1 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Minister for National Development which three Town Councils have the largest number of flats eligible for upgrading under the Home Improvement Programme.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, flats built up to 1986 and have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme are eligible for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP).
The three Town Councils with the largest number of flats eligible for HIP are Aljunied-Hougang, Jurong-Clementi and Nee Soon.
HDB is working to complete the selection of the remaining HIP-eligible flats by FY2018.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Can I confirm if there are any plans to increase the number of nominations for these three Town Councils, considering that they have the highest number of eligible units?
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tMadam, as I had said earlier, we are meeting the target of completing the selection of all remaining HIP-eligible flats across Singapore by 2018. And so, that means working with Aljunied-Hougang, Jurong-Clementi and Nee Soon Town Councils and all other Town Councils with outstanding HIP-eligible flats to meet that target.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mortgage Assistance Plan for Retrenched Flat Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for National Development what assistance plans does HDB have in place with regard to mortgage payments by those in their late 40s or 50s who have been retrenched, particularly where the husband and wife both lose their jobs at the same time.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, HDB has various assistance measures to help families who have fallen on hard times. As a first step, Housing Counsellors in HDB branches provide financial counselling and explore sustainable housing options with the flat owners, for example, by subletting their spare bedrooms. The Housing Counsellors in the branches may also refer them to social support agencies for job placements, financial aid, for example, at the Employment & Employability Institute (e2i), Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs).
Flat owners who face short-term difficulties in servicing their mortgage instalments may be offered a temporary reduction or deferment of their mortgage instalments to help them with their cash flow situation.
For those who face longer term difficulties and hardship, HDB will advise them on measures, such as including their working adult children as joint owners, to help with the mortgage instalments. Another long-term measure is to right-size to a flat within their means. In this situation, HDB may offer them another loan and/or interim rental housing to help with their move. For low-income households who are unable to afford another flat, have no family support and no other housing options, HDB may offer them a public rental flat.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have one supplementary question. Would HDB consider providing such financial help to HDB owners who have taken loans from the banks?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mdm Speaker, for flat owners who have financial difficulties, the banks would usually alert HDB when the flat owners start to default on their payments. In general, HDB will assist flat owners who are in difficulties to seek help from social support agencies by recommending that they get a job if they are out of a job, or to provide them with temporary financial support through the SSOs.
HDB, however, is not a bank and is not able to offer personal loans to flat owners, although we can help them with restructuring their HDB mortgage loans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Direct Bus Services to Geylang Serai Market before Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked \tthe Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider planning for two direct bus services to the Geylang Serai market in the month before Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji from main roads around Bedok South, Bedok Central and Bedok North.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport):\tMdm Speaker, Bedok residents can take several bus services to the Geylang Serai market. They include Services 7, 26 and 30 from Bedok Interchange in Bedok Central, 28 and 67 from Bedok North Avenue 3, and 2, 24, 28 and 67 from New Upper Changi Road which serves Bedok South. Residents can also take the many feeder services available to transfer to one of the bus services mentioned. From previous years' experience, these bus services are sufficient to cater to the festive crowds.
\t
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. One is, has the Ministry conducted any assessment on the ridership patterns and bus route surveys for the route between Geylang Serai area and Bedok?
The second question is this: I thank the Senior Minister of State again for the elaboration on the bus routes, but certainly, there are certain areas in Bedok North and Bedok South where the residents will require to take feeder transfers. We receive quite some feedback from residents in Bedok complaining about the waiting time for both the feeder services, as well as for the main transfer from New Upper Changi Road or from Bedok Interchange. Some of the complaints that we have recorded show us that, say, for example bus service 229, the waiting time could take up to 16 minutes, and, for example, if you take bus service 229 and you transfer to bus service 2 or 28, bus service 2 takes up to 19 minutes' waiting time, bus service 28 can be up to 15 minutes.
For a relatively short distance between Bedok and Geylang Serai, there is a lot of waiting and transfer time. Especially for residents during the Hari Raya period, when they have to carry a lot of purchases on their way back, this can become rather inconvenient and cumbersome.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan, could you summarise your supplementary question.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, there is a precedent of Chinatown Direct services. For example, there is the Chinese New Year service from Clementi to Chinatown, plus two other direct services that run round the year. So, there is precedent for such a service. Would the Senior Minister of State consider having such a service, especially during Hari Raya?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng:\tMdm Speaker, the assessment has been done by LTA and it is centred upon the level of ridership that would necessitate such a direct service. As the Member has mentioned, there is, indeed, a Clementi-Chinatown Direct service during the festive period. This includes charging higher fares, but it is still centred upon ridership. And even these services from different mature towns to Chinatown have low ridership of 150 to 200 riders per day. It comes back to my point in the earlier answer – whether the added services would be considered would depend on the demand. Should there be sufficient demand, LTA would certainly consider such services. But at the moment, with the surveys, there is not enough ridership to justify direct services.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Voting Using SingPass for Singaporeans based Overseas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) whether any Government studies have been undertaken on the feasibility of online voting for overseas Singaporeans using SingPass which can overcome security and secrecy concerns relating to postal voting; (b) if so, whether they can be made available; and (c) if such studies do not exist, whether the Government can share with Singaporeans the obstacles preventing these studies from being undertaken.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, let me take this question. The Elections Department has studied the feasibility of Internet voting for overseas Singaporeans. While Internet voting may appeal to some, it has various challenges like difficulties in authenticating voters, preventing impersonation and ensuring voting secrecy. In addition, there are system reliability issues and security risks, such as vulnerability to hacking and cyberattacks. Auditing the voting results in the event of a petition to the Election Judge is also more challenging and potentially problematic.
The use of SingPass can only overcome the difficulties with authentication partially, but not the other challenges with Internet voting. For now, voting by paper ballot at polling stations is still the simplest and most transparent method of voting that can ensure the integrity and secrecy of our voting process.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have one supplementary question. The Minister mentioned that the use of SingPass may solve some of the issues, but what are they? Perhaps, he could elaborate a little bit about what are the other issues that SingPass may not be able to solve.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I think we all know the challenges with any Internet transactions and, that is, the authentication and verification of the person's identity. SingPass, as of now, we have a single- and a double-authentication method. Both of these are contingent on us being able to verify that the person is, indeed, the person using the token and the SingPass password.
This is not so easily overcome. For any Internet banking transaction equivalent, we also have the same challenge. If somebody is able to get his hands on the password or, for that matter, the token, then it is not a fool-proof method. There are risks involved in all these, which SingPass itself, while it is an improvement over the past, will not be able to overcome entirely.
Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. End of Question Time. Leader of the House.
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2016/2017 be taken till 8.00 pm on the days allotted to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates for FY 2016/2017. – [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":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [24 March 2016], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.\" ‒ [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate on Budget 2016.
This year's Budget emphasises growth. A lot of money will be spent on transforming our economy through enterprise and innovation. This is crucial to ensure that Singapore remains relevant and competitive, so that there is growth. Growth will enable us to realise our aspirations and fund our essential programmes like education, healthcare and defence. But there is another important aspect of this year's Budget, and that is the social element, making sure that Singaporeans have a stake in our country and share the ownership of this place we call home.
I am happy that the Minister for Finance has not forgotten about the vulnerable in our society – our young, our low-wage workers, persons with disabilities and, especially, our seniors. I have a special empathy for our seniors. Like our parents, our senior citizens have worked hard for us. Now, it is our responsibility to look after them.
Mdm Speaker, I see that the Minister for Finance has assigned more resources to the Ministry of Health (MOH) – $11 billion in 2016, compared to $9.2 billion in 2015.
I know we have managed to keep our healthcare spending over the decades on the lower end with our unique 3M approach – MediShield, Medisave and Medifund. I sat on the Medifund Board for several years and I know how it has helped so many of our people. We have improved MediShield to MediShield Life last year, providing universal healthcare insurance coverage for all Singaporeans.
The Community Health Assistance Scheme (CHAS) was also enhanced in 2014 to help Singaporeans with outpatient primary care services in the private sector. I do not have the exact figures but, judging from my house visits and friends in the medical community, the scheme has helped many residents. But as our population ages, our healthcare expenditure can only go in one direction – up.
We are already feeling the impact of the increasing number of seniors in my constituency. During my house visits, I have encountered more aged living on their own. Of course, many are productive, helping look after their grandchildren and generally living a happy and fulfilling life after retirement. To those that are not so fortunate, I am glad we are doing more to help with the Silver Support Scheme.
But going forward, I feel that there is more we can do to make sure our healthcare budget can be better spent in three ways. First, we can make better use of primary care resources. Second, we can better leverage on technology and, third, we can encourage active ageing and emphasise prevention rather than cure.
Singapore has a good healthcare system with world-class hospitals and specialty centres, such as the National Heart Centre, Cancer Centre and Eye Centre. While we have a highly sub-specialised system, I believe we can make better use of our primary care system.
Last December, while on a break in Australia, I met up with a Singaporean doctor practising in a suburb of Melbourne. In our discussion, we spoke about coordinated care. As a family general practitioner (GP), he would be the one assessing his patients' needs for surgery and coordinating with the specialist. After surgery, the specialist would send a soft copy of the patient's files and x-rays and the GP would follow up. I learnt that the role of the family doctor is important and useful for the long-term care of the patient.
Currently, 80% of our GPs and family physicians work in the private sector. The remaining 20% work in our polyclinics and hospitals. In a recent visit to a public hospital, I was told that 80% of their cases are referrals from the polyclinics. It is common knowledge that our polyclinics are operating at near full capacity. Can we make better use of the 80% of GPs and family doctors in the private sector? Can we enable these doctors to handle the consultation with support from the specialists? This will make it more personable, build better patient-doctor rapport and also ease some of the loads off the public doctors in the polyclinics.
Next, can we use technology to create a better experience for our increasingly ageing population? The Minister had shared in his speech about how robotics in our hospital pharmacies is improving accuracy and speed of services. I fully support this.
We should do more. In the marketplace today, there are robots that can perform simple chores around the home, health bands that can monitor the state of the elderly, remind them to take their medication and send alerts when the users' health is compromised.
Isolation is one of the biggest problems for senior citizens. Today, many Internet services help people stay more closely connected with family and friends. Should we harness the power of technology to help our elderly stay engaged? One example is a virtual retirement village where tech-savvy elders can connect, look out for and keep one another active and engaged.
Finally, on outreach and prevention, let me share two stories. The first one is from our Tampines Pioneer Generation Ambassadors' (PGAs) house visits. Last July, our PGAs visited Mdm M and her husband to explain the PG package. Two weeks later, our PGAs received a call from Mdm M informing them that her husband had passed away. She was not sure whom to call. Our PGAs rushed to the pioneer's home and activated ambulance services for assistance. Our PGAs continued to befriend Mdm M and give her support to cope with her husband's demise. Mdm M is now an active participant in our community events. This is one of the many examples of friendship made possible through personalised outreach and the good work of our PGAs.
As of June 2015, there are 670,000 Singaporeans aged 60 and above. Of these, 434,000 are PGs. I hope that the newly-launched Community Network for Seniors can have the same personalised outreach as our PG programme. I hope they can also engage our seniors who are not in the PG programme, to explain MediShield Life and understand their needs and interests.
It is important that our seniors are aware of the medical assistance that is available to them while they are well so that if and when they are not well, they will know how to seek medical help.
Last Christmas, I was at our PCF eldercare centre and I met a new client, Mdm Loke, aged 72. She said that she used to have body aches and pasted many \"koyok\" plasters to relieve the discomfort. Since joining the centre, she had been doing morning exercises and activities. After a few weeks of participation, she began to feel better and did not need to apply any plasters or continue her rehabilitation therapy. She showed me her mathematics assessment book. As she did not have the opportunity to attend school, the programme coordinator decided to teach her mathematics. She was so happy learning simple addition and subtraction.
This conversation left a strong impression on me on the joy of learning − that we should and can continue to learn at all ages. We should look at how we can harness SkillsFuture to roll out interesting courses in our Community Clubs to keep our seniors engaged.
To our seniors, I say, \"You can retire from work but please do not retire from our community\". I implore our seniors to stay engaged and active with us and, together, we can continue to make our home, our Singapore, the best home for all of us. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast):Madam, thank you for allowing me to join in the Budget Debate.
At every Budget, like many Singaporeans, I ask the question whether the focus of the Budget addresses the right areas for Singapore and the segments that most require support. Over the years, I struggle with another nagging question: \"Is the Government doing enough or is it doing too much?\" While we want the Government to provide support for those who need it, we also must ensure that it does not lead to dependency on the Government that blunts our own abilities.
So, what is the role of the Government? Building an environment and climate of stability and security for continued economic growth, providing quality education, training and enabling jobs − that is what I believe the Government must continue to do. Minister Heng, in delivering his maiden Budget speech, reminded us of Singapore's first Budget and its mission, which remains unchanged: \"It is to find the ways to create opportunities for Singaporeans to grow, defend our home and our people.\" Budget 2016 and its priorities do outline the strategies to achieving this. What Singaporeans and businesses that operate in Singapore have to do is to apply ourselves to these opportunities to make an impact.
A common thread in Budget 2016 is that of \"Partnership\". Minister Heng reminded us of what Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said: \"For it is your job and mine… to make sure we survive. If Singapore is to have a future, we have to work hard at it – together\". And I emphasise the point \"together\".
In my maiden speech in this Parliament in 2006, I had touched on the point of \"Hope\" and what gives hope to Singapore and Singaporeans. Like many Singaporeans, I like the overt efficiency and effectiveness of Singapore and the fact that things work here. What I hold special though and what I value for myself and my children is the knowledge that there will be opportunity to participate and succeed in Singapore. We must continue to work together to continue to give this hope to all Singaporeans.
I am encouraged that Budget 2016 has taken a more targeted and differentiated approach, making deliberate and calibrated measures to address both near-term concerns facing our businesses, especially SMEs, and the longer term challenges of restructuring. The deferment of the levy increases for the Marine and Process Sectors and having work permit levies for Manufacturing remain unchanged for another year are a welcome move and a recognition of the challenges that these businesses face. The Industry Transformation Programme is targeted and sector-focused to support SMEs to innovate, scale up, as well as to seek new market growths. The Budget is also seeking to deepen partnerships to support the Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) to build capability through the strengthened Local Enterprise and Associations Development (LEAD-Plus) Programme.
Against this backdrop of Partnership for Budget 2016, I would like to touch on a few areas. Let me talk about opportunities, unemployment, building relevant skills and the Singapore Core.
Against a backdrop of economic slowdown and the need to transform our businesses to address low productivity growth facing Singapore, we need to address the concerns of ensuring opportunities − and not just opportunities, but opportunities for quality jobs. With the pace of advances in technology and the disruptions that technological developments are having on jobs, we need to develop quality middle-income jobs, given the profile of our workforce.
Many in this House have already spoken about the growing concerns about mature PMEs on job opportunities and MOM's latest Labour Force Report on the redundancy rates. So, I am not going to elaborate further on that. But I would say that the trends are of concern because this group forms the bulk of the workforce and, at the same time, their re-entry into the workforce after redundancy. The trends on that have been a concern. So, we need to address the growing anxieties over the slowing economic growth and employment trends.
Budget 2016 did outline the \"Adapt and Grow\" initiative, which is and needs to be more than just wage or employment support. While the focus must still be to help PMEs get good jobs, they require help to adapt to changing job demands and to grow their skills. The Career Support Programme (CSP), which has been in place since October 2015, encourages employers to employ mature Singaporean PMEs by providing wage support to employers for the first year when they hire PMEs who have been looking for jobs for at least six months in mid-level jobs that pay at least $4,000 and up to $7,000 a month.
The important thing about this programme is that it helps workers settle into their new jobs and it requires employers to provide structured on-the-job training or to send them for external training. On the part of PMEs, they need to apply themselves to take on the challenges to acquire new skills to be able to take on these new job opportunities.
But I still think that more can be done, in partnership with employers, to address employment opportunities for workers, especially PMEs, while also helping employers to address their manpower needs. So, in the same way of taking a targeted approach to help companies restructure, we should take a more targeted approach with organisations and businesses to address the changing job demands and growing the skills base for these organisations. I encourage the Government to do more and have clear plans on developing a Singapore Core in the workforce.
At the Opening of this Thirteenth Parliament, I had outlined the need for employers to make deliberate bets on building a strong Singapore Core, given the rapid changes we are seeing in the workforce and to make a bet on Singapore talent. With a high level of literacy and education in Singapore, the Singapore workforce is a strong talent base for companies to tap on. The Singapore workforce is also known for strong work ethics and trust. So, while we require employers and workers to develop and reskill, what we need is also for the Government to provide support to employers to make these investments to building the Singapore Core.
Along the lines of the Lean Enterprise Development Scheme (LED) for SMEs that was effected in October 2015, in how they can help businesses restructure to be a more manpower-lean organisation, the LED programme recognises the transitional manpower adjustments to enable companies to embark on transformational projects to redevelop and provide for these technology skills required.
How can we drive a more concerted effort to accelerate and leverage the programmes, like LED and CSP, to provide quality employment for Singaporeans, especially the growing base of PMEs? This is the paradox. How do we ensure that we allow and stay open while at the same time build that Singapore Core by allowing companies a little bit more leeway, like in the LED programme, during the transition to have a little bit more flexibility on the workforce?
Let me now touch on simplification. On this point of simplification and understanding the various schemes available, I think we can do a more effective job here. And I am pleased that there has been a deliberate shift to move from a scheme-centric to an enterprise-centric approach. A good first step is the launch of the Business Grants Portal. This, hopefully, will improve access and drive greater awareness of the many available schemes for businesses, especially SMEs.
But, again, I would say that more can be done because I have got feedback from various residents who have tried to access some of these schemes. I will just give an example of a PME who tried to access the Skills Upgrading Programme and was trying to upgrade herself. She was registering herself for a training programme last December. She paid the registration fees and did the necessary documentation. But, like many other service providers that she worked with, this training service provider, when she asked what did she qualify for, how much would she be funded for, she was told: \"You wait and see. After we have made the application, then we will know.\"
She had to continue to chase them and, finally, she was told that they did not submit her application because she did not qualify.
Of course, being relentless, she decided she would go directly to WDA and she did. She found out that she did qualify and she found out that she had to educate the service provider on how to ensure that she qualified for it. She is still pursuing it.
I am glad she was perseverant and wants to upgrade herself and is doing that. But clearly, this shows that the schemes are there, but how do we ensure that those who need it have access and are able to use it?
Now, I would like to touch on the point of the middle income. A feedback I received from residents, not just specifically from this Budget, but from the dialogues and the chit-chats I had, was the need to do more for middle-income retirees. And I believe this sentiment was triggered because of the expectations on the Silver Support Scheme. Many did understand that this is not a broad-based programme, and that the support was meant for the lower 20% of Singaporeans aged 65 and above. But they still had expectations, as this is an on-going support and features in our social support system. I do agree that there is a need to limit who gets the support and to ensure affordability.
Minister Heng himself did share the difficulty in assessing and operationalising the scheme effectively and, hence, the use of the three criteria in combination. But some feel that the use of housing type, like other means-tested schemes, does not recognise that retired middle-income seniors may need support as they are asset-rich because of their housing type but are cash-poor.
The criteria of lifetime wages and level of household support are already quite stringent. The use of housing type did fuel the sentiment of why that was necessary, given that there are already stringent criteria. While support via the schemes may not be the answer for these middle-income retirees, I would ask that more be done to look at how support can be given to this group to unleash their fixed assets, as there are concerns. Many of them are running out of savings and are very anxious.
At the same time, to ask them to sell off their assets seems to be the logical answer, but is probably pretty harsh. And I think some Members of this House have also spoken about it. Not directly related to Silver Support, but on the point of using housing type as a criterion for means testing, I would request that we relook at this criterion as housing type itself may not be the best because, in some cases, family support is provided and people do live with relatives in private housing. They do not own these assets, but in the means testing, they are still included in the assessment.
I am reading a book by Stephen Covey titled \"The Speed of Trust\". A point made in this book reminded me of what has made Singapore successful and will continue to do so, and this is the point of \"Trust\".
Trust is a function of two things: character and competence. Both are required. People and businesses put their trust in Singapore because we have a track record of making things happen and many describe us as a country that is safe and reliable. This has not been easy to achieve and, to continue to earn that trust, we need to continue to deliver on the trust.
A key tenet of Budget 2016 is the need to continue to build capability and competence in our people. Stephen Covey, in the book, stressed that while it is natural for us to think of trust in terms of character, equally important is competence. Character is necessary for trust to exist in any circumstance but trust also requires the ability to deliver results and impact.
Therefore, it is important, whether it is SkillsFuture or this whole investment in innovation, whether it is at the individual or the organisation level, we have to ensure that if we, as Singapore, want to continue to earn that trust, we need to build that competence and capability to be able to deliver that while we maintain the character of this country.
So, Madam, people have made Singapore and what we have achieved possible. It is our people that will continue to make the difference for Singapore in the next 50 years. People are our only resource and we are a small nation. Working in partnership has made the difference. As we move to write our story for the next 50 years, let us remember that it is not only about what each of us will do but what all of us must do that will matter. So, while we cannot predict the exact outcome, we must be bold, dare to dream, prepare for it, work together and execute well. Madam, I support the Budget.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, let me thank Members for their insights over the past few days. Many have put their minds to the question of how Singapore can make a good living in this changing volatile world, and many have put their hearts into the question of how we can support Singaporeans to live with strength, confidence, fulfilment. I value and appreciate this, as do my Ministerial colleagues, who will take up the specific issues during the Committee of Supply.
In my Budget speech, I said that Budget 2016 is the beginning of our journey towards SG100. We want a future where our economy is abuzz with innovation and enterprise, and where our society is alive with caring and resilience.
After listening to Members, it is clear to me that not only do we know where we are heading, we are committed to getting there together. Many Members have rallied to the call for partnership. The urgency and conviction behind Members' support for partnership have been palpable. This is most encouraging and promising for our future.
So, we know our direction. We also know where we come from, the road we have journeyed to get here.
Mr Heng Chee How is right about our hard truths: we have very real limitations as a small, resource-less country. But resource-less though we may be, we have inherited a legacy of resourcefulness from our Pioneers whose wealth of experience and hardiness serve as our down payment for the future. We can be held back by our limitations, or we can be like our Pioneers and break through our limitations. Our Pioneers have shown us that when there is a will, there is no way you will stop a hardworking Singaporean from doing the extraordinary for family, home and country.
We know where we want to go. We know where we come from. It is the in-between, the getting-there, that is full of \"unknowables\".
Mr Lee Yi Shyan shared, vividly, how the world is changing. The changes are coming so fast and furious that no one can say what the road ahead will be like.
But even if we cannot tell the lay of the land ahead, there are many things that are up to us. How will we conquer each obstacle before us? How will we weather the storms? How will we pick ourselves up when we stumble? And how will we help our fellow travellers to go forward?
In this Debate, I have been struck by how many Members spoke about our values, our mindset, our culture, and I certainly appreciate these points. Let me put what Members have said together in one word: Spirit.
It is the spirit in which we do things, the spirit within which we take this journey, that will keep us true to where we came from and carry us through to where we want to go.
From Members' speeches, we can sum this up as the spirit of enterprise and caring.
Enterprise – to not be held back by what appear to be limitations, to overcome challenges, innovate, stay resilient and seize opportunities.
Caring – to keep our Singapore a warm and giving home where we help one another through our personal challenges where we can each achieve our best, reach our dreams and go on to inspire and serve others.
We know where we came from. We know where we want to go. And we are committed to moving forward together in partnership, in a spirit of enterprise and caring. Now, I will speak on how Budget 2016 enlivens this spirit of enterprise and caring for our journey of the next 50 years.
Let me begin with the economy, which many Members have spoken on.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Dr Tan Wu Meng talked about global trends affecting Singapore and how our economy must remain outward-looking and forward-looking.
Minister Chan Chun Sing and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke on short-term challenges facing our economy and the impact these will have on our businesses and workers.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Saktiandi Supaat provided suggestions on how we can transform our economy and what role the Government ought to play − a point which Ms Jessica Tan also raised earlier.
These are all very valid points and I thank the Members for their thoughtful views on the subject.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa said that \"to achieve better lives and a stronger nation, we need to have the means and resources to get there\". This is a timely reminder of why we need to grow the economy. This is what the Budget seeks to address and this is also why we have set up the Committee on the Future Economy.
Many Members have spoken in support of our SMEs. Indeed, this Budget is tilted towards supporting SMEs. There are over 180,000 SMEs, accounting for nearly two-thirds of our employment. The success of our SMEs matters to our people's jobs and well-being.
SMEs provide a range of services that are important for our daily life and add buzz to our neighbourhood. Some will grow to be our future large firms. Even if they do not, our society will be the richer to have the opportunity where people just try to do something. We want our SMEs to do well, we want them to succeed and we want a vibrant SME sector.
But in order to support SMEs, we must recognise that they range from micro-enterprises in the heartlands, to fairly sizeable firms with an international presence. Some are in sectors that are doing well, while others are facing difficulties. Hence, as many of you pointed out, we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach.
As Mr Louis Ng noted, different people have taken away different messages from this Budget. Reactions across the different news outlets have also been different; even the headlines.
Listening to all your comments, however, there is a common thread running through how we can help firms and workers. This common thread is to nurture, celebrate and reinforce the spirit of enterprise and not undermine it even as we provide support – to go for long-term vitality and not short-term fixes.
A business leader once asked me this very intriguing question. He said, \"In every place, from the poorest neighbourhood in Africa to the richest precinct in Silicon Valley, there are firms that succeed and firms that don't. Why?\" Good question!
Last year, both the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) honoured companies and business leaders from our founding days. The SBF award recipients include longstanding names, such as Shaw Theatres and Yeo Hiap Seng. The SCCCI award recipients include the founders of Lim Teck Lee, Pan-United Corporation and Sing Lun Holdings.
These companies and pioneers started out in an environment with few grants, incentives and agencies to support them; a point which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also raised. In many cases, they started from scratch, or, as the Chinese say,\"白手起家\".
So, whether you look across countries or time in our own history, why do some firms succeed while others do not? The common element for success is this: the spirit of enterprise. This is the critical element needed for economic vibrancy, in Singapore and anywhere in the world.
Running a business is a complex thing because you will be faced with a myriad of unforeseen problems. The more problems one solves, the further one gets ahead. Solving problems also allows the entrepreneur to develop the entrepreneurial instincts to then see opportunities where others see problems.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan hits the nail on the head when he said that the principles that have propelled us since Independence are \"self-reliance, openness and a determination to remain updated and relevant\". These are what nurture a spirit of enterprise.
One element of this spirit of enterprise is the need to look outwards and forward, to see challenges and opportunities in the world around us. So, I am very encouraged to hear Members speak of the implications of these changes.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan reminded us of how robotics is shaping the global economy. Which country in the world buys the most industrial robots? Well, the country with the most people in the world – China! It is astounding, is it not? So, if even China, at their lower level of wages, is automating, what does this mean for us?
Minister Chan Chun Sing related how e-commerce is changing the face of retail. As consumers, we want the best deals. So, I have heard of many people who go to a shop to view, feel and try products, then go home to purchase it online at a lower price. I do not know whether Members here do that, too, but you must have heard of people who have done so. So, retail shops are under stress. But some in the sector are looking ahead into the future. For example, Funan DigitaLife Mall, known for years and years for selling IT products, is closing to reshape itself to become \"an experiential creative Hub\".
Mr Liang Eng Hwa cited insourcing trends in both the US and China. This means that the global supply chain which we are a part of is shrinking. China and the US will produce more and more of their goods at home. So, how do we continue to create value within the world, amongst the world's biggest markets?
In this regard, Mr Heng Chee How and Mr Lee Yi Shyan reiterated that economic transformation is urgent and critical. We must, indeed, support our businesses' spirit of enterprise to look outward to the world and forward to the future, and take this task of transformation urgently.
At the same time, many Members, such as Mr Saktiandi Supaat, spoke of the challenges faced by our SMEs in the near term. Some Members, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Zaqy Mohamad, have asked for more support for SMEs in this period. I appreciate these concerns. One way of supporting this spirit of enterprise is to make sure that viable firms can survive this period of cyclical weakness. Otherwise, we lose precious capabilities that are difficult to rebuild later. Our people's livelihoods could also be at stake.
This is why this year's Budget is carefully calibrated to address cyclical concerns without impeding restructuring. Members, such as Mr Ong Teng Koon, have expressed support for this support package.
Costs remain a concern for many SMEs. Some members, such as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, spoke about rental costs. In fact, rental costs have declined over 2015. Retail, office and industrial rents fell by 4.1%, 6.5% and 2.1% respectively. But I appreciate that the experience can be different for different firms in different locations.
Now, that is why we are careful to shape overall macro-economic conditions to be supportive of growth to make sure that we do not price ourselves out of the global market. We released more space, implemented anti-speculative measures and calibrated our exchange rates carefully. These are medium-term measures and we are seeing results. We are seeing results in terms of supporting firms even in the cost area.
Others, such as Dr Lily Neo, spoke about manpower costs. Wages have been rising, which is good for our workers. Our workers do look forward to rising wages, but it puts pressure on businesses, especially those with lower margins.
We must understand where these cost pressures come from – they are fundamentally based on demand and supply. Our supply of land and labour is limited. But the demand for our resources is growing, which, in fact, indicates that our economy is still growing. So, prices are bid up.
So, while we should be careful not to price ourselves out of the global market, we must accept that we cannot be a low-cost location. Even China, which used to be a cheap place, with its vast land and population – 1.3 billion people – is experiencing rising business costs. Their businesses are automating, their businesses are moving out from coastal regions to inland, as well as to cheaper locations outside China.
So, we cannot permanently subsidise costs. All firms, large or small, in whatever sector, must compete on productivity and innovation. This is the way to reinforce the spirit of enterprise and to build vitality in our firms for the long haul. This is how we will compete.
Enterprising firms understand this and build their business models with these hard constraints in mind. I fully understand that restructuring is painful. But it is necessary. It will ensure that our finite resources will not be trapped in \"zombie\" businesses, as Mr Ong Teng Koon warned. And, our workers will not be trapped in firms and sectors with poor prospects.
Our concern about restructuring is, ultimately, a concern for our workers, our people. In this regard, several Members have spoken at length on what we should not do to undermine the spirit of enterprise.
Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Ang Wei Neng cautioned that Government support should not become a crutch. And as Dr Lim Wee Kiak pointed out, firms should not have the impression that the Government will eliminate risks and bail out any firm in trouble. Mr Vikram Nair also cautioned against institutionalising subsidies to industries as they can be difficult to remove.
I appreciate Members' comments on how we can best support our firms in this period of weakness. But a business leader, Mr Steven Koh, put it to me this way. He said, \"Government support is like push-starting a car that has gotten stuck in a difficult patch – it can get the car going again, but the Government cannot be pushing the car for miles and miles. It will run out of resources. So, once the car is moving, it has to rely on its own engine to go for the long haul.\" Wise words from a leader who has been in business for a long time.
To go back to the question of why some firms succeed, we also observe that some economies and some regions of big countries produce more winners than others and have been able to create many more good jobs. Again, why is this so? What is happening in these places? Well, in these economies, the governments have played an important role, an enabling role – enabling enterprising individuals and businesses to go further than they could have on their own. Ms Jessica Tan just touched on this point and said it well.
They have created a stable political and business environment, with clear policies and regulations, invested in R&D and first-class infrastructure and, most of all, in their people through education and lifelong learning. They have also partnered business to grow the economy, while allowing market forces to work, to channel resources to the most productive firms.
In these countries, businesses and governments have come together to achieve external economies of scale, or, as academics put it, the Marshallian externalities – a point which Prof Hoon Hian Teck and I recently discussed. In short, the governments work to strengthen the spirit of enterprise in their firms and workers.
In this Budget, we seek to (a) help entrepreneurial firms scale up and internationalise; (b) support automation to build capacity; (c) encourage innovation; (d) support our shops through the revitalisation of heartlands; and (e) provide a broad range of support to SMEs so that everyone has the opportunity to upgrade, to raise capability and to compete. For our people, we seek to support the development of deep skills and match these to growth areas.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah sums it up well on how we can support the spirit of enterprise and how we can aim for long-term vitality. I quote, \"In the short term, Singaporean firms might rightly expect some fish from the Government to keep their workers fed. But, ultimately, the country will run out of fish if they don't develop bigger, smarter and faster fishing ships to get fishes from international waters.\" And, indeed, the Government can help businesses to develop bigger, smarter and faster ships but, ultimately, the captains of industry must navigate the ships and help our firms go the distance.
As we move to the next phase of our restructuring journey, we will adopt a more targeted approach to helping firms. Different firms and industries have different needs. To drive real transformation, we need to calibrate our support to the needs of each firm and each sector. Indeed, Ms Denise Phua made a similar point about \"not taking a cookie-cutter\" approach.
I thank many Members for their support for the shift from a broad-based approach to a more targeted, sector-focused approach to supporting industry.
Now, several Members spoke on the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) – was it effective, or was it abused? Notwithstanding some of the reports, let me clarify that the PIC has, in fact, largely achieved its objectives.
From the start, PIC was designed to raise awareness among SMEs about productivity and, importantly, to get SMEs to undertake basic productivity efforts, to get started. As at January 2016, 102,000 companies have benefited from PIC. This is about 70% of all active companies in IRAS' records for the Year of Assessment 2014. A very considerable number.
Today, around 90% of SMEs are taking steps to increase their productivity, according to a survey by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI). With this broad-based take-up of productivity initiatives, we are now ready to move on to the next phase of restructuring, through the Industry Transformation Programme.
Some may ask whether we are sure that the Industry Transformation Programme will succeed. As I said before, there is no textbook answer to policy; there is no textbook answer to innovation. So, in Government, we, too, need to embrace a spirit of enterprise – we have some clear ideas of where we need to go, what we need to do. But we must be humble, and we have to figure it out dynamically, learning, improving and improvising as we go along, and working in partnership with businesses which know well what are needed.
Based on our consultations, the consensus at this point is that this is the best way forward. Mr Liang Eng Hwa rightly pointed out, together with several others, that implementation will be key. And I could not agree more. This industry transformation will not be easy.
As industry needs are complex, it will require strong partnerships. But we have the advantage of trust among firms, unions and the Government. If we do not dare to try, we will certainly fail. If we have the guts to try, we have a good chance of succeeding. And if we go at it together, we have the best chance of succeeding.
Some Members have asked whether there is a spirit of enterprise in Singapore firms; is it well and alive in our firms and in our people? Let me highlight some examples. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I display some slides on the LED screens?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: This is Wee Meng Construction, a local steel fabrication SME serving the construction industry. Like other SMEs, they could not attract young and skilled Singaporeans. So, they did three things.
First, they adopted a new robotic cutting system, which increased the productivity of the cutting process by 18 times. Second, they mapped their productivity gaps to identify improvements. Third, they trained their staff to operate the new machines, increased the pay of trained staff by 10%-20%, and built an in-house robotics team. So, now, new Singaporean employees join the firm, and they reduce their hiring of foreign workers. Their next step is to secure overseas steel fabrication projects.
Wee Meng Construction is a good example of how we can automate, develop our people, scale up and internationalise. The technology that Wee Meng Construction has adopted is scalable across the sector and we will support such capability upgrading.
Firms like Wee Meng give us hope. By turning adversity into opportunity, they embody the forward-looking resilience and enterprise that have carried Singapore this far.
Another good example which I came across recently is Jean and Jeremy, a mother-and-son duo who own JMD Pacific, very near here, at Peninsula Shopping Centre. A traditional retailer, growth was slow and e-commerce was drawing sales away from brick-and-mortar stores such as theirs. So, Jeremy, who graduated from University, suggested to his mother to list her products online and use social media to do marketing. This immediately opened up access to a wider group of customers. Jeremy also helped to bring in sports and lifestyle products new to Singapore, and they became the exclusive distributor for some brands now carried by big stores, such as Challenger, Courts and Guardian. As sales moved online, they digitised their processes and ventured into overseas markets and into new product lines, such as sports and lifestyle products. It is an inspiring story of the transformation of family businesses and how even a retail store can take advantage of technology and e-commerce to move ahead.
At the industry level, successful transformation can benefit all firms within the industry. I spoke of the spirit of partnership in the Budget Statement. Firms can achieve more when they work together on common goals.
Some people have asked – after I raised this – why competitor firms would find it in their interest to cooperate. Firms can cooperate and compete all at the same time. They can compete in ways to differentiate themselves from one another, in different niches of the market, with different views on who has the best product or service. But they can cooperate on ways to help them all drive down costs, grow the markets and grow global mindshare.
An example is the Collaborative Industry Project on 3D Additive Manufacturing where companies come together to share access to the state-of-the-art equipment at the Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology (SIMTech).
SIMTech also works with companies to identify key technologies that can drive their future growth. For example, they helped Wavelength Opto-Electronic, an SME manufacturer of infrared optic components, develop a first-of-its-kind miniaturised laser equipment. This new system helped to grade the quality of the products and the company's annual sales have increased by over 20% since. The system has now gained interest from several other manufacturers, and Wavelength Opto-Electronic has been transformed from an equipment trader and component manufacturer to an Original Equipment Manufacturer. Quite a transformation! This is a good example of how industry-focused institutions can generate value for firms in their respective sectors.
For us to have more such efforts, strong sector institutions with committed leadership are needed to drive collaborations and build up shared resources in each sector. Under the Industry Transformation Programme, a Government agency will be appointed to coordinate efforts and develop a Transformation Map for each sector. By working with industry, the reach of this programme can be greatly expanded. If private actors in each sector are willing to step forward to do something for their industry, the Government is very willing to support them.
Today, there are over 300 Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs), some with more capabilities than others. Mr Lee Yi Shyan highlighted the Singapore Furniture Industry Council as a TAC which has been effective in helping the entire industry to upgrade.
I agree with many of you that not all TACs are playing the role that they could to reach out to firms in their industries. But where they are willing to step up, we will support them in their capability development, through schemes, such as LEAD and LEAD-Plus.
Separately, Mr Leon Perera suggested that a tool to benchmark productivity would be useful for SMEs. In fact, there are productivity calculators available to firms. One is SPRING's \"Way to Go\" portal. In addition, Singapore Business Federation, in partnership with DP Info, recently launched the Holistic Industry Productivity Scorecard (HIPS). These tools help companies measure their productivity based on key indicators and allow them to benchmark themselves against the industry norm. Since the launch of HIPS four months ago, 80 companies have used the scorecard. SBF aims to reach 30,000 SMEs by 2020. This is an example of how an industry association or business chamber is taking the lead in transformation.
So, while I appreciate that many Members have called for the Government to do more, I think we should also celebrate such efforts by industry associations that are not told what to do. They take leadership, they take ownership, they know what the industry needs and they work together to create value for their members.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Dr Teo Ho Pin spoke about how some SMEs may have difficulties attracting talent. In 2013, MTI launched the SME Talent Programme to help match SMEs with students. I am happy to say that since then, more than 450 job matches have been made and over 1,000 internships have been conducted, benefiting over 190 enterprises.
The Singapore-Industry Scholarship is another joint initiative between firms in multiple industries and the Government that addresses the issue of talent recruitment. I am very proud of this scheme. I launched it in 2012 because I felt strongly, like many of you in this House, about building Singaporean leaders in industry. Since its launch, around 50 organisations are on board and more than 350 scholarships have been awarded. Incidentally, one important criterion which I used for having firms on this is that it is not about a scholarship but about mentorship. Are you willing to develop the talents that you have? If you are, you are on board; if you are not, then we will not admit you to this scheme.
I am also very encouraged that business leaders themselves have been avid about mentoring and sharing experiences. Three examples come to mind. First, the Bosses' Network set up by Mr Hong Ting Liang which brings SMEs together; second, the Workforce Advancement Federation, started by Mr CB Chan of Goodrich Global, which focuses on learning and building a sustainable workforce; and, third, the Business Leaders' Alumni Club, run by Ms Susan Chong of Greenpac, which organises sharing sessions with CEOs. Industry transformation, sector-by-sector, can be promising.
I want to thank Ms Denise Phua for her suggestion of flexibility and enlightened partnership, and the need to have a targeted approach and the \"3As\" framework. Indeed, the \"3As\" framework is a way for us to look at how we can support the spirit of enterprise.
I would also like to thank Assoc Prof Randolph Tan for cautioning against the risks of entrenchment of sector-based interests. Indeed, we must guard against this. Even as firms cooperate, they must not engage in anti-competitive practices.
Let me now speak on the topic of innovation. I thank Ms Chia Yong Yong, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan for their thoughtful suggestions.
Some Members, such as Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, said, quite rightly, that building a culture that supports innovation is critical, that culture comes before strategy. I am optimistic that we can do this.
Last Friday, I visited The Hangar by NUS Enterprise as well as LaunchPad@one-north, two innovation zones which bring together professors, students and innovators. I quite like the name of \"Hangar\" in NUS because it is where ideas take flight. There, I met people working together to build exciting startups. Let me highlight two.
First, Rabbit Ray. They seek to make a difference for children seeking medical treatment. This is Ms Esther Wang, the founder. She designed a patient engagement device in the form of a toy rabbit that explains medical procedures to children in a medically accurate but relatable and comforting way. For this, Esther won the Shell LiveWIRE Top Ten Innovators Global Award.
The second example is WaterROAM, which seeks to make a difference to those in disaster and rural areas in need of clean water. They are a start-up that has developed a potable water filtration system that can turn dirty water into drinkable water in the same time it would take to run it from the tap. The young man who showed it to me gamely drank the water to show me that it worked. This has allowed it to be deployed in disaster and rural areas.
Why do I highlight these two examples? What struck me about both start-ups is that their innovation started with the aim of meeting a human need. In the case of Rabbit Ray, the innovation was less in the technology than in the design, with a focus on improving the lives of children seeking medical treatment. Esther is now working on a doll that helps children who have to undergo chemotherapy. In the case of WaterROAM, it is to meet the need for potable water for residents of disaster-hit zones and in rural areas, in the poor areas of the world.
I am very happy to have young people like them who understand that innovation is not just about technology or gizmos but really about meeting human needs, making the world a better place and how they can make an impact in the lives of others.
There are many other examples of creative people with the desire, skills and belief to make a difference. So, how do we nurture this creative environment that allows innovations to flourish?
I agree with Mr Azmoon Ahmad and several others that curiosity needs to be stimulated from young and, indeed, we will be making changes to our education system to nurture this. Meanwhile, we must continue to improve the environment for innovation to thrive. To do that, we need to connect the many dots. That is why we set up SG-Innovate – to connect innovators to smart money, mentors, markets and experts in the R&D area.
The thrust of my Budget speech is that innovation must be pervasive and must be present in all sectors of the economy and in all firms, including SMEs. That is what I meant by \"there is no sunset industry, only sunset thinking\", a point which Mr Thomas Chua elaborated on very well. That is why we also placed resources in the revitalisation of the heartland. It is never about confining innovation to enclaves, as Assoc Prof Daniel Goh seems to suggest.
To paraphrase Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, the process of innovation is not a precise science. It is an art that requires us to be patient, take the long-term view, persevere and continuously adapt. We need to change mindsets, as many of you have said, but it is an art and we have to be patient.
Many Members have spoken about the impact of the economy on people and jobs. Several, such as Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Zaqy Mohamad, have asked whether there will be good jobs available as our economy evolves. Others, like Minister Chan Chun Sing and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, were concerned about whether our people will have the skills to take up good jobs. Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and others also spoke on how we can help retrenched workers or new entrants into the workforce find the right jobs.
In fact, all over the world, people are concerned about jobs as major economies grapple with job losses and structural unemployment. In some countries, there is overcapacity. China is rebalancing its economy from heavy industries to services and may lay off over 1.5 million workers from the coal and steel industries alone.
In other places, such as the US and Europe, under-investment has held back economic and employment growth. Under-employment and structural unemployment due to skills mismatches are issues that many economies are grappling with.
We are in a better position because we have invested in creating jobs and enabled our people to acquire relevant skills. Our overall unemployment rates are low compared with other countries. Ms Sylvia Lim said that the 1.9% figure for the unemployment rate does not tell the whole story. But the picture does not change much even if we look at resident unemployment or any other indicators.
At the end of 2015, the unemployment rate was 2.9% for residents and 3% for citizens, which most economists would regard as close to full employment, as there is always some degree of frictional unemployment in any economy.
The labour force participation rate has risen from 66.2% in 2010 to 68.3% in 2015, which is higher than the OECD average. The OECD average is about 60%, so we have a very high labour force participation rate.
And importantly, real median income has grown by 3% per annum over the last five years.
Overall, our economy is still creating jobs. The ratio of job vacancies to job seekers remains above one. In fact, if you go to job sites, whether it is Indeed.com or the MOM Jobs Bank, there are many jobs being advertised, including, of course, in the classified advertisements.
I understand the anxieties of Singaporeans about jobs, because it is not just about jobs. It is about our families. We cannot take for granted that there will be good jobs and incomes in the future.
To address these concerns, we need a coherent approach. First, create the right jobs; second, develop the right skills; and, third, enable the right match. So, it is about right jobs, right skills, right match.
First, creating jobs and more, creating the right jobs. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan said, \"It is no mean feat to continue to generate jobs in an increasingly sophisticated economy packed into one of the most congested cityscapes in the world.\" Indeed, this is no mean feat. We not only need to create jobs but given our high-cost structure, given the high level of wages already, to create jobs of high value that meet the aspirations of Singaporeans.
To do that, our firms must be competitive and productive. I showed this slide when I presented the Budget Statement. This scatterplot shows average productivity and average wage per worker. The higher the productivity of the firm, the higher the wages that they pay to each worker.
It shows that productive firms generally pay higher wages. This is why industry transformation is so important. This is why we need to transform enterprises, transform industries and transform through innovation, because Industry Transformation is the engine, the means for us to create better lives and better jobs for our workers.
All these changes will require changes which will require us to create new companies and jobs which will require new skills.
Some Members have asked whether the Industry Transformation Programme is just about helping firms. Some workers have asked, \"Does it help us?\" I want to emphasise this very important point that, ultimately, this programme is about helping our workers and our people. As part of this transformation, firms must also redesign jobs and develop their staff.
Several Members, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Melvin Yong, pointed out how important it is for firms to automate and redesign jobs and train their staff in an integrated way, so as to bring out the best in every employee and allow everyone to catch up. I am happy to say that many firms are doing this and reaping the benefits. Let me share another example.
Take Feinmetall, a precision engineering firm I recently visited, where I met Mr Winson Ng, a young Polytechnic graduate who joined Feinmetall after his course in mechatronics at Singapore Polytechnic. After working for five months, he was sent by Feinmetall for advanced training in Germany. Upon returning to Singapore, Winson noticed that one of the processes used to bend needles for semiconductor wafer testing could be done better. He conceptualised a way to automate it, then worked with a systems integrator to develop a machine for it. As a result of this innovation, productivity increased four times and operations run 24 hours a day!
The machine also reduced the training time required for the process, from nine months to one week. It is impressive: investing in one young man by sending him to Germany and, when he came back, the firm increased productivity four times and reduced training from nine months to one week. The other staff are now redeployed to higher value-added jobs within the firm. Winson's training at the Polytechnic and in Germany, combined with his on-the-job experience, enabled him to generate insights and innovate successfully.
That is why I have been emphasising that employers play a very, very critical role in enabling the development of their people, not just in upgrading their firms. Firms that take care in making such investments, ultimately, see dividends. A man like Winson, a young Polytechnic graduate who is able to conceptualise a machine that has such impact, gets better prospects in life.
We must continue to build a conducive workplace environment that empowers staff to continue learning and improving. I hope that all firms will invest in their people, young and old, and start a virtuous cycle of higher skills, higher productivity and higher wages, which can then be reinvested to develop the firm further.
Let me now touch on the next important ingredient – developing the right skills. While firms create the right jobs, our people must also develop the right skills to take on these jobs. Preparing our people for the future starts from an early age, when our children develop the fundamentals and a love for learning.
As Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Darryl David, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and other Members have said, we must build the confidence of our young, broaden their learning and stimulate their curiosity as early as possible. It is a powerful force that will keep them learning and help them overcome challenges in their lives.
To deepen lifelong learning, we launched SkillsFuture with a focus not just on the skills of today, but also on skills for tomorrow. Actually, we have made good progress. Let me cite some data. In 2015, over 260,000 residents took up WSQ courses and 22,000 were enrolled in part-time diploma, post-diploma and degree-level programmes in our Polytechnics and publicly-funded Universities. I salute our people for their diligence. I have met many people who are pursuing part-time courses and I know it is not easy to juggle the demands of work, family and studies. Their spirit of resilience and lifelong learning is most commendable.
The success of SkillsFuture depends on everyone playing their part, not just employees, but also employers. The Government will provide support and resources for those who are willing and motivated to acquire new skills and deepen their skill-sets. Under SkillsFuture, we are developing an online, individualised learning portal for individuals to plan their careers and lifelong learning. The portal will be launched in phases starting from 2017. Some of you will be happy to know this – accounts will be given to students from Primary 5 and upwards, so that they can begin to plan for their future learning and skills development. We are taking the comments made by Members about starting young quite seriously. These initiatives will equip our young people with critical skills for the workplace and the capacity to learn throughout their lives.
I have touched on right jobs and right skills. Now, we need the right match. Jobseekers can avail themselves of a suite of employment and training assistance. These include Professional Conversion Programmes and the Career Support Programme. WDA and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) help match workers and jobs and provide training to improve the employability of workers through their Career Centres. They successfully placed over 14,000 job seekers in 2015 – quite an impressive number. Besides employment and training assistance, wage support is also provided in some cases.
This year's Budget builds on these programmes with the launch of the Adapt and Grow Programme, which will provide support for more Singaporeans to re-skill and gain employment. As I mentioned in the Budget Statement, we expect to more than double the current outreach for PMETs from 2,000 per year to over 4,000. We understand the anxiety of some who have been displaced and that is why these programmes are being enhanced and its outreach doubled. The Minister for Manpower will speak further on this at the COS.
As new industries and new types of jobs emerge, we will need to take our skills and job matching efforts even further. We, too, have to innovate in this area. That is why we launched the TechSkills Accelerator for the ICT sector. It will pilot a new model for how Government partners major IT employers, associations and industry to offer training, certification and job matching services, three-in-one. It will also reach out to those without ICT background. Some of you might ask if it is possible to develop ICT skill-sets without background. Well, there are certain specific areas that IDA had identified, such as user experience and user interface design. If this pilot succeeds, we will replicate it in other sectors, as many of you have suggested.
What is critical is to sustain the long-term vitality of our labour market. No short-term fixes, but long-term vitality. Several Members have listed the various market innovations over the years – in managing our dependence on foreign manpower, promoting local employment and helping vulnerable groups of workers to find jobs and supplement their incomes.
I thank all Members for the thought and care that you have put into suggesting improvements to our labour market and skills development. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan proposed auctioning the right to hire foreign manpower. Mr Desmond Choo suggested broadening the apprenticeship system and partnering the labour movement on career guidance for young people. Mr Zainal Sapari suggested further ways to help our low-wage workers. Mr Patrick Tay suggested enhancements to the Career Support Programme and setting up a support network for unemployed PMETs. Dr Teo Ho Pin suggested setting up Centres of Excellence for SkillsFuture learning, in partnership with trade associations and professional bodies. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Azmoon Ahmad and other Members spoke about providing retrenchment benefits to Singaporeans. We will study these proposals carefully.
I just want to echo a point which Assoc Prof Randolph Tan also made. We must be careful about how we intervene in the labour market. We cannot simply copy one bit from one country and then another piece from another and hope to make sense of it. There has to be a clear philosophy and a clear sense that the various measures must cohere to be effective over the long term. And, importantly, we must not undermine the sense of independence and efficacy and the spirit of self-reliance and resilience in our people.
Now, let me end this section by sharing a story that Mr Heng Chee How and many other Members will find inspiring.
I met Mr Sundaram Velosamy and Mr Ong Moh Hong when I visited Pan Asia Logistics (PAL). Mr Sundaram is an interesting story because he started working in the logistics sector in 1989 with an \"O\" level certificate. He has a keen desire to learn and upgraded himself by studying part-time for certificate and diploma qualifications, building up to a Degree in 2013. After he joined PAL in 2012, he was sent to Germany for training to understand how to use the automated storage and retrieval system. When he returned, he applied what he learnt and increased the productivity significantly.
Mr Ong joined the firm in 2014 at the age of 66, just as the firm was implementing a new IT system. Age was not a barrier either for Mr Ong or his employer. Interestingly, Mr Ong has been doing logistics work for 29 years, all the while in manual positions. When I asked him how it feels to join a firm which is just starting a new IT system, he replied that it was a great opportunity to learn. So, he learnt new IT processes when he joined the firm at the age of 66. Today, Mr Ong and Mr Sundaram are role models for the team, and help mentor younger staff. As Mr Sundaram said, \"There is no use if I keep it to myself. I must pass on the knowledge to others. I must mentor them, so that they can do better and also mentor others.\"
This is a very good example of lifelong learning, of mentoring and of a company that invests in developing its staff. And, importantly, of treasuring senior workers and believing that you can continue to train older workers. As Mr Ong said, older workers also have a long runway. I commend both Mr Ong and Mr Sundaram for their pursuit of lifelong learning, and PAL for creating an inclusive culture of constant development for their staff.
Our approach to enable our people to access good jobs and stay employable can be encapsulated in one phrase: \"Right Jobs, Right Skills, Right Match\". Creating full employment and good jobs is a major challenge, a difficult journey. But I am confident that we will be ready for the future because I have confidence in Singaporeans, I have confidence in Singapore and I have confidence that we will work together.
Let me now talk about the spirit of caring and resilience. Many Members, including Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Joan Pereira, highlighted the importance of empowering our seniors to lead active and engaged lives. Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Darryl David, Mr Christopher de Souza and a number of Members talked about Government support for families and the needs of the young. I am heartened that many Members, including Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Henry Kwek, support the initiatives to encourage philanthropy and volunteerism. I will focus on three main topics: strengthening social support, reaching Singaporeans in need and building a caring and resilient society.
Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to support low-income families, especially those with children. We invest in all our children to help them achieve their potential, paying particular attention to those from less advantaged backgrounds.
Housing subsidies that help low- and middle-income families own their homes have been increased. We are now looking beyond general affordability. Fresh Start will help some families own a home again if they are willing to work hard for a second chance. I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for supporting this scheme. Pre-school subsidies have been increased significantly. Low-income families pay as little as $3 a month for childcare and $1 a month for kindergarten. Middle-income families also get support. We are going further for a small group of young children who may need even more support. The KidStart pilot will draw together Government and community resources to provide these children with learning, developmental and health support, even before they enter school.
In addition, there are now more resources for families, regardless of income. For each eligible child, parents may receive a Baby Bonus Cash Gift of $8,000 or $10,000, depending on birth order; the Medisave grant for newborns of $4,000; and, now, the new CDA First Step grant of $3,000. In total, parents of eligible children receive between $15,000 and $17,000 in the first 18 months of their child's birth. By the way, this is in addition to tax reliefs and other leave benefits. A child who attends Primary and Secondary school also receives around $11,000 a year in educational subsidies. A child from a lower income household would receive more. There are also substantial subsidies for all Singaporean students at our institutes of higher learning, and bursaries for those from lower income families.
I must also point out to Mr Dennis Tan that apart from the CDA grant, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Medisave grant for newborns do not – I emphasise, do not – require co-matching. Moreover, our pre-school and education subsidies benefit all, but are especially generous to children from lower and middle-income families. If you look at it in its entirety across all the different schemes, substantial support is given to parents to have children, especially for the middle-income households, and with even more targeted support for those who start with less. While the CDA First Step is $3,000, we must not forget that there are existing Baby Cash Bonus of $8,000 or $10,000, plus Medisave grant of $4,000.
Ms Jessica Tan earlier raised the issue of assurance for seniors in retirement and several Members have also spoken on this. So, let me now touch on this subject. Over the last 10 years, we have strengthened the four pillars of our social security system, namely, home ownership; healthcare assurance; CPF; and Workfare. In particular, we have provided our seniors with greater assurance.
Through CPF LIFE and MediShield Life, we are increasing risk-pooling to provide more support in the face of life's uncertainties and also during retirement. These have been complemented by increased Government subsidies for seniors across all healthcare settings, including subsidies for MediShield Life premiums, GP clinics via CHAS, and for eldercare. We also pay extra interest on CPF, with the first $30,000 in CPF earning up to 6% interest from the age of 55.
The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) has been further enhanced in this Budget. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for his support for the enhancements to Workfare and would like to clarify to Mr Pritam Singh that, as I announced in my Budget speech, we are raising the qualifying income ceiling to $2,000, not $1,900. With the past enhancements, WIS is now a significant supplement for low-income workers of up to 30% of their income. Besides Workfare, the Pioneer Generation Package provides a special generation with additional support.
Adding up our transfers to retiree households, healthcare subsidies, S&CC rebates and the GST Voucher, we provide substantial support for retirees living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats. Even if we consider only those living in 3-room and larger HDB flats – up to Executive Apartments, on average, this worked out to around $5,000 in Government transfers per retiree in 2015. About 70% of this is in healthcare subsidies and amounts to substantial support for our seniors.
Silver Support is a major enhancement to our social security system. I thank Members, including Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Zaqy Mohamad and several others, for their suggestions to look into the criteria for Silver Support. Let me now touch on three points.
First, let me reiterate that Silver Support is a modest but meaningful supplement targeted at the bottom 20% of seniors, with some support extended to the next 10%. In implementing the scheme, we are mindful of the impact Silver Support can have on our society. Many Singaporeans are proud to be able to provide for their loved ones. Silver Support is not meant to replace other forms of financial support for our seniors, including personal savings, CPF, family support, as well as the Pioneer Generation Package. We must be cautious that Silver Support does not undermine values such as filial piety, or lead to a divisive mentality amongst citizens. Thus, Silver Support is not the only source of help for the neediest seniors, whose basic needs are served by Public Assistance, which has been enhanced in this Budget.
The second point I want to make is this – no single criterion is enough to identify seniors in the bottom 20% to 30%. It is, therefore, reasonable that we combine three criteria of lifetime wages, housing type and household support in our assessment. We acknowledge that there may be some seniors, as highlighted by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Darryl David and several others, who may need help but do not qualify automatically. Seniors in these exceptional circumstances can request CPF Board to review their eligibility for Silver Support and we will consider the merits of each case.
Finally, we have to carefully calibrate the coverage of Silver Support. It starts off with $320 million a year and will increase as our population ages. From the outset, we should ensure that the scheme remains sustainable in the long run.
Mr Alex Yam asked whether payouts can be made monthly instead of quarterly. Let me point out that, unlike Workfare, which is given for work done, Silver Support provides a forward payout. We are paying ahead in three-month tranches. So, it is a forward payment, which gives seniors the flexibility to manage their expenses. If we move to monthly payouts, we will reduce such flexibility.
Several Members requested greater support for caregivers through some form of monetary compensation. Now, I recognise that it is not easy to be a care-giver. I have met many and I have great respect for what they do. But, as a society, we have to be careful not to monetise relationships. And this is a subject that would have to be carefully studied. MOH and MSF will elaborate on the relevant efforts at the COS.
I would also like to commend Ms Chia Yong Yong for her very moving plea for all of us to better understand Persons with Disabilities. I strongly agree that we should continue to empower them to realise their full potential. MSF will elaborate on the third review of the Enabling Masterplan in the COS.
Let me now address an issue which several Members have raised, which is support for middle-income households. Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked why there is no tax rebate or, more broadly, measures targeted at the middle income, in this Budget.
To begin with, about half of our workers do not pay any income tax. The income tax burden is low for the majority who pay, including the middle-income group.
I had earlier spoken on our efforts to strengthen existing measures that benefit middle-income households and provide active support for housing, education and healthcare. SkillsFuture is another example.
All these measures are not as direct as putting money in people's pocket, but it has a meaningful long-term impact on the careers and future of Singaporeans.
The most important support for all Singaporeans, including the middle-income, is employability and good jobs, a point which Ms Thanaletchimi mentioned in a recent TV programme, that the best social security is job security, and I would add that the best way to ensure job security is deep skills and adaptability. That is why we are investing in those areas. Even though I devoted a considerable amount of time in this Budget to explain the Industry Transformation Programme and measures to support our SMEs, our aim is very clear – to enable Singaporeans to have good jobs, more opportunities and a better life. We have to go for the long haul and these are important ways to support all families, especially middle-income families.
Providing a tax rebate from year to year is not enough to address the fundamental concerns of our middle-income group. We must, as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef pointed out, preserve a spirit of resilience and self-reliance and focus on a sustainable way to build better lives for all.
Let me now touch on reaching Singaporeans in need. As we spend more, we must take extra care to spend well. I welcome Miss Cheryl Chan's comments on the importance of improving the way care is delivered, especially for the elderly. Let me share my thoughts on how we can maximise the impact and reach of our schemes.
To better serve Singaporeans, we have made some moves to improve service delivery in the \"last mile\", especially to the elderly and vulnerable.
The first is reaching out proactively to those in need. A good example is the Pioneer Generation Ambassadors (PGAs), which Miss Cheng Li Hui spoke about. Over the past one-and-a-half years, they have reached out to 250,000 Pioneers, or 60%, to explain the benefits of the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and MediShield Life.
Our ambassadors form a close relationship with our Pioneers, explain Government policies to them and help them access the various schemes.
Let me share with you how our ambassadors reach out. An example is Mr Shahul Hameed and his wife. Mr Shahul is 74 years old with a heart condition and usually stays at home. Our ambassadors visited him to explain the benefits of the PGP and MediShield Life. They also took the chance to introduce Mr Shahul to active-ageing programmes in his community to help him make friends while keeping fit, while taking care of his heart condition. These are practical ways in which we are reaching out proactively.
The second move is to bring help closer. Previously, those looking for short- and medium-term assistance under ComCare had to approach one of the five Community Development Councils (CDCs). Today, they can approach 24 Social Service Offices (SSOs) across the island for assistance.
Along with Family Service Centres (FSCs), 95% of the island's residents who need help have access to it within 2 kms of where they live or work. This is an important milestone, but we are still striving to bring help closer to those in need. And with more experience, we will do better.
The third move is integrating assistance from Government agencies and VWOs. We are expanding the Social Service Net (SSNet), our integrated information sharing and case management system that links MSF with other Government agencies, as well as VWOs. Agencies can better calibrate their support to help each citizen and better address their needs. Administrative hassle, especially paperwork and forms with multiple agencies, will be reduced for citizens. And I think this is especially important for those who need help, as Dr Tan Wu Meng has mentioned.
But we can do even better in partnering the community. We can do better. I was extremely heartened by my visit to Henderson-Dawson ward and the Thong Kheng Seniors Activity Centre (TKSAC) last week. This area is one of the older estates, with almost one in six of the residents aged 65 or above. Many more neighbourhoods will be like Henderson-Dawson. It is important to ensure that every neighbourhood is a good neighbourhood for seniors to age with dignity, lead active and healthy lives and stay engaged with the community. Well, I am glad it resonates with all of you. Every neighbourhood is a good neighbourhood for seniors.
Forging close-knit partnerships is key. Henderson-Dawson is an example of how various parties come together, with good leadership of advisors. It was difficult at the start, but, over time, the various partners built trust to work together and pool resources to better meet seniors' needs. These include activities for seniors like morning exercises, free lunches and educational talks on topics from nutrition to fire safety.
The elderly themselves contribute to these efforts, to help care for one another. They demonstrate a keen sense of collective responsibility and feel a strong obligation to the community. So, I echo Ms Joan Pereira's and Ms Tin Pei Ling's call for more senior citizens to volunteer as a good way to stay active and engaged. MCCY will provide an update on the Silver Volunteer Fund, which encourages seniors to give a part of their time for good causes, in the COS.
I would like to share the story of Mdm Chia Chen Kum, who is 70 years old. Her husband passed away a few years ago. However, she discovered new meaning in life when she started volunteering at the centre. She said, and I quote in Mandarin, because she spoke in Mandarin,\"来自社会，归回社会. 这样也是应该的. 除非我真的不可以动, 我才没有办法. 我可以做的我就一定帮忙的\".
She said, \"Having received from society, it is only right that I give back. Unless I cannot move and I have no way. Whatever I can do, I will definitely continue to help.\" This is the great feisty attitude of an elderly − great resilience and great sense of care for others. These are very moving and inspiring words.
We must all step forward to care for our fellow Singaporeans and renew our shared commitment to building a better society. And this is particularly important as our population ages.
Community partnership will be a major area of focus moving forward. The Community Networks for Seniors pilot will bring local stakeholders and agencies together to study the needs of seniors and help them take preventive care.
Looking ahead, as several Members have suggested, we can do even better to plan our estates and social services, as well as crowd in the community to make Singapore a model for social service delivery as well as successful ageing.
Ultimately, it is not about Government schemes, but about building a caring and resilient society. As Mr Kok Heng Leun said, \"We must all pitch in to take care of one another and solve community problems together.\" This is the only way we can nourish the ties that bind us together as a society.
Over the past two years, the Government provided $500 million in matching grants for the Care and Share Movement. I am delighted that this has generated significant donations from the public. More importantly, over 200,000 volunteers participated. Singaporeans have shown great generosity in spirit and we hope that this can be sustained. We will continue to encourage charitable giving by matching, dollar-for-dollar, any additional donations through SHARE to ComChest.
Besides providing resources, businesses have a role in helping the social sector and supporting employee volunteerism. Let me give two examples. Quirk – a local integrated marketing communications agency – supports Project Dreamcatchers, an initiative by NUH to empower youths living with chronic illness. The youths will be producing artwork that will be showcased in an exhibition later this year and Quirk is assisting with the branding and collaterals. A group of drivers in ComfortDelGro are active volunteers, delivering meals and driving around those in need. These are all examples where businesses and employees use their expertise for good causes.
The Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS) pilot is designed to support more partnerships between businesses and Institutions of a Public Character (IPC) and encourage employee volunteerism. I acknowledge the issues raised by Ms Denise Phua, including possible crowding out of cash donations, over-subsidising volunteerism, and the cap that affects IPCs that really need help. We studied these issues and decided to pilot the scheme to encourage businesses towards volunteerism, but with appropriate caps. Our larger intention is to kick-start a movement beyond cash donations, to get businesses to mobilise resources. It is a pilot. We will monitor these carefully.
But I would like to stress that it is not only about tax incentives. At the end of the day, it is about businesses seeing themselves as responsible corporate citizens and becoming more active partners in building a caring society.
Finally, I was heartened by the enthusiastic response to last year's SG50 Celebration Fund, with passionate Singaporeans coming forward to celebrate our jubilee year. We will make it easier for Singaporeans to enrich our society with ground-up initiatives.
As many Members have pointed out, it is not through the Government's efforts alone, but a collective effort, that we can build a caring and resilient society. We hope that Singaporeans from all walks of life will step forward.
Over the past few days, several Members, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Henry Kwek, have spoken on the importance of fiscal sustainability even as we tackle Singapore's economic and social challenges.
As Members have pointed out, Singapore's spending needs will grow in the coming years. First, healthcare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, we will experience a rapid ageing of our population. Today, one in eight Singaporeans is aged 65 and above. This will double to one in four Singaporeans in 15 years.
In some areas, such as Outram, the future is already here, with one in five residents aged 65 and above. An older population will invariably mean an increase in healthcare needs. For instance, the hospital admission rate for elderly today is three to four times that of younger people. Countries, such as Japan, went through a similar experience. Over the last 25 years, Japan's healthcare spending has doubled as its proportion of elderly doubled. Singapore's experience will not completely mirror Japan's, but our healthcare spending will certainly rise and we must prepare adequately for our needs.
Second, we will need to refresh our infrastructure and build new ones, to create new economic opportunities and better homes for the next 50 years. For public transport, we will be investing significantly more over the next five years. This includes the doubling of the rail network from 178 kilometres today to about 360 kilometres in 2030. Changi Airport's T5 will be developed to enhance our connectivity to Asia and globally.
Third, we must continue to invest in our defence and security, which underpin our economic and social prosperity. As Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Lim Wee Kiak have noted, the threats of terrorism and cyberattacks have grown. To keep our homes safe, we must invest.
As our \"must haves\" and \"good to haves\" increase over time, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin correctly pointed out that we must continue to uphold the principle of \"living within our means\", so that we create enduring benefit and not enlarging burden for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.
While our spending needs are growing, our revenue growth will be slowing as our economy matures. The experiences of many advanced countries warn us how easy it is for spending to become unsustainable and impose a growing burden on future generations.
How then should we ensure that our spending needs are met? First, we must place priority on building a vibrant economy, which will then grow our revenues. A vibrant, competitive economy creates opportunities and jobs for our people and generates the revenue to meet our needs.
Second, we must spend prudently and spend right. This is about being efficient, and being effective, so that each dollar reaches out to the right groups, to help them in the right way. Third, we must design our overall fiscal system so that it is fair and progressive. We must tax and spend in a way that is progressive, without dis-incentivising enterprise and efforts.
Our system of revenues and expenditures must always be fair and progressive. Only then can it be sustainable across generations.
Several Members have asked if our personal income tax relief cap, which serves to increase progressivity, runs contradictory to encouraging procreation. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Tin Pei Ling have commented on this, and I thank them for their views and for reflecting their residents' views.
Let me explain. We have introduced the cap on personal income tax reliefs to apply to the total amount of all reliefs claimed. There are 15 personal income tax reliefs, each serving a worthy objective. Taken together, however, they can unduly reduce total taxable incomes for a small proportion of individuals. After studying the reliefs, we concluded that we needed to moderate the effects of large amounts of reliefs claimed, in order to preserve equity in our tax structure. We have to maintain fairness between different groups of taxpayers, in particular, between those who earn more and those who earn less.
We have thus imposed a cap to make our personal income tax more progressive. Let me emphasise once again that the vast majority of taxpayers are unaffected by the cap. Ninety-nine percent of tax resident individuals can continue to claim their reliefs fully. For those claiming Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR), even with the cap, nine in 10 of those claiming WMCR are not affected. This includes those with more children – slightly over eight in 10 individuals claiming WMCR on two or three children are not expected to be affected by the cap.
Over the years, we have added and significantly enhanced various schemes to support parents in having children. I touched earlier on our substantial support for Marriage and Parenthood, including the Baby Bonus Gift, Medisave grant, the Child Development Account and, now, the First Step grant. As I have pointed out, subsidies to all Singaporean children for education in school, at preschool and the Institutes of Higher Learning are all very significant.
With all these measures, it is clear that the Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans in fulfilling their marriage and parenthood aspirations. In fact, our support for families also extends beyond monetary support and includes our wider push to make it easier for families to balance their work and life commitments. This includes our recent efforts to extend parental leave.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah pointed out, it is about having the right mindset. Fundamentally, having a child is about the joy of parenthood. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo, in charge of NPTD, will elaborate more on our marriage and parenthood strategy during COS.
From time to time, we will have to make adjustments to our schemes in order to continue targeting our support at those who need it. But we should not be evaluating Budget measures solely from the individual's perspective in a particular year, which would be narrowly focused on the individual winners and losers. We must avoid thinking, as Ms Kuik Shiao Yin eloquently put it, that we are in a \"high-stakes competition of win-lose\", and that there is \"no win-win\".
Instead, our larger goal is to make every Singaporean a winner in the long run. And this must be our goal; it cannot be otherwise. When we help one group, we are actually helping others, too. When we support our SMEs, we are supporting good jobs for our workers. When we support our seniors, we are helping the families who are taking care of them. When we invest in our young, to help them maximise their potential and seize opportunities and have a good career, we are also helping to ensure that they have the means to support their own families when they start one, as well as support their loved ones, their parents in their retirement. When we keep our tax burden low, especially for the middle income, everyone benefits.
We have to see things in totality and over the long term and not set one measure against another, or one group against another, and one year versus another year. It has to be seen in totality over the long run.
Mdm Speaker, let me now conclude. I come back to our journey together towards the future. This is a long-distance journey. We are in this to keep Singapore going, and thriving, for the long, long haul. This is our responsibility to future generations.
To take this journey, we have to keep our eyes on the road, keep our eyes on the horizon, and keep our eyes out for the people we journey with.
Keep our eyes on the road. Every journey, even the longest journey, is taken one step at a time. And so, too, with a country – though we keep our sights on the distant future, we move towards it one Budget at a time.
If we gaze upon the distance and do not look at the road immediately in front of us, we risk falling into a hole. And we will never reach our destination. Or, we will take injury and recovery before we get there.
In this Budget, we have taken targeted steps to address short-term pressures to make sure that we do not fall into the hole. So, I urge Members to help those who are facing pressures to make the best use they can of the measures which we have announced.
Apart from keeping our eyes on the road, we have to know our direction and we have to know ourselves, too. How far do we hope to go? And do we have it in us to go that distance?
We have to budget for our journey. We cannot use up all our supplies at the start and we have to have ways to grow our store of supplies. We have to spend more as our needs grow, too. So, we must continue to grow our economy so that we can have resources to spend more on growing needs and we must continue to spend those resources wisely. It is not possible for the Government to keep handing out goodies for everyone, year after year, as several Members have pointed out. Instead, each Budget must build on the previous ones to carry forward the momentum to future Budgets.
How do we keep our eyes on the horizon? Our firms need to look outward and look forward – to find new markets, grow capabilities, transform. Look ahead; see opportunities where others see only problems.
The Committee on the Future Economy will continue to look towards the horizon, to plot out what we can of the road ahead, so we can take the right steps for a vibrant, strong future economy that creates good opportunities for our people.
Each of us, too, must continually learn, get the skills that the world needs. We must have the resilience to overcome personal setbacks and adapt to change. For this reason, we will keep investing in SkillsFuture. I hope Singaporeans will make full use of SkillsFuture and that all employers do their part to re-design jobs, facilitate learning and build a better future not just for their companies, but for the people who help their companies to run.
Ultimately, the Government must know when to step in and when to step back. We must not inadvertently undermine the spirit of enterprise and the natural workings of markets, or undermine the spirit of caring and resilience such that we weaken the bonds of family and community. Instead, we must reinforce critical values and our spirit as a society.
Resources, hard won and wisely managed, will nourish us for the road ahead. Our values and our spirit – these are what will truly energise our journey.
Madam, I believe that none of us wants to reach that destination alone. The purpose of this journey is to journey together and to reach our destination together, as one united, cohesive people. To me, there is no meaning to this journey, unless it is a common journey. We must look out and care for one another as we journey. Is someone getting tired? Is someone struggling? What can we do to keep all of us going together? At the heart of this, we must recognise that every member of our society is not just valuable, but precious.
We must have that resilience in us to face each challenge as an opportunity to learn and grow, to emerge from setbacks better and stronger. We must have that humility in us to respect and learn from everyone, no matter their paper qualification or job title. And we must have the generosity to share, be it in actual things, time or ideas.
I do believe, Madam, the more we share, the richer we are for it. By giving and sharing, that is how we transform our world and how we may ourselves be transformed for the better.
We have sought in Budget 2016 to strengthen our resilience and to bring out the natural instinct for care and partnership in all of us. So, keep our eyes on the road. Keep our eyes on the horizon. And keep our eyes out for one another.
Madam, we have a long road ahead. I thank this House for the attention it has given to Budget 2016, our first step in our journey towards SG100. It will be bumpy, it will be full of unknowns.
Amongst the unknowns are not just challenges but victories. There are many innovations ahead of us that we cannot yet imagine, many personal and shared triumphs, many moments of humanity, unity and beauty that will keep defining our Singapore.
Through all the good and bad unknowns of the years to come, I hope our spirit of enterprise and caring will run strong.
I am honoured, and excited, to partner fellow Singaporeans on this journey. Let us get to work – together. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: We have a bit of time for clarifications. Please keep your clarifications short. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. I have one clarification for the Finance Minister. Earlier, in his round-up speech, he acknowledged that Singaporeans are worried about their jobs, and he mentioned that the Government was reviewing how it could better support people who lose their jobs through some difficulties, including perhaps reviewing the retrenchment benefits. I would like to ask the Minister whether this review would also include looking into the feasibility of some sort of redundancy insurance.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Madam, I thank the Member for her clarification. I am glad she raised it. In my speech, I mentioned many suggestions which have been raised by various Members. I said that all these suggestions will be studied carefully. I also mentioned that we have to have coherence in our policies. It is not about one or two specific measures. So, let me clarify that.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, just two brief points of clarifications with the hon Minister for Finance. Firstly, will the Minister consider creating the equivalent of a national secretariat for developing local enterprises? The Singapore Business Federation has suggested a Minister for SMEs. If we see this as a critical national priority, then that would argue for the whole-of-Government approach, similar to the approach taken, for example, for climate change, for population and for ageing.
My second clarification is a follow-up to the one raised by Mr Muhd Faisal Manap and Mr Dennis Tan and others, which is that, for the children support schemes, such as KidSTART, that have been announced in Budget 2016, will these also apply to children born out of wedlock?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: On the first question on whether there will be one SME centre and so on, this issue has been raised in this House on many, many occasions. In fact, not just in this House but among business leaders. This is a subject which will always be studied but, as I had said, let us take a very practical approach at this point. I have mentioned the Industry Transformation Programme in the Budget speech and spoken about how we are appointing agencies to take the lead in every sector. In each sector, you have companies large and small and they interact very intensely in their particular way. This is an important initiative. I would like to focus our efforts and attention to integrate the efforts of different agencies, to integrate the different schemes and to make an impact in those areas.
As to the second question, again, this issue has been raised by several Members. I will leave this to the Minister in charge of MSF to address during the COS.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, about this tax relief cap – can the Minister explain one more time, because I do not quite understand why this was carried out?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thought I have explained at length. As I have said, we now have 15 different types of tax reliefs. Over the years, we have, on the one hand, added or enhanced various reliefs and the end result is that we now have quite a large number of reliefs for which individuals can claim a significant amount of tax reliefs. That reduces the amount of taxes that are paid.
On the other hand, in the case of support for raising children, we have also been increasing a whole range of different support, be it the Baby Bonus, Medisave grant, pre-school subsidies, childcare subsidies, schools and so on.
So, if you look at the support that has been given, we studied it very carefully and we think that it is time for us to review, so that the tax system, both in terms of expenditure and revenue, remains fair and progressive; that we have to be equitable across different groups and that those who have higher incomes will pay more.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether KPIs and performance standards have been set to track the returns on our investments for the various productivity schemes, as the Minister had explained that it would get tougher with expenditure. I think it is absolutely critical that the productivity schemes we put in place will bear returns. Clearly, this road that we are charting is a new road but how are we going to do this next journey in a much more deliberate, much more proactive way, so that when we are down the path and we think that we need to change course, we have KPIs to guide us to do so?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her question. I recall vividly Ms Foo raising this issue during her speech, along with many interesting suggestions. First, in terms of whether there are KPIs, let me say that in designing any scheme, first and foremost, we do our best to try and make sure that these schemes will achieve the intended objectives. For particular schemes, whether it is for productivity or innovation, it is not easy to have one single measure to say that, \"Well, we succeeded because of this or because of that.\" The nature of the workings of the economy is such that various factors interact to produce certain outcomes. In many cases, you do not see immediate results.
If you take, for instance, investments in R&D, if you look at the example in the US, there are some very basic findings that found their way into application many, many years down the road. And so, this is something where we have to be patient and where we should not measure the wrong thing.
Having said that, we are very careful in the design of all our schemes to make sure that they have the best chance of success and to make sure that, as far as possible, that the private sector also has a stake in this. Public investments ought to be made in areas for which there are what economists called \"market failures\", where there are externalities for which the Government will invest in. But at the same time, we have to do it in a way that catalyses private investment and private spending.
There are ways of going about doing it. We measure specific schemes from time to time, looking at particular areas. There is no simple measurement. If you ask me, at the end of the day, does it work? Well, does the economy remain vibrant? Do we continue to grow the economy and create jobs? Not over one or two years but, as I have said, over the long haul.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): I would like to ask the Minister, in his view, what is the new and most salient programme or measure in this year's Budget.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Low, I distinctly recall that you were here when I delivered the Budget Statement. I recall you sitting through a number of the discussions. And I thought many Members, as well as members of the public, have said, \"You have been very clear about the priorities.\" So, I would urge Mr Low to read my speech carefully and perhaps also to read the reports and discuss with fellow Members here what they took away from the speech.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): May I ask the Minister if he is considering backdating the start of the First Step grant and also refining the public consultation process, please?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: It is not the general practice to backdate particular schemes. This is done only under very exceptional circumstances.
As for Mr Louis Ng's question on whether we will start the consultation earlier, first, let me say that, my round-up speech does not allow me to address every suggestion that Members have put up. Do bear with me because, I think we had 13-14 hours of debate. If I addressed every point, you may end up hearing me for 13-14 hours!
Let me address this specific point – although the formal Budget consultation process starts in a very intense period just before the Budget, the way in which the Budget process works and in which Government agencies work, is that this is an all-year-round exercise. This is an all-Ministries exercise. Throughout the year, we gather feedback, we study data and we look at what needs to be done. We gather feedback from businesses, from people and various sectors – not just the Ministry of Finance (MOF) but every agency, every Ministry. I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the work does not start only a month before the Budget!
We also have various feedback mechanisms, be it REACH or the various exercises that we hold. This year, we even did something special – we had SGfuture dialogues as part of the Future of Us exhibition. There were extensive discussions with the public. So, it is not as if the Budget process only starts a month before; it cannot be.
Also, let me clarify that many businesses prefer to give their feedback closer to the Budget, as the economic situation and business concerns are clearer. We have tried to ask for earlier feedback but many of the businesses said, \"That would not be appropriate.\"
I would like to assure Mr Ng that this is not a last-minute exercise. It is an all-year-round, 365-day, whole-of-Government exercise.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to ask the Minister about the innovation hubs. There is a lot of focus on sexy and exciting start-ups, which is fine and good. But what about the brick-and-mortar, traditional kinds of family-owned SMEs that we have? How can they connect with these innovation hubs? What are the plans that the Government has to connect these SMEs to the innovation hubs so that they can draw on the innovation expertise, the research that is coming out of NUS and NTU?
I understand that SPRING has the Centres of Innovation where these SMEs can connect to Polytechnics and certain research institutes. I am wondering whether the Centres of Innovation can also be co-located in, let us say, the Jurong Innovation District and One-North, so that the SMEs can have an avenue and channel to tap into the expertise.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for his clarification. First of all, I do not understand why Assoc Prof Goh connects what I said about innovation with it being about new and sexy industries and new things. He then contrasts this against SMEs. If he had followed my Budget speech carefully, seen the video that I showed on the Jurong Innovation District and heard all the examples I had given both then and today, he would know that I devoted a whole section to talk about innovation and made a number of points. Let me repeat them.
First, I said innovation has to be pervasive. Second, every firm should be innovative, whether they are large companies or SMEs. Third, they must innovate, regardless of the business that they are in. This is a point that Mr Thomas Chua picked up when he spoke about there being no sunset industry, only sunset thinking.
If Members could look at the examples I have quoted, every single one of them is an SME, including the mother-and-son team in JMD Pacific, which is a gift shop that has now turned to e-commerce. I had given examples about Feinmetall, Pan Asia Logistics (PAL), Wee Meng and so on. These are not what you would regard or would call the \"sexy\" industries. These are good old industries.
At the Budget itself, I gave the example of a food manufacturer and I spoke at length about how the food manufacturers have come together. These are all SMEs, but they innovated – and not only innovated, they came together, integrated and internationalised. I must say that I am a little surprised that somehow the Members got the impression that all I am talking about is “sexy” industries.
Now, as to the Member's point about whether the innovation centre should be in the Jurong Innovation District, I recall that the Member mentioned in his speech that innovation should be pervasive and we should be spreading out the different centres. If you look at our innovation centres, they are all over, including the Polytechnics and research institutes. In fact, I personally find it very inspiring that in the examples that I have given, businesses, large and small, in different industries all over, are innovating.
Many Members, including Mr Azmoon Ahmad, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, have all spoken up that, at the end of the day, it is about our mindset and it is about an approach, and we must encourage that. I hope that we do not perpetuate this wrong impression nor give a wrong representation of what I said in this House. I tried to be very clear that innovation has to be pervasive across all sectors, across all firms, large or small.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, keep it short, please.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Thank you. I appreciate the representation that the Minister has corrected. The question really is how the SMEs can tap into the innovation research and expertise of the Universities. So, I am not saying that the Government is not promoting innovation in the SMEs. I appreciate that actually. But the question for me is quite specific – how the SMEs can connect to the innovation research and expertise in the Universities, and can the Government facilitate that?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Assoc Prof Goh's specific points – how do SMEs connect with innovation, research and expertise? Again, I actually devoted a large part of my Budget speech and today's summary to how this is being done, but perhaps let me explain it again.
First, in the Budget speech, I mentioned a number of things. I gave examples of how the research institutes are reaching out to SMEs. Today, I quoted two examples from the Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology (SIMTech). SIMTech and various centres of innovation in our polytechnics, universities and research institutes are reaching out to SMEs.
Second, I mentioned The Hangar in NUS and what is happening in the Universities. Even new small businesses that are starting up are making use of this space. I also mentioned LaunchPad. And LaunchPad is another example where new SMEs are going.
There are many help schemes for our SMEs. First of all, I mentioned SPRING's schemes: we have the Innovation and Capability Voucher (ICV) and Capability Development Grant (CDG). And in this Budget, I devoted a lot of time to talk about the Automation Support Package.
I also devoted a lot of time, as well as in my other media interviews, talking about the need for us to have industry-level transformation. What do I mean by industry-level transformation? It means that we study the entire industry. We look at the common problems where you can have a common solution and, with that common solution, everyone benefits. So, again, I gave the example of the national trade platforms as one of those things that we are building, but, of course, that will come in a few years' time.
Today, SPRING and other agencies have a number of schemes that are already helping SMEs access technology. In fact, the work in R&D and technology adoption is not only on-going, but will be enhanced.
I actually spent a lot of time, both in my Budget speech, this round-up speech and my public comments between the Budget and the round-up, on what needs to be done. So, I hope that Assoc Prof Goh has followed my speech, as well as my public comments.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): We are putting a lot of hope in SkillsFuture and I do believe it is a potential game-changer. I would just like to clarify: who are the stakeholders who are involved in ensuring the quality of the SkillsFuture courses? This is because my staff and I have attended quite a diversity of WSQ courses ourselves and the quality can be quite varied. Is there also a whole-of-society approach to who feeds back on what are the kinds of SkillsFuture courses we are offering and how that can be changed?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin for her question. The quality control for SkillsFuture would be done by the MOE Higher Education Division, MOM and WDA.
I agree with the Member that ensuring a high level of quality control is important. But let me first emphasise that SkillsFuture is not just about courses. SkillsFuture is a lot broader than that. It is also about how the Polytechnics and ITEs work with companies to place students in the Earn and Learn Programme to develop their skills. It is also about employers – how employers need to play a role. I feel very strongly about this, that employers need to play a very important role in developing their people. And not just developing their people but, as Mr Ang Hin Kee pointed out: that it is about integrating what they are doing, for example, in automation, with how they are developing their people. I gave the example of Feinmetall earlier. It is an excellent example. The company sent this young man for training and he came back, continued to learn, continued to be mentored and made a breakthrough for his company. And that is the spirit of SkillsFuture.
Mdm Speaker: End of clarification time.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mdm Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate of the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately. With the change in commencement time, the revised \"guillotine\" time for Head P – Ministry of Home Affairs is 6.10 pm. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 2 of 2016","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, contained in Paper Cmd 2 of 2016. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY 2016 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 499 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a sitting, the reduction of Question Time and Parliament's resolution to extend sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the Front Bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber – which some of you have observed has actually grown bigger – I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members, both from the back and front benches, to adhere to their time limits, as I will be very stringent in my timekeeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head P – Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr Christopher de Souza.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head X of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Now, more than ever, the threat of terrorism weighs heavily on our minds. The attacks in Ankara and Brussels are still fresh in our minds. Closer to home, a quick look at Malaysia, Indonesia and even ourselves, shows that the threat of domestic terrorism is real. The Jakarta bombings and the rounding up of 27 Bangladeshi foreign workers in January are sobering reminders of this new reality. The threats that Singapore faces are ever-changing, and our Home Team and SAF need to stay ahead of the curve to ensure that it is always, and they are always, prepared to deal with any threat of terrorism decisively.
In light of this, could the Minister provide an assessment of the key challenges faced by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) at present and those that it anticipates to arise in the near future? Also, how does the Ministry plan to transform and optimise its resources and workforce, including Home Team officers, National Servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen to meet these challenges?
At the same time, the Home Team also needs to provide the everyday services that we have come to expect and often taken for granted – the key role they play in protecting our communities, ensuring low crime rates, providing efficient and speedy responses in situations of emergencies and keeping our border secure. Surely, fulfilling all of these responsibilities will require more resources and manpower.
At present, I believe the biggest challenge facing our Home Team is how it will be able to provide a decisive and expedient response to terrorism. In order to effectively deal with the threat of terrorism on our shores and in the region, we need to have a strong and muscular response to these threats. While deterrence and detection are important pre-emptive tools in our arsenal that must be deployed to combat the threat of terrorism, we must be ready to decisively and resolutely deal with any threat of terrorism that might take place.
In this vein, our muscular response as a nation must be three-fold. First, we must possess strong and decisive security forces that are able to protect Singapore. Second, we must have a pro-active citizenry that is aware and vigilant of impending threats and that is ready to respond to these threats, united as a nation when threats manifest. Third, our security agencies must also continue to work closely with regional and international partners to effectively combat terrorism in the region and on a global scale.
In order to prepare Singapore to respond to any impending terrorist threat, the Government has conducted realistic, counter-terrorism exercises to stress-test how local authorities and the public would react and respond.
On this note, could the Minister highlight some key learning points from the conduct of these exercises and share further areas of improvement that could make our security forces more effective?
In light of the recent announcement regarding the launch of SG Secure by the Minister for Home Affairs just last month, it is heartening to know that the Government recognises the importance of the community's response to a potential attack. Could the Minister elaborate on what measures are being contemplated under SG Secure to unite Singaporeans and to safeguard the social fabric that we have so carefully and deliberately woven together as a nation?
I believe that SG Future must also be a platform for the Ministry to involve volunteers and community partners in its efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure. It is ultimately a whole-of-Singapore effort to counter the threat of terrorism as it is both our individual and shared responsibility to work hand-in-hand with the Government, local authorities and all Singaporeans to keep Singapore safe. And in the event that such threats do materialise, we have to emerge stronger, more united and more determined as Singaporeans and to fight back as one united Singapore.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): It is good that SG Secure recognises that security is about a whole-of-society approach and mindset. So, we need to start educating people from young, and throughout life, including in our schools.
Building social cohesion, racial and religious harmony and understanding − because values are caught, not just taught. Awareness of the environment: teaching everyone that security is never \"somebody else's problem\". If we see something suspicious, we have to let the authorities know. And also, emergency preparedness: important that we educate the public on what to do in an emergency. At a basic level, this can be taught in schools, with progressively more detailed teaching as students grow up.
I look forward to hearing the Ministry's inputs and plans on these issues.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): The threat of a terror attack on our soil is at the highest level that it has ever been. The Minister for Home Affairs had said that it is no longer a question of whether an attack will take place but when an attack will take place in Singapore. Such a firm and ominous statement is necessary to spark vigilance in the community. But aside from vigilance, there also needs to be strong bonds and trust so that vigilance does not develop into unwarranted suspicion and discrimination or, worse, resentment.
I appreciate that the Ministry has enhanced strategy and measures to counter these terror threats. In particular, I welcome the introduction of SG Secure which involves the community; where different groups of Singaporeans will be empowered and enabled to help Singapore stay alert, united and strong.
One unfortunate by-product of terror attacks that we have seen happen in other countries is Islamophobia. I think the fear that Islamophobia will creep into our community is real. I know Singaporeans are different. I have faith that, in general, the non-Muslim community in Singapore knows that Singaporean Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions and, hence, have no reason to distrust or be resentful of Muslims here. But there may be some who have unspoken doubts or questions about Islam and Muslims and, as the Minister has previously highlighted, people may be too politically correct to express their thoughts. The concern is that if we let these sentiments fester, it may grow into resentment and distrust. And some extreme few may take their feelings too far.
A crisis actually presents good opportunities. The community can rally efforts to have candid but respectful discussions to build relations amongst people from different races and religions. This may be an opportunity to learn more about each other and foster stronger bonds to counter terrorism together.
I would, therefore, like to ask the Ministry to elaborate on the key initiatives of SG Secure and whether there will be specific measures that will be taken to preserve and manage multiracial and multi-religious sensitivities in counter-terrorism messaging.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Chair, with SG Secure and the many initiatives being rolled out, I submit that building and commercial properties, such as shopping malls, which attract crowds and are of high risk for terrorist attacks, do more in the areas of building security. Currently, there are building safety codes as well as requirements by the Fire Safety Bureau. But can MHA, via appropriate legislation or regulations, mandate regular security and threat assessments and audits of such commercial premises and properties so that both safety and security are looked into?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chairperson, the scourge of terrorism does not appear to be going away anytime soon. As quickly as Al Qaeda affiliates, such as Jemaah Islamiyah, faded from the public eye in the decade or so after 9/11 and after the death of Osama bin Laden, the place appears to have been taken over by ISIS-inspired ideologues with shocking rapidity.
It is known that some individuals from Singapore, even our neighbouring countries, have sought to join ISIS in the Middle East and a lot of effort has been put in by Singapore to prevent not just its nationals, but Indonesian citizens, for example, from transiting through our borders to potentially join ISIS ranks.
Unlike the Jemaah Islamiyah movement, there appears to be different opinions with regard to the level of threat posed by ISIS in Southeast Asia. The Prime Minister, in his recent trip to the US, alluded to the fact that ISIS has a battalion-size Southeast Asian arm called Katibah Nusantara. An RSIS commentary last year also reported that about 30 different Southeast Asian groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS. The Executive Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies which organises the Shangri-La Dialogue in a recent Jane's Defence Weekly article was quoted to have said the threat of Katibah Nusantara seeking territory in Southeast Asia was exaggerated, even if there is some danger nonetheless. In addition, Katibah Nusantara does not appear in the media and in the public consciousness as often as Jemaah Islamiyah did previously.
Can the Minister share details about the evolution and threat posed by Katibah Nusantara and other groups aligned to ISIS and how it has impacted upon MHA's work and if there have been any differences in approach in dealing with such groups from the Jemaah Islamiyah experience? How can Singaporeans be inoculated against the deviant teachings of such groups? Has there been a requirement to increase the resources and manpower allocated to MHA as a result of this new wave of terrorism?
Finally, can the Ministry also share how the Ministry's upcoming SG Secure initiative will be different from its predecessor, the Community Engagement Programme, to better equip and prepare Singaporeans and foreign workers in this new environment of terrorism?
The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong, not here. Ms Sylvia Lim. Please take your two cuts together.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, first, the Ministry has set out its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the Budget documents. I would like to highlight and comment on a few of them for the Ministry to review in future.
First, the Home Team has a desired outcome of a safe and secure society where lives and property are protected. One of the KPIs is the number of overall crimes per 100,000 population. I would caution that this figure simply reflects the incidence of crimes reported to and recorded by the Police. It does not tell us about crimes that were not reported and it has been found in other countries that reporting rates are especially low for sexual assault and crimes committed by someone the victim knew well. Vulnerable groups, such as foreign workers, victims of domestic abuse and others, may be reluctant to seek Police help due to fear of repatriation, retaliation or distrust of the Police.
Official crime rates are also influenced by how the Police may reclassify cases. Furthermore, crime rates cannot be attributed to the Police alone. While Police action can reduce certain types of crime, other crimes are not preventable by Police actions and are a product of social and economic forces.
If the Ministry wishes to have a more accurate picture of the crime situation in Singapore, there needs to be an attempt to uncover unreported crime. This is done in other countries through national victimisation surveys, such as the British Crime Survey, where the population is asked about their experience with crime. Such a population survey should also cover why the crime victims did not report to the Police, thus helping the Police address any service gaps.
Another desired outcome of the Ministry is secure borders with efficient and legitimate flow of people, goods and conveyances. Under this outcome, the stated KPIs all relate to the legitimacy of inflows, for example, the number of offences detected and unauthorised vessels intercepted. There are no measures for the efficiency of flows. Would the Ministry be brave enough to introduce a measure of efficiency, for example, set a desired time limit within which to process an individual or vehicle through Woodlands or Tuas Checkpoint?
One final desired outcome to highlight is the secure and humane custody of prisoners. Again, the indicators emphasised on the security aspect only, for example, number of escapes, number of assault cases. What about measuring humane custody, which is equally important?
Next, I move on to manpower for security and enforcement. My cut is on manpower not just in our law enforcement agencies. It also covers the Auxiliary Police and civilian personnel doing law enforcement on behalf of some statutory boards, such as Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
As far as our State law enforcement agencies are concerned, much has already been said in recent years about the challenges faced by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). Currently, SPF is functioning at probably a very low police officer to population ratio of 170 officers per 100,000 population, and it is trying to leverage on technology, outsourcing and civilianising jobs to cope. What about the other law enforcement agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Singapore Prison Service? Do they face similar manpower challenges and how are they coping with them?
Next, I move on to the Auxiliary Police Forces, particularly CERTIS CISCO and AETOS, who are deployed islandwide. For this industry, only Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and Malaysians are eligible to apply. In our daily encounters with Auxiliary Police, we see a large presence of Malaysians in CERTIS and AETOS uniforms. During the Little India riot, quite a number of Auxiliary Police at the scene were Malaysians. What is the current proportion of Malaysians out of the total Police strength in these two Auxiliary Police Forces? Does the Government have any guidelines on the ratio of Malaysians to Singaporeans?
One officer recently told me that the ratio allowed is five Malaysians to one Singaporean and I wonder if that is true. Are there guidelines on any duty or assignments which must be done only by Singaporeans? For example, at the immigration checkpoints, are there Malaysians checking their fellow Malaysians, and what would the risk there be?
Lastly, I come to the civilian personnel being recruited to do law enforcement on behalf of certain statutory boards. I understand that CERTIS CISCO is the outsourced agent to do enforcement of traffic violations on behalf of LTA and URA. CERTIS has been recruiting many civilians for such tasks.
Recently, I came across one such recruit, an elderly gentleman around 60 and not in good health. According to him, he attended the recruitment interview and specifically requested that he be posted to do enforcement only for URA carpark violations as he assessed that there was less risk of confrontation with members of the public as compared with LTA traffic violations. To his surprise, the next day, he was deployed to a team to do enforcement of LTA violations. His worst fears were realised when there was, indeed, a confrontation with an irate motorist booked by his team who apparently chased after the enforcement team to dispute the booking. The gentleman was so traumatised by the incident that he did not return to work.
I do not know whether this gentleman's experience is an isolated incident or not. However, it raises the issue of how civilians are recruited and trained before they are deployed to face the public.
Even though such law enforcement has been outsourced to CERTIS, these civilians are exercising law enforcement powers and will affect the public. What role does the Government play in ensuring that such personnel are properly chosen and trained? What oversight role does the Government have?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Chair, the growing threat of terror poses significant challenges to our Home Team forces, already facing significant manpower constraints.
The pervasive use of technology has enabled workers of many industries to be productive over a longer period of time. For example, CCTVs have extended our Police officers' abilities to conduct surveillance over a broader area, which was not previously possible. The new security fields, such as cybersecurity and digital forensics, require technical expertise rather than physical conditioning.
Home Team officers are also like craftsmen. They polish their craft over time and they get better with age. For example, intelligence and immigration officers, critical in our fight against terrorism, develop ground networks and intuition in picking up would-be threats. These skills cannot be adequately institutionalised and are not easily transferable. Similarly, leadership gets better with experience. As an ex-Police officer of 14 years, we solved many cases because of the wisdom of my ground officers.
Singapore has extended our retirement and re-employment age because Singaporeans are healthy and productive even when they are older. I would like to ask if the Minister would consider, further to the changes in 2013, extending the retirement age of uniformed officers to 62 and allowing for optional early retirement at age 55. Re-employment can also be extended to age 62. This would ameliorate the Home Team's manpower constraints while retaining core expertise.
I personally know many proud Home Team men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving Singapore. Yet, when the time comes for them to retire, 55 or 60 years old is often too late to start a new career. In addition, our officers are marrying later and their children would only be in their late teens by their retirement age. This is a significant financial stress. Would Home Team face a leakage of talent as officers seek a longer career in other professions?
Regardless of job scope, physical conditioning and competency should decide their suitability to continue rather than a hard age-cap of 55 years old.
I would also like to ask the Minister what is the percentage of officers offered re-employment and what are the reasons some are not offered. I would also like to know how many retired officers have the Home Team helped to find new employment. In addition, how can we tap on our retired officers to continue the mission of defending our homeland?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): In this complex security climate where terrorism is a constant threat, we need to build a stronger and more integrated Home Team to tackle any security concerns Singapore faces.
There has been a slower pace of recruitment in the last 10 years. Home Team manpower has only grown by 5,000 officers in the past decade, from 19,300 to 24,700 in 2015.
In the 2015 Budget, there were plans to recruit another 2,000 officers to the Home Team. Will that target now be revised with the increased security risk that we face?
What plans does the Ministry have to ensure that we continue to attract members of the public to join the Home Team and ensure that we have sufficient Home Team staff members to carry out an increasing amount of work?
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Chair, Singapore recorded close to 47,000 births in the year 2000. The following decade saw a decline in birth rates and the number of babies born each year has remained low since. Between 2003 and 2005, fewer than 37,500 births were recorded each year. These cohorts would soon be enlisted for National Service in the coming years.
Full-time Police National Servicemen (PNSFs) play an important role in the day-to-day police operations. They are deployed to man the Neighbourhood Police Centres and Neighbourhood Police Posts. They also conduct frontline patrols in our neighbourhoods and our public transport system, together with their Regular colleagues. These PNSFs serve a critical function in our national security and safety, more so in today's security climate.
I would like to ask MHA what impact the declining number of PNSFs has had on police operations. What measures will the police take to ensure that the level of safety and security will not be compromised by this reduction in headcount?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Chair, as our country faces increasing threats and SPF wanting to enhance and stretch their capabilities to make Singapore safe and secure, there will be a need for more resources and manpower. However, with the tight labour market situation, I have four suggestions to make to alleviate this challenge.
First, I suggest we further extend the re-employment of Police officers from their current retirement and pensionable ages. I say this because there are officers I have spoken to who are eager to carry on but not given re-employment.
Second, we should invite back our ex-officers who have resigned and who may be keen to rejoin the service. These officers can perform a variety of roles, from investigation to intelligence work, as they are already trained and have experience.
Third, we can further enhance the productivity and effectiveness of the private security sector as they are the additional eyes and ears on the ground. Can we mandate the use of technology, analytics and biometrics, and MHA grant them full funding support to roll these out.
Fourth, given the nature of recent terrorist attacks and the difficulty in detecting lone wolves and, since both public and private organisations collate data, can the Government tap on such existing data platforms to enhance intelligence operations and investigations to tackle terrorism and heighten and increase productivity?
The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat, you have three cuts. Please take them together.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): First cut, Madam. The ills of gambling addiction are well documented. More often than not, the people who suffer the most are the family members, not the problem gamblers. This is made evident by the rising number of Family Exclusion orders issued for the two casinos. Such orders are initiated by family members to exclude a gambler in their family from the casinos if the gambler is unwilling to address his or her own addiction. The number of such orders issued rose from 149 in 2010 to well over 2,000 in 2015.
As more families are grappling with problem gambling, it does not make sense to see gambling outlets sprouting up in easy-to-access and family-oriented clubs at the same time.
The new SAFRA Punggol Clubhouse will open tomorrow. It boasts five enrichment centres for children aged three to 16 years old, the biggest preschool with an enrolment of up to 120 children, children-friendly facilities and a jackpot facility that opens daily from 10.00 am to 1.00 am, and up to 3.00 am on Friday, Saturday and eve of public holidays. How convenient can it get? You drop off your children for classes and go meet lady luck at the same location.
In a parliamentary reply in 2000 on the proliferation of betting outlets, the then Finance Minister said, \"The locations selected are reasonably far away from places where children will gather − schools, places of worship and so forth. Singapore Pools will exercise due care and not to place outlets at places where children might be attracted to.\"
If Singapore Pools is concerned about children getting exposed to betting activities at a tender age, should the clubhouses not be concerned, too?
Madam, it is one thing to operate a clubhouse with jackpot machines for families with young children to visit once in a while. It is another thing to have children going to the same clubhouse almost every day for preschool and enrichment classes. I urge the Ministry to exercise tighter control and management of jackpot licences for clubhouses, especially those with preschool and enrichment centre under one roof. Gambling and education certainly do not mix.
Second cut. Madam, in a reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister told the House that there were 61 persons convicted for failure to report a change of residential address within 28 days of the change to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) over a period of three years preceding 2015. In the same reply, the Minister added that such an offence is typically committed in furtherance of other criminal offences.
This is bad news for some new home owners. They will find out the hard way when threatening letters, hell notes, paint and graffiti start to appear at the doorstep of their house after they have moved in.
Madam, I do see a need for more safeguards to be put in place to prevent ex-owners of properties from using the old address in their NRICs to commit criminal offence and cause misery and stress to the new owners.
Although the House was told that ICA does work with HDB to inform property owners of the need for timely update of addresses during property sale transactions, I would like to propose that sellers must update their NRIC by the final appointment date or within seven days after that date to complete the sale of their flats.
For sellers who are still homeless at that point in time, I would like to propose that ICA accept personal representation by friends and relatives who are willing to house these sellers as evidence for reporting of change of address. This will allow the sellers to update their NRIC without the required documentation and complete the sale of their flats without further delay. This will also stop some sellers from using their old NRIC address to commit criminal offences going forward.
My third cut, Madam. We have in our society over 1,000 stateless people aged 50 and above. Some of these residents would have lived through those tumultuous years of nation-building. Many would have worked and contributed to the economy, and some of their children would have attended public schools. A good number of these residents still live in public rental flats. Some of them may belong to the Pioneer Generation as well, if only the colour of their identification card were pink.
Last year was our Jubilee Year and I wonder how these stateless people felt living in a country that does not recognise them as citizens despite some of them having lived here for as long as our nation has existed.
As SG50 came to a close, I was reminded of the stateless people I met in 2015. There was a resident with mobility issues. He told me his parents and siblings are all Singapore Citizens. He also said he has been receiving assistance from CDC since early 2000. For some unknown reason, he remains stateless.
Another father and daughter remain stateless in 2015 despite the father having worked for the Government and was allowed to buy a flat in the early days, according to the daughter. She said her entire family was born in Singapore.
Madam, many of these stateless residents are more Singaporean than the thousands of new immigrants who were granted citizenship each year. Some of the stateless residents have lived here all their lives. Some of their children or siblings have become citizens as well.
I asked a resident if it matters for his ageing mother, who is stateless, to become a citizen after all these years. Without hesitation, he said, \"Yes, it will make my mother very happy because she will have a sense of belonging finally.\"
Madam, could we not exercise a little more compassion as we embark to write the next chapter in our history and grant these stateless residents − 1,411 to be exact − the citizenship they so rightly deserve?
Mr Christopher de Souza: Over the years, I have personally met several residents in my constituency in Ulu Pandan who were born in Singapore, grew up here, were educated here, worked here, but have yet to be given Singapore citizenship. Instead, they are recorded as being stateless persons. A common theme that I have found among these individuals is that, often, it was their parents who did not register them for a birth certificate in Singapore.
Similarly, a recent news report recounted the experiences of a woman born and raised in Singapore who is a stateless person. In the report, she shared the many struggles that she has faced as a stateless person in Singapore, particularly in her working life, as well as in her personal relationships.
Indeed, being a stateless person must be a difficult and disheartening experience. Imagine being born in Singapore and having grown up alongside other Singaporeans who are no different from yourself. Yet, you cannot call yourself a Singaporean nor are you entitled to the privileges that a Singapore Citizen would be entitled to.
I would have thought that these individuals, born and bred in Singapore, are more deserving of consideration for Singapore citizenship, as compared to new citizens. In response to a recent Parliamentary Question, the Minister for Home Affairs shared that, as of January 2016, there were 1,411 stateless persons living in Singapore. He highlighted that many of these individuals have come from other countries to live and work in Singapore for long periods of time and had lost their foreign citizenship. Others were born in Singapore but were not eligible for Singapore citizenship at birth as their parents were not Singapore citizens at the time of their birth and did not obtain foreign citizenship for them from their home countries. As a result, they are considered stateless and are without a country to call their own.
In 2013, it was revealed that between 2003 and 2012, about 500 to 600 stateless persons applied for Singapore citizenship every year. While about 91% of these applications were successful in eventually obtaining Singapore citizenship, there are still many stateless persons born in Singapore who fall through the cracks and are unable to obtain Singapore citizenship. These individuals have grown up in Singapore, often having lived their whole lives here, yet they remain unrecognised as Singapore Citizens. Many of these stateless individuals are Singaporeans all but in name.
In light of this, would the Minister consider taking a compassionate view regarding these individuals by reviewing the criteria and process for stateless persons who were born in Singapore or who have lived for a significant portion of their lives in Singapore to obtain Singapore citizenship?
While proper safeguards must be put in place to prevent any abuse of the process, I believe that compassion and acceptance must go hand-in-hand with pragmatism in ensuring that our own are not neglected or forgotten.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, prisoners pay for their crimes by spending time behind bars, sometimes many years, and even a life time. Prisoners, first, have to adapt themselves to prison life. This involves stressful and difficult adjustments to a strict institutional routine, deprivation of privacy and living in sparse conditions. After the initial phase, prisoners often undergo a personal transformation to adapt to prison life which carries traits, such as hyper-vigilance, over-controlling one's emotions to avoid showing vulnerability, such as social withdrawal and isolation. These are well researched. On a personal level, prisoners may feel guilt and helplessness towards their families and it is not uncommon to see divorce papers being served on inmates.
The Singapore Prison Service has committed itself to being captains of lives. They are doing an admirable and difficult job and should be well supported. As prisoners are incarcerated as punishment and not for punishment, their stay in jail should, as far as possible, be spent constructively for rehabilitation and eventual release and reintegration into society. I have two concerns. The first, on psychological support for inmates, and, second, on inmates' use of time.
First, psychological support. What is the policy or approach towards the mental health needs of inmates, whether dealing with pre-existing conditions or issues developed during incarceration? What sort of mental health professionals work full time in our prisons? Is there a ratio of mental health professionals to inmates? Do the prison officers who manage inmates have compulsory training in mental health issues?
There has been an IMH Singapore Prison Service Psychiatric Housing Unit set up since 2011. How many inmates have sought treatment there? And are there patients with pre-existing mental conditions or mental needs that developed during incarceration?
Second, inmates' use of time. According to statistics from the Singapore Prison Service, the number of inmates engaged in training programmes dropped by 345 from 2014 to 2015. Similarly, the number of inmates engaged in work programmes also dropped by 180 from 2014 to 2015. Is there a reason for the drop? The SCORE annual report notes that of the inmates deemed employable in 2014, only 81% were engaged in work programmes. I have a few questions here.
First, what is the status of the other 19% of inmates? Second, how were inmates selected for training and work programmes? Third, how is the employability of inmates determined? Fourth, what other programmes are in place for inmates who are considered unemployable, to keep them meaningfully occupied?
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): In the 2016 Budget Book, recidivism, the percentage of discharged criminal offenders who go on to re-offend, is estimated to rise to 28% in 2016, from 26.8% in 2015.
When someone who has served his/her debt to society for a crime goes on to re-offend, not only is it a loss to that person and his/her family members and friends, but it is also a loss to society. That re-offender could have become a productive contributor to our economy and society. In Singapore, we have examples of ex-offenders who have become entrepreneurs, professionals and even religious leaders. In this regard, I suggest we examine the role that social impact bonds can play in funding innovative programmes that help rehabilitate ex-offenders into society and keep recidivism at bay.
The idea of a social impact bond can be summarised as follows, at the risk of some oversimplification. Investors put up money to buy the bond. The bond stipulates that a certain social impact target must be met after some years by an NGO or NGO-coalition, perhaps working in concert with public sector partners. If at the end of the bond period the target is met, the Government redeems the bond. If not, then the investors lose their investment and their investment becomes akin to a donation. If the goal is reached, the state ensures that its funds are impactful and well spent.
Anti-recidivism is a popular subject for social impact bonds because the social impact and the cost to the state can be measured very clearly. In fact, the very first social impact launched by the British government in 2010 was for prisoner rehabilitation. States in Australia and the US have launched or planned to launch social impact bonds around this theme as well.
I urge the Home Team to consider issuing a social impact bond to better target funds and spur innovation for rehabilitation and anti-recidivism programmes. Such a move could also spark more interest in and acceptance of social impact bonds in Singapore, which would benefit the social landscape here and help unlock more innovative and result-focused approaches in tackling social challenges.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: In the past three years, over 60% of drug abusers arrested are repeat offenders. This is a worrying trend. For repeat offenders, there is impact not only on the drug offenders, but also their family members who have already suffered previously. There is a tremendous emotional and financial strain on the spouse and the children of drug offenders.
I have seen a few cases now in Nee Soon East and some have been arrested and sent back to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) more than twice now.
I fully appreciate that it is difficult to fight their addiction. However, with such high numbers of repeat offenders, are there any plans to improve the rehabilitation process at our DRCs and the employability of ex-drug offenders when they are released? Will additional resources be provided to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) to expand and increase their efforts?
Mr Christopher de Souza: It is often said that when a person is released from prison, they enter another prison. This is because while they might be free from the physical state of imprisonment, the released person still faces the \"second prison\" of discrimination and being ostracised in society, possibly. This discrimination, more often than not, leads to them not being able to break free of the vicious cycle of crime or to become gainfully employed.
Indeed, over the years, the Government has taken several progressive steps to help released persons to reintegrate back into society. For example, the introduction of the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme under the amended Prisons Act has facilitated the gradual rehabilitation and reintegration of released persons back into society after their release.
Similarly, the amendments to the Registration of Criminals Act in 2005 – to allow released persons, who have criminal records that had been spent, to be deemed to have no record of their conviction – prevents their past mistakes from prejudicing their future.
On this note, could the Minister elaborate on whether there are any new programmes or initiatives that will be introduced to help released persons to reintegrate back into society?
While existing measures have tried to bridge the gap and help released persons break free of the cycle of re-offending, more can still be done to help them to become gainfully employed as part of their reintegration into society.
The discrimination that these individuals face from society when they are unemployed or are unable to obtain employment can be detrimental to their rehabilitation. In fact, this may serve to undermine any progress that they might have made after being released and could actually push them towards re-offending.
In light of this, to help these individuals break free − and assuming they want to break free − of the cycle of re-offending, today, I ask the Government whether it will lead the way in providing employment opportunities for released persons. They could do so by employing released persons in non-sensitive positions within the Civil Service, on a probationary basis. Would the Minister consider this worthy proposal to provide a much needed boost to these released persons? And should the released person show himself or herself to be a trustworthy and diligent individual, would the Government confirm him as an employee?
This will provide them with an avenue to redeem themselves, give them a sense of self-esteem and also serve as an incentive for them to turn over a new leaf and reduce recidivism. I firmly believe that we must continue to build a passionate society here in Singapore that seeks to welcome back our brothers and sisters who are on that arduous journey of rehabilitation and reconciliation. And we must recognise that an important milestone along that journey is providing them with the opportunity to become gainfully employed and to be able to support themselves and their loved ones.
If a released person is willing to make amends for his mistakes and is ready to turn over a new leaf, we, as a community, must be ready to support them in their rehabilitation, assist in their reintegration into society and welcome them back into the community fold with warm and open arms.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Chair, the Singapore Prison service and SCORE have been rolling out the Yellow Ribbon Project for a while. Can SCORE and the Singapore Prison Service share what is the placement rate of ex-offenders the past five years when they are released from incarceration? I ask this because, with a very tight labour market situation and as we look at how to minimise our unemployment rate, what more is MHA doing to help in the employment facilitation of these ex-offenders! Different inmates spend different periods of time incarcerated and, as such, different employment facilitation and skills acquisition strategies are needed to better place them in meaningful employment when they are released from prison or DRCs.
The Chairman: Dr Tan Wu Meng, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Dr Tan Wu Meng: A fair and just society is one that offers second chances, so that Singaporean brothers and sisters who stumble and fall can have the chance to pick themselves up.
Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a community to integrate an ex-offender back into society. And finding work and stable employment is key to this rehabilitation journey.
I have met residents in my constituency who were previously incarcerated. Upon being released, their first instinct was to look for jobs in the security industry, based on recommendations from friends, and perceptions of their prospects. But we can imagine that this was not always feasible.
Can the Minister give an update on how the SCORE programme is helping offenders? Can it be more closely integrated with skills training and SkillsFuture to expand employment opportunities for ex-offenders who remain our Singaporean brothers and sisters?
Moving upstream, Mdm Speaker, to another scourge − drugs. We see globalisation is not just about goods and services. Media and culture have become globalised, too. Value systems can be exported to Singapore from halfway around the world.
Nowadays, Singaporeans increasingly have opportunities to study overseas and they can be exposed to new cultures. Some of it is positive, learning from other countries. But we also see some young students being exposed to overseas drug culture. The Home Team must continue stepping up education efforts at all levels, especially in our schools, so that young Singaporeans can be further inoculated against the globalisation of the drug culture.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): The number of cases of youth drug abuse has been increasing. In 2015, almost 70% of the new drug abusers arrested were below the age of 30.
\"Ice\" or methamphetamine and heroin are the most commonly abused drugs. \"Ice\" is more popular amongst young drug abusers who have the misconception that it is less harmful and less addictive than heroin. Youths who abuse heroin often do not fully understand the damage they are inflicting on themselves.
\"Ice\" appears deceptively harmless as it has short-term upsides with delayed, long-term damage to the abuser. Upon consumption, ice acts as a stimulant and causes the user to feel more energetic. It also decreases appetite. Young drug abusers use \"ice\" as a party drug, to improve performance in studies or sports and to lose weight. However, \"ice\" has debilitating long-term effects, such as liver, brain and heart damage, leading to strokes and even death.
According to the CNB report in 2015, there have been signs of an increasingly tolerant attitude towards drugs, especially amongst youths. Such attitudes could have been influenced by the legalisation of marijuana in several states in the US for medical and recreational use. However, Singapore has always had a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs and I believe that we should continue to do so.
Would the Ministry share with us what are the specific reasons for the rising number of youth abusers in Singapore —
The Chairman:\tMr Gan, can you please conclude your speech?
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: — and the preventive measures that CNB is putting in place to reach out to our youths? I would also like to know if the CNB has any other plans to address the issue.
Mr Desmond Choo: Thanks to CNB, the drug situation in Singapore is under control. However, amongst new drug abusers, nearly 70% are below the age of 30. This is worrying. According to CNB, cannabis has become the second most abused drug amongst first-time drug abusers. Counsellors noted a trend of growing acceptance amongst youths towards cannabis.
Currently, if a youth is arrested for drug abuse, he will be placed in drug rehabilitation programmes that last up to 36 months. I would like to ask the Minister what is the rate of recidivism amongst these youths.
Apart from preparing an online anti-drug toolkit for educators and parents, how would CNB take the anti-drug battle online and in a more targeted fashion? Could the authorities work with youth groups, grassroots leaders and entertainment outlet operators to extend our outreach to spread awareness of the danger of cannabis abuse? Would CNB also need to enhance its capabilities to reverse this trend?
The Chairman:Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Our tough drug laws have kept Singapore largely free of drugs. More importantly, Singapore's zero-tolerance approach towards drugs has contributed towards keeping crime low and has been effective in deterring organised drug syndicates from operating in Singapore.
However, more can still be done to further reduce the demand for drugs in Singapore, especially among our youth. Could the Minister outline how the Ministry has implemented the recommendations of the Task Force on youths and drugs in the past year and what further steps, if any, that the Ministry intends to take to arrest the increase in the number of new and young drug abusers in Singapore?
Incarceration in DRCs and deterrent punishments are important, but I also believe that if we are able to stem the use of drugs through effective rehabilitation while in DRC, we would be able to reduce the demand for drugs and, ultimately, reduce the number of drug abusers in Singapore in the longer term.
Effective rehabilitation can be achieved by ensuring that DRCs are places where inmates are provided with counselling and psychological intervention and are encouraged to find healthy pursuits, such as exercise, reading and vocational training, to replace and usurp the \"memory zone\" of drugs. Furthermore, families play a crucial role in helping these inmates not to return to drugs upon their release. Perhaps DRCs could do more to teach families how to distract inmates post-release, so that they have little time or room to yearn for drugs and relapse.
Yes, we need tough laws; yes, we need deterrence; yes, we need incarceration. But in order to reduce recidivism in earnest, we need genuine efforts to facilitate rehabilitation. Not \"go through motion\" efforts but sincere, long-term efforts to rehabilitate those that might have gone astray. These rehabilitative efforts can be done in DRCs as well as post-release.
Further, in January 2016, the Minister for Home Affairs had noted in this House that there had been a worrying trend of a rising number of cannabis abusers in Singapore, with more than half of those arrested below 30 years of age. He had highlighted a study done that showed that many young cannabis abusers held the view that \"cannabis is a soft drug, and that the harms and addictiveness of cannabis were less serious than tobacco\". Incidentally, I disagree with that. This has been attributed to inaccurate information being circulated on social media, as well as the increasing number of states in the United States that have legalised cannabis for so-called \"medical\" and recreational use.
In light of this, would the Minister provide an update on the effectiveness of on-going preventive drug education efforts by CNB to correct misconceptions about cannabis abuse and to reiterate Singapore's zero-tolerance stance towards drugs? Further, could the Minister outline what steps are being taken to reverse this troubling increase in the number of cannabis and young cannabis abusers in Singapore?
If there is a concerted and united effort from all Singaporeans to work towards a drug-free Singapore, we will be able to win the fight against drugs; an on-going war. After all, reducing drug recidivism means another life saved – another husband, wife or child saved; a reduction of demand for the drugs and, ultimately, a lower supply of drugs into Singapore.
In recent years, the nature of crime in Singapore has evolved and changed dramatically. With Singapore's high Internet and mobile penetration rates, cybercrime has been on a steady rise. We are witnessing a worrying trend towards more Singaporeans, especially the elderly, falling victim to online scams and cybercrime as syndicates and individuals continue to exploit the speed, convenience and anonymity of the Internet to commit these crimes.
In the Annual Crime Brief 2015 released by SPF in February 2016, it was reported that the overall crime rate in Singapore increased by 4%. This has been credited largely to the rise in online commercial crimes which increased by a troubling 46.5% from 2014 to 2015, with almost all other classes of crime registering a decrease in the number of cases.
It is likely that these changes will continue in the years to come; as such, there is a need for the Home Team to adapt to these changes quickly and to have tools to effectively deal with this threat head-on.
In light of this, could the Minister outline what steps have been, or are being taken, to adapt our Home Team to deal with the growing threat of cybercrime in Singapore? Furthermore, could the Minister outline what more can be done to raise awareness among the community about the dangers of cybercrime, especially among the youth and the elderly who tend to be more vulnerable to such crimes?
As the nature of crime continues to evolve in Singapore, cybersecurity is also an emerging concern. Around the world, both governments and the private sector have been the target of cyberattacks. As a result, sensitive personal and corporate information have been stolen and infiltrated systems damaged due to cybersecurity attacks.
In January 2016, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) announced that a new Cyber Security Bill would be introduced to enhance the powers of the Cyber Security Agency. Could the Minister provide an update on when this Bill will be introduced, and what measures will be included in the Bill to address the growing threat of cybercrimes and cyberattacks in Singapore?
Lastly, due to the nature of cybercrime, there has also been a shift towards crime becoming increasingly cross-border in nature. To address this, there is a need for the Government to work closely with international organisations like INTERPOL and other ASEAN members to effectively detect and deal with transnational cybercrimes in the region. These partnerships will provide our Home Team with the capabilities to deal with cross-border crimes more effectively. Ultimately, we must ensure that the Home Team has the resources, wherewithal, capabilities and drive to deal with cybercrime effectively, especially those crimes with cross-border elements or cross-border accomplices.
The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong. Not here. Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mdm Chair, cybercrime is a unique problem of our 21st century digital economy and our digital world. Criminal masterminds can hide outside our borders while making use of local henchmen to take advantage of unsuspecting Singaporeans. So, we should continue stepping up Home Team co-operation with their counterparts overseas to improve information sharing.
We also need to continue educating our fellow Singaporeans on how to protect themselves from cybercrime. More elderly are going online. More are learning how to use smartphones and smartphone applications that allow them to communicate with friends and strangers near and afar. But it also means that more seniors are becoming vulnerable to targeting by scams and cybercrime. I look forward to hearing the Ministry's proposed responses to this emerging challenge.
Mr Desmond Choo: Last year, online credit-for-sex scam cases increased 1,723%, resulting in a loss of $2.9 million. Internet love scams increased by 93.4%, resulting in a loss of $12 million. This is a worrying trend that requires immediate attention. Both enhanced awareness and enforcement are needed. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and the Police have launched a nationwide anti-scam public education campaign, with roadshows, exhibitions and commercials. These efforts are commendable. What is the profile of the victims? How would the Ministry assess the impact of this campaign and what enhancements are needed to stem the tide?
Would the Ministry also consider working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and People's Association to extend its outreach? I would also like to ask the Minister, how would the Ministry enhance the capabilities of the Police to effectively enforce against the perpetrators?
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Melvin Yong and I are the local Members of Parliament taking care of the residents of Little India. We wish to speak on behalf of our residents to ensure that the Little India riot of December 2013 will not happen again, the riot being the worst public disorder in Singapore in more than 40 years.
We are thankful for the post-riot recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) regarding alcohol restrictions, beefing up of Police operations and patrols and the decentralisation of crowds to recreation centres in the rest of Singapore.
Recently, I was at Little India with Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam and members of the Police Force. It was obvious that the pre-riot crowds have returned to Little India. Madam, congregations of such high density are walking time-bombs and public disorder incidents waiting to happen. It is important that we do not take our eyes off this matter, lest we want history to repeat itself. I, hence, wish to ask for the Minister's update of his plans in regard to this matter. I also ask for his favourable consideration of the following suggestions:
(a) Form a high-level multi-agency task force to mitigate the security and dis-amenity risks of high congestion of visitors to Little India;
(b) Ring-fence the communal areas of residents, such as the playgrounds and void decks so that the old and the young get to use the space meant for them;
(c) Continue with and do not stop resourcing the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry viz-a-viz alcohol consumption restrictions and patrol teams;
(d) Decentralise further by building more recreation centres outside Little India; and
(e) Engage regularly, through planned dialogues, with all key stakeholders, the foreign workers, agents, businesses and residents.
The contributions of the foreign workers benefit our entire nation as they help build much of our nation's infrastructure. We need them and we accept that foreign workers, like the rest of us, have social and leisure needs, amongst other needs. The issue is not a Little India locality issue. It is a national issue that can only be solved by carefully balancing the needs of all stakeholders – the workers, residents, businesses and the rest of Singapore.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chair, I receive regular feedback from residents about the many heavy vehicles travelling along the roads within Mountbatten constituency. Many of these heavy trucks carry soil, sand and other debris heading towards the staging site located behind Fort Road.
Unfortunately, these heavy vehicles travel at fast speeds and do not keep to their lanes. I have personally seen on several occasions how they speed and how they occupy all three lanes along the road. Such driving behaviour poses a danger to other road users, especially when the vehicles are heavy trucks. Residents also complain that on many occasions, the heavy vehicles are not properly covered. As a result, the roads become dirty due to soil falling off from the trucks.
Mdm Chair, I have also received complaints from residents about drivers of sports cars using East Coast Parkway and Mountbatten Road as a speeding track on weekends and late at night. Despite my many appeals to Traffic Police to carry out enforcement, the traffic situation, unfortunately, has not improved.
May I ask the Minister how else can Traffic Police work with the heavy vehicle owners and the heavy vehicle drivers to encourage compliance with traffic rules and to promote road safety among other road users? For cars which are speeding or racing, can we install speed cameras to deter speeding which is dangerous for all road users?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan:\tMdm Chair, I am aware both Traffic Police and LTA have been mounting efforts to enhance traffic safety near schools and raise safety awareness amongst the young. Besides school zones, enforcement rounds, education efforts, parent volunteers and red regulating and warning strips, what more can SPF, in particular, Traffic Police, do to mitigate the risk and dangers as it is not just schools that are of concern but also roads within close proximity of places where children gather and wander, such as childcare centres, enrichment centres and play facilities? This also happens in my constituency, Boon Lay, and I am particularly concerned as well.
The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I thank the hon Members who have given valuable comments.
Mdm Chair, 2015 was especially challenging and intense for the Home Team. Our tempo of operations was very high. But despite the challenging environment and the very substantial number of major events, I think what we can say, looking back over the year, is that crime has remained under control. The unlicensed moneylending situation hit a 10-year low. Drug abuse and recidivism rates are stable. Road safety, immigration offending and the fire safety situation are all stable.
Ms Sylvia Lim made a number of points about KPIs and I thank her for her comments. What the Home Team does on the ground and what is achieved must obviously go beyond what is in the Budget Book. And they do. The KPIs reflect some broad measures which we published. In addition, we have internal measures, norms, surveys and also references to serious international benchmarks, which help us achieve our aims and provide a framework for measuring performances, which is important. All of these, taken together, must lead to the answer to a very basic question: what is the trust and public support that the Home Team agencies, Home Team officers enjoy in Singapore? That is the most fundamental question.
Our most recent safety and security survey was carried out in 2014 and 90% of Singaporeans felt safe in their neighbourhoods. I think no Singaporean will really question that because we know whether we feel safe or we do not feel safe in Singapore.
Globally, the 2015 Gallup Global Law and Order Report ranked Singapore first out of 141 countries. This was on people's sense of safety in their neighbourhoods and their confidence in the police force. Nine in 10 respondents in Singapore said they felt safe walking home alone at night. Again, I think that is reflective of the way we all feel.
Specifically, Ms Lim made the point that there may be some under-reporting of crimes. I accept this possibility. In particular, I accept that victims of sexual offences may sometimes be unwilling to report and there could be a variety of reasons for this: fear, in a situation of power imbalance, particularly when the victim is young and knows the offender. And I accept that these victims need to be helped. Our sense is that, in general, in terms of the statistics, the under-reporting is unlikely to make a significant difference to what we have set out as the crime statistics, but we must help those who do not report out of fear.
We have undertaken another major review of our criminal processes and criminal laws in general. That review will look at these issues. As I have said before, we do these reviews regularly. A couple of months ago, I asked for such a review to be done. I will ask my officers to consider, in the context of the review, the points made by Ms Lim, including the possibility of surveys to establish the level of under-reporting.
Our own sense, as I have said, is that in Singapore, at least, given the levels of education, the concerns about the Police or fears about the system are unlikely to be major reasons for under-reporting, and classification is a matter of assessment, but I think the point is, at this stage, worth looking at.
Ms Lim also asked about measuring checkpoint efficiency. At our checkpoints, we track efficiency as an internal measure. It is important that we turnaround travellers quickly, for Singaporeans and also because we are an international tourist destination. But, of course, efficiency will not be pursued at the expense of security. It is a balance. How we get the balance right depends on our assessment of the threats, which can vary from time to time, and the overall general situation.
Moving on to the topic of terrorism, Mr Singh asked about the nature of the threat of terrorism. I have explained this in recent speeches on terrorism, including how, in terms of scale, network, finances and propaganda, ISIS poses a far graver threat than Al Qaeda ever was. That is our own serious assessment based on available information. Many experts agree with that assessment. For example, Sidney Jones, Director of Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, said that the January attacks in Jakarta \"may be a harbinger of more violence to come\" and that ISIS \"has already transformed the terrorism threat in Indonesia\".
But as Mr Singh pointed out, there are some who have said that the threat is exaggerated. After Paris, Jakarta and Brussels, all within five months of each other, I think Members will agree we cannot take that approach, that since some experts think that the threat is exaggerated, therefore, we do not have to take the threat seriously. We have to step up measures.
Mr Singh specifically asked about Katibah Nusantara. I have spoken about this. Returning foreign fighters, such as those from Katibah Nusantara, pose a particular threat, a serious threat. They are battle-hardened with combat skills, violent tendencies and extremist ideology and completely intent on perpetrating violence. Katibah Nusantara issues videos in Malay, aimed squarely at the Malay populations in this region. They are very serious. In Malaysia, in the last year, more than 100 people have been arrested, including commandos, police officers, military officers, civil servants, because of their allegiance to ISIS or terrorist leanings. At least one plot was disabled a few hours before it was to be carried out, right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.
Some Members have asked how we will deal with this heightened terror threat. My Ministry will significantly enhance our counter-terrorism efforts in three areas.
One, strengthen the protection of hard and soft targets and take other measures, including enhancing the video camera network around Singapore.
Two, enhance our security response capabilities to respond quickly and effectively to any attack.
Three, strengthen our community response through a new national movement which we will call SG Secure.
Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to have a whole-of-society mindset in security and to start young. This is important. The community has always played an important role in keeping Singapore safe and secure. Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin will speak more about our partnerships with the community.
SG Secure will build on the foundation we have set so far as part of the Community Engagement Programme (CEP). It will try to take the CEP to a new level. We will seek to empower the community to stay alert, stay united and stay strong in the face of the terrorist threats. But, ultimately, SG Secure cannot just be a public awareness campaign. It will be a call to action. It will build on what we have achieved through the CEP.
CEP was focused on maintaining and enhancing social cohesion and harmony. SG Secure will be larger in scope and scale in its outreach. It will have a sharper focus on vigilance and on preparing the community to respond appropriately to potential threats. The success depends on the community responding to the call, though we intend to do everything we can to bring it to the community. We will roll out programmes which seek to touch almost every section of our society − on awareness, on responses and on coming together, if there is an attack.
Mr Singh also asked how the Home Team assesses if an individual has been radicalised and how Singaporeans can be inoculated against extremist teachings. We draw the line quite clearly on support for terrorist groups like ISIS. For example, we have taken action against those who sell ISIS flags. We have taken action against those who propagate ISIS' ideology. And those who intended to go to fight in conflict zones, we have taken action against them as well.
Our experience, and the global experience, is that radicalisation is a process that can happen without forewarning, and very quickly, in a matter of a month in some cases. We make an assessment of an individual – his motivations, actions, personality and character. What danger does he pose to society and to the country? We need to be alert even to the slightest indication of danger and take action and leave no one in doubt as to where we stand.
Mr Singh said that other countries ‒ I think he mentioned Bangladesh ‒ perhaps had taken a more nuanced view and, indeed, they do. I want to dwell on this a bit because it is a very important point. Let us take a few examples of countries which have taken a different approach from us.
Let us start with Belgium. For years, they allowed hate speech, in the name of civil liberties. That has contributed to the situation that you have in Belgium today. I am not saying solely, but it certainly has contributed. Other reasons – you have ghettos, you have significant under-employment or unemployment – but the key is the spread of ideology, free and unfettered, in a permissive environment because many of those who get involved are not unemployed, they are highly-educated and well-employed.
If you then turn to the UK ‒ and I want to refer to this article – not so much to assert the truth of it from the BBC but more to indicate if we had such a situation ‒ how would we deal with it? Almost like, if I were to give you a situation, how would Singapore deal with it?
It is about a gentleman by the name of Masood Azhar, a Pakistani. He was a VIP guest of Britain's leading Islamic scholars. He went to Britain in 1993 for a lecture, and I quote, \"When one of the world's most important jihadist leaders landed at Heathrow Airport on 6 August 1993, a group of Islamic scholars from Britain's largest mosque network was there to welcome him. The visiting preacher was Masood Azhar. Today, he is wanted by the Indian authorities following the attack on the Pathankot military base in January this year.\"
A BBC investigation revealed an astounding insight into the way in which hardcore jihadist ideology was promoted in some mainstream UK mosques in the early 1990s and involved some of Britain's most senior Islamic scholars. He addressed the students and teachers, telling them that a substantial proportion of the Koran had been devoted to \"killing for the sake of Allah\" and that a substantial volume of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad were on the issue of jihad. He spoke on \"the divine promise of victory to those engaged in jihad\". And he told students, \"You should prepare for jihad without any delay, you should get jihadist training from wherever you can and we are also ready to offer our services\" and so on and so forth.
In Britain, that passes for free speech. We will not allow that. So, there are different approaches. If such a person came to Singapore, first of all, he would have been prevented from coming to Singapore; and, second, if he said those things here, he would be arrested and deported. If a Singaporean said these things, he would be advised not to say them and, if he continued, he would be detained. So, it is a different approach.
Let us turn to Bangladesh. The 27 men we deported possessed material on them on silent killing, on jihadist propaganda and how to engage in jihad. They were not thinking of doing it in Singapore, they were discussing it generally. There can be a time gap between thinking about these things and actually carrying them out somewhere. Bangladesh was prepared to put 13 of them on surveillance while detaining the others.
For us, these were 27 foreign workers. We made a security assessment. The question is whether we allow them to stay or ask them to leave. So, it is different question from Bangladesh which has got to deal with its own citizens. For us, they are foreign workers. Do we, say, 13 of them, we put on some sort of surveillance and expend our resources, or do we ask all 27 to leave? I think the acid test will be this question if I were to pose it to Members, \"How many of your residents will be happy if I put 13 of them in foreign workers' dorms in your constituency? Would you rather have them in Singapore or out of Singapore?\" I think those are the questions for us.
Supposing they were 27 Singaporeans, then we make distinctions. We look at who is likely to pose a serious and imminent threat and a Detention Order will be made under the Internal Security Act against them. The rest ‒ and we have done that frequently over the years ‒ if we believe that they have extremist leanings but they are quite far removed from actually carrying out or doing something, we advise them, we may put them on a Restraining Order. So, they are free to move around but with some restrictions. So, that is the difference. We treat our citizens differently but, when they are foreign workers, we ask them to leave for obvious reasons.
And if we look at Indonesia, for example, again, the differences in approach. Four Indonesians recently came through, including a 15-year-old boy. ICA did it quite well, we picked them up and we realised that they were going to go off to the Middle East to fight. So, we handed them over to the Indonesian authorities. In Singapore, they would have been subjected to the Internal Security Act. No questions. But the Indonesians have released them. They are free to go around, thinking of more things to do and, perhaps, making further attempts to get to the Middle East. Again, difference in approach.
The reason I have set out our position quite comprehensively on this is that we need to be guided by our assessment of what is and is not safe for Singapore. If other countries wish to treat would-be terrorists in a different way, they do so taking the consequences of their decisions. For example, two of the suicide bombers who took part in the recent Jakarta attacks had just been released from prison.
In Singapore, when we pick them up, we make an assessment and we do not release them until we believe that they have been rehabilitated. Because a release before rehabilitation means that they may perpetrate more crimes and, in Indonesia, the cost of their decision to release was the blood of innocents. That is the cost that societies take. It does not mean that when we release, we can always be absolutely sure that the person will not get back to his ways. It may happen. There is always a risk, but, at least, we do not need to release until we have made that assessment.
I agree with Ms Rahayu Mahzam that we also have to exercise sensitivity in the way we do the messaging, making it clear that our fight is against extremism and violence and not against any particular race, ethnicity or religion. Indeed, the Government, through my speeches as well as the speeches of others, has made that absolutely plain. And, in fact, we have emphasised the responsibility that the majority in Singapore have to make sure that there is social cohesion, harmony and peace. We have to make it clear that our fight is against extremism and violence and not against any particular religion. We have to stay united, instead of being divided. We have to take a collective stand against those who threaten our harmony and way of life and do all we can to protect the multi-racial and multi-religious soul of Singapore.
Mr Patrick Tay spoke about the need to better tap on existing data and platforms to support our counter-terrorism operations. In this heightened threat environment, we have to use all available resources at our disposal to detect and respond to threats.
The Home Team will use all intelligence and investigation tools available and make better use of available data, for example, public transport video cameras and the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. These contain important data that can be vital to our safety and security. We had initially taken the position that some of these data would not be used. And I have said so in Parliament. Mr Mah Bow Tan and Dr Yaacob Ibrahim had all said that in the past. But the changed security environment means that we have to change the position on not using such data. I wish to state that clearly here, since it is a change from what we had said previously in Parliament.
In this changed security environment, the Home Team must be able to collect and analyse suspicious travel patterns and respond swiftly and decisively, for our collective security. If we do not rely on the existing data, then we have to spend taxpayers' money to redo the entire infrastructure to look at how people move because that is one of the ways in which you will now analyse its patterns, apart from other data.
The fight against terrorism must begin, must be fought, beyond our borders as well. Mr de Souza pointed out that effective regional and international partnerships are key. We have strong reciprocal intelligence and information exchanges with our foreign counterparts. In June 2015, we signed a comprehensive MOU on counter-terrorism with Australia. We have also strengthened legislation to enable quick and effective action against terrorism and terrorism financing, and we have enhanced our international cooperation capabilities. However, even with our best efforts, we cannot rule out the possibility of an attack in Singapore.
Let me now talk about the growing demands on the Home Team. Over the next 10 to 15 years, four major developments will have a profound impact on the complexity and volume of work that the Home Team handles.
First, our greying population. This will change a lot of the work that we do. For example, emergency ambulance calls have increased by about 5% annually for the past five years. At this rate, the volume of calls will easily double in 15 years and it is likely that it will not grow at a standard 5% rate as our population ages quickly.
Second, our traveller and cargo volumes are growing. Last year, our land checkpoints handled close to 400,000 travellers per day. At Changi Airport, we expect the volume of travellers to increase by up to 50% in 10 years – from 120,000 per day to 180,000 travellers per day.
Third, the Home Team now has to confront new manifestations of crime. In 2015, a rise in cybercrime led to an overall rise in the crime rate in Singapore. And most of these are committed from abroad. Given technological advancements, we can expect the volume and complexity of cybercrimes to grow. Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee will say more about this.
Fourth, public expectations. They are growing and, in some situations, the way some people treat our officers is unacceptable. We have observed an increasing trend of hurt and verbal abuse towards Home Team officers. They have been threatened, insulted, punched, kicked and bitten. Last year, 344 such cases were reported, about one case every single day. We will take firm action against such abusive persons, including prosecuting them and pressing for stiff sentences.
All these factors increase the workload on the Home Team. As it is, our overall manning levels are not high. We only have 170 Police officers per 100,000 population, which is quite low, compared to other cities like London, New York and Hong Kong. There will be limits to how many more ambulance crews, immigration officers or Police officers we can employ. We would like to have more manpower across the Home Team – to answer Ms Lim's question specifically – whether it is Police, ICA, SCDF, as prison officers. All our other departments face manpower challenges.
The macro situation in Singapore is that there are smaller numbers of younger Singaporeans entering the workforce each year as a result of our birth rates. The private sector also needs people. If the public sector takes more, then the private sector will be squeezed even more. So, the Government imposes some caps on the growth of the public sector. This discipline is necessary, for the sake of the country.
Within the public sector, other Ministries, agencies, also need manpower. And so, the Home Team is squeezed. Likewise, everyone else is squeezed. I was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I know. They had difficulties, too, and I spoke about them. So, everyone has to live with less manpower than ideal and that is the situation in Singapore. That is a reality.
In the Home Team, we are certainly not in an ideal situation, in terms of manpower. Given the limited overall manpower pool and, in particular, the stringent requirements of the Home Team, uniformed services, for obvious reasons, the requirements are stringent and strict, both in terms of fitness and character, in terms of our assessment of the person's suitability. It does not mean we always get it right but there are a number of requirements. So, we are not able to get all the manpower that we need. But we will do our best to ensure the safety and security outcomes remain good.
As it is, in a less than ideal situation, with the far fewer number of Home Team officers, Police officers, how are we doing? Based on statistics, Members can see from the indicators, overall crime rate, dealing with emergencies, our drug situation, I think, on most criteria, we are among the best in the world.
I set this out in some detail because I want to acknowledge the central point that Ms Lim makes about manpower challenges and explain the broad limitations on what we can do about it. But beyond the present, the fact that we are doing okay today, we are doing well today, is no guarantee of the future. And I am focused on the years ahead, how will our challenges develop and how will we respond.
We need an operating model to enhance our operational effectiveness and manage our workload. We need to use technology even more. For example, with our limited resources, it is going to be difficult to respond to all incidents within the same response time. The Home Team needs to be data-driven, tiered and differentiated in its frontline response. This means employing data analytics to anticipate ahead of time where safety and security emergencies might arise and intelligently deploy our resources to focus on those hotspots. The end result? More resources into higher priority areas for a faster response time and inevitable trade-offs will then have to be made.
Coming back to the Police and counter-terrorism, I want to make another point. Despite the significant manpower challenges, we are working on considerably enhancing the size of our Emergency Response Teams (ERTs). Numbers will have to be increased. There is really no choice. If we do not, then, in my view, we take unacceptable risks. This is going to require on-going conversations about our manpower caps, even as we increase the size of our ERTs.
Let me say something about the use of technology. This year, SPF will be making a major investment to extend Police cameras to public areas in our HDB residential estates, such as town centres, neighbourhood centres and pedestrian walkways linking HDB blocks to bus interchanges and MRT stations.
This programme, which we will call PolCam 2.0, will build on the ongoing PolCam 1.0 programme which installed video cameras at all HDB blocks and multi-storey carparks. They are a key plank in our counter-terrorism strategy and crime-fighting strategies.
Another area where technology can help us is at our checkpoints. By year-end, all motorcycle counters at our land checkpoints will be equipped with automated clearance facilities. Motorcyclists entering Singapore will have their passports verified by a machine and have their thumbprint scanned for identity authentication. This is similar to the automated lanes available for Singaporeans at passenger checkpoints. More efficient, more convenient, without compromising on security.
Likewise, the new Changi Airport Terminal 4 will feature a new operating model with more self-service immigration facilities powered by technology and creating a hassle-free experience and reducing reliance on manpower.
These initiatives will enhance our operational effectiveness. They will allow us to do more with a limited number of officers and free up our manpower resources to be re-deployed to more critical duties. But technology and systems are not effective without good officers.
Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Louis Ng highlighted the importance of attracting Home Team officers and optimising our manpower resources to meet increasing demands. Police will step up recruitment this year to fill new posts in its ERTs and to build up the Special Operations troops.
Police will also enhance its scheme of service to attract young people to join the Force and to retain the good officers we already have.
First, Police will implement a unified rank structure, moving away from the separate schemes for junior officers and senior officers that we currently have. There will be a unified single scheme and a single rank structure for all Police officers. And good Diploma holders who join the Force can look forward to seamless advancement opportunities up the ranks.
Second, Police will introduce expert tracks to build deep specialty in the key domains of investigations, intelligence and special operations. There will, therefore, be new career developmental pathways for officers with specialised skills. These measures will help enhance the operational capability and preparedness of SPF. Details will be announced at the Police Workplan Seminar later this month. We will also progressively extend the changes to the rest of the Home Team departments.
Another group of officers who play a vital role in the Home Team is our National Servicemen. Mr Melvin Yong had observed that the number of full-time Home Team NS officers will decrease over time. That is so. Thus, SPF and SCDF have embarked on and completed their NS transformation reviews. We are restructuring our plans for full-time NS officers and reservists to focus their deployment on operational roles that will have a direct impact on ground situations and give them more opportunities to assume leadership and specialist roles.
Beyond the Home Team, Auxiliary Police forces are important partners. I think Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about APOs. APOs are deployed for a range of functions, including protecting sensitive installations and supporting Police deployment at major events. They are used as a complement of Police resources. Police then can perform core functions like crime-fighting and countering terrorism.
There are today about 7,000 APOs deployed in Singapore. They are either Singapore Citizens, PRs who are Malaysian citizens, or Malaysian citizens. Ms Lim asked if there is a ratio of five Malaysians to one Singaporean. No. That is not correct. Thankfully. More than half of the APOs are Singaporeans and that is not by chance. My Ministry has deliberately required that there be a Singaporean majority in the APOs, despite the manpower challenges. If there is any change to that, it will only be done after a careful review.
Again, our preference would be for there to be more Singaporean APOs. But getting Singaporeans with the right qualifications and personality fit has been a challenge for the companies. Again, because of the overall manpower shortage, of course, you will get someone who will come forward to become an APO but not accepted for the role because the companies do not find him suitable.
We have fairly strict requirements on APOs. On the deployment of APOs, this depends on the risk assessment and operational requirements of the post. We are conscious of the implications of hiring and deploying Malaysian APOs. My Ministry requires that all APOs deployed at our land checkpoints be Singaporeans.
Ms Lim also spoke about civilian personnel who are recruited for law enforcement duties and spoke about the gentleman who was deployed by LTA for enforcement duties. I think some Government agencies do appoint civilians, including volunteers, as auxiliary officers.
These agencies will have to have a procedure to recruit, train and audit the officers to ensure that they carry out their duties effectively and professionally. There must obviously be a process to pick and train people who are suitable to do the job. On the specific case, perhaps if Ms Lim gives me the details, I will ask LTA or check with MOT to see what actually happened.
But a word about age. I think the fact that someone is 60 should not be a limiting factor, because one can be very fit, and we have to emphasise that. So, age of 60 itself should not always be seen as a barrier here. But, of course, the personality must be the right fit, and I think, on the specific case, maybe LTA can give an answer.
Ms Lim also asked about the psychological support for prison inmates and the use of their time in prison. These are important points. Our prison regime is strict, it is rigorous, with a strong focus on discipline. There is no question that it is a no-nonsense environment. And that has to be so.
But the fundamental point is we cannot see prisoners simply as detainees for a period. We have to focus on rehabilitation so that, when they leave, they do not go out and re-offend. It does not help anyone. It does not help them, society and the Prison to have them back in the prisons.
Specifically on mental health, the Prison has a multi-disciplinary set of teams, comprising, of course, prison officers, medical officers, psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors.
When Prison officers observe inmates exhibiting signs of mental health issues, they will refer them to the psychiatrists and psychologists. In addition, members from the Board of Visiting Justices and Board of Visitors conduct regular surprise visits to prison institutions and DRCs to check on inmates' well-being. Inmates can also approach them during their visits to raise any requests or provide feedback.
While in prison, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has a key focus on rehabilitation. The idea is we have to look at it as a continuum, try to do what we can before they offend. The Second Minister of Home Affairs Mr Masagos chairs the Committee that looks at that, because we want to try and prevent people from coming into prisons in the first place.
Today, there is data that show what is the likelihood of someone offending from a young age. The fact that someone drops out of school is usually an indicator, and there are other indicators. And then, prisons and then post-release. You have got to look at this as a continuum and try to treat them in such a way that, first, you reduce the likelihood of them coming into prisons; and, second, when they do come in, you reduce the likelihood of them re-offending. So, we take that approach, one picture, not just to look at the period that they are in prison.
What do we do when they are in prison? They need to, first of all, be taught discipline, some self-control, the ability to control themselves. Second, once their discipline is established, they should be given training and work programmes – and there are qualifying criteria. Not everyone qualifies. It depends on their risk assessment. It depends on how much they might infect the other prisoners, a variety of factors. But based on a set of risk assessment tools, prisoners are selected for training, work programmes, so that after they are released, they can get jobs.
Also important is the post-release period. Immediately after release is the period when many of them are very vulnerable. Their old friends approach them, they are ostracised in society and they may not have a job. The only people who give them comfort often are not even their families, but their friends who led them astray in the first place. So, we have focused quite a bit on what happens post-release.
It is not perfect, but the hand-holding ‒ the Government, as a partner, bringing in the private sector. SCORE, as a statuary board, has been set up specifically to focus on some of these aspects, so that when they come out, we do the best we can to try and get them a job, and we have to do more. Again, there is a shortage of people that we can use, but we work closely with the private sector to try and get that part going. We have been doing this for a number of years and we can do more.
In terms of the specific questions that have been raised, we enhance their employability through getting them Workforce Skills Qualification training, for example, in numeracy and literacy programmes. We have over 12,000 who qualify for training. First, we do an assessment on how many qualify. Of those who qualify, as of today, 85% of those who can work are engaged in work programmes and 15% are awaiting work allocation.
In terms of specific drop in numbers, rather than going into specific factors, what I could say is this: the Prison has introduced a programme recently where those who are about to be released, 10 months pre-release, they will go for intensive counselling. That means that they may not be able to go for work programmes. That could be one of the reasons why there is a drop in numbers, but there are a number of factors. The proportion of qualifying inmates who are engaged in work programmes has actually been increasing.
There are also religious counselling programmes, family programmes and other counselling programmes to address inmates' drug addiction issues and criminality.
Ultimately, I would say one good indicator of where we are at is the recidivism rate of 27%, which is much lower than what people might call first-world prisons. If I could give you some statistics. I do not have the figures for the UK, but if you take Scotland, it is about 40%. Australia ‒ if we take New South Wales ‒ it is about 48%; Western Australia, 31%; New Zealand, 36%. Our own recidivism rate was about 40% in the year 2000. Through these interventions, we have brought it down to 27%. But I do not want to say, therefore, we have reached the best possible state or that it may not go up again, because it is a rate depending on how hardcore these prisoners are. But you can see the broad trends.
Parliamentary Secretary Amrin will elaborate on the through-care approach to rehabilitation that SPS adopts.
Mr Perera asked about social impact bonds and whether that can be used to reduce recidivism, almost like the private sector investing in the matter. The approach we have taken is to be even more direct by asking the private sector to come in and work with us to employ the people. That is even more important. There is a requirement for private sector investment, if I may put it in that way. But it is done through, first, identifying while the prisoners are in prison, what are the kinds of job they can do when they come out. And then seeing the extent to which we can train them. Where it is possible to do in-house training, we do it in-house. Where we need outside consultants to come and help train, we do that, too, so they get trained.
The statutory board, SCORE, takes care of a number of these things. The seriousness with which the Government is approaching this is shown by the fact that we set up a statutory board, which then also works with the private sector, identifies companies which might have an interest in employing these prisoners. Of course, a fair bit of this is also to reduce the social stigma in employing these prisoners.
That is why we try and remove or reduce – I think \"remove\" is quite an ambitious aim – but to reduce the social stigma by giving the Yellow Ribbon programme very substantial prominence. The Prime Minister launches events relating to the Yellow Ribbon programme, other senior Ministers as well, and keeping it in the public consciousness, and then working with the private sector to try and get them employed. As I have said, if I can call it a \"scaffolding\"; when they are released, you need to try and make sure they move into something. It is a much more direct involvement approach that we have taken.
This investment bond idea has been a very recent one from the UK. We will study their experience. If it works better than what we are doing ‒ we do not have a \"not invented here\" syndrome ‒ so, we will always be happy to look at what works.
If I may say this: seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the work of the Home Team never ceases. Our officers are on the ground, constantly working to keep Singapore safe and secure.
You saw this during the Christmas and Chinese New Year periods, especially at the checkpoints. More officers were on duty during these peak periods, so that Singaporeans can enjoy the festive seasons. The demands on the Home Team will continue to rise because of external threats and local developments.
We will press on with our transformation journey, build our capabilities, develop our officers, work closely with the community to meet these challenges head-on and continue to try and keep Singapore safe and secure. My colleagues will answer the other questions.
The Chairman:\tSenior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Chair, the threats and challenges that the Home Team faces are transnational and ever-changing. We must adapt and adjust our response to keep pace with developments.
Traditional crime is on the decline but, as my Minister mentioned, there is a clear uptrend in cybercrime.
Mr Chris de Souza, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Desmond Choo asked how we will tackle this trend. Mr de Souza specifically also asked about our capabilities to deal with cybercrime. Let me address these cuts in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Cybercrime cases are particularly tricky. The Internet is borderless. Many perpetrators are based overseas. They hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and open and shut down user accounts quickly to evade investigations. Despite our best efforts and close working relationships with our foreign counterparts, many of these investigations could lead to dead ends. In short, someone who has been cheated of his money by such scams will find it quite hard to get his money back.
So, when it comes to fighting cybercrime, it is especially true that \"Prevention is better than cure.\" An offer that sounds too good to be true may well be a scam. People may not be who they claim to be or what their profile pictures on Facebook look like. We need to be extra careful and alert when performing online transactions. We must watch out not only for ourselves, but also for our children and aged parents and relatives, who may be less aware of these online threats.
The National Crime Prevention Council has set up a website called Scam Alert which alerts Singaporeans of new scams. On Scam Alert, people can share stories about scams that they have come across and you can read about these.
Let me share a story on a Credit-for-Sex scam. You will find many similar stories on Scam Alert. The victim will usually get an unsolicited message from a young lady on a mobile platform like WeChat. In many of these cases, she may be from overseas, has a generic name like \"Xiao Yan Zi\" and is in Singapore for studies or work. She starts chatting to the victim and the conversations sound innocuous at first, but she will soon talk about money problems and how desperate she is for help. \"Xiao Yan Zi\" will then offer to meet with the victim for sex, $100 or $150 for two hours, more for overnight. The victim may reject the offer at first but, after more messages, he agrees to meet \"Xiao Yan Zi\" somewhere in Singapore. Whether it is for romance or out of curiosity, the victim is already on his way to being scammed. And, of course, when he gets to the place, he will not get to meet \"Xiao Yan Zi\" – she probably is not even in Singapore. Instead, she will ask for the victim to pay her first, before coming out to meet him.
In many of these cases, the request for payment is not by cash, but by purchasing an iTunes card of $100 or $150 and sending over the redemption code by WeChat. By the time the victim realises he has been cheated, it is already too late. In some stories, the victims get suspicious and call the person on the other end of the line – this is when they discover that \"Xiao Yan Zi\" sounds much older than she claims to be, or may not even be female.
We have to exercise greater caution and better judgement when we meet strangers or conduct transactions online.
As all Singaporeans step up our vigilance, Police will also step up their efforts to fight cybercrime. In 2015, Police established a new Cybercrime Command within the Criminal Investigation Department. We will continue to review our laws to address the transnational nature of cybercrime and keep pace with the changing tactics of cyber-criminals.
(In English): Madam, I will continue in English. Our approach earlier to cybercrime highlights the need for two important and complementary strategies.
First, the Home Team will continue our efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure, staying nimble and responsive, upgrading our capabilities and making early investments for the future. Second, and just as importantly, all Singaporeans have a part to play to be more vigilant and to come together as a community.
This approach also applies in other domains of safety and security. Let me illustrate.
Madam, as the Minister explained earlier in his speech, the Home Team will need to adapt to our evolving landscape, to cope with increasing workload and enhance our operational effectiveness, without significantly expanding the Home Team.
This will be especially important for our border security. We are trying out some new concepts and technologies for our checkpoints at the new Terminal 4 to prepare ourselves for future challenges. At Terminal 4, we will have enhanced automated lanes with biometric checks and centralised arrival and departure immigration halls. These will allow ICA to optimise limited manpower and provide greater border security without compromising service standards. We plan to roll these initiatives out eventually to all the existing terminals.
Madam, let me move on to the private security industry. Like the Home Team, the private security industry faces a shortage of manpower but ever-growing demand. And as Mr Patrick Tay pointed out, technology can be an enabler in the private security industry. But mandating the use of technology through law may not be the best approach, given varied security requirements. Instead, we want to work with private security firms to encourage them to invest in technology. We will support them in various ways.
First, as a major buyer of security services, the Home Team will restructure our procurement approach to encourage the greater use of technology as part of the security solution. To incentivise our key private security partners to rely less on manpower and more on technology, we are prepared to co-invest in our partners' use of technology. We are also exploring contracts of longer duration so that the investment in technology can be amortised over a longer period and makes better business sense for our security partners. These longer-term contracts will also allow these companies to invest in their staff to enhance their productivity.
Second, the Government also provides support to private security agencies through various schemes that are already available to help defray the cost of technology adoption for these companies. For example, e2i administers a scheme known as the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) which covers up to half the cost of productivity improvement projects, but only if these productivity gains are shared with lower-wage workers. So, the grant helps security firms adopt technology to boost productivity, but in a way that also benefits the security guards that they employ.
Third, MHA will continue to work with the relevant agencies and industry partners via various platforms, such as the Security Tripartite Cluster, to pilot innovative technology-augmented operating models.
Madam, besides harnessing technology, we will update our laws to keep pace with the changes in our operating environment. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the building code would be amended to mandate security audits and security threat assessments of commercial buildings and premises.
Building security is critical and we need to do more amidst the current terrorist threat. But instead of making it a blanket requirement, we will take a calibrated and differentiated approach. Let me explain.
Today, for sensitive installations and critical infrastructure like Changi Airport, and large building projects with large numbers of visitors, like the Integrated Resorts and Sports Hub, MHA already works with the owners to deploy security measures. This is based on an assessment of the threats and vulnerabilities of the buildings. We are reviewing our laws to formalise this security review framework so that more of such building projects will incorporate security measures upfront, at the design and construction phase.
For soft targets, such as entertainment centres, hotels and shopping centres, we will engage owners through community platforms, such as the Safety and Security Watch Groups (SSWGs), to strengthen security measures. We will work closely with the owners of these premises and facilities to see how we can implement wider adoption of CCTV coverage that can be used for crime and terrorism prevention and post-incident investigation.
For major events, the Police currently work with organisers to determine the appropriate security measures to be taken. We will also review our laws to require event organisers to put in place the necessary safety and security measures.
We are mindful of the challenging business environment and potential cost of mandating security measures. But we cannot compromise security and expose our public to danger. To better manage the costs involved, the Government will work closely with premises owners and event organisers to take cost-effective measures that address our security objectives.
Madam, I will address a couple of other cuts raised by Members. Mr de Souza and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about stateless persons in Singapore and both made speeches earlier about cases that they had encountered.
As of 31 January this year, there were 1,411 such persons living in Singapore. Of these, 85% are Permanent Residents (PRs) eligible for healthcare, education and housing benefits accorded to all PRs.
Mr Png and Mr de Souza asked if we will review the citizenship criteria for such persons who have worked and resided in Singapore for a long time. Madam, I understand where the Members are coming from. We assess each and every application carefully and compassionately, especially for those who have integrated well and can contribute to Singapore.
But we must be clear-headed about who we grant PR and Singapore citizenship to, and we do not want to automatically grant somebody such a status because he or she has been residing here for a long time. This would not be in Singapore's interests. But I assure the Members that if they raise cases to our attention, we will look very carefully at the circumstances behind all of them. Not all the reasons may be apparent to Members but, certainly, we do not reject any case out of hand.
Mr Png also asked about the updating of NRIC details. The National Registration Act (NRA) requires NRIC holders to report any change in their place of residence to ICA or the Police within 28 days of the change, regardless of whether an individual is residing at his relative's place temporarily or a rented property. The address on the NRIC should be based on the place of physical residence, rather than on ownership of a property.
This is an individual responsibility and the failure to do so is an offence. The Police will act firmly against those who wilfully contravene these requirements to commit other criminal offences, including borrowers who obtain loans from unlicensed money lenders with their outdated addresses.
Mr Png, in a separate cut, suggested tighter controls on where jackpot clubs are sited. Registered private clubs are permitted to operate jackpot machines only if the machines are provided to their members and guests as part of a whole suite of recreational offerings, which may include karaoke, gyms, swimming pools and so on. These machines are not accessible to the general public. There are age restrictions barring children from entry and these clubs have to meet other criteria, like the size of their membership base.
MHA has initiated a review of the regulatory regime for private lottery and jackpot clubs, including the location of these clubs and the social safeguards against problem gambling. Individuals and parents can and should also exercise their own responsibility when using such facilities.
Madam, let me end by addressing Ms Denise Phua's concerns over foreign worker congregation areas. My Ministry continually reviews our management of \"hotspots\" with large congregations of foreign workers, such as Little India and Golden Mile. We have worked with agencies, grassroots and community leaders, residents and business owners to steadily implement a comprehensive series of measures to keep such \"hotspots\" secure and orderly.
These measures include improved lighting, installation of additional Police Cameras and daily deployment of Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) and private security officers at Little India and Golden Mile. This deployment is intensified on weekends and public holidays. Officers attend training to sensitise them to the culture of foreign workers. Police and relevant agencies also carry out frequent patrols and enforcement checks to deter and detect illegal activities. The Special Operations Command conducts a weekly anti-crime patrol to augment Police resources in such \"hotspots\".
And on a broader level, foreign worker management is overseen by an inter-Ministerial committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The issues extend beyond safety and security concerns and include housing, transport and amenities, amongst other things. So, it is a whole-of-Government approach.
One initiative overseen by this Committee is the provision of recreation centres to give foreign workers more options to meet their social and recreation needs and to provide services, such as money remittance. These centres are built near to foreign worker dormitories, away from established congregation areas, such as Little India. They host large-scale events like sports competitions, cultural celebrations and movie screenings.
My Ministry will continue to work with other relevant agencies, certainly with Members of Parliament and advisers, on the various aspects of foreign worker management, including safety and security.
Madam, the threats to Singapore's safety and security are constantly evolving. The Home Team will deal with these firmly, decisively and nimbly to keep Singapore safe and secure.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): Mdm Chair, I thank Members for their suggestions and support for the Home Team's work. I will focus my speech on three areas: first, the community's role in keeping Singapore safe and secure; second, the drug situation in Singapore and our efforts to prevent re-offending; and, third, our Home Team officers and the National Service (NS) Transformation Plan.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
On the first area, community partnership. The community is at the heart of the Home Team's work. Home Team officers take pride and work tirelessly to keep Singapore safe and secure. However, the work of the Home Team cannot be accomplished by us alone. Individuals and the community have contributed in many areas to create a safe and secure Singapore. We will continue to engage, empower and partner the community to explore new areas of collaboration.
Over the past few months, as part of the SGfuture engagement efforts, we have asked members of the public, our volunteers, full-time National Servicemen and community partners what safety and security mean to them, what they hope to see and how we may work together to turn these hopes into reality.
We are now following up on some of these ideas and we welcome more people to come forward with good suggestions that we can work on together.
One of the key threats we face today is extremism and terrorism. The community's role in a heightened terrorism threat environment is critical.
Minister Shanmugam announced in March that we will develop a new national movement to strengthen community response to the threat of terrorism. The movement, known as SG Secure, builds on the current Community Engagement Programme (CEP). The programmes under SG Secure will sensitise the community to threats arising from terrorism, extremism and religious or racial strife.
Let me elaborate on how SG Secure will enable the community to \"stay alert, stay united and stay strong\" against terrorist threats.
First, stay alert. We will raise community vigilance by training the community to be vigilant and alert to unusual behaviour or items in our surroundings and to report these to the authorities. We will also teach members of the public how to respond and protect themselves, their family and their friends if they are caught in an attack.
Second, stay united. We need to cherish and safeguard Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious social fabric. SG Secure will implement programmes to provide opportunities for our community to appreciate and safeguard racial and religious diversity.
Third, stay strong. We will design and run programmes to help our community to be ready to deal with a crisis if it occurs; build individual resilience and community resilience; and help each other bounce back quickly after any incident.
SG Secure will be more than just a public awareness movement. It will be a call to action for all members of society to safeguard the Singapore way of life against terrorism, extremism and community strife. We will launch SG Secure later this year, starting with programmes in the schools and neighbourhoods.
Turning to the second part of my speech – the drug situation in Singapore and our efforts to prevent re-offending.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about the overall drug situation. The drug situation around the world remains challenging. Poppy cultivation in the region has increased and so has methamphetamine production. Our regional counterparts have also detected an emergence of overseas syndicates, originating as far as Mexico, which are involved in drug trafficking in the ASEAN region. These developments increase the supply of drugs in our region and threaten our drug-free society.
There is also growing international pressure on our zero-tolerance approach against drugs. Some countries have pushed to decriminalise or even legalise drug use. There is a growing call for the harm reduction approach, which includes measures, such as needle exchange programmes or opiate substitution therapy. These measures were implemented in some countries to curb secondary issues, for example, HIV transmission caused by drug abuse. However, the harm reduction approach is not relevant in Singapore's context as our drug situation is very much under control. Incidence of HIV transmission through injecting drug use in Singapore is low.
We share Mr Christopher de Souza, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concerns on the local drug abuse situation. We have observed two trends of concern.
First, more than 60% of new abusers arrested over the past five years were below 30 years old. In 2015, this has remained high. Close to seven in 10 new abusers arrested are below 30 years old.
Second, while methamphetamine remains the most abused drug among new abusers, we have seen more cases of cannabis abuse among new abusers in recent years. Cannabis abuse cases doubled from 80 in 2011 to over 150 in 2015. Notably, in 2015, cannabis has displaced heroin as the second most commonly abused drug among new abusers.
These trends indicate that more young people are taking casual attitudes towards drugs and experimenting with drugs, especially cannabis, which they perceive as \"soft\" and less harmful. This is a serious misperception. A research team comprising medical professionals from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has reviewed more than 500 papers from respected international medical journals. Let me highlight three key findings.
First, cannabis is addictive.
Second, cannabis is harmful. Long-term use of cannabis has been linked to the development of major psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder.
Third, a young person abusing cannabis will experience a persistent and irreversible decline in cognitive development and a drop in IQ.
To continue keeping Singapore drug-free, we must maintain a zero-tolerance approach towards drug abuse. This includes firm law against traffickers, continued enforcement efforts, structured rehabilitation programmes, preventive drug education, as well as aftercare schemes with community support.
Last year, the Task Force on Youths and Drugs reviewed the youth drug abuse situation and announced its recommendations in June. I will provide an update on the implementation of the Task Force's recommendations in two areas.
First, enhancing Preventive Drug Education (PDE). This is our first line of defence. It is important to enlist the help of parents and educators to help youths stay drug-free. We have developed and launched a toolkit for educators in November last year to support educators in their engagement with youths on drug issues. We are also developing an information brochure for parents and will distribute it to all parents of students in Secondary and post-Secondary institutions later this year.
This will be complemented with e-articles and infographics published regularly through the social media platforms of CNB and our partners, such as MOE and Health Promotion Board (HPB).
Second, enhancing our rehabilitation options for youths. We have introduced the Anti-drug Counselling and Engagement (ACE) programme at the National Addictions Management Services (NAMS). The ACE programme is targeted at youth abusers under 21 years old who have abused drugs but tested negative in their urine tests. The programme comprises group counselling sessions to equip the youths with skills to cope with addiction and workshop for parents to provide support for youths.
The Committee Against Youth Drug Abuse, which I chair, will build on the Task Force's work. This multi-agency committee comprises representatives from MHA, MOE, HPB, IMH, Institutes of Higher Learning and youths. We will continue to keep a close eye on the youth drug abuse situation and work with groups, such as youth groups, to implement initiatives that will sustain efforts in tackling youth drug abuse early.
I will now touch on our efforts to prevent re-offending, which Mr Louis Ng has asked about.
Our rehabilitation programmes are designed based on evidence to reduce their re-offending. We adopt a differentiated approach towards rehabilitation by tailoring the rehabilitation programmes and aftercare support based on the different risk profiles and needs of the offenders. For example, in the DRCs, drug abusers with more severe drug addiction issues will receive higher intensity programmes, such as more counselling programmes. When they are placed on Community-Based Programmes, inmates with higher risk of re-offending would be placed in a more structured environment, such as a halfway house.
We have also started a day-release arrangement for a small number of low-risk drug abusers. Under this arrangement, drug abusers are allowed to work or study in the community after two to four months in the DRC. These drug abusers are required to return to a community facility at night and are subjected to supervision, such as regular urine tests.
Mr Chairman, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the employment of ex-offenders, which is key in their successful reintegration.
The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) plays a key role in reintegrating ex-offenders back into the workforce.
In 2015, SCORE trained more than 5,000 inmates and helped over 2,000 inmates to secure jobs prior to their release. SCORE has also explored new collaboration opportunities with employers and partners.
For example, SCORE has worked with the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) to develop a Train-Place-Retain model to place ex-offenders in the F&B sector. As of February 2016, over 130 ex-offenders secured employment with close to 100 companies from RAS under this collaboration.
In line with SkillsFuture, SCORE has worked with employers in key sectors, such as Logistics, F&B and Hospitality, to update its skills training and coaching programmes to meet the evolving skills needed. Let me highlight three key initiatives.
First, ex-offenders will be cross-trained in skills. For instance, ex-offenders in the F&B sector will be trained in skills required to perform both serving and food preparation functions.
Second, ex-offenders are encouraged to take personal responsibility for their continuous learning with the use of SkillsFuture credits.
Third, SCORE will work closely with employers to identify suitable training for the career advancement of ex-offenders they have hired.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the employment of ex-offenders in the Public Service. The Public Service recruits on the basis of merit, where applicants who fit most closely to the job requirements are hired. When applying for Public Service jobs, applicants who have had their criminal records spent need not include this information in their application. This has been the case since 2006. As we do not differentiate these employees, ex-offenders will be assessed for their suitability for the job like all other new recruits.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I will now speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Home Team enjoys a close partnership with the Malay/Muslim community and community groups, such as MENDAKI, MUIS, PERGAS, Jamiyah and Pertapis. Minister Masagos has built a strong foundation for the Home Team's work with the Malay/Muslim community. We will continue to work with the Malay/Muslim community to prevent re-offending and rehabilitate drug abusers.
These are national issues, and not issues involving the Malay/Muslim community only. A confluence of factors, such as socio-economic status, peers and families, might play a role in re-offending. We have tailored our rehabilitation programmes to address these risk factors. We want to work with Malay/Muslim community groups to tailor programmes relevant to the offenders' cultural and religious context to increase their efficacy. Let me illustrate this with two examples.
First, we have worked with MENDAKI to provide an information and referral service to families of inmates. MENDAKI connects them to community resources, such as counselling at family service centres or employment assistance at the Community Development Centres. MENDAKI also refers these families to the family and children programmes they organise. Through this, we help families stay intact through this difficult period, so that they can support their loved ones in their rehabilitation and reintegration.
Second, we have worked with PERGAS to develop and introduce a pilot counselling programme for Malay/Muslim drug abusers. The team at PERGAS, led by Ustaz Mohd Yusri Yubhi Yusoff, developed the programme based on both Islamic teachings and scientific studies that were proven effective. This programme is one of the interventions in our multi-pronged approach in rehabilitating drug abusers. Currently, we are in the midst of a pilot run with inmates in the DRC. We are heartened by the encouraging and positive feedback received from those who participated in the programme.
I would like to share a story to illustrate how we can come together to support the rehabilitation of drug abusers. I recently met Jesyharianti, who was a former drug abuser featured on Suria's Detik programme last month. She shared how she had been in and out of prison in the past seven years due to drugs and other offences even though she is only in her 20s.
During her last incarceration, she was placed on rehabilitation programmes to help her stay drug-free. Recently, I met Jesy and am happy to know that Jesy is now employed as a service crew with Manhattan Fish Market. I also met her employer from Manhattan Fish Market. I am heartened to learn that Jesy is one of his best employees. Jesy's dedication at work often received praises from her customers.
I hope that the Malay/Muslim community will continue to give the Home Team its fullest support, including in the area of reducing offending and drug abuse.
(In English):\tMr Chairman, I will continue my speech in English and turn to the final area of my speech.
Our Home Team Officers are a very important part of the Home Team. Minister Shanmugam spoke about enhancing the attractiveness of the Police career with the Home Team to better recruit and retain officers.
We will also continue to tap on the contributions of ex-officers, as well as retired officers, which Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo asked about. They are valuable to the Home Team. MHA has recently, in 2013, extended the retirement age of Home Team uniformed officers from 50 to 55 years old. Beyond 55 years old, where there are organisational needs, officers may be offered the opportunity to work up to the age of 60, subject to performance, conduct and fitness criteria. This allows the Home Team to tap on their experience, knowledge and expertise built up over the years. We will periodically review the need to make changes to the retirement age of our uniformed officers. We will also offer retired officers positions in civilian specialist and civilian roles when they can contribute to the Home Team. Over the last five years, over 60% of retired uniformed officers have been re-employed and the majority have been re-employed as uniformed officers.
In addition to retired officers, I agree with Mr Patrick Tay that ex-Police officers are a valuable recruitment pool for SPF. Suitable ex-Police officers who had resigned may be re-hired, if they wish to rejoin the service. SPF proactively reaches out to this group by holding re-appointment exercises twice a year, and SPF will send a personalised letter to invite them to rejoin SPF. Subsequently, recruitment career advisors, who are Police officers from the same Division, will contact the ex-Police officers to engage them.
Our National Servicemen also play a key role in the Home Team's work. However, given the smaller birth cohorts, we can expect a decline in the number of NSFs over the next few years. As Mr Melvin Yong has pointed out, we need to ensure that the Home Team continues to meet the growing operational demands even with a declining National Servicemen population.
The Home Team has embarked on an NS Transformation Plan for our SPF and SCDF National Servicemen. Over the next few years, we will systematically deploy more NSF and NSmen to frontline positions, leadership roles, as well as specialist positions. This will enable them to make stronger contributions to keep Singapore safe and secure.
Let me illustrate with specific examples from SPF and SCDF. To deploy more officers in frontline vocations, SPF will set up a new Protective Security Command (ProCom) consisting of both NSF and NSmen units. ProCom officers will be trained and deployed to protect our critical infrastructure in National Emergency situations and oversee protective security functions during peacetime. SCDF has established new NSmen positions in its Marine Command, where NSmen are deployed in daily operations as part of their In-Camp Training. SCDF will also deploy more servicemen to operational roles, such as in its Emergency Medical Services.
I hope that the Transformation Plan will empower our National Servicemen to take on a greater role in making Singapore a safer home for all.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, the Home Team, together with the community, has worked hard at keeping Singapore safe and secure. This is a cumulative effort built over many years and by many people. We will continue to strengthen community partnerships, empower our community to take ownership of safety and security issues, and build community vigilance, cohesion and resilience. We must also continue our fight against drugs and work hard to prevent offending and re-offending.
Together, we can keep Singapore safe and secure.
The Chairman: We have a few minutes of clarification time. Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you for the oral responses from the Ministry. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, thank you for walking the ground with us at Little India last month.
My first question is for the Minister to maybe share his thoughts about what he found on the last visit to Little India, if he thought anything needs to change or to be done further.
My second supplementary clarification is on the Ministry's views on what criteria should be used for deciding the locations to allow operators of licences, such as pawnshops, moneylending businesses, sale of alcohol, cyber-game cafes and so forth. What are some of the criteria for MHA or Police to decide on where these businesses should be located? Should they be located at places, such as void decks and in estates, whether they are public or private housing, because these are actually where residents live day in day out and they are there for the longest time? And would the Ministry not agree that it is better for places, such as void decks and communal spaces, to have more wholesome community services, such as childcare, SSO or the Senior Activity Centres? I would like to hear some views from MHA on the location of businesses, such as moneylending, pawnshops and so forth, not just in Little India but also in places like Waterloo Centre.
The Chairman: Ms Denise Phua, you are taking a very long time for your question.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you, Sir.
The Chairman:\tThank you.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for those questions. On the second question, MHA gets involved in specific context, for example, liquor shops, massage establishments, then the Police get involved and say this is allowed and this is not allowed. And you will see, generally, where massage establishments are allowed, liquor shops are allowed. As for the rest, it is not something that MHA deals with. HDB and MND deal with that. But, of course, some of the regulatory agencies have some supervision. For example, moneylending outlets, the Ministry of Law gets involved. Pawnshops, too. It is an assessment of need versus where is an appropriate place to allow – usually, in town centres, because there is a need for this. If you completely rule them out, then, they go underground. But, housing estates, perhaps, if there are specific examples, the Member can let us know. But I would say, primarily, what is allowed and what is not allowed in housing estate void decks is something that comes within HDB's purview.
If I may go on to talk about Little India. We walked together. We spent, I think, close to three hours, maybe even more. And we chose a day when, specifically, it was expected to be crowded, the first Sunday of the month. The Police are doing everything they can to deal with the situation. But that does not necessarily mean that the entire situation cannot lead to another incident. We saw. What we are getting in a small area is a very large number of young men. We have very strict rules on consumption of liquor and where they can be consumed, but we cannot prevent them from congregating in a variety of places as long as they do not have, say, liquor openly being helped. But every time you get these large congregations of young men, there is always a potential for some trouble.
I think you would recall, I told my officers to relook at it and whether there are any other solutions that we have to consider, including taking the matter up with the Committee that was set up, to try and see whether we can decentralise to the extent possible, provide facilities and amenities elsewhere. While it is a situation where the best answer I can give you is that I can see that the Police officers, the Auxiliary Police officers, as well as the other uniformed personnel we have put without full Police powers, are doing a very good job. But, nevertheless, we cannot put our hand on our heart, given the numbers who are congregating, that something may not happen, and we have to see what else we need to do.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, my clarification is really on the continuing war on drugs and, in particular, DRC. The four rationales for sentencing: incarceration − and that is what we do in DRC − we incarcerate the inmates, take them out of the cycle of abuse of drugs where they will not be abusing drugs. There is the rationale of deterrence: putting them in incarcerated premises to deter them and to deter society from doing something similar like abuse, and there is rehabilitation, in order to rehabilitate the addicts so that the recidivism rate goes down. I think these three have to be looked at in tandem and worked at in tandem. Therefore, I appreciate the answers given by the Minister and office bearers.
But my question was actually quite specific. What more can we do while the addicts are in DRC − which is called the Drug Rehabilitative Centre for a reason − what more can we do when the addicts are there, to really attempt to rehabilitate them? We have got them in there for four months, six months. It is a fertile opportunity for them to help them kick the habit, provided they want to kick the habit. And my suggestions are counselling, concerted counselling, concerted psychological intervention, vocational training, exercise, so that their memory of the pleasure zones of drugs which they may hark back to is usurped by this new territory of good and wholesome activities. And also, post-release, what can we do to work with the families and work with their support regimes to, again, distract these former addicts from relapsing, and there is much to be gleaned from this – a lower recidivism rate, which means lower demands for these drugs?
The Chairman: Mr de Souza, I think the Minister gets your point.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you. So, I ask, what more can be done during the time the addicts are incarcerated for all of these consequential benefits that could be gleaned?
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Mr de Souza. The importance of rehabilitation, the importance of reducing recidivism, we all accept that. In fact, I said we are even going upstream to see whether we can even prevent offending in the first place. And I said, specifically in answer to Ms Lim, we look at them before they come in, try and identify who is at risk during the period to see how we can help them and then post-release. And that applies to DRC inmates as well.
The specific points that Mr de Souza made about counselling, psychological training, those are already being done. There is fairly intensive effort made to try and get them to kick the habit. First of all, of course, by isolating them from drugs but, second, also trying to get them to understand the dangers of the drug, seeing how they have got into this habit and how they can be helped to kick the habit. It involves physical regimen as well.
And post-release, we try a fair bit of intervention but I have to say quite a bit also depends on the family environment and family support. We have not received the kind of family participation in programmes that we would like. We have programmes that are catered to try and get the kid better but also working with the family. But parents often do not come for this.
So, you see, the state trying to do this by itself is really fighting the problem with one hand tied. The more important hand is really the family and we have programmes to bring the family in. I have asked my officials to see in what other way we can bring the family in more effectively. We have to look at those options and try and see how families can, for example, be directed to come in and help, work with them.
The Chairman:\tMs Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have a few clarifications for the Minister about work programmes for inmates while they are still incarcerated. During the Minister's reply earlier, he did say that work while in prison prepares the inmate, in one sense, for employment post-release. But does he also agree that work has some other benefits as it enables the prisoner to come out of the cell and, in many cases, enables him to earn some money, sometimes to send it back to his family, which is very good for self-esteem?
The second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that out of the prisoners who qualify for work, 85% of them are actually already deployed to work and 15% are awaiting work. I would like to ask why this 15% are waiting for work. Is it because there are insufficient work places available to cater for all who qualify?
And, third, I wonder if the Minister is able to share whether he knows how long the average waiting time is for those who are waiting for work.
Mr K Shanmugam: On the first point, yes, if they are able to work, obviously, it helps in their self-esteem. We would like as many of them as possible to work, provided always that, in the first place, they qualify. I have set out some of the criteria, including our assessment of the risks they pose to the prison environment and the possibility of infecting others and how dangerous they are. Some do not qualify, for example, those on the capital punishment list.
As to the 15% who are waiting for work and the average waiting times, can I invite the Member to file a question and I will answer?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, the hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan and myself raised two cuts on traffic safety: in his case, heavy vehicles; and myself, traffic safety near schools. Can I ask the Minister or the Senior Minister of State to give a reply as the topic was not responded to?
Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, let me respond to Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Patrick Tay in extra time. They were concerned about road safety. The Traffic Police (TP) will continue to maintain its enforcement stance against errant drivers. Mr Lim spoke specifically about sports cars using roads in Mountbatten as a speeding track. This will not be tolerated. In addition to fixed speed cameras, TP has also rolled out the mobile speed camera in February this year, giving it a new capability in enforcement efforts at hotspots against speeding and illegal racing. TP also runs dedicated operations against racing and this new enhanced technology will, hopefully, be of some help. Anyone caught racing illegally will be severely dealt with.
Mr Lim asked about heavy vehicles, which Mr Tay also mentioned. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question, I mentioned that heavy vehicles meeting certain laden weight requirements need to have speed limiters. These speed limiters prevent the vehicle from accelerating beyond 60 km/h.
TP also conducts operations against heavy vehicle speeding but enforcement on its own is not sufficient. A key strategy is to educate and engage heavy vehicle drivers on road safety and good driving practices. So, this year, TP will partner stakeholders, including vehicle inspection centres like VICOM, associations of companies that deploy heavy vehicles and the Workplace Safety and Health Council, to carry out a dedicated outreach campaign for heavy vehicle drivers.
TP will also continue to work with partners like Road Safety Council and Shell Singapore on road safety education for our young or vulnerable road users. Mr Tay asked about school areas. Last year, TP reached out to more than 77,000 pre-schoolers and Primary school students through road safety talks and sessions to impress upon them the importance of looking after themselves on the roads.
Mr Tay pointed out that besides schools, there are also other places like childcare centres and also enrichment centres where children frequent. It may not be practical for us to replicate school zones everywhere because these centres are everywhere. But let me assure the Member that we will continue our efforts to keep our roads safe and secure through a whole range of efforts. I hope that addresses the Member's concerns.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to this announcement of the change of position vis-a-vis the collection of data from public transport video cameras and ERP systems, and I would assume ERP2.0 as well, to track the travel pattern of potential suspects, for example, can the Minister please describe to the House how the Ministry will ensure that the data will only be used for the purpose for which it was collected?
Mr K Shanmugam: In the normal way, such data will be meta data, huge amounts of data. It is not just travel patterns; it is people coming into Singapore. We are talking about literally millions of bits of data every day and no one has the time to sit down and monitor individuals.
Technology has got to come in to a large extent and it has to help us in identifying suspicious patterns. I do not want to go into too many operational details but, today, you have the ability to often predict some events happening even before they actually happen based on data that is collected and then analysed through technology. Then, the human intervention comes in, post that, to try and assess the likelihoods.
Should an incident happen, then you would also want to track. This happened in Paris. Where were the terrorists? What were the places they visited? They found evidence in dustbins based on cameras which caught their movements. You track the entire movement chain from beginning to the end, through a series of cameras. You will use it post-incident for investigations, pre-incident for analysis and predictions.
The control for all of these is within the Ministry, not just this data, any data can only be used for the purpose that it is collected. There is a sort of a framework or a position on that which is in place for the Ministry to do that.
The Chairman:\tI am sorry. We only have time for one more question. Mr Kok.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): It is a follow-up to that question. Because of such data that can be accessed, I wonder if there are any safeguards so that such access would not be abused.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, in all of these, there is always a balance between the risk of abuse and allowing the agencies to use the information. The guidelines, the rules, framework, on how the data can be used, can be put in place. But you have seen from past incidents, not just from Singapore, in other places as well, there are always possibilities that some individuals may then not use it appropriately. They have to be dealt with when they are picked up. We have dealt with them by charging them in Court or other measures.
That does not, therefore, lead to the conclusion that because there is a possibility of abuse, you do not collect the data or use it in the first place. That would be the other extreme. Then, you are opening yourself up for an attack which you cannot do anything about and, post-attack, you do not have the tools to investigate. In the end, not just this power, a variety of powers that are placed in the hands of the Government, they have to be used within the framework of the law and for the purposes they are given.
The Chairman: Mr de Souza, would you like to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, thank you. Before I do so, I would like to place on record that the Home Team is, indeed, really frontline – roads, police coast guard, airport, ambulance and SCDF, ISD. They provide us with an umbrella of protection, together with MINDEF. And, often, we focus on a calamity. But every day a calamity is avoided is a day of battle won. Unglamorous because it is a non-event, but hugely important to all of us as Singaporeans.
Before withdrawing this amendment, I say that, also, similarly, Singaporeans need to carry this umbrella together with the Home Team and, should an attack happen in Singapore, respond hand-in-hand with the Home Team to overcome adversity. With that, I record the House's thanks to the diligent work of the Home Team, its officers, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $4,761,212,100 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $575,000,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah):Sir, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
In the past year, there have been significant developments in Singapore's legal landscape. This has been made possible by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), which has made it a priority to ensure that we have kept up with international developments and have actively sought new opportunities for the growth of our legal sector.
For example, with the launch of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in 2015 and the continued development of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Singapore is now truly able to provide a full suite, a full menu, of dispute resolution options for the amicable resolution of international commercial disputes or to resolve them adversarially.
A more recent example is the introduction of the Choice of Court Agreements Bill in Parliament this past week, which will further enhance the attractiveness of the Singapore Courts and the SICC as a venue for the resolution of international commercial transactions. With the establishment of these new platforms and further enhancements in the pipeline, Singapore will be well-placed to reinforce our \"Singapore\" legal brand as a global force in the legal and dispute resolution market, especially now that we are able to provide the full spectrum of dispute resolution options.
Furthermore, the UniSIM School of Law will be matriculating its first batch of students in the coming year, with classes scheduled to start in January 2017. The establishment of Singapore's third law school is an important milestone in the expansion of our legal sector and will ensure that we will be able to further augment our market for legal services. However, there is some concern that the uncertain global economic outlook might dampen growth of our legal sector and would reduce the opportunities available to Singaporean lawyers and law firms to expand further, especially in the region.
Therefore, in light of this, what steps is MinLaw considering to ensure the continued growth and development of the Singapore legal sector in general, especially against the backdrop of a slowing economic growth in Singapore and the region? And very importantly, arising from all of these changes – academic, judicial, policy – how will MinLaw help to ensure that Singapore law stays relevant as the law of choice for disputes, especially in the Singapore Courts or in SIAC, given that Singapore law is growing in jurisprudential depth and quality?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr de Souza, you have your two cuts in two minutes.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Grateful, Mr Chairman. In recent years, as a consequence of globalisation and the growing interconnectedness between countries, we are seeing a shift towards crime becoming increasingly cross-border in nature. Crimes are no longer bound by jurisdictional boundaries and are now being perpetrated by individuals or syndicates over the Internet or through other electronic means.
Therefore, given the increasingly complex nature of cross-border crimes and the need for prompt and accurate justice delivered to the accused person, what further initiatives and reforms does MinLaw envision for the criminal justice system in Singapore? Further, there is also the need for a review of our civil justice system, to ensure the continued relevance of Singapore law and our Courts at an international level.
The introduction of the Choice of Court Agreements Bill this past week is one such example. The introduction of this Bill could pave the way for Singapore to ratify the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements, which it signed on 25 March 2015. Therefore, as Singapore law continues to grow in jurisprudential depth and geographical reach, how will the Ministry ensure that it is kept relevant to – and at the centre of – any intended reforms to the civil justice system?
The protection of registered designs, like other types of Intellectual Property (IP), aims to encourage innovation and creativity by granting rights owners the exclusive use of their designs for a limited period, in exchange for disclosing and releasing it for public use at the end of the prescribed period.
I would like to ask the Minister for Law; what feedback had been collated from the public consultations that were conducted on the Registered Design Act (RDA) and, moving forward, what plans does the Ministry have to operationalise these changes?
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): As part of the Singapore economy, the legal services sector will need to participate in the transformational exercise called upon by the Finance Minister. The law practices can tap on some of the generic measures rolled out to support businesses, like tax incentives or business grants. Some of the other measures, however, do not appear as relevant and it may not be immediately clear how the law practices will be part of this transformation. I am heartened to note that, as part of the Industry Transformation Programme, there will be a more targeted and sector-focused approach to better meet the needs of specific businesses.
There is a need for MinLaw to create platforms for the dissemination of information, sharing and discussion on two aspects of the Budget. One, how local firms, especially the small and medium-sized law practices, can tap on the various benefits rolled out to support businesses; and, two, the emerging trends and developments in the legal services sector and what needs to be done to transform the sector to keep up with the changing economy.
Some support may be needed to cajole the law practitioners, in particular, those in the small and medium-sized firms, to be part of this transformation exercise. This is not because lawyers do not think it is important. The reality is that these firms face issues of having the capabilities and capacity to spend time in developing their businesses, not to mention transform them. Often, lawyers are busy with the actual legal work of meeting clients and going to Court and may not have the expertise or connections to develop their businesses.
I would, therefore, like to enquire about the Ministry's plans for the legal services sector. What are the specific efforts that will be carried out to create awareness, disseminate information and support the Singapore law practices to transform and be future-ready? In particular, what measures are in place to specifically address near-term issues faced by the small and medium-sized practices so that they can be part of the growing legal services sector? I note that there is currently a Legal Industry Needs Study being coordinated by The Law Society. What are the Ministry's role and plans following from this study?
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan, you may take your two cuts together.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): The Fourth Committee on the Supply of Lawyers had, in 2013, recommended that the third law school at UniSIM offer a conversion course for external law degree holders or holders of law degrees which are not on the list of approved overseas universities. I understand that UniSIM will now not offer that course. I understand that these graduates may have to take the JD course instead. However, the JD course may take a much longer time. Past graduates with similar external law degrees who are qualified to practise as Singapore lawyers can probably testify that they did not need such a lengthy course to make them worthy practitioners. Many are doing well. Moreover, some external law degree holders who have yet been allowed to qualify as lawyers in Singapore are doing well as legal counsel or even practising successfully under a different jurisdiction.
I would like to know what is MinLaw's position on this issue. I would also like to ask the Minister to update the House on the Government's present position on the prospect of these graduates qualifying as advocates and solicitors.
My second cut. As we know, in the past few years, there has been an over-supply of law graduates and a shortage of trainee positions. Recently, it was announced that the third law school – UniSIM Law School – is being set up and will focus on Community Law. I would like to ask the Minister, what is MinLaw's position on the likely implication of the additional number of graduates in the labour market, arising from the new law school. I would also like to ask the Minister whether MinLaw expects that the graduates of UniSIM Law School will only practise community law and that they are discouraged from pursuing other areas of law after they graduate.
The reason why I am asking this question is that, as a practising lawyer myself, I find that many law graduates only choose their area of work after they start training or with their first job after they qualify as lawyers. In fact, many switch areas of work after training or after their initial job. My next question is: what if, say, a large number of students at UniSIM decide, in the course of studying Community Law subjects or having done attachments at law firms, decide that Community Law – whether Family, Probate or Criminal Law – is not their cup tea? Is it realistic to expect people to stay in the field at this early stage of their legal career or education?
Finally, notwithstanding that UniSIM Law School will focus on Community Law, I would also like to seek the Minister's assurance that better efforts can be made to persuade more students of NUS and SMU to pursue Community Law in their career options. How the law schools communicate their expectation of their graduates may have a positive influence on their views towards different areas of practice.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member):\t Mr Chair, with your permission, may I display some slides on the LED screens, please?
The Chairman: Yes, please go ahead. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Mr Chair and Members of the House, it has been said by Minister Heng Swee Keat and others that changes are upon us. In particular, in this region, which is the Asia Pacific region, we have the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), we also have the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, hopefully, will see fruit very soon. We have the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, with which negotiations are also underway. I have shown here a Venn diagram of how and where we are placed. There are about three or four huge international trade and investment agreements. And Singapore, as Minister Heng has rightly said, is \"at the centre of the Asian growth story\". If we look at this diagram, we, together with a few other Asian neighbours, are smack in the middle.
If ASEAN, the 10 countries that make it the regional block, were a single economy, it would already be the seventh largest economy in the world. It has a combined GDP of over US$2.4 trillion as of 2014 and, if we are to add, India, China and other Asian partners, it is estimated that by 2050, Asia could account for half of the global GDP, trade and investment of the world.
If Singaporeans, businesses and professionals are at the centre, smack in the middle, lawyers, certainly, are no exception. As our Chief Justice said earlier this year, \"the law is indispensable to business. Business actors transact in the shadow of the law and they depend on the law and they depend on the legal system to ensure their bargains are enforceable.\"
In January this year, the Minister for Law at the first Legal Convergence Conference, which was organised by the Academy of Law and the Ministry, unveiled an exciting new initiative. The conference, which was supported by EDB, as well as top international law firms and large local law firms, including Drew & Napier and Rajah & Tann, unveiled the Asian Business and Law Institute.
At this conference, we saw high-level representatives from Australia, China and India join Singapore's top policymakers and members of the judiciary to unveil this initiative or institute. My point is that as new initiatives and institutes are unveiled to lead to the convergence, as they say, of Asia's business laws, to give confidence to Asian investors and multinational investors, that are investing both in Asia and in ASEAN, in light of the trade and investment agreements that we are signing on to, they would necessarily look to Singapore.
If we are at the centre, Singaporean lawyers or foreign lawyers based in Singapore will be advising both corporate businesses and advising on disputes and arbitrations. In light of this, may I propose a few questions to the Minister and the Ministry, please?
First, what is the role of the legal sector in the Industry Transformation Programme that Minister Heng has outlined? How can the legal fraternity be supported by MinLaw to advance the goal of industry transformation? Are there targeted approaches the Ministry has in mind? As businesses \"build deeper capabilities, develop their people, scale up and internationalise\", how can legal services and legal service providers be incentivised to do the same? How can our Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), Judiciary, Legal Service Commission (LSC) and other stakeholders be engaged further to entrench a possible industry transformation which sees possibly lawyers providing services to the countries and businesses in the region?
What are the Ministry's plans, if any, to enhance \"innovation\" in the legal industry? What might be the possible interactions, for example, between the legal industry and SG-Innovate? Could the Skills Future opportunities assist the legal profession as well, to \"adapt and grow\", because \"adapt and grow\" we must?
What about the smaller law firms and boutique practices? What are their roles and what are the opportunities for them for continued commercial, corporate and arbitration work? If we were to emulate the ICT sector, would the Ministry, the Academy of Law, and other stakeholders consider, perhaps, a \"Law Skills Accelerator\" or a \"Law Laboratory\" which is designed specifically for the legal fraternity and what role do the three law schools – SMU, NUS and, most recently, UniSIM – have to play in this?
Finally, with resilience comes the need for social innovation and civic mindedness. What are the Ministry's plans, if any, to enhance the current pro bono and CSR efforts that the law firms, the Ministry and the Academy of Law have in mind to give better opportunities for the underserved amongst us to have access to justice?
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Chairman, many of our fellow Singaporeans do not give much thought in their daily life to legal issues, especially because very few of us have formal legal training. It is not something we think about automatically.
Yet, throughout the course of our life, we can easily encounter situations where legal advice and guidance may be needed: (a) an elderly resident, seriously ill, now thinking about writing up a will; (b) a young parent, with a serious disease, wanting to arrange Lasting Power of Attorney, planning for the unthinkable; (c) a fellow Singaporean in legal difficulty; it could be a tort, a contract dispute, a criminal matter.
Can the Minister share how we can continue improving access to legal aid, including building awareness about how to apply?
The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can take your three cuts together.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Chairman, I have spoken on this before and am raising this again. I hope MinLaw will seriously look into reviewing the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal in raising the limits, so that more people can have economical and expedient orders and judgment to their contractual claims. In particular, I know many professional freelancers who are on a contract for service and they use the Small Claims Tribunal when they are not paid or when their payments are delayed, especially for their work rendered. A raising of the claims limits will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike.
My second cut is on the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). And since the Act has come into force in 2015, can Ministry of Law provide an update on the number of cases filed and mediated and orders given? Among all the cases filed, what is the breakdown on the types, that is, how many involved community neighbours, how many are online harassment, how many are sexual harassment and how many are workplace harassment cases?
My third cut is on the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). Since the set-up of CDRT, I wish to ask the Minister how many cases have been filed, how many heard, how many cases mediated and how many resolved. And also what actions, if any, have the Courts or complainants taken when offending parties, after the tribunal order, still continue to perpetrate and breach the order?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Chair, Sir, in land-scarce Singapore, land acquisition is necessary for national development. The Government compensates landowners for the land based on valuations. Fairness is a key principle. Since 1998, the ex-gratia scheme recognises the financial and social consequences faced by landowners. When businesses are forced to close or relocate, workers lose their jobs. They are third parties but their livelihoods are most affected. This is especially so when they are older. Retraining and job placements become significantly more difficult.
I note the need to avoid situations where employers pass on responsibilities to the State. Yet, there are many genuine hardship cases where employers would not and could not undertake. Could the Minister consider extending the ex-gratia payment scheme to include affected workers? The payment, especially training support and absentee payroll, could be made via the Labour Movement. It will go a long way in helping the workers cope or to seek a new job.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members who spoke.
As I deal with the questions, I would like to put some context to it. We have a strong reputation for upholding the rule of law. Can I ask for the distribution of the first handout from the Clerks, please?
The Chairman: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Essentially, in the recent survey, Members will see: (a) 92% of Singaporeans stated they had trust and confidence in our legal system; (b) 96% agreed that Singapore is governed by the rule of law; (c) 92% agreed that we have a fair legal system; (d) 92% agreed that we have an efficient legal system; (e) 75% agreed that legal aid is accessible to those of limited means; and (f) 62% agreed that our legal system is affordable.
These results reflect the collective hard work put in by the Government, the Courts, the Attorney-General's Chambers and the various agencies in the legal industry. We thank them for their efforts. We must continue to improve our legal system for the good of all.
Members have touched on some areas where they think we can do more. I will cover three areas in my speech: first, what we are doing to try and grow the legal industry; second, how we are helping small- and medium-sized Singapore law practices; and third, how we are trying to improve the civil and criminal justice systems.
Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah will cover the other points.
First, on growing the legal industry. Mr de Souza and Asst Prof Mahdev asked how we plan to do this.
There are always two aspects to issues like these. First, on the Government's part, we have to make sure we have a framework that is conducive for the business environment. This includes upholding the rule of law; updating and making sure our laws and legal frameworks are relevant; providing the necessary support or incentives; and, fundamentally, ensuring good governance as a whole. If we had poor governance, or if we were not successful as a country, then it is a pipe dream to talk about the legal industry growing.
But at the same time, it is not just the Government. There is a part for the Government, but there is also a part for the private sector and the profession. The profession must ensure that it is in a position to attract and handle high-value work; and be entrepreneurial, competitive and innovative in identifying and capturing opportunities, because they are competing.
The legal sector's prospects are, ultimately, dependent on the economy. It will be impacted by the rate of economic growth. If economic growth slows, then the legal industry, as a support industry, will be affected.
But even when the economy slows down, lawyers will have some opportunities. The world's economic centre of gravity is shifting towards Asia. I have said this very frequently when I was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As Asst Prof Mahdev mentioned just now, ASEAN is the seventh largest economy in the world. ASEAN economies have grown significantly over the years and, by 2020, on current projections, it will have a GDP of US$4 trillion.
International trade flows will increase and international investment will increase. Establishing AEC to allow a freer movement of goods, services, investments, skilled labour and capital will help. If we have agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), that can help, too, to increase economic activities.
In addition, there is also likely to be more work involving regional cross-border debt restructurings, for example. We are well-placed to serve as the lead jurisdiction to manage these sorts of complex work, provided our lawyers are able to do that.
Given Asia's infrastructure needs, for example, China's One Belt One Road initiative, the amount of legal work in the area of projects and infrastructure will increase.
Let me explain what the Government is doing to help our firms to take advantage of these opportunities. In terms of creating a framework, we offer the full suite of dispute resolution services. We are one of the most preferred seats of arbitration in the world. The year2015 was a record for SIAC, with 271 new cases involving S$6.23 billion in disputes. SIAC grew because of a very targeted and focused effort by the Government to make sure it is internationally attractive. We did away with some archaic rules that held it back.
Second, we set up SICC and SIMC to provide for a broader range of dispute resolution services that will address the needs of the commercial users.
And, as Mr de Souza noted, we introduced the Choice of Court Agreements Bill this week, which will help make our Courts more attractive for resolving disputes. And later this year, we plan to introduce a Mediation Bill to strengthen our mediation framework.
We are also studying, more broadly, other areas of potential growth that may be available to the legal industry.
Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and Mr Chaly Mah co-chair a Working Group, under the Committee on the Future Economy, to identify key areas of demand and potential growth, strategies and capabilities to ensure that our law firms remain relevant and how we can increase the export of services and seize the opportunities that are available in the region. The Working Group has organised discussions with relevant players to seek their views on how we can grow this sector.
Asst Prof Mahdev specifically asked what is the role of the legal sector in industry transformation. As the industry transforms, there will be a lot of work arising from the transformation. The new transformation will bring around more work and the legal sector has to be prepared for that. We will support the universities and make sure that they train their lawyers for these new fields.
He also asked how legal service providers can be incentivised to help in industry transformation. Well, in a way, you are asking me how we can use taxpayers' money to help lawyers make more money through industry transformation. I am not sure that is a popular subject. The fact is we do also put taxpayers' money to help lawyers in a number of ways. I will come back to this. And we will certainly help in industry transformation, to make sure there are jobs available. We will help in the training of lawyers. We do invest very substantial amounts there.
As the Asst Prof knows, but probably in the other university, we helped set up a number of key centres to make Singapore the thought leader in a number of fields and I will talk about that in a short while.
With all this help, it is now for the lawyers to go and see how they can take advantage of the situation. How can we, you asked, work with the Supreme Court and other institutions? We work very closely to create Singapore as a clear leader in Asia, which we are today, for example, by having the SICC and launching the Asian Business Law Institute with the support of the Supreme Court. It only works in Singapore; it is not possible in other places. This is because the Government works closely with other stakeholders to put these forward and in record time. So, we look at the whole sector and we work with everyone.
How do we help firms innovate? We have a number of schemes and I will talk about this in a while. We are focused more on getting the smaller firms to try and take advantage of IT, but while we have the schemes and we have the money available, the take-up rate is not very high. The Senior Minister of State has written to the law firms. She has tried to engage them. We will continue trying. We can make them available, but people must make use of them.
As for the other questions, I will try to touch on them in the context of my speech.
Our lawyers need to step up against the competition and offer greater value to clients, compared to the region. This will require having stronger overseas knowledge and networks to better serve businesses; building deeper expertise and experience in key practice areas; and forging strong and extensive networks and relationships.
We will help. We want our law firms to be successful, not just internally, but externally. We will create the framework. We are actually putting taxpayers' money into it and we focus more of the money on small and medium law firms. The big firms, we also have some money on the table through a number of schemes and it is for them to decide whether they will take them up. So, we do actually put some money to try and get them to make some money.
On the promotion of Singapore law, Mr de Souza suggested the promotion of the use of Singapore law. Cross-border transactions, for obvious reasons, tend to be governed by New York or English law, as parties prefer to use these laws because of the law firms involved and because the ultimate end-purchasers of these bonds and other instruments tend to be located around the world. And they tend to be more familiar with New York or English law.
But there are some signs that Singapore law is becoming more popular. A recent survey of those who handle regional work shows that Singapore law is the second most common choice to govern cross-border transactions, after English law.
My Ministry will continue supporting the adoption of Singapore law through education and promotional efforts. We cannot direct but we can promote. We encourage law firms, both local and foreign, to promote Singapore law to their clients. We work with the agencies to engage companies, the ultimate end-users, on the benefits of adopting Singapore law in their cross-border contracts. We also look at our laws to make sure they are friendly for people to use, in terms of international parties. We support our law schools in their aim to become global thought leaders, not just in Asia.
So, with our strong support, the NUS Faculty of Law has set up four research centres covering areas of business, banking, financial and maritime law, and on Asian Legal Studies. When I say strong support, that includes providing money. This will, we hope, help to produce a steady pipeline of high-quality legal talent and build a strong faculty and a strong core of practitioners. The aim is for us to play a leading role in developing and shaping laws where we have a strategic interest or comparative advantage. So, that is why these areas were chosen.
Specific to small- and medium-sized Singapore law practices, we are aware that they may not be able to compete at this level with the bigger law firms or regional law firms.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked how we are supporting these law firms. A number of initiatives and measures are available to help the law firms. Because there is too long a list, I do not want to read it out but I will circulate it. If the Clerks could circulate that to Members, please?
The Chairman: Yes. [A handout was circulated to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: If you look at the handout, which will come to you in a minute, the schemes provide support to firms seeking to develop new capabilities, to become more productive and to expand to other jurisdictions.
Lawyers can also use their SkillsFuture credit to pay for some of the continuing professional development courses offered by SAL, Law Society and our universities.
SAL and INSEAD recently developed the \"Law Firm Leadership Programme\" to address the business challenges faced by law firm partners. UniSIM Law School plans to offer courses that are relevant to family and criminal law practitioners when it is up and running.
We are also working with the Law Society more specifically to identify how to strengthen our small- and medium-sized law firms. The Law Society is conducting a six-month study to identify the technology and capability needs of these firms. That will then enable the Ministry to provide support more directly and effectively, for example, how they can access and use technology. We encourage lawyers and law firms to participate in this study actively.
Mr de Souza asked about the reforms to improve the civil and criminal justice systems. My Ministry is undertaking a broad-based review of our civil justice system, from the time a dispute arises until it is resolved in Court or otherwise.
Some of the things that we are considering include reviewing the entire framework of legal costs and fee structures to ensure affordability; and enhancing judicial control over litigation, by managing time and costs. Further details will be announced in due course after we have engaged the stakeholders.
As for the criminal justice system, given how quickly technology has advanced and crimes have evolved, our laws and practices must keep pace. MinLaw and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regularly review the criminal laws and practices to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have sufficient powers and, at the same time, we have a fair and robust criminal justice system that is fair to all sides.
One area that we are studying specifically is the Community Based Sentencing regime, to consider whether and how it can apply to more persons so that it helps in the rehabilitation process. This review of the criminal law system will be quite extensive. I have asked for it to be very extensive and as I have said something earlier in the speech relating to MHA – we will release details when we are a little bit more down the road on this.
Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah will take the remaining cuts.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for supporting MinLaw's work and for their cuts.
Dr Tan Wu Meng and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan spoke about access to justice. Access to justice is critical to the rule of law. My Ministry works with the Judiciary, the Law Society and other stakeholders to enhance access to justice, particularly for lower income and vulnerable Singaporeans.
The Legal Aid Bureau provides legal aid and advice on civil matters, such as divorce, estate matters or personal injury. Applicants must satisfy a means and merits test.
The Primary Justice Project launched by the State Courts, the Law Society and the Community Justice Centre provides basic legal services at a fixed low cost, with a view to resolving disputes amicably and expediently.
Since 2015, MinLaw has also provided funding support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) run by the Law Society. In 2015, the scheme benefited 2,433 accused persons, of which 1,324 received full legal representation or legal services not involving Court attendance. This is a significant increase from 2014, where only 431 accused persons received full legal representation. Persons facing capital charges are also ensured legal representation under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO).
The needy can also receive free basic legal advice at legal clinics. These include the Community Legal Clinics network run by the Law Society; the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts; and other legal clinics at Community Centres or run by voluntary welfare organisations, charities and religious organisations.
We have been promoting a strong pro bono culture within the legal fraternity. Since 2015, Singapore lawyers are required to disclose the number of hours spent in each preceding year on pro bono work. This will enable a more holistic appraisal of the pro bono landscape.
I turn now to community justice. MinLaw has put in place affordable and effective mechanisms for resolving community disputes while preserving community bonds. These include: CDRT, POHA and the Small Claims Tribunals. Mr Patrick Tay talked about these initiatives.
The CDRT was established on 1 October 2015, about six months ago. It provides an avenue to resolve community disputes, including through Court-ordered mediation. As at 31 January 2016, 32 claims were filed. These typically involve complaints about excessive noise, littering, obstruction or interference with movable property. Out of 13 claims referred by the CDRT for mediation, four were successfully settled; five are pending mediation. In total, 11 claims have been disposed of and 21 remain pending. These are early results but they are positive. Victims may enforce CDRT orders by applying for Special Directions upon default of the orders. As at 31 March 2016, no such applications have been filed.
POHA took effect on 15 November 2014. As at 31 January 2016, 171 applications for Protection Orders were filed, including by victims of online, sexual, workplace and debt collection-related harassment. In total, 54 Protection Orders and 45 Expedited Protection Orders were granted. Some of these were granted by consent. A number of applications were also withdrawn. This suggests that some disputes are being resolved amicably. 799 Magistrate's Complaints have also been lodged under the Act.
Mr Patrick Tay asked if the claim limits of the Small Claims Tribunals would be increased. This is being reviewed by my Ministry and the State Courts as part of the review of the Small Claims Tribunals Act.
MinLaw will continue to monitor these community justice platforms to ensure efficient and affordable resolution of community disputes.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about the implications of the UniSIM Law School (ULS) graduates entering the market. The ULS intake will be relatively small – 60 in the first batch and around 75 students in steady state. It will thus not have a significant implication in terms of overall numbers. Moreover, its first batch of students will graduate in or around 2020, by which time, the current situation should have resolved itself. However, what ULS will do is to provide a steady pipeline of family and criminal lawyers. These are areas in which there is an impending shortage if nothing is done.
Mr Chairman, before I proceed, I would like to seek your indulgence to continue past the 30 seconds remaining to me. Otherwise, MinLaw would not be able to do justice to Mr Dennis Tan's questions, as well as to Mr Desmond Choo's and Mr Patrick Tay's.
The Chairman: Six minutes, please.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. Fresh graduates from local universities and overseas scheduled universities (OSU) generally choose not to practise in the areas of criminal and family law. There is a high attrition rate amongst those who do, due to the stresses and emotional demands. The current oversupply thus does not meet this very real need.
The ULS programme, however, is designed to do so and will, in fact, help the smaller law firms who are short of lawyers. While the ULS law degree will qualify its graduates for general practice, it is expected that they will practise family and criminal law. Its entire design – from admission and selection criteria and curriculum – is geared to encourage this outcome. ULS is targeted at mature individuals with relevant work experience who would be better placed to decide at the outset if they want to practise in these areas.
Mr Tan also asked about MinLaw's position on external law degrees and degrees from non-scheduled universities. The Government's position is that we must have high standards and a high quality of education for the practice of Singapore law. This is because the practice of law has widespread impact – it affects the lives of people, society and the economy.
External law degree holders and non-OSU graduates who wish to practise can now seek admission to the Singapore Bar via the ULS JD programme.
The Fourth Committee had suggested that one should look at a conversion programme to allow them to practise. But after much consideration, the Steering Committee for the Third Law School felt that the JD programme would be a better route to practice for these people rather than a conversion programme. This is because the ULS is a specialist law school. Its raison d'etre is actually to produce good family and criminal lawyers. The content and curriculum are designed specifically with Singapore law in mind. It is not just a matter of converting something that you have learnt overseas. The content will focus on things like the Women's Charter, Criminal Procedure Code, Penal Code, Misuse of Drugs Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act – all of which are not taught by overseas universities.
Moreover, it has a unique practice-oriented approach which is embedded in the curriculum. They will have to learn things like the judge-led approach which is part of our family law reforms.
When you take all of these together, we felt that the JD programme would be better in terms of producing family and criminal lawyers of high quality. Although the JD programme will take longer than a conversion course, we felt that it would be better in terms of outcomes.
With respect to NUS and SMU, obviously, criminal and family law modules are taught there. We cannot compel their graduates to take up practice in these areas, but we can and do encourage them to do so. There are pro bono schemes in those universities to expose them to these areas, including, for example, the Innocence Project.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about developments in the designs and intellectual property regimes. IP gives businesses a competitive edge in today's innovation-driven globalised economy. The 2013 IP Hub Master Plan aims to develop Singapore as a gateway for businesses to protect and use their innovations world-wide. We have done well in our efforts to achieve this goal.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) search and examination unit is the only unit in Southeast Asia appointed as an international searching authority under the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Patent Cooperation Treaty. IPOS also has arrangements with other patent offices, to allow businesses to rely on IPOS' search and examination reports in other countries.
My Ministry and IPOS have recently completed a review of the registered designs regime. We will expand the scope of protection for designs in view of technological advances and modern business practices. So, for example, virtual designs, artisanal or handcrafted design items and colours will be protectable. These and other recommendations were positively received in the 2014 and 2015 public consultations. They will support the Design 2025 Master Plan in promoting the creative and innovative use of design as a source of growth and productivity.
Mr Desmond Choo asked whether ex gratia support could be provided to workers in deserving circumstances in connection with land acquisition. Like Mr Choo, the Government is sympathetic and will provide assistance to retrenched workers. However, it is important not to conflate what are two separate issues: first, compensation for land; and, second, support for retrenched workers.
The Land Acquisition Act compensates property owners by paying market value for land which is acquired. We should continue to maintain that principle. Introducing other elements will distort what is essentially compensation for the market value of the land.
Nevertheless, there is assistance for retrenched workers. This takes the form of: (a) encouraging employers and unions to make provisions in collective agreements for retrenched workers, or, in the case of non-unionised employees, to follow best practices in redundancy situations; (b) helping workers to retrain, re-skill and remain employable through SkillsFuture; (c) providing job-matching assistance through Jobs Bank, e2i and WDA, amongst others; and (d) Budget 2016, which devotes significant attention to how retrenched workers can be helped under the section \"Supporting Our People through Change.\" I also understand the Minister for Manpower will be speaking on how to support retrenched workers.
Mr Chairman, MinLaw will continue to take steps to grow the legal industry, promote the use of law, enhance access to justice and strengthen the rule of law in Singapore.
The Chairman:\tMr Patrick Tay, clarifications.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan:\tI just wish to ask the Senior Minister of State, earlier on, she shared, for POHA claims – since coming into force in November 2014 – a total of 171 orders were given. I just wonder if she can share how many were cases of workplace harassment and, out of these 171, how many were sexual harassment cases?
Ms Indranee Rajah: What I referred to were 171 applications. I do not have the specific breakdown, but if the Member would like to file a question on that, then we can provide relevant information.
The Chairman: If there are no more clarifications, Mr de Souza, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Christopher de Souza: Chairman, before I withdraw it, I would like to thank the officers of MinLaw for their quiet and instrumental efforts to help ensure the smooth and efficient running of our economy. This includes the protection of the status of the rule of law and its high standing in Singapore, which I know, as an advocate in practice, of which I declare my interest.
The Ministers and their officers cover major initiatives, such as the setting up of SICC, SIAC, SIMC to create Singapore as a major legal hub. These are major initiatives. Access to justice, pro bono at the community level are also under their purview.
Before seeking leave to withdraw my amendment, I would request and encourage MinLaw to promote Singapore law as the choice of law for disputes, given Singapore laws' growing jurisprudential depth and geographic reach.
With that, I speak on behalf of the House by thanking the MinLaw officers and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $218,076,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $384,379,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head N (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman:\tHead N – Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Vikram Nair, you may take your two cuts together.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Singapore is a small country, but one which has punched well above its weight on the international stage because we have made ourselves relevant to others and built up trust and credibility over the years since our independence.
In this Budget, we are charting the course for Singapore to SG100. Even in this new journey, I think it is important to remember the wisdom of the past and I start with the quote from Mr Lee Kuan Yew: \"Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection. We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued survival and prosperity as a sovereign and independent nation. Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted.\"
In this context, I would first like to focus on Singapore's relations and relevance to some of the major powers in the region.
First, the United States. Singapore has had a long-standing and deep relationship with the US, which has been important to us for both economic and security reasons. The US is the world's strongest power, both economically and militarily, and its involvement in the region has helped to maintain stability and balance. The swift US response to acts of aggression, for example, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and more recently, in response to the war against terror, is quietly reassuring for small countries like Singapore and a strong deterrent to potential aggressors.
Economically, the US has been getting more integrated into the region, too. The recent high point of this integration is the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Many countries have come together for this, including Japan and the US. This is potentially a huge opportunity for all parties as two-thirds of world trade, or about $1.6 trillion, take place in this region. However, the TPP still needs to be ratified in the domestic legislatures before it comes into force.
In this regard, I have some concern with some of the statements being made in the course of the US Presidential Elections that some candidates may want the TPP to be renegotiated. There are also statements that the US might be intending to be less involved in Asia. I am concerned this may also put pressure on Congress not to ratify the TPP.
Should Singapore be concerned about some of these domestic developments in the US? Do we believe that we can persuade the US to remain and to extend its involvement in this region?
Next, I would like to talk about relations with China. Singapore also has strong ties with China, the world's most populous country and the second largest economy. China is one of Singapore's largest trading partners, and Singapore has invested heavily in China over the decades, including the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-city.
It was also an honour for Singapore to host the first talks between China and Taiwan. We have good ties with both China and Taiwan and, when there was an interest between the two to try to bridge their differences, we were their natural choice.
One area of growing concern though is China's position in relation to the South China Sea. The tensions are rising between China and other friends of ours, including the Philippines and Vietnam. They dispute China's nine-dash line claim. The Philippines has submitted this dispute to arbitration before the Permanent Court of Arbitration and China has refused to participate, disputing the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. In an important development, the Tribunal has now ruled it has jurisdiction to hear the case, and the hearing on the merits will proceed.
However, notwithstanding the ongoing arbitration, tensions have been escalating, the most recent example being China's opening of a lighthouse on an island it reclaimed in the last year.
Is there anything we can do to persuade parties to facilitate the peaceful resolution of this dispute? In particular, in 2002, all parties, including China, the Philippines and Vietnam, along with other ASEAN countries, agreed upon a Declaration on the Conduct of Parties for the region. One of the points agreed upon in this Declaration was to adopt a Code of Conduct (COC) for the region.
I would be interested to know MFA's views on whether there is any facilitative role Singapore might play in the process to help cool tensions and resolve this dispute in accordance with international law.
Finally, I would like to touch on relations with India. India is a country with tremendous potential. Its population is anticipated to overtake China's and it is at an earlier stage of its development, meaning there is more potential for growth.
Relations with India are historic and significant. It was India's independence in 1947 that paved the way for all the other British colonies, including Malaya and Singapore, to become independent. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was an admirer of Mr Jawarharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister.
The relations between our countries have become even stronger in recent years. Prime Minister Modi clearly holds Singapore in high regard, paying us a visit late last year and even declared a day of mourning in India when Singapore was also going through mourning last year. He is clearly focused on developing India's economy and attracting foreign investment to do so. Despite its small size, Singapore is one of the largest foreign investors in India.
I would be interested to know what Singapore's plans are to deepen our relations with India. In particular, I would be interested to know how the discussions for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are going and whether we can better bring India more into the ASEAN region.
Mr Chair, in my second cut, I would like to focus more on security concerns. The challenges and threats to our regional security appear daunting. I had discussed the tensions in the South China Sea in my earlier cut.
Elsewhere in North Asia, tensions in the Korean Peninsula appear to be escalating. North Korea has continued its nuclear testing, carrying out its fourth test in January 2016, and is issuing regular statements about a potential strike against Seoul and Washington. In response, South Korea and the US have carried out some of the largest joint military exercises. Given the potential nuclear capabilities of North Korea, this dispute could have serious implications.
Singapore is one of the few countries that have diplomatic ties with both North Korea and South Korea. While it is ambitious, I am not sure if there is something we can do in this difficult situation.
Closer to home, the threat of extremism continues to creep insidiously. The terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris have captured the international imagination, conveying the message that nobody is safe anywhere in the world. Arrests continue to be made in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia of individuals who have been involved with international terrorist organisations.
Countries around the country and the world are coming together to fight the threat posed by international terror organisations and, in particular, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
I would like to seek an update on the regional security situation and whether these growing threats will have an impact on Singapore. While we need a strong defence and Home Team, I believe that it is also important to work with neighbours in a collaborative fashion to help alleviate the difficult security situations.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mr Chairman, my first cut is on China-Japan-US relations. The evolving trilateral relations among China, Japan and the US are perhaps the most important and closely-watched around the world.
As Singapore is an open economy, highly reliant on global trade and commerce, stability in these relations is of key importance to us. The state of trilateral relations among China, Japan and the US will significantly affect Singapore, the region and beyond.
The US has been a benign and constructive power in our region for many years. The US' security alliances with Japan and South Korea have also helped to ensure East Asia's peace and prosperity. However, China's emergence has led to a shift in the major power relations and regional dynamics. Given tensions between China and Japan over historical issues and territorial disputes, the US must strike a fine balance in its relations between Japan and China. The dynamics of this relationship are complex, given the history of the Second World War and the differing governance systems in these countries.
Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he sees the trilateral China-Japan-US relationship evolving in the light of a slowing economy, and also, if there were a change in the leadership in the US, in particular, what implications would this evolving US-China relationship have on East Asia and Singapore.
Mr Chairman, my next cut is on geopolitics amid low oil prices. Crude oil has, over the last year, averaged less than US$50 per barrel, a far cry from, say, 2011 and 2014's average price of more than US$95 per barrel. This sharp slump in oil prices has already changed the behaviours of many organisations, as well as affected the daily lives of many, as all of us consume energy in one form or another.
Beyond the implications on organisations and individuals, there is a perception that the sustained low oil price environment has significantly influenced geopolitics. There is a widespread perception in the Middle East that the US is playing a less assertive role in the Middle East in recent times. Meanwhile, the conflicts in the Middle East have remained unresolved, while the prolonged low oil prices have also negatively affected the Middle East countries whose economies are heavily oil-dependent.
So, how would these countries evolve and deal with both their economic and political problems if oil prices stay low? And would this have a spill-over effect on the region here and on Singapore? Would the Minister care to share with us on how such developments will affect Singapore?
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 was a significant landmark
For Singapore particularly, the ASEAN Economic Community is of great interest, as it has been touted as providing Singapore firms with a larger hinterland from which to draw customers. Instead of selling to the 5.5 million, we now have the chance to reach out to 622 million potential customers instead. Of course, ASEAN cooperation goes beyond economics and extends into the political and socio-cultural spheres as well.
The success of the ASEAN Community will depend on how ASEAN countries can cooperate to deal with emerging challenges that can affect Singaporeans and our region. These can be intra-region, such as the perennial haze problem in Indonesia, or involve external parties, such as the multilateral boundary disputes in the South China Sea. These are complex problems with no easy solutions and will be particularly challenging for a body like ASEAN which will need to balance multiple competing national interests.
If we play our cards right, the Community will allow Singapore to project our national interests with the voice of the entire grouping, achieving far greater outcomes than we could alone. But the flipside is that there may be situations where our sovereignty and interests are challenged by others within the group and compromises will need to be made.
Minister Vivian has correctly described the community building process as \"a journey, not a destination\". As the European experience shows, integration among a diverse group of very different countries will be a long-term, on-going process and will not always be smooth sailing.
I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs for an update on the status of ASEAN's integration and how we will continue to secure Singapore's interests within the community and how the ASEAN Community is working together to handle regional issues and challenges.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, the tensions in the South China Sea appear to have taken a turn for the worse in 2016, manifested most acutely by the timing of China's deployment of an air defence unit on the disputed Woody Island, precisely when the inaugural ASEAN-US Summit in the US was taking place earlier in February this year. In addition, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling on the case between the Philippines and China on China's claims over much of the South China Sea, defined by a nine-dash line – which is expected to be released very soon – questions on the extent and legitimacy of China's claims are likely to come to the fore again, raising temperatures once more. The month of March, in fact, has seen a perceptible rise in the number of commentaries and even editorials in the local press, particularly over the last month, that mirror these heightened tensions.
These developments and many others before it are taking place when Singapore is into its first year as coordinator of ASEAN-China dialogue relations. The role is a significant one as ASEAN's failure to issue a joint communique at the 45th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 2012 was due to developments in the South China Sea. To that end, the Ministry has wasted no time in getting down to work as coordinator, proposing a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), in the spirit of Singapore's reputation on this matter as an honest broker and its reputation as a constructive player in the international arena. What has been ASEAN and China's response to CUES?
Separately, in 2013, the Ministry confirmed that ASEAN and China were still at the stage where they were \"talking about talks\" on COC. Last year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed that China had indicated its willingness to work on COC and that Singapore's task is to focus on making sure how parties engage with each other on the high seas. To this end, what progress has been made on the full implementation of the Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), including cooperative projects between ASEAN and China? What is China's position on the DOC currently and has it changed, given that it has previously stressed that the DOC should precede COC, even if ASEAN's position is that both are not sequential and can be addressed together?
Finally, at the 7th ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting, the ASEAN partners suggested some measures to promote stable military-to-military relations in the South China Sea, including a \"no first use of force\" agreement among claimant states, in line with the intent of the articles of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, as suggested by Vietnam. Brunei suggested establishing hotlines to reduce tensions and misunderstandings. Can the Ministry confirm if such proposals have been implemented and whether China has been invited to join these initiatives?
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): More than 180 years ago, freezing cold ice played a role in the opening of warm relations between Singapore and the US as prominent businessman Hoo Ah Kay, or Whampoa as he was known, started importing ice from Boston for his ice-house which was located just down the street from here. And this was in 1854, just a couple of years after the first US Consulate opened on our shores.
The Whampoa factory, of course, is no more, but 50 years of formal diplomatic relations between our two countries have evolved into a healthy mutual respect that US Ambassador Kirk Wagar summarises succinctly as \"a partnership built on the pillars of political, security, trade and investment, cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties.\" Singapore is also a strong supporter of US efforts in peace and security as both countries are committed to creating a safe and secure world where our children can live in peace.
Prime Minister Lee, in his recent visit to the US, expressed concern that a less globally-engaged US would have implications for the whole world as the US is an important pillar of stability and openness. The Prime Minister also stated that the passage of the TPP trade agreement looks troubled with the US elections looming as well. I, therefore, add my voice to that of the hon Member Mr Vikram Nair and would like to seek the Minister's views on these concerns.
The world, especially small nations like Singapore, looks towards the US as a key component in safeguarding global security and peace. Fifty years of excellent relations are a result of the far-sightedness of our leaders. How do we ensure this continues for the next 50? Could the Minister update the House on the current state of our relations with the US and future areas of bilateral cooperation and support and what, if any, are the challenges going forward?
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): From the recent spate of news, China's influence in the region is set to grow as it fires on all cylinders. There is a palpable increase in China's activities in the region. Even while Chinese vessels have allegedly trespassed and fished in waters claimed by Malaysia and Indonesia and just days ago, a Chinese ship was seized by Vietnam near the South China Sea. It is also pulling out all stops to try to build trust by presenting the One Belt, One Road strategy, launching the AIIB and pledging deeper political, economic and social cooperation with regional countries.
China's outbound direct investment surpassed inbound FDI for the first time in 2015. The search for new markets and better returns for its accumulated surpluses and multiple development bottlenecks domestically in China drives this push for outbound direct investment, given manufacturing over-capacity, insufficient domestic demand and increasing energy and resource consumption.
I was at the Boao Forum recently and saw the interest ASEAN members had in China's outgoing strategy via One Belt, One Road. At the Inaugural Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Leaders' Meeting on the sidelines of the Boao Forum, Premier Li Keqiang offered preferential loans of 10 billion yuan and credit lines of US$10 billion to five ASEAN countries along the Mekong River to fund infrastructure and improve connectivity. In smaller group forums, individual ASEAN members spoke of how they could cooperate with China on production capacity and spoke glowingly of Chinese investments in their provinces.
Singapore enjoys good relations with China and celebrated 25 years of diplomatic relations last year with the upgrade of the CSSFTA, an agreement to develop a third govenrment-to-government project in Chongqing. How do we intend to build on the foundations of this relationship and leverage on the new narrative that is emerging from China with regard to its One Belt, One Road strategy? And how do we balance that against the geo-dynamic tensions that China's rise is causing for the region, especially as we hear of the weekly incidents and claims of illegal fishing in the South China Sea?
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa, you can take your two cuts.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Singapore-Japan diplomatic relations. Our relations with Japan have grown and are increasingly broad and multi-faceted. I recall that the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) was Japan's first Free Trade Agreement and Singapore's first with a major trading partner. Given that Japan has signalled its desire to play a more proactive role in the region and expand relations with ASEAN, it is well-timed for us to take stock and further broaden and deepen our bilateral and regional cooperation with Japan. May I seek an update on Singapore's relations with Japan?
Our relations with the Republic of Korea (ROK). Singapore and ROK enjoy long-standing ties which extend into many areas. We have become each other's top trading partner over the years and seek to deepen cooperation in various sectors, such as ICT, real estate, SME and transport. Last year, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Singapore-ROK diplomatic relation. I would like to similarly seek an update on our relations with ROK.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, Singapore continues to enjoy long-standing, close and multi-faceted relations with India. For instance, in 2014, a government-to-government agreement was reached between Singapore and Andhra Pradesh where Singapore undertook the task of planning the layout of Amaravati, the new capital city of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
In addition, we marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with India in 2015 with a string of high-level visits which culminated in the official visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in November 2015. During the landmark visit, Singapore and India further elevated bilateral relations with the signing of the Strategic Partnership by both Prime Ministers.
I would like to ask the Minister: how do we intend to leverage on the Strategic Partnership to further enhance bilateral cooperation? And what other new areas of cooperation are we pursuing?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, Singapore, as a small nation, has successfully steered itself through occasional hiccups in its foreign relations with other countries. But we have remained steadfast in our principles which, among others, include that we are friends to all who want to be friends. And we will stand by our friends who have stood by us in times of need. This has seen us well through the years and, indeed, we have been able to make our voice heard at many international fora on a variety of issues.
Our Prime Minister, as well as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and others, have been travelling abroad to grow the ties that we have established over the years and to update ourselves on the changes going on in these countries. Prime Minister Lee will soon be making a trip to Australia, and, as I understand, it is to forge new agreements, including to enhance our defence cooperation. I think it is timely for us to strengthen our relations with Canberra, especially given that we have robust two-way people-to-people contacts through the years. Many Singaporeans, myself included, have fond memories of our sojourn in Australia. Like many others, I have had my university education in Australia.
In fact, our diplomatic relations with Australia date back to 1941 and we were one of the very earliest foreign posts set up by the Canberra government. Over the years, our relations have evolved from education, business to defence. In this current security landscape, I believe cooperation would be even closer for the security agencies in our respective countries. We have also signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements and are on the same page in so far as bilateral trade is concerned.
A new cold war is already brewing in Europe. Overnight, once-friendly diplomacy can be disfigured and the situation can turn ugly, as in Ukraine. Our region could be next, as this is another arena for the superpowers to flex their muscles. Their baring of teeth in the South China Sea is unsettling to many peace-loving countries. I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he could update the House on what is his assessment of relations between Singapore and our key partner, Australia. As we write the next chapter of our history, how are we managing the play by the big powers to expand their spheres of influence in the Australasia region?
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, you can take your two cuts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development and Acting Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Chairman, as a small country, especially one located in a region as diverse as ours, it is crucial that Singapore maintains good relations with other countries. Singapore's relationship with our most immediate neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, has always been, and will continue to be, of great importance to us. Given their proximity, whatever happens in these two countries will have an impact on us.
Both countries are our key partners in many ways. We have a long and deep history of cooperation in the political, security, economic and people-to-people spheres , among many others, both bilaterally and in ASEAN.
On the other hand, as close neighbours, there will always be issues that will invariably crop up from time to time. We must maintain an open dialogue and manage these issues without adversely affecting the overall bilateral relations.
I observe that enhancing connectivity between Singapore and Malaysia has been a theme in recent years, with progress being made on key bilateral projects, such as the High Speed Rail (HSR) and the Rapid Transit System (RTS) link. This will be timely as we are seeing massive movements of people going into Malaysia or coming into Singapore on a daily basis. However, one consistent gripe that Singaporeans and Malaysians have is congestion at the land crossings.
For Indonesia, we have maintained our good economic ties and have continued to be Indonesia's largest foreign investor. However, some problems remain very much in Singaporeans' consciousness, particularly the haze issue.
There are also increasing concerns over radicalised individuals or returning foreign-fighters in the region.
With these issues in mind, I would like to seek MFA's assessment on the state of our bilateral relations with Malaysia and Indonesia. In particular, I would like an update on our efforts to improve connectivity between Singapore and Malaysia, particularly on the congestion on the Causeway.
My next cut. Chairman, a number of countries in Southeast Asia are going through transitions in government this year.
Vietnam and Laos had their respective Party Congresses in January. In Myanmar, the general elections took place in November 2015 and the new NLD government was recently sworn in. We will also see a new Philippine president and cabinet after the Presidential Election in May.
In view of these leadership changes, could MFA provide an update on the state of relations with these countries and on how Singapore would engage these countries and their new leaders going forward?
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, you can take your two cuts.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Chairman, the Middle East has been pushed to the frontline yet again, due to the rise of ISIS. It is a critical issue currently but may seem to have overshadowed a lot of the many other Middle East issues and disputes. One example would be the long-drawn Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is there further progress that has been made? Are there new initiatives being proposed or tabled for discussion? The French also recently announced their plans to convene an international conference to discuss the Middle East peace process. What is MFA's view on this and what will be our stand and position?
Next cut. The conflict and volatile situation in the Middle East, in particular, in Iraq and Syria have had serious and damaging consequences on global politics, travel, humanitarian issues and even trading. The impact centres in the region but is not just confined there. The recent attacks in Australia, Asia, Europe and other countries are all testament to this and, as with our neighbours, we in Singapore are on high alert, knowing we are not immune. What and how will Singapore's Middle East engagement proceed and progress? Are there opportunities and plans in terms of our economic expansion as well as diplomatic ties with the region?
The Chairman: Ms Low Yen Ling, you may take your two cuts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Trade and Industry and the Acting Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Chairman, Europe is currently going through a difficult time. It is facing one of the largest waves of migration in recent years, with more than a million people entering its borders.
The European Union (EU) is struggling to find solutions to manage the escalating migrant and refugee crisis. On top of this, Europe faces heightened security risks in the wake of the recent spate of terrorist attacks in France, Belgium and Turkey. The EU is also struggling with pressing internal challenges, particularly the Greek debt crisis and the possible exit of the UK, which could paralyse the EU decision-making process. I note from media reports that serious questions are being asked about the EU's fundamental principles, including the single border, the single currency and even membership in its current form. Overall, the prospects do not look good, especially since the migrant crisis is not expected to end in the near future.
Against this challenging backdrop, what is the current state of our relations with Europe? Has the present situation affected Singapore's engagement of European countries? What are some of the ways through which we are keeping up our ties with Europe, which remains an important source of investments for Singapore?
Next cut, on consular support. With greater affluence and connectivity, Singaporeans are travelling overseas more often for work, leisure or education.
More Singaporeans are also residing overseas. Singaporeans today can be found almost everywhere, not only in major cities like New York, London, Dubai, Beijing or Tokyo but also in far-flung places, such as Kathmandu or Lima.
Advances in information technology have also enabled Singaporeans to have faster and more direct access to information and communication, literally at our fingertips. It is good to know that our citizens are not inward-looking, they are well-travelled and constantly widening their horizons or seeking commercial or other opportunities overseas. Singapore may be a small nation but we are very much a part of the global community.
Today, we are a major maritime, aviation, financial and logistics hub and, as such, we are very much plugged into the global system. Going forward, I foresee Singaporeans spending more time abroad and their needs overseas would be just as important as their needs at home.
Keeping the above trends in mind, it is likely that the load and complexity of consular cases that the MFA has to handle will almost certainly increase. The greater challenge may well be the growing expectations of prompt and also accessible consular services, I mean, 24/7. On the other hand, MFA resources are finite. Even though we have about 50 overseas missions to-date, I note that, for good reasons, our missions generally operate on very lean teams.
This brings me to the first part of my question. I would like to know how MFA has prepared itself to cope with this trend of greater consular demand and expectations. The second part of my question relates to how MFA handles overseas emergencies. Even as we encourage Singaporeans to venture further afield, we should also be concerned about their safety and whether they are sufficiently prepared for various types of contingencies and, I think, we, Singaporeans, sometimes take our safety for granted, even when we are abroad.
Over the last year, for example, we have witnessed a rising spate of overseas crises and emergencies, from political unrests to natural disasters to terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, some Singaporeans were caught up in a number of these incidents. I recall MFA's involvement in assisting our nationals in April last year when a devastating earthquake struck Nepal. Many of our citizens were stuck at Kathmandu Tribhuvan International Airport when it was closed. Fortunately, for Singapore and Singaporeans, no lives were lost. However, some of our nationals were not so fortunate in other incidents. I recall with much sadness the tragic Sabah earthquake in June last year.
This brings me to my question. I would like to know how MFA keeps track of Singaporeans abroad and how does MFA help our citizens in overseas crisis situations, especially in locations where we may not have an embassy or consulate.
The Chairman:\tMs Joan Pereira, you can take both your cuts.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, we are seeing an increasing number of Singaporeans travelling overseas. In 2012, Singaporeans made more than eight million trips, according to the National Association of Travel Agents Singapore (NATAS). This is an 85% increase from 2001, when 4.36 million trips were made.
More Singaporeans are travelling to exotic locations, such as Turkey and South Africa. Some of these exotic locations may not have Singapore Missions to provide consular support. Even if there are Singapore Missions within a given country, they may not be able to provide support to certain locations due to the large size of the country. For example, in the United States of America, there are Singapore Missions in San Francisco, New York, Chicago and Miami, Florida. However, due to the large size of the USA, these missions may not be able to provide consular support to Singaporeans in other states. I would like to know how MFA plans to help Singaporeans in locations that do not have Singapore missions in the immediate vicinity.
Natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis could leave Singaporeans stranded overseas. Last year, students and teachers from Tanjong Katong Primary School were caught on Mount Kinabalu during the Sabah quake. I would like to know MFA plans to send aid to Singaporeans if a similar incident occurs in a country that Singapore does not have diplomatic ties with, or a location without consular support.
In the meantime, the threat of terror looms large globally. Over the past few months alone, we have seen terror attacks in several cities, such as Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and, even closer to home, in Jakarta. Many of such attacks have been linked to ISIS. I would like to know how this rise in terrorist attacks is affecting Singaporeans abroad.
Mr Chairman, my next cut is on extremism and terrorism. Rising extremism has become a global concern in recent years. Hundreds from our region and other countries have travelled to join ISIS. Some travel to ISIS for training before returning to their home countries to carry out acts of terror. In today's digital era, extremist groups can also reach out to and radicalise others online. ISIS has uploaded videos to recruit and attract others as well as spread their ideology.
Last year, radicalised Bangladeshis were discovered in Singapore. More recently, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris. In both instances, the attacks were well-coordinated and occurred at multiple locations just minutes apart. This makes it extremely difficult for security agencies to respond. The Internet and new communications technology allow terrorists to communicate and coordinate their attacks. As terrorists employ more sophisticated tactics, our security agencies must find ways to cope with this quickly evolving threat.
However, increasing our security measures alone will not be sufficient and we need to tackle the spread of extremist ideology. Groups and individuals that are at risk of extremist behaviour need to be identified and safeguarded from becoming radicalised. Singaporeans need to look out for family and friends to protect them from radical influences. Individuals also need to keep an eye out for and report any suspicious activity.
As a global trade and financial hub, Singapore is a possible target. In May last year, ISIS cited Singapore as a possible target, along with the Philippines and USA. Singapore has also been cited as a target by other terrorist groups. Terrorism is a global, transnational threat.
In this vein, I would like to enquire how Singapore is working with other countries in tackling this issue.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Chairman, the global slowdown in economies, such as China and Europe, will have a significant impact on economic growth in Singapore. Industries will need to look out for business opportunities in other regions and transform to develop niches to grow their businesses.
In this regard, I would like to ask the Ministry to update the House on how MFA can play a more proactive role in establishing diplomatic relations and in engaging emerging markets, such as ASEAN member countries, Russia, Turkey, South Asia, Latin America and Africa.
For instance, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) that was launched in December 2015 will provide a single market of 625 million people and a collective GDP of S$3.7 trillion. The AEC will provide opportunities and challenges to both our small and big businesses. Businesses will need more information regarding these emerging markets and also a more effective trade facilitation framework to help them seek business partners or invest in these markets.
In this regard, I would urge the Ministry to consider providing dedicated business advisory and consular services to Singapore firms which are keen to expand to these emerging markets.
The Chairman: Mr Amrin Amin. You can take your two cuts together.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin):Thank you, Mr Chairman. The first cut. In 2015, Singapore not only celebrated its 50th year of Independence, it also celebrated its 50th anniversary as a member of the United Nations (UN). The year 2015 was also a landmark for the UN, with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Many of the global challenges and issues today are being discussed and addressed at the UN and various international fora. Singapore is a country that punches above its weight despite its small population and land size. My question is: how are we planning to continue to punch above our weight and play our part as a responsible member of the international community?
My second cut is on technical cooperation. As a small state with limited resources, Singapore has no natural relevance. We do not have the means to grant massive cash grants or soft loans or to sponsor major infrastructure projects, unlike certain major developed countries. Yet, we have to remain relevant and useful. As former Senior Minister S Jayakumar said, \"If we are not at the table, we will be on the menu.\"
During the SG50 celebrations, there was strong focus on Singapore's success and achievements, post-Independence. Singapore's political and social stability, governance model, policies and effective implementation receive international attention.
I understand that many countries are interested in what we have done and how we have done it. They seek to learn from our experience and emulate our success. What can Singapore and MFA do to leverage on our development expertise to help other developing countries and enhance Singapore's reputation as a forward-looking, constructive member of the international community? Are there examples on the effectiveness of our technical cooperation projects?
The Chairman: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan. You have exactly six minutes for your cut.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Noted with thanks, Mr Chairman. The Budget Book reveals that MFA's focus has been placed, in part, on sustainable development this year, particularly through the Singapore Cooperation Programme.
I applaud MFA's enlightened emphasis on the UN Sustainable Development goals, which span water management, sanitation and climate change, among other things. Speaking at the UN Summit last September where the goals were launched, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, in his previous incarnation as the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, noted our troubles, particularly our environmental troubles with trans-boundary haze pollution.
Sustainable development opens new opportunities for how we think about perennial problems, particularly climate change and the haze. I invite MFA today to outline its initiatives on how we can put ourselves on the map, as far as the sustainable development goals and sustainable development as a whole goes, with particular reference to our Sustainable Development and Climate Change (SDCC) programme. This was unveiled last year after the September Summit.
Specifically, I ask: what will the Singapore Cooperation Programme in Southeast Asia involve, particularly for the lesser developed economies (LDCs) in ASEAN?
How will our own SDCC enhance Singapore's position as a responsible global citizen? How will this serve to implement our commitments under the recently-inked Paris Climate Change agreement? What are the sorts of public sector and UN partnerships that MFA envisions?
What are the opportunities that SDCC might create for Singaporean youths who might want to get involved? That is, as we go forward to do good, how can we also do well? This is particularly relevant to business. So, my final question to the Ministry is whether MFA foresees Singapore's responsible business enterprises having a comparative advantage in industries connected to sustainable development, such as clean energy?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, for those of us familiar with football, what Singapore has achieved in the world of diplomacy and international relations since Indepedence is akin to Leicester City's exploits in the English Premier League this season. We may not have the size or resources of others, but we always punch well above our weight.
Jokes aside, Sir, I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Foreign Affairs during the previous term of Parliament. As such, I had the opportunity of seeing Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) in their element. I participated in overseas trips which were supported by the FSOs. They work efficiently and round-the-clock. By my estimate, they hardly slept for three hours per night during the trips.
Singapore needs such talented and highly-motivated FSOs. Our FSOs are often at the frontline of crises, dealing with them and being our eyes and ears on the ground. It is, therefore, crucial that we not only do our utmost to recruit top talent, but also to retain the experienced ones. As an FSO, there are also sacrifices to be made. The cyclical posting regime is one in which families of FSOs need to relocate on a three- to four-year cycle as a result of an overseas posting.
I, therefore, invite the Minister to share with us on whether: (a) MFA's current resources are adequate to meet the demands of an increasingly complex global environment; and (b) what is MFA doing to attract, develop and retain talented FSOs.
The Chairman: Minister for Foreign Affairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan):\tSir, I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister for Foreign Affairs.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2016/2017 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Leader of the House.
","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 11.30 am tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.40 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2011,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160406/vernacular-Desmond Lee(1).pdf","fileName":"Desmond Lee(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2012,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Amrin Amin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160406/vernacular-Amrin Amrin(1).pdf","fileName":"Amrin Amrin(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}