments that are currently envisaged later when the CLTPA is typically and periodically reviewed nearer its expiry date?
Mr K Shanmugam: On the first point, is the Member asking whether we will hand over everything that was discussed over to the Courts?
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: To clarify, I am asking whether the written statement that is required under section 31 and given to the Advisory Committee – so, whether that written statement, as well as the Advisory Committee's report, will be given to them?
Mr K Shanmugam: Well, our sense is this: the Advisory Committee reports, in a way, to the President and you can say the Executive branch, but you know the President, of course, stands a little apart from the Executive branch. Of course, the Minister also gets to see it. We felt that the discussions, the thinking of the Advisory Committee should be full and frank, and they should proceed as they wish. If people believe that these things can later on be put up in Court and challenged, I think that affects the quality of the discussions and it affects the way in which people might write out the report as well.
It is best that we keep the Advisory Committee as a process, put in good people, now put in Judges to chair them, let them look at it. The whole process is one where they can call for investigation officers (IOs) and if the IOs believe that this might ultimately end up in Court, whatever they say to the Advisory Committee, even with the best will in the world, everyone's behaviour might change.
So, you have that process. At the same time, in Court, I have said what the tests are. The Courts finally have the power to subpoena documents, to ask for documents. They use it judiciously. For example, if they believe that a certain document was necessary, it is within their power to tell the AGC to produce it. And to think that further, if we believe that the Courts are doing things in such a way that affects the fundamental structure of the CLTPA, then the government of the day will have to decide: is this acceptable, can we live with it, or do we have to come to Parliament and say we have to change that? But those are different discussions.
Whatever is necessary for the judicial review is put before the Courts. And the Courts, as I have said, I do not believe they felt constrained, but they can ask both sides – counsel and the AGC.
Now, why not make it later? I cannot give Members a different answer from what I have already said to Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim. We have been thinking about this for a while. Some of these, for example, the changes to the supervising order, are really something that is quite close to my thinking. I have directed Prisons and CNB Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) to go much further on the rehabilitation line. Even though we take a very tough line on drugs, my thinking is, in terms of the first-timers, the second-timers, is there a way of looking at them not just as criminals, but in way that they are impacted by this and to rehabilitate them? How can we get them back in the society? So, we are putting in a lot of resources into the front-end in terms of preventing them from getting into the system, and then rehabilitating them, working with them, spending a lot of money on that in terms of trying to rehabilitate them when they are in prison, and then handholding them when they are out. This is the general penal system.
So, likewise, for the supervisees. If you do not give them close attention – now, today, you make them report on a regular basis, that alone is not going to prevent them from getting back into bad company, going back into gangsterism. You need to do something more. So, my directions to the Ministry have been: can we do something more? Can we tailor the changes such that the Police can impose certain conditions? I can imagine you have to spend some time doing this; you have to come for counselling; you have to do these things; basically, it is to try and get you to break the habit.
So, that was the significant part of the change even though it has not been discussed today. But by moving it into the Schedule, it allows us to look at every individual. Today, when detainees come in, we actually do a risk analysis. Are you likely to be high-risk, medium-risk or low-risk? And if you are low-risk, can we do all these things to make sure that you do not become a permanent feature of the system? So, likewise, we want to do that with the PSO supervisees. We want to structure it such that we have the power to impose those sorts of tailored conditions. And in my mind, the sooner the better we move in line with everything else. So, we are making some other amendments and we put it all together. And because we are coming to Parliament for the amendments, we said, \"Okay, let us ask for another five years at the same time.\"
Mr Speaker: Any final clarifications? Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I am sorry, Minister, to belabour this. I am just trying to understand, as a follow-up to the clarification just now on the proposed system for the Judges to chair the Advisory Committee, I know the Minister mentioned tradeoffs. But I do not think he quite explained why did he shift from one position to the other. The way I look at it is that it could be the same one or two Judges sitting there, making a decision either in their capacity as Supreme Court Judges, or as chair of the advisory committee. They could be using the same legal reasoning and all that. But the Minister correctly observed that between 1989 and 1994, he had changed this position and explained that there are tradeoffs. Could the Minister explain why is one preferred to the other?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, is the Member asking me why I changed my mind between 1989 and 1994?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, you explained that by 1994, you had changed your mind and that you recommended it, as what you are going to do now – that Judges chair the Advisory Committee. So, my question again is: what made you change your mind? What made you prefer one over the other because, as I have said, if it is the same one or two Judges sitting there using the same experience and training and making the same decision, is the Government concerned that the decision stops there – it overrules the Minister's and it ends there? On the other hand, in the Advisory Committee, there is a further process of presenting it to the President and the President acting on the advice of the Cabinet? I just need to know the reason for preferring one to the other now.
Mr K Shanmugam: It is this. Even in 1989 and 1994, I did not conflate the two because, conceptually, they are very different. Which is why in answer to the Member's points earlier, I said what he is suggesting is quite radical – radical in the sense that, \"Look, it is either an Executive process or a judicial process.\"
So, we have to apply our minds. Is it something where you want the Minister to decide? Or is it something that you want the Courts to decide? If it goes to the Courts, you know the process – it has got to be through evidence; it has got to be through witnesses. When the Court sits in review, in open, then the other side will have the right to look at all of the testimony. You have got to give it to them. That undercuts the entire basis of the CLTPA because many of the witnesses do not want their evidence to come out. So, one has to be conceptually clear which route do we want.
By 1994, I came to the conclusion that if you agree to the CLTPA, then you would have to agree to a process where the information and the witnesses are protected. That is fundamental. Which is why then you have this Advisory Committee. They can receive evidence; they can choose to share some of it with the defence counsel; they may choose not to share some of it with the defence counsel; they have to look carefully to see what evidence they want; and they have got to be very careful that they do not expose some of the witnesses and their families to potential harm. You cannot do any of that in a normal Court process which is why I said that the Member's suggestion really means we do away with the CLTPA. You cannot have the cake and eat it. It is either one or the other, and you are to decide which one.
Mr Speaker: Alright, one last one. Mr Low Thia Khiang. Last clarification.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I am quite confused with all this explanation. It seems to me that the Minister is saying that the amendment before the House has no effect on the current legislation as it is. If there is no effect, then why amend something that is unnecessary?
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have gone into some length.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you have, Minister. The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" As many as are of that opinion say, \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members say \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\".
[(proc text) Some hon Members say \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I think the \"Ayes\" have it.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I call for a Division.
Mr Speaker: Would you like to record your dissent?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I call for a Division.
Mr Speaker: Will hon Members who support the Division please rise in their places?
[(proc text) More than five hon Members rose. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Clerk of Parliament, ring the Division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes — (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors, please.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have claimed a Division, would you like to proceed with the Division?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Speaker, I call for a Division to be taken.
Mr Speaker: May I remind Members to please sit at your designated seats. And you should only start to vote when the voting buttons on your armrests start to blink, and please press the correct button.
Members are advised to check that your names are registered according to the vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his vote or her vote has not been displayed, or displayed incorrectly on the screen?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education and Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, I believe my name and that of Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap have been reversed.
Mr Speaker: For record purposes, we shall amend it.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Distinctly, I pressed \"Yes\".
Mr Speaker: So, you distinctly pressed \"Yes\". And Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, I assume you pressed \"No\"?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): That is right.
Mr Speaker: We will amend it for record purposes.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 77 \"Ayes\", 10 \"Noes\", and two \"Abstentions\". So, the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee, reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" As many as are of the opinion say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members say \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\".
[(proc text) Some hon Members say \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I think the \"Ayes\" have it.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I call for a Division.
Mr Speaker: Will hon Members who support the Division, please rise in their places?
[(proc text) More than five hon Members rose. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Clerk, ring the Division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, “That the Bill be now read a Third time.” (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have claimed a Division. Would you like to proceed with the Division?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mr Chairman, I call for a Division to be taken.
\tThe Chairman: Again, I trust Members have not shifted from your seats. Do remain in your designated seats, and only start to vote when the voting buttons on your armrests start to blink.
As before, Members are advised to check that your names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Chairman, sorry, I had meant to record my vote as \"Yes\".
\tThe Chairman: Duly noted. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, we will duly make the adjustments between your name and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's.
Before I proceed to declare the votes, do any other Member wish to claim that your vote has not been displayed or is displayed incorrectly on the screens? I have taken note of the adjustments from before, on the two Mr Faisals. I have also taken note of the Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's vote.
\tThe Chairman: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 77 \"Ayes\", 10 \"Noes\" and two \"Abstentions\". The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly 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":"Support for Senior Citizens","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, \"That this House recognises that seniors are a gift to our society, contributing to a wise and resilient Singapore, and calls on the Government to continue strengthening support for seniors to age with dignity and spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive.\"
*The Motion also stood in the names of Miss Cheng Li Hui, Dr Lily Neo, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am moving this Motion on behalf of a group of Parliamentarians called the People's Action Party (PAP) Senior Group or PAP.SG. I would like to start my chat today by talking about two seniors in my constituency, Kebun Baru.
Saraj, aged 72, spent his entire life keeping Singapore safe. He was one of our chief hostage negotiators for both Singapore Airlines (SQ) highjacks. After he retired, he continues to volunteer to pass down his wisdom. Today, he is a cornerstone of Kebun Baru’s Yellow Ribbon outreach.
Alice, aged 70, spent her entire life as a nurse. From 1986 to 2000, she built the modern ambulance service that we know. She then served for 30 more years. Today, she still leads our community emergency responders.
All of us here within this Chamber have met incredible seniors, their stories etched in our minds. Some have done great things; some have lead simple but meaningful lives. Their wisdom and resilience had built Singapore.
Our Pioneers, soon to be followed by our Baby Boomers, are now growing old. They have been described as the coming Silver Tsunami. Last December, a United Overseas Bank (UOB) analyst even declared that Singapore’s demographic time bomb will start ticking, right this year.
An ageing population presents major challenges to an unprepared society: less economic vitality, higher tax burden on the young, and an intergenerational fight for resources between the young and old.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
But we, at PAP.SG, believe that we must and we will meet these serious challenges and then go beyond. Besides the challenges, we should also focus on the positives. More and more of our seniors are highly-skilled and experienced, with a stronger ability to retire productively and to contribute to society. And this is what we believe to be the Silver Dividend.
But creating this Silver Dividend requires a lot of work. We need to stretch our minds, stretch our hearts and stretch our hands. If we are successful, our seniors can shine brightly in their autumn years. They can reflect on their lifelong experiences, in comfort and dignity. They can pass down their very special spark to the next generation. And that is how we can build a wise and resilient Singapore ‒ through values and experiences passed down by each generation.
On what basis does PAP.SG have this confidence? Well, Singapore is not the first or the only society dealing with the challenge of ageing. Successful preparations require decisive actions and long-term planning. And these are precisely our strengths. Our long-term planning has already borne fruit. Before this Silver Tsunami has hit Singapore, we have assembled the major policy pieces. Let me give a few examples.
One, in five short years, we have tripled our healthcare spending. In percentages, I believe we have undergone the most aggressive healthcare expansion in recent memory in any developed country.
Two, we have set aside many billions for our Pioneer Generation Package and are spending a lot more for our Silver Support Scheme.
Three, we have strengthened MediShield Life and are reviewing ElderShield Life.
Four, we have improved retirement adequacy through higher Central Provident Fund (CPF) payouts.
Five, we have introduced lease buy-back for seniors living in many Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats through the enhanced Silver Housing Bonus.
Six, we have set aside $3 billion for the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, a remarkable plan, which called for Singapore to be a kampung and city for all ages, with vast opportunities for our seniors.
But as we frequently say in this Chamber, we are not done building Singapore. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. It is in this spirit that my fellow PAP.SG Members and I would like to put forward additional ideas for consideration.
Today, we will talk about retirement adequacy, retirement housing, seniors’ employability, volunteerism, the digital divide, digital medicine and caregiver support.
We are fully aware that meeting the challenge of ageing is expensive. In fact, some of us worry deeply about how to pay for meeting our promises to our seniors while still creating a bright future for our children. So, whatever we do today or put in place tomorrow must be prudent and sustainable. Otherwise, we will be loading an unfair burden on future generations.
Fortunately, the key to success requires more than Government dollars. It requires society to come together to create community initiatives to support our seniors. As such, my fellow PAP.SG Members and I will speak about our community initiatives for seniors. We believe in these initiatives and we want them to spread across Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for my speech today, I will focus on maintaining the dignity of our elderly. We will all grow old one day. Even now, many of us are seeing our parents age. When I speak to my peers, a common theme emerges. Dad once carried us on his shoulders, but he is looking so frail recently. Mum used to nag us not to forget this or that, but now she is also forgetting things. And we start wondering what we would do when they can no longer take care of themselves. We would all like to take care of them at home. But sometimes it is not possible for medical, financial or family reasons.
A friend told me that he looked into some nursing homes, but the seniors there looked so sad that he could not bear to. They were given basic care but could not pursue their own interests or social life. Nobody cared about what they wanted or what makes them unique and what gets them out of bed every day. In other words, they are okay but they have lost their dignity.
This is not the only way seniors have lost their dignity. Seniors lose their dignity when they cannot pay for their retirement years; when they have to move to somewhere more affordable and leave their social circles. Seniors lose dignity when they are viewed as burdens to society.
Our seniors deserve their dignity. Many seniors feel that if they lose dignity, a longer life is not a blessing. Mother Teresa said, \"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat.\"
I am sure none of us want our parents and our nation's Pioneers to be in this state, and we certainly do not want to be in this state one day. With that in mind, I would like to propose three policy changes.
(a) Changing regulations to enable affordable, dignified living options for all seniors;
(b) introducing regulations to help our seniors, especially our private estate residents, to monetise their housing assets; and
(c) introducing caregiver leave.
My first proposal is to strengthen affordable, dignified living options for our seniors. Some nursing homes that are built long ago still have many seniors sharing a room. At some homes, overworked staff do not have time to say \"Hi\" or chat.
The lack of autonomy, meaning and privacy in many nursing and retirement homes is a huge factor why eight in 10 Singaporeans worry about getting old, and why many of us still view these homes as \"dumping\" our parents there. But when Singaporeans genuinely cannot take care of their parents at home, they should not have to feel that they are unfilial. We should have better options.
Fortunately, we are beginning to see new types of nursing homes and seniors housing. So, with regard to nursing homes, I believe that we are making an important transition and there had been some solid success. For example, we have created the new Kampung Admiralty for HDB dwellers who want a comfortable assisted living home option. Kampung Admiralty has senior housing built on top of a common community plaza with a hawker centre and medical facilities. The designers also wisely put the senior activity centre next to the kindergarten.
I visited Kampung Admiralty with some of my architect friends to study the layout. We went away very impressed. I hope that we can build many more Kampung Admiraltys. They can serve as our mothership to surrounding blocks of conventional flats and be the anchor to our Kampung for All Ages. I am also glad to hear that Minister Gan Kim Yong is looking into various assisted living options for more Singaporeans, just like the options offered at Kampung Admiralty.
Today, we also have many more choices in nursing homes, which I consider a partial success. There are homes where seniors have more autonomy, privacy and activities. But they cost from nearly $4,000 to $15,000 a month, obviously not affordable for the vast majority of retirees, even those staying in private estates. We must make more of such options more affordable.
We also had experiments on private retirement homes or assisted living arrangements, although I feel that we have not yet discovered the right model. I have been following a site at Jurong Kechil that has been billed as a potential retirement home. But because the developer had to bid against conventional residential developments, some have questioned whether it will turn out to be more a condominium than a retirement home.
In short, there are still gaps. We need to quickly assemble a full range of good options, at different price points, for our seniors. Both our seniors living in HDB and private estates must have choices to either age-in-place, right-size to a right place, live in an assisted living environment or a retirement village, or move into a nursing home.
Just as important as the choices is the affordability. We must change regulations and laws to help our seniors monetise their assets to pay for them, and we must create these options now.
A senior lecturer in the National University of Singapore (NUS), who was part of the group advising me on senior housing, shared this with me, \"Please tell the Government that this is urgent. We are getting older and older every day. There is no time for us to wait for more reviews and more studies. We need these choices now.\"
After studying the existing gaps and options, I would like to propose four ways for the Government to create a broader range of choices.
One, the Government can have a separate land use category for retirement or assisted living homes. We can design it so that only properly regulated players can bid. These players, as an industry, must offer various price points. How do we make sure that there is no race to the bottom? Simple. The Government can charge property tax based on the revenue intensity of their operations, which depends on the price point of their offering. With a separate land use category, land sales could fetch a lower amount. But today we already ascribe different values to industrial parks, schools and public housing because they are important to our society. So, why not for retirement homes?
We can experiment with a few projects and then finetune along the way. There are also ways to further ringfence the cost to the rest of the society through creative land use, such as allowing for usage in certain religious lands – I know a particular church that is very keen to explore doing so. We can also look at spaces on top of car parks, spaces between HDB blocks.
Two, the Government can put in watertight regulations on what constitutes a retirement home, even without a separate land use category. The Government must get developers to clearly spell out what assisted services, service standards and pricing to offer. But it will be a partial solution because the existing land use category is unlikely to rule out non-seniors from buying. And there is always the temptation from speculators or shoebox apartment buyers to price genuine senior buyers out.
Three, the Government can embrace legislation similar to the Australian Retirement Village Act, which governs the relationship between retirement homes and the seniors staying in them. Specifically, we can look at the Retirement Village Acts in both Queensland and Victoria states.
Four, the Government can provide a gross floor area (GFA) bonus to selected older condominiums that want to be partially or fully transformed into a retirement village.
Pearl Bank is an excellent example. Pearl Bank is a condominium with a deep sense of community and unique architecture value. It is also very near Singapore General Hospital. There has been talk about En bloc and conservation. Many residents want to En bloc, which requires land intensification, which will allow residents of Pearl Bank to top-up their lease. And one exciting option is to intensify by building an additional 150 units of senior housing on top of their existing car park, and also building more facilities catered to seniors, while keeping the unique architectural makeup of the rest of the development. Yet, they are constrained from doing so, at least through the En bloc route, because they have maximised their GFA under the current regulations. If the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) can view them as potential retirement residential development, can these regulations be relaxed?
Beyond Pearl Bank, I am sure there are other private estates that could voluntarily work with the Government to be converted into a full or partial retirement residential development.
My second proposal is to help our seniors, especially those living in private estates, monetise their housing assets. Seniors lose dignity when they cannot afford to pay for their retirement years.
For many Singaporeans, our most major asset is our home. Monetisation options are in place for seniors living in 4-room HDB or smaller flats but not for seniors in other housing types.
In my constituency, there is a private estate called Teachers’ Estate. As the name tells you, the seniors there are mostly retired teachers. But now, some of them are asset-rich and cash-poor. They do not qualify for most assistance schemes because they live in private estates. They tell me that they do have the option of downsizing but it is hard to find affordable options nearby which can also free up enough money for retirement. When they move, they are cut off from their social circles. So, we need to look into more options that enable them to age-in-place.
Again, why has the market not provided such an option? Two reasons. For many retirees living in private housing, they live frugally, so they might only need tens of thousands of dollars each year in retirement. But banks are not interested in lending them secured loans in such quantum. This is because, given the razor-thin margin of reverse mortgages, the banks have limited interest in secured loans for less than $200,000-$300,000.
Talking to the private and people sector, I see at least two solutions. The first is to get the Government to encourage and regulate social enterprises or co-operatives (co-ops) to undertake such reverse mortgages. Let me get this straight, I believe the numbers can work out and there is no need for the Government to co-fund or co-share the risk.
The social enterprises and co-ops can also securitise their assets in the financial markets, and this can be done, given Singapore’s status as a centre for real estate investment trusts (REITS). Government regulations can also ensure that the social enterprises or co-ops are properly capitalised, the reverse mortgage valuation process is proper, the fees are transparent and appropriate, and we can also push the social enterprises or co-ops to go for transparency and accountability, perhaps by getting them to declare a socially acceptable and transparent cost-plus financing model.
The second solution is for the Government to encourage and regularise specialised funds for seniors to monetise their assets. We can look at the innovation happening in France. Retirees sell their assets to a fund that is based on the French concept of \"Viager\" property contracts. Seniors sell their asset to a fund which owns a portfolio of properties. While the property deed goes to the fund, the seniors have the right to stay in the property until they pass on one day. Based on market valuation, actuarial studies and the fund’s desired returns, the fund pays the senior an upfront payment, followed by a lifelong annuity. We can even consider adding life insurance payoffs into the housing equity to increase the amount of assets that seniors can monetise.
The Government can also consider regulating how the funds are capitalised, to make sure that the funds are not over-leveraged, the transparency of the returns and the actuarial basis of the fund payoff.
My third proposal is to introduce senior caregiver leave. Seniors lose dignity when their loved ones are not with them in times of need. Ageing, falling sick and one day departing from the world are a fate we all share. As we depart quietly into the night, our loved ones' presence will comfort us through that inevitable journey. Senior caregiver leave can help. I propose starting with four days of Senior Care Leave for a selected group of Singaporeans who are already caregivers for their parents. This would come with costs to the companies but there are ways to limit the costs to deserving situations.
One, we can limit it to Singaporeans with parents aged above 70.
Two, we can limit it to eligible Singaporeans who have less than 14 days of annual leave, because these Singaporeans have even less time to care for their parents compared to others.
Three, at the start, focus on companies with more than 100 employees. These companies have the means to adapt.
Four, adopt a tripartite process to deliberate on this.
As mentioned earlier, Government programmes are only part of the equation. Our community must also step up. There are many excellent programmes throughout Singapore. There is much opportunity to share best practices. PAP.SG hopes to spur such conversations. For example, in my constituency, I have started something called The Hope Collective. It brings the do-gooders of Kebun Baru together, whether they are Government agencies, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), grassroots committees or even new groups of volunteers.
We are already seeing synergies. For example, we have an elderly befriending programme called Project Starfish. Through Hope Collective, they have partnered another group called Mummy Yummy that delivers vegetarian meals to the needy. So, they have brought their strengths together and brought seniors to our Community Centre for regular meals. The seniors loved the food and the meals broke their social isolation. Now, Project Starfish and Mummy Yummy are bringing in more student volunteers through Hope Collective so that they can expand their outreach. They are also working with the Police to share the workload.
Through the Hope Collective, we can also take a comprehensive view and plug in the gaps. For example, we have a pool of lawyers who can educate and advise on legal matters for the seniors, such as Limited Powers of Attorney (LPAs). We also want to move towards dementia readiness. Overall, our vision is to build a culture of respect, love and care for our seniors. We want to build \"a Kampung for All Ages\". I am looking forward to learning more ideas from my colleagues in this session.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me wrap up my opening speech. Some medical professionals say our elder care has to catch up with First World standards. I say we should and then go beyond that.
Just as our seniors have built a world-beating economy for us, we can be the world leader in building a senior-friendly society for them. It seems like a tall order, until we remember that everybody has parents and everybody will grow old. So, everybody has a vested interest in getting this sorted out. If the Government can provide the right structure, it will unleash the society’s energy to do so. In fact, the three ideas I have laid out today will do precisely that.
Of course, ageing presents serious challenges, even for a nation as united and organised as Singapore. But we should not shy away from meeting these challenges. As Prime Minister Lee said in his 2014 National Day Rally speech, \"At the heart of the Singapore Story is our belief in Singapore; a belief that we can turn vulnerability and despair into confidence and hope; belief that out of the trauma of Separation, we can build a modern metropolis and a beautiful home.\"
What I would like to ask this Chamber today is, \"What is a beautiful home?\" It is a place where we can live with dignity, no matter our age; where we can rest assured that we can take care of our families; where the community does right by those who sacrificed their best years for us. Because only when we have done that, can we say this is home, truly.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the title of my speech today is \"Golden Opportunities in Silver Years\". It is about a change of policies and communities willing to assist seniors live meaningfully and independently and be assets to society and country throughout their silver years.
I would like to propose that we plan and maximise the potential of the silver population so that they can have better opportunities and, at the same time, allow society to reap the benefits of the Silver Dividend.
The strategy is a call for affirmative concepts of people of all ages, a society for all ages that celebrates and prepares properly for the whole population so that everyone can be healthy, active, positive and productive individuals throughout life. Every citizen can contribute to the public good, helping themselves and others, as well as striving for positive fulfilment through meaningful engagement.
In our population demography, there are many positive opportunities that we can tap on, from the large numbers of healthy and active seniors in our society, to be workers, mentors, caregivers, child minders, consumers and volunteers.
To successfully manage the economics of our ageing population, we need good forward planning and strategic policy choices that have the cooperation from all sectors of our society.
People are capable of living self-reliant lives with new possibilities that make living exciting and productive through the right policies in labour market participation, social inclusion as well as healthcare in place. We need policies that can enable and support all ages to enjoy physical, social and mental well-being.
As a start, we need to change the prevalent negative discriminatory attitudes towards our seniors as useless, as a ticking demographic time bomb and as a burden that society can ill-afford. Senior citizens should be viewed as assets who can be tapped on for their wisdom, experience, values and expertise.
Labour market participation. There is evidence that longer working lives have beneficial effects on an individual’s physical and psychological well-being. Some evidence also show that a worker’s productivity does not necessarily decline with age; any decline in physical capacity is often compensated by qualities and skills acquired through experience. In essence, it is health status rather than age that is a key factor in determining productivity levels.
The 2014 results from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) indicate a large proportion of Singaporean seniors have expressed interest to continue working after the age of retirement. Ninety percent of the respondents have indicated that working is a good way to stay financially independent, connect with society and retain their sense of self-worth.
The latest report by Oxford Economics said that Singapore's labour supply will shrink by 1.7% in the 10 years through 2026, and by 2.5% in the following decade after accounting for changes to the participation rate. This will make the country the worst hit of a dozen economies in the report even though it was Japan that has recorded the biggest workforce decline over the past 10 years. Given our shrinking workforce, it will be good if we can increase the labour participation of seniors.
Active labour market participation may be enhanced by establishing flexible retirement arrangements: through forming a working environment that is suitable to the needs of all generations, continuous education, promoting positive images of senior employees and anti-discrimination policies, and recognising and lowering barriers of entry into the workforce so as to include the seniors in our economy. The barriers of entry would include stereo-mindset of employers, skills mismatch, lack of job flexibility, technological barrier and lack of incentives for businesses and so on.
I agree with many parts of the 2016 blueprint report on Action Plan for Successful Ageing by the Ministry of Health (MOH), especially on employability with ageless workplaces and lifelong employability. In this report, it says that many seniors want to work beyond the official retirement age to remain financially independent and to keep themselves active. Seniors hope to have meaningful job opportunities to fulfil their aspirations at their stage of life.
Suggestions from seniors and employers in this blueprint report include the following: redesign jobs to offer older workers greater flexibility, make training accessible and effective for older workers, set up a dedicated seniors-only national job bank to lifelong learning, review or extend the retirement age as some think it should be extended to 70 while some others feel it should be abolished entirely, provide good career guidance and transition programmes a few years ahead of the re-employment age, promote mindset change among employers on the value of older workers, allow older workers to try out jobs via internships or job trials, recognise employers who treat older workers well, and promote intergenerational workplace harmony. These are all good recommendations and I hope that our Government can consider them and make them available soonest.
Volunteerism. There are health and social benefits in volunteering. It offers seniors significant physical, emotional and cognitive or brain health benefits. It also enhances social support and social inclusion. The brain is involved in feeling as well as thinking, and this means that finding meaningful and purposeful activity is particularly important. This can be accomplished through volunteering by finding roles that are personally meaningful. Matching and placing volunteers in the best role for each individual is worth the effort.
Many studies have found that engaging in voluntary work in later life is a strong predictor of better self-rated health, daily functioning, physical activity and life satisfaction. Voluntary work in later life is also associated with a decrease in depression, hypertension and mortality among seniors. In addition to health benefits, volunteering can enhance social support networks, increase social status and reinforce knowledge and skills. Volunteering also provides a role identity and sense of purpose for those retired from paid work.
Seniors can better integrate socially when they find structures for volunteering. There is a need to increase awareness of opportunities and community needs and to facilitate opportunities for engagement. People are looking for a range of options where they can see the value and impact of their contributions in their community. More people are interested in group volunteering, short-term assignments, as well as virtual volunteering, and they view volunteering as a way of transferring or gaining skills. Some of our SkillsFuture Credit courses can be tailored for this purpose.
May I urge our Government to set up policies and programmes aimed at promoting volunteering among seniors and strengthening the capacity of organisations to involve seniors with a broader spectrum of engagements. Let us promote and provide avenues for volunteering as a meaningful occupation that provides direction as well as purpose and passion, just like the fulfilment that comes from meaningful paid work where individuals find fulfilment, meaning and personal identity. This form of volunteering can be viewed as \"serious leisure\", \"career volunteering\" or \"career redirection\". I would like to suggest the following areas to further broaden the spectrum of volunteering.
(a) Retirement planning typically focuses on financial planning; modules on volunteering should be part of all Retirement Planning programmes.
(b) Recreation can be made more meaningful with volunteering roles, such as being a swimming buddy with someone with a physical disability, being a singing coach in nursing homes, being a volunteer playing chess with youths in a drop-in centre and so on.
(c) Lifelong learning volunteering is a way to transfer skills gained or to learn new skills, in this context, volunteering prepares one for a new career.
(d) HDB and private condominium volunteering is a great way to get more connected to the neighbours, especially in door-to-door canvassing, in collecting information about their environment or in patrolling their estates.
(e) Skills-based volunteering, where many adults who have indicated an interest in using their skills and experiences for volunteering is a good approach.
(f) Environmental volunteering may be ideal for adults who are interested in environmental issues, collecting information about the environment. The National Environment Agency (NEA), Town Councils and Community Centres may recruit such volunteers and even for just one-day events.
(g) Employer-supported volunteering, where corporations support the commitment of their employees for activities through “community day or days” each year. These can be further encouraged in quality and quantity and in having more businesses, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) involved.
(h) Retired Employee volunteering programme, where workplaces that have alumni or retiree programmes can incorporate volunteer opportunities. Our Ministries can pilot such programmes where employees can continue as mentors, volunteering especially to ease the transition of new employees.
It will be useful to have a volunteer centre with coordinators to offer programmes that appeal to different groups with different interests and to match and place the volunteering services with the community groups and organisations. This will provide a one-stop convenient avenue and will maximise outcome.
Senior adults may experience challenges and barriers to volunteering in relation to transportation, scheduling issues and out-of-pocket expenses. I would like to suggest implementation of reimbursements for costs incurred, similar to that granted to the \"Pioneer Generation (PG) Ambassadors” programme, so that volunteers are not overly burdened financially in the course of volunteering.
Health. Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely by the absence of disease and infirmity. Seniors considered the deterioration in their physical or mental health as the biggest threat to their well-being. As life expectancy increases, it becomes more important that the added years to life are accompanied by good health. Good health is a prerequisite for anyone expecting an active and fulfilling life.
Many chronic diseases are largely preventable. Chronic diseases, especially diabetes and hypertension, are considered one of the most significant health challenges in developed countries and represent a major component of service activity and expenditure, as well as a major contributor to disability, ill-health and mortality among the older population in these countries. Many of these are also key risk factors for the development of dementia. It has been reported that the cumulative lifetime disability for those who smoke, are obese and do not exercise is four times greater than those who are of a healthy weight, exercise and do not smoke.
Traditionally, models of care have tended to focus on those with the most medical needs. I would like our Government to ensure subsequent future service provisions reverse this trend so that equal priority is accorded to both medical treatment and the promotion of health and well-being. Shifting the focus towards promotion of lifelong good health would lead to a significant increase not only in life expectancy but also in disability-free life expectancy. So, the emphasis of our healthcare policy should be to prevent and reduce disability and premature mortality by supporting the development and implementation of policies towards this aim.
While there is evidence that it is difficult to change the behaviour patterns of seniors, research has also found that changes in lifestyle, even in later years, can bring health benefits. Research indicates that retirement tends to decrease the level of physical activity needed for a healthy lifestyle. Social isolation may contribute to depression, grief, stress, anxiety, alcoholism and medication misuse, failure to seek help when needed, and an extremely high suicide rate, particularly among older men.
Independent living. In its submission to the Second World Assembly on Ageing 2002, the World Health Organisation observed that age-friendly built environments for people with disabilities facilitate access to the appropriate range of housing and housing-related support services that are delivered in an integrated and sustainable manner.
This promotes equality of opportunity, individual choice and independent living. These can make a difference between independency and dependency for all individuals and is particularly important for those growing older. For instance, older people who live in an unsafe environment or areas with multiple physical barriers are less likely to venture out and are, therefore, more prone to isolation, depression, reduced fitness and increased mobility problems.
It will be good if HDB continues to promote and support universally recognised seniors-oriented housing designs and compositions that allow for an environment that may be easily accessed and used to the greatest possible extent by persons of any age or having any particular physical, sensory, medical ill-health or disability. We must try to design and develop seniors-friendly living spaces and buildings which are suitable for their physical and social needs.
The priority of the Government's policy is to support seniors to live independently in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. Planning, designing and building local environments that are safe and accessible to seniors are, therefore, vital to supporting them to live in their own homes and local communities. Seniors-friendly adaptations in design inside HDB flats will enable many to continue living independently despite disability. Common spaces with consideration for a micro-community with, for example, recreation and community areas to enable seniors to lend support to one another and to engage with one another will prevent social isolation. Support services within the same block or close vicinity that are useful are Seniors Activity Centres, clinics, minimarts and food outlets.
There is an increasing recognition that new technologies can offer new ways of supporting people with medical illnesses and disabilities and facilitating them to continue living independently at home. They can play an important role in self-care and prevention of advancing disability. Telecare and telehealth services are also becoming increasingly recognised as effective ways to prevent or manage some health conditions that effectively facilitate independent living.
Mobility. Researches have shown that roles that require physical activity engage the brain and provide social interaction that are especially good for individuals because multiple area stimulation appears to reduce the risk of dementia and promote brain health. Thus, enabling people, as they age, \"to get out and about\" through the provision of accessible, affordable and flexible transport systems is essential for ease in mobility. Mobility is a key determinant towards an individual’s ability to access social or physical services and to engage in community activities. Seniors who live in inaccessible environments are less likely to go outdoors and are, therefore, more prone to isolation, depression, reduced fitness and mobility problems. Thus, let us continue to enhance a seniors-friendly public transport system.
Let us continue to aim for a community that is inclusive of everyone, including especially our seniors. Let our seniors be welcomed by society, businesses and community alike. Let our seniors be respected, not patronised, and let the wealth of knowledge and experience they have to offer be valued. I hope our Government will consider my suggestions above and implement measures towards achieving an even better society for all.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. I join my colleagues in this hon House in support of the Motion and echo their proposition to recognise that seniors are a gift to us. Indeed, seniors should be respected, even if they cannot contribute anymore.
Sir, the social compact in Singapore is evolving. The success, stability and economic benefits enjoyed by us today have been built upon the sacrifices, sweat and tears of our seniors. They suffered loss so that we might gain. As a country, we owe it to our seniors to enjoy their golden years in dignity.
More fundamentally, as individuals, we owe it to our parents to enjoy their golden years in dignity. Regrettably, it appears there are some among us who do not agree with that statement. We have all seen many, too many, cases of neglect or abuse of seniors by their adult or even middle-aged children. Yes, there might be bad blood between a senior and his or her children. Notwithstanding that, few among us will condone neglect or abuse of such seniors by their adult children.
Accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst I firmly believe that filial piety cannot be legislated, I submit that Singapore needs a more robust and coordinated framework towards ensuring that our seniors will be well taken care of.
The hon Member Mr Henry Kwek proposed three policy changes. I propose three complementary actions: education; bolder use of existing legislation, namely, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA); and supplementary legislation.
Firstly, education. Caring for a person is not about how lovable a person is, or how fragrant the person is, or how affordable or convenient it is to care for the person. Particularly in the context of a parent and child, it is about love and obligation. And obligation, even if there is no love.
As a community, therefore, we must continue to emphasise the value of filial piety. It should be taught at home. Parents should set the example, and it should be taught in schools and religious institutions.
We should also recognise that with or without filial piety, financial dependence on children can strain and has frequently strained parent-child relationships. So, let us empower seniors to take control of their financial assets in order to reduce financial dependence on their children.
Whilst it is understandable that seniors would like to give properties to their children, the gifts can be made after they have passed on. In principle, they can reduce their financial dependence on the children and still leave legacies to them using two legal instruments: the reverse mortgage and the Will.
First, the reverse mortgage. We should intensify and expand our ground efforts to inform seniors of the advantages of the reverse mortgage to HDB and other financial institutions and encourage a higher greater take-up rate. The payouts from the reverse mortgage will enable the seniors to reduce their dependence on public assistance or their children. The remaining value of the flat can still be gifted to their children after they have passed on.
Second, the Will. We should encourage seniors to maintain themselves out of their own properties. They should not make gifts to their children in their lifetime. By making a Will, the senior can continue to own and enjoy their property and leave the remainder, after they have passed on, to their children. A Will can be changed at any time by the senior. This means that an unfilial child can be written out of the Will at any time. By using the Will, the senior retains to a large extent the control over his or her assets and finances, and financial independence.
Of course, some children may not be happy to wait so long. If the parent-child relationship deteriorates because the parent had decided to take control of his or her own finances, then all the more the parent would have made the correct decision. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Generally speaking, parents will express their love for their children by bestowing things to them. As a result, many seniors transfer their properties to their children. Only after they do so, do they come to realise that their children are not filial, and they are even mistreated, abused, neglected or even abandoned.
Even if it does not go to such an extreme extent, parent-child relationship often deteriorates as a result of financial or money issues. In order to avoid conflicts, seniors should be urged to reduce their financial dependence on their children. In their lifetime, they should not transfer or give away their financial assets to their children. They should keep their assets to themselves. They should be encouraged to make a will to allocate their inheritance.
Seniors can take up the reverse mortgage through HDB. Not only will they avoid paying the instalments, but also, they will receive monthly payouts. They should make a will in order to allocate their remaining inheritance.
There is another benefit of making a will. The will can be amended at any time. The filial children can receive more inheritance, whereas the unfilial children can be written out of the will. If the children are unhappy with such arrangements, it proves even more that your decision is correct.
(In English): Secondly, I would like to propose a bolder use of the existing legislation, namely, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA).
The MPA empowers the Commissioner to make an application on behalf of seniors or parents and represent them in proceedings or appeal under the Act. This is an important power, considering that family relations could be further aggravated where applications are made by parents against their children. Where the Commissioner has sufficient evidence at hand, the Commissioner should make the application, notwithstanding that the parent may not be willing to adduce any evidence against their children. Could the Minister for Family and Social Development confirm the number of such MPA applications by the Commissioner from 2010 to date?
When an order for maintenance is made and not complied with, the Act provides a further mechanism in which securities can be made and ordered out of existing properties. This is also extremely useful and assists the seniors without having to make another round or commence another round of legal proceedings. Can the Minister for Family and Social Development also share the number of such orders that have been made out of section 6 of the MPA?
I would also urge the Government to make express provisions under the MPA to allow attachment orders to be made against the salaries of children, which leads me to my third point: supplementary legislation.
Whilst we are not in any position to legislate filial piety, and we should not, as Prof Walter Woon pointed out in his speech during the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill in 1994, we can provide a safety net if filial piety fails. And we should.
Here, I may add that, in my view, the Vulnerable Adults Bill in the form presented to this House at its First Reading is inadequate in that it fails to legislate financial protection for vulnerable adults, including the elderly. I hope to hear more from the Minister on this issue.
At this point, allow me to share a couple of stories which I constructed from incidents made known to me.
Mr Tan was a manual worker. He and his wife had three children, whom they provided for and raised. Before Mr Tan passed away, he added the name of his eldest son as a joint owner of the flat, expecting that his son would care for his mother, Mr Tan’s wife. After he passed away, Mrs Tan continues to stay in the flat with her son and family, but is treated as non-existent by her son and family as far as they are concerned. She sleeps in the living room and cooks porridge for herself, whilst her son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren enjoy sumptuous meals. The other two children meanwhile are estranged from Mrs Tan due to the \"unfairness\" of the flat having been favoured to their eldest brother.
The second story: Mr and Mrs Lee worked hard to bring up their only daughter. When she was about to be married, they sold their HDB flat, gave the proceeds to their daughter so that she might buy her own flat. The understanding was that they would move in to stay with her. Things did not work out as planned and they are now left homeless.
Stories, such as the above, abound and we may simply change surnames, number of children and permutations. But the result is the same: parents part with their properties, their sale proceeds, their savings, only to be left with nothing, not even provision from their children.
Many of these parents may not wish to initiate any proceedings under the MPA. Some of them may not even be eligible under the MPA. But all of us can see the injustice and inequity in such situations. The children have taken their parents’ property and left them bereft. It is irresponsible, cruel, unthinkable, but it happens, and often, too.
The law as it now stands is against the parent. I speak with particular reference to cases where property is transferred or given by a parent to his or her child. The current situation is that parents do not have much of a recourse. We do not understand as laymen. When we think that we give a property to our children for them to look after us, we think we can have it back. But the legal position is that once we transfer the property, we cannot take it back, especially if we are a parent transferring the property to a son or a daughter. The law presumes that it is meant as a gift and this is known as the presumption of advancement. The burden falls on the parent to rebut the presumption.
Of course, there are exceptions, such as trust, fraud, undue influence. But it is hard to prove. In each case, the evidentiary burden on parents is extremely high. In addition, adducing evidence may involve other family members and widen the family dispute, which is not at all to be encouraged. The law as it stands also does not take into consideration changes in circumstances, such as where a child has a change of heart towards his or her parent after receiving the property.
So, they are left to suffer in silence. But ultimately, someone has to look after them, right? And here is where the state steps in. But that is not right. We can all see the unjustness in the situation. It is not right. And we cannot encourage such reprehensible behaviour. So, I urge the Government to consider reviewing the law to supplement the MPA and to seriously consider the following.
First, abolish the presumption of advancement in circumstances where an elderly parent transfers property to an adult son or daughter. The law is anachronistic. We have got to change that now. We are faced with vulnerable seniors, mostly with only one HDB flat, not landed gentry. These are vulnerable people who give their property to their children, children who then neglect, abuse or abandon them.
Second, we should legislate conditions under which a trust in favour of a parent can arise or must arise by operation of law, such as where an elderly parent transfers a substantial portion of his or her property to an adult son or daughter so that such son or daughter will hold property in trust for the parent.
Thirdly, we should provide for transfers of property to be voidable, at the option of the parent, in the event that the child fails to provide basic amenities or basic physical needs to the parent after the transfer.
We should legislate to place the evidentiary burden on the receiving party to show that he or she had not defrauded, coerced or exerted undue influence on his or her parent, that market consideration had been paid to the parent, and that such money had not been routed back to him or her.
We should provide that the statutory obligation to maintain one’s parents arises immediately upon the transfer of the property from parent to child, by operation of law. This could apply when the transfer cannot be faulted.
Sixthly, we can amend our penal laws to provide harsher sanctions against those who prey on the financially vulnerable, of which the seniors should, by default, form a category.
In addition, the Government could consider a compulsory savings scheme whereby a part of the CPF contribution is channeled into a new sub-account designated for the purchase of annuities for the maintenance of the member’s parents.
I do note that there are areas of overlap and potential conflicts between the above measures that I have suggested. We should not be deterred. We can and should rationalise and implement the measures holistically to form a robust framework to support seniors and reduce familial strain attributable to money matters.
I am also well aware that enforcement will be difficult since we are dealing with family relationships. But we put the cart before the horse if we say enforcement must be achievable before we can set up a framework. Tell that to an elderly person: I will not give you the right to take back your property because you may not be able to take it back anyway. Can we say that to an elderly person? It is as good as a doctor telling his patient \"I will not give you any option for a particular treatment unless I am sure it will work 100%\". I do not think doctors will say that and I do not think that this House should be swayed by any argument that we should not have a framework unless we can ensure enforcement.
We need to set our moral and legal principles right and the rest will follow. I wish to emphasise that I do not advocate that we legislate filial piety or, worse still, replace it. Fundamentally, the responsibility, the privilege, remains with the family.
If I may quote Prof Walter Woon in response to any concern that my proposals could be too interventionist. Are we being too interventionist? Prof Walter Woon, from his speech during the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill in 1994, said:
“The Bill is not aimed at the majority of Singaporeans who know their duty, who know where morals point and who support and love their parents without having to be told. The Bill is aimed at that recalcitrant small minority that cannot be counted on to do what is right, and therefore it will not affect the vast majority of Singaporeans.”
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, my proposals are “aimed at that recalcitrant small minority that cannot be counted on to do what is right”. Currently, other Singaporeans have to pay for that failure. It becomes an additional expenditure of public funds which could have been diverted to support those who are truly without family, and for other national purposes. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Not just a matter of public funds expenditure, such cruel and reprehensible behaviour, if left unaddressed, will immunise our people against basic human values. It will immunise our children and set the tone for what our children, and society, will become. It will immunise us against responsibility, suffering, justice and equity. What is now unacceptable will soon be common landscape, the way life is. What is now reprehensible becomes our lifestyle, the way we are. The family unit will be threatened, our social fabric will tear.
We have to do something. We have to do it now. We need to set our moral and legal principles right. Otherwise, we fail miserably as a Government and society. Let us do right by our people. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. We all age. That is an inescapable fact of the human condition. But it is a fact that we, human beings, all too often try to escape or decry or deny or despair of rather than embrace ageing as the doorway to a new different exciting phase of life with its own potential and pitfalls and this goes to the heart of the matter.
Archaeologists have found extremely ancient human skeletal remains where skeletons were obviously people who lived to a very old age, beyond the point when they could meaningfully contribute economically and where they may well have been invalid or immobile due to the kinds of illnesses that were rife in ancient times. And yet they lived till they were very old. The ancient tribes they lived within probably tended to them, helped to move from campsite to campsite, helped feed, clothe and care for them to enable them to live so long.
Embracing ageing and the aged defines a part of what it means to be human. Whether and how we include older people as equal members of our society is a mark of civilisation and humanity. On this barometer, I know that Singapore will never fall short.
In our homes, our workplaces or coffee shops, when Singaporeans speak of seniors who are their relatives, seniors who are their mentors, seniors that they know in their neighbourhoods or communities, it is inevitably in tones of respect, concern and empathy. This gut reaction speaks volumes about the kind of people Singaporeans are. We defend those who are disadvantaged, even if they are frail and economically weak. We have an instinctive sense of social justice and fairness. These ideals are embodied in our pledge which is why our pledge, that short collection of words, deeply resonates with all Singaporeans. We should be proud of these instincts.
But when we speak of our seniors, it should not only be about taking care of the disadvantaged group, it should be about how we can also build a more inclusive society because that advances the cause of Singapore and all Singaporeans, because seniors can contribute and give back, not only consume and receive.
Again, we turn to anthropologists. Ancient human societies greatly valued older people because they had, to use a modern expression from the business world, racked up the air miles. They had experienced many seasons, many cycles, many events and had a repository of memories of our natural conditions, interactions with other societies or tribes and intra-community dynamics that could add value to their communities and maybe even make the difference between life and death. And yet in our modern societies, this logic is often turned on its head. Older people are sometimes stigmatised and stereotyped as stuck in the mud, unable to keep up with the times, incapable of using technology, in short, as irrelevant.
I am reminded of the time when a very old cashier at the shop once started a deep conversation with me. At first, I instinctively got a little impatient. A part of me said, \"Oh, no, here comes a rambling senior, how can I extricate myself from this?\" And then I thought while I get many calls, emails, visits today, every day as we all do, I think as Members of this House, a day may come when no one wants to talk to me. What will I do then? So, I listened and I listened, and when I opened my mind, my heart, I realised that this lady had many interesting and useful insights, much wisdom to share. After a while, I almost wanted to whip up my mobile device and start taking down notes. My unconscious bias had held me back from learning from, from being inspired by this person.
Yes, older people do have a lot to contribute. We have to build a society that recognises, pools and embraces those contributions but we also have to build a society where older people have the confidence to make those contributions, to master enabling technologies and to speak to make their voice heard.
The rest of my speech, Sir, will touch on some of the broad principles we need to entrench in order to be a truly inclusive non-ageist society for the betterment of our soul. I will speak of these principles each in the form of a question.
Firstly, to work until when? Inevitably, as life expectancy rise, people will need to work in some form till later in life to some extent, depending on productivity growth. Moreover, many seniors will choose to work for intrinsic reasons if they could find the work options suited to their situation. Should we strive to create a rich tapestry of choices for our seniors to decide how they want to work, for how many hours in what ways? Of course, we should, because this means dignity for our seniors. More choices also mean more likelihood that seniors will choose to work in the way that suits them, thus raising labour force participation.
Can we do more to unlock the benefits of technology and automation for seniors? Yes, we can. For example, engaging on-government organisations (NGOs) to raise the technology literacy and usage of mobile apps by seniors, using perhaps a social impact bond to tie results to state spending to ensure maximum impact for our fiscal dollars. The concept of a social impact bond is something I have spoken about in the House previously.
Technology holds up the promise of better enabling seniors to lead productive lives, to contribute to the world of work in the way they feel best abled to and for longer. The march of technology can also mitigate some of the ravages of age that might otherwise impede that.
A second question is how to work. To fully unlock the potential of seniors in the workplace, we need to do more to create options for work. Many seniors have a wealth of knowledge and experience but many may want to work in a part-time advisory or consulting capacity if those capacities existed. Can we do more to create platforms where seniors can contribute in a flexible way towards projects or to employers? I believe we can. For example, there are platforms right now that match potential board members to board openings in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Not every senior, of course, has the background to serve as a board member but many have pools of experience and niche skills to impart. We can create matching platforms for consulting freelance or part-time work. Once again, NGOs will probably serve this role best and the Government can nudge and support these initiatives. Examples of success can be highlighted in marketing campaigns.
Thirdly, can we do more to empower seniors to impart their experience? Yes, we can. We need to do more to nudge seniors to reskill their experience into a form where it can be usefully conveyed as training or consulting.
Experience is nothing if one does not process the experience and convert it into a form that is useful to others and to oneself. One of my favourite quotes is from Aldous Huxley when he said, \"Experience is not what happens to you; it is what you do with what happens to you\". We should find ways to nudge our seniors. For example, using the SkillsFuture platform which has courses for trainers like the Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA) to reflect on their experience and be adept at converting this into forms that are useful, such as training videos, knowledge pills, podcasts and so on.
Fourthly, should we strive for non-discriminatory workplaces and social conditions? Of course, we should. We should banish discrimination from the workplace. Right now, almost 10,000 workers are classified as \"discouraged\", meaning that they have given up looking for a job. Some of them have given up due to what they sense is ageist discrimination in the labour market. Discrimination in all its forms is not just morally wrong. It hurts our labour force participation and hurts the economy, meaning it hurts us all. Let us do more to fight this, perhaps by giving the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) more teeth and perhaps exploring how we can better recognise employers who walk-the-talk by having older workers make up a larger share of their workforce.
The fifth question is how to age with quality of life. Is there more we can do upstream to ensure that the burden of disease, chronic conditions does not erode the quality of life of seniors and harm their potential contribution to the economy and drain state finances? I believe there is.
We are pushing out subsided health screenings to all and this is a step in the right direction as is MOH's action plan for successful ageing and the various programmes associated with it, such as the Active Ageing Centres. Is there more we could do, for example, to offer low-cost or free vaccines to citizens to reduce the risk of disease later in life, a move that would probably more than pay for itself, in terms of fiscal dollars and a subject which MPs have spoken about in the past? Can we do more to experiment with new platforms for delivering preventive healthcare into homes using telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI), for example? I believe so.
A last question is on the living environment. How do we build a good enabling living environment that gives older people the confidence to venture out, work part-time and get more socially engaged, knowing that at home, their basic needs are taken care of? As with persons with disabilities, for older people, they would not be so disadvantaged, were it not for an urban environment not designed primarily with their needs in mind. Can we do more to experiment with different models of living environment for older people beyond living by themselves or with their children, such as what they call assisted living in the United States (US), or what they call Silver Towns in Korea? I believe we can.
Silver Towns in Korea are towns which are comprehensive retirement communities, for example, in some cases, with facilities for young children to encourage frequent family visitations. And there is a variety of these Silver Towns catering to different income levels. At this point, I declare that I am the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an international research consultancy whose Korean arm has undertaken research into this field in Korea.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore today faces a choice. Do we choose a Singapore where seniors are equal citizens, crucially engaged in society and playing a vital role by imparting their experience, their skills and wisdom and their inspiring example? Or will we choose a future where seniors are, at worst, ignored or patronised or, at best, treated as a necessary evil, a politically significant constituency which should be shunted out of the mainstream but which should be mollified for other ends?
The choice needs to be made by us as a society, and it needs to be made by us as individuals, employers, employees, family members, commuters, residents and citizens. On this question, we need a multi-pronged whole-of-Government and whole-of-society approach. The difference we will make with this choice is profound and I have no doubt that Singapore and Singaporeans have always stood and will always stand on the right side of this question. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party supports this Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, we often hear people saying they want to live long and live well, to age gracefully and successfully. These are common wishes of many seniors as they age. But the irony of ageing is that everyone wants to live as long as possible, and yet, also do not want to live too long because of the various aches and indignities that old age brings.
Personally, I feel we need to view this in a positive light. Ageing may be inevitable, but the key is to understand the process and identify situations early, thereby enabling us to take preventive actions and decide how we wish to age. It is never too early to ask ourselves what we must do to achieve this.
A person's state of health is by far one of the strongest determinants in our ageing process. I am heartened that MOH has widely promoted the need for basic health screening since September 2017 and heavily subsidised it. While noting that cost and concern about the outcome of health screening are the main deterrents for many seniors, MOH has made the basic health screening free of charge for our Pioneer Generation, and at very low cost for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders and other Singaporeans. Also, these screenings can now be done at the polyclinics and regular general practitioner (GP) clinics. This move is an encouraging step for many seniors and has been well-received. Many seniors whom I met in Fengshan have told me that they have since undergone their health screening.
Follow-through actions post-health screening is another key area that is neglected by many seniors. We need to encourage them to understand how to better care or improve their conditions in certain areas. In Fengshan, we are thankful for the support of MOH in establishing the Community Health Post for this purpose. Now, our seniors can have individual coaching sessions from the healthcare professionals to take charge of their health and improve on it. While these efforts are laudable, they are not preventive. The way for preventive action is, of course, to maintain a healthy and active state from young.
Since last July, we have worked with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and Active SG to introduce weekly exercises within the neighbourhood. My residents are excited with the variety of exercises that are available every day, from Mondays through Sundays. Our young working adults now can also enjoy and exercise with us. And for the retirees and seniors, there are day exercises for them, too. Seeing our seniors, working adults, children and grandchildren all in tow participating, I am cheered by the overwhelming response.
This is a headstart for our busy, working adults and it is actually a good start for the journey. I remember one of the residents who told me that she is glad to be on this journey with us now. She said, \"It is best to do so before one's body becomes stiff and weakens. When a person is affected by illness, even the most willing heart will be demotivated to exercise.\" And I totally agree with her.
My concern is: will HPB or Active SG continue these in a long run? Are there sufficient trainers to conduct these sessions? I urge MOH to consider supporting and enhancing this great initiative. MOH can consider collaborating with the People's Association (PA), private organisations and freelancers or to train community interest groups in order to sustain a wider pool of trainers for the future. While these sessions are free of charge, the impact it has on the community and country will be lasting. After all, prevention is better than cure. Furthermore, funding such initiatives will come at a small price, compared to the subsidies that are required for the medical bills and also more medical infrastructural expansion.
Apart from health programmes, community involvement is pertinent for broader awareness outreach and having our seniors to be constantly engaged. I trust that we are doing so in different ways on the ground and will further enhance these areas over time. Meanwhile, let me raise four aspects related to ageing that I would like to highlight for the Ministries to review.
First, to increase the MediSave usage limit on outpatient treatment for seniors aged 70 and above, those with chronic illnesses but have met their Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS). I understand the current position is to decide the appeals on usage on a case-by-case basis. However, I would like to ask MOH to reconsider and put in place a rule for a higher utilisation limit for those seniors who fulfil BHS in their MediSave and/or Minimum Sum in their Retirement Account (RA), particularly if they do not use this for their annual scans or diagnostics. During my house visits and dialogue sessions, seniors have expressed the same request to use more of their MediSave funds for the outpatient medical fees instead of using their cash or their spouse's to up their funds as they are also elderly.
Take the example of a 73-year-old resident of mine who is diabetic and has a heart condition. He shared that he needs to be on permanent medication to manage his health condition. With only $400 allowed to be used from his MediSave for outpatient treatment, he needs $800 out-of-pocket cash for his regular medication each year. But he still has over $55,000 in his MediSave account. By simple mathematics, he recounts that his MediSave funds will way outlive him. Instead, the larger risk for him is when he cannot afford the regular medication to manage his conditions and thus result in complications. To him, his MediSave funds will be worthless if he dies from diabetes or heart attack. For chronic patients like him, I think being able to use their funds freely and at ease will be a huge relief as they need not worry about the cash outlay for requisite medications that sustain their lives.
Second, to promote and encourage seniors to make an LPA by age 55. From the Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WISE) study in 2015, it showed that by 2030, one in 10 Singaporeans aged 60 and above is likely to suffer from dementia. That is an estimated 80,000 seniors who may have dementia in their golden years. Early protection is beneficial to both the seniors and their caregivers. Everyone would wish to live their lives in their preferred way and be given a choice.
However, many seniors are not aware of the benefits of an LPA and how to go about it. I know that in order to encourage more Singaporeans to pre-plan to protect their interests, the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) has extended the LPA application fee waiver for two years till 31 August 2018, at least for those filing the LPA Form 1. We should maximise this opportunity to bring the LPA certificate issuers together with the community as we are concurrently doing outreach and communicating about elderly programmes or schemes to seniors. This will be useful for many seniors, especially in Singapore, where couples are usually co-owners of their property. It can prevent situations where the elderly wish to downgrade or monetise their property to support expenses but are unable to do so due to the mental state of their spouse. Similarly, an LPA will allow the seniors to decide in advance on their preferred palliative care if they do require it someday.
Third, caregiver support. Respite care today is scarce and relatively high in cost. We would hope that care support begins with the family and each would play their part and make the effort to provide the needful relief for the caregiver. While the thought is good, caregivers, in reality, face different challenges even in their keenest desire of taking a break.
Many say this is where community involvement should begin. I say it is \"Yes\" and \"No\". Yes, to the extent that we can find community befrienders and match them to provide relief for caregivers and give them some time off. No, as there are other considerations that need to be in place. One example is how do we protect the befrienders and the beneficiary, as the person to be cared for has a different engagement and mental state? Can the families entrust their loved ones and the home to a stranger for a period of time? What is the basis of understanding on the tasks that a befriender is supposed to undertake or, for that matter, not to be taken advantage of?
As a start, I would ask the Ministry to consider partnering senior day care centres within each neighbourhood. Once a month, make the centres available on a Saturday or Sunday for those caregivers who wish to place their seniors for a few hours at these centres. At the same time, we can introduce community befrienders to these centres. With the presence and support of the centres’ trained professionals, the befrienders can help to care for the seniors. This would be a known, safer environment and provide assurance for all the parties. We can also consider having a caregiver support network at the same location to give caregivers the opportunity to share experiences, talk amongst themselves or even offer free volunteer care services like hair service, massage, healthy meals prepared for these caregivers, who usually have no time for themselves.
Another option is to manage this through a knowledge-based approach and central management system to match the needs, to work with nursing homes or day care centres to provide respite care for a few hours at subsidised rates. I ask that MOH consider the subsidies not only by household means testing, but to include consideration for whether alternative affordable caregiver option is, indeed, available, given today’s smaller family units.
Lastly, conscious planning and integration of housing with senior friendly infrastructure. We often talk about ageing-in-place. This can only happen with conscious planning, both infrastructures and programmes. We need to consider integrating housing for seniors within the community. Back in 2016, together with the PAP Women’s Wing, we made a study trip to Hong Kong. One of the projects we viewed was an area where the public housing flats of seniors’ studio apartments were integrated with the regular public housing of 2- and 3-room flats for the seniors staying on the same floor, within the same building. This makes it less of a retirement village and enables the elderly to be constantly engaged by immediate neighbours with younger families living nearby. HDB could consider if moving forward we can build the 2-room flexi short lease flats within the same building constituting 3- or 4-room flats. This can enable three-generation families to purchase units next to one another and encourage stronger family units or allow better social mix where the younger families can look out for the seniors next door.
I also encourage MND to plan having town audits throughout Singapore to ensure that the basic amenities and designs fulfil the needs to support an ageing population. For the mature estates, to consider giving guidance on how we can better refit the amenities to suit the growing needs. This will be beneficial in the long haul and save substantial spending when the final designs are constantly constructed with a senior-friendly state in mind.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to draw reference to a book titled \"The Colours of Ageing\" by Prof Kua Ee Heok. The \"Colours\" in his book’s title represents the hope, will and the imagination of an \"undefeated mind\", which is, in my view, as crucial, if not more, to living with one’s faculties intact. In order to have an \"undefeated mind\" and be physically healthy in our golden years requires proactive actions from early on. I think this Motion is timely, from personal prevention to social activeness, senior-friendly townships to social care networks. It is time we begin to work cohesively as a community towards achieving a country of vibrant seniors whom we treasure and, they, who can live their golden years in comfort. I strongly support the emphasis for us to begin doing more as a nation towards this goal and, together, we will and can become sprightly seniors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this topic is very close to my heart. With our rapidly ageing population and longer life expectancies, it is important that we strive to help our seniors live a good quality of life for as long as possible. These should be years in good mental, physical and emotional health during which they will be free to work productively and outside their interests. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We all want good health. Our Government has been encouraging Singaporeans to lead healthy lifestyles to build up a strong foundation for their senior years. We help Singaporeans monitor their health through very affordable health screenings. The Enhanced Screen for Life programme is $5 or less for eligible Singaporeans above 40. It is free for the Pioneer Generation.
I would like to ask MOH how many seniors have gone for screening under this programme so far. How can we encourage more to go for screening and follow-up if found to have some unfavourable results?
Good health translates to a better quality of life. The seniors who are in good health will be able to do pretty much everything that they used to when they were younger, to walk, eat, travel, socialise and take part in various activities.
But we can do more. We should have a public education about the appropriate exercises and diets best suited for the seniors. To do this, we need differentiated platforms to engage them effectively. Can we introduce programmes targeting common illnesses among the elderly? For example, for diabetic patients, what exercises are best for them? How can these exercises help to lower blood sugar and weight? These exercises can be illustrated on a chart and distributed to them so that they can do the exercises at home.
The mental health of our seniors is another area of concern. The number of people living with dementia here is expected to double by 2030 and the prevalence of dementia is about 10% among seniors aged 60 and above. We will have to raise public awareness and social acceptance of seniors with mental health issues to enable early detection and treatment. I look forward to seeing the number of dementia-friendly communities like Yishun and MacPherson increase. We can look at how to allow seniors with dementia to age in place as it can reduce the stress on them.
Medical bills are one of the top concerns of the elderly. I urge MOH to include a wider range of mental illnesses for subsidised treatment in our polyclinics and public hospitals. I hope the Government could consider more CHAS benefits for the lower-income groups.
(In English): Back in English, Sir. I support the recommendations by the ElderShield Review Committee. However, the name of the scheme \"ElderShield\" seems incompatible. This is essentially a disability insurance scheme. I would like to suggest the Government consider updating its name to reflect the intended benefits and coverage more effectively.
Work and employment. If our seniors desire, they can and should continue to work. We should not always think that our elderly cannot catch up. While there will be individuals who experience greater challenges, we must also see them as progressive and willing to embrace lifelong learning. There are many shining examples in every sector and industry. With the latter mindset, we will realise that our seniors are people who can still contribute to our economy and make their mark in society. For example, there was an 81-year-old nurse who was featured in the Straits Times last year. There are many like her in my constituency in Henderson-Dawson still going very strong. It is good to see them progress, too. Such seniors should be lauded for their care towards others, and the Government should work out a scheme to help them advance in their passions and careers.
I am happy that the re-employment age had been raised. I hope that, eventually, age will no longer be a consideration and we focus on an employee’s capability.
The digital gap. Many seniors had told me that they feel left behind in our environment of rapid digitalisation. They are especially uncomfortable with the initiatives to go cashless. Even in e-banking, they expressed reservations. Many are so used to the passbook to monitor their debit and credit that the electronic bank statement, to them, is a problem.
Communications via applications, such as WhatsApp and emails, going online to obtain information and perform transactions, are not easily grasped by a significant portion of our seniors. Part of the reason is the language gap. Many of our seniors are not literate or fluent in English. If there are applications and websites in mother tongues, such as Chinese and Malay, I believe it would help tremendously.
There are physiological problems when they use smartphones. The font sizes are small and it is not easy for elderly persons to read the small text and to scroll up and down. Navigating the various icons to get to what they want is a challenge. Many complained that the touchscreens do not respond well to their drier fingertips, and pain in their finger joints is another problem.
Twenty years ago, there were some resistance to automated teller machines (ATMs). However, adaptations went relatively smoothly. This was because these machines pose fewer physical challenges. The font sizes are big. Users can choose the language of communication. And very importantly, these big installations can be trusted because they have been set up by banks. On the other hand, transactions on smartphones or online are unsettling to our seniors because they are not quite sure if their monies are flowing to the right accounts or parties. Frequent news about scams online also make them very nervous. We have to address all our seniors’ concerns through holistic measures, customised education and familiarisation programmes.
Volunteerism. More of our seniors should be encouraged to volunteer as part of active ageing. This is an activity which allows the elderly to stay engaged in the community and derive a sense of satisfaction from giving back and, in turn, enable the community to tap upon their wisdom and years of rich experience.
Research has also shown that the elderly who have meaningful relationships and are engaged in their communities are happier and healthier. Volunteering gives them a deep sense of purpose.
However, getting our seniors to volunteer on a sustainable basis may not be easy. To attract them beyond one-off projects and come out of their comfort zones on a sustainable basis requires greater logistical planning and financial support from the community.
Hence, I would like to propose time banking to draw more elderly to our community volunteering programmes. For example, every hour of volunteering clocked by participating seniors can be deposited, accumulated and exchanged for free or discounted PA courses. It can be extended later to include other parties, including individuals, through platforms which allow bartering of services.
In addition to recruiting and attracting seniors, we should also design programmes such that our younger generation can be involved. This will promote intergenerational bonding. The Ministry of Education (MOE) and PA can continue to assist by facilitating the arrangements between schools and senior groups.
I hope that MOH will consider implementing Community Network for Seniors to all constituencies. It is useful and helpful because it brings together Pioneer Generation ambassadors to coordinate various support services for senior citizens. It also provides an opportunity for seniors to volunteer, with 40% of the ambassadors aged 60 and above.
Volunteers can play a big role to engage the socially isolated elderly. In reaching out to them, they not only bring light and warmth to them, but they also assist beleaguered families and relieve caregivers.
Due to the increasing number of those ageing and those who will be isolated when they become less mobile, it is not feasible to just depend on trained personnel. The community must be involved to complement the reach of social workers and medical health workers.
Initiatives that organise neighbours, volunteers and activists to be befrienders and to reach out to the socially isolated seniors are beneficial to our elderly. When we visit them regularly, we keep them engaged and tend to their emotional well-being. We are also more likely to find out about their issues early and deal with their healthcare and emotional concerns early. Such initiatives strengthen neighbourliness, as we actively look out for one another.
Senior caregiving. There are already initiatives to provide more support to caregivers. However, with smaller family sizes and more double-income households, it is inevitable that, increasingly, families will have to entrust the important responsibility of caregiving to professionals. We have no alternative but to continue work on boosting the capability and capacity of our professional caregiving sector.
MOH is tapping on retired nurses, who can be re-engaged on a casual basis. Building up this network of retired medical professionals will complement what our healthcare community can offer. I would like to ask MOH what is the proportion of retired nurses involved in this initiative.
We should also explore how services at our eldercare centres can be augmented to include short-term accommodation for seniors whose caregivers are temporarily unavailable due illness, work or travel overseas.
I appeal again to the Government to legislate eldercare leave and bereavement leave. This would be very much appreciated for family emergencies involving the elderly.
Lastly, I want to touch on physical accessibility for all seniors. Barrier-free access has mostly been achieved in our heartlands and I really would like to see the same in the designs of our HDB flats. They should be \"flats-for-life\" – accessible to the elderly which, incidentally, would also be accessible for the disabled and families with young children. Floors should be levelled, switches and sockets repositioned, doors, bathrooms and toilets should be widened to enable wheelchair movements.
For our public transport, I hope directional signs and notices have bigger fonts against high contrast backgrounds to make them easier to read.
In conclusion, most of us here will enjoy the fortune of living longer and healthier years than any of our preceding generations. Thanks to the efforts of our elders, we reap the fruits of their labour. Let us work together to provide them with the best care they deserve in their golden years. I conclude with my support for the Motion, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Motion.
I will speak in Mandarin. So, while some of my colleagues are putting on the earpiece for translation, I will make a declaration that my theatre company Drama Box and myself have been actively working on this issue of end-of-life care, presenting quite a lot of creative projects that reach out to the elderly and other sectors of the society. Now, my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, I would like to thank the Members who moved the Motion. My speech today is based on my personal experience, what I experienced through my work in the arts, as well as my encounters with many senior citizens.
My father is 77 years old. When he was young, he devoted his life to work in order to support our family. Like many \"traditional\" fathers of that era, he was strict and reserved and was not particularly close to his children.
He was not highly educated, neither did he have any hobbies in particular, except for playing a game of mahjong or enjoying some drinks with his friends. He retired more than 10 years ago and, five years after his retirement, he started experiencing the onset of dementia. [pauses]
(In English): I am sorry. I think I need a break. Deputy Speaker, can I take a break first, and let the other Members speak first?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Alright, I will call on you later.
Mr Kok Heng Leun: Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Deputy Speaker, if I may first speak in Mandarin and then in English.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion today.
Three years ago, we celebrated SG50 and, once again, confirmed the contributions of our Pioneer Generation. Undoubtedly, it is their contributions and sacrifices that have brought about the achievements we have today. Therefore, respecting and appreciating the elderly is a matter of course. However, respecting and appreciating the elderly require not just words but actions, too.
Much of the infrastructure that we have today was built in a different era when our population was still young. In a rapidly-ageing environment today, we must make adjustments to ensure that the elderly can remain physically and mentally active and age in place gracefully. The Government has done a lot in this area. Many of our colleagues have made various good suggestions. I would like to add several suggestions.
First, we should apply elderly-friendly designs into our hardware and heartware solutions in all aspects of life. Success of any innovation depends on the design.
Second, we must use technology and AI to supplement our shortage of manpower, so that more senior citizens, including those who live alone and are less mobile, can age in place and live independently.
Third, we must strengthen our community service organisations, optimise the allocation of resources and manpower, and encourage more people to volunteer in the community. By doing this, we can not only solve the manpower shortage problem but also demonstrate a human touch.
We must change the negative mindset that \"as people age, they become useless\". Each age group has its own set of issues, and we all need to be more tolerant and learn to adjust. When we grow old, we may become weaker physically, but we are wiser. As long as we make the necessary adjustments, we can live a fulfilling and colourful life in old age.
We hope the Government can take the lead to create an elderly-friendly work environment and set out human resource (HR) policies that are suitable for mature workers, so that seniors who love working and want to continue to work, can continue to make meaningful contributions.
More importantly, we should encourage the elderly to remain positive and active both physically and mentally, so that they can lead a more meaningful life.
(In English): Our seniors dedicated the prime years of their lives to build the Singapore we are so proud of today. They deserve our respect and we should certainly honour them. Honouring them requires not just words but actions, too. Much of what we have today, including the hardware and social infrastructure, was designed decades ago when our population was still young. It is time to refresh these to welcome a different population landscape with a different set of requirements.
With Singapore undergoing rapid ageing, it is important that we set the right policies, put in the right resources and organise ourselves better in the right way sooner than later. We need to ensure adequate support for our elderly today and tomorrow, so that we are all empowered to age gracefully and actively in the comfort of our own homes and communities.
This Government has increased social spending and will continue to spend more. Public healthcare expenditure more than doubled over the past five to six years, reaching $10 billion in financial year (FY) 2016. Our society believes in each generation financing its own needs, not wanting to burden our children’s generation and the next. Parents will feel this most keenly. Me, too.
However, as our population continues to age, healthcare expenditure will still have to increase to fund enhanced or new elderly programmes for the larger base. Also, infrastructural investments, retrofitting and hardware maintenance will still be needed to create an elderly-friendly environment.
Given our expectations on social spending, it is imperative that we maximise the impact of every dollar spent. We must enable our elderly today and tomorrow to continue leading an independent and graceful life. There are three recommendations that I would like to put forth in the hope of enabling our seniors’ daily lives better.
First is to apply elderly-friendly designs into our hardware and heartware solutions. We must ensure that all our designs are designs for inclusion. We should not take the easy way out, or for the sake of efficiency and design only for that 80%, which would then lead to exclusion, which is definitely an outcome that we wish not to see.
Currently, there are only two silver industry guidelines in Singapore – \"Guidelines for age-friendly homes\" and \"Guidance for digital devices and online services to be senior friendly\". These are a good start, but we need to mainstream elderly-friendly designs much more and make them pervasive. We need to apply elderly-friendly designs to the development of common spaces, facilities, machine and software interfaces, workflows, public processes and more.
The key is to make them pervasive. We could create specialisations for students to undertake in tertiary institutions, so that we build up a supply of talent with the expertise. We could also set up a Government department that does research, set standards and audit public and private projects to ensure elderly-friendliness.
Second, proliferate digital eldercare to supplement the shortage of manpower. There may soon be a point in time when there are more who need care than those who can care. By leveraging technology and AI more effectively, we can drastically change how care is provided and help even more Singaporeans to age in place.
Take Japan as an example. Japan is even further ahead of us in terms of ageing. They have an increasing number of elderly with a decreasing number of working adults. They suffer severe labour shortage, especially in eldercare nursing. Yet, they reinvented how the elderly can be cared for by leveraging technology and AI. From Toyota’s Robina and Humanoid, Honda’s ASIMO, Tokai’s Robot for Interactive Body Assistance (RIBA) to the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology's (AIST’s) Puppets for Animal Therapy (PARO), Japan has a full range of robots that can help the elderly with household chores, get out of bed, conduct conversations complete with emotions, and even help paraplegics to walk again.
Imagine if these solutions are available to us in Singapore, many elderly, whom we used to think can only be cared for in nursing homes, can now lead a fairly independent life in the comfort of their own HDB flats.
Alas, while these are all possible, it is still not known if these solutions can be exported and at what price. It would be most ideal if Singapore can leverage our own existing competencies in research and development (R&D) to develop solutions for ourselves. I understand that MOH had introduced a funding scheme to encourage elderly-focused innovations.
Therefore, I would like to ask for an update on the utilisation of funds to support R&D efforts and startups looking into digital eldercare solutions. Could the Government share some of the success cases so far? Could we accelerate developments locally and implement them sooner than later?
Third, institutionalising a network of volunteers. Relying on salaried staff is not enough and, despite my strong support for digital eldercare, I do also believe that the human touch is still very much needed and cannot be replaced. We need more Singaporeans to step in and step up to help. We can leave the professional part of caring of the elderly to the salaried staff and AI robots. But there are many opportunities for volunteers to step in.
For example, accompany the elderly to medical appointments, give them a ride to hospitals, clean their homes, deliver groceries or just offer a listening ear. There are kind souls already helping in these areas, but the need is far higher than the supply of volunteers. Therefore, we need to find ways to involve more Singaporeans.
Assuming a population of about 30,000 in a constituency, with a third being elderly, a third being adults and another third being minors, if the adults can just spare two hours every week, we will have more than 20,000 hours of help available in any week. Scale it across Singapore, we will have millions of volunteer hours available, and so much can be achieved.
At present, I am aware that the Government has piloted the Community Networks for Seniors and it has been very helpful in providing a suite of comprehensive services for our seniors. I hope this scheme can be rolled out nationally so that all seniors can benefit from it. But I also believe that we need to be more ambitious than this. We should aspire to having all Singaporeans do community service and on a long-term sustainable basis. If each person could just spare one to two hours per week engaging in a specific volunteer \"vocation\" with clear roles and responsibilities spelt out, we can achieve a lot more.
Today, we have a myriad of formal and informal groups of volunteer organisations doing community service, serving from their hearts. We have seen passionate Singaporeans, young and old, dedicating days of their weeks serving the less fortunate. Still, we also see Singaporeans who would like to serve but are unsure of what they can do, what needs are still unfulfilled and whether the time commitment will be too great for them.
Hence, we need to find ways to make serving a priority and organise ourselves better so that busy Singaporeans can just \"plug and play\" when serving the community. Could there be a national coordinating body for volunteers in Singapore that consolidates and monitors the list of needs in the communities and resources that are already available, identify the roles and corresponding manpower needed, coordinate and help everyone clearly see how they can fit in to help?
At present, SG Cares is perhaps the best place to play this role but it will need a clear structure, concrete programmes and strong support to do so. I would like to think that inside each of us, we want to help others who need help and we want to contribute to a caring society. I hope Singaporeans will see community service as a priority in life and respond to the call to get involved in a bigger way for a more sustainable future.
Finally, I firmly believe that our seniors are much more capable than being mere recipients of care. As we enhance our healthcare, we can expect longer and more healthy years. As our economy evolves, there will be less reliance on physical strength at the workplace but more use of intellect and wisdom. As each population becomes better educated and more savvy with the digital space, there will be less fear and deeper entrenchment of technology in our lives.
Some hold the belief that, in Chinese, \"老了不中用\", which means that you become useless as you age. While I understand that there are some constraints that come with age, I do not agree with this belief. It is self-defeating and we risk a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to keep active and keep trying. We have seen elderly in their 90s who remain active and sharp, even learning a new language. It is possible.
Of course, we hope we do not have to work into our old age because we have to, but because we love to. It brings meaning to life. It helps us to look forward to every new day. Is this not wonderful? Hence, we should do three things to help our seniors keep active and continue to do well in their old age.
First, create a favourable environment and employment opportunities for seniors. Stem out ageism. The Government can take the lead in testing how the work environment, workflows, job role designs and even compensation and benefits, such as health benefits, can be optimised for senior workers.
Second, incentivise the elderly to volunteer more. The Pioneer Generation Ambassador is a wonderful programme. Can we expand it to recruit more and cover more functions?
Third, introduce health programmes tailored to meet the needs of the elderly. Decentralise the implementation of these programmes, cascade them down to the precinct or even to the individual HDB blocks. Make it easy and inexcusable for everyone to keep fit and stay social.
Ultimately, we need to transform our culture and mindsets. Every Singaporean needs to believe that we each have a role to play beyond our family and employment obligations. We need to recognise that it is not enough to rely on salaried staff because they are financially obliged to carry out the care. A caring and inclusive society cannot be one that the citizens only talk about it and expect someone else to do it. We have a duty to one another.
I believe that seniors are a gift to our society. Their wisdom, resilience and this legacy that they have built for Singapore are a gift to us and our young. We must, therefore, strengthen our support to enable successful ageing and create an environment where our seniors can continue to thrive. I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok, are you feeling okay now?
Mr Kok Heng Leun: Yes
Mr Deputy Speaker: Alright. Please proceed.
Mr Kok Heng Leun: My apologies to the House. I will continue from where I left off.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My father retired more than 10 years ago and, five years after his retirement, he started experiencing the onset of dementia. He began to forget things. He would forget what my mother told him despite having asked about it repeatedly, and his temper also flared more easily. To comfort him and also ourselves, we told him that he was just getting old.
What exactly does it mean to \"become old\"? There is a word which is used together with the word \"lao\" (old) and that word is \"shuai\" (to be weakened). Put together, \"shuai lao\" means old and weakened. These two words create a very negative attitude towards ageing. For example, in Chinese, we say, \"shuai ruo\"(weak), \"shuai tui\" (to be in decline), \"shuai yan\" (to deteriorate in looks), \"shuai ku\" (to wither), \"shuai hao\" (to be waste away), \"shuai jian\" (to weaken), \"shuai bing\" (to become sickly). There are many of these words but, to summarise in Hokkien, it is simply \"suay\" (unfortunate).
Many people refuse to think about the stage of our lives where we age and then die. Perhaps you will think about your retirement, perhaps you will start to do some financial planning, but to really understand the process of ageing is something that all of us want to avoid.
Perhaps, we should have realised this fact of life much earlier – birth, sickness, ageing and dying are all essential parts of life. We cannot just pay attention to living, but we need to also understand ageing and the process of dying. We must accept that our healthy bodies will eventually become weak and our sharp minds will one day become slow. Things that we used to do easily may become challenging. You may not be able to button your shirt; going to the toilet becomes inconvenient; you may need help in the morning. And what is most humiliating is that you may have to put on diapers. All these inconveniences and situations can slowly erode the will of a person who used to be full of life and ideals. Over time, he may find that he can no longer face others nor look at himself with dignity, and he begins to feel helpless, fearful and lonely.
Looking back at my father's bouts of anger back then, as his son, I did not notice his helplessness, fear and loneliness. Through this process, I begin to wonder: have we understood the process of ageing and dying? If we have a better understanding of ageing and dying, we may be able to help the elderly around us handle the process. Our society must start to pay attention to this and learn to accept and prepare for ageing, as an individual and as a community. Why is this society always celebrating life, celebrating the birth of a child but not paying attention to the process of ageing and dying? A human being’s existence should not be measured in terms of how much wealth he has created but how he has lived every stage of his life with dignity.
Secondly, recalling my father's experience, I believe one of the biggest problems is that I was not close to my father. If I was closer to my father, perhaps I would have noticed the problems earlier.
In recent years, I have met many old folks through my productions. I categorise them into three groups: those who are very close to their friends and relatives; those who are on bad terms with their friends and relatives, and the third group, those who do not maintain relationships with anyone. For the first group, I think we can still help them if they have friends and relatives. However, for the second and third groups, namely, those who are on bad terms with their friends and relatives and those who are not in touch with their kin, their twilight years tend to be difficult.
There was one occasion when we organised a seminar on the issue of wills, and many elderly folks rushed to ask the lawyers many questions. However, all the questions were basically about this – \"Mr Lawyer, what do you think if I allocate my assets this way?\" The lawyers felt perplexed, \"Why do they ask my views on how they want to divide their assets?\" After several rounds of discussions, I realised that all of them were worried that their family members would feel aggrieved about how the assets were distributed. In fact, the fundamental problem was that they had proceeded with the will without settling their family problems first.
A Filipino nurse whom I interviewed before, told me that she was puzzled by what she saw when she started working in Singapore. In Singapore, when an elderly family member falls ill and requires long-term care, the first thing that other family members would think of is to hire a domestic helper to help with caregiving. In her hometown, there would always be a relative who will volunteer to take care of the elderly family member while the rest of the family will pay for the living expenses of this relative. Through the experience she shared, we know that if an elderly family member falls ill, he would not be afraid, as he knows that those around him and those who are close to him will look after him and support him.
Many people will say that it is not easy to do that in Singapore, especially when most of our families are small families and there are few siblings whom we can share the burden of caregiving with. Moreover, faced with daily stress and long working hours, they can only choose to depend on domestic helpers in the end. Further, I often see that the caregivers of the elderly are also around the same age as them. So, can you imagine an elderly person looking after another elderly person?
My mother says she always believed that she would become a burden to her children. She also did not want our father to become a burden to us. However, despite getting help from a domestic worker to take care of my father, she still lost around 10 kilogrammes in the last three years.
Caregiving is an exhausting and often a thankless job, but many people are unable to afford a maid and have to juggle between caregiving and work at the same time. They have to pay for transport and medical bills, they do not have enough rest as they have to look after the elderly for extended periods of time. This will not only affect the mental health of the caregiver but also those around him or her.
I listened to the suggestions by many of my Parliamentary colleagues and I agree with them. I hope that the Government will consider two measures to help reduce caregivers’ burden. Firstly, legislate caregiver leave so that caregivers can have paid leave and spend more time with their loved ones. Secondly, pass legislation to allow working adults with elderly family members that require caregiving to enjoy income tax rebates.
Actually, I am quite worried about whether young people know how to look after their elderly family members, because many young parents today do not even look after their own children. Instead, they leave their kids to their parents or domestic helpers.
However, looking after your loved ones brings a lot of joy. I remember helping my father change his diapers and bathe for the first time. These experiences left a very deep impression on me. These intimate contacts with my father helped me understand the physical changes he experienced through the process of falling ill and ageing. When I took him to see the doctor, kept him company at the hospital and fed him, my relationship with him improved. Previously, my father seldom smiled at me, but now, he always smiles when he sees me.
Through this process, I learnt to think from the other person’s perspective and understood what empathy means, because when you look after a patient and an elderly person, you must look at things from their perspective.
To enable the elderly to live their twilight years with dignity, we must create an environment where they feel secure, and that begins with ourselves.
When I was drafting this speech, this poem by Ma Zhiyuan kept ringing in my mind.
\"Dry vines, old trees, and a crow; a home by a small bridge and a flowing stream; a horse on the ancient path stands against the western wind; as the sun sets, a man roams the world, broken-hearted.\"
Does life need to be so sad and lonely when one enters the withering season of fall?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I serve in Bukit Batok East, which is an old estate. Many residents have lived there for 20 to 30 years, some with other family members living within the area. Bukit Batok East is their kampung and most do not want to move out of the area. I meet many elderly residents regularly at events, house visits and my MPS.
Today, I would like to touch on three areas which have been raised as concerns by some of my elderly residents and my observations of the efforts in place to help the elderly: one, financial sustenance; two, mental wellness; and three, community support.
Many elderly residents I meet at MPS have sought financial assistance to cope with their daily living expenses. I believe my experience is no different from that of other Members. Some of these seniors have insufficient income or sources of funds to pay their bills, medical expenses or even food. They may not meet the criteria to receive financial assistance because of the fact that they are working or have children who are expected to support them. In many cases, the seniors are reluctant to seek assistance from their children and the most common reason cited is that their children are having financial difficulties, too. The children may also not truly appreciate the issues that their elderly parents are facing.
One of my residents shared with me that her children had scolded her when they found out that she sought financial assistance. Instead of supporting her, they chided her and told her she needed to adjust her lifestyle. Her lifestyle was by no means lavish, so she was hurt by her children's response. She was crying when she told me that her son told her that if finances are so tight, she should just eat rice and soya sauce.
I acknowledge that not all of the residents fall into the category of needy beneficiaries but the reality is that day-to-day living is a challenge for them. It will not be feasible to expect financial assistance for all these families and I also believe that, to some extent, there must be personal and familial responsibility. Therefore, the solution is not to give more money to more people. I think that there is scope though to review the existing support structures in place to better assist seniors to cope with their financial challenges.
One area that could be reviewed is the Lease Buyback Scheme. I note the enhancements that have been made over the years and more seniors have now successfully applied for the scheme. Could there be further expansion of this scheme by extending it to bigger flats, such as 5-room and executive flats? Could there be additional outreach to enhance awareness and acceptance amongst elderly residents?
There is an ongoing call for the scheme to be extended to bigger flats. I note the indication from the Minister for National Development earlier this year that it is not likely to happen anytime soon as it is not an effective use of space and a more feasible option is to right-size. I would ask, however, that the Ministry reconsider this view. Ageing-in-place is a key component in ensuring an elderly person ages successfully with dignity. Being able to continue staying where they are living has an impact on their mental and, therefore, also physical well-being. At a practical level, there may be further costs and implications of having to move to a new location. This scheme provides an opportunity to alleviate the elderly from their financial challenges. If this scheme is extended, more can benefit from it. That means more elderly residents have the chance to improve their financial situation.
In respect of outreach, there is awareness of the existence of the scheme. However, there is still some resistance to it. The family home is seen as sacred and many fear the implications of outliving the lease period or not leaving anything as inheritance to their children. I feel though that given that more Singaporeans are asset-rich rather than cash-rich, an equity release product like this is an effective measure to meet the elderly's financial needs. It may, therefore, be worth the effort to generate more acceptance of this scheme.
Another scheme which should be reviewed to help improve the financial circumstances of seniors would be CHAS. CHAS enables Singapore Citizens from lower- to middle-income households to receive subsidies for medical and dental care at participating general practitioner and dental clinics near their home. Singapore Citizens who qualify receive an individual blue or orange CHAS card. I often receive appeals to qualify for CHAS and for an \"upgrade\" to the blue card. Typical issues that arise include the fact that an adult child is using the home address but not living there or living in the same address but is not contributing to the household expenses. The elderly feel that they are unfairly assessed and deprived of the much sought after CHAS card. The CHAS cards are precious and meaningful for the seniors and the scheme goes a long way in helping them with their expenses, especially for those who have to seek regular medical treatment. I would, therefore, request that some adjustments be made, for example, to raise the income ceiling so that more elderly residents would qualify for CHAS or to increase the subsidies available within the scheme.
One other proposal I would like to make is for a review of the role and branding of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. This Tribunal was created as a means for parents to seek maintenance from their adult children. The work done by the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents and the Tribunal is not just adjudication though, as there is a lot of effort in conciliation and mediation. Over 80% of the cases that are referred to the Office of the Commissioner from 2014 to 2016 are settled through conciliation.
There is, however, great resistance from the elderly when they are asked to approach the Commissioner or the Tribunal, as a prelude to an application for financial assistance. At this juncture, I should just declare that I am also a mediator with the Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents. Many have approached me and explained that they are uncomfortable about pursuing claims from their children. I feel that there is scope for a review of efforts that could be done in educating the public about the family being the first line of defence and how the family can handle financial issues together. I would propose that the role of the Tribunal be reviewed and enhanced to assist families beyond just adjudication and mediation. Perhaps there could be more services provided to the elderly and their family members, such as counselling or financial planning classes, akin to the extended support available to families in the Family Justice Courts.
I move to the second issue of concern – mental wellness. Through house visits and feedback from grassroots leaders, it has come to my attention that there are many seniors who are living alone and who may not participate in community activities. Some may not have children or close relatives and end up being isolated. There are clearly undesirable effects of isolation, as we worry about the safety and well-being of the elderly. Another important aspect though is the impact on their mental well-being. Being disconnected with the world does not encourage active and healthy ageing. The elderly may not always want help but I believe it is important to set up an ecosystem where the elderly feel connected to the community and can seek out assistance when necessary.
It is a constant work in progress to reach out to the elderly residents. I feel that we should continue to encourage neighbours and grassroots leaders to look out for and connect with the seniors. Various agencies should also join in this effort. I, therefore, look forward to the extension of the Community Network for Seniors which aims to enable a more systematic collaboration between Government agencies and community-based stakeholders. This is a meaningful endeavour which should be built on further.
This leads me to my last point relating to community support. We have many schemes and programmes in place but there will always be gaps and those who fall through the cracks. I believe that the community plays an important role to complete the support structure for the elderly and close the gaps.
For example, in Bukit Batok East, some of the elderly residents who may not be eligible for financial assistance receive monthly food rations which had been donated by merchants, community partners and grassroots leaders.
Recently, we also introduced the \"Belanja-A-Meal\" scheme at one of the coffee shops. This scheme, which is a collaboration between the coffee shop and the Residents’ Committee (RC), is extended to all needy residents within the zone. Basically, patrons of the coffee shop are encouraged to buy an extra meal and these paid-for meals could then be redeemed by beneficiaries identified by the RC. Although this scheme benefits all needy beneficiaries regardless of age, there is a high concentration of elderly residents in that area who will find this scheme meaningful and will benefit from it.
My youth volunteers also follow up on many MPS cases involving elderly residents to ensure that there is closure and they receive the support that they need.
These are just some examples of organic support from within the community which helps to augment the schemes and services made available by the Government. It is important that ground-up initiatives are supported and encouraged so that we could build a better support structure for the elderly residents within our community. Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Malay language, we refer to the elderly as the golden group. This obviously has a deep and meaningful connotation. Seniors are a group who should be appreciated and looked after well. We must recognise their contributions towards nation-building. Today’s Motion calls on us to view the elderly as a gift to society, as a key asset.
Many seniors are still working and contributing to their families and the national economy. If the seniors’ health are looked after and they stay active, they can certainly continue being the movers of the community and the nation.
Therefore, it is important for us to update the current policies and schemes to ensure the well-being of our seniors are looked after. The Lease Buyback Scheme and CHAS, for instance, must be continuously enhanced. In addition, it is also important for the general public to continue playing their role and complement the support given to the elderly. I am certain that, with a joint effort by the Government, families and the community, a comprehensive network of support can be established.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude in English. We need to take care of the elderly because it is the right thing to do. But we should also remember that we will all grow old one day. We will all be that statistic, that group that would tap on Government funds, that would add to healthcare costs, that would need to be cared for. It is, therefore, in our interests to invest and build an ecosystem that would allow for seniors to age well and with dignity. Deputy Speaker, I support this Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Gan Kim Yong.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Senior Citizens","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, this year, our population reaches a critical juncture. For the first time in our history, the number of people aged above 65 will equal those aged under 15. As more of our people age, it is necessary for us to support them in a holistic manner to ensure their physical, mental and emotional needs are well taken care of.
Our current approach for healthcare, which is to focus on a healthy lifestyle for all, is the right one. Healthy habits will contribute to better health in old age and reduce both physical and mental hardship for our seniors and their families. The best and surest way to minimise medical expenditures is to live clean, exercise discipline in our food intake and adopt active lifestyles.
For our seniors, even if they had not had healthy habits before, it is never too late and we should support and encourage them. I appeal to the National Health Promotion Board (HPB) to step up its good work in public education, including reaching out to seniors through the mass media in their various vernacular.
There is a need to ride on the success of homecare medical services and increase the number of such service points to increase the outreach of such services, in addition to the employment of skilled caretakers to meet the needs of our elderly. I am happy to note that MOH is studying assisted living facilities or services which will allow seniors with different physical or mental health needs to retain their independence by living at home. It is very important that we work together to ensure that such assisted living models be adapted to our local conditions and fit in with our HDB estate living settings, where the majority of Singaporeans are.
For the past few years, the Government has strengthened the social safety net for our senior citizens, such as the Silver Support Scheme, among other assistance schemes. In the provision of healthcare, MediShield Life addresses most of the general concerns of our seniors.
However, there are still Singaporeans who do not quite understand how MediShield Life and other support schemes for the elderly work, despite the efforts of our volunteers, community and grassroots leaders, such as the Pioneer Generation (PG) Ambassadors.
At least for medical bills, the elderly can approach the medical social workers for details. However, if they require other forms of assistance, such as financial help or protection from abuse by those around them, ignorance may cost them. How then can we reach out to these pockets of seniors? I hope we can take the time and effort to look into how we can reach pockets of elderly who need various types of assistance or protection, through public dialogues, consultations or formally appointing a committee to develop a feasible and durable framework to deal with this challenge.
The promotion of family values, especially the care of grandparents and parents, is a continuous effort and needs to be further deepened. There is a Chinese saying, \"家 有 一 老 , 如 有 一 宝 \". It means that the elderly are like a treasure. There are cases where the children do not take the responsibility to take care of their parents and parents who choose to shield their children even when they do not do their duties or even ill-treat them.
With smaller family size, the significance of families in unity would increase, especially when we are facing an ageing population. We need greater efforts in public education and should review our family mediation set-ups as well as legislative frameworks to address family conflicts involving the seniors or the elderly.
We also need to avoid placing excessive financial and care burdens on our children. I believe, all Members would have come across this feedback from residents. Most residents I spoke to do not wish to burden their children or grandchildren.
Besides ramping up the building of HDB studio units for the elderly to facilitate downgrading, we should also relook how we can help the elderly in all housing types, HDB and private residences, to do reverse mortgage. With declining health, moving to a smaller home is more advisable. But for those who insist on ageing-in-place, how they can monetise their homes is a perennial challenge.
As an aspiring Smart nation, we should pay attention to how increasing the use of technology could help enhance support services for our elderly. Research funding and grants for this area will yield innovations better suited to our local conditions and elderly residents. I urge the Government to consider providing more incentives to our local researchers to develop technological solutions to better serve and reach out to our seniors.
Successful developments will go a long way to reducing the burdens on our young which is also the wish of our parents and our seniors. With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion. It is a timely one and I laud the efforts of my fellow Members of this House who filed this Motion.
In our frequent interactions with our residents, we have come across seniors or elderly residents who have lamented on the different challenges and issues they face, such as the lack of employment opportunities, being financially dependent, being neglected by their children or having strained familial relationships.
Mr Viswa is a resident I have met several times at MPS. He is 70 years old and is married to his 68-year-old wife for more than 40 years. They have one son in his 40s who is in prison. Before their son was sent to prison, he financially supported both Mr Viswa and his wife. Now that he is incarcerated, Mr Viswa and his wife have to fend for themselves. Mr Viswa is adamant that he must find a job to pay the bills and support his wife who has ailing health. While we try our best to give him some interim financial assistance and to get some form of employment assistance for Mr Viswa, jobs for someone his age are difficult to come by. Fortunately, after several months of appealing for employment assistance and employment opportunities, Mr Viswa was offered a part-time position. While he is happy to have found employment, I am also worried if he will be alright and if he can continue in his job.
The reality is that with families getting smaller, we will end up having many elderly and seniors among us who may need to fend for themselves and continue to work into their golden years. While this, in itself, is not a bad thing, so long as our seniors continue to keep healthy, fit and active, and continue to sharpen their skills, more than health or skills, they need opportunities to be employed and be entrusted with work responsibilities. They may not be able to carry out physically demanding work but they do have invaluable experience and knowledge that we can tap on. For instance, they can be assigned as workplace mentors to train younger workers or be tasked to do administrative or information organisation work that would require a fair amount of patience which, I am sure, they have more of, compared to younger counterparts.
In the universities and some institutions of higher learning, professors and lecturers are given tenure until they are 65 years old ‒ what we call T65 ‒ which is proof that they are able to carry on teaching, writing, doing academic and research work until they are 65 years old. Similarly, I would urge the Government to look at how older workers in the public and Civil Service sectors can be retained in their jobs until 65 and offered re-employment contracts only thereafter. In other words, allow for retirement with two options, that is, one, retire at 62 years old, or, two, retire at 65 years old, and allow for re-employment up to 70 years old. Our seniors should be given more options in deciding their employment in their golden years.
I would also implore the Government to make it a requirement for private companies to retain older workers until the age of 65, and these should be older workers across all ranks and not just those in senior management. Companies that demonstrate strong support in retaining their older workers should be commended and given due recognition.
For many of our seniors, they take pride in being financially independent and not having to ask their children or anyone else for financial assistance. We must help them be so. There are some seniors who are in the fortunate position of being financially independent or being able to get financial support from their children or other family members, but there are others who are not so fortunate. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Aminah is a senior citizen who is a rather petite lady. She is in her 60s and lives alone in a rental flat, even though she has an adult grandchild who is supposed to live with her. Mdm Aminah has four children, who have all married and are living with their own families in their respective flats. Although all of them are working, Mdm Aminah is a recipient of financial assistance from the Government.
I have visited Mdm Aminah at her flat to give her some groceries and also to speak to her. From our conversations, I discovered that her children give her between $10 to $20 each month and take turns to visit her every weekend. For most of the week, Mdm Aminah is all alone. I asked her whether the money given by her children is sufficient. She simply smiled. The financial assistance that she receives from the Social Service Office (SSO) does help to reduce her financial burden slightly. When I explained to her that there is a Maintenance of Parents Act, and whether she wishes to file a Maintenance Order at the Tribunal so that her children will give her a higher amount for her maintenance, she swiftly declined. She said that she does not want to burden or embarrass her children. We had to respect her wishes.
I have also met Mr Mohamed and his wife who are both in their 60s, too. They met me at the MPS and asked me to help them get a rental flat. At that time, they were living with their son and his wife in their 5-room flat, but they were chased out of that flat.
When asked about the circumstances leading to this situation, I found out that Mr Mohamed and his wife sold their 3-room flat around 10 years earlier in order to help their son buy a bigger flat and gave the proceeds from the sale of their house to buy their son’s 5-room flat. Now, after almost 10 years have passed, they were chased out of that same 5-room flat. They were very worried and were scrambling to get a rental flat. It was heart-wrenching for me to hear their story.
When I think of these two situations, I often asked myself where is the compassion and sympathy towards these elderly parents? Why are some people so cruel to them? These elderly parents willingly sacrificed their heart and soul for their children, but yet, why can their children not repay their sacrifice? As the proverb goes, the elderly have to tolerate all kinds of behaviour.
Fortunately, there is a diligent effort by our volunteers to engage our seniors and offer much needed assistance. Nonetheless, the responsibility of taking care of our seniors falls primarily on each one of their children, and it should not be the main responsibility of society and the Government. Parents are a gift and we should fulfil our obligations and look after them throughout their remaining years. We should never become like those who abandon their parents. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in English.
(In English): Madam Loh is a resident whom I met recently at MPS. She was in tears as she sought help to get a rental flat. Like Mr Mohamed and his wife, Madam Loh lives with her son and daughter-in-law. However, their familial relationships were strained after living together for four years and Madam Loh was asked to leave the flat. She is desperately looking for a rental flat as she has no other children and does not wish to live with relatives, because she is embarrassed to let them know. In her desperation, she said she wants to take her own life so that she need not be a burden to anyone anymore.
For each of these cases above, my heart breaks at the despair and sadness faced by each of these elderly persons. As I said earlier, with our families getting smaller and with fewer children, the dependence on one or two children will be the norm for each elderly person, and the heartbreak they may face when their only child refuses to take care of them in future or when they get evicted from their shared home, will be very real.
I would propose for the Government to look at how our housing policies can be tightened to protect elderly parents who (a) decide to sell their flat or apartment or house; or (b) those who are compelled or maybe even tricked into selling their flat, apartment or house, in order to help their child or children to purchase their own flat, apartment or house. While we respect the decisions of senior or elderly Singaporeans to help their children with their own abode, I would propose that we consider having a policy, or even legislation, that can be invoked to take to task adult children who have benefited from the sale of the abode of their elderly parents and who later on neglect or drive out their parents from the abode they have bought as a result of that. This can be something similar to the Maintenance of Parents Act. Hence, the adult children can be made to pay back the full amount received from their parents in the purchase of their own abode when their familial relationships fail and eviction of the parents occur, or they can be made to pay for the monthly rental of the elderly parents should the elderly parents take up a rental flat or apartment.
Nonetheless, while we have the Maintenance of Parents Act or a new policy or even legislation to protect elderly parents who are made homeless by their own children, surely, we should not need to depend on a piece of legislation that has to be invoked for us to show love, care or responsibility towards our parents. Should that not be a responsibility that comes willingly from the heart? We should not be compelled to take care of our parents because the law says so. We should do it because it is the right thing to do. I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion. This is a topic that is especially close to my heart. I have spoken on this several times.
In my first General Election rally speech, I spoke about active ageing and what it meant for me personally and for my constituents. I shared how I was inspired by my grandmother and my wish for our elderly to lead fulfilling lives after they retire, to carry on with pride and dignity. This is a primary driver for many of the programmes that I introduce for my residents in Tampines.
During the debate on Budget 2016, I expressed my hope to see seniors who are not on the PG package to be visited by the PG Ambassadors, too, so that they are more aware of the programmes and help available to them. I was, therefore, heartened when Minister Heng announced the Community Network for Seniors. Its stated mission is to build active networks amongst the elderly, to actively engage the community and provide them with a path to seek help in times of need.
I am glad that Tampines is selected to pilot the programme. Today, we have over 26 RCs with weekly wellness programmes, from healthy cooking to exercise classes and health talks, with an average of 650 elderly attending the sessions. Some told me they have made new friends and are enjoying their retirement. Others said they have got stronger. One Mr K, 82 years old, is less reliant on the wheelchair and uses his walking stick to come for classes.
Under the Community Network for Seniors (CNS), there is also Eastern Health Alliance’s Care Line Programme. This is a tele-befriending service targeting the elderly who stay alone or require a befriender.
But it is not just about isolated seniors. Many of our seniors live with their children or near them. Madam Nadesan stays with her son and is well taken care of. But what the PG Ambassadors realised during their visit is that she suffers from frequent falls. So, they followed up with a home fall risk assessment, got a ramp fixed under the HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme and got her on board the Disability Assistance Scheme. Many people are unaware of the schemes available to them. There are many, and some are complex. House visits by PG Ambassadors really help to raise awareness and dispel some of their worries.
So, CNS closes gaps and works closely with the local community to help residents. There is a whole network of agencies from the Red Cross, St Andrews Community Hospital, Singhealth, Lion Befrienders, HPB, RCs and so on supporting this.
Passionate individuals also play a role. Jacelyn, aged 60, is passionate about line dancing and conducts free weekly classes in Tampines for about 60 residents. There are many individuals out there who care about the community. Let us tap on them, encourage them, motivate them. CNS is working well, and I read that it will be expanded to more areas soon.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech in Parliament, I spoke about the importance of intergeneration bonding and how it was important for the elderly and the young to have more opportunities to interact. I also suggested building eldercare and childcare centres in our parks and schools then. I drew from our positive experience in our 3-in-1 Family Centre in Tampines which was set up in 1990, incorporating childcare, student care and eldercare.
A couple of years ago, I learnt that there will be a new nursing home on Tampines Avenue 2 that is situated next to Angsana Primary School. When I saw the design of the nursing home, I advocated for the fence between the two buildings to be removed in order to remove physical barriers between the nursing home and the school. I do not like the fenced-up feeling in nursing homes. It is uninviting and isolates them from the community. I wanted the school field to be available to the nursing home for exercises and activities and also to make it convenient for parents and grandparents to drop in after dropping off their children in school.
Recently, I was delighted to hear from MOH that there will be no fencing around the nursing home and residents can look forward to both daycare and homecare services, such as home nursing and home personal care. I cannot wait. And I mean it. I really cannot wait. It was in December 2015 that we saw the artist's impression and we are still waiting for an operator to be appointed and no ground breaking yet. I know it is happening soon but I feel we need to move things faster.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as more eldercare facilities are set up in housing estates, I hope we can consider the model of pairing up these facilities with schools in the vicinity to create long-term partnerships for more interactions.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very encouraged by the commitment of our Government in preparing for an ageing population. I note that the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Ageing was set up 20 years ago in 1998 to review healthcare needs of the elderly and to ensure that the healthcare cost remains affordable. Since then, many policies, programmes and initiatives have been implemented and many more Ministries and agencies involved – active ageing under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Pioneer Generation Office (PGO) under MOF, Ageing Planning Office under MOH, Silver Support Scheme under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and so on.
Much has been done, but I believe much more can and must be done. For example, there are many exciting new technologies to assist the elderly, from wearable devices to remote monitoring. Can we do more to encourage this sector? Can we aspire to be a global leader in technology-assisted elderly living and active ageing?
Is it time to consider setting up a new Ministry that will be able to coordinate all the developments, drive policy and innovation, and implement the programmes smoothly and efficiently? Should we coordinate all the efforts and resources to see how we can make better use of our seniors' experience and wisdom? How do we tap on our retirees to continue to play active roles in the country that they have given so much to, and for them to live the rest of their lives in Singapore in a dignified and fruitful manner?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government, in partnership with the community and public institutions, have made important steps towards making active ageing a very attractive reality in Singapore. While the issue of active ageing is a never-ending one, it has not yet quite reached maturity. Like a freshly retired person, there is still some way to go. It is also a complex one, and my remarks today do not fully express what I have to say on this topic. I shall save it for another day.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Deputy Speaker, MOH supports this Motion. As the Chinese saying goes, a senior in the family is like a treasure in the family, or in Chinese, \"家有一老，如有一宝\".
We agree with Dr Lily Neo that our seniors are assets to our society and our country. Our seniors are key pillars in families, as parents and grandparents. They not only raise us but also educate and bring up grandchildren with the right values and traditions. Many of our seniors are also leaders in the community, contributing their wisdom to community development.
Today, more than one in three of our PG Ambassadors and around one in two of the HPB Health Ambassadors are over 60. At the economic level, many seniors are experienced business owners, while our silver workforce is also emerging as a key driver of our economic development, complementing a younger workforce that is likely to shrink in the future.
Our vision for Singapore is a \"Nation for All Ages\". The Ministerial Committee on Ageing launched a $3 billion Action Plan for Successful Ageing in 2015 with more than 70 initiatives across 12 areas to achieve this vision. In particular, we want to deepen our efforts to achieve positive ageing at three levels.
First, at the individual level, we want to enable our citizens to continue to develop and grow as individuals, regardless of age. This includes enabling them to work for as long as they choose to. I am happy to share with Ms Joan Pereira that the number of nurses working past the retirement age of 62 years has increased. In 2017, over 1,400 retired nurses aged above 62 were working, compared to 1,200 in 2015. MOH will continue to work with our healthcare institutions to support flexible work arrangements for older nurses, so that they can continue to contribute.
At the same time, other seniors may seek purpose in their silver years, not by working but by developing their interests or pursuing their own passion or causes. To support seniors’ interest in learning, we launched the National Silver Academy, which has engaged over 13,000 seniors in learning across more than 900 courses, ranging from information technology (IT) and media courses to art and wellness.
Dr Lily Neo also suggested that the Government set up policies and programmes to promote volunteerism amongst seniors. I am happy to share that in 2015, we established a $40 million Silver Volunteer Fund (SVF) to support programmes that offer volunteer opportunities to seniors. To date, we have funded 22 volunteer programmes. One such programme is the Community Befriending Programme (CBP), whereby the SVF provides programme funding to recruit, train and deploy active agers as befrienders to older seniors, including covering some out-of-pocket costs for these befrienders. Today, we have more than 850 volunteers befriending 2,500 seniors in 47 constituencies under CBP. We expect this number to grow. We note Ms Joan Pereira’s suggestion and would be happy to explore time banking in future where there is ground-up interest.
Confidence and purpose in our silver years are only possible with good health. We agree with Dr Lily Neo and Mr Gan Thiam Poh that the promotion of health and well-being of seniors is key. We have brought preventive health services to over 44,000 mature workers in seven sectors, and exercise programmes and health talks to over 400,000 seniors in the community to keep them in good health. We have also enhanced subsidies under Screen for Life (SFL) to encourage more Singaporeans to go for health screening and follow-up. Now, eligible Singaporeans will only need to pay no more than $5 for screening and the first post-screening consultation at Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) clinics. Close to 25,000 Singaporeans aged 50 and above have attended screening under the programme in the last five months.
Second, at the family level, we want to empower caregivers to better support seniors to age in place with peace of mind. I agree with Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Kok Heng Leun as well as Mr Gan Thiam Poh that caregiver support and strong families are critical. Our efforts to enhance home and community care services are aimed at supporting seniors in the day, so that their caregivers can go to work with peace of mind. We have worked to increase the capacity, improve on accessibility and also raise the quality of our services. Between 2011 and 2017, we have increased the number of home and centre care capacity by 120% to 13,000 places.
In 2016, we started Integrated Home and Day Care packages, which give seniors flexibility to be cared for, either at the centres or at home. We are also building nursing homes in the community to support those who are too frail to be cared for at home. Miss Cheng Li Hui said that she cannot wait. I ask for her patience. I am sure it is worth waiting for.
Miss Cheng also spoke on improving the design and programming for our eldercare facilities. We agree and have been injecting more common spaces and greenery within our facilities. We are also co-locating eldercare and childcare facilities, where possible, to facilitate intergenerational activities, to engage our seniors.
We also agree with Dr Lily Neo that it is important for seniors to age in place in the community. Hence, we piloted the Care Close to Home programme to support the care and social needs of rental block seniors from Senior Activity Centres. Care Close to Home is an example on how we enable seniors to age in place by effectively turning these precincts into in-situ \"care homes\" with assisted living support.
At the same time, we have started building larger day care centres to serve as \"Active Ageing Hubs\" for seniors that can provide a range of services, from active ageing programmes for healthy and ambulant seniors to day care and rehab services for frail seniors. One such hub is at Whampoa, which now serves more than 600 seniors across its active ageing and care services.
Several Members also asked about respite for caregivers. We have various options today. For caregivers who need help for a few hours over the weekend, they can leave their elderly at one of the 10 senior care centres across Singapore, where they will be looked after. For those who need respite for a longer period, they can have their elderly cared for at nursing homes for several days, up to a month. At least 40 nursing homes are providing this service since it was introduced in May 2013. To date, over 1,600 people have tapped on these respite care services.
In addition, the Eldersitter Programme provides an eldersitter to look after seniors with dementia at their homes when caregiving arrangements are not available. In the past five years, over 1,200 seniors have been supported through this arrangement.
Today, caregivers also benefit from tax reliefs of up to $14,000 for taking care of an elderly parent with a disability. On top of this, they can also benefit from the lower foreign domestic worker (FDW) concessionary levy if they hire an FDW. If they are from lower- and middle-income families and are caring for an elderly person or a person with moderate disability, they can get an additional FDW grant.
We recognise that new cohorts of seniors will have differing aspirations. Our active agers will want to plan ahead for themselves and stay independent for as long as possible. We are evolving new models of care and studying new forms of housing that provide seniors with support services as they age. Minister Desmond Lee will touch on this in his speech.
Dr Lily Neo spoke on the importance of mobility, and I fully agree. Over 800,000 seniors have benefited from the Passion Silver card since its launch in December 2016, which lets them benefit from cheaper transport and merchant discounts.
Our Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has also partnered Uber to launch UberAssist. Caregivers and seniors can now use the Uber app to call for a car to take them to their medical appointments. Around 800 drivers have also been trained to date to help assist our seniors, so that they can have a safe journey. More than 96% of our public buses are also wheelchair-accessible, and all will be so by 2020. All Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and bus interchanges, and 97% of bus shelters are barrier-free.
Ms Joan Pereira also suggested that we design the signs and notices in public transport to make them easier to read for seniors. Since 2012, all new MRT stations have directional signage with high-contrast colours and larger font sizes. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) is in the midst of making similar enhancements to the signs at the older MRT stations.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan raised suggestions on healthcare affordability. We share the sentiment of Members that peace of mind is important. Helping our elderly with their healthcare costs is a joint responsibility with the Government through subsidies, collective risk pooling in our community through insurance, and individual and family support through MediSave and personal savings. This is a hallmark of a caring and inclusive society.
We have enhanced the reach of Government subsidies over the years. Through CHAS, we have made outpatient care in the community more affordable, including for the management of chronic diseases.
To Ms Rahayu Mahzam's query, we continue to review the CHAS criteria. And, as with all schemes, there could be people who fall outside the eligibility criteria. But we are open to consider such cases on appeal. With the PG Package, all Pioneers enjoy special CHAS support above the CHAS blue tier, and an additional 50% off subsidised treatments at polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics.
We have also made it easier to utilise MediSave for healthcare needs. The number of conditions covered under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) has been progressively expanded over the years, and Singaporeans can now use MediSave to pay for 19 conditions. Singaporeans aged 65 and above can also utilise an additional $200 of their MediSave through the Flexi-MediSave Scheme. We will continue to review our healthcare financing schemes to ensure affordability for Singaporeans while also ensuring sustainability of our healthcare system.
We made MediShield Life a universal health insurance scheme in 2015. To ensure affordability, premium subsidies are extended to the lower- and middle-income. Pioneers receive special PG subsidies. This has been a relief for many older Singaporeans and a valuable assurance that their large hospital bills are covered by insurance.
ElderShield is also currently being reviewed to provide stronger support for disability in old age. The ElderShield Committee had provided an interim update last week, with recommendations to make the ElderShield scheme universal for all future cohorts, to lower the inclusion age to 30, for the Government to administer the enhanced ElderShield scheme, and for the claims assessment process to be improved. We welcome the recommendations and will work with the Committee to consider how best to target support for those who may need more help with their premiums.
There have been some questions on why the Committee recommended lowering the inclusion age to 30. The Committee explained that lowering the inclusion age for ElderShield distributes an individual's own premium payment over a longer period during his working years to pay for his own future needs when he grows old. This will make premiums more affordable. The premiums paid are for their own long-term care needs and are not intended for the young to subsidise the elderly for their long-term care needs. In fact, the very intent of tapping on insurance is to avoid shifting the financial burden to the young.
I also note Ms Joan Pereira's suggestion to review our nomenclature for ElderShield. The current name of the scheme reflects its objective, which is to protect Singaporeans from the costs of long-term care, in particular, during their older years where the risks of severe disabilities are higher. We acknowledge the feedback, however, and the ElderShield Committee will be reviewing the name of the scheme.
We would like to assure everyone that no Singaporean will be denied appropriate healthcare. For those who continue to have difficulties with their healthcare bills, additional support is available through MediFund.
Third, at the community level, we want to build stronger communities of care to complement families in supporting our seniors. This is especially important as family size shrinks and increasingly more elderly will live by themselves.
An area of focus for MOH is to work with both community-based voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and our healthcare providers to integrate health and social support for our seniors. For instance, AIC has worked with VWOs to station care teams within senior activity centres to do regular checks and support the activities of daily living of seniors living alone in rental precincts.
We agree with Dr Lily Neo that technology can present new opportunities to bolster our community support for seniors. For instance, in the SHINE Seniors project at Marine Parade, sensors are placed in the homes of seniors living alone, so that VWO staff or volunteers can respond to calls for help.
Another example is Changi General Hospital's Care Line, which is a 24-7 call centre that can respond to calls for help from seniors living alone in the community. We are also conducting a nationwide pilot of tele-rehabilitation that allows seniors to follow up with their rehabilitation exercises in the comfort of their homes, post discharge from hospitals. Khoo Teck Puat Hospital is also using telehealth consultations to support new nursing homes in better managing residents who are near the end of life.
Given the magnitude of population ageing, formal services alone are not enough. I agree with Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Ms Rahayu Mahzam that we need to rally the whole community to come together to support our seniors. We would like to thank our Members who have spoken out in support of these initiatives and helped with bringing our communities together on the ground.
The CNS initiative was introduced in Budget 2016 as a pilot of what would eventually serve as a national community-based support system to help our seniors age well. In essence, it coordinates a strong local network of health and social care partners to support seniors, as a complement to family support, enabling our seniors to age confidently in the community. For well seniors, we want to keep them active and healthy for as long as possible. For those who are lonely, we find them a friend. And for those with multiple needs, our aim is to get them holistic help quickly.
CNS has been piloted in Tampines, Choa Chu Kang and Marine Parade. As Members have heard from Miss Cheng Li Hui, it has been well-received by all stakeholders. To date, CNS has activated more than 70 RCs to hold regular preventive health and active ageing activities and engaged more than 70,000 seniors. There are now more than 1,500 senior attendances for these programmes on a weekly basis.
CNS has also matched more than 600 seniors to befrienders and assisted about 800 seniors who have complex social and health needs. Based on what we have learnt from CNS, we plan to strengthen this effort. More details will be announced at the Committee of Supply this year. However, our success in building communities of care hinges on support and partnership from the wider community. Therefore, I fully support Mr Kok Heng Leun's suggestion to step up public education and promote greater awareness of the process of ageing and the needs of seniors.
Together with community-based organisations, we have made efforts to promote awareness of end-of-life issues and palliative care, and we have also launched an exhibition on ageing called Dialogue with Time, at Science Centre, which has attracted over 10,000 visitors since its opening last November. We will continue to invest in public education.
Longevity is a blessing and not to be spent in sickness or loneliness. If we can work together, ageing need not be feared. We can enable seniors to age positively with purpose and grace, empower strong families that can care for seniors, and build a cohesive and resilient community able to thrive in the face of population ageing. MOH and the Ministerial Committee on Ageing look forward to working with all Members and Singaporeans to realise a \"Nation for All Ages\". Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to conclude in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After hearing Mr Kok Heng Leun's speech, I was very touched. I agree with him fully. Illness and death are inevitable, but it is important that we enable our seniors to age positively with purpose, gracefully and with dignity.
The Government will continue to work hard to build a Nation for All Ages that is caring and inclusive and embrace seniors as an integral part of our community. But family and kinship are priceless and irreplaceable. We should honour the elderly as we do our own aged parents. Let us show our love and create a warm society for our seniors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Sam Tan.
The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and for Foreign Affairs and Manpower (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to, firstly, thank Members for tabling this Motion for the House to recognise our seniors. The Ministry of Manpower, together with our tripartite partners, is committed to supporting our older workers to enjoy fulfilling years and engage in productive work.
Sir, our workforce is ageing rapidly. Over the last decade, the proportion of residents aged 60 and over in our labour force has increased from 6.1% in 2007, to 13.8% in 2017. We expect this trend to continue in the foreseeable future as Singaporeans live longer and healthier.
It is a good thing that our seniors can work and want to work longer. Active participation in the workforce allows seniors to make positive contributions and forms part of active ageing. The economy and society as a whole benefit from their expertise and experience. To this end, we should continue to support older workers to have meaningful employment opportunities. At the same time, we should also ensure that our older workers are treated fairly and with respect at our workplaces. Our tripartite partners have been working closely together to help support our older workers so that they can have longer and fuller working lives.
Sir, we introduced the concept of re-employment under the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) in 2012. RRA is to support older workers who want to work longer beyond their retirement age. We took another step forward in 2016 to raise re-employment age from 65 to 67, which has been effective since 1 July last year. This applies to the public and private sectors.
The re-employment model has shown encouraging results. Since it was introduced in 2012, over 98% of private-sector local employees who wished to continue working at age 62 were offered re-employment. Of those who accepted re-employment in the same job at age 62, around 96% did not receive any cut in their basic salaries in 2012. And this proportion rose to 98% in 2016. Some Members have suggested why not remove the retirement age and re-employment age altogether?
Sir, currently, the tripartite partners are of the view that the retirement and re-employment ages still play an important role in helping our workers stay employable for as long as they can. These are their reasons.
First, the retirement age of 62 provides older workers peace of mind that employers are not allowed to terminate their employment simply based on age.
Second, with the re-employment age, the older workers are further protected as employers must offer eligible workers re-employment up to age 67.
Third, the introduction and progressive raising of re-employment age, instead of retirement age, balances the employers' need for business flexibility and the employment needs of the older workers better. While the employer is obliged to offer re-employment to the older worker at 62 till 67, it need not necessarily be for the same job or at the same pay. There is some flexibility so long as both employers and employees achieve a mutual agreement. And also, beyond the re-employment age, older workers can continue to work as long as there is mutual consent between them and the employers.
With extended lifespans and improved health among seniors, there will be scope to raise the age of re-employment further again over time. This, however, will be a matter for tripartite deliberations. For now, as the re-employment age was just raised from 65 to 67 last year, the immediate focus of the Government and the tripartite partners is to ensure successful implementation of the new re-employment age to benefit more older workers. This is to fulfil what we had set out earlier.
As we encourage employers to hire and retain older workers, we recognise that those who do so deserve extra support and encouragement. The Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme provides a wage offset of up to 8% of monthly wages to employers when they employ older workers aged 55 and above. An additional wage offset of up to 3% of monthly wages is also provided to encourage continued employment of older workers above the re-employment age of 67.
We also support employers to provide flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for older workers who prefer to transit from full-time employment to take on more flexible work options. The Work-Life Grant funds each company up to $160,000 over four years to implement FWAs to help employees better manage work and family responsibilities.
Our various programmes to improve the employability and employment of older workers have shown encouraging results. Singapore's employment rate of residents aged 65 to 69 is 41.5% in 2016. This compares quite favourably with developed economies, with Singapore ranked 5th against 35 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in 2016. It is also higher than some of the developed countries with no retirement age, such the US at 31%, Australia at 25.9%, the UK at 21% and Denmark at 19.1%. In Singapore, we achieved 41.5%.
Sir, looking ahead, as our workforce continues to age, I strongly support Mr Henry Kwek's call and also other Members' similar call to do more to maintain the dignity of our elderly in the workplace. For older workers to work productively and also to help companies to remain competitive, we must ensure that our workplaces are age-friendly. We must treat our older workers fairly with dignity. But how do we do this?
First, we should eliminate ageism at work. MOM and our tripartite partners are against age discrimination. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) promotes the employment of older workers and raises awareness of the value that older workers bring to the workplace. They look into all age discrimination complaints and refer cases to MOM for investigation where warranted. Enforcement actions will be taken against employers who discriminate based on age.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) also spells out the principles of fair and merit-based employment which we expect all employers to abide by. For example, job applicants should be assessed fairly and are not to be ignored or rejected on the basis of age. This applies to all jobs listed in the JobsBank. The Guidelines also state specifically that date of birth information should not be asked in the job application forms.
Second, we should ensure that our jobs are suitably designed and redesigned for our older workers. This was why we enhanced the WorkPro in July 2016 to create easier, safer and smarter jobs for older workers. A company can now receive up to $300,000, up from $150,000, under the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant.
Since the enhancement, more than 600 companies have applied for the Job Redesign Grant, benefiting more than 9,500 older workers. This is an encouraging start, but we should do more. I urge more employers to tap on WorkPro to take bold steps to redesign and create meaningful jobs for older workers.
Third, we need both our older workers and employers to play their parts to enhance the employment and employability of mature workers. We will keep strengthening our support to them through SkillsFuture and Adapt and Grow.
For instance, under the Adapt and Grow Initiative, older professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) are provided with more support for career or job transition under programmes, such as the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) and Career Support Programme (CSP). The Work Trial programme also allows older rank-and-file workers to undergo short-term work trial with companies and acquire new skills to potentially take on new jobs. I encourage more employers and workers to take full advantage of these Government schemes we have put in place for them.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have made steady progress to enhance the employability and employment opportunities for our older workers. With an ageing workforce and the fast pace of economic restructuring and transformation, we will need to do even more to ensure that our future workforce will remain inclusive. Together with our tripartite partners, we will press on in our efforts to support our seniors so that they can continue to lead an active and fulfilling life.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank colleagues for raising the important topic of support for the elderly, especially with respect to ensuring they benefit from the technological progress we make as a society.
The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) agrees with the concerns raised by Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Joan Pereira and other Members. MCI supports the Motion and last year convened the Digital Readiness Workgroup to examine the current status, engage stakeholders and partners, and to develop strategies relevant to future opportunities and challenges. This workgroup has representatives from the public, private and people sectors. Later in the year, we will be explaining in more detail our strategies to help all Singaporeans, especially the most vulnerable, to understand and enjoy the benefits of technology.
In the interim, we have agreed on some broad principles that will inform these strategies and plans that we develop. First, our programmes, initiatives and products must be user-centric and designed for inclusion of everyone. Second, we must go beyond the provision of access, to equipping people with skills that enable them to participate actively and meaningfully. Third, the greatest reach and impact in this space will be achieved only through the deep collaborations between the people, public and private sectors.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even as we plan for the future and develop new strategies, these ideas are building on a strong foundation. MCI, together with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and its predecessors, has been working on these issues for more than 10 years, through a national programme called the Silver Infocomm Initiative. I would like to highlight just a few of the programmes it supports.
First, we have over 30 senior-friendly infocomm learning hubs island-wide, including at community centres (CCs) and libraries that offer a customised curriculum to train seniors. These are known as Silver Infocomm Junctions (SIJs).
Second, the \"Seniors for Smart Nation\" series of courses, run by the \"Senior Academy\" programme of PA.
Third, the \"IM Bonding\" programme at Senior Activity Centres focuses on lower-income elderly and involves a significant aspect of social interaction.
Fourth and last, the Silver Infocomm Wellness Ambassador is a programme to train and support seniors to teach and encourage their peers about technology.
All of these programmes, and many others, help seniors to become familiar with technology, to develop confidence to conduct transactions and interact online, to connect with one another and their families using digital tools, and to ultimately enjoy the benefits of technology. These programmes are available in English and vernacular languages and, over the last 10 years, have helped 150,000 seniors.
Sir, MCI agrees with the concerns raised by Members. Although there has been a lot of work ongoing for the last 10 years, much remains to be done. We are all ageing, technology will continue to develop at a rapid pace, and making sure the elderly benefit from the progress of our society must be something we always pay attention to.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for Social and Family Development and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will elaborate on our efforts in housing, our urban environment and social support. I begin with thoughtful planning and design of our infrastructure.
Ms Tin Pei Ling, Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Lily Neo spoke about how we should design and retrofit our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, estates and public infrastructure to enable our seniors to age actively, comfortably and safely.
Today, when building our new estates, HDB’s consultants adopt the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA’s) Accessibility Code and guidelines. For example, common spaces are designed with ramps instead of just steps and seamless barrier-free routes to connect various amenities for our seniors and those who are wheelchair-bound. Three-generational fitness and play facilities facilitate social interaction between our seniors and the community. Within our flats, senior-friendly features are provided, such as gentle gradients at the main entrance, common bathrooms that are wheelchair-accessible and more user-friendly clothes drying systems.
The bigger challenge has been to retrofit our older, mature estates to make them more senior-friendly. And we have been doing this assiduously over many years since the 2000s, adding more ramps, linkways and senior-friendly facilities to mature estates through programmes, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), implemented since 2001, has also provided direct lift access to residents in about 5,200 HDB blocks. Through the City for All Ages and Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programmes, HDB is also retrofitting existing HDB estates and flats with more features, such as grab bars and non-slip toilet flooring, to enhance mobility and comfort for our seniors, benefiting more than 130,000 families thus far. Making our mature estates elderly-friendly requires a community effort. That is why programmes, such as NRP and CIPC, are structured to allow the community to participate in decision-making.
Private building owners can also tap on BCA's Accessibility Fund. This provides co-funding to encourage them to retrofit their private buildings that pre-date 1990, to make them senior-friendly.
Sir, we continue to research and study other ways and options to make our living environment more senior-friendly.
I next turn to housing asset monetisation, a point raised by various Members.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Henry Kwek suggested ways to help seniors unlock more value from their homes to supplement their retirement needs.
The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) was introduced in 2009, giving lower-income seniors living in 3-room or smaller flats the option to sell back and monetise the tail-end of their leases to HDB, while continuing to live in their flats. The scheme was expanded in 2015 to cover 4-room flats.
Currently, LBS is not open to households in larger flats as they have more monetisation options than those in smaller flats. For instance, they can right-size to a smaller flat in the same neighbourhood. Under the Seniors Priority Scheme, seniors, including those in private properties, enjoy priority when they apply for a 2-room flexi flat in the same town or estate as their current home. If seniors living in larger flats right-size to a 2- or 3-room flat, they may apply for the Silver Housing Bonus and receive a cash bonus, if they use some of their proceeds to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts and join CPF LIFE.
To raise awareness of these and other monetisation options, HDB works with our media, organises public talks and seminars and sets up booths at local community events. Seniors also receive personalised information on their monetisation options when they carry out housing transactions at our HDB counters. Most recently, HDB and CPF Board sent out individually customised mailers to seniors about the range of monetisation options that are available to them.
Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested other ways of monetising properties which do not require our seniors to move home, such as reverse mortgages and specialised funds based on the French concept of \"Viager\". Financial institutions (FIs) are already allowed to offer reverse mortgages and these specialised funds. But both are complex financial products which are more difficult to understand, hence the challenge. The risk that the value of the payouts may exceed that of the property could also impact their attractiveness to home owners. In fact, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Income and Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) bank stopped offering reverse mortgages in 2009, precisely due to a lack of demand. Recent surveys also found that many seniors were generally averse to the idea of reverse mortgages as they preferred to remain debt-free at that stage in life.
Some of the options I mentioned earlier, like buying a 2-room flexi flat with priority allocation, are also open to seniors living in private properties who may wish to consider asset monetisation. In addition, with the changes announced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in March 2017, they may also obtain mortgage equity withdrawal loans from FIs. MAS had announced that such loans that are less than 50% of the market value of the property would no longer be subject to the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework. This may help retirees, many of whom would have paid up most of their outstanding housing loan, monetise part of the value of their property if they wish.
Sir, let me assure Members that we will continue to study and review options to help our seniors who wish to better monetise their homes, to supplement retirement needs.
Sir, we need both the \"hardware\" as well as the \"heartware\" if we want to build a society where our seniors can age happily, supported by the community around them. To do so, we have to plan well ahead. This involves nurturing communities of care, strengthening community care and service delivery for vulnerable seniors, planning ahead for seniors who may lose or have lost mental capacity, and putting in place laws to protect vulnerable seniors.
The composition of families has shifted over the years. Family sizes are shrinking, and we see more seniors who live alone or without children. Because of this changing profile, we have to proactively ramp up efforts to complement family support while, at the same time, encourage the strengthening of family ties.
Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Joan Pereira suggested introducing Senior Care leave to employees caring for their parents. Caregivers of elderly parents need support and understanding, and I thank Mr Kok Heng Leun for his very heartfelt and personal sharing of his experience, for the benefit of this House.
We encourage employers to provide a family-friendly workplace, and have introduced several family leave enhancements over the last few years. While we are prepared to study the idea of Senior Care leave in consultation with the tripartite partners, we should allow some time for businesses to adjust and adapt to the recent enhancements.
In the meantime, we will continue to work with the tripartite partners to encourage employers to adopt family-friendly practices, including adopting the Tripartite Standard of FWAs, and better leveraging on the Worklife Grant.
Sir, I agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that it is important to integrate housing for seniors within the community and encourage strong family support. To foster community interaction, we now build 2-room flexi flats in the same block as larger flat types for most projects. Under the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme, married children and their parents are given priority if they apply for a pair of flats at the same level, block or Build-To-Order (BTO) project. Those who wish to live as a multigenerational family can apply for 3Gen flats.
Mr Henry Kwek made some thoughtful recommendations on retirement housing, while Mr Leon Pereira spoke about assisted living for seniors. We also agree with Dr Lily Neo that we should support our seniors to live independently in their homes and communities for as long as possible.
Our strategy to achieve this is to try to integrate the delivery of social and care services within our public housing estates, for ease and convenience of our seniors. Over the years, we have ramped up the introduction of eldercare facilities in our HDB estates. We have taken this one step further with Kampung Admiralty, where seniors living in and around the Kampung can obtain a continuum of social and health services at the Active Ageing Hub. These services can support them as their needs evolve and put off the need for premature institutionalisation in nursing homes or other facilities. There are plans to build another 10 more Active Ageing Hubs by 2020.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh will also be glad to know that we will continue working with MOH to explore new senior-friendly housing models, such as new forms of home and care options to allow seniors to age in a familiar environment and to remain independent for as long as possible. This includes assisted living developments that will help to expand the care and residential options available to seniors, by integrating senior-friendly housing and senior care services. This is currently under study and we will announce more details when ready.
At the same time, we are studying measures which can better facilitate the development of private housing projects to support the needs of our seniors. We are reviewing our Development Control guidelines to provide more clarity on retirement housing developments, and we will share more information on these plans when ready.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to support vulnerable seniors in our midst. This means empowering them to make choices to remain healthy, active and socially connected in their golden years, enabled collectively by the family, community and state.
On community support, we have expanded our network of social services supporting the low-income and vulnerable seniors, in close partnership with VWOs. Since 2014, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has set up 19 Senior Cluster Networks (SCNs), operated by VWOs, to coordinate support for these seniors within each HDB town, with other social and healthcare agencies, including SSOs, Family Service Centres (FSCs) and AIC.
Through the SCNs, we have supported these low-income and vulnerable seniors to stay engaged in the community, prevent social isolation and receive timely and coordinated care. The 69 Senior Activity Centres (SACs) reach out to around 30,000 seniors in public rental flats to engage them in recreation and to mitigate social isolation. Frail seniors with social and health needs are case-managed by social workers in the Cluster Support teams who coordinate care together with AIC. Senior Group Homes (SGHs) can support frail seniors who are suitable for communal living.
Our network of 24 SSOs has also brought help closer to low-income and vulnerable seniors in the community. SSOs play the important role of coordinating complex cases, which often involve multiple agencies and organisations. SSOs also plan and coordinate services at the local level and manage MSF-funded regional services for families and seniors.
While social service delivery has improved over the years, we know that we can continue to do better. Today, a family with multiple needs has to navigate different schemes, programmes, agencies and VWOs. We want to improve our interagency work processes to provide more integrated and holistic support for those in need. One of our key enablers will be CNS, which is being piloted, to bring together healthcare and social agencies and the community to provide support for seniors.
We can also improve data sharing and use among Government agencies and with the community. This could reduce the need for clients to submit the same documents to different agencies and organisations multiple times. It also helps to harness the time, energy and skills of social service professionals and volunteers to better support our seniors.
Sir, some seniors lose their mental capacity as they age due to dementia and other causes. Miss Cheryl Chan suggested improving the outreach and awareness of the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), by making certifiers of LPAs more easily accessible within the community.
Apart from lawyers and psychiatrists, there are currently 496 medical professionals who are accredited to be LPA certificate issuers. Many of them are GPs who operate in clinics in the heartlands. In addition, there are community services that provide regular legal clinics for both LPA as well as will-writing. An example is Life Point, started by Sheng Hong Welfare Services. It is at Chinatown Point. It is a popular one-stop service for seniors to make their LPAs. We welcome more organisations to start similar services to benefit our seniors.
If a person loses mental capacity without having made an LPA, their family members or friends may apply to the Court to be appointed as their deputy. But we are aware that there are some individuals who may not have next-of-kin who can be appointed as a deputy, or, for that matter, even as a donee, when they make LPAs. Therefore, MSF will be launching the Professional Deputies and Donees Scheme this year, where professionals can be remunerated for a fee to be appointed as professional donees and deputies.
To support our ageing seniors who lack family support and experience declining mental capacity, we are also piloting a new initiative known as the Community Kin Service or Comm Kin Service. Under this service, VWOs can apply for a Court order to manage the senior’s money in order to meet the senior’s day-to-day needs. What they need to do is to prepare a care plan detailing the kinds of expenses that need to be incurred for their daily needs for these seniors and present them to Court. Once approved, they will act within the remit of the Court order. It thus empowers VWOs to do more to support seniors holistically within the community. Professional deputies can step in when the senior requires institutional care, to make more major decisions for the senior, such as liquidation of property, as their expertise would be better suited for such matters.
This Comm Kin pilot is expected to begin early this year with two VWOs – TOUCH Community Services and Ang Mo Kio (AMK) FSC Community Services. Nonetheless, we still encourage Singaporeans to make an LPA because an LPA offers them choice and autonomy in deciding who they wish to appoint as their proxy decision-maker, and gives peace of mind to the family, knowing that the necessary preplanning has been done.
Sir, another important aspect of preparing for a Nation for all Ages is enhancing our legislative framework for seniors. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Chia Yong Yong had asked us to review the role of the Tribunal of Maintenance of Parents (TMP). The Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) provides legal recourse for seniors 60 and above and who are unable to provide for themselves to claim maintenance from their children. We recognise that some parents may be unwilling to file an application against their own children. So, the Act, therefore, allows the Commissioner to resolve issues through conciliation, without the need for the commencement of legal proceedings at TMP. If the parent is unable to make an application himself, for example, due to physical infirmity, the Commissioner is able to apply on behalf of the parent, with his consent.
Thus far, the Commissioner has not had to make such an application to the Tribunal on behalf of a parent, as most family members step up to help the parent. We will, however, continue to actively look into ways to lower the barriers for a senior to apply for maintenance, even as we seek to strengthen familial ties.
Ms Chia Yong Yong also asked whether the Tribunal has ever ordered children, under section 6 of MPA, to maintain their parents by setting up a trust fund to pay out regular maintenance. We have checked. Thus far, the Tribunal has not made such orders. Most orders have been by way of cash payment or cash support.
Currently, going beyond adjudication and mediation, TMP may already refer a parent to SSO for financial assistance and advice, if he is not awarded any maintenance, or if the maintenance awarded is insufficient to meet basic needs. The parent and the children may also be referred to an FSC for case management and counselling. That, in a way, also addresses the point Ms Rahayu Mahzam brought up. She suggested that the Tribunal take on more family counselling and mediation roles. These are better resolved at the FSCs.
I thank Members for their suggestions on legislative reviews and public education efforts to enhance support and safeguards for our seniors and promote family values on the care of our senior loved ones. Many suggestions have been given, including looking into the law of presumption of advancement. All these are things that we will study in the course of our work.
Concurrently, it is imperative that we put in place safeguards to ensure that frail elderly and ageing persons with disabilities are able to live in an environment that is free from abuse, neglect and self-neglect. To that end, the Vulnerable Adults Bill, which will be introduced this year, will protect individuals 18 years old and above and, because of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, are unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.
To complement such legislation, MSF is also working with community partners and stakeholders to enhance the capacity and capabilities of critical players to respond to reports of abuse.
Sir, Singapore is a rapidly greying society, by all existing trends and indicators. While this does pose significant challenges, we should plan ahead, prepare well and implement effectively. Only then can we tap the opportunity that our silver generation brings and turn a perceived challenge into a strength.
Before I close, allow me to make this very quick observation. Sir, we are encouraged that six Members of this House, from PAP.SG, coming from different Government Parliamentary Committees, have come together to raise this important Motion and to bring debate on this issue in the House. We are encouraged that all Members who have spoken have given good ideas, given heartfelt examples of cases and individuals whom they have encountered. We are encouraged that the Motion has full support from all sides of this House. And while four of us have responded on behalf of a total of five Ministries, we are fully committed to working as a whole-of-Government, to coordinate on seniors' issues, to prepare ahead and prepare well and to implement effectively.
We will share more details of specific plans at the upcoming Budget and Committee of Supply debates. At the end of the day, this has to be a whole-of-Singapore effort, involving families and communities, to make Singapore an inclusive and caring home that embraces all our seniors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is beyond eight o'clock. We have worked hard and deserve to be tired. But fatigue aside, hearing the insights from my colleagues here remind me why Parliament inspires. The scale and scope of these ideas today can only be described as breathtaking. Let me sum up the debate.
Ageing is universal. Mr Leon Perera described it as an inescapable part of the human condition. Therefore, the Members of this House believe that dealing with ageing starts with ourselves.
Miss Cheryl Chan called for seniors to cultivate the \"undefeated mind\", one filled with hope, will and imagination. Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Lily Neo pointed out that we are personally responsible for our own health. Otherwise, we will not enjoy our long life. Ms Chia Yong Yong cautioned us to be wise in estate planning. Better for our seniors to make wills and, therefore, have more control over their fates. At the same time, we must plan for unexpected situations, and that is why Miss Cheryl Chan encourages seniors over 55 to sign up for LPAs.
Many of my colleagues here believe that after the individual, the next line of responsibility lies clearly with the families.
Both Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Chia Yong Yong suggest that the Tribunal for Maintenance of Family can do more and move into education and counselling as well as to be bolder in enforcement. Ms Chia Yong Yong also came up with an excellent idea, which is, to make children who benefit from transfer of property responsible for their parents. Dr Intan Mokhtar made a similar idea.
But as Ms Chia Yong Yong said, while the Government can work harder to ensure that families step up, we must \"do not and must not abrogate the basic human values of filial piety.\" After all, one cannot legislate filial piety. We must all be filial, however, because, as Dr Intan Mokhtar mentioned, \"it is the right thing to do\". Ms Chia Yong Yong also shared that we have obligations even if there is no love. And as Mr Kok Heng Leun shared, being a dutiful caregiver to our parents is not just a responsibility, but it can also be one we derive joy from. Helping our ailing parents is an intimate process. It promises the possibilities of transforming and deepening our precious relationships with those closest to us.
Therefore, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Ms Rahayu Mahzam calls for all of us – Government, society, community – to do what is necessary to promote the right values of filial piety. I fully concur. Just this year, at my constituency, we started teaching filial piety through Confucian Dizi Gui. And I look forward to encouraging similar classes through other cultural lenses.
Today, we also talked about more support for caregivers. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Kok Heng Leun and myself spoke about caregiver leave, so that our seniors will not be facing the trauma of sickness and hospital visits alone. This will also provide some comfort to caregivers. Mr Kok Heng Leun also suggested more tax relief for caregivers, and Miss Cheryl Chan suggested more generous subsidies for caregiver services.
Next, we must also ensure that seniors are on the right side of the digital divide. Ms Tin Pei Ling mentioned that we should strive to ensure that both \"hardware and heartware are elderly-friendly\" and we should not just be talking about technology but also processes. I would like to add to Ms Tin Pei Ling's point that a Smart Nation will not leave its wisest residents behind. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Tin Pei Ling also asked us to tap on the full possibilities of digital eldercare and call for the Government to limit the downside of embracing everything digital to our parents.
We also spoke about senior housing and monetisation of assets. Dr Lily Neo, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Leon Perera spoke about encouraging and teaching good designs, building housing close to necessities. Ms Cheryl Chan suggested auditing all towns for such. Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke about encouraging more reverse mortgages and extending it beyond 4-Room HDB flats. I also spoke about more options for private developers in assisted living and nursing home, as well as catalysing more reverse mortgages for private estates.
On the financial side, our speakers have acknowledged that the Government has done much. But there is always a little bit more room to do more, especially if we can continue to grow our economy and keep our medical costs low.
The first line of financial support is actually for our seniors to stay employed and self-reliant. In terms of senior employability, both Dr Lily Neo and Dr Intan Mokhtar asked that we relook at employment and re-employment ages. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Government to take the lead in senior employment and spearhead new designs and job designs and work environment. Mr Leon Perera spoke about using technology and innovation to expand on employability of seniors. I concur on his points and I spoke previously on using the shared economy to create micro-jobs for our seniors.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Joan Pereira asked for us to do more for Baby Boomers through more CHAS discounts, and for a broader group of seniors. I fully agree on the necessity.
Ms Joan Pereira, Dr Lily Neo and Miss Cheryl Chan asked for more support for community healthcare programmes with more emphasis on disease prevention. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Leon Perera also asked the Government to accelerate our local pace of digital eldercare innovation. Mr Gan Thiam Poh called for more increases in home care medical services, and Ms Joan Pereira asked for more dementia friendly communities as well as getting the review of ElderShield right.
Beyond finance and health, Members also believe about emotional well-being. We believe that our seniors, even if they retire, should stay active. As Ms Tin Pei Ling hopes, \"we can continue to contribute because we want to. It brings meaning to life, it helps us look forward to every new day. Is it not wonderful?\"
As such, Ms Joan Pereira proposed the innovative idea of encouraging time-banking, which is not just to encourage seniors to volunteer, but also to spur bartering of services among seniors. Dr Lily Neo also suggested a one-stop for volunteer advisory.
But sometimes, our seniors also need community support, especially on the emotional front. As such, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheng Li Hui called for a nationwide rollout of the successful CNS programme. I fully agree. Getting Government support for coordination through CNS will give our community efforts a major push.
Ms Tin Pei Ling also contributed the refreshing idea to get all Singaporeans conscripted as volunteers to support seniors two days a month, with real vocations, real roles and responsibilities.
Members of this House also spoke about fighting misperceptions. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked us to \"stamp out ageism\". In fact, I think we must go beyond stemming out ageism.
Dr Lily Neo and Mr Leon Perera asked all of us to focus on bringing out the best of our seniors, focus on the Silver Dividends, rather than worry about the demographic time bomb. They are right. We are a decisive country, and we think long term. If we come together as a society, we can get on the right side of ageing. The stakes are high for us because all Singaporeans, every member of this Chamber, own this challenge together. Let me quote Ms Rahayu Mahzam, \"We shall also remember that we will all grow old one day. We will all be that statistic, that group that would tap on Government funds, that would add to the healthcare cost, that would need to be cared for.\"
But beyond Government programmes, we must also step as a society by creating and participating in community initiatives. And specifically for Members in this Chamber, we have an added responsibility as the local leaders capable of pulling together hearts, minds, and hands, in our own respective areas. And so, we, in this Chamber, must all step up. Actions speak when words cannot. As Ms Pei Ling puts it, \"a caring and inclusive society cannot be one when citizens only talk about and expect somebody else to do it. We all have a duty to do it\". And when we discharge our duties to our families and seniors, we, like Mr Kok Heng Leun, who cared for his father, can see the world through his eyes, and discover empathy in ourselves and in our society.
I would also like to thank the Government for providing such a comprehensive response across five Ministries. I am glad to hear from Minister of State Sam Tan about our Government's progressive take towards retirement and re-employment. I take his point that the private sector needs time to get used to the recent changes.
At the same time, I would like to remind our seniors that their fate is largely in their own hands. There is no legal limit on when we can stop working, as long as there is demand for us. If seniors can ensure that their skillsets stay relevant, they will be prized for both their skills and wisdom over time.
Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor have shared excellent examples of how we can apply technologies to help our seniors. I look forward to continuous innovation from our Government.
I also deeply appreciate Minister Desmond Lee's promise to relook at the Urban Redevelopment Authority's developmental controls. More flexibility there can do wonders to provide much needed housing options, especially for our seniors living in private estates. Having said that, it is clear that the Ministry of National Development has done much to create new models of housing, especially for the public estates. That is well noted by the public.
I thank MSF for its progressive attitude towards encouraging companies to be family-friendly and pushing through the Tripartite Standard of FWA and for leveraging the workplace grant. I take MSF's point that companies need time to adjust and adapt before we can pursue further moves.
Until then, I appeal for more companies to apply FWAs to their employees who are caregivers. Loyalty goes both ways. When a company treats employees with compassion, the employees usually respond with passion.
On reverse mortgages, I take the point that companies have stopped offering this service and this is precisely why there is a gap, and this gap will grow. I hope that the private sector and the social sector can think hard about meeting this need.
I am also heartened by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's point about confident ageing, and her progress update on the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. In many of the areas raised by my fellow MPs, MOH is either already piloting or is scaling up their existing programme. As the Action Plan continues to roll out, I appreciate Senior of Minister Amy Khor's openness to new ideas.
I also appreciate MOH's openness to explore strengthening CNS in the coming Budget and to conduct regular reviews of excellent healthcare financial programmes, such as CHAS.
I would also like to thank Minister Gan Kim Yong and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. It is a remarkable plan, the result of painstaking consultation involving more than 4,000 people. I hope the ideas discussed today will help strengthen our plan.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now conclude our Motion. Some say that Singapore is too forward oriented from Day 1. Our founding Prime Minister was all of 36 when he steered a big ship called Singapore. And he was not the youngest one.
Since Day 1, we forced the future onto ourselves, in every dimension we can think of. When we were still a developing country, international experts said we could not afford the MRT system. But we went ahead anyway. We built whole industrial estates, before companies were interested in coming in. We were one of the few countries that invested in turning salt water to fresh water and used water to drinking water, in anticipation of our future water needs.
Often, our Pioneers made sacrifices to afford these projects. I think I understand why. Just like their personal sacrifices for their children, this is our seniors' way of saying to us, \"we care for you, and we do the best for you”.
Now that we have comfortably crossed our first 50 years, we have passed a milestone. Singapore must continue to be future-oriented and continue to carry the torch that our founding fathers have passed on to them. Like the seniors before us, we owe it to our children a duty to build a bright future, sparkling with possibilities.
But we should also grow a deeper sense, an appreciation of legacy. We must build a Nation for All Ages with a healthy respect for legacy and experience, where our seniors age successfully, and in dignity. Only then, when we have done all these, can we say to our caring seniors, who built Singapore, \"Do not worry. We got this covered. And we have you in our hearts.\" [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Excellent speech, Mr Kwek, but a slight technicality. In future, please refer to your Parliamentary colleagues in a slightly formal way than calling them by their first names.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Well noted, Deputy Speaker.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House recognises that seniors are a gift to our society, contributing to a wise and resilient Singapore, and calls on the Government to continue strengthening support for seniors to age with dignity and spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive.\" (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 Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 19 February 2018.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t8.31 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Forging of Singapore Passports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how widespread is the forging of Singapore passports; (b) how many fake Singapore passports have been detected by foreign governments at their checkpoints; and (c) how many fake foreign passports have been detected by the Singapore Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore passport complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) standards for machine-readable travel documents. In fact, the Singapore passport contains security features which are over and above ICAO's mandated standards.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) regularly reviews and upgrades the security features of the Singapore passport. In October 2017, ICA introduced a new design for the Singapore passport with additional security features to make the passport even harder to forge or tamper with.
There are few cases of forged Singapore passports. Between 2015 and 2017, ICA investigated and prosecuted six cases of forged Singapore passports.
ICA does not have records of the number of forged Singapore passports detected overseas, as foreign authorities do not usually notify others when they detect forged passports.
As for forged foreign passports, between 2015 and 2017, an average of about 80 annually are detected by ICA at our checkpoints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spalling Concrete Complaints Received after Defects Liability Period for Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases of spalling concrete happening after the defects liability period has the HDB received for flats that have undergone the Home Improvement Programme (HIP); and (b) whether HDB will consider additional support or subsidies for flat owners in such cases as flats age and the integrity of structural materials, such as ceiling reinforcement bars, deteriorate.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Spalling concrete is the flaking of concrete from the ceiling due to the corrosion of steel reinforcement bars in the concrete floor slab. The corrosion is caused by the ingress of moisture and acidic elements and can lead to cracking and bulging of the concrete cover over time. This is a natural wear and tear process and is generally a surface maintenance issue which can be mitigated through regular painting of the ceiling. With regular maintenance, spalling concrete is usually minor and can be easily repaired.
The repair of spalling concrete is one of the essential improvements carried out under the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), where it is fully funded by the Government. However, this does not preclude the re-occurrence of spalling concrete or occurrence in another area of the flat, as wear and tear will continue over time.
This is why there will be cases of spalling concrete even after the completion of HIP or its defects liability period (DLP). Based on experience, after the one-year DLP, an average of about 13 such cases per 1,000 dwelling units are reported to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) per year.
For all spalling concrete cases after DLP, flat owners can request for assistance under the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme, where HDB will help to carry out the repairs and co-pay 50% of the repair cost.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Manpower Gaps in Quantum Computing, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the manpower gaps in quantum computing, big data and artificial intelligence; (b) whether upskilling of professionals in the local financial sector will be sufficient to provide the talent needed for these fields; and (c) whether there are plans to bring in foreign skilled professionals to complement our local professionals.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are some of the skills in growing demand in the financial sector. There is also nascent growth in demand for quantum computing skills.
As a global financial centre, it is important that financial institutions (FIs) in Singapore build capacity and competencies in these areas, and they are doing so. More than 20 FIs have set up innovation labs or research centres in Singapore specialising in areas, such as data science and machine learning.
In building up capacity, shortage of talent remains the key bottleneck. Equipping our local professionals with deep capabilities in these new areas is, therefore, a priority. To do this, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is driving a multi-prong approach.
First, to encourage FIs to upgrade the skills of their staff in data analytics, MAS launched a $27 million AI and Data Analytics Grant scheme last year. MAS has seen keen interest from the industry since the introduction of the scheme.
Second, the Institute of Banking and Finance is offering professionals new learning modules on data science, human-centric design, agile thinking and cybersecurity awareness. The Infocomm Media Development Authority, SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore (WSG) under the TechSkills Accelerator initiative are also expanding opportunities for skills upgrading.
Third, MAS is working closely with the Institutes of Higher Learning to scale up efforts to build the talent pipeline in emerging technologies. This includes more courses in FinTech specialisation, and also more modular, industry-relevant courses in emerging technologies. For example, MAS partnered local polytechnics in the PolyFinTech 100 initiative and has equipped more than 1,500 students with skillsets relevant to FinTech.
However, growing our own timber takes time. While we build up our local pipeline in these specialist skills, we need to anchor strong international capabilities and talent in Singapore to complement our existing local professionals. But such talent is scarce even internationally, and we must ensure an attractive environment for them in Singapore. MAS is working with the Ministry of Manpower and WSG to pilot the Capability Transfer Programme to bring in expert professionals in these areas and facilitate the transfer of capabilities to our local professionals.
We will continue to take a holistic approach, doing all we can to develop our local pipeline of talent, and tapping on international expertise and talents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education for Safe Use of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the current educational programmes on the safe and considerate use of bicycles, electric bicycles and powered mobility devices (PMDs) available in all preschools, schools, tertiary and other educational institutions; (b) whether such programmes are compulsory in all schools and institutions; and (c) whether the Government intends to expand the coverage of such programmes to help create a safe and considerate culture for the use of these devices.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Road Safety Council (SRSC) have jointly developed a Safe Riding Programme (SRP), which was rolled out earlier this month. SRP teaches safe riding practices, proper use of active mobility infrastructure, and the rules and code of conduct for riding. SRP is conducted through classroom lessons and a \"hands-on\" segment carried out in a training circuit.
While SRP is not compulsory for students, a number of schools, especially those with cycling as an elective module or cycling interest groups, have expressed interest. LTA also disseminates the SRP video to schools to educate students about the key active mobility rules and safe riding practices.
Apart from schools, LTA and SRSC are also working with various Government agencies, non-profit organisations as well as interest groups to make the programme available at various community clubs, schools, migrant worker dormitories and shopping malls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures taken to Manage Indiscriminate Parking of Shared Bicycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether measures taken to manage the indiscriminate parking arising from the shared bicycle schemes have produced effective results; and (b) under what specific situation will LTA consider stronger regulatory measures to avoid the situation faced by other countries where the shared bicycles have been a public liability in causing disamenities.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: This Parliamentary Question was addressed in a combined reply on bicycle-sharing on 5 February 2018. [Please refer to \"Measures to Reduce Indiscriminate Parking of Shared Bicycles\", Official Report, 5 February 2018, Vol 94, Issue 58, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
My Ministry will be proposing legislative amendments later this month to put in place a licensing framework for bicycle-sharing operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalities for Bus Captains Using the Emergency Brakes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA is aware of any company policy among the public bus operators which penalises the bus captain for using the emergency brakes; (b) how many bus captains have been penalised by their employers for using the emergency brakes in the past year; and (c) what is the rationale for such a penalty.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: None of our public bus operators penalises bus captains for using emergency brakes. Bus captains are trained on defensive driving, which includes exercising caution and discretion when applying emergency brakes to avoid accidents and ensure commuter safety.
Bus captains who are assessed to brake hard frequently and indiscriminately may be sent for refresher training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compulsory CPR Training to All Secondary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider introducing compulsory CPR training to all secondary schools so as to grow the pool of certified first-aiders in the community.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: All Secondary 1 students are taught the knowledge and practical skills of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of the Automated External Defibrillator as part of the Physical Education curriculum. This was introduced since 2017.
In addition, in specific Uniformed Groups, such as Red Cross Youth, St John Brigade and National Civil Defence Cadet Corps, CPR is a compulsory training component.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Apps and other Technology in Parent-Teacher Communications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what proportion of schools currently use smartphone applications (apps) or proprietary online software platforms to communicate with parents of students; and (b) in such schools, what is being done to ensure inclusiveness with regard to parents who may not have smartphones or computer access.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Our schools constantly seek ways to better communicate with and engage parents to strengthen school-home partnerships. As Singapore's smartphone and Internet penetration rate is very high, the large majority of parents have access to technology. Therefore, most schools use some form of smartphone applications or proprietary online software platforms to communicate with parents to increase efficiency and provide parents with greater convenience.
Even in such instances, our schools are cognisant that some parents may prefer alternative modes of communication besides technology or may not have access to computers or smartphones. Hence, schools employ a range of complementary communication channels to ensure they can reach out to all parents, which could include hardcopy letters, students' handbooks, phone calls, face-to-face briefings and meetings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tampering of Water, Electrical, Gas and E-communication Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development regarding water, electrical, gas and e-communication facilities at residential blocks (a) whether there have been cases of tampering or sabotage of such facilities in the last three years; (b) what measures does the Ministry have to prevent the tampering of meters situated on the outside of houses; (c) whether the security features for these facilities can be enhanced; and (d) when will internal smart meters that send readings to utilities service providers be installed in all residences.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government takes any tampering of water, electrical and gas meters as well as telecommunications facilities very seriously. Such tampering is an offence under the Public Utilities Act, Electricity Act, Gas Act and Telecommunications Act respectively, with offenders liable for fines, imprisonment, or both. This is backed up by regular checks by Town Councils and Singapore Power to detect potential tampering.
In addition, meters are designed in ways to make tampering difficult, such as through the installation of physical meter seals, or tightly integrating the meter with the pipes. Telecommunications facilities at residential blocks are secured under lock and key.
These measures have been effective. In the last three years, there were about 220 cases of electricity meter tampering at residential premises, which is a small fraction of the 1.5 million utility accounts in Singapore. There were no recorded cases of tampering of gas, water or telecommunications meters/facilities over the same period.
As for smart meters, households will have the option to install smart electricity meters if they sign up for retail packages that offer such meters when the Open Electricity Market is launched later this year. Separately, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) are exploring various technical solutions to enable the remote reading of meters. One such study is a joint testbed conducted by EMA, PUB and Singapore Power Group to explore smart metering for water and town gas. The testbed is currently scheduled to commence later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seeking Neighbours Cooperation for Work on Adjoining Walls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for National Development beyond verbal persuasion, what are the interventions available to the Ministry and channels accessible to members of the public to turn to in instances where owners of landed properties find difficulties to seek cooperation of their neighbours to conduct works involving any adjoining party walls or fence.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Owners of landed properties require their neighbour's consent if they wish to enter the latter's property to carry out works on party walls or adjoining fences. Owners who face difficulties in seeking their neighbours' cooperation should first engage Neighbourhood Committees or mediation/dispute resolution channels like the Community Mediation Centre to try to resolve the issues amicably. Alternatively, landed property owners can check with their consultants or contractors to explore methods of work that do not require access to their neighbours' properties.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) regulates construction with a focus on the structural safety of buildings. If there is reason to suspect that the structural integrity of any building is compromised, including adjoining walls, BCA officers can enter the premises to carry out inspections. If BCA assesses that there are any structural safety concerns, the Commissioner of Building Control can serve a Dangerous Building Order under the Building Control Act requiring the owner to take immediate precautionary measures to remove the danger and carry out permanent rectification work within a specified timeline. Those who fail to comply with the Order may be subject to a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Nevertheless, it is preferable for neighbours to try to work things out with each other rather than allowing conditions to deteriorate to such an extent as to pose a danger to both parties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Fire Code for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will (i) conduct a review of the sufficiency of the Fire Code and effectiveness of fire safety measures following the HDB fire in Toa Payoh on 10 January 2018 and (ii) consider including in the Fire Code additional requirements, such as the installation of central fire alarm systems and the provision of fire extinguishers, at every HDB block.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) investigation into the fire at the Toa Payoh Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat is ongoing. SCDF was alerted to the fire at 9.40 am that day and it was put out by SCDF at about 10.00 am. There were no casualties. Preliminary findings are that the fire was likely of an electrical origin.
The fire was contained in the unit where it started and did not spread to other units. This is because, under our Fire Code, all residential units are designed as fire compartments, typically using fire-resistant walls and floors, and fire-rated main entrance doors, to mitigate fire spread. The Fire Code also requires residential buildings to have an adequate number of exit staircases. There are also requirements relating to fire engine access and water rising mains, to facilitate firefighting operations. The effectiveness of these elements of the Fire Code was seen in this fire.
SCDF regularly reviews the Fire Code, together with stakeholders from other Government agencies, the industry and academia.
In this regard, SCDF will be introducing the eighth edition of the Fire Code later this year. As previously announced, this edition will include a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). HFADs sound an alarm when smoke is detected. It provides early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, so that they can take immediate steps to evacuate or extinguish the fire. SCDF and HDB will also be providing HFADs for existing rental units under HDB's Public Rental Scheme, at no cost to the tenants.
As for fire extinguishers, HDB installs them in community spaces in common areas, in rooms housing utilities services1 and in commercial facilities. SCDF encourages the installation of fire extinguishers in homes on a voluntary basis, instead of making it mandatory, as they are expensive and difficult to maintain. If necessary, residents can also use the hose reels that are provided in the common areas of HDB blocks to put out incipient fires.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These rooms house common building utilities, such as water supply, communications and electrical equipment."],"footNoteQuestions":["38"],"questionNo":"38"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Underground Connection between Marina Bay MRT Station and Downtown MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there will be an underground connection between Marina Bay MRT Station and Downtown MRT station; and (b) if not, whether LTA can consider building a permanent covered linkway connecting both stations on the road surface level.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Marina Bay and Downtown Mass Rapid Transit stations will be connected via an underground link. The Land Transport Authority will work with the Urban Redevelopment Authority to provide for the underground link as part of its future plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"High Covered Shelter for Boarding and Alighting of Passengers at Bus Stops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether there is a plan to enhance existing bus stops to include a high cover of 4.5 metres and above that extends into the bus bay so as to provide a covered shelter for boarding and alighting of passengers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Where space permits, such shelters will be built, with priority given to the most heavily utilised bus stops, especially those connected to Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. More than a quarter of the bus stops at MRT stations have cantilever shelters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Persons Caught for Offences Related to Personal Mobility Devices and Efforts to Reach Out to Elderly PMD Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the profile of persons caught for offences related to their personal mobility devices (PMD); and (b) what are the efforts to reach out to the elderly PMD users who may not be aware of the PMD regulations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2017, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Traffic Police caught about 460 personal mobility device (PMD) riders for the offence of riding PMDs on roads, and issued about 1,800 advisories for unsafe riding behaviours on public paths. About a quarter of these persons were over 50 years old.
LTA has launched several campaigns to raise awareness amongst cyclists and PMD users on safe riding habits and the active mobility rules and code of conduct. The campaign messages have been translated into vernacular languages and disseminated widely. In addition, LTA also works with Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to engage and educate the public, including the elderly, on safe riding practices.
Elderly PMD users can also learn more about safe riding behaviours, proper use of active mobility infrastructure, and PMD regulations from the Safe Riding Programme jointly developed by LTA and the Singapore Road Safety Council, which is available at designated community centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Continuing to Work beyond 62 and 67 Years Old over Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the last five years, how many Singaporeans continued to work beyond 62 years old and 67 years old respectively; and (b) what are the respective profiles of Singaporeans who are employed beyond 67 years of age and their jobs.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The number of employed residents aged 62 and over, and 67 and over has increased over the last five years (see Table 1 below).
Of all employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 64% were males; 80% held secondary and below qualifications, 9% had post-secondary qualifications, while 11% were tertiary-educated; 52% of this group of older workers were employed as production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers, 26% were clerical, sales and service workers, and 22% professionals, managers, executives and technicians. This is broadly in line with their educational profile.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Identity Cards Reported Lost Annually","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last three years, how many identity cards have been reported lost annually; (b) what is the trend over the last decade; (c) how many requests have there been for waiver of the replacement fee; and (d) whether the Ministry will implement a procedure where applicants who appeal for a waiver of the replacement fee can have their qualifying status verified through a central coordination point.
Mr K Shanmugam: Losing an Identity Card (IC) is a serious matter as the lost IC may be misused to commit identity fraud and for illicit transactions.
In the last three years, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received around 31,500 reports of lost ICs annually. Around 13% were granted fee waivers for the replacement ICs.
The trend of lost ICs has been relatively stable over the past decade.
There are no fixed qualifying criteria for the waiver of the IC replacement fee. ICA will consider the circumstances of each case. It may grant a waiver in situations where it assesses that the loss of the IC was not due to negligence, but circumstances beyond the cardholder’s control, for example, if he or she had been a victim of crime. We are not able to develop a mechanism or system to automate such assessments and which the public can use to check if they would qualify for waiver of the IC replacement fee.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MNC Investments in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how many MNCs have withdrawn their investment from Singapore in the past eight years; (b) what are the reasons for their withdrawal and the industries they come from; and (c) how many MNCs have increased their investment in Singapore during the same period and what are the industries they are mainly in.
Mr S Iswaran: Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have been an important driver of Singapore’s economic growth. They have brought technology, technical know-how and well-paying jobs to Singapore, complementing investments made by Singapore companies. Singapore’s pro-business environment, strong connectivity and well-educated workforce have allowed us to continue positioning ourselves as a strategic base for MNCs looking to serve Asian markets.
Even in a healthy economy, we expect to see a continuous churn of firms, with some bringing in investments while others moving out of Singapore due to a combination of internal and external factors. Firm-specific reasons for locating or relocating business functions and operations range from changes in management and strategy, as well as organisational restructuring in response to competition and the state of their respective industries.
It is thus more indicative to look at overall trends instead of tracking decisions of individual firms. The total number of firms in Singapore has been increasing steadily, from about 163,600 in 2010 to 216,900 in 2016. Foreign-owned firms2 have been growing in tandem with local firms, making up around 16% of the total number of firms, 30% of employment and 56% to value-added (VA) throughout the period.
Overall trends show that investments have continued to flow into Singapore in the past eight years. The stock of foreign direct investments (FDIs) has grown at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 13%3, reaching S$1.36 trillion in 2016.
These investments are also made in key areas identified by the Committee on the Future Economy, such as advanced manufacturing, digital and hub services, as well as research and development activities across various industries, including biomedical manufacturing, electronics, infocomms and media, and logistics.
In particular, there have been an increase in investments in digitalisation and robotics across various industries. For example, in 2017, Procter and Gamble announced plans to invest S$400 million to set up its first digital innovation centre outside of the US in Singapore; and Yusen Logistics broke ground for its first future-ready warehouse as part of a S$50 million investment to boost operations in Singapore. These new large investments reflect the continued confidence and commitment of MNCs in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["2 : Defined as firms with more than 50% foreign equity.","3 : 2008-2016, eight-year CAGR"],"footNoteQuestions":["6"],"questionNo":"6"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Design, Build and Sell Scheme for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's plan to review the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) for HDB flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The land sales for the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) has been suspended since 2012, and the Ministry of National Development has no plans to reactivate the scheme.
We remain focused on ensuring that home buyers have access to a variety of affordable housing options, especially young couples who are buying their first home. These objectives can be met with new Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and Executive Condominiums, as well as the many housing options available in the resale market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Water Pipe Leakage at Somerset Road on 16 January 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the cause of the water pipe leak at Somerset Road on 16 January 2018; (b) when was the pipe last checked as part of PUB's routine maintenance; and (c) what is the impact of continuous heavy rainfall on the underground soil where this water pipe is laid.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The water pipe leak at Somerset Road on 16 January 2018 was due to stress to the pipe caused by uneven soil settlement. We have isolated the leaking section of the pipe and put the rest of the pipeline back in service. The affected stretch of pipeline is in the process of being replaced under the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) Pipeline Renewal Programme.
As part of its operation and maintenance regime, PUB carries out checks for leaks on its entire pipe network at least once a year, or more frequently where necessary. The pipe at Somerset Road, which is made of cast iron and laid in 1973, was last checked for leaks in December 2017, with no leaks found. We have not observed any correlation between rainfall and the number of leaks.
When leaks occur, PUB seeks to fix them in the shortest time possible, as permitted by site conditions while minimising the disruption to customers and the public. PUB officers need time to identify the pipe and the valves that need to be shut so as to isolate the leak, identify the customers who are potentially affected, and set up the appropriate alternative supply provisions. For the leak at Somerset Road, temporary supply connections to these customers were set up in tandem with the repair works to limit the disruption to the public. The repair works had to proceed carefully due to the need to minimise road closures and the presence of several other buried services belonging to the electrical and telecommunications companies near the site. PUB worked together with these companies to ensure that its repair works did not affect other critical services.
To reduce the risk of pipe leaks, including those caused by uneven soil settlement, PUB has been laying pipes made of more resilient materials, such as ductile iron and steel, and has adopted enhanced pipe-laying practices, such as pipe bedding, for better pipe support. Furthermore, we have put in place regulations to ensure that contractors take proper measures to prevent damage to our pipelines during construction activities.
Besides these measures, PUB proactively replaces older pipes or pipes which are in less satisfactory condition under its Pipeline Renewal Programme and is targeting to replace 50 kilometres (km) of such pipes this year, a 20-km increase from last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":947,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":948,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Joan Pereira(2).pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":949,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(3).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":950,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Amy Khor Lean Suan(4).pdf","fileName":"Amy Khor Lean Suan(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":951,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng(5).pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng(5).pdf"},{"vernacularID":952,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Chia Yong Yong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Chia Yong Yong(6).pdf","fileName":"Chia Yong Yong(6).pdf"},{"vernacularID":953,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Joan Pereira(7).pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira(7).pdf"},{"vernacularID":954,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Kok Heng Leun","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Kok Heng Leun(8).pdf","fileName":"Kok Heng Leun(8).pdf"},{"vernacularID":955,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Tin Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Tin Pei Ling(9).pdf","fileName":"Tin Pei Ling(9).pdf"},{"vernacularID":956,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Kok Heng Leun","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Kok Heng Leun(10).pdf","fileName":"Kok Heng Leun(10).pdf"},{"vernacularID":957,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(11).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(11).pdf"},{"vernacularID":958,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Intan Azura Mokhtar(12).pdf","fileName":"Intan Azura Mokhtar(12).pdf"},{"vernacularID":959,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180206/vernacular-Amy Khor Lean Suan(13).pdf","fileName":"Amy Khor Lean Suan(13).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}