1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower since the signing of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in 2005 (a) what are the net economic benefits for Singapore in terms of trade, value-added growth and citizen job growth; and (b) what has been the growth in foreign PMET numbers in our workforce by sector and occupation.
2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the past five years, what is the number of complaints of nationality-based discrimination received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), broken down by sector and occupation.
3 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower what has been the effectiveness of the different capability development schemes in building a local talent pipeline.
4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) including the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) have achieved their intended outcomes of increasing trade, growth and jobs; and (b) whether the jobs created have benefited Singaporeans.
5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how do commitments in the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement such as those pertaining to entry requirements and immigration privileges compare with those in other Free Trade Agreements.
6 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how have Singapore's Free Trade Agreements, including the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, impacted Singapore’s global competitiveness, foreign trade, investment and growth, and employability of Singaporeans.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Oral Questions Nos 1 to 6, as well as Written Question Nos 40 to 42 in today's Order Paper through the Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister Ong Ye Kung and myself, later today?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please proceed. Next question, Ms He Ting Ru.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"\"Make-up Pay\" Mechanism for Political Office Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) since the introduction of the \"make-up pay\" mechanism for political appointment holders in 1989, whether this mechanism has been used to increase the salary for any political appointment holders to make up the difference between their last drawn salary and the salary of their political office; (b) if yes, who has it been applied to; (c) what has been the increase in the quantum of the make-up pay; and (d) what is the time period and duration it is effected for.
\tThe Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, when we consider potential candidates to take up political office, the first quality that we look for is a sense of public service, those who have their heart in the right place and want to contribute to the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans. This should always be the basic prerequisite for any political candidate.
However, beyond a passion for public service, our team of political appointment holders need to have the right mix of background, skills, and organisational and leadership capabilities. In particular, we need some Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries with private sector experience.
From the private sector, we want to be able to bring in not only people who are already well advanced in their careers and financially secure, but also younger ones whose careers are just taking off and are approaching or in their peak earning years, and who may have made financial commitments. They may take a few years to establish themselves before they can be considered for more senior political appointments. The \"make-up pay\" mechanism makes it easier for such candidates to consider taking up political office and eases the financial disruption as they make the transition.
Notwithstanding the \"make-up pay\", such candidates know and accept that even if they eventually prove themselves in political office, they will not earn as much as if they had remained in their private sector careers.
Since 1989 when the scheme was first introduced, we have brought in several candidates into the Government without using the \"make-up pay\", with a number of them accepting a substantial income loss. The scheme has been used once so far, in that case, for a transition period of two years. No political appointment holder is currently on this scheme.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I would like to ask the Minister how long was this make-up pay scheme applied for, given that it was used once before. And also, how many candidates or potential candidates have declined to run on the Government's ticket because they said that the pay was not enough?
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: I think I had already answered that question. We have had one person and that person was on the scheme for two years.
When a person is being considered for candidacy and also potentially for political office, there are no guarantees, as each of us in this Chamber knows, and there are the political ups and downs. Pay is not usually one of the things that they will tell you upfront. But it surely is one of the considerations for a person who has got commitments, a young family and a promising career ahead of him which he is quite sure of. To come in, to take the vagaries of politics and to give that up is a big sacrifice. So, we want to reduce that and help him in the transition.
But as I had said, we have individuals who are prepared to come in and give it up. And we have individuals who are prepared to come in and accept that they will take a lower salary in their appointment in political office, even though they have had a two-year transition period to help them over the commitments that they have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"People’s Liberation Army Air Force Aircraft that Flew Through Singapore’s Flight Information Region on 31 May 2021 ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Defence regarding the 16 People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) aircraft that flew through Singapore’s Flight Information Region (FIR) on 31 May 2021 (a) whether the RSAF tracked the flight of these aircraft; (b) whether the RSAF was successful in establishing communications with them; (c) how many of such unannounced entries into Singapore's FIR by PLAAF aircraft have taken place in the past year; and (d) what are the plans to ensure the safety of flights to and from Singapore should tensions among rival claimants of islands in the South China Sea escalate.
9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the Government's situational assessment regarding the flight of 16 People’s Liberation Army Air Force aircraft that passed through Singapore’s Flight Information Region on 31 May 2021 over waters which are disputed by China and Malaysia; and (b) whether plans are in place to ensure the security and safety of flights to and from Singapore should tensions among rival claimants escalate in the airspace over the South China Sea.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, may I take the questions from Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan together, as they are related?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Thank you. Mr Speaker, the two questions asked by Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan as listed in the Order Paper conflate a number of issues that may inadvertently give rise to misinterpretations and misunderstandings unless they are clearly distinguished.
To avoid this, MINDEF’s reply will, therefore, separately address three distinct issues within their questions. It is important to emphasise even though they are somewhat related, these are three distinct issues. Let me list them: first, Singapore’s position on the rights of military aircraft to conduct passage and training under international law; second, the role and responsibilities of the authority managing a Flight Information Region (FIR); and finally, the Singapore Armed Forces’ (SAF) air defence system to protect Singapore against aerial threats.
In my reply, it will also be clear that the general principles Singapore adhere to govern our practices and specific protocols in response to all countries. Let me deal with the three issues.
First, Singapore respects the rights of military aircraft and ships to conduct passage and training over areas and waters in accordance with international law, and this includes the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is the basis upon which the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) aircraft conduct flights and training, whether it is in the South China Sea or other regions.
This is also the basis for the conduct of exercises in the South China Sea, the ones that Singapore does bilaterally and in multilateral exercises. So, for example, Exercise Commando Sling which is between the SAF and the US Air Force, and the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Exercise between the SAF and the US Navy. Members may remember that we held a multilateral exercise in 2016 and this was involving navies of the ADMM-Plus countries, which sailed from Brunei to Singapore through the South China Sea, and exercised together en route.
You may also remember that during this year's Committee of Supply, I had also informed Members of this House that the South China Sea will see an increase in military activity from other countries. Earlier this year, the French Navy deployed its ships to the South China Sea. Later this year, the UK will send the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group with its fighter aircraft F35Bs. The Germans too intend to deploy a frigate to the South China Sea, the first time in almost 20 years.
Apart from international law and UNCLOS, countries that conduct military activities in these areas have to act in accordance with ASEAN instruments that they have signed on to, such as the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. And I think it is instructive to quote from some of the phrases that these countries have agreed to in this treaty.
This treaty calls for \"mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations\", as well as for signatories not to \"participate in any activity which shall constitute a threat to the political and economic stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity\" of one another.
I have dealt with the first issue in terms of rights of military training; let me deal with the second issue.
As distinct from military activity, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) appoints a civilian authority to manage the air space of each FIR. And this authority is designated as the Air Traffic Services (ATS) Authority. The role of the ATS Authority is to ensure safe and efficient flow of air traffic, mostly civilian, within its FIR. In this role, it does not act as a watchdog over disputed areas nor should that authority adopt a partisan role on behalf of any party or for itself.
Civilian aircraft must file flight plans when going through the FIR of an ATS Authority. However, state aircraft, which includes military aircraft, are not required to file flight plans under international law, and this includes the Convention on International Civil Aviation. State aircraft are also not obliged to contact the ATS Authority so long as they fly with due regard for the safety of other aircraft.
Nevertheless, some militaries, including the RSAF, do file flight plans and contact the ATS Authority of that FIR, even when they are not legally required to do so. The RSAF routinely adopts this practice, primarily to assist the ATS Authority in coordinating and de-conflicting RSAF flights from civilian aircraft as part of their responsibility for operating with due care.
ICAO has appointed the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) as the ATS Authority for the Singapore FIR. In this capacity, CAAS has gained an international reputation for managing the Singapore FIR in a safe, orderly, impartial and expeditious manner. In the incident referred to in the Members’ questions, CAAS did not receive any flight plans from the PLAAF, nor did it communicate with the PLAAF or any of its aircraft. I have already mentioned that state aircraft are not required to do so. Nevertheless, had the PLAAF required air traffic services, it could have established communications with CAAS.
Mr Giam’s question also confuses the role of CAAS as the ATS Authority for the Singapore FIR with the role of the SAF to defend Singapore’s own territorial airspace. We should be clear that the RSAF has no mandate nor any role in the management of the Singapore FIR, which is carried out by CAAS, a civilian authority appointed by ICAO.
The third issue, Singapore’s air defence. Singapore is a small country with a high population density and, therefore, more vulnerable to air threats. The SAF accordingly maintains air defence units at high alert. The RSAF conducts 24/7 surveillance of our skies through both ground-based radars and aerial reconnaissance to detect unknown or suspicious aircraft that are close enough to pose a potential threat. On average, each year, the RSAF responds to more than 350 such incidents. The specific incident referred to by the two Members in their questions was not deemed to be such a threat.
\t
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the reply. Since state aircraft are not required to file flight plans when entering our FIR, how does Singapore ensure that these aircraft do not have hostile intent? I understand that there is no requirement for them to file these flight plans, but do other countries, by convention, file their flight plans for their state aircraft and is this incident the only time that no flight plans were filed when entering the FIR?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Again, Mr Speaker, I think it is useful not to conscribe the question and direct it to any one country. It does not serve our foreign policy; it does not reflect our desire to be principled and neutral. So, again, the answer is with regard to any country and I think we must ask relevant questions. How do you determine whether a particular aircraft of any country is friend or foe? And that is the job of the RSAF. If you have mistaken a friend for a foe, there can be catastrophic consequences. And there are a number of aspects that we would detect, whether it is movement, whether, indeed, flight plans have been filed.
I have mentioned 350 such incidents and let me again emphasise, these 350 incidents have got nothing to do with the questions that the two Members have asked because they have framed their questions in a way that can actually give rise to misunderstanding and misinterpretations. These 350 incidents that we have had, many of which RSAF had actually to mobilise. And as Members will remember, there are a number of incidents in previous years. One was a private aircraft that got lost. And, of course, I suppose seeing an F-16 next to you is, for some, comforting, and it was gently guided to land in a safe area. There have been other instances which RSAF must use its judgement and there are strict protocols. These relate to what we call aerial threats.
Mr Giam asked whether other militaries – I presume he was asking that – file flight plans. The answer is it is not uniform and, in fact, it is not the majority. Many countries do not file flight plans or contact the ATS Authority.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19-related Processes for Visitor Entry and Airport Worker Deployment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there were pandemic plans at Changi Airport before May 2021; (b) whether these required passenger and staff segregations based on risk assessments of countries; (c) what were the considerations for the mingling of (i) arriving passengers from high-risk and low-risk regions before 15 May (ii) arriving and departing passengers before 13 June and (iii) staff exposed to different risks; (d) how does the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) classify countries as \"very high risk\" and \"high risk\" with arrivals from the former being separately escorted; and (e) whether an inquiry has been made for such decisions.
11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in respect of flights from high-risk COVID-19 countries (a) whether the Government will consider setting up a separate stand-alone facility away from the airport terminal buildings for immigration and customs clearance of arriving passengers; and (b) whether transit passengers from such flights can be sent from such facility to their departing aircraft at a remote bay thus avoiding any sharing of the use of the terminal buildings with other passengers arriving from or departing for other countries.
12 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the additional duties or responsibilities that airport workers have had to assume since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that allow them to keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe for more than 16 months before the Delta variant came about and since the more transmissive Delta variant arose; and (b) how are the Government and aviation companies supporting frontline airport staff especially when these staff have had to adjust to enhanced measures at Changi Airport.
13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) in light of the zonal segregation measures at Changi Airport, how will countries be classified based on their evolving COVID-19 situation; (b) whether the Ministry will consider dedicating one terminal away from the main arrival terminals for use by arrivals from very high-risk countries; and (c) how can the frontline aviation workers safeguard themselves and Singapore given the risk they face daily in keeping the airport open.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 10 to 13 together?
\tMr Speaker: Question Nos 10 to 13?
\tMr S Iswaran: Yes, Sir.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr S Iswaran: Sir, since the first overseas cases of COVID-19 were reported in December 2019, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and CAAS have worked closely with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and other Government agencies to implement measures to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission and to protect workers and members of the public at the airport. These measures are reviewed regularly to take into account public health experts’ latest understanding of the virus and the evolving COVID-19 situation around the world.
In January 2020, when still not much was known about the virus, Changi Airport put in place temperature and enhanced health screening for arriving travellers and disallowed entry of short-term visitors from places where cases had been reported.
In March 2020, as the pandemic surged across the world, we took the unprecedented step of closing our borders to all short-term visitors. For returning Singaporeans, Permanent Residents (PRs) and long-term pass holders, in line with MOH’s public health risk assessment, we adopted risk-based differentiated border measures based on their recent travel history. For example, the immigration clearance of passengers from the US and UK was done at dedicated gate hold rooms. They were then escorted to their assigned SHN Dedicated Facilities (SDFs) to serve their mandatory Stay-Home Notice (SHN).
Similarly, when transfers resumed in June 2020, the transit passengers were escorted from disembarkation to dedicated transit holding areas and, subsequently, to board the connecting flight.
In January 2021, when mandatory on-arrival COVID-19 tests were introduced, these were done at separate health screening stations for passengers from very high-risk places.
As observed by Ms Yeo Wan Ling in her question, these measures had helped to ensure that for more than 16 months, that is, from January 2020 to May 2021, the aviation community was able to keep our borders open while keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe. In May 2021, however, the Delta variant, which is causing a new wave of infections across the world, breached these defences, resulting in the first airport cluster.
In response, Jewel was immediately closed and public access to the airport terminals was restricted. Jewel re-opened on 14 June this year, but the airport terminals remain closed to members of the public.
MOH monitors the public health situation overseas and assesses the appropriate risk level, taking into consideration information from WHO, experts and academic networks, as well as Singapore missions overseas. Depending on how the risk profile changes, CAAS and our aviation stakeholders then promptly adjust their protocols.
Hence, in consultation with MOH and the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), we further tightened our measures based on our understanding of the Delta variant. Beyond the earlier passenger segregation measures, the airport itself is now segregated into physical zones. Disembarkation piers, toilets, arrival immigration halls and baggage claim belts are now separate for passengers from places of different risks.
Changi Airport now processes passengers from very high-risk places at dedicated bus gates at Terminal 2, which is currently closed for renovation. These passengers are then transported directly to their SHN dedicated facilities. We do not allow transfer passengers from these very high-risk places, and Changi is also studying the option of using Terminal 4 for such passengers.
Sir, our top priority is to keep our airport workers safe, thereby also protecting their families and the wider community. They are at the heart of Changi Airport’s operations and at the frontlines of our border defences. Hence, we have prioritised our aviation workers for vaccination. Today, 95% of frontline aviation workers are fully vaccinated.
From the onset of COVID-19, MOT and CAAS have worked with MOH and NCID to ensure that airport workers don the appropriate level of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and undergo regular testing based on their job function. In response to the Delta variant, we have stepped up the PPE posture for airport workers and implemented more frequent routine testing. Within the higher risk zones, workers are also cohorted and have separate toilet, dining and rest facilities.
Collectively, these measures represent a fundamental shift in operations, imposing further adjustments and stress on our airport workers as they adjust to a very different workflow. For example, workers in the higher-risk zone have to stay within that zone during their mealtimes and break times, which can be quite isolating from the social point of view. We are also working closely with union leaders and industry players to help our workers adapt to these new measures.
My Ministry and I are deeply appreciative of the sacrifices made by the airport community to ensure that our borders remain open for essential supplies and for Singaporeans to return home. The aviation community has set aside $15 million for airport workers’ welfare during this time. I am also very glad for the support from our corporate partners and members of the public, including some CAAS staff, who started \"Friends for Aviation\" to provide encouragement and practical support for our frontline airport workers.
Mr Speaker, even as we stay vigilant and adjust to protect ourselves from the evolving virus, we must do our best to safeguard Singapore’s hard-earned position as a global air hub. We must adapt to a new normal, where we keep our borders open and safe for passengers, our airport workers, their families and the community. Only then can Changi continue to thrive as a safe aviation hub, connecting Singapore to the world and the world to Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. Sir, I have three supplementary questions.
In May, we had the unfortunate situation where an 88-year-old cleaner working in T3 caught the virus at work. What are some of the additional measures we have put in place to protect the more vulnerable workers at the airport?
Secondly, I declare that I am an adviser to the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA). Taxi drivers and private hire drivers are transport partners in the larger eco-system of workers supporting airport functions. Have these safety measures put in place by the airport over the past 16 months also factored in our drivers' comfort and safety?
Finally, I am very glad to hear that 95% of our workers are vaccinated. But many of our airport frontline workers live in my constituency and they have young children and many live with their elderly parents as well. So, as our airports start to open up and should our frontliners catch the virus, will the Ministry also be coming up with more support measures to assist these families and workers, especially if livelihoods are affected?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. The overall theme of the Member's questions, which I think are quite appropriate, is the focus on the welfare of the aviation workers, workers on the frontline and those who are supporting. As I have said in my reply earlier, this is, in fact, one of our overriding priorities because we need to ensure that these workers are protected to the best of our ability and also that, where it is essential, we also undertake specific measures to address any concerns they have with respect to their welfare.
So, let me start by saying that, in the course of many of the transitions to the new measures that we have had to put in place, I have personally been involved, together with the CEOs of Singapore Airlines (SIA), SATS and Changi Airport Group, in discussions with workers from the whole gamut of workers in our airport community. This includes not just Changi Airport Group's (CAG's) employees, SATS or SIA employees, but also those who work in ICA, Certis Cisco and so on, in order to fully comprehend the challenges of the changes that we are imposing on them, how they are coping and how we can help them further, if that is necessary.
And I would like to start by sharing with Members that, actually, the morale is very strong. And that was something that gave me great heart because it means that, despite the nature and the scale of the challenges we are facing, the Changi Spirit remains strong and they remain optimistic and they understand the need for these measures and have been cooperating with the health requirements as well as some of the operational shifts that we have had to make.
\t
Turning to the Member's specific question on measures to protect more vulnerable workers, as I said, the starting point is to ensure that now that we have got physical segregation, the workers have to observe specific protocols, and, in particular, PPE. The PPE regime has been stepped up across the board and now they don and doff, and they are trained on this already, but we have re-emphasised this. On top of that, of course, is the vaccination programme, which is a general programme that we have undertaken. In terms of the testing regime, we have now RRT, rostered routine testing for workers. Those who are in the high-risk areas, we do seven-day PCR and ART on day three or day four. For those who are in the less risky areas, we conduct a RRT PCR test every 14 days; and on about day seven or day eight, we do the ART testing.
These and the protocols themselves are all designed to protect the workers to the best of our ability. The management of the companies are also committed to ensuring that if any worker finds it very difficult to continue in that particular role, then they will find a way to redeploy him elsewhere, so that he can continue to work, but in a different context.
I agree with the Member. Taxi-drivers, limousine drivers, they are a very important part because they are the extension of the broader network, in terms of transport and connectivity. In particular, we have instituted it and, as you know, again, vaccination of drivers is a key part of this. Also, they know what are the protocols to be observed, in terms of when they are carrying passengers, the kind of safe management measures (SMMs) they need to observe and so on, and there are also testing regimes in place for them.
Livelihoods, this is key. As the Member would know, I mentioned the $15 million fund and the intent is to try and help those who might be under particular stresses because of these changes. In addition, the Member would also be aware of the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund for those who are in the point-to-point driving services, taxi services and private hire cars. These are some of the areas we have focused on.
I can assure the Member and Members of this House that we remain focused on this. Should new needs arise, we will certainly look at them. As the Member would be aware, even with, for example, the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, the Government responded very quickly. With the help and support of the Ministry of Finance, we were able to announce the extension of these measures quite quickly. We remain committed to continuing to help and address the welfare needs of our aviation community workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for Transport for his detailed answer, in particular, the clarification that physical segregation was implemented after the detection of the Delta variant. I just have a few supplementary questions.
The first is to ask if inter-mingling between passengers arriving from countries with different risk levels associated with them was allowed prior to mid-May 2021? And if so, what was the thinking behind that and what were the lessons drawn from that? Now, of course, there is physical segregation but to what extent was inter-mingling within the airport permitted then? The context for that is really anecdotal feedback that there was such inter-mingling being seen. Whether this is accurate or not, I am not sure, and that is why I am asking the supplementary question.
And with your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote very briefly from a Straits Times Forum letter from someone in April that gained some wide circulation?
\tMr Speaker: Proceed, please.
\tMr Leon Perera: This letter writer in April said, and I quote, \"much to my dismay, inbound passengers were allowed to roam freely upon landing. One was free to hang around in the terminal between departure gates for as long as one wanted, rather than being sent straight to swab testing. I observe similar unregulated processes at the baggage claim area long before passengers were funnelled to the stations\", and so on and so forth.
This was in April and so now, of course, we have had that physical segregation.
So, I just wanted to ask whether that was the case, what was the thinking behind that and what were the lessons drawn from that?
The second supplementary question is, what are the criteria that the Government uses to classify countries into different risk levels and does that take into account the extent of vaccination?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. On the second point first, the risk assessment and categorisation are undertaken by MOH. So, I would not want to represent the overall thinking on behalf of the Ministry and its experts, but I would say that the officials, the experts take into account a gamut of factors and it is also an evolving set of factors. I think the state of vaccination is certainly one of the considerations but it is by no means the only one, as the Member would well appreciate.
Secondly, on the point about inter-mingling and what was the thinking, and so on, as I explained in some detail in my response to the Member's question earlier, the starting point must be that we are undertaking measures based on a detailed risk assessment. And that risk assessment is informed by an as up-to-date an understanding as we have of the virus, its characteristics, its transmission nature and also how these are changing with new variants emerging.
And, therefore, this is a risk-adjusted approach. And it has to be so. Because as we have observed around the world, really, hardly any country so far has been spared the Delta variant, regardless of the posture they take. What we need to do is ensure that the posture we adopt and the measures we adopt respond promptly to the latest understanding and address the risks that are posed, in a dynamic situation with equally dynamic responses.
In that context, prior to the latest set of measures and the physical segregation that I talked about, we had progressively instituted a series of measures which I have just elaborated, so I do not propose to repeat them. There may well have been some inter-mingling, but that was not something that was encouraged. It was actually generally designed for people to move from the aircraft to the immigration process, collect their baggage and exit.
I also want to emphasise to the Member, what we have undertaken in Changi now, with physical segregation of the airport, is really turning the operating model on its head. And I hope we all appreciate that. Because civilian airports, as we might recall from a not-too-distant past, are designed for passengers to come in and to actually have an experience at the airport, what we call the Changi experience. So, when we now say passengers are completely segregated physically in different zones and their movement from aircraft to immigration to baggage collection to transportation and so on, and we add now testing, it is a completely different model.
And so, we must appreciate that every move like this that we make entails significant adjustments, not just from an operational point of view, but also in terms of the burden it imposes on the workers at the airport. So, I want to emphasise a point that I made earlier, but I think it bears emphasis again, which is that we want to do everything we can to ensure the safety of our passengers, our aviation workers, their families and through that, the larger community, but we also want to ensure that the measures we take reflect our best judgement of the risks based on an evolving situation. And we ensure, to the best of our ability, that we respond in a manner that addresses those risks.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer earlier. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for sharing the slew of detailed processes at the airport. I thank him because I do have a number of residents who are working as cleaners and staff at the airport.
I have two supplementary questions. First, I seek clarification from the Minister because he mentioned some segregation at Terminal 2 and the potential of Terminal 4 being used in the future. Can he share whether this would be a temporary or permanent sort of situation, so as to reassure the public, in particular as well, because Jewel is now opened to the public. So, whether he can reassure whether Jewel is safe for the public to visit, going forward.
My second question is, as the Minister has mentioned, a risk-adjusted approach is taken. But ideally, as an air hub, it would be very difficult to maintain this at our airports as we plan to open up the economy, hopefully, sooner than later, and to reinstate activity in our airport.
Can the Minister share how we can maintain this potentially start-stop, and/or segregation processes that we have in the future, and whether there will be a need for infrastructure changes at the airport in the future, given this start-stop situation or scenario which could be a possibility?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member, who is also the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Transport, for his questions. First, to clarify, Jewel is already open. There was a period of closure for about a month and then we re-opened it on 14 June. The passenger terminal buildings remain restricted from public access, because there is a greater potential for interaction, for example, between workers and members of the public. So, we want to be more cautious, make sure all the measures run in well and then we will have a sense of how to move forward, and if so, when we need to do so.
Another part of that question was about T2 and T4 and the arrangements. Just to be very clear, T2 is going through renovation works, so it is not operational. And what MOT and Changi Airport Group did was to work together and come up with the idea of remote processing, remote bays, as it were, for passengers, from very high-risk countries. They are processed in the bays in Terminal 2, for immigration, for their testing and so on, and then they are immediately taken in buses to their SHN facilities.
We are studying the use of T4 for this purpose because T4 would have a larger capacity and it is something that the various agencies involved are working through now. If we are able to use T4, then it enhances our ability to deal with flows from the very high-risk countries.
Is this temporary, permanent, how long? I think it is a very good question but it is a rather difficult one to answer. Because as we have learnt from our experience over the last 18 months or so, we need to be prepared for any kind of pivot. And that, I think, is the crux of the issue because we do not know how the virus is evolving or will evolve. We also have to make a judgement call because countries, the source countries and the situation can also change quite dramatically.
So, therefore, the posture we adopt in terms of not just the cross-border travel, but how we deal with them at the airport, which is our point of entry into Singapore, is going to be key. What the entire team in MOT, CAAS, CAG, SIA, SATS have endeavoured to do is to adopt a protocol, which is what we have now, which gives us, perhaps, the greatest possible flexibility and adaptability to an evolving situation. That, I think, is key because without that flexibility or dexterity in our response, then there will be a lot more of the fits and starts that the Member refers to, in the way we do things. So, if we have the modalities to deal with the risk, we may not know which country, or at what point, but at least we have a way to pivot quite quickly based on the assessment.
I would say that the mindset that we have adopted is one of \"prepare for the worst, hope for the best and be as adaptable as possible, and respond quickly to an evolving situation\". That is the way we are doing this.
The Member had the air hub question, I think his question was really pertaining to what might happen, going forward, in terms of travel and so on. I think that remains an issue. As you can see, across the world, there are quite diverse attitudes towards travel and the protocols associated with them. You would also have heard from the Multi-Ministry Task Force Members on some of our thinking, going forward. I would not want to prejudge the path we take at this point but what I would say is that the overriding commitment is to ensure that we are able to facilitate safe travel so that Changi will remain a safe aviation hub for travellers from around the world and, certainly, for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mode of Transport for Travellers Arriving into Singapore without COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction Results","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether travellers arriving into Singapore at all air, land and sea entry points who have yet to receive their COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test results are permitted to take modes of transport where they will be within two metres of drivers or other passengers; (b) if so, whether this practice risks community transmission of imported infections; and (c) whether these passengers can instead be provided dedicated transport to a Stay-Home Notice dedicated facility with drivers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, all travellers from high-risk places are required to take dedicated transport to their assigned facility to serve their Stay-Home Notice (SHN) while waiting for the results. To minimise the risk of cross-infection and community spread, strict public health protocols are applied.
First, these private charter buses only ferry travellers from the checkpoints to the SHN facility. No other passengers are allowed to board. After every trip, the buses are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected.
Second, the bus drivers are trained to don the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including an N95 face mask, PPE gown and gloves. They are also fully vaccinated and subject to regular routine COVID-19 testing.
Third, strict safe distancing measures are imposed. Travellers are not allowed to sit near the driver and they only occupy the rear section of the vehicle. I have, in fact, seen this first hand, so they are all seated to the rear of the vehicle and the front half creates a buffer zone with respect to the driver. The number of travellers allowed on each bus is also limited to less than half its total capacity to ensure adequate safe distancing between travellers.
These measures are part of a multi-layered approach we take to protect our borders and frontline transport workers. In addition, all travellers from high-risk countries would need to have a negative Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test taken not more than 72 hours before boarding a plane, ferry or vehicle bound for Singapore.
With the evolving nature of the virus, we regularly review the full suite of public health measures for international travellers and also to protect our frontline workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister. I understand that there are private charter buses. But since the start of this year, have there been any incoming passengers who do not take these private charter buses but instead take taxis or private hire cars to their homes or SHN facilities?
My second question is: have any taxi drivers or private hire drivers caught COVID-19 while ferrying incoming passengers from the airport to the SHN facilities or homes?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, can passengers take taxis or private vehicles to their homes? As I said, the protocols that we have in place are for the higher risk countries. So, those who are from, say, some of the countries deemed to be less risky, they still, on arrival, have to undertake what we call an on-arrival PCR test. And then thereafter, they can take the relevant form of transport to their home and then they have to wait for the results and so on. So, there may be instances of that which the Member may be referring to.
But the key point I would make is that for those who are from the higher risk countries, based on the categorisation we discussed earlier, the approach is to have dedicated transport from the airport to the SHN facility, so that the mode of transport is as secure as possible from a health perspective.
Have taxi drivers caught COVID-19? I believe there have been some cases but is it because of the passenger they ferried or not, I do not have an answer for that. I am quite happy to have it verified if the Member wishes to file a question. But I do know that in many cases, it is more because of some other community link that they have, because of a place they went to in the community and so on, and that is how they were linked to the COVID-19 virus.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Recognition and Verification of Health Passports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the recognition of health passports issued by the International Air Transport Association and individual countries; and (b) how can the Singapore Government verify the authenticity of the Immunity Health Passport issued by the respective countries with regard to personal immunisation records and COVID-19 test results.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has been working with various countries and regions, including Singapore, to include vaccination certificates in the IATA Travel Pass (ITP) application.
Since 1 May 2021, passengers travelling to Singapore have been able to use the ITP to share their pre-departure Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test results when checking-in with their airlines, as well as on-arrival at the immigration checkpoints at Changi Airport.
Singapore is also in bilateral discussions with several countries on establishing mechanisms for the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates, including with Australia, Malaysia and Republic of Korea. We have set up inter-agency bilateral working groups with these countries and are exchanging information on how we may mutually verify the authenticity of each other’s certificates. This includes the exchange of public keys for the verification of digital certificates and the exchange of specimen copies for the verification of physical certificates.
These discussions will likely take some time, as countries and regions are at different stages of progress in vaccinating their respective populations. Nonetheless, these multilateral and regional discussions are useful in laying the groundwork for us to re-open travel for vaccinated individuals between Singapore and these countries when we are ready to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. We understand that we are now negotiating travel corridors, rather than travel bubbles. And one of the important factors hinges on the vaccine passport. We are glad that we have started discussions. But having said that, some countries in Asia, especially one country in North Asia, had experienced a vaccination scam, even a Member of Parliament was also a victim of this vaccination scam. Different countries have different ways of identifying residents who have gone for the vaccination and what type of vaccination.
So, my supplementary question to the Senior Minister of State is that, first, what are the type of vaccinations that we will recognise in the vaccination passport? Two, how are we going to verify that this vaccination that each of the residents in the different country get are in the appropriate manner, that they are vaccinated properly?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank Mr Ang for his questions. I think we should view the ITP and also other forms of such certificates, as a two-step process. The first step is how do we establish ways to verify the authenticity of these certificates? So, in other words, I need to make sure that when you say that you are tested and it is PCR negative, or when you say that you are vaccinated, I can trust that this information is accurate and there is a way to do this. So, I think that is the first step: establishing the checks to verify how authentic, how accurate is this information.
The second step is, once you have this information, then what do you do with it. That is a separate discussion. Just because the individual comes from a particular country and has been tested negative or has been vaccinated, does not mean that we automatically do away with some of the restrictions. Because it really depends on, first of all, what is the rate of infection in that source country, how confident are we of the risk level of this individual, when he or she travels to Singapore. And that would then determine what kind of safeguards we put in place.
So, I think to answer Mr Ang's questions, this is an ongoing discussion with the countries that I mentioned earlier. But we should view this, really, as a two-stage process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Financial Aid for Hawkers Affected due to their Proximity to COVID-19 Clusters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are any plans to provide additional financial aid to affected hawkers who have been forced to close or seen their business drop significantly due to their proximity to a COVID-19 cluster; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to help draw the crowds back to affected markets and hawker centres once the COVID-19 cluster has closed.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Please allow me to share with the House the information on assistance rendered to our hawkers.
We recognise that hawkers, as part of the food and beverage (F&B) sector, have been hit by restrictions on dining-in and the COVID-19 pandemic. When no dine-in was first implemented during last year’s circuit breaker, hawkers’ business were hit. This continued even when dine-in resumed subsequently, due to the implementation of group size restrictions and default working from home arrangements. This is why the Government provided in 2020 a total of five months of rental waiver and three months of subsidies for table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing fees to help hawkers defray their operating costs.
When tighter restrictions on dine-in was imposed again this year from 16 May to 13 June, and subsequently extended to July, the Government stepped in to provide two months of rental waiver and subsidy for cleaning services, from mid-May to mid-July.
In all, seven months of rental waiver and five months of subsidies for cleaning have been provided since April 2020. Eligible hawkers would have also received $9,000 in financial support in 2020 via the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS).
\tIn addition to the rental waivers, the Government also froze all hawker stall rental increases from April 2020 to March 2021 while allowing rentals to decrease according to market valuation during the same period.
Let me explain how stall rental rates are determined. When new hawkers obtain vacant stalls in the National Environment Agency (NEA)-managed hawker centres via monthly stall tenders, the rent that they pay is the amount they tendered. There is no minimum rental. As the media has reported from time to time, some hawkers have successfully secured hawker stalls for as low as $1 per month. There are also stalls where successful bidders have tendered high bids to secure a choice stall at their preferred locations. This open tender system ensures transparency and fair pricing, particularly for stalls in high demand such as those in locations with high footfall. These rentals are kept unchanged for the duration of the three-year tenancy period.
When the tenancy expires, we do not put up the occupied stalls for tender as this would be disruptive to hawkers who have built their business and customer base. Instead, rentals are adjusted based on independent professional valuation that considers factors such as the footfall of the centre, stall size and prevailing market conditions to assess the market rental.
The rent is then adjusted towards the assessed market rate. Stallholders who had initially tendered a bid higher than the assessed market rental, at renewal, will benefit from a downward adjustment. Similarly, stalls with rentals lower than the assessed market rate will see an upward adjustment. Stallholders can choose a tenancy of one, two or three years during their renewal.
Due to the impact of COVID-19, the valuation of the large majority of cooked food stalls has declined in FY2021. After the freeze in rent increases from April 2020 to March 2021, the tenancies of 341 cooked food stallholders were up for renewal between April and June 2021. Fifty-eight percent of them had their rentals revised downwards to the market rate. The decrease for this group ranged from $30 to more than $2,500. Thirty-seven percent continue to pay the same rental, same as their existing tenancy. The remaining 5%, that is, 17 of the 341 stallholders, had rental increases of between $10 and $300. For this group, after the increase, the median rental was $850 a month and even the stalls which had rental increased by $300, are still paying at or below the market valuation.
Most stallholders are aware that increases towards the market rental level are in fact moderated. In recent years, rental revision upwards at tenancy renewal have not exceeded $300. Today, the median monthly rent for a non-subsidised cooked food hawker stall is $1,250 and remains significantly lower than those at coffeeshops and food courts.
We are mindful that however small the group, any rental increase, even if it has been moderated, is always sensitive and that this is a challenging period. Hawkers who continue to face financial difficulties because of the increase, after the most recent two months' rental waiver from mid-May to mid-July 2021, can approach NEA for assistance and NEA will do a careful review on a case-by-case basis.
These measures have in sum contributed to helping our hawkers sustain their livelihoods during a difficult period. Occupancy rates for cooked food stalls in NEA-managed centres have remained high, averaging at around 97%. A monthly average of 16 stalls were terminated from 2020 to May 2021, lower than the monthly average of 28 terminations pre-COVID-19 period, from 2017 to 2019.
Mr Speaker, I would like to assure Members that the Government remains fully committed towards offering timely support to help our hawkers weather the challenges brought upon by COVID-19 and will continue to monitor the situation on the ground.
For hawkers whose livelihoods are affected due to centre closures as a result of COVID-19 clusters, the Government will look into providing rental waivers for hawkers affected by the closure. In the case of the Bukit Merah View Market and Food Centre, hawkers operating there are already covered under the current rental waivers till mid-July.
Any hawkers who have been served Quarantine Orders or whose incomes have been adversely affected due to COVID-19 can also continue to seek additional support via various financial schemes, such as the Quarantine Order Allowance Scheme, the Courage Fund or the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG).
For hawker centres impacted by COVID-19 clusters, it is crucial to regain public confidence and assure returning customers that there are no compromises to cleanliness and hygiene standards. NEA has been working with stakeholders such as cleaning companies and Town Councils to ensure proper deep cleaning and disinfection of common areas and the adoption of robust workflows to clean and sanitise tables. We will continue to do so.
Advisers can also work with their grassroots and the Hawkers' Associations to assure the local community that it is safe to return to these hawker centres when they re-open and rally the community to support our hawkers. In this regard, I want to thank and commend Advisers Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Melvin Yong and their grassroots for galvanising support for the hawkers of Bukit Merah View Market and Food Centre and the hawker centres at Redhill, to help them overcome this tough period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Outbreaks at Hawker Centres on Infrastructure Enhancement of These Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with the recent outbreaks at hawker centres and markets, whether NEA has any plans to further enhance their infrastructure such as the layout for queueing, seating, tray return, washing, waste disposal and cleaning procedures for common use areas.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Recognising the need to future-proof our hawker centres and markets to better deal with challenges such as COVID-19, the National Environment Authority (NEA) announced the development of the Hawker Centres Transformation Programme (HTP) in March this year. The programme will focus on ensuring a clean and safe environment at hawker centres. Improvements will include better spacing of aisles and tables to minimise crowding, installation of high volume low-speed fans to improve ventilation and incorporation of food waste recycling systems, where feasible. These will help make hawker centres safe and conducive for patrons and hawkers.
The programme will be progressively implemented at all new hawker centres and redeveloped centres. We will also engage stakeholders at a few existing centres to co-create and trial centre-level solutions to reduce crowding due to narrow aisles and passageways and to improve ventilation. We will learn from these pilot centres and refine the HTP as it is rolled out.
NEA launched the Hawker Centre Toilet Improvement Programme (TIP) in 2020. The TIP offers co-funding for Town Councils to install better fittings and adopt technology which will make it easier to maintain and clean the toilets. For example, through the use of feedback systems, cleaners can carry out more targeted cleaning and work more efficiently.
We will continue to encourage hawker centres to come on board the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme. This programme offers funding assistance for the adoption of automated tray return systems and centralised dishwashing services, which improves productivity and enhances cleanliness and hygiene standards.
NEA works with stallholders and patrons to share the responsibility of maintaining the cleanliness and hygiene of public dining places. Since the launch of the Clean Tables Campaign in February this year, NEA has been progressively installing additional tray return infrastructure at hawker centres, to facilitate patrons' return of dirty trays and crockery. NEA has also installed hand sanitiser dispensers and will be progressively providing additional hand sanitisers at tray return points in the hawker centres. We urge everyone to do their part, including clearing their own dirty trays, crockery and litter. This has been made mandatory since 21 June this year but with enforcement commencing only from 1 September.
We will continue to enhance tray return infrastructure and processes to future-proof hawker centres against public health threats. Diners must also practise good personal hygiene and habits and continue to adhere to Safe Management Measures, such as checking-in via their TraceTogether app, keeping to approved group sizes, maintaining a distance of one metre from other patrons and wearing their masks properly to protect oneself against COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Revising Wages for Cleaning Sector on Cleaners and Workers in Other Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how will the revised wages for the cleaning sector under the Progressive Wage Model impact the wages of other lower wage workers; (b) what are the future plans for sectors with lower wage workers; and (c) how will this build a stronger social compact.
19 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what skillsets has the Ministry planned for workers in the cleaning sector to possess to remain relevant in the move towards cleaning automation; and (b) what is the Ministry’s plan to ensure that the cleaning industry will continue to provide viable livelihoods in the long term.
20 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) why is the wage ladder under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector determined only in 2021 when the announcement for a six-year wage increment under the PWM for that sector was made in 2016; (b) what are the considerations for the six-year roll-out period; and (c) whether the cleaning industry has been consulted on wage quantum and rate of increments.
21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower with the adjustments to cleaners’ wages under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) (a) what will be the overall increase in costs to the industry in a year given the additional manpower required due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) how will businesses and the community be impacted by such additional costs; and (c) how is the Ministry engaging the industry to increase mechanisation to raise productivity and cut manpower needs.
22 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the roll-out plans for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the retail and food services sector; (b) what is the plan to implement PWM for other vocational roles that are not currently covered under the PWM; and (c) how will PWM contribute to shifting away from reliance on foreign manpower.
23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how is the wage ladder under the latest Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector decided upon; and (b) whether the Government will provide support to cleaning companies with existing contracts that are tendered based on the previous PWM wage recommendation.
24 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower in the past decade, how does growth in the wages of the bottom 20% of workers compare with (i) median wage growth in Singapore and (ii) income growth of bottom 20% of workers in OECD countries.
25 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how has the COVID-19 pandemic affected lower wage workers; and (b) whether the pandemic has delayed implementation timelines for expansion of the Progressive Wage Model to other sectors and other efforts to uplift lower wage workers.
26 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) will be adjusted such that enhancements to wages under the Progressive Wage Model are not entirely offset by lower WIS payouts.
27 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) discussed ways to ensure that the higher cost arising from enhanced wages under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector will be fairly borne by cleaning companies, service buyers and the public, (b) what are some of the feedback the TCC received from cleaning companies and their service buyers; and (c) what lessons can be drawn from this as the PWM is expanded to other sectors.
28 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower given plans to adopt a vocational approach for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), how will progressive wages be extended to workers who are employed by companies in sectors not currently covered by the PWMs and whose majority of rank and file workers will not be on PWM, without disrupting the pay and cost structure in such companies.
29 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower how will the cleaning industry be impacted by the recent announcement on the Progressive Wage Model for cleaners.
30 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what has been the average wage increase of cleaners under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) over the years; (b) whether the PWM has improved the quality of cleaning; (c) whether the PWM has caused a reduction in the number of cleaners employed, especially for those smaller scale F&B outlets; and (d) whether the PWM has a knock-on effect on food prices.
31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower whether the income qualifying criteria for Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) will be adjusted in line with the new Progressive Wage Model (PWM).
32 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower how will Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) complement the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) so that an increase in wages of workers through PWM is not offset by a reduction in WIS payouts.
33 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government intends to increase labour productivity of the cleaning sector in tandem with the projected doubling of the wage floor from the current $1,236 to $2,420 by 2028 under the latest updates to the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for this sector; (b) if so, how will this doubling of productivity be brought about; and (c) whether workers in this sector will face higher unemployment if this productivity increase cannot be achieved.
34 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for workers with wages at the bottom 20% of the workforce (a) what is the number and percentage of workers from the cleaning, security, landscape and lift and escalator industries who can benefit; (b) what is the additional number and percentage of workers who will benefit from the expansion of PWM into the food, retail and waste management industries; and (c) what lessons can be drawn from the implementation of the PWM to expedite its expansion.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 18 to 34 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, many Members have filed questions related to our low-wage workers. I thank Members for sharing their keen interest in uplifting them.
Our fundamental objective is to make sure that as a society, we take care of every worker. We cannot progress as a society and achieve economic progress with a strong social compact if there is a group of workers who are left behind. We must ensure that every worker who is prepared to work hard will be able to earn fair wages and prosper along with the rest of Singapore.
Uplifting our low-wage workers has been a priority for the Government. Introduced in 2007, Workfare is the foundation of the Government's support for low-wage workers. It supplements the incomes of our low-wage workers in cash and helps them save for retirement. This encourages them to work regularly, rather than rely on welfare measures. Studies have shown that Workfare has led to an increase in employment rates, with the highest increases among our older workers.
Close to a million low-wage workers have since benefited from nearly $7.8 billion in Workfare payouts.
Workfare also supports our lower wage workers to upskill themselves, increase their productivity, find better jobs and earn higher wages. Another $600 million has been paid out to employers and workers through the Workfare Skills Support Scheme, to enhance their skills and employability.
On top of Workfare, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) provides job and training progression pathways for our lower wage workers, to grow their wages as they improve their skills and productivity.
Our policies to support our low-wage workers have made a difference in uplifting them, helping them to enjoy good wage growth over the last decade. To Miss Cheng Li Hui's question, from 2009 to 2019, the real wages at the 20th percentile of our resident workforce grew 39% cumulatively, faster than the median worker at 33%. This has allowed our low-wage workers to gain ground and progress faster than the median. That means the low-wage workers are earning closer to the median wage.
While we see robust real income growth for them, this is not the case for most OECD countries. For example, over the same 10-year period, workers at the 20th percentile in the United Kingdom saw no real wage growth, while those in Japan and United States saw only cumulative real wage growth of 3% and 6% respectively, despite having minimum wage. Nonetheless, we should not take our progress for granted. It is not inevitable that this will always be so.
While COVID-19 has resulted in a fall in the earnings of low-wage workers to $2,340 a month, Government schemes such as the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and the one-off Workfare Special Payment (WSP) in 2020 helped to mitigate this impact. After taking this into account, the incomes of the first 20% of income earners in 2020 were actually similar to wages in 2019.
As we helped our low-wage workers cope with COVID-19, it was also timely that we look to strengthen their prospects and progression for the long term. This is why we formed the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers last year. The Workgroup will be releasing its recommendations in the coming months.
The Government's aspiration remains to cover all sectors with Progressive Wages. Currently, Progressive Wages benefit 85,000 workers. The Workgroup has already announced that it will introduce PWMs in three new sectors: food services, retail and waste management. It will also bring in-house cleaning, security and landscaping workers into the Progressive Wage system. These moves will significantly expand coverage to up to 218,000 workers. The Workgroup is also looking at introducing Progressive Wages to other low-wage occupations that straddle multiple sectors, as raised by Miss Rachel Ong.
Agreeing which sector should start the PWM is just the first step. The hard work of making sure that it achieves its objective of progress for low-wage workers and sustaining high employment is in the details. These are carefully negotiated by the tripartite partners.
When it was first introduced in 2012, the mindsets of employers and service buyers were different. Much effort went into getting their support and their buy-in. There were concerns whether wage increases were sustainable, whether they would lead to higher costs for essential services in our daily lives. But today, all our PWM stakeholders buy into the same vision and work together to support our low-wage workers.
Employers now better understand the benefits of PWM to them and to their workers. This win-win outcome is why the cleaning sector has been able to agree to a much more ambitious rate of growth in its most recently concluded run of review.
To Ms Hany Soh's question, cleaners' wages have risen by 26% cumulatively from 2014 to 2019 and we have seen local employment rise by 3%. Overall, while businesses have had to adjust to the wage increases, they have had been able to do so without adverse effect.
Mr Desmond Choo asked how they will impact wages of other low-wage workers. For related jobs, there could potentially be some positive spillover effects. Nonetheless, if we want to achieve more broad-based progress for more low-wage workers, more of them would have to be brought in directly into our Progressive Wage system. Hence, the Tripartite Workgroup's discussion to include more sectors.
Some Members, including Mr Gan Thiam Poh, wanted more information of how future wage increases for the cleaning sector were determined.
Mr Speaker, the essence of the Progressive Wage Model is tripartite negotiation and consensus. Hence, the representatives from the cleaning sector are part of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC), which negotiated the wage increases. The TCC, which oversees the cleaning PWM, consists of representatives from the unions, employers, service buyers, as well as the Government. The TCC consulted widely with the industry and had numerous vigorous discussions amongst its members to find common ground that benefits all stakeholders. The TCC was clear in its collective desire to raise the wages of our cleaners in a sustained manner and revalue the work of our cleaners who have been integral in our fight against COVID-19.
This is the uniqueness of Singapore's approach because PWM progression is brought about with tripartite consensus. Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the lessons drawn from our experience with the cleaning PWM. A key takeaway is that the negotiated approach of the PWM helps address concerns and allows the sector to raise wages at a pace that is suitable for them.
The robust wage increases for the cleaning PWM are fruits of almost a decade of close tripartite collaboration and consistent efforts of the TCC.
The TCC has learned over time to harness the PWM design to benefit their workers and the sector. Cleaning companies recognise that Singapore's resident workforce is ageing. And that in addition to better wages, they needed to re-design the jobs to better retain and attract workers to the sector. Their support also assures us that the wage increases are sustainable. Through negotiation, the PWM allows stakeholders to take sector-specific circumstances into account.
One example is the six-year wage schedule as highlighted by Ms Yeo Wan Ling. The TCC did so to provide employees and service providers with clarity for long-term planning. Cleaning firms can price in the wage increases in their multi-year contracts with service buyers. There is also a midpoint review so that the TCC can ensure that the wage increases remain sustainable.
This pandemic has showed us how the PWM approach is superior to a blunt minimum wage. The sectoral approach has enabled us to advance PWM for cleaners as well as other sectors that are able to adjust to PWM progression in the short term. A blunt minimum wage may not have been able to achieve consensus or as ambitious a wage growth. Sectors such as tourism, aviation, hospitality and others that were severely impacted by COVID-19 would not have been able to agree to such a move. So, our targeted approach enabled the tripartite movement to advance PWM at a pace depending on how different sectors perform in the market.
The tripartite clusters for the new sectors such as food services and retail will similarly take into account market conditions and what each sector can manage as they recover from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Yip Hon Weng would be happy to know that these sectors are making good headway in developing their PWMs. Notwithstanding the challenging economic conditions, they are committed to submitting their recommendations before the end of the year.
The cleaning PWM is also not pursuing wage increases without considering skills, productivity and industry transformation. To Ms Yeo's question on re-skilling, the TCC has upgraded the training requirements for cleaners. This ensures that our workers continue to be upskilled and helps reduce the sector's reliance on low value-added manpower, including foreign manpower as raised by Mr Yip.
Members have raised questions on how businesses and consumers will handle the additional costs and also how productivity in the sector can be increased.
Indeed, if we as a society would like to see low-wage workers make good progress sustainably, all of us have a role to play in this. Employers have to drive productivity improvements in their firms through better technology and processes as raised by Mr Don Wee. They may also have to explore new business models or services to value-add to their customers. Service buyers have to embrace outcome-based contracting and contract durations that encourage investments in new technology. These are indeed directions that the industry has articulated in the Industry Transformation Map for the environmental services sector. Consumers will also contribute by sharing the cost of wage increases and have to pay slightly more for services and products as the sector implements the PWM.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about how the Government will increase productivity in the cleaning sector. The Government cannot legislate productivity. Productivity growth is a result of workers and firms working together to grow the business and then fairly redistribute the fruits of growth. This is why the tripartite movement believe that the Progressive Wage Model is better than a blunt minimum wage. Each PWM implemented is agreed by a tripartite process, which gives greater confidence that such wage increases can be supported by the market, by the society and will not put employment at risk.
Finally, Members including Mr Liang Eng Hwa have asked whether Government support for firms and workers will be provided. This is something that the Tripartite Workgroup is looking at as part of its deliberations. The Ministry of Manpower has been reviewing and enhancing Workfare with significant improvements made recently in 2017 and 2020. At each review, the wage growth of our low-wage workers has been taken into consideration and qualifying criteria adjusted accordingly. The Government will continue to review Workfare regularly to ensure that low-wage workers remain adequately supported.
The Government and tripartite partners are working closely together to make progressive wages a reality for all sectors of our economy sooner rather than later. I urge this House and all Singaporeans to support our low-wage workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia. Keep your supplementary questions short and limit to just one.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his very comprehensive reply. Just one supplementary question.
It is without a doubt that we must uplift our lower wage workers. At the same time, I am concerned about the impact on our smaller businesses. What can be done to assist our smaller businesses in business transformation to cope as an employer and as a service buyer?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. In fact, this is a very important aspect of our PWM negotiations because one of the key considerations we also had was both the survivability of our companies, as well as, at the same time, the employment outcomes of our workers. On the one hand, you want wages to go up but you do not want workers to lose their jobs either if the company closes down or the company says, \"I cannot afford this\", and they have to let go of workers. So, two things.
One, over time, this is why we find it very important, and I support the NTUC's work in this too, with the Company Training Committees, because these are important aspects which we want to help companies to look at – job re-design, productivity enhancements – and how they can leverage Government schemes with Enterprise Singapore providing the Productivity Solutions Grant and other development grants that they can use. These are areas in which the Government intends to provide support. We also understand that in the current market, some sectors are a bit challenged and, therefore, these may require further support. This is where the Tripartite Workgroup will study and roll out the recommendations soon to see how can we can layer on added support to help companies transition into some of these new PWM wage structures as well as for new sectors coming into PWM.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his very comprehensive reply. The Labour Movement would like to extend our support for the PWM. Of course, central to the Labour Movement has always been the issue of unemployment as we raise wages. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what are the safeguards that we can put in place to make sure that as we journey to the next milestone for PWM, we do not create undue unemployment?
The next question would be —
\tMr Speaker: Just one supplementary question, thank you.
\tMr Desmond Choo: Thank you very much.
\tMr Speaker: And cut the preamble, please. Thank you.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Choo for his question. In fact, that is the uniqueness of Singapore's system in that our safeguard is the tripartite consensus, with the employers on board, the employees agreeing, knowing what the projections look like and what they can agree to, and what they see as the market conditions coming forward. I think that is one way in which we ensure that our workers are not left behind or disemployed, fully understanding the risk that for many of our low-wage workers, the profile of this group is really the older groups, the less skilled. We know that these are also the ones who are most at risk with disemployment effects.
On one hand, I think this is where tripartite consensus will have to move ahead as we embark on putting more sectors on board. And that is why we have been talking to companies, employers to see how this would impact them, and how their views are in the way forward and the years ahead, whether they can absorb some of these wage increases and how much we can pass on to consumers.
I also want to say that consumers, too, have their part to play, in terms of supporting these initiatives and efforts, to pay more for services and products to support our low-wage workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, has productivity in the cleaning sector increased at the same rate as wage increases since the PWM for this sector has started and how is this measured?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I do not have the figures for productivity with me. But I think it is important to also look at productivity from the fact that we did not see disemployment in the years where PWM has been implemented. I think it is key. We have also seen how companies have transformed to put in place more mechanisation, different ways of cleaning, more clean technology being put in place, and more being explored. I know NTUC and the cleaning sector are also working to see how they can improve not just the conditions of work, but also the methods in which we re-design our cleaning sector.
I think most importantly is this, that productivity level is not just viewed from the workers' angle. At the end of the day, there is only so much floor you can clean and so many roads you can sweep. But I think, ultimately, for many companies involved, not just the cleaning sector, but others, that you have to look at productivity at both the employee level and the enterprise level. That is why the whole enterprise transformation, job re-design becomes an important factor in this because then you can see the multiples in terms of productivity increases over time.
\t
The security sector has done very well with this: moving into technology, sensors, CCTVs and so forth. And that is where we want to move many more of our sectors into, so that we can target better wage increases. It becomes more sustainable because productivity as a whole, for the whole sector, improves over time.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling. Keep it short.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): In the planning for the roll-out of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), does the Ministry take into account job types that may become obsolete or face disruptions in the next five to 10 years? And in such circumstances, what measures would the Ministry take to ensure that the livelihoods of our workers, particularly those in the lower paying tiers, are not affected?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, this is why close conversations that we have with employers are important, to look at where the blind spots are.
As a whole, as I have shared, many of the employers are very supportive of our PWM moves. I think they are also in line with us in our ambition to expand progressive wages and, at the same time, to try to grow this closer to median or to increase wages past the median. This is something that we want to work on with the employers.
But, at the same time as well, it is inevitable that even without PWM, you might find, because of industry transformation, certain jobs going obsolete. That is where the whole training and skills element becomes very important. We have to work with the unions, the trade associations and all our stakeholders to see how we can better improve the job scope as well as the job re-design to help workers transition.
More importantly, as wages go up, workers must also do their part to train, upskill, become relevant and address some of these new opportunities that come by.
Yes, with or without PWM, there may be transformations within each sector. We have got to look at it quite closely. Ultimately, we will do our best to be the catch-all too. If there are any displaced, to try to match them and move them into sectors that will absorb them. Overall, for as long as we keep our labour policies tight or keep our economy growing, we can then continue to create more jobs and more opportunities for everyone.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Minister for Health.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 35-57, 60-85 and 87-98 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 58-59 and 86 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 26 July 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Health and Minister for Manpower","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health usually does not get involved in the debate on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). But I am delivering this Ministerial Statement for two purposes.
First, even before the General Election last July, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has repeatedly alleged that the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) between Singapore and India allows professionals from India \"a free hand\" to come and work in Singapore. In his social media post on 22 June this year, Mr Leong Mun Wai again said, \"the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and free trade agreements, in particular CECA.\"
Mr Speaker, these statements are false. They have been repeated for too long.
I am a former trade negotiator at the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) when I was a civil servant. We worked closely on several FTAs. I worked with a very dedicated team, who has over two decades fought hard for the interest of Singapore, to expand the economic and political space for our small island state. And I feel I owe a duty to correct the falsehoods.
Indeed, Singaporean PMEs, like PMEs in other advanced economies, are facing challenges. Many have given us their feedback and the Government has been taking steps to address their concerns. But our FTAs in general, and CECA in particular, are not the cause of the challenges our PMEs face. If anything, they are part of the solution. FTAs and CECA have been made political scapegoats to discredit the policy of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government.
The second reason to deliver this Ministerial Statement is to put in context, on behalf of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MTI, the Parliamentary Questions that have been posed to the Ministries concerning foreign PMEs, FTAs and CECA. Dr Tan See Leng will further elaborate on the answers.
Taken together, Dr Tan and I will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 3 and Written Question Nos 19 to 24 from yesterday's Order Paper; and Oral Question Nos 1 to 6 and Written Question Nos 40 to 42 from today's Order Paper. A total of 18 questions.
Several of the questions were filed by the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament to gather data for a subsequent debate on a Motion they intend to file. So, where we can, we will provide relevant data to equip all parties for that subsequent debate.
Let me first recapitulate how we got here. As I mentioned, for months now, the PSP has alleged that FTAs and CECA have led to the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, displacing Singaporeans from their jobs and bringing about all kinds of social ills. This is a seductively simplistic argument that workers facing challenges at their workplaces can identify with and has stirred up a lot of emotions.
CECA-themed websites have sprouted, filled with quite disturbing xenophobic views about Indian immigrants. Words gradually became deeds. Toxic views turned into verbal and physical assaults on Indians, including our citizens.
It is sad that serious issues concerning the economic well-being of our country and workers have descended to this. That is why the Minister for Law called out such xenophobic behaviour during the May Sitting of this House and challenged the PSP to table a Motion on CECA so that the matter could receive a proper public airing.
The PSP has since made a public statement on the matter, standing by its view on FTAs and CECA. It filed various Parliamentary Questions requesting for more data and information.
Today, I will talk about the following: one, what is fundamental to Singapore's ability to earn a living and survive; two, why FTAs, including CECA, advance our interest and are not the cause of the challenges faced by our workers; and three, what then are the causes of Singaporeans' concerns and how do we address them?
Dr Tan will provide detailed answers to the specific questions, including providing the data which will be useful for our subsequent debate and putting that data in context.
Let me start with the first question: what is fundamental to our economic survival? Simply put, we are too small to survive on our own and we need to tap into the global markets to earn a living and be self-reliant.
What do we have to start with? We have no natural resources but we have one precious natural endowment and that is our geographical location. It is a lasting advantage but one which requires us to work very hard to realise and to sustain. If we succeed, it helps compensate for our lack of size.
That is what we have done. By capturing the trade flows through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, PSA became the largest container transshipment port in the world. It is a unique interchange in the world, connecting East and West, Europe, Middle East, India and China. The port is central to the growth of the maritime industry, responsible for 160,000 jobs in Singapore today.
In addition to our seaport, we have also grown into an aviation node. Before COVID-19 hit us, Changi Airport was one of the busiest airports in the world – and it shall be so again – though in aviation terms, our geographical location is not quite ideal. We made it happen with a renowned Changi and SIA experience. Before COVID-19 struck, the aviation-related industry was supporting 190,000 jobs.
With these good global connections to the world, we built up the manufacturing sector, about one-fifth of our GDP today. We obviously do not manufacture just for Singapore, we are too small. But we manufacture for the world. Manufacturing supports another 440,000 jobs today.
Our exports also include trade in services and one growing services sector is financial services. Today, almost every major global financial services institution is in Singapore, carrying out a range of activities including new ones such as fintech and green finance. The financial services sector employs over 170,000 people.
We are also becoming a centre for technology, research and development. Many global technology firms – from FAANG to BAT and many more – are in Singapore and they make Singapore their regional or global innovation centres or engineering hubs.
Today, around 50,000 international companies operate out of Singapore. Seven hundred and fifty of them have made Singapore their regional headquarters. None of this would have happened without a clear strategy, implemented well.
It was a long and painstaking process, part of the story of our island-nation. Clean government, rule of law, safety, you can walk on the street any time of the day, political stability, good infrastructure, high standards of education, openness to the world. All this and more come together and made us a good place to invest in and created many jobs.
I should emphasise that another big plus point for us is the quality of the Singaporean workforce. Our people are well known to be well educated, diligent, responsible, trustworthy and we get things done. We have one problem, which is that there are too few of us Singaporeans, a point which I will come back to later.
On top of all these plus points, we have built a network of 26 FTAs, including with US, China, EU, ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand; all our major markets and they are all our FTA partners.
This brings me to the next topic: why FTAs, including CECA, are important to Singapore.
We started our FTA strategy in the late 1990s. We thought through it carefully and executed before other countries did. It gave us a very precious early mover advantage and greatly boosted our efforts to export, attract investments and venture overseas, and created good jobs for Singaporeans.
Our total trade is three times our gross domestic product (GDP). Since 2005, our total trade has nearly doubled from around S$890 billion to S$1.5 trillion.
Today, when the Economic Development Board (EDB) goes out and persuades investors to come to Singapore, our network of FTAs is always a major selling point.
FTAs are especially important to our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They free them from being constrained by our small domestic market and give them access to global markets. Our SMEs are sending all kinds of Singapore-made products overseas: from canned food, barbecued pork, frozen roti prata – I heard some are exported to India – to medical devices, machines, components and chemicals.
FTAs are also spurring our companies to venture abroad. Our investments overseas increased nearly five times from S$200 billion in 2005 to over S$930 billion in 2019. When our companies grow overseas, they become stronger. They also employ more Singaporeans here.
If we accept this basic reality that Singapore needs the world to earn a living, then we would realise the fundamental importance of all our FTAs. They are a keystone of the economic super-structure that we have built. We could not have advanced the welfare of Singaporeans to the degree that we have without FTAs.
We cannot take all this for granted. Recently, we fell in the 2021 IMD World Competitiveness ranking from first place to fifth place. Amongst the components evaluated, we continue to do very well in terms of Government efficiency and economic competitiveness. However, we lost ground in terms of openness towards global talent and trade. But I hope this is temporary and due to the effects of COVID-19.
Overall, we are still holding our own in terms of foreign investments. In 2020, even as 45 companies ceased operating their regional or global headquarters in Singapore, over 130 companies set up such headquarters here.
So, when you attack FTAs and, worse, if your attack succeeds, you are undermining the fundamentals of our existence, of the way we earn a living, of all the sectors FTAs support, and the hundreds of thousands of Singaporean jobs created in these sectors.
As the attacks on FTAs, especially CECA, have been very specific, let me now spend some time to explain how FTAs work. And to prepare for this statement, I had to dig up my old negotiating notes and do quite a bit of revision and homework!
Here it goes. The key disciplines of an FTA are as follows.
It requires a country to remove or lower tariffs on substantially all trade between the FTA partners. This is of tremendous benefit to Singapore. Very good deal. Why? Because other countries customarily impose tariffs on thousands of items. We are already very open. We impose duties on only three alcoholic products: beer, stout and samsu. In all my years of negotiating FTAs, I do not know what samsu is, neither have I drunk it before. But these are our three tariff items. Hence, any FTA that substantially removes tariffs imposed by both parties is inherently beneficial to Singapore.
FTAs also require governments to accord protection to foreign investments and ensure that regulations are imposed fairly and equally on both local and foreign firms. They also set standards on protection of intellectual property.
In Singapore, we always protect foreign investments and apply our regulations fairly. This makes us attractive to foreign investors. So, it has always been in our interest to do that. Abiding to these principles and disciplines is not a problem for us at all. In fact, as more of our companies expand overseas and they create their own products, they too hope that Singapore can negotiate similar protection for them when they go overseas. The investment and intellectual property protection disciplines in FTAs are, therefore, important assurances for our companies.
Newer FTAs also set certain environmental and labour standards. Not every country supports them, but Singapore believes that they reflect contemporary concerns relating to free trade and investments.
Specifically, on CECA, this FTA with India benefits Singapore in many ways. Signed in 2005, it was India’s first comprehensive bilateral FTA with any country. CECA gave Singapore a strategic first-mover advantage in India, just when the continental country was taking off to be an economic powerhouse.
CECA reduces tariff barriers, which made Singapore goods more competitive in the Indian market. Partly because of that, bilateral trade between Singapore and India has grown by over 80%, from S$20 billion when CECA came into force in 2005, to S$38 billion in 2019.
Similarly, Singapore’s direct investment abroad in India grew by nearly 50 times, from S$1.3 billion to S$61 billion during the same period. In 2019, 660 companies from Singapore have investments in India, almost double the number a decade ago. As these companies grow regionally, they hire more people back home. In 2019, they employed 97,000 locals.
Despite these significant benefits, FTAs are controversial in many countries. As a trade negotiator, I have listened to the problems and sensitivities of many of our FTA partners. What are these sensitivities?
Some countries wish to protect certain sectors, such as agriculture, that is a very common one, which Singapore does not do. We have some eggs, we have some fish but more for a bit of source diversification. We never seek to conquer the world with our eggs and our seabass. Others could not live up to, say, the transparency standards of government procurement or intellectual property disciplines. Still, others are concerned about the influences of foreign culture through industries, such as arts and entertainment. Canada, for example, is very sensitive about this area.
The toughest job and the most time-consuming job of a negotiator is to identify and understand the sensitive sectors, the sensitivities of your country and then find ways to protect or address them.
How do we do so? We find words that give you comfort that address these sensitivities and we call these words in our jargon \"exceptions\" or \"carve-outs\". When we have a big carve-out, with strong protection in our sensitive areas, we will say \"this carve-out is strong and big enough for a jumbo jet to fly through!\"
In some sensitive areas, it is easy to negotiate \"exceptions\" or \"carve-outs\", because everyone agrees. One example is right of taxation by governments; another one is national security; a third one is immigration.
Every country holds the view that there cannot be unfettered movement of people across borders. Every FTA partner believes that. That would create social unrest and a big public uproar. Governments must retain the ability to impose immigration and border controls, and FTAs cannot undermine that. Hence, in all FTAs and also WTO Agreement, you will find that immigration powers are strongly and prominently preserved and protected. You can find such standard clauses in the WTO Agreement, as well as in all our FTAs, including CECA.
As so many falsehoods have been said about the immigration-related parts of CECA, let me set out in some detail what is really in the agreement.
Immigration matters are set out in Chapter 9 of CECA, \"Movement of Natural Persons\". The legal text is available online, so I will only detail the salient points.
One, the chapter makes it clear that Government’s ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower is not affected by the agreement. The Government retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens.
This is clearly set out in two clauses. They are standard clauses commonly found in all FTAs. And they are also the second and third paragraphs of Chapter 9 of CECA, so it is hard to miss them, as you can see them on the first page. I will just read them out.
Clause 9.1.2: \"This Chapter shall not apply to measures pertaining to citizenship, permanent residence or employment on a permanent basis.\"
Clause 9.1.3: \"Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry or temporary stay of natural persons of the other Party in its territory, including measures necessary to protect the integrity of its territory and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across its borders…\"
That is the first point.
The second point: the obligations relating to the Movement of Natural Persons in CECA, as in all FTAs, are not broad principles with wide applications, but actually highly specific.
What are these broad principles that you can find in FTAs? One broad principle is that of National Treatment. It is found in some chapters of the FTAs, such as Trade in Services or Investments. This means, I mentioned this just now, you cannot discriminate against foreign service providers and investors. Whether they are local investors or foreign investors, you treat them the same. Regulations and benefits that apply to local firms must apply evenly to foreign-owned ones.
So, if immigration had not been carved out and the National Treatment principle had been incorporated into Chapter 9 of CECA, then indeed, Indian workers would have to be treated like Singaporeans, and would have had free rein to come to live and work in Singapore.
That is what the PSP claims. Except that there is a strong immigration carve-out and National Treatment is not found in Chapter 9 of CECA, nor any other corresponding Chapter in the FTAs that Singapore has entered into.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I emphasise and underline and highlight and bold, with bigger fonts, colour red, that nothing in this agreement implies Singapore must unconditionally let in PMEs from India. Contrary to PSP’s claim, our ability to impose requirements for immigration and work pass has never been in question in CECA or any other FTAs that we have signed.
Instead, what then are the obligations of Chapter 9 of CECA? They are highly specific such as require \"the Parties to process applications for temporary entry with some expedition, and with certain transparency\", such as informing the applicants of the outcomes of their applications and not leaving them in suspense, a very reasonable thing to do and to agree to adhere to.
We also have to accord a certain duration for the validity of the permits should we approve and approval must be based on them meeting our prevailing work pass conditions; also very reasonable. Such a commitment on duration is also not something unique to CECA, because similar commitments exist in other FTAs and are also found in World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, signed by 164 Members, including Singapore.
Many Parties to FTAs also commit not to impose labour market tests. This is a common clause in our FTAs, including with India, Australia, China and the United States (US). It means we do not insist that companies go through onerous processes and documentation to prove that no suitable locals will take a job, before they can hire a foreigner. Companies in Singapore or any other places do not hire in this way. What they do, the common and best practice, is to interview the suitable candidates, consider them all fairly and then make a judgement on the best person. These are all market-friendly, widely adopted, reasonable obligations.
Let me also specifically address two aspects of the Chapter on Movement of Natural Persons in CECA that has been singled out for criticism.
First, the PSP pointed out that CECA listed 127 categories of professionals, hence claimed that Indian nationals in these professions can all freely come here to work for a year. This is false because, as I explained earlier, all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here.
What does the listing then show? The listing shows the types of Indian professionals who may apply to work in Singapore. It does not mean that we must approve their application. It is just that you can apply. India, for its own reasons, requested for such a list, similar to what they have in their FTAs with Korea and Japan. In fact, even if they had not listed the professions, their PMEs could still submit work pass applications to work here. The list probably meant something to India because there may be countries that would not even let you apply. That is how protectionist some countries may become and India is trying to secure their interests there.
This is, in fact, how other FTAs work: with or without listing of professions, nationals from our FTA partners are not precluded from submitting work pass applications, which will be evaluated based on our prevailing criteria and work pass conditions.
Thus, the point being made by PSP on the list of the 127 professions is a red herring. The list does not confer any free pass to any Indian national.
The second common criticism is that intra-corporate transferees from India can also freely enter Singapore to work. Based on my explanation on how the Chapter works, this is again not true. Intra-corporate transferees also have to meet our work pass qualifying criteria.
In any case, the total number of intra-corporate transferees from all over the world, and not just India, that have come to Singapore to work is very small. In 2020, there were only about 500 intra-corporate transferees from India in Singapore – less than 0.3% of all Employment Pass (EP) holders.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we can put a stop to all this misinformation about our FTAs in general, and CECA, in particular.
Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that PMEs in Singapore do face challenges. And I see at least three challenges that they are facing.
First, there is more competition from foreign PMEs. Indeed, the number of EP holders has increased, from 65,000 in 2005 to 177,000 in 2020, an increase over 15 years of 112,000, or an annual growth rate of just under 7%. Over this period, however, the increase in the number of local PMEs is much higher, by over 380,000. So, 380,000 for local PMEs and 112,000 for EP holders.
These numbers underline an important point: that competition between foreign and local PMEs is not a zero-sum game. In fact, the converse is often true. By combining and complementing local and foreign expertise, we can attract more investments and create many more good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans.
The downside is that, with more foreign PMEs in Singapore, they can compete for jobs with locals at the company level and, at that level, there can be a zero-sum situation.
So, there is a trade-off at play here. If I can put it simply: (a) many jobs, strong competition; (b) few jobs, no competition. And we need to find the right balance where there are more jobs, some competition. That is the way to advance the interest of Singaporeans; not swing to any extreme position, but strike that careful balance and then adjust if we find that that balance is off. But if someone promises you many more jobs with no competition from foreigners, he is selling you snake oil. It is not possible. It cannot be on any government’s policy menu.
I should point out that besides complementing our local workforce to create more opportunities, foreign PMEs also help cushion the impact on the local workforce when times are bad. Because during a downturn, foreigners bear the brunt of job losses. During COVID-19, for the 12 months to April 2021, the number of Employment Pass holders dropped by about 21,600, and S Pass holders fell by about 26,800. Altogether, about 50,000 over the 12 months.
On the other hand, local employment has been stable. The unemployment rate for local PMEs in June 2020 was at 2.9%. This is from the labour market survey, so, it comes out only once a year during June and this is immediately after the circuit breaker. Resident unemployment rate in September 2020 was 4.8%; in May 2021, 3.8%. It came down by one percentage point. Without the foreign buffer, when our economy ran into trouble, the situation would have been much worse. Singaporeans would have lost many more jobs.
So, while the stock of EP and S Pass holders can fluctuate, Singaporeans enjoy greater security of employment, with help from various Government measures. The Jobs Support Scheme helped firms, helped enterprises keep their workers. We have a multi-Ministry National Jobs Council which came up with many initiatives to help place displaced Singaporeans into jobs, including the Jobs Growth Incentive, to encourage companies to hire local workers.
So, when Mr Leong Mun Wai said in his Facebook post that we need to recoup a few tens of thousands of jobs from foreign work pass holders, he may not know that we have already done so. This always happens in a downturn.
The second challenge is the profile of foreign PMEs. They are concentrated in certain sectors and from certain countries of origin. Indeed, as our digital economy and our needs for tech talent grew, more PMEs from India came into Singapore through our EP framework. And when that concentration happens in areas, such as Changi Business Park, some may feel that we have lost a part of Singapore. Members of the House have raised this concern. We are taking this seriously and studying what we can do to lessen the problem.
I hasten to add that dealing with excessive concentration is not a straightforward matter of chopping up the operations of a company here. We do not want to unintentionally cause the whole investment to move elsewhere. This will hurt even more Singaporeans. And this is part of the careful balancing that I talked about earlier.
Third, at the company level, there may be unfair hiring practices, with department heads preferring to hire foreign PMEs, or even foreign PMEs from certain countries. This is not right. Whatever system we set up, there will always be some abuses. We must tackle the abuses when they occur as swiftly as possible, while continuing to adopt sensible economic policies that are good for Singapore and Singaporeans.
MOM takes a strong stance against such discriminatory practices and, together with our tripartite partners, has been actively enforcing against errant employers. The Minister for Manpower will speak on this further.
I have explained the underlying reasons for the difficulties faced by our PMEs, so that we know what it means for us in terms of public policy choices and how we can most effectively address the challenges. If we mistakenly blame FTAs and CECA for these problems, our responses would be disastrously wrong and would make our problems worse.
Mr Speaker, let me say something in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government deeply understands the pressures faced by local PMEs in the workplace. These include concerns about being displaced by foreign PMEs. Some companies have employed more foreigners and this has made Singaporean employees uncomfortable.
The Government has received feedback from many members of the public and Members of Parliament on these issues. We take these concerns seriously and have already taken action to address them. For example, we have raised the salary bar for foreign PMEs to tighten the inflow of foreigners. We have also stepped up enforcement, investigation and punishment against employers who discriminate against locals.
In order to prescribe the right solution, we have to first identify the root cause of the problem. However, over the past year, before identifying the truth of the matter, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has laid the blame squarely on the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) as the main culprit for the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, displacing Singaporeans from their jobs. PSP also claimed that all the FTAs that we have signed have harmed Singapore's economy and the interests of Singaporeans.
They have unfortunately turned FTAs into political scapegoats to discredit the policies of the Government. Their claims are incorrect and have distorted the facts. If anti-foreigner sentiments creep into Singaporeans’ psyche, the livelihoods of Singaporeans, the prosperity of the nation and the happiness of our next generation will be at risk.
Before joining politics, I was a civil servant and participated in negotiating FTAs. Therefore, I have the responsibility to correct all these baseless allegations. I would like to clarify four points.
First, what is the pillar of Singapore's economy? We are a small country lacking in natural resources. The key to our economic success lies in whether we have a global view and whether we can leverage globalisation to attract foreign investments and expand into international markets to make up for our lack of natural resources and our small size. Only by doing so can our people live in peace and happiness, and can young Singaporeans pursue their dreams.
Second, what is the intent of signing FTAs with various countries? Through negotiations, we are able to get tariff exemptions from our partner countries. This will help promote our exports and is especially important to our SMEs because the domestic market is too small. FTAs will help our SMEs venture into international markets and grow stronger.
We have signed 26 FTAs with various countries in the world. These include ASEAN, China, the US, the European Union, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. These are our major markets and also our important free trade partners.
FTAs also help us to attract businesses and investors. EDB often says that our FTA network is a major selling point to persuade MNCs when they decide whether to invest in Singapore. When investors come to Singapore, our FTAs can help them enter various major markets in the world. Also, under the FTA provisions, the Singapore Government has obligations to provide some protection to their investments.
Third, why is PSP’s claim incorrect? That is because they have distorted the intent of the FTAs and our FTA negotiation team. They have wronged us. They said that CECA has allowed 127 categories of professionals from India to enter, live and work in Singapore freely. This claim is ridiculous.
The listing of 127 professions serves as a point of reference for relevant parties. Professionals working in these categories can apply to work in Singapore but it does not mean that the applications will be automatically approved. These are two different things. Ultimately, the applicant must still meet the qualifying criteria for work passes in Singapore; only then can they get an Employment Pass to work here.
In all our FTAs, our immigration and foreign talent policies remain unchanged. We retain full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens.
Fourth, where do the pressures that Singaporean PMEs face come from? Simply put, globalisation brings about greater competition. On one hand, we must remain open to create opportunities for our people. On the other hand, we must manage the competition it brings for our industries and people.
However, competition between foreign and local PMEs is not a zero-sum game. A reduction in the number of foreign PMEs in Singapore does not necessarily translate into more jobs for our local people. Instead, only by combining local and foreign expertise, can we attract more foreign investments and create more good job opportunities.
As a small country that relies on the global economy, we face the following choices. Option A, strong competition but many jobs; or option B, less competition but few jobs. We want to avoid both extremes. What we need is to strike a balance. We cannot over-compensate in any direction. To ensure that our people continue to have enough good jobs, some competition is unavoidable.
If someone claims that he can give you an economic model that creates many jobs but no competition, he is definitely bragging and selling you snake oil.
Another challenge that we face is that we are now growing our digital economy and our need for tech talent has grown. Today, China and India are two of the largest global suppliers of tech talent. Many Chinese talent tend to work in China because they have many unicorn enterprises and significant domestic demand. India’s talent have continued to look outwards. Therefore, there are relatively more Indian digital and tech talent in Singapore. This is a phenomenon that we have to face. The Government is working together with industry players to explore adopting offshore outsourcing solutions. However, this must be done carefully to avoid losing important foreign investments altogether.
We must continue to discuss how to solve the problem, safeguard job opportunities and provide a level playing field for Singaporeans. Please do not listen to misinformation and reject FTAs and CECA. These will erode the foundation of Singapore’s open economy.
We note that many countries in the world are now facing the issue of xenophobia. We must not let this take root in Singapore. We have to try our best to address the concerns of our people and resolve these problems for Singaporeans. The Government is determined to do that. However, we need the cooperation of Singaporeans to defend the foundation of our prosperity together.
(In English): I will switch back to English to conclude my speech. As I explained earlier, our FTA strategy has benefited Singaporeans and Singapore. So, it is disappointing that FTAs are now a target of political attacks. But, perhaps, I should not be surprised, as this has happened in many countries.
Such debate goes beyond FTAs. The question of global versus local has emerged as the new dominant political divide in democracies around the world.
In the US, labour unions and various industry lobbies are against free trade. The Trump Administration pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) within a week of taking office, even though the US was the architect of the TPP agreement.
In the UK, Brexit was the culmination of a bitter political contest between those who wanted to be part of the European Union and those who wanted out.
In France, the next Presidential election is likely to be a face-off between the incumbent President Macron and the far-right nationalist candidate.
These political divides arose because of globalisation. While globalisation presents opportunities and creates jobs, it also brings about greater competition, the displacement of industries and jobs, and inflow of immigrants.
These consequences go beyond the economic sphere and often strike at the heart of a nation and a community's sense of identity and security. This is the most unsettling change, causing people to become unsure if they are on the whole better off with globalisation.
Such concerns are genuine and deserve serious and proper attention. We are a small country and an unrestricted flow of workers from a large country can change the lived experience of Singaporeans, alter the character of our society and even overwhelm us. But we need to be careful that these valid concerns are not exploited by political groups and, intentionally or not, end up sowing division, stoking fear and fanning hatred.
As representatives of the people, we all have a responsibility to realise that our words and deeds can shape public opinion and the direction of our political discourse.
That is why when Mr Leong Mun Wai said in this House, some months ago, that the naturalised Singaporean CEO of DBS was not \"homegrown\" and deemed this a failure, Minister Iswaran responded with a word of caution. I agree with Minister Iswaran and feel that Members of the House should be very careful about what we say on such matters, if we are not to give credence to very negative, even ugly, minority views. That is also why we appreciate the Leader of the Opposition standing up to say that when it comes to racism and xenophobia, we have to all reject them and there can be no \"ifs and buts\" about it.
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, let me remind Members that the House has invoked Standing Order No 44, so that the Members from PSP can give a full response after Dr Tan See Leng's speech. But even if Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa choose not to, I will be happy to clarify questions from Members.
The People's Action Party (PAP) will always fight for the welfare of Singaporeans. We have done so for more than 60 years now: kept our country safe, brought jobs to Singaporeans, built up our infrastructure and taken care of the welfare of all. As a city state connected to the world, we want to welcome diverse talent from all over the world. When they are here, we invite them to fit into our society, respect our social habits and norms, and appreciate our multi-cultural society, join us at the hawker centres, try durians, try some sambal belacan, speak a few phrases of Singlish.
When Singaporeans go overseas to live and work – and about 200,000 of us do – we expect the same of ourselves and hope that we also receive hospitable welcomes from our foreign hosts.
I decided to make this Statement today, so that we can approach the debate on PSP's subsequent Motion with the right perspective and motivation. This House should continue to debate robustly the pros and cons of various policies to help Singapore navigate the balance between global and local.
But we must not inadvertently shake the bedrock that has enabled Singapore to succeed. We cannot survive, we cannot earn a living without being connected to the world, without being welcoming to the world, without the House unanimously supporting our FTA strategy. And we must always be a big-hearted people, even while we grapple with the significant challenges of globalisation to forge the best path forward for Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Minister for Manpower will be making a related Ministerial Statement. Members will be able to seek clarifications on both Statements during the Debate after this Statement. Minister for Manpower.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, in his Statement, Minister Ong has explained why FTAs are critical to Singapore, as well as how they have helped us reap significant benefits for our fellow Singaporeans.
The same goes for our openness to foreign workers. We take the same approach when we decide on foreign workers coming to work in Singapore: how does it help Singaporeans?
At the start of the 1970s, our GDP was S$20 billion. Now, the economy has grown to S$454 billion. Foreign workers account for around one-third of our workforce. There are more than 2.3 million locals who are employed and our resident unemployment rate is 4.1%, half of what it was in 1970.
We need to understand the real challenges we are facing today in order to have a constructive debate on the way forward. And that is why we are having these two Ministerial Statements.
I will explain with data, with details, as to exactly how our foreign workforce policies are implemented in order to benefit our fellow Singaporeans. I will also give our perspective on the real challenges we face today and the real solutions that are demanded.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong asked for the number of intra-corporate transferees or ICTs, professionals and dependants that come in through CECA. Let me reiterate a point Minister Ong has made, and that is none of our FTAs, including CECA, gives intra-corporate transferees, or ICTs, unfettered access to our labour market. So, please remember that. They all have to meet MOM's prevailing work pass criteria.
Under the ICT route, the employer does not have to advertise on MyCareersFuture.sg, but the ICTs themselves are subject to additional checks on their seniority, on their employment history as well as their work and industry experience.
They are also subject to more conditions in their eligibility to bring in dependants and apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore. And if they have brought in dependants, the dependants do not have the automatic right to work here. They can only do so if they qualify for a work pass on their own merits. This is a very fundamental point and I hope that everyone will remember this.
Thus, and as mentioned by Minister Ong, the total number of ICTs has consistently been very small. In 2020, there were only about 4,200 ICTs. Of these, about 500 were from India. That is 500 out of 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore.
As for the number of \"professional visas\" issued, I am afraid to disappoint Mr Leong, there is no such category within MOM. As Minister Ong explained, all 127 categories of professionals under CECA currently come in under our regular work pass framework.
The PSP has made Indian nationals coming in through CECA a focus of contention. But I am afraid they have been barking up the wrong tree. The number of ICTs coming in under our FTAs, and in particular CECA, is a very small number relative to our total number of EPs. I suggest we set aside this red herring and move on, more importantly, to the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter is this: how do we, as a small country devoid of any natural resources, remain open to global talent for us to continue to create opportunities for our fellow Singaporeans while, at the same time, manage the attendant social repercussions?
Singaporeans are pragmatic. They understand we need to remain open to global talent. However, they also face real challenges. In particular, they are worried about three things: first, that the growth in EP holders has come at the expense of our local PMEs; second, that some workplaces have become more concentrated with a single nationality; and third, that there may be discrimination against local jobseekers and employees.
I have come from the private sector, and I understand and empathise with these fears, these concerns and these anxieties. I would like to address each of them in turn, because I want to lay out the facts and also share our approach in dealing with each one of them.
I am not suggesting that all of our approaches are perfect. Obviously, we are always a work-in-progress. But we will continue to refine them in the light of our experiences, always with a focused view to having a system that will and can deliver good jobs, good livelihoods and a thriving economy for Singaporeans. Not just for our generation but for our future generations.
I hope this will enable us to arrive at a better understanding of the choices and the trade-offs that we constantly have to make.
First, on the increased competition from foreign PMEs. In Singapore today, we have one of the best local talent pools in the world. But it is insufficient to meet the breadth, the depth, the needs of investments that generate the quality and the range of jobs that we have today. So, when we bring in new investments, we will sometimes need to attract foreign expertise, foreign talent, while we build up our local capabilities. Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked for the breakdown of local and foreign workforce numbers by sector. Given the issue at hand, let me focus on EPs.
As of 2020, we have around 177,000 EPs, or Employment Pass holders, in our overall workforce. Manufacturing and construction account for about one-tenth. The rest are in the services sector. If you look at the top three subsectors: infocomm and professional services, these two sectors account for around one-fifth each; while finance accounts for another one-seventh.
If you look at the change from 2005, I think that was around the time when CECA was signed, to 2020, the total number of EPs has increased by around 112,000. This was also mentioned in Minister Ong's speech earlier on. Over this period, the total number of local PMEs increased significantly by more than 380,000.
There have been questions asked, both inside and outside of this House, whether most of the growth in local PME jobs was accounted for by Singapore Citizens.
If you look at our unemployment statistics, we provide the figure for Singapore Citizens. The citizen unemployment rate over the past 10 years has been consistently low, at around 3%. Hence, the answer must be a yes.
For those of you who have asked how much of this local PME job growth has gone to born and bred Singaporeans, notwithstanding the divisive intent of this kind of questioning, let me state simply that the majority of this growth over the past decade went to Singaporeans born in Singapore. And as we have also shared in response to a written Parliamentary Question yesterday, 87% of Singapore Citizens were born here.
Much attention has been placed on the finance and the infocomm sectors, which alone accounted for 40% of the increase in EP holders. This is significant but what is even more significant is that these two sectors saw even stronger job creation for local PMEs. In infocomm, the number of EPs increased by around 25,000. The number of jobs created in this sector alone for local PMEs was greater, at 35,000.
In finance, the number of EPs increased by around 20,000, but the number of jobs created for local PMEs was even greater, at around 85,000. This is more than four times.
We focus on these two sectors because they bring good quality jobs and Singapore, our beloved Singapore, can carve out an advantage and value-add significantly in these areas. And as a result, there has been significant job creation.
As we attract foreign banks, infocomm companies to create jobs here, they will inevitably need foreign workers to complement the Singaporean workforce.
I want to deal with a fundamental misconception which lies at the heart of some of the things being misconstrued.
When a company decides to come into Singapore to invest and they need about 3,000 people, they may be able to find about 2,500 of these talents in Singapore. But they still need to supplement the 2,500 with the other additional 500 from overseas. If we object and we insisted that the balance of their 500 must all come from Singapore irrespective, then how do we expect that investment to take off? How do you expect an investment to come in? These 2,500 jobs for the locals would be compromised greatly.
The simple point is that while we have a good Singaporean talent pool, our pool is not large enough to fulfil all of the needs, the breadth and the depth of these enterprises. Very often, foreigners also bring in skills which complement Singaporeans' skillsets as well.
The misconception is that if we said no to the foreigners coming in, these jobs they would have taken would, therefore, all go to Singaporeans. How can this be possible? This is a misconception. How do I know that this is a misconception? Because today, even as we speak, we still have 22,000 PME jobs that are not filled. Companies are desperate to fill these jobs. They would love to take in Singaporeans if they could, because they would be more productive. But these jobs up till now are still not filled. Perhaps Mr Leong would like to think deeply about that and deliberate and offer us some advice.
Mr Leong also suggests that doing away with foreigners will reduce the displacement of our older PMEs. I wish that were so, but the private sector and the real economy do not operate this way. There will always be displacement of PMEs, whether older or younger in any economy. Why? Because the business world is never static. Industries change, companies downsize, they expand, they relocate, they pivot, they transform.
Regardless of whether you have foreigners or not, that would not change because this is the function of the business world. What matters most for us is whether we are able to find jobs for these displaced PMEs. To do this, we need an eco-system where there are also new companies willing to come and start up in Singapore, new investments, new foreign direct investments coming in and expanding multinational corporations.
So far, I think we have done credibly in this regard. New jobs created have far exceeded the jobs that have been lost and our unemployment rate has been kept low. And the re-entry rates for displaced PMEs are high.
That said, it is not always easy or possible to find every single displaced PME an equivalent job in the same industry, especially if there is a skills mismatch. An IT sales manager who loses his job may not find a job as a cybersecurity expert. But we do our best to help them find jobs in other growth sectors.
If we tell companies which want to invest in Singapore that they can only employ Singaporeans, or first employ Singaporeans who have been displaced regardless of skills, I think the answer will be quite stark. They, I think, will opt not to come into Singapore to invest.
All companies will want to hire Singaporeans, but companies will also need to have that flexibility to hire the best available talent from around the world to complement our Singaporean workforce.
I understand. I understand what displaced Singaporeans are going through. Rest assured, we are doing our best to help you and your families. But it is important that we go to the root cause of the problem, that we are able to tackle it and we are able to diagnose the situation accurately, and not provide treatment to just treat and relieve the symptoms. Because only when we can identify the right solution, we are able to prescribe, we are able to provide the precise and the appropriate treatment.
The fundamental question now is, how do we strike a balance between ensuring that businesses have access to skillsets, to manpower, to grow and succeed, whilst creating opportunities for our local workers to grow and to progress?
Our strategy to achieve this has always been two-pronged: ensuring that our workers can compete fairly and can compete strongly. So, the first is to ensure that our local workers can compete fairly. We do this through our work pass controls. Our view, our prevalent view, is that foreign manpower should not come to Singapore just because they are cheaper to hire than locals. They should complement but not displace our local workforce. They should bring in extra skills to help the companies and, at the same time, create more Singaporean jobs.
In line with these objectives, at the Work Permit and the S Pass level, we have quotas. And we have levies in place to regulate foreign worker numbers. We have been progressively tightening quotas, we have been progressively raising levies to reduce manpower reliance, spur job redesign, push for quality growth. Over the past decade, we have consistently and steadfastly held our course in spite of numerous calls from businesses to relax our rules.
We commit to productivity-led growth because we believe many of these jobs have the potential to be transformed into good jobs that provide higher real wages and rewarding careers for Singaporeans. For EPs, we do not impose quotas or levies because there is fierce competition for global talent and worldwide shortages in areas such as tech and digital skills. A quota would be a hard cap that would limit our ability to compete at the high end of the global economy, while for a levy to have any impact or any effect at all on EP numbers, it would have to be set very high and would substantially increase business costs.
Instead, what we have done is that we have focused on setting and raising the quality bar for EP holders through requirements on salary and qualifications to make sure that the EPs who come in are at the right level and they bring the right skillsets, the necessary expertise and experience to contribute significantly to our economy.
Last year, we raised the EP minimum qualifying salary in two steps, from $3,600 to $3,900; and then, we raised it again to $4,500. The salary requirement increases with age, it is also on a graduated scale, which reflects the candidate's experience, his length of time in the workforce, in order to provide sufficient protection for our mature workers.
We also introduced a higher bar of $5,000 for applicants in the finance sector to take into account the higher wage norms in that sector.
We will continue to review and revise these thresholds regularly to ensure that they remain appropriate and they remain in tandem as our economy develops, as our skills, as our income levels, go up.
Mr Leong has also previously raised in this House his concern that foreign Employment Pass (EP) holders are cheaper to hire than locals, simply because their employers do not make CPF contributions.
I think he fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of our CPF. CPF is set aside for our retirement needs. It can also be used for housing. As foreign PMEs who are not working in Singapore on a permanent basis, I do not think we should be responsible for their retirement adequacy or home ownership needs. Hence, I do not think it makes sense for us to extend our CPF benefits and coverage to them.
Fundamentally, our CPF system is designed to benefit our resident workers, not to help attract or deter foreigners. Instead, when reviewing the qualifying salary to maintain a level playing field, we take into account CPF contributions as part of the cost to employers. That is packaged into the cost to employers.
Mr Leong did not suggest that employers should pay foreigners CPF too. I think he realises this. Instead, he says he wants to impose a $1,200 levy on EP holders. But as I have just explained, a levy is not the most effective or the right way to manage the population of foreign PMEs. I think that it would be better managed by appropriately setting the right salary level for entry into Singapore.
Ms Hazel Poa has asked for numbers on dependants in Singapore. This is relevant insofar as they are competing with locals for jobs.
As shared previously, the vast majority of Dependant's Pass (DP) holders do not work during their stay in Singapore. The number of DP holders who have sought employment in Singapore via a Letter of Consent (LOC) – for DP holders, up to May, if they wanted to work, they needed to get an LOC – this number constitutes only about 1% of all work pass holders.
In fact, Members would remember we have already regularised the work arrangements of DP holders in May this year. From May this year, DP holders who wish to work in Singapore can no longer obtain an LOC. Instead, they will have to qualify for a relevant work pass on their own merit. So, they go through the normal work pass routes.
There will always be calls from workers to tighten our foreign workforce policies further, just as there will always be calls from businesses to relax them. I can tell you that in my past life, I was also guilty of that. I have also lobbied to relax work pass policies; that was a function of a listed company. It is the tightrope that MOM and MTI have to constantly navigate very delicately amidst highly competitive global markets for both investments and talent.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are limits as to how far we can tighten our controls without eventually hurting Singaporeans.
With remote working becoming more prevalent, companies increasingly do not need to site their manpower in Singapore. In fact, we may find more businesses simply choosing to move entire business functions offshore if it becomes too difficult, onerous or expensive to operate here. Singaporeans will end up with the shorter end of the stick as well by losing some jobs too.
This is precisely why the second prong of our approach – that of ensuring that our Singaporeans can compete strongly – is just as important.
In an open and globalised labour market like ours, competition is intense and stiff. There will be some of our fellow Singaporeans who are displaced from their jobs and we need to help them find replacement jobs. This happens not just because of competition from foreign workers but because of other factors like technological change and industries phasing out.
This is why the Government invests so heavily in retraining and skills development so that displaced workers can gain new skills and reinvent themselves either by doing a different job in the same industry or transiting to another industry altogether. In fact, for some industries, as they get sunsetted, we have to help workers to pivot and transform even faster. That is really the subject of the 23 Industry Transformation Maps that we have set up over the last couple of years.
As Mr Lim Swee Say used to say, in Singapore, we are unable to guarantee your employment but rest assured, we will work very, very, very hard to ensure your employability. Upgrading skills and staying relevant is, ultimately, our workers' best form of protection.
We do this through our system of education, through training and that goes beyond formal schooling. We do this via SkillsFuture. We also help displaced Singaporeans through job facilitation and support.
COVID-19 has been an especially difficult time for many Singaporeans. Therefore, we have stepped up support.
As announced at Budget this year, we have extended the SGUnited Jobs and Skills (SGUJS) Package. MOF has set aside an additional $5.4 billion to support the hiring of 200,000 locals through the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) and provided 35,000 traineeships, attachments and training opportunities just this year alone. These programmes are in addition to long-standing programmes such as Workforce Singapore (WSG)'s career conversion programmes.
To make our career matching services even more accessible to locals, WSG has set up in all 24 HDB towns SGUnited Jobs and Skills (SGUJS) Centres. The retrenchment taskforce led by WSG and supported by NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) reached out to nearly all retrenched local workers in 2020. Of those who took up the taskforce's employment facilitation assistance, you will be happy to note that more than two-thirds of them have found jobs within six months.
Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the effectiveness of the different capability development schemes in building a local talent pipeline. As of end April 2021, more than 110,000 locals have been placed into jobs and skills opportunities as a result of the SGUJS Package. Within the first three months of implementation, the Jobs Growth Incentive supported 27,000 employers who hired 130,000 new locals.
With the support of employers and the unions, the policies that we have put up have preserved jobs for Singaporeans amidst the crisis of our generation. The numbers speak for themselves. Total employment in 2020, excluding migrant domestic workers, shrank by 166,600. Foreign employment took the most hit, shrinking by 181,500. Resident employment, on the other hand, managed to expand by 14,900 in spite of the downturn.
We are not quite out of the woods yet and there is more work yet to be done but, ladies and gentlemen, let us also build on what we have collectively achieved so far.
A second part on safeguarding diversity. I want to talk about nationality concentration amongst foreign PMEs. Mr Leong and Ms Poa have asked for the nationality profile of our work pass holders and their dependants from China, from India, from the US and from Australia. Ms Poa has asked for even more granular data on the sector and jobs commonly held by these same nationalities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, for foreign policy reasons, we do not publish detailed statistics on our foreign workforce, especially by nationality. I am not aware of any country that reports at that level of granularity requested. Nevertheless, we recognise that if misconceptions continue to spread, in spite of all of our attempts to address them in many other ways, even more damage will be done. So, I will share some numbers to address the misconceptions and allow for a meaningful engagement on the issue at hand.
The top nationalities that comprise around two-thirds of our EP holders have been consistent since 2005, namely, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the UK.
I believe the interest is really in the Indian EP holders. The proportion of EP holders from India has increased from about one-seventh in 2005 to about a quarter in 2020. In comparison, the proportion of EP holders from China has remained relatively stable across this same time period.
Is this the result of more favourable treatment for Indian EP holders due to the CECA? The answer is no. As I have shared earlier, all work pass holders in Singapore have to meet the same criteria before they are allowed to enter our labour market. There is no differentiation based on nationality. Rather, these numbers reflect trends in the global demand and supply of tech talent.
The larger increase in Indian EP holders compared to other nationalities is driven by the result of rapid growth and choices of growing our digital economy and finance. As every sector seeks to be digitally enabled, their need for tech talent has grown significantly. We do not have enough locals to fill the jobs available. In the infocomm sector alone today, 6,000 jobs currently remain unfilled.
Companies can decide which overseas countries they want to bring in their manpower from. Based on their needs and the availability of the required talent, China and India, over the last decade or so, are two of the largest suppliers of tech talent.
But you would have read that China has sprouted so many unicorns and the Chinese companies themselves have a huge demand of their own. So, many Chinese talent decide to stay in China to work. I can tell you that these are the numbers that we are seeing across the construction industry amongst the migrant workers as well. I think prior to my coming onboard as the Minister for Manpower, many Members here would know that I deal with the dormitories most of the time. I can share with you the same statistics.
India's talent, on the other hand, have continued to look outwards. They also have the advantage of being English speaking. This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. It is global.
Currently, India is the largest country of origin for international migrants; this is in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Report published in January 2021. In 2020 alone, it accounted for 18 million international migrants, up by 10 million from 2000. India has grown to become the second largest source of immigrants in the US and the third largest in the UK. These two countries are also heavily invested in developing their technological capabilities.
Our companies, our industries, our enterprises, they are both creators of technology and also adopters of the talent that is needed to create these technologies. Given our relative shortage of manpower, even if the workers do not come from India, they will come from somewhere else.
I hope that Mr Leong is not objecting to Indians per se. The point I think we should ask ourselves is this: are they helping our companies? Are they helping our enterprises? Are they helping us to grow our economy and create better Singaporean jobs? The answer is yes.
It is not surprising, however, that this increasing concentration has caused some social frictions and anxiety to Singaporeans. In some ways, this is understandable and to some, we may even say that it is expected because these EP holders are transient. They work in Singapore for a number of years and they contribute to our economic growth. Apart from some EP holders who settle down and become PRs or Singapore Citizens, most of them, most EP holders work here for a few years and they either return home or they move on elsewhere.
So, it is to be expected that they are different and we do feel that they are different. And this is the challenge of living in our multi-cultural society and a globalised world, as Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about recently.
This is something that we will have to, and have been, proactively and constantly monitoring and managing. Indeed, when a single nationality becomes too prominent and that can have a disproportionate impact on our existing culture, our beliefs, it can cause our fellow Singaporeans, ourselves included, to feel less at home in our workplaces and in our neighbourhoods. In the early 2000s, we experienced a similar situation when the share of PRCs in our foreign workforce increased significantly, before tapering as China’s growth took off. Both then and now, the larger numbers did not go unnoticed and they created frictions within our communities.
We understand these concerns, which is why we review and update our work pass policies regularly. We always seek to balance the needs of our economy with the needs of our society. We have to bring in the talent and the skills to keep our economy growing, while tracking that the number of foreigners in our midst stays at a level that we are able to cope with, and manage the social frictions that will arise from time to time. This is a series of trade-offs. It is not going to be a once-off adjustment. It will be a constant balance that we have to continuously monitor and get right.
Today, the Government does monitor the concentration of nationalities at the firm level. Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether the threshold percentage of a company's workforce from a single nationality is a criterion for the Fair Consideration Framework, or FCF, Watchlist. The answer is yes. In shortlisting firms, MOM looks at whether they have a high concentration of foreigners from a single nationality source, in addition to a high share of foreign PMETs relative to their industry peers.
However, being flagged in the FCF Watchlist is not evidence that the firm has committed any wrongdoing. Potentially, it could be a sign that some unfair hiring may be occurring. The purpose of this Watchlist is to have the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, actively engage these companies to review and improve, where needed, their hiring practices and their human resource capabilities. The majority of the firms are cooperative. They respond positively and they exit the Watchlist. For the small minority that are unresponsive, they can have their work pass privileges curtailed or they can be suspended for a specific time period. And this is not a small penalty.
Today, this is an effective process, albeit resource-intensive. We currently have about 400 firms placed on the FCF Watchlist. There are limitations in terms of the reach and the number of firms that we can put through this process. We will be looking to complement, to strengthen the FCF Watchlist with a more scalable approach.
As mentioned in MOM’s Committee of Supply (COS) speech this year, we are also exploring further refinements to our EP framework. Today, we rely primarily on salary as a gatekeeper to select complementary talent, because this is easy to understand and administer. But we are also exploring further additional refinements to achieve our objectives of a strong Singaporean Core, complemented by a diverse foreign workforce. I hope to share more details in due course.
Last but not least, I want to deal with discrimination. We know that not all employers play by the rules. We have zero tolerance, zero tolerance towards discriminatory hiring practices. All employers are expected to comply with the requirements of the FCF and not discriminate on characteristics that are not related to the job.
When it comes to hiring foreign PMEs, employers must first advertise on MyCareersFuture.sg and consider all candidates in the local workforce fairly, before submitting a work pass application. TAFEP investigates potential cases of pre-selection based on proactive surveillance – we use data analytics and AI as well to find out. So, we actually sort of study the data quite aggressively. We also receive complaints from the public and we act on them as well.
Since its introduction in 2014, MOM has been progressively enhancing this framework. In January 2020, we stiffened penalties further for discrimination cases, so that errant employers can have their work pass privileges suspended for at least 12 months and, sometimes, up to 24 months.
Last year, we extended the FCF job advertisement requirements to cover S Passes as well as EPs and we doubled the minimum advertisement period from 14 days to 28 days to give local jobseekers more time to respond to job openings.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked about the results of our efforts. Over the past three years, TAFEP has handled an average of 170 nationality discrimination cases arising from complaints annually. The top three sectors making up about half of the complaints are the wholesale and retail trade, administrative and support services and other service activities. These cases are investigated by TAFEP and, where warranted, they are referred to MOM for enforcement.
Going forward, we will do more to clamp down on egregious employers with discriminatory employment practices. Several Members of Parliament like Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Vikram Nair had earlier suggested strengthening our levers to give more bite to our Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. We take these suggestions seriously and we have been studying various options.
Ladies and gentlemen, on a fundamental level, the Government’s goal has always been to create a better life and a future for Singaporeans. We do that through growing the economy, through enlarging the pie so that more locals can enjoy better jobs and a higher standard of living. We do that by tirelessly building up the Singaporean Core through a world-class education system, through continuous upskilling and reskilling; and we do that through working closely with all stakeholders involved to stamp out discriminatory employment practices and ensure a fair playing field to protect our Singaporean workers.
There are careful balances and trade-offs to be made all the time. The Government is intent on keeping this balance right to achieve the goal of creating win-win outcomes for all. MOM will always be both pro-worker and pro-business.
This is necessarily a joint effort. The power and the responsibility to make this happen does not lie with the Government alone.
Businesses must be fair and progressive employers. They must win the confidence and the trust of their employees and the wider public by investing in a strong Singaporean Core, even as they complement it with a diverse foreign workforce.
Workers, too, must adopt a growth mindset and continuously develop their skills. This is the spirit of our Pioneers, who were resilient in the face of challenges and daring in new opportunities.
Unions and trade associations and chambers, or TACs, must continue to serve as multipliers of these positive changes. They help to build the bridge between Government and businesses and workers and they have spearheaded important initiatives to help our businesses and workers transform and upskill.
And I hope Members of all parties must take their responsibility as representatives of the people seriously and work towards constructive solutions and avoid exploiting divisive fault lines.
This tripartite partnership – between unions, employers and the Government – is the real reason why we have managed to succeed over the years.
We are at a critical inflexion point in our economic development. The pandemic has caused significant economic damage the world over. We face many challenges in the post-pandemic era, but there are also abundant opportunities if we play our cards right.
We have distinguished ourselves internationally with how we managed COVID-19 and we have enhanced our trust premium. Many businesses are now looking seriously at investing more in Singapore, which will create good jobs, but only if they can get enough workers, foreign workers as well, to supplement our local workforce. If we can bring them in, we can continue to grow our economy for another five to 10 years. But if we lose this opportunity, we will not only take longer to recover, the impact will be borne by our older workers and also by our youths who will graduate into the workforce over the next few years.
This is a golden opportunity for Singapore to pull ahead. But if we turn protectionist and we make it difficult for companies to hire talent from around the world, then we will lose this opportunity. A business hub means being cosmopolitan, having people from around the world, doing business with the whole world and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans. It will bring in competition. But if the competition is not here, it will be outside. The competition would be helping other companies in other countries to beat ours here and displace our workers.
Let us work together to continue improving Singaporeans’ lives and building a better future for all.
Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just take a couple more minutes in Mandarin, please?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We have always put Singaporeans at the heart of our economic policies, and have always strived to create good job opportunities for Singaporeans and improve their livelihoods.
Singapore's open economy has contributed to our strong economic growth over the past few decades. We have not only attracted many multinational corporations (MNCs) to invest and set up regional headquarters here, but also helped many local enterprises seize opportunities to expand and venture into overseas markets.
Foreign companies, especially those in specialised or emerging sectors, will inevitably need to bring in foreign professionals to complement the local workforce with skills that are currently in short supply. Nevertheless, such specialised capabilities can be transferred to local workers as these companies grow and develop. Over time, local workers will acquire new skills which will in turn raise their competitiveness.
I understand that the presence of such foreign professionals has caused some anxiety to Singaporeans. Some Singaporeans may feel that they face stiffer competition for jobs compared to the past, or that they have been treated unfairly when applying for jobs. Others may worry about whether Singapore's social fabric will change.
I understand the concerns of our Singaporeans. I would like to give the assurance that as we promote sustained economic growth, the Government will always continue to safeguard the livelihoods of Singaporeans. This is our firm commitment to Singaporeans.
Our strategy to achieve this is two-pronged. The first is to ensure that our local workers can continue to have access to good job opportunities. Over the past few years, we have been progressively tightening quotas for foreign workers, especially at the S Pass level. Last year, we also raised the Employment Pass (EP) minimum qualifying salary twice to ensure the quality of foreign professionals brought in by companies. At the same time, we have invested heavily in developing the skills of Singaporeans to ensure that they can maintain their competitive edge in the global market and succeed.
Second, we want to ensure that Singaporeans are treated fairly at work. We have been progressively enhancing the Fair Consideration Framework and stiffened penalties for discriminatory employers. MOM has also been exploring how to further refine the EP framework.
As the saying goes, \"Life is like the waves on the sea, with occasional ups and downs. Whether in good times or bad times, we still have to work hard.\"
(In English): Somehow, it sounds different when I speak in Mandarin. [Laughter.] It is supposed to be sung in Hokkien. I think even Mr Pritam Singh knows that it is a Hokkien song.
(In Mandarin): Over the years, Singaporeans have gone through many ups and downs and never bowed to any challenges. After all, we believe in \"working hard to succeed\". In the face of this crisis caused by the pandemic, Singaporeans have upheld the spirit of selflessness and adaptability of our forefathers. This shows that Singaporeans are willing to work hard, but we also care about being treated fairly.
This requires the effort and cooperation of many parties. Companies must continue to innovate and transform to create more jobs that attract Singaporeans. At the same time, Singaporeans should continuously upgrade their skills and keep an open mind when looking for job opportunities. The Government will provide comprehensive assistance to help Singaporeans tide over this difficult period and maintain a fair and just society.
Over the past year, we have been hard at work dealing with the many challenges posed by the pandemic. At this juncture, I hope that we will stay united and uphold the Singapore Spirit. The Government will work together with Singaporeans to overcome the difficulties ahead, emerge stronger from this crisis and build a better future for all.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, \"That the two Ministerial Statements made by me and the Minister for Manpower on Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower be considered by Parliament.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will proceed with the debate. Clarifications? Speeches? Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Ministers for their Statements and wish to provide my comments, clarifications and suggestions on this sensitive and important topic which concerns Singaporean workers, especially our Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs).
I co-chair the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce set up by NTUC last year to look into the concerns of PMEs and to flesh out a set of recommendations later this year in relation to employment and employability of PMEs in Singapore. In the past six months, we have surveyed and engaged, through more than 15 focus group sessions, about 8,000 PMEs to better understand their concerns, fears and anxieties and ideate proposals to overcome them.
We have heard ground sentiments on a plethora of issues and challenges faced by Singaporean PMEs. At the top of their mind is job security amidst this COVID-19 pandemic. One concern, amongst others, which was surfaced is the intense competition from the influx of foreign manpower and anecdotes of unfair employment practices by employers who favour hiring foreigners and discriminate against our locals.
Some PMEs shared with us their personal experiences of foreign hiring managers bringing in co-workers of the same nationality while others have shared about disguised discriminatory practices at work where they felt ostracised when their foreign colleagues, who form a majority of the team, communicate in their native language at work and through the unfair allocation of off-days given to their foreign colleagues during public holidays by their supervisors of the same nationality. While it is clear only a minority engages in such unacceptable practices, the concerns are legitimate and we should not ignore them.
PMEs I spoke to acknowledge the need for FTAs and foreign manpower in this age of globalisation, global competition and economic survival and success, but we must recognise the need to support our local workforce's aspirations and to address their concerns and anxieties.
One Singaporean PME who is an Asia Pacific Sales Director, as well as many other PMEs in those sectors with a higher proportion of foreign PMEs, such as the financial, ICT and professional services sectors, shared with me that we should not allow the import of non-specialised and non-highly skilled foreign manpower to compete against Singaporeans for well-paying jobs which many Singaporeans can do. I think this principle of complementarity and not direct competition is an important concept which we need to continue to embrace and strengthen.
In other words, we will need to strike a balance between being open and having a level playing field for our locals with fair opportunities and fair treatment. This balance is not easy to achieve and is going to be an evolving process. Together with fellow Labour and PAP Members of Parliaments, I have been speaking and lobbying on this important area in and outside of this House the past decade to ensure fairness, equity and levelling the playing field, especially for our Singaporean PMEs.
Since 2011, I have been pushing for stronger enforcement against employers who discriminate against or unfairly treat Singaporean PMEs, a foreign PME dependency ratio, labour market testing which subsequently came in the form of the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), the National Jobs Bank as well as many other policy measures, from Employment Pass qualifying salaries to regular tightening of the FCF and the prosecution of companies who are recalcitrant. We even set up the Employment Claims Tribunal, Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) as well as the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), and issued many tripartite advisories, standards and guidelines to strengthen the Singaporean Core.
I am heartened that in these past 10 years of lobbying and advocating for a stronger Singaporean Core, many of these measures have been put in place, as shared by Minister Tan See Leng earlier, with the support of our tripartite partners and other economic agencies, such as MAS and EDB, to better support and protect our Singaporean workforce and provide them with a fair and level playing field in the job market.
In fact, less than a year ago, in the midst of the pandemic and worsening of the economy, the Labour Movement lobbied, and the tripartite partners created and updated the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment with key principles on fair retrenchment which provides added safeguards to preserve our Singaporean Core in our companies during retrenchment exercises.
That said, more needs to be done to strengthen the Singaporean Core, further develop our local workforce's capabilities and protect our locals from being unfairly discriminated. It is important to recognise the role that foreign manpower plays, which is to complement and enhance the capabilities of the local workforce and not to replace or displace it. In this vein, I would like to put forth some proposals to the Minister that aim to address fairness and localisation of PME jobs.
First, we can enhance fair hiring practices through strengthening enforcement and imposing stiffer penalties for errant companies with discriminatory hiring practices. I have previously submitted in this House on revealing or publishing the \"triple weak\" watchlist which MOM and TAFEP maintain, so that the potential reputational loss would serve as a deterrence. We should not allow the few black sheep to weaken our entire working structure. I further submit that MOM should consider giving TAFEP even more teeth and bite through expanded powers of investigation, enforcement and to even mete out punishment.
Second, we can level the playing field for local PMEs by enhancing the EP application review process to move beyond looking at the individual applicant's educational qualifications and salary, and pay close watch to sectors with a particular imbalance.
Finally, we need to ensure that locals have fair access to PME roles and progression opportunities to improve localisation of jobs in high growth sectors. As I have lobbied before in this House, it is imperative that we ensure concerted, structured, institutionalised and mandatory skills and knowledge transfer from these foreign PMEs to our local PMEs within a stipulated and agreed timeframe, as employers bring in foreign PMEs to fill skills or knowledge gaps in their current workforce. This will help to develop a pipeline of local talent. At the same time, we will also need to build our leadership bench strength to ensure that Singaporeans can benefit and take up leadership roles in multinational corporations that we bring into Singapore.
To sum up, to say that we have found the silver bullet or antidote will not be an easy one as it is a treadmill journey. We need to constantly watch our step, keep pace and stay in touch with the pulse. Pay close watch to economic competition and competitors, keep pace with the changing demographic profile and the future of work, and stay in touch with the pulse and heartbeat of Singaporeans, their stresses, aspirations, interests and well-being because every worker matters.
Mr Speaker: Prof Hoon Hian Teck.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, an issue that has surfaced in the debate on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), such as the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), is that of their impact on jobs.
It is important to state at the outset that the number of jobs in an economy is not an immutable datum. Rather, it is variable and it is the result of the net effect of the pace of job creation, which adds to the number of job vacancies and the pace of job destruction, which reduces the number of job vacancies.
In the first few decades, after gaining Independence, the World Trading System under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) steadily reduced every race and lowered trade barriers. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 as a multilateral institution that facilitated the signing of agreements in areas such as services, investment and Intellectual Property. This enabled the Singapore economy to attract MNCs to base production in Singapore, thus creating jobs and sell into the world market. With increased protectionist sentiments expressed in many advanced countries in recent years, the WTO has had difficulty in reaching new agreements.
It has been necessary for Singapore to turn to FTAs to provide a means to enlarge markets for Singapore-based firms. By negotiating and signing FTAs that enable our firms to export to destination markets with lower or zero tariff rates, Singapore can attract foreign capital to work in Singapore to employ Singapore-based workers and pull up their wages. With Singapore's total fertility rate consistently below the replacement rate of 2.1 since the mid-1970s, the size of the citizen labour force will begin to shrink, with more people retiring than the number of new entrants into the workforce.
A shrinking workforce will put downward pressure on GDP growth because productivity growth is unlikely to fully compensate for the labour force shrinkage.
Singapore's rise in living standards over the past decades has been facilitated by a steady inflow of foreign direct investments, which brought technology and good jobs. So, continuing to attract MNCs to base their production here, even as we become more service-oriented, with manufacturing hiring a smaller share of labour force, yet, doing this is likely to require a complementary set of skills that can be offered only by a combination of local and foreign workers, given the low fertility rate.
At this stage of our development, where indigenous innovation must contribute to productivity growth, FTAs also allow new start-ups as well as both Large Local Enterprises (LLEs) and SMEs, to face lower trade barriers when selling into particular overseas markets. So, we continue to need to rely on MNCs because they are large, they pay better wages, but we are also at a stage where we need to stimulate indigenous innovation. And they will start small. Many will fail. But they need to have the capacity to be able to sell abroad. Therefore, establishing FTAs that allow the partner signatories to the agreement to lower their tariff rates enlarge the market for our new start-ups as well as SMEs and LLEs.
To be clear, the increased international competition faced by our local firms also means there will be some job destruction because, with increased competition, some of our SMEs may fail. Nevertheless, the creative destruction resulting from FTAs is likely to leave the economy overall with more productive firms that are able to pay better wages
So, with stiffer competition, some will not survive and they have to try again, but, overall, for the economy, the level of productivity is higher as we seek to generate indigenous innovation as a source of our productivity growth.
So, FTAs are helpful both from the point of view of continuing to attract MNCs to base their production here, but it is also important as a way of giving a lift to our more productive local firms, SMEs, to break into potentially neighbouring markets and further overseas.
The derived demand for workers resulting from the need to meet this external demand for our goods and services, like foreign firms and consumers in the partner countries who are signatories of the FTAs, will translate into the creation of new job slots, in particular, tasks. Because, what is a job? A job is a combination of tasks that we create. So, the allocation of workers with the right skillset to fill these job slots with these particular set of tasks is necessary in order to maximise these Singapore-based firms' profit. Only then will the productivity of the firm be boosted and the salaries correspondingly increased.
As the local workforce raises its human capital because of the huge investments we have made from the beginning in education, the proportion of the cohort leaving Primary school that goes to University has gone up. So, from the point of view of increased human capital, as well as the investment in SkillsFuture to allow learning on the job, I think there is every reason to have confidence that our local workforce will both have a higher level of human capital as well as have the ability to acquire new skills to function in an age of digital transformation. If we succeed in doing that, then our resident workers will have the comparative advantage to fill these new job slots, the sort of thing that Mr Patrick Tay talked about.
Going back to Mr Ong Ye Kung's \"Analogy A\" of more jobs slots but more competition; and on the other hand, less competition and future jobs lost, he talked about being somewhere in between. Given our history, the ability to ultimately compete in the world market says that there is something positive of a tilting towards the direction of increased competition. But we make investment in our local workforce, starting from the Primary school level. And there is every good reason to believe that even as we transit to a phase of the country's development where you are not going to have the 5% growth per year, because that was catch-up growth, we are now at the stage where the potential for growth has to come from innovation driving productivity.
I believe that there is every good reason to think that, ultimately, many of these jobs that our locals take, they graduate from a university, they perhaps start off with an MNC at a lower managerial position, but with the sort of human capital, with the sort of ability to adjust and compete, there is every good reason to believe that many of them, on their own merits, have the potential to fill in these new job slots because there is local advantage.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, in the absence of a vibrant international trading system that can conclude new agreements to further liberalise trade in goods and services, I believe that the signing of FTAs overall provides the Singapore economy a means for its firms to expand their market despite the job churning and the creative destruction. That, ultimately, I believe, has a positive net impact on our labour market.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Not a speech, but just a clarification. If I could ask Minister Tan See Leng whether moving forward, we will consider legislating the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. I think that is important because it is not just discrimination based on nationality, but also based on race, religion, gender, family responsibility, disability, amongst many others. So, I really hope we will consider legislating those guidelines.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the hon Member Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. As I have shared in my speech earlier on, we are looking at refining and strengthening not just TAFEP, but also the Fair Consideration Framework. Give us a bit of time. We are reviewing it with the different parties because it is of a tripartite nature. And in the months forward, I should be able to come back and update this House again.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the two Ministers for their Ministerial Statements, providing a wide range of information and explanation, and for this additional opportunity for us to seek clarifications on an issue that is of great concern to many Singaporeans. An open debate based on the right information can only be beneficial to all parties involved, whether in or out of this House.
I would like to seek a few clarifications. The first one relates to Minister Ong's claim that PSP has made false allegations that CECA is allowing a free flow of Indian PMEs. Can I ask the Minister to provide the specifics of these false allegations that he mentioned, including details like when and where and who? He gave partial quotes, but partial quotes can be taken out of context and if he can provide the specifics, we can look into it further.
Secondly, Minister Ong said at the beginning of his Statement that he would be happy to provide all information that we request for in order to have a more robust debate on the Motion subsequently. But at the end of the two Ministerial Statements, unfortunately, the bulk of the information that we have requested for in our nine Parliamentary Questions is not released. So, will there be any more data forthcoming in the form of Written Answers?
Thirdly, we agree that FTAs are important to Singapore's economy and we are not calling for the abolition of FTAs. Our concern is over specific provisions in FTAs relating to the movement of natural persons. In CECA, just now Minister Ong mentioned that the listing of the 127 professions does not mean that anybody who applies under this will be approved, but it can be rejected even if they apply. Article 9.5, clause 2, under the heading of \"Professionals\", states that \"each party shall grant temporary entry and stay for up to a year\" and it goes on to list several conditions.
So, my question here is, because it says \"shall grant temporary entry and stay for up to a year\", if an applicant meets the criteria that are listed in this clause, namely, proof of nationality, letter of contract or similar documentation, educational certificates or similar documentation, as well as the minimum salary requirements for EPs, for anybody who satisfies these conditions, are we obliged to approve their application?
Fourthly, under this clause, temporary entry and stay is up to one year. I would like to seek a clarification: can this entry and stay be further extended or renewed or re-applied?
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me try to answer the hon Member's four questions. I hope I got them all correct.
Proof of the allegations of PSP:
On 3 August 2019, Dr Tan Cheng Bock – I think he was then Secretary General of PSP – stated on The Online Citizen Asia Facebook page, I quote, \"PSP will call for a review of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, known as CECA. This agreement, you must understand, was negotiated by our current Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and signed in 2005. Amongst the terms of CECA, it allowed the free movement of professionals in 127 sectors to enter and work in Singapore.\"
On 7 July 2020, Dr Tan, in an interview with Mothership said, I quote, \"CECA is an agreement between Singapore and India to bring in, to allow, I think, 127 categories of professionals to come to Singapore and be given that free hand actually, practically free hand, to come and work here.\"
On 31 August 2020, Mr Francis Yuen, on the PSP Facebook page and website, he urged the Government to release more data on the matter, which is fair enough. But then went on to state that the Government, I quote, \"could not share the next level of details, including the number of Indian nationals converted to PR and those who subsequently gotten citizenships within the eight years under the intra-corporate transferee provision of the agreement.\" And then that starts to suggest that they come in and then become PRs and citizens as well.
Most recently, on 22 June 2021, in a Facebook post, Mr Leong Mun Wai said, \"the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign PMEs and Free Trade Agreements, in particular, the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India.\"
As Members of the House and also members of the public, through our handphones, we would also have received many other unattributable divisive messages coming through our feeds and chat messages. And I think these quotes and all these messages you receive, if you are Singaporean, especially one facing challenges at the workplace, feeling insecure, you are bound to feel upset and angry. You are bound to feel, \"I do not want to welcome foreign PMEs\". You will grow suspicious of them, even reject them. And that will be a natural reaction because the messages feed on our worries and our fears.
We have seen how this has turned out in so many other countries, how the extreme right, nativist, populist parties have grown in strength, just by tapping into that fear and insecurity because of globalisation. It is there.
But these far-right or nativist parties, they have been growing stronger in many places around the world and created divisions in societies. Sometimes, they have replaced the governments who take a more moderate policy. I really hope that it does not happen here because if it happens in Singapore, as it happened elsewhere, our policies, our politics would have gone disastrously wrong.
Ms Hazel Poa said that I promised to give all the data they requested. We tried. We tried our best. But as Dr Tan See Leng explained, no country release data to that level of granularity. But if I may just go back to my speech, what I said is, \"Dr Tan will provide more detailed answers to the specific questions, including providing the data which will be useful for our subsequent debate and putting that data in context\". I did not promise that all the data will be tabulated and provided, and Dr Tan explained why. We try to provide as much as we can, but I think there is a limit to what we can do.
Ms Hazel Poa also asked about Chapter 9 of CECA. As a trade negotiator, we always look out for the word \"shall\". When you see \"shall\", it means you must do something. If you do not do it, you are in breach of the agreement. So, what is the \"shall\" here? You \"shall grant temporary entry and stay up to one year for the duration of the contract.\"
That is what we agreed to. That means if we approve, if you meet our work pass conditions, we shall grant you one year of admission. I think that is very reasonable. Imagine if you apply for something to the government, and then they tell you, \"I approve but we do not know for how long\"; tomorrow, revoke it. It cannot be. It is not market-friendly at all.
Remember, the ordering of the clauses matter as well. I was mentioning page one. I printed a copy and I highlighted the second and third paragraphs, the carve-outs. Carve-outs come at the beginning. You read this Chapter, you know that this Chapter does not apply to immigration measures. Government policies on immigration and on the granting of work passes, permanent residency and citizenship are not covered in this Chapter.
Then it goes on to say what the parties must then do. So, later on in the Chapter, it says that you \"shall\" grant one year of approval should you approve. That is how you read the agreement.
I hope I have answered all of Ms Hazel Poa's questions.
But I do have some questions too for PSP. If I may ask these. I tried to correct the falsehoods of CECA because the whole purpose of this Statement is that I know PSP is preparing for a Motion debate. But I am also hoping that we all go into the debate with some common ground.
First of all, common ground must be, let us put aside the falsehoods. Therefore, I clarified which are the falsehoods and let us put them aside. Do not bring them into the Motion. What are the falsehoods?
First, CECA does not allow a free flow of intra-corporate transferees to Singapore. Most companies prefer to apply for EPs than to use the intra-corporate transferee route, which is actually more cumbersome. Hence, I mentioned, as of 2020, there were only 500 intra-corporate transferees from India, in Singapore.
Second falsehood: CECA also does not give Indian nationals from 127 professions a free hand to come to Singapore to live and work. CECA allows them to apply for EPs. It does not oblige Singapore to approve the applications. Approval is subject to them meeting our criteria. Immigration measures are carved out from the agreement, like for all FTAs.
In the spirit of seeking common ground, we come to this House and we recognise that globalisation is a difficult thing. There are lots of pros but there are also cons. In the case of Singapore, globalisation has allowed us to grow and to create a lot of good jobs and has benefited many Singaporeans. If we had not done that, today, we will be having a very different kind of debate, of massive unemployment, of stagnating wages, of graduates not being able to find jobs.
But we also recognise there are downsides. There are two social downsides, other than the increased competition.
First, while foreign EP holders have come in to help us sustain our growth and though the growth in local PMEs outnumber that of foreign EP holders, the presence of foreign EP holders has nevertheless created more competition, discomfort and social issues. We must manage this.
Second, Singaporeans want to know that they will be given fair treatment at the workplace. It is entirely justified. We have rules to achieve such fairness and we will continually review these rules and framework, and how they are implemented to ensure that fairness is assured.
This is what the Government, on its part, has done in the spirit of trying to achieve some common ground as we go into the debate.
So, may I ask PSP, our two hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from PSP, after hearing all the explanations from Dr Tan and I, will you agree to the following?
First, the FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and our ability to earn a living and we should not shake this bedrock for political purposes.
Second, CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore. This is a gross misunderstanding of the agreement and FTAs in general. Nor is CECA the cause of the challenges faced by our PMEs. We must put a stop to the spreading of the falsehoods.
If you agree to this, I think we have a good chance to have some common ground that when we come into the House again for a debate on the Motion, we can have a meaningful and constructive debate.
If I may seek the clarifications of our two Members from PSP, please.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister Ong Ye Kung for the clarifications on our position. I also thank Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng for their detailed explanation of the situation on foreign PMETs, foreign manpower, Free Trade Agreements and CECA.
As to Minister Ong Ye Kung's questions, I will leave them to the last or we will leave them to be answered in the debate that we are going to conduct later on. But there are a few things I would like to bring up here or a few questions I would like to ask to clarify the situation further.
One, we are not against FTAs. We know the importance of FTAs for Singapore, as an open economy and especially as a small city state. However, what we are concerned about is what price we are paying.
The first question I would like to ask is, in the process of negotiating an FTA, what are the bargaining positions that we can give? I read things like, because we do not have many bargaining chips, the implication is that we may have to be a bit more relaxed with the movement of people. One question I want to ask is, is the movement of people or natural persons used as one of the bargaining chips when we are negotiating an FTA?
The whole purpose of PSP – as well as Hazel and I – bringing up the issue about foreign manpower or foreign PMETS or foreign talent, whatever term is used, and the FTAs is because it is about Singaporeans' jobs and livelihoods. When PSP's Dr Tan Cheng Bock raised the issue at the August 2019 launch of PSP, it is due to the huge amount of feedback that we got from the ground. By raising the issue, we had hoped that we would get some response from the Government to explain more about FTAs, in particular, CECA.
Indeed, you would admit that no other FTA has given and stated specifically that 127 professions can come in to work. You may say that no one has come in through the CECA route but the clause is there. It is up to the other party, whether they want to use it or not and, most importantly, up to our Government to administer our employment policies. Because our employment policies are already quite relaxed in granting work passes to foreigners, so the Indian nationals do not have to come to Singapore through the CECA route.
So, the first question I want to ask is whether the movement of people is used as a bargaining chip.
The second question I want to ask is, we should not focus on the number of people that got into the job market through the FTAs or CECA. They have provided some conditions. Most importantly is how those conditions under the FTAs interplay with our domestic employment policies.
The number to focus on is, how many of the respective FTAs' nationals – in the case of CECA, it is Indian nationals – have come to Singapore and taken up our PMET jobs? What is the share of that as a percentage of our foreign PMETs, and then, of our total PMET jobs? That is my second question.
The next point I want to bring up or question is, the Government has admitted that something needs to be done. There are concerns by Singaporeans regarding jobs and livelihoods. This has been going on and on. Have sufficient measures been taken to address them?
One of the questions I want to ask is, has the Government actually tried to find out what the total number of displaced Singaporeans is?
I would think that you cannot deny that there are Singaporeans who are displaced. Your narrative is that it is because they do not have the skills. Let us not push the blame to the Universities and the Polytechnics so easily. It has been 20 years since we started the foreign talent policy. Within 20 years, have we still not got our act together in training our people?
That is my third question, what is the total number of Singaporeans that are displaced over the last 10 years? They would like to have the job that was taken by a foreigner, but were not able to. They lost their current job and when they got another job, they got a lower pay.
There is also a significant number of Singaporeans who are under-employed. If you look at the growth of the Grab driver population, the growth of our traineeship programme and many of our independent workers, are they voluntarily opting for the independent lifestyle or are they facing difficulty in getting a permanent job? Has MOM done a study on those? Have you got the statistics? That is the third question.
The fourth question is, of course, we are particularly concerned about the finance and the IT sectors. Minister Tan See Leng has given some numbers. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to digest those numbers. We will maybe discuss that in our debate in the future. But the fourth question I want to ask is, really, how many foreigners are there in the IT and finance sectors versus the number of Singaporeans and PRs? That is the fourth question. I think the Minister might have given some figures just now.
The fifth question is, the Minister said that we are not competitive, Singaporeans are not competitive but —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I would urge you to stick to the facts. I think we have all been participating in this debate and listening intently, so I do suggest that you keep to what has been said. A lot of questions have been answered as well. The idea of a debate is to debate the issues that have been raised, so please do that.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising questions, can you be more specific?
Mr Speaker: You are free to raise questions. Some of these points have been covered. So, we are happy to take the time to debate whatever that is meaningful, but please make it meaningful.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I do not understand what you mean by meaningful, because I am going through those points. Okay, never mind, I will try.
The fifth question is, we have had this foreign talent policy for 20 years. But if you look at the way MOM has administered and regulated the flow of foreign PMETs into Singapore, you find that the policies, of course, over time, there is a bit of tightening at a time but, generally, it seems to be too little and too late.
For example, the foreign talent policy has started in the late 1990s or around the year 2000. But the Fair Consideration Framework was only introduced in 2014. Only in 2016, I was told that the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist was started. Do you mean there were no problems the one- and a half decade before that? And the threshold salaries that we have, just EP alone, up till 2020 last year, it was still $3,600. At the kind of threshold salary plus no CPF, do you think we are attracting the right foreign talent into Singapore? That is the fifth question.
My sixth question is, I totally agree with Minister Tan See Leng about what we are driving at, it is not abolishing things, it is not totally eradicating things. We are also talking about a rebalancing, but the rebalancing cannot come as a result of a natural attrition from COVID-19. There must be a policy recognition that whether our past foreign talent policy was on the right track or not. If we review the policy and we think that there are certain things that we need to change, then make it a policy point. Do not allow natural attrition to come by and say tens of thousands have left Singapore. That is not the way we conduct policy.
So, it is about rebalancing and when we talk about rebalancing, Minister Tan also said, one thing is to ensure that Singaporeans can compete fairly or there is no unfair competition. He explained that not having to pay CPF for the Employment Pass holders is not a disadvantage. I respect you for your experience in the private sector, Minister Tan. As an employer, is that not a wage concession? So, how can we say that Singaporeans are not being treated unfairly in the job market competition? That is my sixth question.
My seventh question is, Minister Tan said that there is simply not enough local talent. Again, I will raise the point which I have said just now: then what happened to our education system? What happened that after 20 years, you are still telling Singaporeans that we have not enough talent? Of course, we are not saying that we can substitute the foreign PMETs completely. But at least there can be some rebalancing, and we get back to my question just now. And if the Minister admits that there is some displacement of Singaporeans, then that rebalancing means we must slowly allow Singaporeans to be given the first opportunity to take up the jobs first.
My last question is, the Minister talked about diversity, but here again, is it not something that MOM should have done long ago about diversity in the workforce when we introduced our foreign talent policy? We also know, because we have worked in an international environment before, that the group dynamics at the workplace can change very fast with changes in the nationality composition in the company. So, especially when MOM is monitoring and regulating the granting of the work passes, do you mean you have not, at the beginning, taken that as an important consideration?
And, today, then you have to say that, \"On my watchlist, I have this number of companies that have a very large concentration of PMETs from a single nationality\". So, we really want to understand how MOM actually administers this whole foreign PMET policy.
After this, maybe I will add a few more points, I will ask a few more questions about the approval process, some of the experiences I had in the private sector with regard to MOM and its approval process. But my questions are these questions for now.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: It is a long list of questions which I am not sure would help us bring the discussion forward.
Let me take questions four to eight and then one to three. Four to eight is for MOM but I think let us not prolong this because, as Mr Speaker has noticed, many of the questions were actually addressed in our speeches. But if you do not accept what we say, there is very little room for us to further explain.
The long and short is, we have been extremely successful, as I have explained in my Ministerial Statement, in growing the Singapore economy, creating this multitude of jobs. I gave examples of our port, airport, financial services, ICT, manufacturing, you name it, we are a hub of all hubs. All these would not have been possible if we have not ridden on the wave of globalisation, welcomed foreign talent and given our own people very good training and education to rise up and take the positions.
I mentioned that our only problem is there is not enough of us. Investors come here, they want to hire Singaporeans. They know our education system is solid and we have such a wonderful reputation around the world, something that, as Singaporeans, we should be proud of. The education system is a bit stressful still, but we should be very proud of that. The problem is, there is still not enough of us.
There are some questions, and we have given figures, so I do not think I would answer those. He mentioned a whole series of procedural policy, how come the Fair Consideration Framework came in so late, why is the salary bar for entry raised only later. MOM's successive Manpower Ministers have been reviewing policies all the while. Policies are never static.
Old policies worked for a period of time. Then, when China and India grew, you get a different influx of workers. You need to adjust your position, hence, you review. And this process will continue and we will debate in this House on the pros and cons of prevailing and new policies.
You cannot say because we implemented something new now to respond to the situation, therefore, we have failed. Why did you not do it five years ago? It does not work like that. That is not policy-making. That is not how this House works. If it were so, then, for every Bill that is tabled in this House, we have failed, because we should have tabled this Bill five years ago. It does not make sense.
I will go back to the first three questions that the Member posed to me, but actually I posed to him first. [Laughter.]
Ms Hazel Poa made a point, if I heard correctly, she said, \"We are not against FTAs, we support the FTAs\". I thought we started to have some common ground. Then, she asked me about Chapter 9. She is not a trade negotiator, so, I think those are fair questions. I have been a trade negotiator for many years, I explained how the chapter ought to be read. And when she asked that, I hope it is because she might have read the chapter wrongly to think that Singapore shall allow professionals from 127 categories to enter, no questions asked. After my explanation, I was hoping that she would come to the conclusion that they might have interpreted the chapter wrongly but after hearing Mr Leong Mun Wai speak, I think my assumptions are all wrong.
I had two questions for the Members and was hoping to hear \"yes\" to both. But after hearing Mr Leong, although he said he is not against FTAs, but he then went on to say that, \"you use movement of natural persons as a bargaining chip and sell away our rights for immigration\". I already explained that is untrue.
So, after all the explanation and you still come to that conclusion, then I say this: number one, PSP you are against globalisation, you are against FTAs, even though I have gone to great lengths to explain that this is the bedrock of Singapore's economic survival; number two, you are really not taking back the falsehoods and the allegations. I do not think you are taking it back. You do feel that the FTA, that CECA, despite our explanation, let in Indian professionals freely into Singapore. I think those are your positions.
Please prove me wrong, but after hearing you, I am afraid these are your positions.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I must admit that, notwithstanding the fact that this is my first Ministerial Statement, I actually struggle to follow Mr Leong's line of reasoning. I guess it is because of the fact that, for quite a number of the issues, I think he is looking at it, first and foremost, from a hindsight kind of perspective: why is it that we did not do this, why is it that we did not do that?
If you look at the entire thing – and I am going to take a bit of time on this, to try and gather my thoughts and to connect his thoughts together which, like I said, I am struggling with. So, please be patient with me.
I think what is important is that, if we look at the evolution of our industry, how we started in the 1970s, in the very early part of my speech, at that time, our GDP was about S$20 billion; I think we are at S$454 billion now.
We started with a very conscious effort in the 1970s to go and build heavy industries. So, we developed Jurong Island. There were all these heavy industries that we built up. Our Pioneer founding generation leaders under former Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and so on, I think at that time when we first started, we were very, very heavily invested in these heavy industries. We went on then into manufacturing. In the 1980s, we went into electronics. We did disk drives, wafer fabrication and then, eventually, in early part of 2000, we went into services, we went into bio-pharmaceutical, life sciences and so on and so forth. And now, we are into tech, we are into infocomm and we are into finance.
Every 10 to 15 years, we have seen fairly dramatic transformation. I think it is inconceivable that you would expect that policies that you enact do not get refined, do not get tweaked and do not get adjusted over time.
So, I guess to his point about the fact that why is it that we did not do this and so on, I think in the last 15, 20 years – and he has sort of pointed out the fact that I have been from the private sector; perhaps, I have not been in the Government long enough – if anything at all, for the last 20 years, change was the constant. Change is a constant and change will be a constant. We will continually face disruption, we will face transformation.
So, to his other point about why is it that we are not able to have all this workforce ready in spite of all of our education upgrades and so on, I think if we all had a crystal ball 20, 30 years ago and we could gaze so clearly into the future, perhaps, even for himself, as a CEO of a private equity firm, I think all the necessary investments made would have been perfect and spot on. But, perhaps, I think, hindsight, like what they always say, is perfect.
To the other point about private sector and how we package the CPF into it, indeed, I can share with you. Perhaps my experience is very limited; I have just been in healthcare all my life. I do admit that I lobbied at that time, five, six years ago, for an increase in the number of S Passes because of the fact that I needed to deliver a certain level of nursing care. I just could not hire enough healthcare personnel, for example, nurses, to come in and help us.
While we do not pay CPF, the overall costs of bringing them in is higher because we have to package in housing and other allowances. And, really, because the employer part of it is imputed into our cost, I can tell you with conviction, because I have done it for many, many years in my life, that that package that we pay out is higher than what we do pay to locals. The only difference of course is the overtime charges and so on. But I think that is another sort of thing altogether.
To the Member's point about the education system, I just want to share one bit. In the early 2000s, our Universities, our Institutes of Higher Learning, the number of IT students that they produced at that particular point in time, today, we are training about four times more what we used to be training before. The entry levels, in terms of the grades, the credits and so on, that are required for the students to make it to get into the Universities are also significantly higher.
So, I guess the point of this is that every single initiative, every single policy, we can always do better. And that is something that I have acknowledged. But the point is this, we are not that far worse off.
Today, if you look at the absolute PME growth numbers, three quarters are our local PMEs in good jobs; one quarter are filled by foreign work pass holders. Our glass is not even half full; our glass is three-quarters full. And we are looking at it from that perspective. Are you saying that we should even adjust that? Of course, we should try to bring it up to 90% or 100% full. But let us also be mindful of the sentiment, the worries and also the hard work of the other three-quarters in that glass that is three-quarters full.
I look forward to a robust debate with Mr Leong and Ms Poa. I think when they can put up questions which I do not struggle so hard to follow, that would be very welcoming. Thank you very much.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I think, Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that we really need to move on. And to move on, can I go back to my two questions for the two hon Members from PSP?
One, do they not agree FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival? Yes or no?
Two, CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore and this is a falsehood and a gross misunderstanding of the agreement. If they agree, I think we can have a meaningful debate when they table the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the two questions. As I said, the answers to the two questions actually require a bit more debate and study. But, first, I want to say that PSP and Hazel and I, we are for FTAs. Having heard that jobs and livelihoods of our people are not being used as a bargaining chip, we are very reassured that our interests, Singaporeans' interests are being taken care of.
However, whether CECA has contributed to the overall influx of nationals from that country, I think we need to study a bit more. Because we have to go back and look at the numbers provided by the two Ministers to see what is the share of the Indian PMETs in our overall PMET workforce and to take into consideration what Minister Tan See Leng has said about how we really need them. Then we would like to know whether there are skills transfer programmes, whether our education system is catching up fast enough and also the various practices in the market, before we can make a final conclusion that CECA is really neutral to beneficial for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank Mr Leong for that. I will just summarise that yes, PSP now agrees that FTAs are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and that includes CECA. So, at least, that is common ground that we have established. I think that is useful and I thank Mr Leong for that.
And, second, the PSP now agrees movement of natural persons, Chapter 9, is not used as a chip and we are not giving away our rights for immigration. There is no free flow of Indian professionals into Singapore.
If I hear him right, I think he is confirming that. He is not sure about the overall balance of the Free Trade Agreement. I think we will leave it there for our debate later on. But I think these two, I will say, form quite good common ground, but it will also mean —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I will call you when it is time to call you. Let the Minister finish.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: And it will also mean, naturally, that PSP will take back their allegations that CECA has led to an unfettered flow of Indian professionals into Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, to what the Minister has said just now, I think there is a bit of misinterpretation. What I have said is that we fully support FTAs. We know that that is important for Singapore. And we appreciate the point that we are not using the movement of people as a bargaining chip in the negotiation of the FTAs.
But as to whether CECA has contributed to the influx of some of the PMETs into Singapore in relation to our overall foreign talent policy, we have to explore that. And we do not agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore at this stage.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I think Mr Leong is waffling. Yes, no, yes, no; it is quite hard to catch. I take it that you are not withdrawing your allegation and so be it. And I think at least we got you to say FTAs and CECA are fundamental to our survival. But if you continue to allege, notwithstanding all our explanations, I think there is no choice, we have to leave it as such.
It is regrettable because generations of FTA negotiators worked very hard to make sure our interests are all protected. This is not a backdoor. This is not an avenue for any professionals from any country to enter Singapore with a free hand and unfettered.
But I take it that this is PSP's position, notwithstanding and after hearing all our explanation. This is most regrettable but we will have to accept how they feel.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a Council Member of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF). On behalf of the business community, I thank both Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. Contrary to closing the doors, the businesses are begging, \"Please open the doors, we need workers. Otherwise, who's going to do the work?\"
Nonetheless, if I may, I am a product of Singapore’s MNC strategy. And during the Budget Debate and COS, I have shared my views in regard to embracing diversity of talents from all over the world, so that we can be uniquely competitive. So, for today, I will not go there. I will talk more about FTAs, in support of FTAs. A lot has been said but, perhaps, if Members can bear with me for a while, I will talk, from the business community, why is this important.
As a small and open economy without natural resources, we are highly dependent on international trade and highly integrated, well-functioning global value chains. International trade not only provides us with the products that we import and consume, but also connects us to the global market that supports our businesses and sustains our economy, creating the good jobs that Singaporeans have enjoyed in the past and aspire to for the future. With Singapore’s international trade more than three times its gross domestic product, our livelihoods and prosperity depend heavily on international trade.
For Singapore businesses, free and open trade, premised on the foundation of a rules-based multilateral trading system, is crucial to ensuring a conducive, stable and predictable environment. This is particularly important for us, considering that we are just a little red dot. Hence, the importance of FTAs.
Sir, as Minister Ong Ye Kung has earlier said, we have over 26 FTAs and our network of FTAs covers about 85% of global GDP, enhancing the value proposition of countries and economies that sit at the nodes of these networks, and Singapore is one of them. So, the FTAs yield tangible value to our companies. In 2018 alone, I understand that our companies enjoyed more than $1.1 billion in tariff savings. These FTAs accord our businesses preferential market access into the markets of our major trading partners, lowering entry barriers for the export of goods and services, as well as protecting their investments in other countries. This strong FTA network can be a tool for businesses, not only in reducing their costs and time-to-market, but also in ensuring a predictable trading environment.
Despite the pandemic, Singapore’s total services trade exports in 2020 amounted to $259 billion, with China, US, EU and Malaysia as our top trading partners. I would dare say that because our Singapore businesses remain very much plugged into our FTA network, we have been able to ride the storm of COVID-19 a little better than if we were disconnected. We should know first-hand what it Is like to be disconnected, considering the impact we experience in aviation and tourism because of border closures. Trade, along with foreign direct investments into Singapore, will drive our economic recovery and the resumption of business activities post-COVID-19, even as we restlessly reinvent our industries, innovate ideas, products, services and business models to emerge stronger post-pandemic.
Through this crisis, businesses have realised the urgent need to build resilience in their business models and supply chains, partly by exploring new markets and supply sources. Many have shifted away from lean supply chain models to adopt agile supply chain strategies and the FTAs are even more relevant than ever before for our businesses.
The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically accelerated digital transformation to the top of the board’s agenda in every company. Singapore’s Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs) with Chile, New Zealand, Australia and, potentially, the UK look to provide frameworks for regulatory cooperation in support of trade and business in a digital economy and address issues arising from these emerging technologies. As we have heard the Minister for Trade and Industry yesterday, MTI and the Government agencies have been hard at work looking into various new opportunities for us to enter into new trade agreements, including for renewable energy, green economy and so on. On that count, frankly speaking, on behalf of our business community, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of MTI, MOF and all the Government agencies in helping our businesses to be competitive.
It is all about teamwork. In order to help our companies familiarise themselves with Singapore’s FTAs and improve their global competitiveness, the business community, supported by SBF, holds regular workshops as well as seminars and provides complimentary advisory services to assist the Singapore companies on FTA-related enquiries. Businesses can utilise these available resources and leverage SBF to provide feedback on how existing and future FTAs can better serve their needs, and we will continually do so.
Sir, to conclude, Singapore businesses, in our opinion, cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach. We will need to navigate the pressing issues that adversely impact supply chains and business processes. Singapore businesses need to be \"born international\". Across industries, developing the DNA to tap into overseas markets and to trade with multilateral partners is critical for businesses to be successful, given Singapore’s limited domestic market.
FTAs offer a key tool for businesses to expand into new markets, enhancing accessibility of different markets by allowing businesses to export more freely and easing some of the regulations.
But Singapore and Singaporeans must humbly recognise that we are vulnerable. Past success does not guarantee future success. We need to exercise humility and restlessly reinvent ourselves. Some areas of concern highlighted in the recent World Competitiveness Report, in my opinion, are rather worrisome. These include potential relocation of businesses being a threat to the Singapore economy; perception of Singapore’s changing attitude towards globalisation, which Minister Ong Ye Kung has also highlighted earlier; the availability of skilled labour, qualified engineers and competent senior managers in Singapore, regardless of nationality. So, the availability of skilled labour and competent senior managers is a concern; as well as our immigration laws preventing hiring of foreign labour. Such perceptions could erode Singapore’s attractiveness as a business capital and our businesses are concerned and, I am sure, the Government is equally concerned. And, I believe, as Singaporeans, we should be concerned as well.
Singapore’s miracle has been attributed to our leaders deciding on a few right strategies, from generation to generation, and then, together with the support and passion of all Singapore businesses and workforce, executing those strategies brilliantly, with humility but with pride and solidarity as Singaporeans. We believe in each other. We have done it before. We can do it again. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. Well, I was not intending to speak, but since Minister Ong Ye Kung mentioned that I was the chief negotiator for CECA, I thought I must put on record the question that Mr Leong Mun Wai asked.
Let me first say that I am terribly troubled by the way that PSP has taken this. And I want to put on record clearly, that the movement of natural persons is a very important chapter but it was not used as a bargaining chip to trade for what else we got. It was not.
So, let me give you a very brief history of FTAs because I was in MTI at that time, first, as a Deputy Secretary and then as a Permanent Secretary.
In 2000, the Doha round of WTO negotiation was launched and then-Minister George Yeo and I were at Doha. We saw the entry of China into the WTO.
But soon after the launch, our assessment and Minister George Yeo's assessment then, was that it looked like the Doha round would not go very far. And, indeed, he was proven correct. And he said, what does Singapore need to do to ensure our continued survival? Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier mentioned the importance of free trade to Singapore. Trade is more than three times our GDP and it will continue to be so.
So, he decided that we should pursue Free Trade Agreements, and our very first Free Trade Agreement was with New Zealand, two small little economies. And I must say that people were laughing; what could two small little economies do to advance the cause of free trade? But we persisted and we got the first agreement done and, thereafter, we went on to do a number of other agreements. When I was Permanent Secretary, I was in the trenches negotiating many agreements with our ASEAN counterparts. And that is how we had the ASEAN Economic Free Trade Agreement; that was enhanced to the ASEAN Economic Community. Thereafter, it was not just ASEAN. There were two things that we did. One was Free Trade Agreements between Singapore and other countries, far bigger economies: Japan, Australia, US; and then, more recently, the European Union.
You asked quite correctly, what is Singapore's bargaining chip?
The honest answer is very little. We only have tariffs on three items: beer, stout, samsu. And what is that as a bargaining chip? But I think a very important quality for our public policy is that we must be creative and we must learn to meet the needs of other countries to see what may be in the agreement that is of benefit to them.
So, how did we manage to negotiate trade agreements with big economies that have a lot of concerns? For example, Japan was very concerned about agriculture. In the case of India, there was an even wider range of concerns. So, let me tell Mr Leong and his team that I spent three years of my life negotiating this agreement because although I was a Permanent Secretary – and Permanent Secretaries usually just supervise, they do not get into the trenches – the Indian side decided that it was an important agreement, they would have a permanent secretary, and Minister George Yeo said, \"Well, you have no choice\". So, I ended up being the chief negotiator for CECA.
I can tell you the amount of homework I had to do to look at how we can come to an agreement. I went to different parts of India because there was objection from every part of India, from business groups to states. And I can share with you long stories about some of those most intriguing demands which I managed to explain why we cannot do. So, the movement of natural persons was a chapter which, indeed, the Indian negotiators were very keen on because they said, \"What do we get?\"
Well, I said no. Because this is of great importance to Singapore. You have a population that is over a billion. Singapore has a population of, at that time, probably about three-odd million, and I said we will be easily swamped. So, we must have very strict agreements on this. And that was, in fact, among the last chapters. There were two chapters that were the most difficult to conclude for which I never let go and we got what we needed.
So, I think Mr Leong Mun Wai must not think that, well, you said, \"I hope that the Government has the people's interests at heart\". Of course! Why do we negotiate FTAs and why do we do this in public service if it is not with the interest of our people at heart? Why do I spend three years of my life doing the agreement? So, please be reasonable and do not mislead Singaporeans.
I want to raise two other issues which are very important too.
First, you said, \"Why is it that we do not have talents and what happened to our Universities?\"
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean was the Education Minister. So, was I, and all our former and current Education Ministers are sitting here. I must say that I am extremely proud of what our schools and our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have done over the years to groom Singaporeans. The World Bank has ranked Singapore the best in the world in educating our people. So, please do not go around thinking that we have not put in enough effort. And, in fact, we have increased cohort participation rates from 20% of cohort to now 40%, Government-funded. We now have six Universities. We have Polytechnics and ITEs which provide the most valuable practice-oriented learning. We have enhanced it with SkillsFuture. We have now the Earn and Learn Programme and a whole range of programmes.
So, I think, Mr Leong, you will better serve Singaporeans if you help Singaporeans understand how changes are taking place so quickly and you must help to encourage people to upgrade and learn new skills, and work to support our unions in forming Company Training Committees and Job Security Councils and the like, in order to raise the ability of Singaporeans to compete.
So, I think to say that our education system has not done a good job or that the Government has not put in enough, I would seriously ask you to rethink that, and come back and debate us on that.
Let me end by mentioning two very important points which two Members have just raised. Prof Hoon Hian Teck made an excellent point that the future of competition will be a future of competition of innovation and technology. And it is very important for us to bring in some of the best people to work with Singaporeans, grow Singaporeans to be able to excel in that new realm. It is going to be a different world. So, please do not get stuck in the old world and think that we can excel all on our own. Let us have an open attitude to work with countries around the world who are willing to cooperate and work with us.
Just last week, I had a very good session with the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation of France and we talked about what France and Singapore can do together in our research agenda, in our innovation agenda. France is not a small country and they have a long history of science and innovation. So, that is a very important point that Prof Hoon Hian Teck had made.
The other important point is from Ms Janet Ang, who talked about digital opportunities and the new market.
No sector in our economy is going to be immune from competition. Economists used to have this concept of tradable and non-tradable sectors. Non-tradable sectors are naturally protected because they are in your neighbourhood. Your neighbourhood shops, who is going to compete with them? Today, with e-commerce, our neighbourhood shops are under stress. That is why we have a programme, as part of our industry transformation, to help our neighbourhood shops upgrade. That is why IMDA has put in so much effort on SMEs Go Digital programme.
I think it is very important for the right policy in Singapore: (a) to stay open; (b) to learn how to cope with changes which will be accelerating; (c) to make the best use of science, technology and innovation to allow us to move forward; and (d) to maintain unity so that businesses, unions, workers and the Government work closely together to make the very significant changes that you need to make. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions: one for Minister Ong and one for Minister Tan.
For Minister Ong, in 2016, my parliamentary colleague and Workers' Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera asked the then-Minister for Manpower – and this was arising out of feedback from the ground about CECA – issues about a lot of Indian nationals working on the ground. And the question Mr Leon Perera asked was about the number of intra corporate transferees (ICTs) that were working in Singapore through CECA. At that point, the reply that came was the Ministry does not disclose the data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs.
In February this year, Mr Leong Mun Wai of PSP asked a question about the number of ICTs working in Singapore. This time, the Government disclosed the overall ICT numbers over Employment Pass (EP) holders. And the number was something like 5% of EP holders. Today, we have more information, that for last year at least, 500 of these ICTs originated from India.
The point I want to make to the Minister and to the Government at large is the opportunity to quell or at least to nip some of these issues in the bud when they start moving into the realm of xenophobia and nativism. One important way to prevent that is the availability of information.
In August 2020, a Straits Times reporter mentioned that \"ICTs were a key bone of contention with respect to CECA\".
If this information on the number of ICTs had been made known earlier, it does occur to me that a lot of the misunderstanding and the reaction we see about CECA could have been addressed and actually nipped in the bud.
I hope the Government understands that with more information, actually, we can hold the line better before these discussions move into a realm of xenophobia and so forth.
My question to Minister Tan See Leng pertains to TAFEP and the strengthening of the enforcement arm of TAFEP. We had an exchange at the opening of Parliament about this and I would just like to confirm with Dr Tan whether raising the numbers in the enforcement arm of TAFEP is on the cards and what discussions have taken place since August last year insofar as how TAFEP will be beefed up. The Workers' Party has a position about anti-discrimination legislation. Is that something that MOM will be prepared to look into?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for his question.
We are reviewing our existing frameworks. The suggestion that he talked about, the position he had alluded to, in terms of legislation and all that, it is not something that has just come out from the Workers' Party. If you go back in terms of the past proceedings, I believe that quite a number of the Labour Members of Parliament, including Mr Patrick Tay and even non-Labour Members of Parliament, such as Mr Louis Ng, have also raised it at different times.
The assurance that I want to give to the House – to everyone who has raised it and who is concerned about this – is to allow myself, together with the team, together with the tripartite partners, to go deep, look at all the different implications, look at also the various options that we have to see how we can strengthen it. As I have alluded to in my speech, Mr Pritam Singh, I think you will appreciate the fact that given where we are today, it is a very tight rope that we are navigating.
On the one hand, we want to continue to strengthen, to tighten. On the other hand, businesses have the competing interest of asking us to be a bit more lax. One of the reassurances that our Ministry wants to give to Members of the House here is our consistent focus on – and we have never diverted our attention away from it – developing the Singaporean Core. We are fully cognisant of the angst, the fears, the worries about making sure that there is fair, there is equal opportunity in terms of capability development, capability transfer, fair hiring, promotions and so on and so forth. All those things, we will be reviewing in order for us to strengthen that framework.
I do not want to sort of go down a prescribed route today because we are exploring the entire universe. I hope that answers your question.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung, if we can wrap up the debate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition and then seek to conclude this debate.
I take to heart what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that with information, we can quell such falsehoods much earlier. We work in a bureaucracy. Some data is classified secret, confidential and so on. So, we are not at liberty to always disclose them. But what you say is true. Some information, it is better for it to come out early and then we can move on. Especially, as you said, when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia, it is much better to quell it early.
I take comfort that based on what you have said, I think you do agree that FTAs and CECA are fundamental to our survival. I hope you heard our explanation and are convinced that CECA's Chapter 9 does not allow an unfettered inflow of Indian professionals. If you disagree and I misrepresented you, please jump up and correct me. I do not think you will.
The Deputy Prime Minister and myself are former trade negotiators, fighting in the trenches with our fellow teammates, which is why I think we both felt compelled to say something today.
Negotiating an FTA requires a lot of dedication and hard work. It takes a toll on the family because you are out of the country all the time. Our negotiators are up against very formidable partners sometimes. Our job is to advance Singapore's interests while protecting our areas of sensitivities. But we work hard at it, nevertheless, because we know it makes a huge difference to Singapore. It benefits industries and companies, creates jobs for our people, secures our place in the world. This is where we are coming from.
So, I felt sad, somewhat, that PSP did not withdraw their allegations.
When we explained how an FTA works and how Chapter 9 works, it is a statement of fact. This is how it works. It is not a matter of your opinion or your perspective. The logical thing for PSP to do, I felt, is to withdraw their allegations. Then, we can discuss employment policies, how we can better protect, educate, train our workers. These are very legitimate questions.
But PSP did not do the logical thing. I could not hear a definitive position from Mr Leong Mun Wai or Ms Hazel Poa. They waffled a bit and then I think what I heard was they cannot conclude either way now whether CECA is better or worse for our workers. But if you cannot conclude either way, then the honourable thing is to also withdraw the allegations while you figure out which way you want to lean. But I do not think what we saw was logical or honourable.
A successful FTA strategy is not just about negotiating skills. Those are important but, fundamentally, it requires us to be broad-minded and able to cast our sights far and wide to the whole world and work with like-minded partners out there.
That is why COVID-19 is such an existential crisis for us. It has forced us to close our borders. But I am confident that once we get the great majority of our population vaccinated and control the pandemic, we can re-open the borders progressively again.
What I am worried about is, even when our borders are re-opened, what about our hearts and our minds? Will they be re-opened?
If, because of COVID-19 or during the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-foreigner sentiments and xenophobia creep into our collective psyche, then even if our borders are open, our hearts and minds are not and will remain closed. Then, we will not recover from COVID-19. Then, we will truly have long COVID-19.
Of all times, this is the worst time – in the middle of a crippling pandemic – to talk about turning inwards, to reject FTAs and to reject globalisation. I say we should emerge from COVID-19 announcing to the world that Singapore continues to be that shining jewel in Southeast Asia: the largest transshipment port in the world; the special Changi experience; the financial services hub and IT capital; a hub for manufacturing, hospitality, meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions (MICE), and so on.
Here, the world converges. You can experience the richness of many cultures and also the uniquely Singapore character. Singaporeans will benefit immensely from this because of the opportunities it brings and of how the international linkages and relationships cement our position in the world.
Most importantly, we will be more united. We must be more united than ever. Every one of us know that because we all did our part – whether it is getting vaccinated, undergoing regular testing, observing safe management measures, helping others in need, taking care of patients – all of us did our part. We stayed united. Unity is what helped us conquer and overcome this pandemic. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 44(2), the Motion to consider the two Ministerial Statements on Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower lapses at the conclusion of debate.
Order, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.29 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Copyright Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to repeal and re-enact the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 2006 Revised Edition) to provide for copyright, the protection of performances and related rights, and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in September 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 July 2021], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Social and Family Development]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, it is encouraging for me to note that MSF will be expecting over 40,000 applications for Lasting Power of Attorney, or LPA, by the end of 2021. Given that one in 10 Singaporeans aged 60 and above have the chance of being diagnosed with dementia, and with the numbers expected to rise to 80,000 in 2030, I believe that the LPA should be widely promoted to all Singaporeans as it allows an individual to make an early choice of a proxy decision-maker whom they can trust. This reassures donors that their interest will be taken care of should they lose their mental capacity one day. Hence, I support the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill to facilitate more Singaporeans to apply for an LPA.
Although I agree that LPAs be done electronically, I am concerned that the seniors who are not tech-savvy will be discouraged to submit their applications. Although there are community touch points such as the Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) and the Integrated Public Service Centre (IPSC) at Our Tampines Hub to provide assistance to seniors who are less comfortable with the use of digital services, I am still worried that not all seniors who are not tech-savvy will go to these places for help, especially those who are immobile.
Like my colleague Member of Parliament Mr Yip Hon Weng, I would like to suggest that MSF consider mobilising Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to promote and assist in the application of LPA. SGAs can do house visits, help to guide and assist seniors who are immobile in the application of LPA. This will benefit seniors who are not tech-savvy or immobile.
(In English): It is encouraging for me to know that MSF would be expecting over 40,000 applications for Lasting Power of Attorney, or LPA for short, by the end of 2021. This makes the latest amendments to the Mental Capacity Act a timely move.
Given that one in 10 Singaporeans aged 60 and above have the chance of being diagnosed with dementia, and with the numbers expected to rise to 80,000 in 2030, I believe that the LPA should be widely promoted to all Singaporeans as it allows an individual to make an early, informed and personal choice of a proxy decision-maker or donees whom they can trust. This reassures donors that their interest will be well taken care of should they lose their mental capacity one day.
Since the inception of the LPA in 2014, slightly more than half of the donors are aged 60 years old and above. The focus on my speech will be on the concerns and needs of seniors who are intending to apply for the LPA. I would like to raise three considerations related to the amendment Bill.
Firstly, I join my fellow PAP parliamentarians in sharing the concern that by fully enabling LPA to be made electronically, the seniors who are not technologically savvy may be discouraged to submit their applications. Although MSF will be leveraging community touchpoints, such as the Citizen Connect Centres and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub, to provide assistance for seniors who are less comfortable with the use of digital services, there is a need to consider also seniors who have mobility issues and are not technologically comfortable.
I would like to suggest for MSF to consider mobilising the Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to promote and assist in the application of LPA for this group of seniors. SGAs can help to guide and assist seniors who are immobile and cannot approach the Citizen Connect Centres by themselves in the application. In addition, special considerations can be made for seniors, who are immobile, to have the LPA Certificate Issuers (CIs) visit their homes together with the SGAs, to complete the LPA application, to give them the peace of mind. This would benefit seniors with mobility issues.
Secondly, under the newly proposed Office of the Public Guardian Online or OPGO process, donors and donees are not required to meet face-to-face to obtain a signature on the LPA Form. I am concerned that this may create an opportunity for vulnerable seniors to be targets of fraud by fraudulent donees who want to take advantage of them. Without the requirement for donors and donees to meet up, seniors might be unknowingly coaxed into creating an LPA appointment by fraudulent donees. Although donors are still required to meet with the Certificate Issuers (CIs) to ensure that the donor has the mental capacity to make the LPA and understands the effect of an LPA, without a third person witnessing the donees' identity, it can become challenging for the Certificate Issuers to act as a safeguard in preventing fraud from occurring.
I would like to propose that MSF consider requiring at least one meeting, in person or virtually, between donors, donees and the Certificate Issuers, so that all parties would be aware of each other's identity and for the Certificate Issuers to provide timely feedback to the donors if they have grounds to suspect that the donees might be using fraud or undue pressure to induce the donors to make an LPA.
Finally, I would like to raise the concern about the protection of donors and donees should cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches compromise the integrity of the e-LPA documents. In recent times, there have been several noteworthy cybersecurity breaches on some cloud computing providers. Should a security breach result in e-LPA documents being amended without the donors' or donees' knowledge, a transaction executed in good faith based on the LPA may result in a loss for the donors and/or liability for the donees.
How would the parties be protected, especially when the transaction relates to the donors' personal welfare, property and affairs? Should the transaction that is in progress when the breach occurred be halted to determine if there has been any adversarial impact made to the LPA?
The Bill introduces section 16A that affords protection of donees and others if the e-LPA has a relevant error. I would like to propose that the section should also be expanded to include relevant protections from liabilities of donors and donees as a result of cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches. This would go some way to protect the interests of all parties.
Mr Speaker, in my interactions with residents in Jalan Kayu, many come forward seeking help because they cannot make decisions for their family members who are suffering from dementia or other forms of mental health challenges, as their loved ones did not make an LPA when they still had the mental capacity to do so. These decisions can range from making simple bank transactions to applying for an HDB flat.
Therefore, it is important to appoint a reliable and trustworthy proxy decision-maker early, so that both the donor and their family members have peace of mind, knowing that their welfare and interests will be well taken care of when they become mentally incapacitated. Notwithstanding the considerations raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as an Office of the Public Guardian pro bono deputy appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act. I welcome the amendment Bill.
One of the main amendments is to set up the new Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) electronic system. I agree that there are many benefits to be gained from the digitalisation of the processes for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). In addition to greater convenience, the new system is more efficient and precious time can be saved with faster transactional time. As the OPGO system will be housed under the Government Commercial Cloud, I am sure that the system will be secured by the same standard of cybersecurity measures as for all other data and information held by the Government.
I am glad to note that for those who are less digitally savvy, they will be able to arrange for personalised consultations by making appointment at the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and seek help at Citizen Connect Centres located at community centres nationwide. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask the Ministry if the planned roadshows to boost public awareness of LPAs will be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Is there any possibility of bundling workshops on LPAs with the Singapore Digital Office's courses to improve our elderly's digital literacy, thereby killing two birds with one stone? For those with mobility problems and who do not know how to go online, will the Ministry assist them by sending a roving team to their homes to help them register LPAs, much like MOH roving vaccination team?
(In English): Next, I would like to share my concerns about the additional safeguards for donors. I am worried that such safeguards are not sufficient. How can we ensure that elderly, in particular, those who are less educated, will not be cheated? This is particularly a concern where the donors and donees are not related. Donees have control over the financial assets of the donor. If they siphon away such resources for themselves, ultimately, the other family members or the Government will have to pick up the tab or pay for the care of the donors.
With the increasing number of singles and our rapidly ageing population, the number of such vulnerable, and usually elderly, donors is likely to increase. We have already had cases of opportunistic donees in the past.
There is certainly no lack of predatory scammers looking to gain the trust of lonely elderly persons to take advantage of them. I appeal to the Ministry to consider implementing additional measures to screen potential donees for the protection of donors. Would the Ministry share with the House if it had checked with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) on the number of cases involving the defrauding of donors to date?
Finally, I have a request based upon my experience as a pro bono deputy with the OPG. Medical diagnosis has to be submitted when applying for a Court order to appoint a pro bono donee, in order to help a client who has lost his or her mental capacity.
Assuming the client has an existing medical record which states that he has lost his mental capacity and the record is stored in the National Electronic Healthcare Record. Instead of asking the aged home or caregiver to make an appointment to see the regular doctor for the sake of retrieving the medical record a few months later, would it not be much faster if the information can be shared between the Government restructured hospitals, including IMH, with OPG in a secured manner? This current process is time-consuming and does no service to the patient. For the case which I had handled, I prayed that my client was able to outlive the Court order. Therefore, would the Government restructured hospitals, IMH, MSF, MOH as well as OPG work out a new framework to expedite this process? Notwithstanding the above-mentioned queries, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by saying that everyone – everyone – should pay attention to this Bill. Because this Bill matters, and should matter, to each one of us.
The Mental Capacity Act has come a long way, since it was passed in Parliament in 2008 and came into effect in 2010.
In the last 10 odd years, attitudes and mindsets on mental capacity have shifted in the right direction. More people are open to contemplating and planning for morbidity, and indeed, mortality. In other words, planning for disease, dying and death.
Yet, it is estimated that one in 10 in Singapore aged 60 and above may get dementia.
In advanced stages of the disease, a patient will lose the ability to make decisions for him- or herself, on his or her personal welfare, property, money and other affairs. And as our population ages, there will be more and more of such patients. The key point is, it can happen to any senior.
And it is not just about seniors. It can happen to younger adults too. An unfortunate accident, for example, or a stroke, can rob a person of his or her ability to decide and act for him- or herself.
And, so, loss of mental capacity can really happen to any one of us. Luck of the draw. Not a pleasant thought, but a necessary one. And, so, this is why every one of us should think about and plan for the loss of our own mental capacity.
And after 11 years of the Mental Capacity Act being in force, I believe it is time for the practice and the implementation of the Act to move into a new phase, shift to a higher gear, and gather even more momentum. Therefore, the proposed amendments to this Act are very timely and I stand in full support of the Bill.
The move to make the LPA application and registration process electronic by default is a very significant move, a major shift from the practice today. I believe it will bring much more convenience to both donors and donees. And with the shift to digital, LPAs can be registered in just eight working days, compared to the more than three weeks currently. So, slightly half the time needed. No more wet ink signatures, no more multiple changing of hands of hard copy application forms.
The proposed move is also in line with our broader digital Government strategy, allowing for much more frictionless transactions between citizen and Government at different stages in life, and for different life cycle needs.
There may be concerns that the shift to electronic LPA making could inadvertently exclude the very seniors for whom this move is intended to bring convenience to, because our seniors might not be digitally savvy.
On this, I am confident that the Government has created sufficient touchpoints and resources in the community, to make sure that seniors who need help with electronic LPA making, in particular, and digital transactions with the Government in general, will get the help that they need.
In MSF’s public consultation exercise, I saw a suggestion to remove the need for in-person attendance before the Certificate Issuer (CI), in order to make the process even more convenient. In other words, make the process completely electronic, just between man and the system.
The Bill has, however, retained the in-person attendance before a CI as a critical safeguard and I support this, as it would preserve confidence in the revamped process. But, more importantly, I think the feedback brings into focus a larger point that convenience needs to be seen against the other dimension of importance and I will explain this.
I know of seniors who have 10, 15, 20 appointments with doctors each year. Almost all of these are attendances in person, although tele-consults are becoming more common. And yet, seniors do not find these in-person attendances with doctors excessively inconvenient because, ultimately, these are about their health and health is, of course, important; and so it should be with LPAs.
The general point is this: while the Bill seeks to make the LPA-making process as convenient as possible, ultimately, our attitudes towards an LPA, the importance that we attach to an LPA, must really move to a higher plane. An LPA should be as important as good health, because having an LPA is part of planning well and living well. And having an LPA is part of overall good health and well-being. And so, just like good health, we need LPA adoption in Singapore to be much more widespread.
Going forward, MSF expects a transaction volume of around 30,000 LPAs to be made a year, based on pre-COVID-19 trends. I think this is far too low a level of adoption. Thus, I would like to ask how is MSF planning to encourage much wider adoption of LPAs? How can we get many more to be aware of LPA, to be aware of mental capacity issues in the first instance, and how can we get many more to then recognise its due importance and actually take action to make an LPA?
I have four suggestions.
First, I would like to suggest that MSF partners with healthcare providers to open up a whole new frontier of LPA touchpoints in the community. I believe that every patient passing through the doors of our polyclinics should be screened for LPA coverage, and for those that are not covered, the correct care planning conversations should take place in the polyclinic, there and then.
I believe the same screening should happen in our Specialist Outpatient Clinics and even the wards in public hospitals. The screening should take place in our day care and senior activity centres across the island.
I think we ought to incorporate LPAs as part of standard health and care protocol for our seniors, going forward. And I hope that healthcare settings will get the right resources, for example, special LPA Ambassadors and/or training for existing staff, to carry out the right conversations.
Second, I suggest that we leverage the Silver Generation Office to promote LPAs door-to-door, engage and spread the message door-to-door, just like how we did for COVID-19 vaccination. The need for inoculation against poor planning or no planning ought to be as important as the need for inoculation against disease.
Third, to better reach out to potential donees – youths, young adults, even middle-aged citizens – and encourage them to broach these conversations with their parents, grandparents, loved ones, we should utilise various channels, online and offline, again to reach out to these potential donees and get the message across.
Fourth and, finally, IMDA has been training thousands of seniors in a range of digital skills like Singpass, WhatsApp and e-payment, through the Seniors Go Digital programme. It is a very successful programme. I hope that MSF can work with IMDA to incorporate LPAs and make it a standard offering in the Seniors Go Digital Programme, going forward.
To conclude, in fact, we need seniors to adopt not just LPA, but also Advance Care Planning (ACP), make a Will and make a CPF Nomination, as part of a comprehensive plan to live well and eventually leave well, for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones. Every senior – an LPA, an ACP, a Will, a CPF Nomination. That should be our overarching goal, to ensure that all bases are covered for our seniors. This Bill is the first of many steps that we would need to take in that direction. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MSF introduced the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill to digitise the process of making a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Hence, the time taken to register an LPA will be shortened from three weeks to an average of eight working days, which is about half the current time needed, and the LPA itself will become an electronic document. At the same time, the new process will not be at the expense of donor protection. This approach is not only in line with the Government's vision of digital transformation in the public sector, but will also bring greater convenience to members of the public who are interested to be a donor or a donee.
Some people, especially the elderly, are worried that they do not know how to use computers or online platforms. I am confident that the Government has provided sufficient service centres and resources within the community to help the public in need. Notwithstanding the details of the amendment Bill, I feel that the fundamental significance of the Bill lies in wider public awareness of LPA and its importance. In this respect, we still have a lot to do because too few Singaporeans have done an LPA.
Surveys have shown that even a large proportion of healthcare workers have not prepared for death-related matters, including making an LPA. The LPA allows us to designate a donee whom we trust to decide and execute matters pertaining to our welfare, property and finance on our behalf after we lose our mental capacity.
In other words, making an LPA is a precaution. If we lose mental capacity, the donee will become somebody we can fall back on. \"If I were to lose mental capacity\" may not be a phrase that sounds very pleasant, but it should still be addressed while we can. In fact, the probability of getting dementia is not one in 10,000 but closer to one in 10 after the age of 60. Therefore, we should all have an LPA.
With this, I hope that MSF will work with medical institutions to open up more LPA touchpoints. After all, the elderly in polyclinics, public hospitals or day centres should be screened to see if they have an LPA. If we notice that the elderly has no LPA, then the staff or volunteer should immediately have a conversation with the elderly and explain what an LPA is about.
Next, we should also tap on the Silver Generation Ambassadors and the Silver Generation Office (SGO) to do house visits just as how we promote the COVID-19 vaccination, because a comprehensive life plan is as important as vaccination.
We should also make use of all the online and offline channels to encourage more young and middle-aged persons to discuss LPA matters with their parents, grandparents and loved ones. Looking ahead, I hope that every senior citizen will not only have an LPA, but also have an Advance Care Plan, a Will as well as a CPF nomination. I hope that we can move towards this goal step by step.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Amendment Bill. I will first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and the co-chairperson of the Law Society's Pro Bono Services' Community Legal Clinic Committee.
For the past few years, as part of the effort to increase community law awareness, I have been going on radio talk shows on a monthly basis. The topic mainly surrounds estate planning, in particular, the importance of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). And as part of our Woodgrove's GEL mission where L pertains to law awareness, out of the six law awareness talks organised for the past one year in Woodgrove, four sessions have been focused on sharing with our Woodgrove residents on the importance of estate planning.
Many people often think that estate planning is something only wealthy individuals would consider doing. In actual fact, it is equally important, if not more important, for people of lesser means in our society. Take, for example, an elderly couple who only has each other to depend on, relying only on their retirement savings and their HDB asset. What happens if the husband suddenly becomes comatose as a result of a severe stroke? Will the wife be able to sell or rent out their HDB flat in order to raise funds for payment of her husband's hefty medical expenses? Can she withdraw monies out from her husband's fixed deposit account to purchase necessary medical equipment required now by her bedridden husband?
The answer to both of these questions is likely to be no, unless the husband had already executed the LPA and appointed his wife as his intended donee prior to becoming mentally incapacitated, or if the wife applies now to the Court to be officially appointed as her husband's deputy.
While both options will allow her to manage her bedridden husband's personal welfare, property and affairs, the second one is often considered, as what my parliamentary colleague, Mr Patrick Tay, mentioned in his speech yesterday, a cumbersome and costly process, notwithstanding the fact that most Court applications for appointment of the deputy takes around three to four months to complete for a straightforward case. The medical report required as part of the application process, as Mr Don Wee had shared earlier, would itself require at least another one to three months to obtain.
As such, during my past 10 years of serving in the community, I have been a strong advocate of educating the public on the importance of doing an LPA, especially amongst our senior citizens. Doing so will enable the applicant to have peace of mind while providing clarity and certainty to the applicants' families on who take up the role of donee should the applicant ever lose his mental capacity.
I, therefore, applaud the latest move by MSF to establish an electronic transaction system to create new LPAs, as I believe that any reviews to make the process of registering an LPA more accessible and affordable are always welcome.
In fact, during the Parliament Sitting in October last year, I had posed a question to MSF, enquiring whether the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has plans to implement online registrations for LPAs.
Amidst this COVID-19 pandemic, we have begun to see more people, including lawyers, working from home. Interviews with clients are conducted most of the time through virtual platforms. This prevents the spread of the virus and enables those who are physically disabled and/or residing overseas to stay connected and run their errands without stepping out of the house.
It has always been my hope that through digitalisation, the process of registering an LPA will be simplified in the perspective of the donors and the donees, thereby encouraging more people, especially those with mobility issues, to sign up for one.
With that said, just like what several of my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me have raised, I likewise envisage that there will be two issues that may occur when we move the registration of LPA onto an electronic transaction system.
Firstly, does one know how to access the Internet and log into the electronic transaction system? As mentioned by Mayor Denise Phua and Mr Louis Ng yesterday, as well as Ms Ng Ling Ling a moment ago, I concur that the elderly and the vulnerable groups in our community will require more assistance to access the Internet and navigate the online system. I wish to elaborate on this issue in Mandarin please, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill is passed, Singaporeans will be able to register an LPA online through the new online service offered by the Office of the Public Guardian.
To encourage more people to do an LPA while they are mentally sound, besides making the application process faster and more convenient, I think we must first ensure that both the donor and the donee, who is required to provide his or her consent, are able to access the internet and log into the relevant portal easily, especially those who may not be digitally savvy.
Whilst I note that the relevant agency intends to reach out to use community touchpoints, such as the Citizen Connect Centres in the Community Centres islandwide and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub, to assist people with digital needs to use the online service, I think that the relevant agency should also consider training our Silver Generation Officers and social workers who conduct regular house visits to seniors’ residences. As they would often bring along their tablets while doing their rounds, they would be well-suited to provide assistance in terms of internet access, especially for those with mobility issues.
(In English): The second issue pertains to whether one knows how to fill up the e-form and understand the legal consequences of each option selected. For example, when the donor selects the option to empower the donee to give or refuse consent to start or continue with healthcare and medical treatments, are they both aware that such empowerment does not mean that the donee will be able to make a decision on whether to provide extraordinary life sustaining treatment to prolong the donor's life? This can only be done if the donor signs a separate legal instrument called the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and many people often misunderstood the meaning behind this.
While I note that the staff at these community touchpoints will be trained to help those who have difficulties using the OPG portal to make their LPA electronically, it is my humble opinion that the services to be provided should only pertain to assisting them with the technical issues on assessing the portal. For example, how to log on and sign electronically.
The LPA is, after all, a legal instrument and it is best that the donor and donee understand the legal consequences before signing their names. In this regard, I propose that the portal should have a feature where a virtual meeting can be conducted, where the donor, donee and Certificate Issuer log in at the same time. The Certificate Issuer will take parties through the e-form and ensure that both the donor and donee understand the content and e-sign at the same instance.
During the course of the meeting, the Certificate Issuer should also be using a standard due diligence framework checklist that is to be created by the OPG, to ascertain whether parties have the mental capacity to execute such a legal instrument.
Lastly, this virtual meeting should be recorded and stored in the portal database. These recorded footage may come in useful when the Public Guardian is ascertaining, subsequently, whether the donor had previously been induced into executing the LPA.
As mentioned earlier, an LPA is just one component of estate planning. During the Budget debate earlier this year, I suggested that we consider setting up an estate planning portal online with support from multiple Ministries to start educating households on the essential legal knowledge and encourage them to begin estate planning for contingencies.
This portal will be dedicated to administrative matters, such as CPF nominations, lodging of LPA applications, AMDs, as well as the registering of Wills. One can even consider setting out their funeral arrangement plans through this portal. Upon the passing of a loved one, the next of kin can assist to notify through this portal and extract the necessary information required to kickstart the administration of the estate.
This portal can also provide further value by collaborating with the Law Society, which can assist to devise a way for the platform to dispense legal advice virtually.
I was heartened to learn that as part of the LifeSG initiative and to encourage more people to begin their end-of-life planning comprehensively, MOH, Public Service Division and the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group have launched the My Legacy portal last year. The portal, currently still in beta testing, has a My Legacy vault feature, which is accessible using Singpass, that allows users to plan, store and share legal, healthcare and estate matters securely with the people they trust.
I trust that OPG is in touch and in the midst of collaborating with the abovementioned agencies to ensure that the registration of LPA through My Legacy portal will be seamless and I am hopeful that the portal incorporates the features which I have recommended above.
Lastly, I wish to seek clarification on the cost of registering the LPA. Presently, the $75 application fee waiver for LPA Form 1 for Singaporeans has been extended to 31 March 2023, so as to encourage more Singaporeans to plan ahead and apply for an LPA. This is actually the fourth extension granted by the OPG since its first extension in 2016 and we would often see an influx in take-up rates when the waiver deadline draws close; this would inevitably cause the OPG backend to be stretched in terms of manpower while processing these new LPAs. In light that the LPAs will now be digitalised, would the Ministry consider removing the registration fees for LPA Form 1 entirely? I believe this would further motivate fellow Singaporeans to apply and subscribe to LPA Form 1 soon.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my requests for clarification and suggestions, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the plans to digitalise and simplify the procedures for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). However, digital systems, records and transactions have vulnerabilities as they require electricity and Internet access. I am worried about eventualities such as power outages, system malfunctions and cyberattacks. Would the Ministry share in greater detail what measures are in place to mitigate such risks and what back-up plans are in place? Do we have foolproof back-up for all information in the databases?
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
The other issue is the possibility of disputes when LPAs have been changed, particularly just before the donors lose their mental capacity. In some cases, relationships among donors, donees and family members may be complicated and even acrimonious. Is there any simplified processes in place to bring about expeditious resolution for such cases?
Finally, I would like to ask if there is any recourse for donors or those acting on their behalf, in the event of mismanagement by appointed donees or breach of trust, which does not require going to Court? Can some sort of insurance be arranged to protect donors? On the other hand, donees also face risks of legal suits and, hence, can they protect themselves with a form of professional indemnity insurance? I support the Bill.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the amendments and support the Bill. An electronic transaction system will allow for faster and more secure registration for donors' benefit. This will also reduce the possibility of errors. However, I would like to introduce several proposals, to further safeguard the interests of all parties involved and, at the same time, to protect the reputation and integrity of the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) system. I am speaking from my own experiences as a pro bono lawyer helping laypersons make and file their LPAs.
Firstly, on protection for donors. Currently, donees make an online declaration not equivalent to a Statutory Declaration, before submitting information to third parties. I would like to ask whether it is necessary for the donees to produce medical reports which certify that donors have lost their mental capacities first before they can exercise powers under the LPAs? If the medical report is not mandatory, I would like to propose to make it a requirement for donees to inform OPG and produce medical reports which certify that the donors have lost their mental capacities before the donees exercise the powers under the LPAs.
Bodies like the Association of Banks Singapore and Council for Estate Agencies already require donees to first produce medical reports, which show that the donor has lost his or her mental capacity. This is a requirement before he or she can exercise the powers under the LPA. Alternatively, the donee can be required to submit a Statutory Declaration to confirm that the donor has been certified by a doctor to lack mental capacity. Perhaps, it is useful to have such a general requirement and to make it mandatory for banks and real estate firms, who handle LPA-related transactions, to keep OPG or their regulators informed once a request to exercise LPA is made by a donee.
Secondly, on protection for certificate issuers. I agree with MSF's retention of requirement for a donor to visit the LPA Certificate Issuer (CI) in person because this will ensure the donor understands the scope and purpose of the LPA. However, I think it is equally important that the CI meets the donee as well.
I would like to propose to make it a requirement for the CI to meet the donee, to ascertain if the donee himself or herself is a person who has mental capacity to carry out the said powers on behalf of the donor. Furthermore, by having the CI meet the donee, this will also help the CI to flag to OPG if the donee already is a donee on other LPAs.
I agree with and understand MSF's reasoning to protect confidentiality and only disclose the number of LPAs on which the donee has been appointed, and that the choice is, ultimately, up to the donor. However, the capability and adequacy of the donee in exercising such powers may be limited if he or she is to administer various matters on behalf of several donors who have lost their mental capacity at the same time.
Surely, there is a limit to human abilities and dedication of time. It would, thus, be useful to consider a requirement for the CI to highlight to OPG when facing donees who are multiple donees. OPG can then subsequently follow up and advise the donor that the chosen donee is a multiple donee, and if they want, they can make his or her informed choice. In this regard, perhaps, it would be useful to consider a limit on the maximum number of LPAs on which someone can be appointed as a donee.
Another aspect to look out for is the relationship between the donor and the donee or the lack of one. Having donees who are non-family members, or who are no longer directly related by virtue of a divorce or a re-marriage, may give rise to potential misunderstandings or conflicts in the future. In this regard, it would be useful to consider requiring CIs to meet potential donees in person too and not just the donors. Not only can the CIs ascertain the mental capacity of the donees but they can also raise the red flag to OPG if the donee to be appointed is a non-family member or if there is anything amiss.
It would also be useful if OPG is updated when there has been a change in the relationship between the donor and the donee. In this regard, may I ask if there is a database or system for OPG to be updated once the donee on an LPA ceases to be a family member, by virtue of divorce or has predeceased the donor?
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications, I support this Bill as it is a step in the right direction to greater access and protection for donors.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enable the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be made electronically.
Madam, the LPA is an important legal instrument that safeguards the interests of those who lose their mental capacity. Once we reach the age of 21, anyone of us can become a donor and appoint one or more persons whom we trust to become a donee to make decisions on our behalf in the unfortunate event that we lose our mental faculties.
According to data from the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), the number of LPAs registered has been on an upward trend. In 2016, there were only about 8,000 LPAs registered. But in just the first three months of 2021, we have seen over 9,000 LPAs registered and MSF expects more than 40,000 LPAs to be registered by the end of this year. The proposed amendments in the Bill are, therefore, timely as an online system will allow the Ministry to cater to a higher volume of LPA applications.
While it is encouraging to seeing an increasing number of LPA applications in recent years, we need to be aware that those who have registered as a doner remains a very small minority in our society and more must be done to address the stigma that comes associated with conversations about LPA.
It is common to hear our loved ones, especially our parents and grandparents, dismiss discussions about registering an LPA with words like \"touch wood\", or more colloquially, \"choy!\" and, unfortunately, the conversation does not progress past this stage. Amongst the young, many simply think that this is something for our seniors to do. Can the Ministry provide a demographic breakdown of applicants that have become donors in the past five years and share its plans to destigmatise the topic of LPA and encourage adoption especially among our seniors?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the shift to digitalise LPA applications means that we need to put in place robust safeguards to prevent fraudulent applications. Under the Bill, the electronic copy of a registered LPA will be treated as free from error if individuals do not notify the OPG of any rectification within 90 days. I am particularly concerned about this. How would someone know that someone else has impersonated them either as a donor or a donee? How will OPG know if fraud or undue pressure was used to induce a donor to make an LPA or appoint a particular person to be their donee?
I would also like to ask if there had been instances of a donee being appointed by multiple donors and whether this would be a key factor in determining fraudulent digital LPA applications.
Lastly, I would like to echo what several Members have raised yesterday and today, about the importance of ensuring that digital LPA applications remain accessible to the less tech-savvy, particularly our seniors. While I am glad to hear that MSF plans to leverage community touchpoints like the Citizen Connect Centres at our Community Centres, to aid those who need help, I believe that more can be done to assist our seniors at the hubs that they frequent.
I would like to, therefore, suggest working with Senior Activity Centres, which are based in out heartlands, to assist their members with the digital LPA applications. We can also consider using the regional Social Service Office to be used as another channel to outreach to vulnerable Singaporeans?
Madam, in conclusion, the shift to digitalise the LPA is an important step in making it more accessible to every segment of our population. But we need to ensure that the less tech-savvy have easy access to the process and there must be robust safeguards to prevent fraud. With that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank all 19 Members who have spoken earnestly on the Bill, reflecting on the importance they place on pre-planning for peace of mind and for their support of this Bill.
Members' comments fall into five broad themes, namely: (a) support for those who need help navigating online services; (b) clarifications regarding the electronic transaction system OPGO; (c) cybersecurity; (d) protection of donors, donees and third parties; and (e) future developments in the mental capacity landscape. Let me address each theme in turn.
Many Members, such as Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Don Wee, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng have raised concerns about supporting those who need help navigating digital services. With the support of many community partners, we will endeavour to leave no one behind in this digitalisation journey.
For the elderly with family, we encourage their family members to assist them and leverage Singpass' multi-user SMS Two-Factor Authentication (2FA).
I would like to assure Ms Hany Soh and Mr Patrick Tay that tool tips on OPGO will explain the legal terms. Mr Louis Chua would also be pleased to know that instructions on making the LPA in OPGO will be made available in the vernacular languages. I thank Mr Seah Kian Peng for his suggestion to create a checklist for donors to track their progress. Further, the Office of the Public Guardian, or OPG, will train Certificate Issuers to navigate LPA applications on OPGO so that they, too, may support their clients. We will also offer one-on-one consultation at OPG's physical office.
Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Xie Yao Quan would be glad to know that OPG is working with Silver Generation Ambassadors to connect seniors keen to make their LPAs, especially those living alone, with their nearest community touchpoints. Citizen Connect Centres and Public Service Centre staff will be trained to help seniors make their LPAs or access LPA-related transactions online.
Ms Soh may be assured that the staff will not be advising on the appointments or the powers to be granted. As for Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion to leverage Senior Activity Centres and regional social service agencies, OPG will work with them to direct their clients to the nearest touchpoint.
I also thank Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Patrick Tay for their suggestions on other potential partnerships to ensure accessibility.
For donors with mobility issues, such as physical disability or incarceration, LPA Certificate Issuers may visit them to certify their LPAs. OPG representatives can also assist the physically disabled with their LPA applications at their homes. For the visually impaired, OPGO will include text-to-speech functions to guide them in completing their LPAs online. Digital fingerprints, as suggested by Mr Yip Hon Weng, however, may not be necessary as we have replaced wet ink signatures with digital ones.
A parallel hard copy system for the majority, as suggested by Ms Denise Phua and Mr Louis Chua, would not be necessary but, as mentioned in my opening speech, we will allow hard copy submissions under exceptional circumstances.
Next, let me address some queries regarding OPGO.
Miss Cheryl Chan noted that errors in hard copy LPAs would be rectified on the electronic copy under clause 9 of the Bill and asked whether these hard copy LPAs containing errors would be superseded by the electronic copies on OPGO. Let me clarify that clause 9 is intended to cover errors arising from the conversion of the hard copy LPA into the electronic LPAs, not errors within the hard copy LPAs. I note Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Louis Ng's concern on whether transactions may rely on hard copy LPAs containing errors and would like to assure that these errors, such as repeated page numbers, are highly unlikely. OPG has checked through all scanned copies of existing registered LPAs to minimise any risk of errors.
As to whether the electronic copies will supersede the hard copy LPAs, the hard copy LPA will no longer be treated by the law as the LPA after the electronic copy is treated by the operation of law as such. Therefore, while donees and third parties are not prevented from referencing the hard copy LPAs, the superseded hard copy LPA should not be relied upon for transactions. This is because any note on the occurrence of certain important events will only be attached to the electronic LPA henceforth. Such events include the donee's bankruptcy, which would revoke his power to manage the donor's financial matters. As such, I strongly encourage all parties to rely on the electronic copy when transacting.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the hard copy version of the LPA is the LPA during the 90-day period. The answer is yes. The electronic copy only becomes the LPA after the 90-day period if no relevant error is spotted and reported. If a relevant error is reported to OPG, the electronic copy becomes the LPA either on the 91st day or on the day which the Public Guardian rectifies the relevant error, whichever is later.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about the circumstances under which the Public Guardian will not rectify a notified error in the electronic copy of the LPA. Under the new section 11(14) of the MCA, which is inserted by clause 4 of the Bill, a \"relevant error\" refers to any disparity or inconsistency between the electronic copy and the LPA that has been registered. The Public Guardian will rectify every such error brought to her attention.
To his question on whether transactions relying on an electronic copy containing a relevant error would still be valid, the answer is yes. The new section 16A of the MCA, which is inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, protects donees who have acted in reliance on the electronic copy without knowing of the relevant error and third parties who have transacted in good faith without knowing of the relevant error.
I thank Mr Louis Ng for his careful scrutiny of the Bill's provisions and wish to clarify that the new section 10D, inserted by clause 3 of the Bill, addresses errors or omissions arising from a malfunction of OPGO when the transaction in question is performed via the system. The new section 10D is not intended to cover rectification of any relevant error arising from the process of converting hard copy LPAs to electronic copies.
Mr Seah Kian Peng proposed to require express verification from the donors and donees before the electronic copy is treated as the LPA. We have made a considered decision not to do so. Let me explain.
Firstly, the risk of such errors is very low as there is neither entry nor extraction of new data.
Secondly, in the rare chance that there are errors in the electronic copy after the 90-day period, the Public Guardian may still rectify the error under the new section 15A of the MCA.
Thirdly, the 90-day cut-off provides certainty in the LPA's status and allows confident transactions.
Donees and third parties will also be protected if they had respectively acted in reliance on the electronic copy or had transacted in good faith without knowing of the relevant error. We do not wish to inconvenience most donors and donees to cater for an unlikely scenario.
Miss Cheryl Chan made a few technical queries. First, on considerations for disclosing non-confidential information – this may be disclosed to Public Sector agencies or the public at large for reasons of public education or interest, for example, to correct any falsehoods regarding LPA statistics.
Second, on whether access to confidential information contained in the LPA will be restricted – subsidiary legislations will be amended such that only donors, donees and transacting third parties authorised by the donor or donee may access this information. Others seeking access would need the Public Guardian's approval to search the LPA register.
Third, on the next steps should a donee or donor object to the proposed rectification or update of the Public Guardian's register – under the new section 33A of the Act, which is inserted by clause 14 of the Bill, the Public Guardian must not proceed with the rectification or updating if the person objects unless the Public Guardian is satisfied that the objection is frivolous, vexatious or has been withdrawn. As rectifications would be based on information obtained from other Singapore Public Sector agencies, objections would be unlikely.
Mr Louis Ng asked if MSF has incorporated lessons from the United Kingdom's online system for LPAs. I wish to clarify that the UK's service does not allow for the online registration of electronic LPAs. The LPA must still be printed and signed using wet ink signatures before submitting it to the UK OPG. What the UK's online service allows is the conversion of the hard copy registered LPAs into online summaries of the LPAs that can be shared with transacting parties.
In contrast, OPGO digitalises the entire LPA process, including the online creation of digitally-signed LPAs. Given this, comparisons between OPGO and the UK's online system might not be apt but I take Mr Louis Ng's point on the need to ensure that the roll-out is smooth. We have conducted extensive stakeholder engagements and will involve them in User Acceptance Tests. OPG will also be training Certificate Issuers on the use of OPGO.
Let me now address the third theme: cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity risks are not new but they are especially pertinent in light of important documents like the LPA. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Yip Hon Weng for raising their concerns.
OPGO will be housed under the Government Commercial Cloud. Cybersecurity measures will be in place to protect against hacking and data compromise. For example, Personal Identifiable Information will be encrypted.
To address unscheduled system outage, OPGO data would be backed up daily across multiple geographical locations or zones in Singapore. OPGO will run across these multiple zones to provide better infrastructure resilience and scalability for business operations. Thus, in the unlikely event of a system outage, we expect OPGO to be restored and tested within a reasonable timeframe, possibly within a day, so that users can continue their LPA applications by the next day. Users will be informed of the disruption and may contact OPG's hotline for help.
The Public Guardian will also check through all the LPAs submitted during the period of malfunction. Should there be any issues, Miss Cheryl Chan may be assured that the Public Guardian will rectify it as soon as possible and notify the donors and donees affected within seven days of its rectification.
As these issues are likely to be easily rectified – for example, a person's NRIC being keyed in twice – donors and donees need not be too alarmed. If a donor or donee spots any discrepancies in the electronic LPA after OPGO has been restored, he or she can contact the Public Guardian to rectify it.
I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for her suggestion to expand the protection clauses within the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to cater for scenarios arising from cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches. We will work closely across the Government as we develop the system and the specific protection clauses required.
I wish to reassure Members that we have taken steps to prevent unauthorised access and distribution of the electronic LPAs.
The electronic LPA will only be accessible to the donors and donees after they log on to OPGO. Donors or donees may share the LPA with third parties by making the request in OPGO and providing the email address of the transacting party to receive the electronic LPA. OPG will send a password-protected LPA to the transacting party. Only parties authorised by the donors or donees may view the LPA.
Stringent security measures also prevent changes to the contents of the electronic LPAs without the donor or donee's knowledge when the document is signed with Singpass. If the LPA is compromised, the changes will be detected and the digital signature will be reflected as invalid, thereby disabling it from being used.
Many Members have made suggestions for further safeguards to protect donors, donees and third parties. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked for MSF to reconsider the removal of a witness for the donees’ signature. We have assessed that the risks of doing so are very low.
First, the donee must log on to OPGO using Singpass 2FA. With 2FA, the donee must first enter his Singpass ID and password and, thereafter, enter a One-Time Pin (OTP) sent via SMS or use Face Verification. Alternatively, the donee may log on to OPGO using the Singpass application. These provide an additional security layer to prove the donee’s identity.
Second, OPGO will send notifications to a donee at various points while the LPA is being created. As the donee is kept informed in real time, he or she can alert OPG if someone is impersonating him or her.
Third, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Yeo Wan Ling may be assured that even as we go digital, we have retained the most important safeguard for donors to execute the LPA in the presence of the Certificate Issuer. This ensures that the donor has the mental capacity to make his or her LPA, including that the donee appointed is the person intended by the donor. The class of professionals who may be Certificate Issuers are scoped to those whom we are confident possess the qualifications to certify that the donor understands the purpose and scope of the LPA.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked to consider at least one meeting between donors, donees and Certificate Issuers or between Certificate Issuer and donees. I seek Members’ understanding that we are aiming to strike a right balance between safeguards and convenience. There is, currently, no requirement for donees to be present when the donor visits the Certificate Issuer. It may be difficult for donors and donees to arrange a common time and space, given our work and family commitments. This is especially so if the donees are overseas at the time of the donor’s execution of the LPA. We wish to retain this convenience so that the LPA-making process is as accessible as possible.
Furthermore, the donor should choose a person he trusts to make decisions on his or her behalf. Should there be any doubts on the donee’s mental capacity, the donor would not have appointed him or her. If more than one donee is appointed, any other concerned donee may also object to the registration of the LPA during the mandatory three-week waiting period.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked to consider additional protection measures before a donee may use the LPA to transact. Miss Cheryl Chan had suggested for the Public Guardian to authenticate the medical report so that transacting parties are assured of its validity. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng proposed that all donees should notify OPG of their intention to exercise their authority, especially for major decisions, before doing so. And these are all good suggestions.
Today, the MCA already allows a third party to require a donee to produce a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, stating that the donor’s lack of capacity is likely to be permanent, for matters involving a donor’s property. Transacting parties may refuse to accept the donee’s authority if the donee does not comply. Clause 7 of the Bill will amend section 13(10) of the MCA to also enable transacting parties to require donees to produce such a certificate for transactions involving the donor’s personal welfare.
I am not inclined towards a Statutory Declaration as this requires donees to seek a Commissioner for Oaths, which incurs more costs. We must not unnecessarily penalise the majority of cases that do not involve fraud.
The OPGO process will also address some of the Members’ concerns, namely, the donee will need to declare on OPGO that the donor has lost mental capacity before transacting using the LPA. OPG will also continue to remind stakeholders to conduct their due diligence checks and verify that the maker of the medical report is a doctor with a valid licence.
Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendment to allow the Public Guardian to disclose to the donor certain information concerning the donees. They wish to clarify the process and how OPG could detect such occurrences.
OPG has a register of LPAs. The system will alert the Public Guardian if any prospective donee has been appointed as donee in multiple LPAs. The Public Guardian will assess the flagged case and interview the donor, if necessary. Potential red flags, as Mr Don Wee noted, may include cases where the donee is unrelated to any of the donors. The Public Guardian may also receive whistle-blowing complaints on the proposed donee.
Mr Louis Ng raised an important point on whether the Public Guardian would intervene, regardless of the donor’s stated wishes. A key principle in the MCA is to respect the decision of a person with mental capacity. We must respect the donor’s wishes should he or she knowingly appoints a donee with multiple doneeships or declines to attend an interview with the Public Guardian, a possible scenario that Ms Sylvia Lim raised.
Nonetheless, should the Public Guardian have evidence of fraud or undue pressure, she may seek the Court’s directions under existing section 17 of the MCA on whether the LPA should be registered. For Mr Melvin Yong’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s information, the Public Guardian would interview the donor to assess if the donor had voluntarily made the LPA. If necessary, the Public Guardian may rely on her existing powers to obtain further information to determine the issue. This approach would similarly be taken for cases that Miss Cheryl Chan has raised, for example, when the donor is already experiencing an early onset of dementia.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the Public Guardian could interview persons other than the donor. The Public Guardian may exercise her investigative powers under the existing section 32 of the MCA to interview any person who has the relevant information relating to a donor who has lost mental capacity. As the number of doneeship appointments is confidential, we need to be careful on how much is shared and with whom. Thus, under the new section 31A of the MCA, we have enabled the Public Guardian to disclose this information to the donor only so that he or she may make an informed decision.
Mr Don Wee suggested additional measures to screen potential donees. For example, Mr Seah Kian Peng asked to require the Public Guardian to disclose multiple doneeships in all cases. I wish to clarify that the intent of the amendment is to cover select cases where there are reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the LPA-making process. With more than 95% of donees being trusted family members who are chosen by donors themselves, we agree with Ms Sylvia Lim that multiple doneeships are not uncommon. For instance, a daughter may be appointed as donee for her father, mother and husband. The Certificate Issuer will also have certified that the donor is not under undue pressure or fraud to appoint a particular person as donee. The Public Guardian will exercise her discretion judiciously when disclosing the donees’ information in the exceptional cases where fraud or undue pressure is suspected.
Mr Murali Pillai also proposed that the Public Guardian be allowed to disclose other relevant information which is material to the donor’s decision when appointing the donee, for example, if the donee has prior criminal convictions. I thank Mr Murali for his suggestion and will consider this for future amendments.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if there is any recourse for mismanagement or breach of trust committed by the donee which does not require going to the Court. It is important that donors appoint donees whom they trust. But in the rare case where a donee abuses his or her powers, the Public Guardian is empowered to investigate the case and may apply to the Court under the existing section 17 of the MCA to revoke the LPA. Application to the Court is necessary as the Court plays the role as the finder of facts to determine whether mismanagement or breach of trust has occurred. That said, the concerned party need only report the case to the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian can then take the case to Court, if necessary.
On Mr Gan’s suggestion to explore insurance for donors and donees to protect against the risk of legal suits, we will take this feedback onboard but we are mindful that this may incur higher costs for both donors and donees.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also raised another query regarding simplified dispute resolution options for disputing donors, donees and family members. Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, conflicts may arise because of a communication breakdown or misunderstanding. It may not be easy but I would encourage all disputing parties to talk through their differences. OPG may also refer these cases to mediation, family conferencing or counselling.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked what might constitute \"good reasons\" where remote witnessing may be required. These include cases where the person has contracted a highly contagious disease such that a Certificate Issuer may not visit in person. Under such exceptional circumstances, prior application by the donor is needed for the Public Guardian to assess the merits of the case and to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place for remote witnessing. OPG will seek inputs from the various stakeholders on the safeguards and ensure that all the operational details are worked through before we implement this.
Finally, let me move on to the last theme regarding Members’ suggestions for future developments in the mental capacity space. Ms Denise Phua, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Don Wee asked if there are plans to further simplify and expedite the deputyship process. Many cases have benefited from the time and cost savings arising from the simplified deputyship application track. But I agree that more can be done. We note the Members’ suggestions and will continue to explore ways to improve the process.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Xie Yao Quan emphasised the importance of a holistic pre-planning package. We wholeheartedly agree. My Ministry has been working closely with MOH to encourage citizens to pre-plan and to make their LPAs and Advance Care Plans together. The Advance Care Plan allows a person to consider their care preferences and communicate their wishes to their \"healthcare spokesperson\", who can speak on their behalf in the future. Ideally, the donee will take on the role of the healthcare spokesperson so that he or she may not only communicate but also make the decisions.
Ms Hany Soh and Mr Yip Hon Weng would be pleased to know that the My Legacy portal already has an LPA-ACP tool which guides users to complete both forms. We are working with the My Legacy team to allow for system interfaces between OPGO and My Legacy, such that online LPA applications can be made on My Legacy, too. This will enable Singaporeans to consider making an LPA as they plan for other end-of-life matters. OPGO will also encourage donors to nominate their donees as their \"healthcare spokespersons\". I also thank Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their suggestions to integrate the LPA into relevant healthcare protocols and Government processes, such as CPF nomination reviews.
In the same spirit, Ms Denise Phua had asked if the Certificate Issuer pool could be expanded to other professionals. My Ministry will review this feasibility. Currently, Singaporeans may refer to OPG’s website for the list of more than 7,000 Certificate Issuers. OPGO will also include a search function enabling donors to locate the Certificate Issuers by location.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the electronic LPAs would be automatically updated on the National Electronic Health Records system. We are working to automatically approve search requests submitted in OPGO by pre-approved agencies, such as hospitals. This will ensure healthcare professionals and providers can retrieve search results in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Patrick Tay have raised some concerns on the costs of making an LPA. Let me address them.
First, there will be no additional costs incurred when making an LPA electronically. We have extended the LPA Form 1 application fee waiver for Singaporeans to 31 March 2023. I, therefore, urge all Singaporeans to take advantage of the waiver and OPGO to make your LPA.
Second, regarding Ms Soh’s query on whether we will waive the fees permanently, we will review this and share more when we are ready.
Third, Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Certificate Issuer fees may be waived, subsidised or benchmarked. OPG does not prescribe the fees charged as LPA certification is a professional service. However, the top 10 most visited Certificate Issuers are published on OPG’s website. As at January this year, the majority of the top 10 most visited doctors charged $50 or less, especially for senior citizens. For those needing financial assistance, the OPG website lists not-for-profit providers offering subsidised LPA certification services. They include Life Point's LPA One-Stop Services, Potter's Place Community Services Society and Mount Alvernia Outreach Medical Clinic @ Enabling Village.
I fully agree with Ms Denise Phua, Mr Don Wee, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Xie Yao Quan's call for more Singaporeans to make their LPA.
In my opening speech, I have outlined how digitalisation would ease this LPA-making process. Ms Denise Phua would be pleased to learn that MSF has been working closely with other Ministries and community partners to raise awareness on pre-planning. As mentioned, we work with the Silver Generation Ambassadors to reach out to seniors and their care-givers.
While we have halted temporarily our physical roadshows due to the pandemic, OPG has continued to engage hospitals, banks, Senior Activity Centres and so on, to conduct virtual talks on LPA for their staff and clients. But we can do more to widen our outreach in a sustained manner. There are plans for a pre-planning campaign which will leverage digital and ground channels to reach out to all Singaporeans.
I am also heartened by Mr Patrick Tay's sharing about the live webinar and economical pre-planning packages he had embarked on for his Pioneer constituency and hope that other Members would consider similar efforts in their constituencies.
I am glad that Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Seah Kian Peng had pointed out the taboo amongst seniors regarding LPAs and the misconceptions that some younger Singaporeans hold about pre-planning.
I understand that the conversation about losing mental capacity can be difficult to broach. But it is better to be prepared than to leave matters unclear for our families should we lose mental capacity.
Fortunately, more young Singaporeans are grasping the importance of pre-planning. Since 2010, we have about 30,000 donors below the age of 50. The full breakdown of the donors and donees by age is available on OPG's website. We will continue to educate Singaporeans and stakeholders to address these misconceptions and promote pre-planning before considering more drastic measures like default LPAs.
Mr Louis Chua asked if there is an aspirational target for the number of LPAs that we want to achieve. The truth is that the LPA take-up rate has been rising quite rapidly. From just 346 registered LPAs in 2010, we now have more than 20,000 LPAs registered just in the first six months of this year alone.
My point is that we are moving in the right direction. So, targets aside, what we ought to do is to facilitate the LPA-making process and the launch of OPGO is yet another step to this end.
Finally, Mr Leon Perera asked if MSF would explore supported decision-making.
Firstly, as has been pointed out, donors should choose donees whom they trust and that includes trusting them to know their interests and wishes. The current MCA also requires donees to take all practicable steps to help the donor to make a decision before treating him as being unable to do so. Family members who are the vast majority of donees are also well-placed to support their donors in making their decisions as much as possible. For unrelated professional donors, they are required to draft a care plan and check in regularly with the donor to ensure that their wishes are respected to the fullest extent.
Madam, this Bill represents a significant step forward in balancing the convenience of making an electronic LPA while ensuring that necessary safeguards are in place. Citizens and third parties alike will also have more confidence in transacting with the most up-to-date electronic LPAs. Digitalisation of the LPA and other transactions with the Office of the Public Guardian is especially timely, given the pandemic, which limits face-to-face interactions.
The LPA is an important pre-planning tool in ensuring peace of mind not only for ourselves but also for our family members and loved ones as they will know our wishes and can carry them out if we were to lose mental capacity.
With that, I thank all Members for your valuable inputs and support of this Bill. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: I do not believe there are any clarifications because the Parliamentary Secretary has been very diligent in answering all the questions.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Eric Chua]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Births and Deaths Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Second Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBDA) was enacted in 1937. It empowers the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to maintain a record of births and deaths in Singapore. This record is also important for policy-making and the provision of public services. It allows, for example, the Government to plan for the needs of our population in areas such as education and housing.
This Bill will repeal and re-enact the RBDA. The main objective is to streamline the birth, death and stillbirth reporting and registration processes. The Bill will introduce six key changes to the RBDA.
First, to mandate the reporting of every birth, death and stillbirth in Singapore as well as those on board an aircraft, vessel or train that is bound for Singapore.
Second, to streamline the birth registration process.
Third, to consolidate the registration of all births under the same legislation.
Fourth, to streamline the death registration process.
Fifth, to empower the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, or RG in short, to register births, deaths and stillbirths under special circumstances.
Sixth, to empower the RG and ICA officers to investigate and enforce against offences under the RBDA.
First, on reporting of birth, deaths and stillbirths. The current Act requires certain persons to register births, deaths and stillbirths but does not impose a mandatory reporting requirement. To be clear, reporting is different from registration. The reporting of a birth, death or stillbirth is an important first step. It alerts the relevant authorities to the occurrence of the event. After a birth, death or stillbirth is reported, the next step is registration. In the case of births, for example, the RG will register the birth after the parents or legally appointed persons have provided a name for the child and other birth particulars.
This Bill will impose a mandatory reporting requirement on persons defined in clauses 7, 22 and 32 for local births, deaths and stillbirths respectively. This includes a medical practitioner who attends to a birth in a hospital and, for deaths outside a hospital, an occupier of the premises who knows of the death. Failure to report, without a reasonable excuse, will result in a fine not exceeding $1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or both.
This does not include deaths reportable under the Coroners Act, such as unnatural deaths or deaths where the identity of the deceased is unknown. Such deaths will continue to be reported to the Police, as currently required under the Coroners Act.
The Bill expands the scope of the RBDA to include the reporting of births, deaths and stillbirths on board an aircraft, vessel or train – henceforth referred to as a conveyance – that is outside of but bound for Singapore.
Clause 10 of the Bill makes it mandatory for births on an inbound conveyance to be reported to the RG as soon as practicable after arrival in Singapore. Likewise, clauses 26 and 35 mandate that deaths and stillbirths on an inbound conveyance be reported to the Police as soon as practicable after arrival in Singapore.
Second, on streamlining the birth registration process. The current RBDA requires a parent of a child born in Singapore or any person who is present at the birth or in charge of the child to furnish the child's birth particulars to the RG within 14 days, so that the RG can register the birth. An application for registration made after 14 days but by 42 days after the child's birth is considered a delayed registration.
The concept of a delayed registration is no longer relevant in today's context and will be removed. The timeline of 42 days will provide sufficient time for the parents and legally appointed persons to provide the child's birth particulars, which include an appropriate name for the child.
An exception is made under clause 8 in the case of a child who dies within 42 days after birth. In such a case, the persons responsible for providing birth particulars are exempted from that requirement. Instead, the RG will register the birth on his own volition under clause 9 based on available particulars from the death reporting of the deceased child. This will relieve the grieving parents of the birth registration formalities during such a difficult time.
Third, on consolidating the registration of all births under the RBDA. Currently, the birth of an adopted child is registered or reregistered under the Adoption of Children Act while the birth of a child out of wedlock is legitimated and reregistered under the Legitimacy Act if the parents subsequently register their marriage. For a child to whom the Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act applies or who is legitimated under that Act, his or her birth is registered or re-registered in accordance with the current RBDA.
Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill will consolidate the registration of births currently in the Adoption of Children Act and the Legitimacy Act under the RBDA. This consolidation will impose the same registration requirements on all local births, such as the requirements and restrictions on the name of a child under clause 19. Clauses 16 to 18 will allow for births of children to whom the Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act applies, or who is legitimated under that Act to continue to be registered, or re-registered under the Bill.
Accordingly, the Adoption of Children Act, Legitimacy Act and Status of Children (Assisted Reproduction Technology) Act will be amended by clauses 64, 66 and 69 respectively.
Fourth, on streamlining the death registration process. Currently, two steps are needed to register a death in Singapore: (a) a medical practitioner certifies the death and issues an electronic Certificate of the Cause of Death (COD) Certificate. A printout of the certificate is then given to the deceased person’s relative; (b) the relative brings the COD Certificate to a registration centre, which are public hospitals, Neighbourhood Police Centres or Posts, or ICA, and applies for death registration.
Under the Bill, the second step will be removed. In other words, the relative will no longer need to provide the death particulars at a registration centre. As mentioned earlier, a death in Singapore, other than a reportable death under the Coroners Act, must be reported to a medical practitioner as soon as practicable. Upon receiving the report, the medical practitioner must examine the deceased person’s body as soon as practicable and ascertain relevant information regarding the circumstances of the death.
Thereafter, if the death is not a reportable death under the Coroners Act, the medical practitioner must, within 24 hours after examining the body, certify the death online by providing the cause of death and other death particulars to the RG under clause 23. The death will then be automatically registered by the RG under clause 24. Once the death is registered by the RG, the deceased person’s relative may download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website, a one-stop portal for post-death matters.
In the case of a reportable death under the Coroners Act, the deceased person’s relative also does not need to register the death. The RG will automatically register the death under clause 24 after receiving the Coroner’s certificate.
Fifth, on enhancing the powers of the RG to register births, deaths and stillbirths under special circumstances. I will cover the various special circumstances in turn.
Clause 9 empowers the RG to register a birth in Singapore on his own volition in the absence of complete birth particulars. This additional power is important for the welfare of children born in Singapore. It ensures that every child is given a legal identity and his or her presence is made known to other Government agencies, to allow for Government intervention or support if necessary. The RG will exercise this power if the responsible persons for a child fail to furnish the birth particulars for birth registration, and where attempts to contact the responsible persons are futile. In registering such a birth, the RG will give the child an appropriate name. Clause 20 provides that a responsible person may apply to the RG to change the name given by the RG within seven years after the child’s birth.
A second scenario is a local death where the deceased person’s body is destroyed, not recoverable or cannot be located. In these circumstances, currently, the deceased person’s family will need to wait for the issuance of a Coroner’s certificate before an application for death registration can be made.
Under clause 25 of the Bill, the RG may register such a death before a Coroner’s certificate is issued, if the RG is satisfied from the information and evidence provided as to the occurrence of the death in Singapore and the identity of the deceased person. This will allow the deceased person’s family to proceed with post-death matters in a more timely manner.
To determine that such a death has occurred in the absence of a body, the RG will rely on information and evidence from competent authorities, such as the Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, and any other relevant persons. If the RG is not satisfied that the death has occurred or cannot confirm the identity of the deceased person, he will not register the death. The deceased person’s family will then need to wait for the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquiry and the issuance of the Coroner’s certificate.
For clarity, this provision does not apply to missing persons. The next-of-kin of a missing person who wishes to have the missing person presumed by law to be dead will need to apply to the Court for the necessary order.
A third scenario is births, deaths and stillbirths on board a conveyance that is outside of, but bound for, Singapore. As mentioned earlier, clauses 10, 26 and 35 of the Bill impose a mandatory reporting requirement for such events. However, registration is not mandatory as the births, deaths and stillbirths did not happen in Singapore. The parents of a child or a stillborn child, and the relatives of a deceased person, can choose whether to register the event in Singapore, or only when they return to their home country.
Clauses 13, 27 and 36 will allow the RG to register such births, deaths and stillbirths, if the parents or relatives choose to and make an application to register the event in Singapore. This expanded scope of the RG’s powers will provide administrative ease in cases where a child, or a deceased person’s body, arrives in Singapore, and official documentation is needed by the receiving country to which the parents or relatives wish to bring the child or body. It also caters for instances where the home country of the child’s parents or the deceased person is not able to register the birth, death or stillbirth under its laws.
A fourth scenario is overseas deaths. Under clause 28, the RG may register the death of a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident, or PR, who dies overseas. This is provided that the deceased person’s body is brought back to Singapore and the death is not registered overseas. The relative of the deceased person must make an application within three months after the death and provide a medical document certifying the cause of death.
This expanded scope will cater to the registration of overseas deaths of Singaporeans and PRs that are not able to be registered overseas for some reason. This may include, for example, the temporary closure of government services overseas. The requirement for the body to be brought back to Singapore is to prevent fraudulent registration. Hence, this power does not extend to an overseas death where the body is not found. In such a case, the relative of the deceased person will need to apply to the Court for an order on the presumption of death, if the death is not registered with the foreign authorities.
Last but not least, the powers of the RG and ICA officers will be enhanced to facilitate investigation and enforcement against offences under the Bill.
Under clause 42, the RG will be empowered to obtain information required to perform his functions as well as ascertain whether a registrable event has occurred or whether a provision in the Act has been complied with. The RG will also be empowered under clause 44 to take possession of false or invalid documents produced in connection with the reporting and registration of births, deaths and stillbirths.
Under clauses 45 and 46, ICA officers who are appointed as authorised registration officers will be able to conduct searches and investigations.
The Bill also prescribes offences in clauses 48 to 53 in relation to: (a) the provision of false or misleading statement or information; (b) the unauthorised access to or interference with the registers; (c) the forging of or tampering with certificates or extracts; (d) the obstruction of the performance of functions or exercise of powers by the RG or an authorised registration officer; and (e) offences by corporations and unincorporated associations or partnerships.
In addition, the penalties under the Bill will be raised across the board to ensure deterrence, given that the penalties in the current Act have not been raised since 1937.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill provides for the streamlining of the reporting and registration processes for births, deaths and stillbirths, and expands the scope of the legislation to cater to a wider variety of scenarios. Let me summarise what the simplified processes will be for the large majority of the public.
First, for births. A woman gives birth to a child in a hospital. The attending medical practitioner files a Notification of Live Birth to report the birth to the RG; the parents do not need to do this. Anytime within 42 days after the birth, the parents must register the birth either online using the LifeSG mobile application or in person at ICA. Once this is done, the parents will receive a notification to download the digital birth certificate.
Second, for deaths. When a person passes away in a hospital, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. These death particulars are conveyed electronically to the RG, who will automatically register the death; the relatives no longer need to do this. The relatives may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.
For deaths that occur at home, a relative who is present must report the death to a medical practitioner, who will conduct a home visit to examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The RG will automatically register the death upon receiving the death particulars electronically from the medical practitioner, and the relative may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.
Third, for stillbirths. When a woman gives birth to a stillborn child in a hospital, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The stillbirth particulars are then conveyed electronically to the RG, who will automatically register the stillbirth; the parents no longer need to do this. The parents may then download the digital stillbirth certificate from the My Legacy website.
These amendments, Madam, will significantly increase convenience for the public. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill will help streamline the reporting and registration of births and deaths in Singapore. This is important because the reporting and registration of births and deaths is not just a bureaucratic process of record-keeping. But the registration of a birth and death can have far-reaching legal and social implications for the individuals.
I have three points to make on the registration of births.
My first point is on births with insufficient particulars. Under the new section 9(2), the Registrar-General may register a child’s birth based on incomplete particulars if the birth is capable of being registered on the basis of the incomplete particulars. Under section 9(3), the Registrar-General may also register a birth without a name for the child.
In such cases, a responsible person for the child must apply to register a name of the child within seven years of the birth. However, seven years is a very long time for a child not to have a registered name. Will MHA consider shortening this timeframe?
The Registrar-General has broad powers to obtain information under the new section 42(1). While the Bill places obligations on responsible persons for the registration of births, can the Minister clarify whether the Registrar-General or ICA will take a proactive approach in following up with the responsible persons in such cases of incomplete particulars or missing names? Taking a proactive approach where the responsible persons are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations is important as proper registration may have implications on the child who does not have any power over the registration process.
My second point is on the support to children who are stateless by being born in Singapore to non-citizen parents who did not or could not obtain citizenship for their children from their home countries.
Minister Shanmugam shared in February this year that as of 30 November 2020, there were 1,109 stateless people living in Singapore. Of this number, about three-quarters are Singapore Permanent Residents, or PRs.
I understand that ICA evaluates every application for PR or citizenship on a range of criteria and the applicant's circumstances. Can the Minister share if ICA informs other Ministries, in particular, MSF, of children registered at birth as stateless to ensure that these children do not fall through the gaps in social and educational support?
I appreciate that citizenship has to be granted based on careful assessment of a range of factors. I also appreciate that some degree of social and educational support is already extended to stateless children with PR status. However, stateless children and their families have to jump through additional bureaucratic hoops in order to obtain social and educational support.
Even where citizenship cannot be immediately granted, can the ICA work together with other Ministries to make it easier for stateless children to obtain the necessary support, or even to proactively reach out to this group of who may be more vulnerable without the guarantees and protections of citizenship?
My third point is about children born to single unwed mothers. These are children who do not have a father named on their birth certificate or who have a father named on the birth certificate who is not married to the mother.
In November 2018, MSF shared that the median incomes of single unwed parents below 35 years old was in the range of $500 to $700 from the years of 2013 to 2017.
Can the Minister share whether ICA informs MSF when a birth is registered without a father or with a father who is not married to the mother, so that appropriate support, where needed, can be offered to these mothers right from the start?
For instance, ECDA works with the Social Service Offices, Family Service Centres and hospitals to reach out to pregnant mothers and families who can benefit from KidSTART. I understand from some single unwed mothers that social workers have approached mothers at the hospital to provide support.
Can the Minister share if there is a system of informing MSF of all children who are, again, born to single unwed mothers, whether in hospitals or otherwise, so that MSF can look into extending the necessary support to these families? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Births and Deaths Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the new Registration of Births and Deaths Bill is an improved framework that overhauls and streamlines the registration of the two events that bookend every human life as it were: births and deaths. It provides clear rules on who holds the responsibility to report to the Government in the event of birth or death under a wide range of foreseeable scenarios. While I support the Bill, I have a few clarifications to seek.
Firstly, in respect of birth registrations, I would like to confirm that double-barrelled surnames are allowed and provided for under the Bill and its processes. In the current Registration of Births and Deaths Act, section 10 provides guidance on how a child's surname is given although there is no explicit reference to double-barrelled surnames. Currently, parents are able to register their child with a double-barrelled surname if they choose to do so. However, under the Bill, there is no longer any reference to surname. Could the Minister give us some guidance to the kinds of surnames that would be permissible for the child?
Secondly, I would like to speak on double-barrelled race designations. With inter-ethnic marriages going up from 18.4% of all marriages in 2009 to 22.9% in 2019, it is important for children of such unions to have the opportunity to grow up with an appreciation of their mixed parentage, if their parents choose to signify that by choosing double-barrelled race classifications for their children. As a parent of children of mixed ethnicity myself, I am particularly conscious of this.
In 2011, ICA implemented the registration of double-barrelled race options for Singaporean children born to parents of different ethnic groups. By this new option, if one parent is Chinese and the other is Indian, the child's race may be recorded as Chinese, or Indian, or Chinese-Indian, or Indian-Chinese, for example.
In this respect, I wonder if the Registry of Births and Deaths is able to provide some indication of trends, in similar fashion to what is reported on marriages, on the proportion of births to parents of different ethnicities. Amongst them, what is the proportion of children who have been assigned double-barrelled race by their parents? I note that in the first two months of 2011, the parents of one in five newborn babies of mixed parentage chose the double-barrelled race option based on data that the Government released back then.
I also wonder if the Ministry would consider streamlining the process by which parents of mixed ethnicity can apply to change the racial classification on their child's NRIC to a double-barrelled racial classification in cases where the child was registered at birth as bearing solely one ethnicity as they would have had to be prior to 2011.
Anecdotally, it would appear that both parents need to visit ICA for a physical interview in order to effect this change. Could the parents be enabled to provide their consent digitally or via a virtual meeting, for example?
Furthermore, the Chinese-Indian example given by ICA in their website falls within the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) framework. Is it also possible to assign double-barrelled race classifications to a child in Singapore that is outside the CMIO framework, for example, Chinese-Burmese or Korean-Vietnamese? Like surnames, there appear to be no explicit rules in respect of designation of race of the child in the Bill.
Next, ICA states in their website that it currently includes the option for parents to include ethnic characters of the child's name in Chinese, Jawi or Tamil. Given the increasing ethnic diversity in our demographic make-up, will the ICA also be open to requests for other ethnic characters as well? Moreover, if the child is of mixed ethnicity, will they also be given the option to have their name spelled out in two sets of ethnic characters?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, from the subject of births, I shall now move to the subject of deaths, as, in reality, we all eventually do in life.
I understand that obtaining the death certificate is essential for identification and authentication purposes before some funeral services can be provided for the deceased. At present, the next-of-kin would have to express the preferred mode of disposal, cremation or burial when they register the death. The next-of-kin would then receive a permit to bury or cremate contained in the death certificate. Based on that, a funeral director would then be able to proceed to book slots for cremation or burial. A death certificate may also be required to engage your funeral director in order for services, such as the embalming of bodies and the use of funeral parlour compounds, to be performed.
Would the Bill possibly inadvertently bring about delays in the funeral arrangements in some cases, especially if the death occurs at home and the medical practitioner would need to return to his or her office to register the death electronically – and he or she could possibly be delayed in performing that action by the need to attend to other medical cases, for example? There is a 24-hour time restriction for medical practitioners to report a death but when making funeral arrangements, a matter of hours can cause inconvenience and emotional distress. I would like to ask the Ministry how this issue would be managed.
On a separate but not unrelated note, I would like to ask if funeral service providers were consulted in the course of formulating this Bill.
Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify how relatives, who are not digitally-savvy, would be able to receive the death certificate once it has issued.
Relatives need this death certificate in order to commence funeral preparations and in their state of grief, they may be anxious to obtain it as soon as possible. I understand that the new system allows for the process to be performed online and a digital notification will be sent to the relative to download the digital death certificate from the Government's online portal when it is ready.
However, there may be cases – admittedly, perhaps, not too many – when none of the relatives of the deceased who are planning the funeral are IT literate. Would provisions be made in such cases to enable the relatives to collect a physical copy of the death certificate at a location that is nearby? Alternatively, will the relatives be able to enlist the help of a funeral director, for example, to access the digital death certificate on their behalf if they give their consent?
In conclusion, under this Bill, I also note that there is no longer a need to surrender the deceased person's identification card for invalidation. However, the Bill highlights that the family should destroy the identification card to prevent abuse.
Based from feedback from the funeral service industry, funeral directors often come to possess the NRIC of the deceased person. Some funeral service providers may accumulate many such NRICs over time. This creates the potential for criminal use to be made of these cards if they fall into the wrong hands.
In view of this, will the Government consider requiring all funeral service providers and any unrelated persons in possession of physical NRICs of deceased persons to destroy those cards?
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill. Simplifying the registration process and digitalising it will bring more convenience to our people. In order to become a Smart City, it is necessary to digitalise the births and deaths registration process. This will strengthen Government agencies' capability in identification and verification to provide better services for the people.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will still keep a hard copy of the registration records just in case, for example, the electronic system fails or if data is lost. The latest technologies, such as blockchain, can prevent theft and hacking, ensuring that electronic data be stored permanently and securely. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider adding an extra layer of protection to our registration records through different data retention methods.
I support the new regulation proposed by the Ministry to make it mandatory for persons responsible to report births and deaths to the authorities, doctors or the Police as soon as possible.
Being born in our country does not mean that the babies will automatically acquire citizenship. I would like to check if this policy will change and I would also like to ask the Minister how many foreign babies are born here each year and how many of them are granted citizenship. So far, how many newborns are not registered or abandoned by their parents each year? Does our country have institutions or facilities to accept abandoned babies?
Finally, I would like to ask the Ministry how many death registration applications are received each year to register the death of persons who are missing or whose whereabouts are unknown as a result of accidents or natural disasters.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, coming on the heels of the recent publication of Census 2020, it is important for relevant Government agencies to be updated and have accurate records such as the registration of both births and deaths in Singapore. These records assist in ensuring that our population data is accurate and allows us to use this information to plan and enact policies to respond to the needs of our population.
That said, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister of State for Home Affairs on certain provisions of this Bill in four areas.
One, the present Bill seeks to streamline and digitise the death registration process. The new process requires a medical practitioner to certify and submit the death of a person online following which the death certificate is issued digitally. I also understand that the doctor or hospital can assist in printing the certificate for families who have difficulties accessing the digital certificates. Could the Minister of State clarify if this new process will result in increased fees compared to the current process since, for example, the doctor will now have to print the certificate or is it envisaged for it to be without charge?
Two, I also note that according to the Second Schedule in the current Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, there is a listing of fees such as persons are required to pay a $40 fee for certified extract of birth or death from the register in Forms L and M respectively. May I also clarify with the Minister of State if there will be similar fees if families at a later stage want to get a digital extract?
Third, the Bill also requires in some cases under clause 22(2)(d) the duty for reporting of a death to fall on persons that may not be at all related or associated to the deceased, therefore, there is this undue burden, failing which the person will be considered guilty of an offence and fined up to $1,500 and/or imprisonment of up to a month. The Minister of State had earlier mentioned about unnatural death briefly. So, for the clarity of the public, can the Minister of State clarify if, for example, a person on a morning jog finds a dead body and calls the Police, would the person still be liable to report the death to a medical practitioner under this section? Will alerting the death to the authorities suffice to discharge such a person from the duties the Bill now appears to place on that person?
And four, I have come across a resident whose parents passed away overseas and have not been able to get the death certificate even after he claimed the relevant agencies had assisted him to contact their counterparts in the foreign country. The body was not brought back to Singapore and he, therefore, is unable to bring closure to their estate matters after many years.
Can the Minister of State clarify if the process to prevent fraud for such cases has been streamlined and if the Registrar-General will have the discretion to register a death that has occurred outside Singapore? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in concluding, I support this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the amendments that come with this Bill. The Bill will not only streamline the process and help the registration of births and deaths through the use of digital platforms but, more importantly, it will also help reduce the possibility of errors and quicken the administrative process for registration of deaths within which grieving families have to go through to lay their loved ones to rest. Allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill will enable doctors to certify and manage the registration of deaths online without requiring the relative of the deceased person to register at the hospital, police station or ICA. This will help to simplify and expedite the funeral arrangements process.
The process of funeral arrangements and burial is an important one for Muslims. It is a collective religious obligation of Muslims and it is a priority for our community to complete this process without delay, so that the burial can take place as soon as practicable.
The Pusara Aman Mosque near the Pusara Aman Cemetery, which is also located within the Keat Hong ward in Chua Chu Kang, is one of several mosques that actively serve Muslims in our country by providing facilities for funeral arrangements before burial takes place at the Pusara Aman Cemetery. In fact, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the previous circuit breaker period, our mosques like the Pusara Aman Mosque are also busy serving those in our community whose family members have passed away.
During my visits, I was informed that the mosques also saw an increase in funeral arrangements done within the mosque compound as compared to last time. This is, perhaps, due to COVID-19 restrictions and also because new flats are less sizeable and have space limitations, making it difficult for the deceased person’s family to make funeral arrangements and perform funeral prayers in their own home. Therefore, mosques have been helping to make between eight and 10 funeral arrangements daily. With Singapore’s ageing population, this may increase in the future.
The implementation of digital technology put forth in this Bill will help to reduce the likelihood of mistakes in the death registration process that may be caused by human error.
Allow me to give one example. I was informed about a case last year that happened at the Pusara Aman Mosque. In the hustle and bustle of funeral arrangements, an error occurred in one of the death registrations, where the signature and reference number columns were not filled in by the agency and the family of the deceased person. Due to that, the burial could not proceed on the same day until the certificate was corrected. The Police and family of the deceased person eventually re-registered the death and obtained a new certificate. However, by the time the process was completed, it was too late in the day and the burial could only take place the next day.
Therefore, I welcome the provisions in this Bill that will help to expedite and facilitate the death registration process in Singapore. With this, I hope that it will also mitigate the risk of errors occurring during registration.
I also support the provisions that require all deaths in Singapore to be reported as soon as practicable.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
(In English): Notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications. On the registration of deaths, I have four clarifications.
Firstly, I share the same concerns raised by hon Member Mr Derrick Goh on costs. Would there be any safeguards against extra charges or costs to be borne since doctors are now not only certifying deaths, but they are also helping to submit the certification online?
Secondly, on categories of responsible persons to report the death under section 22, would the definition of an occupier also extend to persons who have the power or access to such premises, for example, landlords or warehouse owners?
Thirdly, in cases where there is more than one responsible person, section 22(4) discharges responsibility of every other responsible persons by the compliance of just one responsible person, even if there was an earlier opportunity to report by that other person. Would it be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are more than one responsible person who can report? For example, take the case if person A could have made the report earlier in time but deliberately did not do so and, subsequently, person B reported the death. By section 22(4), person A would have been absolved from liability, notwithstanding that his deliberate omission goes against the mandatory requirement of reporting \"as soon as practicable after the death\" and the intent of the Bill to promote expeditious reporting.
On the registration of births, I welcome the amendments to make it mandatory for all births to be reported. Currently, all hospital births, or children brought to the hospital within 24 hours of being born, are reported but it is not mandatory for births outside of hospitals to be reported to the authorities. Now, almost anyone, including parents or a proxy on behalf of the parents, can provide the child's birth particulars to ICA for registration within 42 days from the date of birth. I have two clarifications in this regard.
Firstly, I seek the same clarifications I sought before on the categories of responsible persons to report deaths here. Similarly, for the reporting of births.
Secondly, I have compared section 7(2)(e) on the reporting of births in any other places with section 22(2)(d) on reporting of deaths in any other places. For reporting of births in any other places, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for reporting of deaths in any other places, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. What is MHA’s rationale for this distinction? Can MHA also consider placing the obligation of reporting of birth on a relative of the parents who knows or have knowledge of such birth? This will be useful in situations where the parents themselves breach such registration requirements and where the birth did not occur in the premises which are occupied by relatives.
My last clarification is a general one on ICA's own resourcing. Under the new rules, ICA officers would take over investigation of offences relating to the registration of births and deaths. Would ICA be forming a new department in this regard? If not, under which department would such investigations fall under?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it provides greater ease of death registrations and it is a step in the right direction to mandate registration of births.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and thoughtful feedback on this Bill.
To summarise, this Bill will bring about three key benefits: first, the Bill will provide greater convenience to Singaporeans through streamlined registration processes; second, the Bill will cater for an expanded scope of registration scenarios; third, the Bill will strengthen ICA's enforcement powers.
Please allow me to address the questions from the Members in turn. I thank Members for their support of the digitalisation of our registration regime. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim said that the new digitalised process would reduce errors. This will indeed be the case. This will also save time for members of the public and the public sector. We estimate that a total of about 18,000 hours per year can be saved by members of the public and the relevant Government agencies from not having to perform over-the-counter death registrations.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will still keep a hard copy of the registration records in case the electronic system fails and the data is lost. While ICA will not be keeping hard copy records for registrations done digitally, measures are taken to ensure that the data of the digital records are backed up at alternate secured sites and retrievable in the event of system failures.
Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Derrick Goh asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service, which they are already using currently to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by the private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.
Mr Derrick Goh asked if fees would be imposed for extracts from the registers, given that they will be issued digitally. To clarify, the digitalisation of documents will start with birth, death and stillbirth certificates that will be issued when the new Act comes into force. The issuance of digital extracts for births, deaths and stillbirths that are registered before the new Act comes into force will be introduced in a later phase. Regardless of the format of the extract, there is still a need to recover the costs for providing this service. ICA is reviewing the fee amount. If the costs have come down, the fees will be revised accordingly.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised questions regarding the categories of responsible persons and their duties to report births and deaths under the Bill.
Under clause 7, where a birth occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the child's parents and the occupier of the premises who knows of the birth in the premises are responsible for the reporting of the birth. Under the Bill, an occupier for any premises includes a person who has control of, or is managing, the premises. For example, the management of a mall who knows of a birth in the mall, or the owner of an apartment who knows of a birth in the apartment, will be responsible for reporting the birth. In most cases, we would expect the parents to be responsible for reporting the birth.
Under clause 22, where a death occurs in any premises other than in a hospital, the relative of the deceased person who is present at the death, and the occupier of the premises who knows of the death in the premises, are responsible for reporting the death. In most cases, we would expect the relatives to be responsible for reporting the death.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim highlighted that for births that occur in a place other than hospitals, premises and conveyances, the responsibility falls squarely on the parents only. However, for the reporting of deaths in any other place, the responsibility falls on, inter alia, every relative of the deceased person who knows of the death. He asked for MHA's rationale for this difference. He also asked whether the relatives of a child should also be included as responsible persons who should report the child's birth under clause 7(2).
The situations surrounding births and deaths are different. For a newborn child, the parents are the responsible persons who will need to care for the child. Hence, they are legally required to report the birth. Under the current Act, ICA occasionally encounters birth registrations by persons other than the parents, such as a relative of the child. While ICA will continue to accept reports of births from relatives who are aware of the births, we do not want to burden the relatives with the legal obligation to report or be penalised for failing to report the birth. This responsibility falls on the child's parents.
For a deceased person passing away in any other place, the circumstances of death and the persons who may know of the death may be vastly different for each case. A deceased person could have died alone or in the company of a relative or a non-related person. Hence, the provision under clause 22(2)(d) provides for a wider scope of responsible persons than that for births under clause 7(2)(e).
As for the scenario mentioned by Mr Derrick Goh of a jogger who finds a dead body, the death will fall under the purview of the Coroners Act as a reportable death since it is likely that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances. For a reportable death, the jogger is obligated under section 5 of the Coroners Act to report it to a Police officer as soon as possible. As the death is not under the scope of clause 22 of the Bill, the jogger does not need to report the death to a medical practitioner.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked if it would be useful for ICA to still retain some powers to investigate non-reporting offences in cases where there are multiple responsible persons who can report. Under clause 22(4), as long as a responsible person reports a death, the duty of every other responsible person is discharged. This is because once a report has been made and a medical practitioner is alerted to the death, the purpose of the reporting requirement is met. However, if no responsible person reports the death, all responsible persons, who do not have a reasonable excuse, shall be guilty of the offence of failing to report the death. This provides sufficient deterrence against the failure to report a death while achieving the aim of ensuring that each death is reported by at least one responsible person.
To answer Mr Derrick Goh's query on overseas deaths, yes, the RG may register the overseas death of a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident under clause 28 if the death is not registered overseas. This is provided that the body of the deceased person is brought to Singapore and an application is made by a relative of the deceased person within three months of the death, accompanied by a document issued by a medical practitioner that certifies the cause of death and other death particulars of the deceased person.
Mr Gan asked about death registration for missing persons. In the past five years, the Police received an average of about 1,700 missing persons reports per year. The next-of-kin of a missing person who wishes to have the missing person presumed by law to be dead will need to apply to the Court for the necessary order. This process is governed by the Evidence Act and will remain so. Once the next-of-kin obtains the Court order, they can inform ICA to update the person's status in its system. This information will be shared with other agencies to facilitate other post-death matters. ICA will also issue a letter of acknowledgement to the next-of-kin when they report the presumption of death to ICA. In the past five years, ICA encountered an average of five reports per year in relation to such Court orders.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about newborn children whose births are not registered by the child's parents or who have been abandoned by their parents. In 2020, 72 births were not registered within 42 days. This makes up less than 0.2% of total births in Singapore. Out of these 72 births, most parents do come forward to register the births after reminders from ICA. Due to ICA's efforts to trace the parents, the number of cases of parents who fail to register their child's birth is very low. Nevertheless, the Bill will provide powers for the RG to register such births on his own volition when the parents fail to do so despite ICA's efforts to contact and remind them.
As for abandoned babies, such cases are relatively rare in Singapore. MSF's Child Protection Service will initially place the abandoned baby under its foster care service. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the child may subsequently be returned to the parents or be put up for adoption.
Mr Louis Ng asked how ICA will follow up with the responsible persons for a child in cases with incomplete birth particulars. ICA will do its part to contact and remind the responsible persons. But, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the responsible persons, such as parents, to register their child.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about the naming of a child whose birth is registered by the RG on his own volition. The RG will give the child an identifier which will be a single-worded name. The responsible persons for the child can subsequently apply to the RG to replace the identifier with another name within seven years of the child's birth. The responsible persons can, of course, do so much earlier.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether birth registration and citizenship will continue to be independent of each other. The answer is yes. All births in Singapore have to be reported and registered, regardless of the nationalities of the child's parents. However, the policy remains that a birth that is registered in Singapore does not automatically confer Singapore Citizenship on the child. In the past three years, about 17% of total births in Singapore are those of children born to parents who are both foreigners and, therefore, do not qualify for Singapore Citizenship by birth. There is also a small number of children born to at least one Singaporean parent but are not granted Singapore Citizenship for reasons such as the parents not being legally married at the time of the child's birth. In 2020, such births make up less than 0.15% of total births in Singapore.
Mr Louis Ng asked about children who are stateless. To clarify, children are only classified as stateless when their parents fail to obtain citizenship – Singapore or otherwise – for the child after the child's birth. A child is not classified as stateless at the time of the birth, nor at the point of the birth registration. It is the responsibility of the parents to obtain the appropriate citizenship for their child. ICA does not keep track of the citizenship status of non-citizen children.
Mr Louis Ng asked about children born to single unwed mothers. Due to privacy reasons, ICA does not specifically share information of such births with MSF.
Sir, let me address some of the questions asked by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera. He raised a few issues. One is about surnames. For surnames, we can have double-barrelled surnames of different races. On what kinds of surnames are not allowed, we follow the same guidelines as for names. So, as long as names are not offensive like \"Stupid\" or \"Satan\", then it will be alright. We are very mindful of that because we want to protect the dignity of the child.
For double-barrelled race, parents are allowed to register as long as they have different registered races; they do not need to be across the CMIO categories. This change can be done online for those that were previously registered with a single-barrelled race.
On the suggestion on having more ethnic characters or multiple types of ethnic characters, it is something that we can look into. However, as you know, there are some constraints that we have to take into consideration like space availability on the NRIC and the birth certificate.
The Member also asked about whether we have engaged the undertakers. Essentially, we have been working very closely with the stakeholders. It is not only about engaging them, we receive feedback from the different stakeholders at different points in time, including from the public. So, we will continue to engage them even after the Bill is passed. Essentially, it is a continuous engagement and we are mindful that this is about birth and death, which are very sensitive. We want to give as much convenience as possible to the families. We often receive feedback from the public and the undertakers. We will continue to engage all these stakeholders.
The Member raised issues relating to potential delays by medical practitioners certifying death at home under the new death registration process. Essentially, the medical practitioner will be using the same online system as today. So, there is no change. We have not heard much of an issue about delay, so we feel that it will be business as usual. Nevertheless, we will continue to keep a look-out to see if there is any delay.
The Member also raised issues relating to the abuse of NRICs of the deceased. For now, we do not see that as a big issue. We will monitor. In fact, we have high penalties for this, and I think that in itself is a deterrent for people who want to use this. Under the National Registration Act, anyone abusing NRICs is liable for a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years or both.
The Member also asked for data and trends of mixed parentage. I do not have the data on hand now. The Member may want to submit a Parliamentary Question.
The Member also asked about those who are non-digitally savvy. The relatives of the deceased may request the hospital or medical practitioner to help to print out a copy of the digital death certificate. Nevertheless, we will take note of this feedback.
At the end of the day, we want to make sure that everyone enjoys convenience as a result of this. In fact, when the Bill was first read, I received a lot of positive feedback from some of the stakeholders who are very involved in such an area. They shared with me that it is very much welcomed, especially for the death registration, as they find that it is something that will make it easier and will enhance the process of preparing for the post-death matters. We want to make it convenient for them. Birth is a celebration, and now, like what the Member shared earlier, it is about having all the different parentage, and I think it is about how we can continue to make ourselves relevant. We will continue this process.
I also want to cover an area raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. He asked whether ICA will be forming a new department to undertake the enforcement of the Bill. Investigation officers from ICA's existing Enforcement Division, which currently already investigates offences under Acts such as the Passports Act and National Registration Act, will be appointed as authorised registration officers to conduct searches and investigations into suspected offences under part 8 of the Bill. Therefore, ICA will not need to form a new department. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill will streamline and digitalise the birth, death and stillbirth reporting and registration processes. This will provide significantly greater convenience for the public, in particular, for deaths, when a person passes away, a medical practitioner will examine the body and certify the cause of death online. The death particulars are sent electronically to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, who will automatically register the death. The relatives of the deceased person no longer need to register the death at the hospital, a Neighbourhood Police Centre or Post, or ICA. The relative may then download the digital death certificate from the My Legacy website.
Members asked whether there will be any extra charges or costs to be borne under the streamlined death registration process. ICA will not be charging extra fees. The public hospitals have also committed to not charging extra fees for death registration under the streamlined process. While the Government is not able to dictate the fees charged by private hospitals and general practitioners who make house visits to certify deaths, we note that private hospitals and general practitioners will continue to use the same ICA e-service which they currently already use to certify deaths online. Hence, we do not expect the costs incurred by private hospitals and general practitioners to increase.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I am confident that this Bill will provide greater convenience for Singaporeans when dealing with births, deaths and stillbirths. With that, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Okay.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to Monday, 26 July 2021.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sexuality Education in Schools as First Line of Defence Against Sexual Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Raeesah Khan.
Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, almost every young woman I have spoken to have been a victim of sexual assault or violence at some point in their lives. Personally, I have experienced men rubbing themselves on me in public trains. Even today, as a Member of Parliament, I regularly get sent inappropriate comments, messages and even lewd photographs.
From 2017 to 2019, there were 7,483 victims of sexual assault. To break it down, that is an average of six a day. Half of these victims were 20 years old or younger.
These numbers should scare us as we know that the vast majority of sexual assault cases go unreported and that the trauma of sexual assault can last a person for a lifetime. Sexual assault and the sexism that enables it is an epidemic that hurts women and children more than any others.
We need to stamp it out in our public spaces, our workplaces, our schools and our homes. So, what should we do? We need to start at the basics with education.
While the Government has introduced stiffer penalties for sexual offenders, criminal deterrence is not a silver bullet for this issue. We must get to the root of the problem by building a strong culture of consent in our society. Without a strong consent culture, the criminal justice system alone cannot protect us – women, men and children – from sexual harassment and violence.
We know that victims often do not report sexual crimes committed against them because they are afraid they will not be believed, do not wish to re-live the trauma or because they simply do not have enough evidence. Recently, an AWARE Ipsos survey conducted in November last year found that only three in 10 survivors of workplace sexual harassment made official reports about their experiences.
Today, I will focus on the importance of reviewing our sexuality education curriculum. But before I continue with that, I would also like to point out that consent education is equally important for the rest of us – for victims to know that what has happened to them is wrong and that they deserve justice, for bystanders to identify and intervene in risky situations, and for would-be offenders to understand that what they have done is wrong.
Looking at the state of sexuality education in Singapore, we need to ask two very important questions: who gets access to sexuality education and how sexuality education is taught?
Official statistics from 2017 to 2019 showed that 37% of sexual assault victims were underage. This number is likely to be much higher in reality as many boys and girls may not be aware that they are even victims of sexual assault, much less what they can do about it.
Nearly nine out of 10 sexual assault cases involving minors are committed by someone they trust. And of the tiny fraction of kids who do bravely come forward and seek help, approximately 90% of them are dismissed. Perpetrators are, at times, people they trust and incidents of sexual assault are often dismissed as accidents or even displays of affection.
Who then can children turn to when they face these horrors?
Moreover, we know that early childhood sexual abuse makes people far more likely to be sexually victimised again and many survivors struggle with depression, anxiety and forming healthy, loving relationships later in life.
For these reasons, mandatory sexuality education should be extended to young children, one of our most vulnerable groups.
While our frontline care-givers must be more proactive in weeding out potential abuse, our children must be taught to recognise the wrongs being done to them. There are four things that we need to teach our children and these include: (a) body safety; (b) when a touch is good or bad; (c) what secrets should be shared with a trusted adult; and (d) how they can get help.
Some might feel uncomfortable when introducing the concept of sex to pre-schoolers. As a mother of young children, I share their concerns about making sure that our children are not exposed to sexualised content.
But sexuality education is not just about sex. It is about teaching the concepts of normal relationships, boundaries and respect for one another's feelings and bodies. These concepts can be taught in age-appropriate ways. In fact, the Singapore Children's Society does this with their KidzLive booklet, which teaches children sexuality education with a focus on safety, facts and common sense.
In Singapore, mandatory sexuality education only starts at Primary 5 with the Growing Years Programme. Whether nationally mandated sexuality education is introduced before then is unclear.
In contrast, New Zealand's personal safety programmes start sexuality education for children across the nation at age five. International best practices such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) technical guidance recommends the same.
It is clear that hundreds of minors are hurt by sexual abuse each year. The trauma of sexual violence finds many young victims far too early. If we wait too long to teach our young children about consent, respect and what to do if they ever face sexual assault, we are failing them as the adults they trust. Let us start to do right by our children by creating a standardised sexuality education curriculum for all pre-school operators.
Now, let us consider what we teach our youths and what is missing in our existing sexuality education curriculum.
First, our sexuality education needs to focus on consent. Consent is key in responsible sexual behaviour. An Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) and Ngee Ann Polytechnic survey conducted last year showed that more than half of students surveyed said that they were not taught consent in schools even though all wanted to be taught.
It is not enough to simply teach that sex without consent is wrong. Consent is complex and our students must know why it is important and how to navigate it respectfully.
When surveyed, our youths expressed trouble identifying consent in situations involving alcohol abuse and conditional consent. Rape myths like how women who drink deserve it or silence means consent worsen this problem. Effective sexuality education must tackle these problems head on.
Neither the current Growing Years' sexuality education curriculum nor the eTeens programme get to the root of the problem. Our students need to be taught why consent is key and how people cannot fully give consent in certain scenarios. It is commendable that some tertiary institutions now teach consent explicitly but this must start earlier on in life.
Teaching consent also means teaching the differences in power and the abuse of trust and authority. Studies show strong evidence that when sexuality emphasises critical thinking about power and gender, it results in far better outcomes such as reducing unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates.
With the Internet and social media, sexual violence is amplified. If we do not educate our young early in school, where their knowledge of sex comes from a trusted and vetted resource, they will learn their lessons from the Internet, where pornography and other irresponsible or unrealistic depictions of sex are easily accessible.
This puts them at risk of developing unhealthy relationships to sex. This may lead them to disregard consent and engage in unacceptable behaviours such as catcalling, harassment at work and even filming other students in toilets. These harms, which are so casually inflicted and systemic, must stop. Tech-enabled offences such as cyberbullying, sharing personal information, taking and distributing obscene photographs, and even voting in polls that sexualise women are wrong and deeply harmful.
Social media and the Internet have made platforms like the Nasi Lemak Telegram chat, the recent poll on our asatizahs and forums with obscene material much more accessible today. Our current sexuality education curriculum talks about the moral and legal consequences of risky sexual behaviours in a single class in Secondary 1. This is hardly enough. We need to teach our youths that their actions have far larger repercussions than just legal. We could do this by emphasising real-world conditions that encourage empathy and situational awareness.
They need to learn, to understand the suffering caused to victims and also to speak out and seek help when a peer or an adult perpetuates these harms.
Secondly, our sexuality education needs to be more sustained and openly taught. Today, Singapore is facing a long overdue reckoning with a scale of sexual harm and trauma that happens in this country. Yet, when we break down how much classroom time is spent on sexuality education, we find that students get just 25 hours of class time on it. That is equivalent to a week of school in a total of 12 years of formal education.
Given the lasting harm that sexual crimes cause, we cannot rely on just the law to protect our youths. Our sexuality education needs to equip our youths with the knowledge and tools they need to respect one another, protect themselves and support the people around them, a lifelong journey where schools are key.
In addition to extended classroom time, we can put up posters in schools that reinforce key messages like the importance of consent, one's rights under the law, warnings to would-be perpetrators and reminders that resources and channels for safe and medical help are always there for them.
Students also need dedicated spaces, channels and access to educators who support students through relationships, emotions and even abuse. These spaces should be non-judgemental and confidential so that our children and youth are willing to talk about their struggles.
Although there are not any systemic studies about sexuality education's effectiveness in Singapore, surveys show that some find our current sexuality education programme unrelatable.
Our students want teachers to facilitate questions and conversations about sex in a non-judgemental space. They need regular open discussions in which they can ask questions, explore issues, not simply in a passive environment that only happens once or twice a year. These measures will help us effectively provide sexuality education that is safe, open and consistent for every child.
At this point, one might ask: who should be responsible for reforming sexuality education in Singapore and, in particular, is this the Government's responsibility? Would parents not be the best teachers of sexuality education for their own children?
The reality is that parents are uncomfortable talking about sex, much less teaching important concepts relating to it to their children.
A survey by AWARE last year found that only 50% of parents surveyed were comfortable talking to their children about sexuality education. Of these parents, one in four felt embarrassed or lack the confidence to do so. Thirty-five percent felt poorly equipped to begin the conversation and 26% worried that discussing sex would encourage their children to have it. Children too may feel uncomfortable learning about sex from their own parents or are unable to navigate such topics due to abusive dynamics at home.
Sexuality education is complex and leaving it up to parents to deliver accurate and up-to-date information about STIs, tech-enabled offences and the nuances of consent might be too much to ask. Ensuring a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum, children are receiving the best quality education available.
Teachers are especially important in this endeavour. Educators, especially early childhood educators, need to be more proactive in sensing and addressing sexual abuse and assault. This includes being able to spot when students may have faced sexual assault, ensure their safety, handle report sensitively and confidentially, and support students with empathy.
Teachers must be trained in facilitation, especially in scenario and discussion-based learning, for sexuality education to be effective.
I am glad to know that the Ministry currently requires sexuality education to be taught by specially selected and trained teachers. I hope that we can take it one step further by giving all training teachers at the National Institute of Education greater exposure to sexuality education training. In addition, the teachers' sexuality education training should be frequently updated and refreshed to reflect best practices.
Our schools need clear channels of accountability and reporting. These should be widely publicised so that students know whom to turn to for help. Schools should provide the names and contact information of key personnel and helplines, whether of general safe spaces, professional counselling services or ways to seek legal recourse.
Mr Speaker, when I think about the sexual violence that occurs on the daily in Singapore, I worry for the safety of our children. No child should be subject to sexual abuse and even one is one too many. We can change this, we have the power to do something that protects and equips them for life and ensures that they do not grow up in a toxic, dangerous environment.
The road to combating sexual violence requires a whole-of-Government approach and the close participation and collaboration of multiple agencies, Ministries and even stakeholders outside of the Government. My speech today may have focus on improving sexuality education, but it does not negate our responsibility as citizens to do our part and call out harmful behaviour if we witness it, and to keep an eye on those who may be victims of sexual violence.
Mr Speaker: Ms Khan, if you can wrap up, please.
Ms Raeesah Khan: Lastly, sexual violence is fuelled by misogyny. We all have a responsibility to call out sexism, whether at the workplace or in public transport, and respond to incidents of sexual violence, so that perpetrators are held accountable. Reforming our approach to sexual education has to be done soon and urgently to make Singapore a safe and nurturing place for all.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank the Member for agreeing with us that sexuality education is important.
MOE takes a serious view on sexual violence. The safety of our students is of paramount importance and concern to us. I have answered several Parliamentary Questions on this before which reflects the concerns that Members have, and I appreciate their views.
We are disturbed to read about young children who have been victims of sexual abuse, by both familiar people in their lives and strangers. It is heart-wrenching to see how young people were misled, groomed or threatened into compliance by their perpetrators.
Addressing sexual violence requires a whole-of-society approach and Body Safety Awareness programmes in our pre-schools, and Sexuality Education in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are all part of this effort. It is important to educate our young so that they learn how to be protected against sexual violence and also know the punishment should they become perpetrators of sexual violence themselves.
The revised Nurturing Early Learners Framework, which covers children aged four to six, places a strong emphasis on the development of children's social and emotional competencies and include topics such as body safety practices. For example, recognising safe and unsafe body touch.
Sexuality Education is an important part of Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and that is why we regularly review and refine the way we teach it. Sexuality Education aims to equip students with age-appropriate knowledge and skills to maintain safe and healthy relationships and recognise risks. It is based on values that reflect Singapore's mainstream society so that students can make informed and responsible decisions on sexuality matters. Our sexuality education teachers are specially selected and trained, so that they can facilitate discussions with sensitivity.
From the roll-out of the Sexuality Education curriculum in 2014, to the enhancement of content on safety and protection from abuse in 2016 and the launch of the CCE 2021 curriculum this year, we have been updating our content to ensure that they remain relevant towards sexuality matters. We considered emerging trends, local and international research, input from specialists in relevant fields and our local context, and also, importantly, feedback from our youths on their concerns and how they want to be meaningfully engaged. These may sound new to those of us who did not go through this new curriculum nor experience these new teaching delivery methods, but we recognise that there are new challenges that our youths are facing and we are committed to partner them in their adulting journey.
From as young as Primary 1, students learn about personal safety and protection from abuse. For example, they learn what is a good touch versus a bad touch. Through carefully designed and developmentally appropriate CCE lessons, they are taught to recognise sexual abuse and harassment. They learn skills to protect themselves both in the physical and online space and know the laws that protect them.
In a Primary 5 lesson on sexual abuse, students will walk through different scenarios to figure out if a particular action or situation may be a possible case of sexual abuse. Also, we hope that by sharing with our students about different ways to seek help, it will encourage them to approach a trusted adult when required.
In Secondary schools and at the pre-university level, students engage in conversations on the importance of respecting boundaries of self and others, and through different scenarios, learn to identify risks and stand up to peer pressure. These lessons also give them opportunities to practise negotiating boundaries for themselves and others, and the social-emotional and legal consequences if they overstep these boundaries.
Through authentic examples, students are guided to consider how respect looks like for both boys and girls. Students become more conscious of their own attitudes and regard for members of the opposite gender and learn that their choice of words and actions, whether online or offline, makes a significant difference in creating a safe and respectful community for everyone.
Let me give you an example. In our refreshed upper Secondary lessons, students consider how respectful and healthy relationships look like. Using a scenario of a girl's intimate photos being posted online, with boys making lewd and disrespectful remarks about the girl, students discuss what it would feel like for the girl. Through this lesson, students discuss the harm that can ensue through what may appear as harmless banter and jokes and what it feels like to be objectified in this manner.
Topics and scenarios that are discussed in class include recognising red flags and seeking help for oneself and for friends. Teachers use video re-enactments and screenshots so that students are guided to understand what sexual grooming and sexual abuse are and how they are protected by the law. Teachers also clearly communicate the law to our students for them to understand who and what the law seeks to protect.
We acknowledge that sexuality-related issues are complex and multi-faceted and we know that sexuality education lessons involve highlighting issues that are important and relevant to our young people, and that we need to create a safe space for them to have honest conversations and to hear multiple perspectives from one another. At the end of the day, we hope to empower our students so that they can understand themselves better and make responsible decisions.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have also stepped up education and engagement efforts in recent years on important topics such as respect and appropriate behaviour. This is achieved through multiple channels, including student briefings during orientation, online modules, face-to-face workshops and awareness-building campaigns. All students are expected to abide by their institutions' Codes of Conduct, which set out the expectations for respect and appropriate behaviour.
The Autonomous Universities (AUs) have also implemented or are in the process of implementing compulsory education modules on respect and appropriate behaviour.
First, students learn about the key elements of respect and appropriate behaviour. For example, in NUS' education module, students learn that consent must be actively communicated and given freely and voluntarily. For those living in hostels, these learning points are reinforced through compulsory face-to-face workshops and peer discussions.
Next, students learn what constitutes sexual misconduct and harassment.
Third, students are informed of the various reporting channels and support networks. They also learn how they can be an active bystander and protect themselves while doing so.
The IHLs constantly seek feedback from their students to review and improve these education efforts, such as through post-module surveys.
Mr Speaker, Sir, protection against sexual violence is not just about what we do in schools and it also goes beyond a whole-of-Government effort. It requires a whole-of-society effort.
As parents, we need to be there for our children, to provide guidance and impart values of respect and responsibility. We know that conversations with our children on sexuality matters is not easy. But, by not doing so, the Internet will fill this vacuum. MOE and our schools are committed to supporting parents to have these important conversations on sexuality.
We also need to work with tech companies and the media so that it is clear that our society takes a \"zero-tolerance\" stand towards toxic, violent and unhealthy relationships. The laws in Singapore have also been updated to reflect new societal issues and problems such as tech-enabled crimes.
With the concerted effort of parents, schools, community, tech companies and media and a legal regime that deters sexual offences, we can journey alongside our young people and support them in the best possible way.
Mr Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 7.41 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Individuals who Choose Not to Receive COVID-19 Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the demographic of the group that chooses not to receive any vaccinations against COVID-19; and (b) what can be done to encourage them to be vaccinated.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed by written answer to Question Nos 26 to 32, taken on 5 July 2021. [Please refer to \"Extension of COVID-19 Vaccination to More Groups of Singaporeans\", Official Report, 5 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 31, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amounts and Profiles of Persons Involved in Recent Phone Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to online and phone scams reported in each of the past three years (a) how many were perpetrated against Singapore-based victims by persons situated overseas; (b) what is the financial loss suffered by these victims; (c) how many of these cases were prosecuted, either in Singapore or overseas; and (d) given the difficulties associated with investigating such crime, what is the Police’s strategy to protect Singapore residents from online or phone scams originating from overseas.
Mr K Shanmugam: The vast majority of online and phone scams were perpetrated by scammers based outside Singapore. In the past three years, out of about 31,500 scam cases reported, involving $591 million of losses, 90% were believed to have been committed by overseas scammers.
Such cases are difficult to prosecute. These scammers are typically syndicated and run sophisticated transnational operations that are not easy to detect or dismantle.
The only case where overseas-based suspects were successfully extradited to Singapore for prosecution was in May 2019. Two Nigerian men were arrested and sent to Singapore for prosecution, for cheating Singapore-based victims in Internet Love Scams perpetrated from Malaysia. The two accused persons have been charged in Court and Court proceedings are on-going. We do not track prosecutions in other jurisdictions of individuals who are believed to have committed scams against Singaporeans.
The Police adopt a multi-pronged approach to protect Singaporeans from scams.
The Police have stepped up collaboration with foreign law enforcement agencies, to share information that may lead to the arrest of scammers based abroad. Such cooperation has helped to disrupt scammers' operations in Singapore.
To facilitate the cooperation, the Police set up the Transnational Commercial Crime Task Force (TCTF) in October 2017. Most recently, TCTF participated in a multilateral global operation against syndicates behind China Officials Impersonation Scams, coordinated by Interpol. Code-named Operation \"First Light\", the operation lasted a year and concluded in November 2020. In all, SPF arrested 56 locally-based money mules and runners working for international scam syndicates, and seized over $2.16 million.
Second, the Police have set up specialised units to enhance their anti-scam capabilities. In June 2019, the Police set up the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC), which acts as the nerve centre for investigations into scam-related crimes. The ASC's focus is to mitigate victims' losses, through swift interdiction of the proceeds of the crime. Since its inception, the ASC has frozen more than 16,000 bank accounts and recovered more than $120 million.
Third, we work closely with public and private sector stakeholders. The Police regularly engage banks, remittance agencies and convenience stores to train their frontline staff to spot possible scam victims. In 2021, so far, the Police have commended 108 members of the community for preventing 91 instances of scams involving about $5 million.
The Police also work with other public sector agencies through the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams, to coordinate a whole-of-Government effort. One such initiative is ScamShield, an iOS mobile application developed by the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and GovTech. Apart from blocking SMS messages and calls from known scam numbers, ScamShield also has a function for users to report suspected scam calls and messages to the Police. ScamShield has been downloaded more than 185,000 times since its launch in November 2020. About 800,000 SMSes have been reported and more than 8,000 unique phone numbers believed to be used in scams have been blocked. The ScamShield team is presently working on developing an Android version of the application.
In addition, IMDA has implemented the '+' prefix for all international calls since April 2020 to help consumers recognise calls that originate from overseas. This helps alert consumers who are not expecting any overseas calls to exercise care when answering such calls or to ignore them. This is particularly useful when we get calls from unidentified telephone numbers which start as '+65'. Chances are that this is an overseas call spoofing as a local number.
Fourth, public education. The Police and the NCPC have disseminated advisories through various media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. In August 2020, an anti-scam public education campaign, \"Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes.\", was launched. This campaign focused on sharing real-life scam examples to educate the public on how to spot the tell-tale signs. The Police also work with grassroots organisations to spread awareness on scams to residents via community events and Community Safety & Security Programmes.
More recently, between May and June 2021, the seven major retail banks in Singapore partnered the NCPC to introduce an online scam quiz on their various customer touch-points across their Internet and mobile banking platforms.
Ultimately, the best defence against scams is a discerning public. We urge members of public to stay vigilant and report possible scams promptly to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Framework for Social Media Platforms to Respond to Stop Scammers and Imposters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the regulatory and enforcement framework to ensure that social media platforms respond in a timely manner and act upon reports of scammers and imposters on their sites.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police cooperate closely with social media platforms to tackle scams. In 2021, the Police issued about 6000 takedown requests to social media companies for accounts believed to have been used in the perpetration of scams on social media platforms.
When scams are reported, the Police shares the relevant information with the relevant social media platform for their assistance to take down accounts believed to be used to commit scams. After reviewing Police’s requests, the social media platforms will typically take down accounts between one and seven days of the report being lodged, depending on the facts and circumstances of the request.
Under the Broadcasting Act, the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) has powers to direct Internet Content Providers to take down prohibited material, such as those which are objectionable on the grounds of public order or prohibited by applicable Singapore laws, such as scams, as soon as possible. IMDA can also direct Internet Service Providers to block access to websites that contain such prohibited material, including scam websites.
MHA and MCI are studying how to enhance our regulations to deal with online harms, including scams. We will share our findings and recommendations in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards in Place after Recent Spate of Ransomware Incidents Abroad","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information following the spate of ransomware incidents abroad involving companies providing critical services, what steps are being taken in Singapore to guard against such incidents from occurring in Singapore.
39 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information how is Singapore preparing to guard against severe ransom attacks by hackers in light of the high-profile ransom attacks in North America and other parts of the world.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Ransomware attacks are not new but recent developments are a cause for concern.
In the past, attacks tended to be isolated and sporadic, typically affecting individuals, or a handful of computers in companies. However, there has clearly been a step-change in the scale of ransomware attacks. Cybercriminal gangs have refined their tactics and now encrypt or lock up hundreds, if not thousands, of computers simultaneously. They increasingly target large companies and organisations, which they believe will pay a ransom to end the pain if operations are sufficiently disrupted and enough damage is caused.
In addition, the impact of ransomware attacks are no longer contained in the digital domain. They now spill over into the physical realm, with real-world consequences. We have seen this globally, with the recent uptick in international ransomware attacks. In early May, the Colonial Pipeline Company operating the largest fuel pipeline in the US East Coast suffered a ransomware attack. This prompted the company to shut down the pipeline’s operations for close to a week, affecting the supply of fuel to about 50 million customers. In mid-May, Ireland and New Zealand’s healthcare services suffered from separate ransomware attacks. The shutdown of affected IT systems led to surgeries being postponed and outpatient services suspended, because patient records had become inaccessible.
These events are stark reminders that we must all remain vigilant against ransomware attacks. This includes not just public agencies delivering essential services but private organisations as well, so long as they depend on IT systems for any part of their core business.
The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has taken proactive steps to safeguard our Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) and directed the CII sectors to raise their cybersecurity posture in view of the growing ransomware threat. These include enhancing monitoring to detect anomalous activity swiftly; backing up data regularly and keeping the back-up offline; and practising incident response and business continuity plans to ensure that employees know the required responses to a ransomware attack. These are on top of existing cyber resilience measures mandated for the CII sectors under the Cybersecurity Act.
Government agencies have also heightened their monitoring for anomalous activity in their networks and systems. Business continuity measures have been reviewed and put on standby. A whole-of-Government ICT incident management exercise involving over 30 Government agencies will be conducted in August to refresh agencies’ familiarity with procedures to handle cyber incidents, including that for ransomware. This builds on on-going measures to raise cybersecurity awareness and competency among all public officers, such as through an annual simulated phishing exercise.
I would like to reiterate that the ransomware threat goes beyond attacks on essential services or Government agencies. It can strike any of us or our organisations, denying us access to our data or disrupting our businesses or operations. We need to do what we can to prevent breaches, but also monitor for and detect these incidents, and recover quickly from them.
To this end, CSA has issued public advisories on the steps that enterprises, organisations and members of the public should take to protect themselves against the ransomware threat. Many of these are simple cyber hygiene measures, such as keeping systems and software updated and raising employees’ awareness of ransomware. Monitoring and detecting cyber intrusions swiftly and backing up data are also important to contain the impact of any ransomware attack.
CSA will continue to engage and advise enterprises, organisations and members of the public to adopt these measures, which can be easily found on CSA’s website.
I would like to stress, however, that these cannot replace the stakeholders’ sense of urgency and commitment to implement the recommended measures. It would be in their own interest to take preventive action before any ransomware attack hits them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives for Consumers Returning Food Trays at Hawker Centres, Coffee Shops and Food Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will work with all hawker stalls, coffee shops and food court operators to provide incentives to consumers in the return of food trays in view of savings in table clearing costs; and (b) whether the Ministry will look into the use of recyclable trays or paper table cloths that can be used as wrappers of food waste for proper, hygienic and quick disposal by consumers into dustbins.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: COVID-19 has underscored the need for high public hygiene and cleanliness standards. To strengthen environmental public health and keep our dining environment clean, NEA had announced that diners are required to clear their dirty trays, crockery and litter after their meals at public dining spaces from June 2021.
We do not anticipate any reduction in cleaning costs to stallholders, as the cleaners will still be required for tasks such as sorting crockery at tray return points as well as cleaning and sanitising tables. In fact, the demands on cleaners have increased due to COVID-19. Diners returning their trays, crockery and litter will help to mitigate manpower challenges in the cleaning workforce and possible upward cost pressures over time.
NEA is progressively installing more tray and crockery return stations as well as providing new trays to stallholders. NEA has been engaging the cleaning companies on the revised table-cleaning workflow, for a more effective and efficient process.
The trays in hawker centres are reusable. We do not advocate the use of single-use materials, as they are not environmentally sustainable. Diners are required to return their dirty trays and crockery and dispose of their litter, which includes used tissues, and food remnants like shells and bones. Cleaners will help to clean and sanitise the tables thereafter. Diners may use the washbasins provided to wash their hands after returning their trays and crockery to the designated return stations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Summons Issued for Failure to Wear Face Masks amidst COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) to date, how many summons have been issued for failure to wear face masks; and (b) what actions can be taken to encourage members of the public to wear face masks to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since mask wearing was made mandatory in April 2020, more than 2,300 fines have been issued for failure to wear masks.
Wearing of masks with good filtration capability helps to reduce the expulsion and transmission of droplets, which is the predominant route of transmission of COVID-19. Everyone should put on their masks when outside their homes, except when eating, drinking or undertaking strenuous exercise. Those walking at a normal pace are required to wear a mask.
Government agencies deploy Safe Distancing Ambassadors and Enforcement Officers daily to advise and enforce compliance with Safe Management Measures (SMMs), including wearing of masks. Agencies require business owners to ensure that patrons at their premises comply with these measures. We also reach out through various channels, including newspapers and social media, to encourage the public to observe SMMs and wear their masks so as to keep Singapore safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Swift Border Policy Response to Surge in Imported COVID-19 Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Dependant's Passes have been issued in the past year; (b) why are Dependant's Pass holders not promptly disallowed entry when there was a surge in imported COVID-19 cases; and (c) whether Work Permits and Dependant's Passes can be delinked to allow more efficient revisions to border policies in case of a rebound in COVID-19 cases.
Dr Tan See Leng: Travellers arriving from the same country have the same risk of incubating COVID-19, as reflected in the country’s COVID-19 situation. The granting of entry approval is, therefore, calibrated based on the risk levels of countries and regions that the applicant has travelled to.
Dependant's Pass (DP) holders accompany the Work Pass holder, who is here to work. If the family of a Work Pass holder is not approved to enter, it is likely that the Work Pass holder will also choose not to enter. There are also DP holders who have been separated from their family members due to the border restrictions since 2020. A policy that prevents DP holders from entering Singapore until all other Work Pass holders have been able to enter, will likely lead to Work Pass holders choosing to leave Singapore in order to be reunited with their family.
The fact remains that our entry approval process, carried out to safeguard public health, has resulted in a sizeable backlog of existing Work Pass holders and dependants who are outside of Singapore, and who have yet to obtain approval to enter. Businesses understand the need for these measures and support them, even though it comes at considerable disruption to them. We should, therefore, not adopt approaches that cause more disruption than necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Response to Top Issues of Social Support, National Identity and Shared Values from Latest Emerging Stronger Conversations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister how does the Government intend to address the most discussed topics across the Emerging Stronger Conversations as at 31 December 2020 specifically Social Support, and National Identity and Shared Values which ranked above Jobs and the Economy, and Digitalisation and Technology.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations were launched in June 2020 as a platform for Singaporeans to reflect on our COVID-19 experience and our aspirations for a more resilient post-COVID-19 society. These Conversations were convened in the midst of the pandemic because it was important to hear from one another on how we were affected by the crisis and how each of us could play a part to help Singapore emerge stronger.
In February this year, the Government published a report to take stock of the Conversations and feedback received from 17,000 Singaporeans from all walks of life.
The report highlighted 15 key themes that were most discussed, including, as Mr Singh highlighted, Social Support, and National Identity and Shared Values. The latter two encompassed issues like protecting our vulnerable, support for giving and volunteerism, and how we might build a more compassionate and cohesive society.
Our focus now is on forging strong and sustained partnerships to turn these shared aspirations into reality.
We have been progressively addressing the themes that have come up in the Conversations, through partnerships such as the Singapore Together Alliances for Action or AfAs, Citizens’ Workgroups and others. The AfAs bring together Singaporeans across the People, Private and Public Sectors, to work together on solutions to economic and social issues.
To date, 25 AfAs have been announced, including a number relating to enhancing social support and building a more compassionate society. Several of these AfAs are driven by a strong conviction of our shared values, and these values will be manifest in not just the outcomes, but also in the way the initiatives are implemented. Let me highlight a few examples.
First, UPLIFT, which supports disadvantaged students and their families, driven by a shared conviction of ensuring opportunities for all, regardless of their starting points.
The UPLIFT community pilot was launched in 2020 and focused on helping students with emerging absenteeism issues. It is on track to support more than 300 students by next year, and more family befrienders are being matched to the families of these children to offer friendship and assistance.
Second, the AfA on Emerging Needs and Volunteerism, which has three focus areas: increasing support for mental wellness in the community; providing opportunities for seniors to learn innovatively; and facilitating the matching of donations-in-kind.
The AfA is training volunteers, starting with the Yuhua community, to equip them with skills and knowledge in mental wellness to reach out to residents who may require support.
To support seniors in the current digital age, the AfA is working with partners on opportunities to enable seniors to learn digital skills and integrate the use of technology into their daily life. The AfA is also partnering the SG Cares Volunteer Centres to better aggregate resources and matching to community needs at the town level.
Third, the AfA for Caregivers of Persons with Disabilities, which aims to support this group by co-creating solutions to the issues they face.
This AfA will build on the Caregiver Action Map developed by SG Enable and its Coalition of Partners for Caregiver Support, and develop solutions related to self-care and mutual support, to enhance the well-being of caregivers.
Apart from the AfAs, partnerships such as the Citizens’ Workgroup for Singapore Citizenship Journey and the Citizens’ Workgroup for National Symbols saw Singaporeans work with the Government and one another, on ideas to strengthen our national identity and commitment to Singapore and Singaporeans.
These have all been in the spirit of Singapore Together, which is about Singaporeans creating our shared future together. We will continue to grow this ethos and work with Singaporeans, as we grow our partnerships. The future Singapore we aspire to can only be built through a democracy of deeds, where all of us take action to make a difference.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Wage Increases for Cleaners on Subvention Grant to Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development following the announcement on 7 June 2021 on wage increases for cleaners under the Progressive Wage Model, whether the Ministry will consider increasing the subvention grant to Town Councils.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils fund their operations, including cleaning works, primarily through the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) they collect from residents. This is supplemented by the annual S&CC operating grant from MND.
The Town Councils have not required additional grants from MND to specifically address cleaners’ manpower costs since the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model for the cleaning industry in 2012. We have no plans to increase the grants for now, but will continue to monitor the situation on the ground. We have been encouraging Town Councils to manage their finances carefully and adopt the use of technology to reduce the reliance on manpower for cleaning, and will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waste-handling in Housing Estates and Hospitals in light of Detection of COVID-19 Viral Fragments in Recent Clusters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what precautions have been introduced for waste-handling in housing estates and hospitals in light of the detection of viral fragments in wastewater samples in clusters like the Bukit Merah cluster.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Stringent measures are in place in Singapore to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 through wastewater. Viral particles could enter the wastewater streams from toilets, where infected individuals could shed the virus through sputum and in their stool. Viral particles could also have been present in toilets as bioaerosols due to the expired air of infected individuals when they cough, sneeze or talk, or from the flushing of cisterns, and on surfaces touched by these individuals. NEA has been working with premises owners to disinfect premises thoroughly, including toilets where COVID-19 patients have visited to ensure that premises are safe.
The sanitary systems in Singapore are also designed as \"closed systems\", where pipes are airtight and watertight to ensure that no foul air or pathogens can travel between households within the building. The sanitary system of each bathroom is designed with water seals which act as barriers to prevent foul air containing pathogens in the sanitary system from entering a unit’s premises. These water seals, located in toilet bowls and floor traps, are maintained by regular water flow from sinks, wash basins, showers or flushing of water cisterns. These are mandatory design requirements for sanitary systems and they apply to all toilets and bathrooms in Singapore.
However, as with all well-designed systems, it requires maintenance. Home owners should be on the lookout for sewage odour and signs of localised failures within their premises such as leaks from toilet bowls or sanitary pipes. Owners should promptly get professional help through Licensed Plumbers to check and rectify any faults.
In terms of wastewater from hospitals, there are existing requirements for the wastewater from isolation facilities for infectious diseases to be disinfected before they are discharged into the public sewer. These are precautionary measures as the COVID-19 virus will degrade in the used water network.
As an added measure, operation staff involved in used water treatment, such as those at water reclamation plants, are required to don personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and face shields to ensure that they are fully protected from direct exposure to wastewater.
The quality of our water supply will not be affected as the collected wastewater undergoes a rigorous process in its journey to become NEWater. The NEWater goes through stringent treatment and disinfection processes, which remove all contaminants and ensure all bacteria and viruses are killed. To help visualise the reverse osmosis process in the NEWater production, the pores of the reverse osmosis membrane are so small that if magnified 100 million times, they will be comparable to the size of tennis balls, while the virus will be the size of a truck. Notwithstanding, further safety barriers such as UV and chlorine disinfection are incorporated downstream to ensure the safety of our NEWater supply.
With these measures in place, I would like to assure Singaporeans that there is minimal risk of the COVID-19 virus transmitting through the wastewater system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incident of Rainbow Flag being Thrown at Staff at a Lau Pa Sat Stall","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the investigation into the incident of a rainbow flag being thrown at staff of the SMOL salad bar at Lau Pa Sat; and (b) whether further steps will be taken to deal with such incidents of abuse due to discrimination.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police investigations into the case have concluded. A 47-year-old man was found to have thrown a small Pride flag in the direction of staff of the SMOL restaurant at Lau Pa Sat and shouted at them for their display of the flag.
Police did not recommend prosecution in consideration that no injuries were caused, the man had a medical history of mental disorder which may explain in part his actions in the case and the incident was not protracted. With the concurrence of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), Police have issued a 24-month conditional warning to the man for an offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress under section 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).
The Government’s position is clear: harassment and abuse of any person for any reason is not condoned. The law protects LGBTQ individuals the same as everyone else. For instance, POHA contains a range of both civil and criminal measures to protect all victims against offences involving harassment and abuse. Acts involving hurt or incitement of violence are criminalised under legislation such as the Penal Code. Amendments were also made to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) in 2019 to make it an offence to urge violence on the grounds of religion or religious belief, against any person or group.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Options for Teens Kicked Out of Their Homes for Issues Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current options for young and vulnerable teens to seek shelter if they are kicked out of their homes for reasons such as their sexual orientation or gender identity; and (b) whether the Government will consider extending financial support to shelters run by LGBTQ+ community groups such as the T Project Shelter.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The well-being of young and vulnerable teens is important to us. We recognise that family conflicts may arise for various reasons. Where possible, it is better for teens to be in environments where they have support networks and minimal disruption to their daily routine.
Social services should be accessible to all members of the public, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Our Family Service Centres provide support to teens and vulnerable youths, as well as their families, if they require social intervention or support services to address family conflict and other socio-emotional needs.
We do not condone abuse or violence committed against any person regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Young persons who face abuse or violence may approach the Family Violence, Child Protection or Integrated Services for Individual and Family Protection Specialist Centres, which can provide support, including making alternative care arrangements where necessary. If there are no abuse or violence issues, and the young persons are assessed to be suitable for communal and independent living, our Transitional Shelters may be a shelter option.
T Project provides temporary shelter for those who are homeless and need a safe place of shelter. Many who seek help from T Project come from the LGBTQ+ community, and more specifically, transgender persons. The Government will consider funding programmes and services that address significant areas of social service needs, regardless of the communities they serve. There are also various other services, including shelter services, offered by community partners. Not all shelters operate with funding from the Government. Shelter services offered by community partners complement existing MSF-funded programmes and services to meet community needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Recent Incident Resulting in Death when PMD Caught Fire in Lift","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the safety fire considerations for lift users when a non-compliant bike or e-bike is brought into a lift; (b) whether there has been a thorough investigation of the recent fatal incident due to a personal mobility device that caught fire in a lift; (c) if so, whether the cause for the combustion has been identified; and (d) how can this be addressed to prevent similar incidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: SCDF and LTA are investigating the fatal incident involving a Personal Mobility Device (PMD) that caught fire, which occurred at 537 Woodlands Drive 16 on 3 June 2021. As investigations are ongoing, it is not appropriate for us to comment further.
On the Member’s questions about non-compliant e-bikes, we strongly advise the public to only use UL-2272 certified PMDs and EN-15194 compliant Power Assisted Bicycles (PABs). Non-compliant devices are dangerous because they do not meet various safety requirements. Owners of such devices should dispose of them safely, via e-waste recyclers.
The inter-agency Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce co-chaired by SCDF and LTA develops and implements strategies to improve the safe usage of PMDs and PABs. For example, it worked with key stakeholders such as NTUC and the food delivery companies to share device safety tips with users and to encourage them to dispose of non-compliant devices. LTA has also banned the import of non-compliant PMDs and PABs into Singapore, except for certain legitimate uses such as research or re-export.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grace Period before Transfer of CPF Savings to Retirement Account for Those Aged 55 to Secure New HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to citizens who have reached 55 years old and intend to apply for a HDB flat but are constrained by the high demand and current limited supply of Built-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats \t(SBF), whether they can be allowed a grace period to secure a HDB flat before their CPF monies are transferred to their Retirement Account.
Dr Tan See Leng: When CPF members turn 55, savings from the Special Account (SA) and Ordinary Account (OA) are transferred to the Retirement Account (RA) to form their retirement sums. The retirement sum provides the members with monthly CPF payouts to meet retirement expenses.
To help members plan ahead, members who intend to reserve their CPF OA savings for housing payments beyond age 55 may submit a request to CPF Board before the monies are transferred to the RA.
For members who still face difficulties financing their housing purchases, the CPF Board and HDB will continue to exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal of Concession Allowing Non-subsidised Resale HDB Flats to be Used as Transitional Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for removing the concession allowing for a non-subsidised resale HDB flat to be used as transitional housing; (b) when was the concession removed; and (c) whether the Government can re-introduce the concession and introduce other schemes in addition to the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme to support families’ immediate housing needs given further delays to on-going BTO projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: As HDB flats are primarily intended for long-term owner-occupation, we generally do not allow short-term ownership of HDB flats. Hence, HDB flat owners are required to fulfil a minimum occupation period (MOP) before they may rent out or sell their flat, or buy a private property. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs and deters speculative purchases of HDB flats.
HDB had previously made an exception for first-timer families who had booked an uncompleted HDB flat or Executive Condominium (EC) unit, by allowing such families to buy a non-subsidised resale flat as transitional housing while waiting for their flat to be completed. These families then had to sell the non-subsidised flat once their booked HDB flat or EC unit was completed, without a need to fulfil the typical five-year MOP. Given our limited public housing supply, to better safeguard HDB flats for long-term owner-occupation, HDB stopped allowing non-subsidised resale flats to be used as transitional housing more than two years ago.
Flat buyers who are waiting for their new flats and require transitional housing are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply and high demand for PPHS flats, we are considering ways to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready. For low-income households with no family support and no other housing options, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis.
We recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation. We will consider waiving the forfeitures arising from flat buyers who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat based on an assessment of their specific circumstances. This includes first-timer families with urgent housing needs who can consider buying a resale flat instead and receive up to $160,000 in housing grants. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget.
We will continue to monitor the situation carefully and study ways to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Housing Options to Minimise Impact of Construction Delays for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are some of the measures that HDB is taking to reduce the impact of the construction delays; (b) what are the alternative housing solutions that HDB can provide in the interim; and (c) what is the average completion time for new BTOs that are made available for balloting today.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures (SMMs) imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s Build-to-Order (BTO) projects.
As a result, most BTO projects have been delayed by about six to 12 months beyond their Estimated Completion Dates (ECD) originally indicated to buyers during project launches. The extent of the delay varies by BTO project, and depends on site-specific factors such as manpower availability, the contractor’s performance and available supply of materials. The average waiting time for BTO projects launched in 2020 was around four to five years. Generally, the waiting time for newly launched BTO projects is expected to be longer, due to longer time needed to prepare the sites, as well as ongoing requirements to comply with strict SMMs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
HDB is closely monitoring the construction progress of all BTO projects and will work with contractors to meet the revised completion dates. HDB is also working with various agencies on mitigating measures to reduce the length of delays. This includes getting exemptions to allow less noisy construction activities to be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays where possible.
We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is doing its best to work with contractors and consultants to expedite construction works, while ensuring that the project quality and safety standards are not compromised.
Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats could apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready.
For low-income households with no family support and no other housing options, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis.
Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again, whether a new flat from HDB or a resale flat with grants. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so.
Nonetheless, HDB recognises the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and will consider waiving these forfeitures based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances, including for flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs. The waiver of the one-year wait out period will allow first-timer families with urgent housing needs to receive housing grants if they decide to buy a resale flat. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget. Eligible first-timer families can receive up to $160,000 in grants when they purchase a resale flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Stock of Flats under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme to Support Families Affected by BTO Construction Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development (a) how may HDB increase the stock of available flats under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme to support families impacted by BTO construction delays; and (b) whether the rental rates can be flexible and adjusted to accommodate low-income families.
Mr Desmond Lee: We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is doing its best to work with contractors and consultants to expedite construction works as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised. HDB is also working with various agencies on mitigating measures to reduce the length of delays. This includes getting exemptions to allow less noisy construction activities to be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays where possible. We will continue to keep flat buyers updated on the completion date of their new flat through letters and the My HDBPage as construction progresses.
Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats could apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready.
The rental rates for 3-room PPHS flats are significantly lower compared to the open market, and range from $600 to $900 per month, depending on location. For low-income households with no other housing options, HDB may offer Interim Rental Housing on a case-by-case basis. The average monthly rent for a 1-room interim rental housing flat is $300.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unoccupied HDB Rental Flats for Use by BTO Flat Applicants Affected by Construction Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB rental flats are currently not occupied; and (b) whether HDB can allow the buyers of BTO flats that were delayed to rent these flats on a temporary basis.
Mr Desmond Lee: Generally, flat buyers who are waiting for their new flats and require temporary housing are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis.
In fact, we have already offered some vacant rental flats to affected flat buyers under IRH. However, we need to prioritise our rental flats for low-income and vulnerable households with no other housing option.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocating Bigger Proportion of BTO Flats for First-time Home Buyers in light of Construction Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will review its policy and consider allocating a bigger proportion of BTO HDB flats for first-time home buyers in light of current delays to all BTO projects and longer waiting time for prospective homeowners.
Mr Desmond Lee: Helping families to secure their first home continues to be a key priority for MND and HDB. This is why we set aside most new flat supply for those applying to buy a home for the first-time:
(a) at least 85% and 95% of the 4-room and bigger BTO flats in the non-mature estates and mature estates respectively; and
(b) at least 95% of the 3-room and bigger flats offered in Sale of Balance Flats exercises.
First-timer applicants also have a higher chance of getting shortlisted to select a BTO flat. They are given two ballot chances instead of one and first-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two attempts for BTO flats in the non-mature estates are given an additional ballot chance at their subsequent application for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates. As a result, virtually all applicants of BTO flats in non-mature estates have been successful within their first three tries. First-timer families with urgent housing needs also have the option of buying a resale flat and can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants.
As HDB has already set aside a vast majority of its flat supply for first-timer families, there are no current plans to increase the proportions further. Nevertheless, HDB will continue to monitor the market situation closely and calibrate the supply of public housing accordingly, to ensure that the flat supply remains responsive to the housing needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Related to Number of Vacant HDB Rental Flats Available for Allocation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of vacant HDB rental flats available for allocation; (b) what is the number of approved HDB rental flat applicants on the waiting list pending allocation compared to past five years’ averages; and (c) what is the average waiting time from the date of registration compared to past five years’ averages.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, there are about 4,800 vacant rental flats intended for allocation to new tenants. More than half of these flats need to be spruced up before they can be let out. Due to the severe labour crunch in the construction industry, the pace of sprucing works has slowed down. This had led to longer waiting times for rental flats.
The number of approved HDB rental flat applicants on the waiting list has increased from an average of 660 in the past five years to 1,500 now. The waiting time for successful applicants to be allocated a rental flat has also increased from an average of three months in the past five years to about six months currently. Even though the number of vacant flats exceeds the number of applicants on the waiting list at the overall level, applicants need to be matched to the flat type and location that they applied for. In addition, some flat types and application zones have higher demand and a more limited supply of flats, which results in a longer waiting time.
HDB is working on measures to speed up the sprucing works and to facilitate key collections as quickly as possible. For applicants with urgent housing needs, such as medical grounds or other extenuating circumstances, HDB will prioritise allocating a flat to them. In 2020, about a third of our successful rental applicants were granted priority allocation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upstream Interventions to Detect and Prevent Child Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current upstream interventions to detect and prevent incidents of child abuse cases; (b) whether the Child Protective Service is adequately staffed to handle the surge in child abuse cases amid the COVID-19 pandemic; and (c) what are the Ministry’s plans to reverse this upward trend in child abuse cases.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Prevention and early detection are key to protecting children from harm or further harm. Social service agencies (SSAs) such as Family Service Centres (FSCs) provide community-based services to equip families with skills needed to better manage stressors and conflicts. This may include parenting programmes to equip parents to build positive relationships with their children. When families are able to manage their stressors and conflicts well, the risk of escalation to abuse or neglect of children is lower.
The various touch-points in the child protection eco-system work in partnership with MSF to detect child abuse and neglect, to keep children safe. SSAs, including FSCs and Child Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), pre-schools, schools, the Police, and medical practitioners and institutions are part of this eco-system. MSF introduced a Sector-Specific Screening Guide (SSSG) and a Child Abuse Reporting Guide (CARG) in 2015 to sharpen the ability of professionals, such as social workers, educators and healthcare professionals, to pick up safety concerns for a child and seek appropriate intervention. This includes guiding professionals on when to refer families to community agencies, such as FSCs, for early support, or to MSF’s Child Protective Service (CPS) for statutory intervention when there are more serious concerns.
Public education efforts such as the \"Break the Silence\" campaign have increased public awareness and helped to uncover child protection concerns that might have gone undetected previously. Most recently, in February 2021, MSF set up the National Anti-Violence Hotline to make it easier for anyone to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect.
A steady increase in child protection cases reported since 2015 is not unexpected, given that MSF and its partners have been actively raising public awareness, building capability in professionals and providing more and multiple channels for reporting child protection concerns. We also recognise that some families may experience increased stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could account for some of the increase in cases in 2020. Working closely with the CPSCs and other SSAs, CPS has thus far been able to manage the increase in number of cases. MSF will continue to monitor the caseloads closely and adjust our resources where needed.
In addition to MSF’s existing efforts to prevent and detect child abuse, the Taskforce on Family Violence is working on a set of recommendations which will be announced later this year. These recommendations will also go some way to further address child abuse concerns. For example, the Taskforce is looking to build on current efforts in schools, to further develop age-appropriate materials to educate children and young persons on healthy and respectful relationships, as well as protective behaviours from young.
It is everyone’s responsibility to keep our children safe. We urge members of the public to call the National Anti-Violence Hotline at 1800-777-0000 to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Government's Population Strategies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister whether the impact and disruption of COVID-19 has required the Government to review its population strategies so as to pivot the economy in concert with the recommendations of the Emerging Stronger Taskforce report.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The Government regularly reviews our population strategies to take into account changes to demographic trends, such as our birth rates and life expectancy. During the Committee of Supply debate in February this year, I shared with the House the impact of COVID-19 on key population trends in 2020 and the population strategies that will enable us to emerge stronger in the post-COVID-19 world.
Our population and workforce strategies remain relevant in supporting the recommendations in the Emerging Stronger Taskforce (EST) report.
First, Singaporeans continue to be at the heart of our population policies. We must sustain a strong core of Singaporeans in our population and workforce. Marriage and parenthood is a national priority. It is the best way to grow our citizen population and derive a strong local workforce to support our social and economic needs, and sustain future generations of Singaporeans. We support Singaporeans’ aspirations to start and raise families through a comprehensive suite of support measures, including parental leave, childcare support, housing support and cash grants.
Second, we must continue to strengthen the capabilities of our local workforce, to ensure that Singaporeans have the skills to seize new economic opportunities. The EST report highlighted the acceleration of digital transformation and innovation, as well as new growth areas such as agritech and sustainability, which can provide good jobs for Singaporeans with the right skills. The Government will continue to partner businesses, trade associations and chambers, Institutes of Higher Learning, training providers and unions to help our local workforce to upskill and reskill, to take on jobs of the future and make the most of the opportunities afforded by our economic strategies.
Third, even as we strengthen capabilities of our local workforce, we must continue to tap on global skills and manpower to complement the local workforce and augment skills that are in short supply locally. Some of the opportunities being developed by the EST Alliances for Action will generate new businesses that will need new capabilities and networks that foreign professionals can bring. This in turn will create more good jobs for Singaporeans. We will continue to refine our foreign workforce policy to bring in complementary foreign manpower, while ensuring fair hiring practices, preserving a level playing field for Singaporeans and enabling skills transfer to our people.
Next, improving productivity and reducing reliance on lower skilled foreign workers will remain a key priority in our industry transformation efforts. We had made strides in raising productivity before the pandemic. From 2009 to 2019, Singapore’s overall labour productivity, as measured by real value-added per actual hour worked, grew 2.9% per annum. We must build on these efforts. The EST report has emphasised ways in which our businesses can achieve productivity-driven growth through innovation, technology and better use of data. For instance, the Alliances for Action on Digitalising the Built Environment and Robotics are designed to spur productivity in industries like construction and transport.
Finally, we will continue to explore ways to harness the productive capacity of our senior population. As Singaporeans live and remain healthy for longer, we must enable senior workers to remain economically active and work for as long as they are able and wish to. This also allows workplaces to tap on the expertise and experience of our senior workers.
The Government will continue to monitor the longer term impact of COVID-19 and how it affects our population trends. We will update our strategies to ensure that they remain relevant to our needs. We look forward to partnering Singaporeans and key stakeholders, including through the Singapore Together Alliances for Action, to emerge stronger together from the COVID-19 pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Online Poll Ranking of Female Muslim Religious Teachers for Sexual Attractiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the progress of investigations into the online poll ranking of female Muslim religious teachers for sexual attractiveness; (b) whether the perpetrators have been identified; (c) whether there is a larger trend of sexual misconduct in religious schools and institutions; and (d) what are the training, initiatives and support systems available to encourage members of religious schools and institutions to whistleblow on such behaviour in anonymity and without fear of adverse consequences, harassment, victimisation, retaliation or pressure from others.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On 26 May 2021, MUIS was alerted to an online poll sexualising female Muslim religious teachers. MUIS immediately reached out to offer support to the victims of the poll, such as counselling as well as psychological, emotional and religious support. MUIS also lodged a Police report for the Police to investigate the poll. As Police investigations are ongoing, MUIS is unable to provide further comments until full investigations have been completed.
Over the past three years (that is, from January 2019 to June 2021), MUIS has received a total of 12 complaints1 alleging that a member of the asatizah fraternity was a perpetrator of sexual harassment, and two reports where asatizah were victims of sexual harassment.
MUIS has a set of processes to deal with harassment at the workplace.
First, members of staff who feel that they have been harassed or witnessed the harassment of fellow colleagues may make a report or complain to the Chief Executive of MUIS when an incident occurs.
Second, upon receiving the report or complaint, MUIS will immediately reach out to the affected member of staff in confidence to provide support. This includes assigning a Care Officer who will provide support and counselling throughout the process. MUIS will also commence investigations into the allegations immediately.
Third, if the allegations are found to be true, a Committee chaired by the President of the MUIS Council and MUIS’ senior management will determine the action to be taken against the offenders. Where appropriate, a review of workplace processes or arrangements will be undertaken to prevent recurrence of such misconduct.
Finally, at any point during the investigations, MUIS will also not hesitate to make a Police report if there is evidence a criminal act has taken place.
MUIS works closely with the mosques to handle allegations and incidents of sexual harassment. These include putting in place anti-harassment policies and procedures for reporting such incidents, including the necessary support for victims. MUIS is currently engaging the madrasahs and mosque clusters to review their policies and procedures for reporting incidents of harassment, which will be fully implemented later this year.
Training is provided to staff on appropriate professional norms and the safeguards that are in place. MUIS has conducted a series of internal workshops with NTUC and TAFEP to help MUIS employees better protect themselves and look out for their co-workers.
Madrasah staff attend talks and programmes to equip themselves with skills to respond to incidents of sexual harassment. Full-time madrasahs currently have an ongoing partnership with Club HEAL, a local Malay/Muslim organisation which offers assistance for people with mental illness, to organise talks for madrasah teachers to communicate effectively with distressed students and raise their awareness of mental health issues. Teachers also receive training on how to deal with students’ psychological, emotional and developmental needs through certified courses. Each madrasah has at least one teacher who has been formally trained to address such issues and two roving counsellors deployed by Club HEAL to support students who require such services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The complaints are not related and were filed against 12 different perpetrators."],"footNoteQuestions":["60"],"questionNo":"60"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Sexually-explicit Online Posts Made to MUIS and MUIS' Response","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) when did MUIS first receive a complaint on the sexually-explicit online poll targeting at women Islamic religious teachers and what was the action taken; (b) since the matter was first reported till now, how many similar cases have been reported to MUIS; (c) what measures are being taken by MUIS to counsel and rehabilitate the suspects; and (d) when will MUIS introduce a comprehensive revision of its moral education programme for students of Kids aLIVE and Teens aLIVE and the Muslim public.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On 26 May 2021, MUIS received complaints from concerned members of the public about an online poll sexualising female Muslim religious teachers. MUIS immediately reached out to offer support to the victims of the poll, such as counselling as well as psychological, emotional and religious support. MUIS also lodged a police report for the Police to investigate the poll. As Police investigations are ongoing, MUIS is unable to provide further comments until full investigations have been completed.
Over the past three years (that is, from January 2019 to June 2021), MUIS has received a total of 12 complaints1 alleging that a member of the asatizah fraternity was a perpetrator of sexual harassment and two reports where asatizah were victims of sexual harassment. There have been no similar cases of sexual harassment reported to MUIS since the online poll.
The Islamic education curriculum for full-time and part-time madrasahs, such as Kids aLIVE and Teens aLIVE, are regularly reviewed to ensure they remain relevant in addressing emerging issues and developments affecting our Muslim children and youths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The complaints are not related and were filed against 12 different perpetrators."],"footNoteQuestions":["61"],"questionNo":"61"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educational Programmes to Deal with Allegations and Incidents of Sexual Harrassment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what form of sex education and youth engagement is conducted in madrasahs and mosques; (b) what form of training is provided to the staff on how to handle allegations and incidents of sexual harassment and counsel victims of such incidents; and (c) what is being done to promote gender equality in the mosque and madrasah communities.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Our madrasahs incorporate sexuality education in their existing curriculum for both male and female students. While this is not a standalone subject, it is covered substantially within the syllabus through topics like boy-girl relationships, gender, sexuality, and managing issues relating to self-image, puberty and adolescence, as well as managing peer pressure. This is targeted at students aged 13 to 16 years old. Beyond the classroom, madrasah students have the opportunity to participate in youth engagement programmes that address these issues and are offered at the inter-school or national level.
For example, the National Youth Council’s Youth Conversations in 2019 helped madrasah students gain awareness and engage other youths on issues such as equality, mental health, and jobs and the economy.
Part-time madrasahs in the mosques also conduct holiday programmes for students aged nine to 15 years old, to expose them to religious guidance on issues that affect young people.
The Islamic education curriculum for madrasahs are regularly reviewed to ensure they remain relevant in addressing emerging issues and developments affecting our Muslim children and youths.
Madrasah staff attend talks and programmes to equip themselves with skills to respond to incidents of sexual harassment. Full-time madrasahs currently have an ongoing partnership with Club HEAL, a local Malay/Muslim organisation which offers assistance for people with mental illness. Club HEAL organises talks for madrasah teachers to communicate effectively with distressed students and raise their awareness of mental health issues. There are also programmes to train teachers through certified courses on how to deal with students’ psychological, emotional and developmental needs. Each madrasah has at least one teacher who has been formally trained to address such issues and two roving counsellors deployed by Club HEAL to support students who require such services.
MUIS works closely with the mosques to handle allegations and incidents of sexual harassment. These include putting in place anti-harassment policies and procedures for reporting such incidents, including the necessary support for victims. MUIS is currently engaging the madrasahs and mosque clusters to review their policies and procedures for reporting incidents of harassment. We expect the revised policies to be fully implemented later this year.
Men and women are of equal worth in Islam. The special position of women in Islam is one of the core teachings of the faith, where Muslims are taught the need to treat all women with respect, honour and dignity.
This high regard for women is embedded in our madrasahs’ ethos. For example, three out of our six full-time madrasahs have female school principals. The proportion of female madrasah students taking up leadership positions such as head prefect, in student councils, and Co-Curricular Activity clubs, is similar to the proportion of females in the school population.
Both men and women have equal opportunities to volunteer and serve in various appointments in mosques. Many full-time mosque staff are women, with some serving as mosque managers and heads of departments for corporate services and social development. There are also women holding leadership positions such as the vice chairperson in the mosque management board and women leading committees that plan and organise events for the congregants.
MUIS is committed to ensuring that our madrasahs and mosques remain inclusive spaces for both men and women, where all Muslims can develop their full potential and be strong contributors to society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Persons with Records of Sexual Offences or Violent Crimes Do Not Work as Private Tutors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has plans to regulate or license private tuition teachers and tuition agencies/enrichment centres; and (b) what mechanisms are in place to ensure those working as private tuition teachers or in tuition agencies/enrichment centres do not have criminal records of sexual offences or violent crimes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The private tuition and enrichment industry is diverse, with a wide range of providers and settings. This includes larger tuition and enrichment centres, as well as freelance private tutors, who may enter and exit the industry at any time.
Under the Education Act, centres offering tuition or enrichment programmes to 10 or more students must be registered with MOE. As part of registration requirements, centres are required to comply with infrastructural and fire safety requirements and have a school management committee. Once registered, they are required to display their registration certificate at their premises.
Tutors at these centres must also be registered with MOE. During registration, they must declare whether they have been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment. MOE will not register any applicant who has been convicted of such serious offences, including sexual offences.
These regulations do not cover freelance tutors who offer private tuition outside of centres, for example, in homes, or agencies that provide matching services between private tutors and students.
As private tuition is a commercial business, we encourage parents to exercise discretion and due diligence in engaging the services of tuition and enrichment centres, as well as individual tutors.
As the Minister for Home Affairs informed Parliament in April, the Government is reviewing whether to make it mandatory for persons employed in sectors working with children to be screened for serious offences, including sexual offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Equip Schools, Parents and Teachers with Skills to Identify and Support Abused Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with recent reports of sexual offences involving young children, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing and enhancing the current Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) Framework to safeguard the physical and mental well-being of students.
65 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the efforts to help schools handle sexual offences in schools; and (b) what are the kinds of support rendered to affected students and staff members.
66 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education whether there are any efforts to equip parents and teachers with the skills to look out for and recognise signs of distress and abuse in students and subsequently refer the matter for professional support or to relevant authorities where necessary.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The safety of our students is of paramount importance to MOE.
MOE’s Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) Framework for the pre-school sector includes guidelines for pre-school teachers to help children develop a positive self-concept, healthy habits and an awareness of safety practices.
MOE is reviewing the NEL Framework to include teaching children appropriate behaviours that promote self and group safety. These include body safety awareness, how to talk about feelings and seek help from adults when they feel hurt or unsafe. The revised framework will be launched in end 2022.
Currently, the topics of child abuse and neglect (including signs, symptoms and what educators should do) as well as concepts of body safety, such as identifying good/bad touch, are covered within the training content of the National Institute of Early Childhood (NIEC)’s pre-service certificate and diploma programmes. In-service teachers can also attend an ECDA-endorsed course on \"Empowering Children with Body Safety Skills\" conducted by Singapore Children’s Society to learn ways to teach children protective skills to prevent sexual abuse.
In Primary schools, students learn about personal safety and protection from abuse through Character and Citizenship Education. They are taught how to recognise sexual abuse and harassment, skills to protect themselves both in the physical and online space, and laws that protect them. These lessons are developmentally appropriate, start from Primary 1 and are reinforced throughout their years in school. Students also learn help-seeking skills and are provided with resources and community helplines to alert trusted adults when their personal safety is compromised.
School Leaders, teachers, School Counsellors and Student Welfare Officers, are trained to identify and report child abuse to Child Protective Service in MSF. They look out for signs of distress in students and provide counselling and other forms of support. When there is a suspected abuse case, the School Leaders work with the School Counsellor to report to the relevant authorities and support the student sensitively. Our schools will continue to monitor and support the students and involve their parents or other agencies where relevant.
Schools also engage and work with parents as they play a critical role in providing guidance to their children. Parents are provided with information on how to look out for signs of distress and to encourage their children to share their concerns with them.
For teachers and staff who experienced harassment or abuse at work, they report the cases to the School Leaders, Superintendents in charge of the school or directly to MOE. Those who are psychologically or emotionally affected will be supported by professional counsellors. MOE takes a very serious view of any misconduct that may impinge on the safety and well-being of students or staff members. Every case will be thoroughly investigated by an independent unit in MOE. We will not hesitate to take disciplinary actions and, where necessary, report the case to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sale of Dangerous Weapons on Online Retail Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry is aware of online retail platforms that offer a variety of knives including karambit knives for sale; (b) whether the ease and accessibility of procuring such dangerous weapons is a cause for concern; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to review the laws and policies associated with the sale of such products.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA is aware that there are e-commerce platforms that offer weapons such as karambits for sale.
Karambits are currently not regulated under the Arms and Explosives Act (AEA) and a licence is not required for selling or possessing them.
However, in January 2021, we introduced the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act (GEWCA), which will replace the AEA when it comes into force later this year.
GEWCA will expand the list of regulated weapons to include dangerous weapons such as karambits. All persons, including e-commerce platforms, who possess, handle or supply these items, will need a licence from Police. Sellers of these dangerous weapons will need to be security-screened by Police; and those who hold a licence to possess them will need to adhere to stringent safety conditions, such as storing the items safely under lock and key, and not handing the items to unauthorised persons.
In addition, under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (CESOWA), it is an offence to carry a karambit in public without a lawful purpose.
MHA will continue to regularly review our legislation to keep Singapore safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Married Women and Mothers during Prolonged COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of a study which found that women are less satisfied with their marriages during and after the circuit breaker period (a) whether a similar theme has surfaced during the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development sessions; (b) whether more support can be provided to married women especially mothers during the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic; and (c) what more can be done to encourage men to shoulder the burden that women carry at home to strengthen marriages in Singapore.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I believe the Hon Member is referring to the recent study by Assoc Prof Tan Poh Lin of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and her co-authors on gendered roles in time spent on household responsibilities. This study found that mothers’ marital satisfaction fell during and after the circuit breaker last year. While the amount of household responsibilities increased for both mothers and fathers, Dr Tan noted that mothers still shouldered a larger share of the responsibilities which could be one reason for the slide in marital satisfaction.
A similar theme surfaced during the Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development. Participants expressed their hope for men and women to share household responsibilities more equally, not only during the pandemic but beyond it as well.
Our approach has been to encourage fathers to take on more household tasks as well as be actively involved in raising their children, as there is evidence that this leads to stronger marriages and better child outcomes. Hence, even before the pandemic, the Government had progressively enhanced parental leave schemes over the years to enable fathers to play a bigger role. In 2017, the Government mandated the second week of Paternity Leave and increased Shared Parental Leave from one to four weeks. Fathers have up to a year from their child’s birth to use these leave provisions. In total, fathers can now enjoy up to eight weeks of leave in their child’s first year to bond with their newborns and care for their wives. This would include six days of paid Childcare Leave and up to six days of unpaid Infant Care Leave, both of which are extended equally to working fathers and mothers.
Ever since the circuit breaker, the Government has worked closely with partners like Families for Life (FFL) and the Centre for Fathering, which drives the Dads for Life and Mums for Life movements, to intensify online resources so both mothers and fathers can better cope with the greater family and household demands. FFL has also organised the ongoing series of #AskFFL interviews where both moms and dads can ask FFL’s experts on a wide range of topics including infant care, home-based learning and positive parenting. These efforts promote joint parenting, which strengthens marriages as husbands and wives mutually support one another and talk through difficulties they encounter with their children or with one another.
An Online Counselling pilot was launched in April 2020 during the pandemic. It is a service provided by the Community Psychology Hub and funded by MSF to provide support to individuals who are going through marital, divorce and parenting difficulties over live chat and email counselling. We encourage all who require support to use this service.
The Government also continues to encourage companies to support their employees by adopting flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and other work-life practices, especially since parents have had to adjust their childcare and work-from-home routines frequently given the unpredictability of the pandemic situation. While these measures were enhanced during the pandemic, the Government will monitor the effects of the higher use of FWAs and study ways to entrench best practices.
MSF has dedicated 2021 as the Year of Celebrating SG Women to recognise the importance of our women’s contributions. We hope that the partnership between our women and men will deepen and grow, with respectful relations and equitable family roles as the cornerstone. This can help create a conducive environment for marriages to thrive.
While the Government has put in place measures to support married women and strengthen marriages, the family and community continue to play important roles in effecting a mindset shift for men to share the responsibilities that women carry at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tax Rebates and Baby Bonus Incentives for Single Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the obstacles preventing application of tax rebates and Baby Bonuses to single parents; and (b) how can these obstacles be overcome, bearing in mind the need to provide support for young children especially given the financial stress imposed by the pandemic.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Our Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) policies seek to promote and strengthen the institution of family and encourage parenthood within marriage.
Nevertheless, we recognise the challenges that single unwed parents face in having to single-handedly raise their children, and the likely added financial stress during this pandemic. We take a two-pronged approach to assist single unwed parents.
First, benefits to support the growth and development of children are given to parents of all Singaporean children, regardless of their marital status. Second, we provide targeted, customised support to address their financial and other needs holistically, even more so in this pandemic.
Let me explain. Our approach is to enable all Singaporean children to receive Government benefits that support their caregiving, growth and development, regardless of their parents’ marital status. For instance, since 2016, we have extended the Child Development Account benefits to Singaporean children of single unwed parents, including the $3,000 First Step Grant and matched co-savings from Government. Families can benefit from up to $6,000 and $9,000 in Government contributions to the CDA for their first and second child, and even more for subsequent children.
Next, in 2017, we also extended 16 weeks of Government-Paid Maternity Leave to single unwed mothers. Working parents (both wed and unwed) are also entitled to six days of paid Childcare Leave per year for children aged below seven years, or two days for children aged seven to 12 years.
Lastly, schemes that benefit all Singaporean children such as subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, and the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession have been extended to them over the years. A Singaporean child will receive over $180,000 of education subsidies in total by the time he turns 16. This includes about $50,000 in Government subsidies over five years when they enrol in a full-day childcare programme with one of the Anchor Operators. These are available to all Singaporean children born to parents wed or unwed.
Together with our tripartite partners, we launched a new Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony earlier this year, which encourages employers to not just provide flexible work arrangements, but also other measures that help employees better balance work and family commitments, like enhancing leave policies and providing suitable work arrangements for those with family caregiving needs.
Single unwed parents requiring support with their basic living expenses can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs). Our SSOs will assess their households’ needs and circumstances, and provide ComCare financial assistance if they meet the criteria. Our SSOs may also refer them to other Government agencies and community partners for further support.
Family Service Centres (FSCs) also work with single unwed parents and their children to address their family-related and/or social-emotional needs, and coordinate support from other agencies should they require additional support services, such as childcare services or employment assistance.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has affected businesses and livelihoods of Singaporeans, we have also introduced schemes during this period, such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant – Temporary (CRG-T), to assist lower- to middle-income employees and Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) who are facing involuntary job loss, No-Pay Leave or significant income loss.
Taken together, these efforts would support single unwed parents not just during the pandemic, but in their parenthood journey as a whole. We will continue to review our policies to better support single unwed parents in raising their children.
The Baby Bonus Cash Gift is intended to encourage parenthood within marriage. The Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) are also intended to support parenthood within marriage and to encourage married mothers to continue working after childbirth. These schemes are thus not extended to single unwed parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Support for Singaporeans Who Wish to Conceive but Are Unable to Do So under Current Conventions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister whether there are plans to review existing policies to provide further support for Singaporeans who wish to conceive but are unable to do so under current conventions.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Most Singaporeans want to get married and have children, and supporting them to do so remains a national priority.
Clinical evidence indicates that the likelihood of successfully conceiving and carrying a child to term decreases as people get older, even with the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). For ART treatments performed between 2015 and 2019, success rates exceeded 24% for women aged 34 and below, fell to about 17% for women from ages 35 to 39, and declined further to about 7% for those aged 40 and above. To strengthen the chances of conception, we continue to encourage couples to marry and start families early, as well as to seek treatment early if needed.
Nonetheless, we recognise that the circumstances for each couple are unique. Each will have their own reasons for trying to conceive at an older age. We have progressively enhanced our schemes to support married couples who have difficulty conceiving.
With medical advancements having improved the safety of ART procedures and reduced the medical risks for women over 40 undergoing ART, we removed the age limit for women to undergo ART treatments, as well as the cap on the number of ART cycles they can go through, last year.
We also recognise that a key concern for some couples is the affordability of fertility treatments. The ART co-funding scheme was first introduced in 2008 to help defray the costs of ART treatments at public Assisted Reproduction centres. Today, couples are eligible for co-funding of up to $7,700 per fresh ART cycle, as compared to $6,300 previously. Co-funding for Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI) was also introduced in January 2020. Couples can also withdraw up to a lifetime limit of $15,000 from their own, or their spouse’s MediSave Account to offset the out-of-pocket payment for Assisted Conception Procedures. In the past, only couples where the women are aged below 40 were eligible for ART co-funding, for up to six cycles. Since last year, women aged 40 and above are able to receive co-funding for two of the six co-funded ART cycles, as long as they have attempted Assisted Reproduction or IUI procedures before age 40. This strikes a balance between providing support to couples with parenthood aspirations and ensuring that public funds are used in a targeted way.
Our ongoing Emerging Stronger Conversations on \"Building a Singapore that is Made For Families\" include engagements with couples with fertility issues, doctors and other fertility experts. These conversations are part of our continued efforts to better understand what Singaporean couples are experiencing, so as to improve our support for marriage and parenthood. Participants have highlighted the need for earlier and better awareness of fertility health facts, and the need to strengthen societal support for couples, both men and women, undergoing fertility treatments. We will factor in their feedback as we review our overall support for fertility health in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals Received for COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, how many appeals have been received for the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund (CDRF); (b) what are the numbers of successful and unsuccessful appeals against the total number of private hire car (PHC) drivers; and (c) whether the CDRF criterion of an average of 200 trips per month from 1 October to 31 December 2020 can be reviewed downwards due to the fall in ridership and to include delivery trips undertaken by these drivers.
Mr S Iswaran: The COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund (CDRF) is a targeted relief scheme to support active taxi and private hire car (PHC) drivers through this period of low ridership due to COVID-19 so that drivers can continue to provide taxi and PHC services for commuters.
A minimum trip criterion is stipulated to ensure that the CDRF is provided to existing drivers who are dependent on driving as their main source of income. Drivers need to have completed an average of 200 trips per month during the qualifying periods in order to qualify for the CDRF.
Between January and May 2021, LTA received appeals from 850 drivers who did not qualify for the CDRF and acceded to about 190 of them. Of the about 660 appeals that were rejected, around half could not provide valid reasons for failing to meet the minimum trip criterion, and another about 300 were new drivers who recently joined the sector after December 2020 and were not active drivers during the qualifying months for previous tranches. Some of these drivers, however, may qualify for the payouts under the extended CDRF starting in July.
LTA takes into consideration several factors when assessing appeals, including the impact of the prevailing COVID-19 situation on taxi and PHC ridership during the qualifying months. As part of the appeal process, factors such as the number of delivery trips performed by drivers, as well as medical and compassionate grounds are considered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Better Regulate Fluctuations in COE Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent all-time high COE price for motorcycles (a) whether there are plans to mitigate the situation; and (b) whether there will be any review of the current motorcycle COE system so as to better regulate the COE prices.
Mr S Iswaran: The Certificate of Entitlement (COE) is a market-based mechanism to allocate limited vehicle supply. The quota premium for COEs is thus determined by market forces of supply and demand.
The overall supply of Category D COEs has remained stable since 2018. This is as we have ceased the contribution of Category D to Category E quota in 2017. Also, the vehicle growth rate for motorcycles, like for cars, has been 0% since 2018 in line with our car-lite policy. Therefore, at each bidding cycle, the supply of motorcycle COEs available is simply based on the number of motorcycles deregistered in the previous quarter.
Since the resumption of COE bidding after motor showrooms and dealerships re-opened, Category D COE prices have increased, but there is so far no evidence of speculation. The vast majority of COEs at these prices have been taken up and used to register motorcycles. The number of utilised temporary COEs has been high at approximately 99%, as compared to the historical average of about 91%.
Motorcycles are also subject to much lower Additional Registration Fees, road taxes and ERP charges compared to cars. We will continue to monitor the situation and study if any further measures ought to be taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Support to Resolve Disamenities from Cigarette Smoke and Noise Disturbance between Neighbours in HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development what new guidelines and support are being contemplated by HDB to resolve disamenities impacting neighbours arising from cigarette smoke and noise disturbance, in this new normal of extended periods at home with the home fast becoming the workplace as well.
Mr Desmond Lee: Neighbours are encouraged to accord respect and consideration to one another, especially when more people are at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. One household’s lifestyle or habit could cause inconvenience or disturbance to another household. When disamenities occur due to human behaviour, we encourage communication between neighbours as a first step towards resolving the matter.
To assist HDB residents affected by second-hand cigarette smoke from neighbouring homes, HDB works with Town Councils and NEA to advise smokers to exercise consideration for others. A Joint Advisory on Smoking in Homes will be issued to the residential unit reported to be emitting second-hand smoke, encouraging considerate behaviour and emphasising the negative impact that second-hand smoke may have on their neighbours.
For residents affected by noise disturbance from neighbours, HDB will convey the feedback to the neighbours and seek their understanding to keep the noise level down. When alerted to feedback about disamenities – whether smoking or noise-related – most neighbours will cooperate and take measures to minimise the inconvenience to other residents.
HDB has also put in place measures to mitigate renovation noise and its impact, given that more residents are now working or studying from home and may be affected by renovation noise. For instance, from July 2021, HDB residents will be able to view notices for upcoming flat renovation works at their blocks, that have been approved by HDB, through the OneService App.
Should disputes remain intractable, residents can seek help from community leaders or the Community Mediation Centre for mediation to resolve the issue amicably. They can also file a case at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal as a last resort. MCCY is also currently leading an inter-agency review to strengthen the Community Dispute Management Framework, which seeks to promote neighbourliness to minimise disputes and to encourage the amicable resolution of disputes via mediation.
In terms of public education, HDB actively engages residents through exhibitions, volunteer networks like the Friends of Our Heartlands, and campaigns such as the recent collaboration with the Singapore Kindness Movement on the \"Then How\" public messaging series.
The Municipal Services Office (MSO) has also just launched an ongoing study to better understand noise issues in specific feedback hotspots in HDB estates, so that we can develop new strategies to approach this issue. In addition, MSO is working with residents, grassroots organisations and community stakeholders in various Divisions across Singapore through the Love Our ’Hood Initiative to design community solutions to address neighbourly disamenities, with the next location being Pioneer. Ultimately, good communication and neighbourliness amongst residents are key to minimising neighbourhood disamenities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends in Complaints about Construction Noise near Residential Estates in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there has been an increase in complaints about construction noise near residential estates in the last three years; and (b) whether NEA can review the regulations to reduce noise from construction sites that are situated within 100 metres of residential estates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The number of complaints on construction noise near residential areas was stable at around 800 per month on average from 2018 to February 2020, and rose to 1,160 in March 2020 when people started working from home. From April to July 2020, fewer than 400 complaints were received per month due to the circuit breaker and before full resumption of construction work. From August 2020 to May 2021, when construction activities fully resumed but with many people still working from home, the number of complaints increased to about 1,100 per month. Investigations established that around 11% of complaints in 2021 were attributed to cases where construction sites had breached the regulatory limits.
The Environmental Protection and Management (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations stipulate maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites, taking reference from the World Health Organization’s guidelines. Construction sites that are situated less than 150 metres from residential buildings and noise-sensitive premises, such as hospitals, are subject to more stringent noise limits and are not allowed to carry out work on Sundays and Public Holidays.
To enforce the noise limits, noise meters are installed at the nearest residential or noise-sensitive premises from the construction site. This means construction sites located nearer to such premises have to implement more noise mitigation measures, to ensure that the noise levels experienced by residents remain within the permissible limits.
The approach to managing construction noise is reviewed regularly, taking into account industry and public feedback, international best practices and our local context. In reviewing the regulation of noise from construction sites, NEA will take into account the increasing prevalence of people working from home, while balancing against the need to allow construction work to be completed within a reasonable duration and cost. NEA will continue looking into other means of encouraging construction companies to reduce their noise impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Manage Effects of \"Credential Hyperinflation\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education in light of rising proportions of those aged 25 and above attaining tertiary education qualifications and increased job competition, what measures will be taken to prevent and manage the effects of “credential hyperinflation”.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The \"Census of Population 2020\" report recently published by the Department of Statistics indicated that the education profile of Singapore residents has improved between 2010 and 2020. Among residents aged 25 years and over in 2020, 48% attained diplomas, degrees and professional qualifications, up from 37% in 2010. This includes diploma and degree graduates from ITE, Polytechnics, Autonomous Universities (AUs), Private Education Institutions (PEIs) and overseas universities. Even with higher education attainment levels, graduate employment rates have, in fact, remained stable over the past few years and starting wages have risen over time. Nine in 10 graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) who entered the labour force last year found jobs or traineeships within six months of graduation. The median gross monthly salary amongst full-time permanent employed AU graduates has risen from $3,300 in 2015 to $3,700 in 2020.
To ensure that our tertiary courses provide young Singaporeans with the skills needed to access good employment opportunities, MOE works closely with economic agencies to plan the supply of diploma and degree places in our IHLs for Singaporeans. This takes into account the national manpower demand across different economic sectors, the employment prospects of graduates from various disciplines, as well as student interest. The IHLs uphold admission standards, refresh their curriculum in tandem with industry needs and closely monitor graduate outcomes as part of wider efforts to maintain quality.
It is important for Singaporeans to adopt a lifelong learning mindset, even after graduation. Ultimately, it is skills that are a key determinant of wages and career prospects. As part of the SkillsFuture movement, we will continue to ensure that our educational pathways remain open and accessible to learners to help them reskill and upskill to seize new growth opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of ComCare Applications and Common Reasons for Rejection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past year, what is the success rate of ComCare applications; (b) what are the mean and median processing time and amount of award and duration for such applications; (c) what is the most common reason for rejection; (d) what has been the success rate of appeals against rejections; (e) how frequently are the income caps for various ComCare assistance schemes reviewed; and (f) when is the next review scheduled.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: ComCare provides assistance to low-income households for their basic living expenses. ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) is provided to those who are permanently unable to work due to old age, illness or disability, and have little or no means of income and family support. Households that require help to tide over temporary financial difficulty are provided with ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA). Social Service Offices (SSOs) assess the household’s income and expenses, and provide SMTA to cover the shortfall in income to meet basic living expenses.
In 2020, to provide ComCare beneficiaries with a longer runway to regain stability during the economic downturn, MSF automatically extended the duration of ComCare assistance for existing ComCare beneficiaries by six months. This applied to ComCare beneficiaries whose assistance ended in May to October last year. In addition, new ComCare beneficiaries during April to December last year generally received at least six months of assistance.
The approval rates for ComCare applications made in 2020 were 70% for SMTA and 98% for LTA. The most common reason for unsuccessful ComCare applications is that applicants were assessed to have stable income that was sufficient to meet their basic living expenses. Other reasons why applications are not approved include clients withdrawing their applications to apply for other assistance schemes, for example, the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG), and clients not submitting supporting documents. MSF does not track the number of appeals.
With the flexibilities mentioned earlier, the mean and median duration of cash assistance for SMTA beneficiaries as at 31 December 2020 were around six months. The mean and median monthly cash assistance amounts were around $600 and $500 per household respectively. This cash assistance is in addition to assistance for rental, utilities, and service and conservancy charges, and other forms of Government assistance and subsidies that households could be receiving, such as MediFund for medical expenses, subsidised rental housing, financial assistance for school fees, and childcare and student care subsidies. The majority of SMTA households are one- to two-person households.
LTA is provided to those who are assessed to be permanently unable to work and whose circumstances are unlikely to change significantly. It is typically renewed annually when the Social Service Offices conduct a well-being check with beneficiaries, to ensure that they continue to receive the range of support they require. The monthly cash assistance amount for LTA beneficiaries depends on the size of their households. About 90% of LTA beneficiaries are from one-person households and they receive $600 per month. Therefore, the mean and median monthly cash assistance is around $600. LTA beneficiaries also receive subsidised medical care at public healthcare institutions and additional assistance for specialised or one-off needs, such as medical equipment or household appliances.
Most applications are processed within four weeks once the necessary documents have been submitted by the applicants, and almost all applications are processed within six weeks.
SMTA has income eligibility criteria of a monthly household income of $1,900 and below or per capita household income of $650 and below. The income criteria for ComCare schemes are not hard thresholds. Rather, our Social Service Offices assess each application holistically and provide financial assistance to those assessed unable to afford basic living expenses. Flexibility may also be exercised on a case-by-case basis. MSF reviews the ComCare provision and eligibility criteria every two to three years to ensure that ComCare objectives are being met. The last review was conducted in 2019 and we plan to next review the criteria in 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Helping Singaporeans Who Do Not Meet Means Test Criteria for Pro Bono Legal Aid Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry can take an active approach to help Singaporeans who do not meet the current means test for pro bono legal services and cannot afford the market cost of legal services in matters such as deputyship, estate administration and divorce.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government-funded civil and criminal legal aid covers the bottom 25% of resident households. This focuses our resources on helping residents most in need.
The Member’s real question is whether legal aid can be expanded to go beyond 25% in respect of the categories she has highlighted. We have given answers to similar questions, previously. It is possible to expand the coverage but that has to be paid for, either by cutting back on some other service or by increasing taxes. Ultimately, there have to be judgement calls on the right level of support for private legal services, to be paid for by the general taxpayer. We have settled on 25% of resident households, and the figure has been and will be regularly reviewed.
The Member also specifically referred to divorce cases. We have introduced a number of measures to streamline divorce proceedings. These include: (a) the simplified case management track. Parties who agree on the divorce and ancillary matters prior to the filing of the action can obtain a divorce on this track without going through lengthy court proceedings. They can navigate this on their own without the need to incur legal fees. This saves parties both costs and time. The majority of divorce cases are filed on the simplified track. In 2020, 60% of cases were filed on the simplified track; (b) the use of alternative dispute resolution. For cases that do not proceed on the simplified track, many have been resolved through mediation. Mediation helps parties address the key issues without the need for lengthy or acrimonious hearings. In 2020, 90% of cases that went through mediation either reached a full or partial settlement; and (c) the use of the judge-led approach, where Judges take a more proactive role in proceedings by taking the lead and controlling the pace of the proceedings. This is a less adversarial mode of proceedings, which avoids unnecessary disputes, acrimony and protracted hearings. Nevertheless, we agree that more can be done because there continue to be cases where it is too costly and protracted, unnecessarily so. We will continue to see how these issues can be dealt with.
The Member has also asked about Deputyship and Estate Administration. We have worked with agencies and the Courts to simplify processes in these matters, amongst others, to help Singaporeans to navigate processes. Simplified filing tracks have been introduced in the Family Justice Courts for the more straightforward deputyship applications. The Courts are also developing an online application for straightforward probate matters.
We work closely with partners to increase awareness of common legal issues, through free public talks, webinars and legal clinics. We are also partnering the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS) to develop a one-stop portal that will provide layman-friendly information on common legal issues.
We will continue to review other areas and processes that can be streamlined, and work on measures to increase awareness and enhance access to justice for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limit of Five Distinct Visitors a Day for Home-based Businesses in Larger Premises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether home-based businesses that reside in larger premises can receive more than five distinct guests a day as long as they fulfil the prevailing guidelines on the number of people per square foot that other retailers abide by.
Mr Desmond Lee: While homeowners may conduct home-based businesses in their HDB flats or private residential properties, these premises are primarily for residential use. The restriction on the number of distinct visitors to the home is intended to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission to household members, should there be a COVID-19-positive visitor.
Unlike retail stores where interactions occur mainly between the staff and customers, customers of a home-based business may come into contact with household members. Thus, those operating businesses from their homes may receive up to the prevailing permissible number of visitors per day, regardless of whether these individuals are customers or guests, and regardless of the size of their home.
We seek the Member’s understanding that the measures are in place to contain the spread of COVID-19 for the safety of household members, visitors and the community at large.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility and Impact of Quickened Pace of Inflation in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Singapore will face a quickened pace of inflation; and (b) if so, how will such a development affect the Singapore economy over the next 12 months.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MTI expects CPI-All Items inflation to average between 1% and 2% this year, following the 0.2% decline in consumer prices last year.
Consumer price increases in Singapore are likely to be relatively moderate, although global inflationary pressures are likely to remain elevated in the near term, due to higher oil prices and higher inflation in some of our major trading partners including the US.
As this year’s projected inflation rate largely reflects normalising prices amidst an uncertain global and domestic economic recovery, MTI does not expect it to have an adverse impact on the Singapore economy. The Government will continue to monitor inflation trends in the Singapore economy closely and help Singaporeans cope with cost of living pressures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Enrolment of General Practitioners in Primary Care Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the enrolment progress of general practitioners (GPs) under the primary care network (PCN); (b) whether the enrolment rate of GPs in PCN meets the expected target set by the Ministry; and (c) what is the measurable impact of a strong PCN on chronic disease management.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Primary Care Networks, or PCNs, launched in January 2018, are self-organised groupings of GPs coming together to share resources such as coordinators and nurse counsellors. By doing so, they provide core ancillary services important for chronic disease management, such as diabetic eye and foot screening and nurse counselling. As of May 2021, 10 primary care networks (PCNs) have been set up, involving over 600 clinics1 and 875 General Practitioners (GPs). This accounts for more than 50% of Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) GP clinics and meets our initial enrolment target.
Two years after their establishment, we have observed improvements in adherence rates to recommended chronic disease care components. In 2019, 34% of diabetic patients being cared for at PCNs had completed their annual foot screening and 50% had gone for their annual eye screening2, up from 28% and 47% in 2018, respectively. We also found that existing diabetic patients had a better adherence rate compared to new PCN patients3, suggesting that patients who continue care with their PCN clinics receive more regular recommended screenings. We are encouraged by the early results and will work with PCNs to ensure that their patients’ chronic conditions are well-controlled.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : There are 604 PCN GP clinics as of May 2021.","2 : Derived from all PCN patients, including those who visit polyclinics within the same year.","3 : In 2019, we observed a higher foot screening take up rate of 37% for existing PCN patients compared to 27% for patients new to PCN; and, similarly, for eye screening, 53% for existing PCN patients compared to 45% for patients new to PCN."],"footNoteQuestions":["80"],"questionNo":"80"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Longer Leases for Livestock Farms beyond Current 20-year Lease","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government can consider longer leases for livestock farms beyond the current 20-year lease for all new agricultural land; (b) what is the rationale for determining such a 20-year lease; (c) whether the new Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund can align its co-funding quantum across projects in primary production of leafy vegetables, food fish and hen eggs, and projects in primary production of other food types; and (d) what is the rationale for a higher co-funding quantum for the former projects compared to the latter projects.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: With only about 1% of land set aside for agriculture, we need to be judicious in the way we lease our limited agricultural land, especially as we strive towards our \"30 by 30\" goal to raise Singapore’s food production.
In 2017, AVA introduced the current 20-year lease model for agricultural land, after taking into account feedback from farms. The current lease model balances the need to ensure productive use of the land for agriculture, the amount of lease premiums payable by farms upfront, and to provide farmers with sufficient certainty on the lease duration to make capital investments. The Member had welcomed the move in Parliament then. SFA will continue to work with the agri-food industry to review the lease tenure policy as technologies mature and business models evolve.
On the co-funding quantums under the new Agri-food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund, a higher funding cap and co-funding ratio is allocated to the production of leafy vegetable, food fish and eggs because these are commonly-consumed food items that our local agri-food industry is able to produce in a resource-efficient and commercially-sustainable manner. For these food items, there is also potential for Singapore to innovate in sustainable urban food production and export high-tech farming systems and solutions.
For other food types which are less commonly-consumed but contribute to Singapore’s food security, the funding quantum and co-funding ratio have been raised compared to the funding levels under the previous Agriculture Productivity Fund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount and Management Process for Waste Produced by Fish Farms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in each of the past three years, how much and what kinds of waste have been produced by Singapore’s fish farms; (b) what are the waste collection processes in place to ensure that the waste does not end up in the sea; and (c) whether the waste is segregated for circular usage or incineration.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The waste generated by fish farms comprise organic matter such as fish faeces, dead fish, unconsumed fish feed, as well as general refuse. As waste from fish farms are comingled and collected with other waste, data is not available on the amount of waste produced by fish farms.
SFA’s licensing condition requires sea-based fish farms to bag, transport and dispose their waste on land. Waste collection points are available at the Lim Chu Kang and Lorong Halus jetties for farms located in the Western and Eastern Straits of Johor. In the Southern Waters, there is only one fish farm, which has a commercial arrangement to transport and dispose its waste on land. SFA carries out routine inspections and takes enforcement action should farms be found to illegally dump waste into the waters. SFA also sends regular reminders via newsletters and conducts briefings to fish farmers on proper waste disposal and management processes.
While most of the fish farms currently do not segregate nor upcycle their waste into valuable products, there are more opportunities to do so as we transform our aquaculture industry towards sustainable fish production, in support of the \"30 by 30\" goal to produce 30% of our nutritional needs by 2030. For example, some fish farms are applying circular economy principles in their operations, such as up-cycling fish sludge into plant fertilisers and undertaking R&D to valorise fish sludge and other organic matter into animal feed or nutrients for fish. SFA will continue to engage the industry on adopting more sustainable farm management methods, including monitoring the impact of aquaculture activities on farming sites and the use of better feed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Airflow and Ventilation Analysis for Existing and New Buildings and Hospitals to Minimise Transmission of COVID-19 and Emerging Pathogens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what capabilities do agencies have to analyse airflow, ventilation and movement of droplet or airborne particles in existing buildings and proposed new built environment designs; (b) whether this is considered in designing new healthcare facilities; and (c) whether the Ministry will review existing healthcare facilities' airflow in the different hospital wards and facility settings as part of minimising transmission of COVID-19 and emerging pathogens.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The expertise and study of airflow, ventilation and movement of droplet or airborne particles in existing buildings resides across several agencies including NEA. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has the domain knowledge on Air Conditioning and Mechanical Ventilation (ACMV) systems to complement the analysis.
In new healthcare facilities, airflow simulation is carried out during the design stage. This helps to ascertain the building orientation and design of façade openings needed, including optimising natural ventilation.
Compared to usual commercial, office or residential buildings, the ACMV design requirements in a hospital are more stringent in order to mitigate diseases transmission risks. The ACMV provisions depend on the planned uses of the spaces. Spaces that require special air pressure regimes and control such as isolation rooms and operating theatres, are tested on airflow direction and airflow rates as part of the building acceptance tests. Regular air pressure readings and tests are also carried out to ensure that these spaces operate as per their design and meet the required performance standards.
MOH will continue to work with the public hospitals and other healthcare facilities to review and implement measures to enhance the ventilation of existing facilities and the design of future facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detecting COVID-19 Virus in Built Environments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what capabilities exist for detecting the presence, viability and infectivity of the COVID-19 virus in built environments, including in air and on surfaces which members of the public or staff may come into contact with; and (b) whether these tests have been applied to at-risk settings including urban hotspots and Changi Airport's terminals and, if so, what are the findings.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To address the risk of COVID-19 transmission in built environments, MOH works NEA, which has capabilities for environmental testing, including waste-water, air and surface testing.
NEA has carried out air and surface sampling to detect virus genetic material for epidemiological investigations and research purposes. For enclosed spaces like rooms, viral RNA was detected after it was occupied by infected persons. But for public spaces, there was no such detection, partly due to the transient nature of human traffic. As such, air and surface environmental sampling is not used for routine surveillance.
On the other hand, wastewater testing is very useful for surveillance. Wastewater testing picks up COVID-19 viral fragments that are shed in human faeces into the sewer system. It is useful and effective mainly in residential settings, such as dorms and HDB blocks. It has been successfully used for HDB blocks in recent hotspots and positive signals from wastewater testing were followed up with PCR testing for residents in the affected blocks.
As Changi Airport is not a residential setting, wastewater testing is less useful. Further, any positive signals at Changi Airport could be due to travellers or visitors to the airport, in addition to staff. We, therefore, rely on Rostered Routine Testing of staff for early detection of asymptomatic cases.
NEA, BCA and MOH have also issued guidelines on regular cleaning of high touch points and improved ventilation, which will complement mask wearing and safe distancing in reducing the risk of transmission in public spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and 90th Percentile Turnaround Time to Obtain Virus Whole Genome Sequencing Result from Time of COVID-19 Test","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the median and 90th percentile turnaround time to obtain a virus whole genome sequencing (WGS) result from the time a patient's COVID-19 test is reported as positive; (b) to date, how many COVID-19 cases have case cluster linkages established through WGS assistance; and (c) how does this compare with the experience of other healthcare systems overseas.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The National Public Health Laboratory (NPHL) performs viral genomic sequencing for all confirmed COVID-19 cases. The average time taken to obtain a virus whole genome sequencing (WGS) result from the time a patient's COVID-19 test is reported as positive is seven days. The turnaround time of seven days is comparable to that of Australia and the United Kingdom. A longer time may be taken for some specimens, such as if re-extraction is needed due to low viral load in the specimen.
Available WGS results are routinely used to discover or confirm linkages between cases and clusters, and to investigate possible transmission chains. From 26 October 2020 to 26 June 2021, 111 unlinked cases were subsequently linked after epidemiological investigations with the aid of WGS results. All cluster investigations are supported by evidence from WGS and phylogenetic analysis when available.
Singapore is one of the few countries globally, including Australia, which uses WGS to trace and investigate transmission chains. Most countries, especially those with a high number of cases, do not use WGS for contact tracing but instead use it on a subset of cases to track the proportion of genotypes and variants. As such, it is difficult to make valid comparisons with other healthcare systems overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Waste Collection Lapses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the last 12 months, how many incidences of waste collection lapses have been logged with NEA where SembWaste Pte Ltd has been the public waste collector; (b) of these lapses, how many have occurred in Sengkang town; and (c) how many fines have been issued by NEA to SembWaste in relation to such lapses in waste collection across the different sectors.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: SembWaste Pte Ltd is the appointed Public Waste Collector (PWC) serving the City-Punggol, Clementi-Bukit Merah, and Woodlands-Yishun sectors. In the last 12 months, 58 incidences of waste collection lapses have been logged with the NEA in these sectors and fines were issued for each of these incidences. Of the 58 incidences, nine occurred in Sengkang town.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Civil Servants who Use Childcare Sick Leave and also Eligible for Flexible Work Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) for each year in the past five years, what percentage of public servants who use childcare sick leave are also eligible for flexible work arrangements; and (b) if such data is not being collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting it.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): There are three main types of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) offered in the Civil Service: staggered work hours, telecommuting and part-time arrangements. All civil servants are eligible for FWAs as long as the nature of their job role allows for it. Hence, we do not track eligibility per se.
Public servants who have childcare and eldercare needs can discuss with their supervisors and HR department on arrangements that balance their personal needs with professional responsibilities. These can include tapping on the Civil Service leave provisions for childcare and parent care, as well as adopting FWAs suited to the nature of their job and operational context, or even discussing redeployment opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Civil Servants who Use Parent-care Leave and also Eligible for Flexible Work Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) for each year in the past five years, what percentage of public servants who use parent-care leave are also eligible for flexible work arrangements; and (b) if such data is not being collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting it.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): There are three main types of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) offered in the Civil Service: staggered work hours, telecommuting and part-time arrangements. All civil servants are eligible for FWAs as long as the nature of their job role allows for it. Hence, we do not track eligibility per se.
Public servants who have childcare and eldercare needs can discuss with their supervisors and HR department on arrangements that balance their personal needs with professional responsibilities. These can include tapping on the Civil Service leave provisions for childcare and parent care, as well as adopting FWAs suited to the nature of their job and operational context, or even discussing redeployment opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"TraceTogether Infrastructure at Funeral Wakes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can help undertakers provide the TraceTogether infrastructure at funeral wakes to spare the families of the deceased from having to personally keep records for those who do not have the TraceTogether app or token, particularly among the elderly.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since 17 May 2021, TraceTogether-only SafeEntry has been made mandatory at all funeral wakes, as these are higher risk venues, with people coming together for an extended period of time.
NEA has worked with the funeral industry to set up SafeEntry Gateway (SEGW) boxes at funeral parlours with wake halls to facilitate SafeEntry check-in. For temporary wake spaces, such as HDB void decks and precinct pavilions, funeral service providers are equipped to provide the required SafeEntry QR code. They can also assist to set up a mobile device with the SafeEntry (Business) app and its SEGW function. The decision to engage funeral service providers for such services lies with the bereaved family.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opportunistic Profiteering amongst Businesses during COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has monitored business practices since the onset of COVID-19 for opportunistic profiteering especially during periods when stricter health measures are in place, such as during the circuit breaker and Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods; and (b) what system of safeguards are in place to prevent and address such occurrences.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government keeps a close watch on the prices of essential goods and has investigated businesses suspected of profiteering during the pandemic. For example, MTI investigated a number of retailers that had jacked up the prices of masks last year. So far, incidents of profiteering are not widespread. We are continuing to work closely with companies and suppliers to ensure that there is ample supply of essential goods.
The best safeguard against profiteering is competition. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will investigate any price surge resulting from anti-competitive behaviour by businesses. We encourage consumers to report such cases to us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors as Potential Source of Energy for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government is currently reviewing Generation IV nuclear reactors as a potential source of energy for Singapore in the future; and (b) what criteria will be considered in reviewing nuclear power as a potential source of energy for Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore is keeping our options open to various low-carbon energy solutions for the long term. Our strategy is to harness: (a) natural gas, which is the cleanest burning fuel; (b) solar energy; (c) regional power grids; and (d) low-carbon solutions such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage. These energy sources and technologies are likely to be the most viable in the coming decades. The Government is also monitoring the development of technologies that may let us tap on geothermal, wind, tidal and nuclear energy, which are currently assessed to be less suitable for deployment in Singapore.
Regarding nuclear energy, the Government conducted a pre-feasibility study in 2012 which concluded that available nuclear energy technologies then were not yet suitable for deployment in Singapore. Today, advanced nuclear plant technologies and designs, such as Small Modular Reactors, Generation IV and fusion reactors, are being developed globally and have the potential to be much safer than many of the plants that are in operation now. However, most of these technologies are still undergoing research and development, and have not begun commercial operations. Singapore will continue to monitor the progress of safe nuclear energy technologies and keep our energy options open.
We will also continue to strengthen our capabilities to understand nuclear science and technology. We will do so by supporting research in relevant areas of nuclear science and engineering, and training a pool of scientists and experts through education programmes in local and overseas universities. This will allow us to continue to assess the implications and benefits of evolving nuclear energy technologies and regional nuclear energy developments for Singapore, and enhance our operational preparedness.
Our future energy mix will depend on technological advancements which can help us tap on various energy sources. Any decision to deploy new energy technologies will need to be considered against the technology’s safety and reliability, affordability and environmental sustainability. This must be complemented by efforts to enhance energy efficiency across all sectors and consumers. The Government will work hand-in-hand with our workforce, researchers, industries and consumers, to achieve our vision of a cleaner, more efficient and secure energy future for Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of UN General Assembly's Arms Embargo on Myanmar on Singapore and ASEAN's Efforts Regarding Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what steps will be taken by Singapore to comply with the UN General Assembly Resolution of 18 June 2021 calling for arms embargo on Myanmar; and (b) whether the fact that ASEAN countries voted differently in the Resolution has any bearing on ASEAN's efforts in working together on its Five-Point Consensus agreed in April 2021 to achieve the cessation of violence, commencement of constructive dialogue with all parties and the release all political prisoners.
94 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with regard to Singapore supporting the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Myanmar passed on 18 June 2021 (a) what steps will be undertaken to comply with the resolution; (b) what specific action will be pursued with regard to arms sales to the Tatmadaw; and (c) whether the Government will implement an arms export ban to Myanmar on companies who have been found to have supplied arms used in violence against civilians.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Dennis Tan and Ms He Ting Ru have both asked about Singapore’s compliance with the UN General Assembly resolution on Myanmar, with particular focus on the provision relating to an arms embargo.
Singapore has taken a clear and consistent position on the situation in Myanmar since the Myanmar military seized power on 1 February 2021. We categorically reject the use of lethal force against unarmed civilians. It is deplorable and unacceptable under any circumstances. We have called on the Myanmar military authorities to put an end to further violence and bloodshed, and for all sides to refrain from escalating tensions. We have also called for the release of all political detainees so that all stakeholders can negotiate in good faith to find a durable and peaceful political situation. We have conveyed our views both in this Chamber and directly to the Myanmar military authorities.
Singapore voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution as the key elements of the resolution are consistent with Singapore’s position calling for an end to the violence and for all stakeholders to begin a process of genuine political dialogue and national reconciliation in Myanmar. The resolution also recognises the central role of ASEAN and calls on all stakeholders in Myanmar to cooperate with ASEAN and the Special Envoy or Envoys of ASEAN to swiftly and fully implement the Five-Point Consensus reached at the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting on 24 April. We also support the resolution’s calls for unimpeded humanitarian assistance to safely reach those in need.
Singapore complies strictly with international obligations on international arms sales and transfers, and abides by UN sanctions or embargo against any country. On declaration of arms exports, Singapore submits reports to the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA) on international arms transfers every year. That information is listed on the UNROCA website. As shown, Myanmar is not one of the countries.
Singapore has a robust export control regime and our control lists are updated regularly to ensure that our export control system is aligned with international non-proliferation regimes. We will not hesitate to take action against those who contravene our laws.
Mr Dennis Tan has also asked whether the fact that ASEAN Member States voted differently on the UN resolution has any bearing on ASEAN’s efforts in fulfilling the Five-Point Consensus. We would like to point out that no ASEAN Member State voted against the UN resolution. The Five-Point Consensus was agreed to by all the ASEAN Leaders and the leader of the Myanmar military. This common vision of the way forward has not changed. That said, we recognise that implementation of the Five-Point Consensus has been slow and a little disappointing. We are working within ASEAN to expedite this process, with a view to alleviate the humanitarian situation, cease the violence in Myanmar and set it back on the path of direct negotiation by all stakeholders that will lead to normalcy, peace and stability for the long term. This will not be an easy or quick process and its success, ultimately, lies in the hands of the Myanmar people. Nonetheless, ASEAN will not waver in its commitment to facilitate and support this process in line with the Five-Point Consensus.
Singapore is fully committed to supporting ASEAN’s efforts in facilitating a return to normalcy, peace and stability in Myanmar, including through the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. We must recognise that, ultimately, the key stakeholders in Myanmar must find the political will to negotiate, compromise, and find a durable political solution that is in the interest of the people of Myanmar. We hope that wisdom and good sense will prevail, and we are ready to do our part.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Specific Action Plans following Findings in Census of Population 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Education in light of the findings in the Census of Population 2020, whether there is any immediate and specific action plan to tackle the issue of low education levels of the Malay community.
96 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year from 2011 to 2020, how many Malays entered local Universities; (b) what is the percentage breakdown as compared to other races; and (c) how many Malays failed to adhere to the 10-year compulsory education policy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our education system ensures opportunities for all, with multiple pathways to help students achieve their maximum potential. We provide additional support to students who have greater academic and other needs.
These efforts have supported all communities in improving their education levels. The Malay community has indeed done better over the years. Younger Malays, in particular, made significant improvements between 2010 and 2020. According to Census findings, among Malay residents aged 25 to 34, the proportion with post-Secondary or higher qualifications increased from six in 10 to eight in 10, while the proportion with University qualifications increased from one in 10 to two in 10.
Similarly, there are positive trends among the more recent cohorts of Malay students.
In 2019, 94% of Malay students who entered Primary 1 (P1) in 2009 progressed to post-Secondary education. This is close to the national average of 97%.
The number of Malay students entering publicly-funded degree programmes in our Autonomous Universities almost doubled from 600 in 2011 to more than 1,000 last year, while that of the overall student cohort increased by about 50% over the same period.
The Member also asked for the number of Malay students who failed to adhere to the 10-year compulsory education policy. Under the Compulsory Education Act, all Singapore Citizen children residing in Singapore must attend a national Primary school. Nearly all our students progress to Secondary education. In fact, for the last five years, only one Malay student from each P1 cohort did not do so.
It is, therefore, not accurate to say that our Malay community has low educational levels. The Malay community has made good progress over the years. Internationally, in the most recent international benchmarking study, PISA, they outperformed their OECD peers in Mathematics and in 21st century competencies such as intercultural skills and collaborative problem-solving. They are also on par in Reading and Science. This puts them in good stead to thrive in the global economy.
There is further room for significant progress and we have redoubled our efforts to ensure all students, including Malay students, have strong support to maximise their potential.
To ensure a strong start for every child, we are scaling up KidSTART to support parents with child development and are investing significantly in quality and affordable preschool education.
During their schooling years, we will give further support to help weaker students build strong foundations in literacy and numeracy with dedicated learning support programmes. Those without a conducive home environment are also supported through after-school care and engagement, with Student Care Centres in every Primary school and after-school programmes in Secondary schools. Subsidies are provided to ensure that it is affordable to those in the lowest income brackets.
The Institutes of Higher Learning also work closely with MOE to ensure that our graduates are equipped with the skills to remain resilient and thrive in the future economy. After entering the workforce, graduates are encouraged to continue to upskill and reskill throughout their career journey under the national SkillsFuture movement.
Beyond schools, we work hand in hand with the community to ensure that no child is left behind. For instance, the UPLIFT Community Pilot provides upstream wraparound support to disadvantaged students and their families. The outcomes have been promising, and we intend to expand to other towns and support many more students in the next two years. The M3 network, comprising MUIS, MENDAKI and MESRA, will continue to engage and support Malay/Muslim students and their families – through upstream efforts to prepare pre-schoolers and their parents for P1, to mentoring programmes to inspire and guide students to pursue higher education and seize career opportunities. Project DIAN@M3 will focus on ensuring children living in rental flats continue to get additional support for their academic and social development.
So, across each stage of education, inside and outside school, we are pressing on with support for Malay students, together with other high-needs students. The progress we have made thus far gives us confidence that we are on the right track, and we will continue to ensure that Singapore remains a society of opportunities for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Interactions between Residents in Private Properties and Individuals of Varied Socio-economic and Ethnic Backgrounds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there are plans and measures in place in private properties to ensure that individuals living in community enclaves are exposed to neighbours from other communities of varied socio-economic backgrounds and ethnicities.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Individuals and their families, whether residing in private properties or HDBs, are a part of a wider community in the neighbourhood. Our infrastructure agencies have designed common spaces – from parks and fitness facilities, to hawker centres and community clubs – that allow residents from all walks of life and demographic profiles to interact.
Community programming is another important avenue to bring different communities together, through common interests and causes. The People's Association Residents’ Network creates platforms to promote neighbourliness and encourage social mixing of residents across public and private housing estates. The Residents’ Network, which was set up in 2018, erases the distinction between Residents’ Committees, which served HDB estates, and Neighbourhood Committees, which served private estates. The Residents’ Networks encourage residents from the HDB and private estates to mix more freely with one another and participate in community activities together. For instance, the Residents’ Networks from Zhenghua-Blossom Palmview and Toa Payoh Central Zone 6 regularly organise activities for the community, and it is not uncommon to see residents from private estates visit their Residents’ Network centres located at the HDB blocks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Residents’ Networks continued to conduct virtual and hybrid bonding activities such as terrarium workshops, photography competitions and New Year celebrations for residents across the different estate types.
In addition, the People’s Association also has about 1,400 Integration and Naturalisation Champions reaching out to new immigrants in all neighbourhoods to help them settle into the community. They regularly conduct house visits and invite new immigrants to join grassroots activities to expand their social networks and connect with locals.
Meanwhile, the SG Cares movement is establishing Volunteer Centres in every town to grow town-based volunteerism. By bringing together diverse volunteers – students, working adults, retirees, locals, foreigners – to support the needs of the local community, the Volunteer Centres also facilitate social mixing.
All residents living in the same neighbourhood, whether in public housing or private estates, can participate in these programmes. Residents who live in private estates may not always be aware of these programmes and there is more we can do to publicise these opportunities. I strongly urge and encourage everyone to actively participate in these activities, regardless of whether you live in a public or private estate. In these difficult times, when many may feel isolated and alone, it is good for all of us to reach out and connect with the people around us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification on Property at No 5 Lorong 9 Geylang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) who holds the reversionary interest of the land belonging to Wakaf Haji Pitchay Meerah Hussain at No 5 Lorong 9 Geylang Road; (b) how was the wakaf land and property which is to be forever used as madrasah used as a temple; (c) how did MUIS come to a decision to carve out a 199-year lease on this property; and (d) whether the family of the donor has been informed and agreed to such a change.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), MUIS is tasked with the administration of all wakaf in Singapore to ensure that wakaf properties remain viable and maximise returns for the intended beneficiaries. MUIS carries out these duties with the advice of the Fatwa Committee.
Wakaf Haji Pitchay Meerah Hussain comprised a property at No 5 Lorong 9 Geylang that was bequeathed by the late Haji Pitchay Meerah Hussain, also known as the \"wakif\" (or bequeather) in 1920, who intended it to be used as a madrasah. Prior to 2000, the wakaf was managed by the trustees appointed through the order of the Court. Upon the demise of one of the trustees, the other surviving trustee retired in 2000 and since then, MUIS directly manages the wakaf.
The wakaf was not operating as a madrasah when it was handed over to MUIS, and the property was in a dilapidated state. It was also not generating any income. Given this, MUIS considered various options to best achieve the objectives intended by the wakif. Based on the approach of istibdal wakaf which was laid out in a fatwa, selling and migrating the property to one with better prospects and channelling the returns to support madrasah education, met this objective.
Therefore in 2002, MUIS migrated the wakaf to 11 Beach Road, a 999-year leasehold commercial property. Since the wakaf’s migration, MUIS has disbursed the yields from the property at 11 Beach Road to our full-time madrasahs, which is aligned with wakif’s original intent wish. The property at No 5 Lorong 9 Geylang was sold and transferred to external parties on a 199-year leasehold basis, where lessees are then subject to the zoning regulations set by the authorities. During this time, the wakaf property is at 11 Beach Road.
This arrangement allows the wakaf to grow its assets in the long run. The wakaf will have two assets at the end of the leasehold period: the share of the current property at 11 Beach Road and the original property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Drivers for Rise or Decline in Number of Married Couples in Resident Households Aged 65 and above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister what are the key drivers for (i) the rise in number of married couples in resident households aged 65 and above where both husband and wife are working beyond the retirement age from 7.6% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2020 and (ii) the decline in households aged 65 and above where both husband and wife are not employed from 66.3% in 2010 to 49.4% in 2020.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): More senior residents1 were employed over the last decade. The employment rate among residents aged 65 and above increased from 17.1% in 2010 to 28.5% in 2020. The employment rate increased for both male and female senior residents, from 26.4% in 2010 to 37.8% in 2020 for male seniors, and from 9.8% in 2010 to 20.6% in 2020 for female seniors. This would have contributed to the increase in the proportion of dual-career couples and the decrease in the proportion of non-employed couples, among married couples in resident households aged 65 and above.
The increase in seniors who are economically active and employed is attributable to two main factors.
First, our seniors have better health and life expectancy than before, a consequence of measures put in place by the Government over the years to promote healthy living, and to provide affordable and quality healthcare. In 1980, our life expectancy at age 65 was only 14.0 years. In the last decade, life expectancy at age 65 increased from 19.8 years in 2010 to 21.5 years in 2020. The average number of additional years a 65-year-old in Singapore is expected to live in good health2 has increased, from 15.8 years in 2010 to 17.1 years in 2019. This figure is one of the highest in the world. Rising longevity and better health mean that senior residents are able to, and many seek to work for longer. They do so to support themselves, or to continue contributing and remaining active.
Second, the Government has made it easier for seniors who can and wish to work to remain employed. The Government has accepted the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers’ recommendations, including to increase the Retirement Age (RA) and Re-employment Age (REA) to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030. The first increases to the RA and REA from 62 to 63 and 67 to 68 respectively will take place on 1 July 2022.
The Government has also provided various measures to support companies who employ senior workers. For example, the Senior Worker Support Package includes wage offsets through the Senior Employment Credit, Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant and Part-Time Re-Employment Grant. In addition, the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme has encouraged more senior workers to join the workforce. Workfare supplements the income of lower-wage workers in cash while helping them save for retirement through CPF, with senior workers receiving more. These efforts will allow senior workers who wish to do so to remain engaged, and contribute their experience and expertise to our workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Senior residents refer to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents aged 65 and above.","2 : Based on findings of the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study. The study can be accessed at www.healthdata.org/gbd/2019."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes Made to Policies and Practices Following Recent Case of Influence Operations and Foreign Intelligence Recruitment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what changes have been made to policies and practices following recent cases of influence operations and foreign intelligence recruitment involving individuals who have previously studied or worked at local academic institutions; (b) how is the Ministry raising awareness among private citizens to sensitise them to the risks of influence operations and foreign intelligence recruitment, particularly those that play on cultural affinity; and (c) what messages have been delivered to countries that have engaged in influence operations and recruitment attempts in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The threat of foreign influence, subversion and espionage has always been present, since time immemorial, and not just in Singapore. Foreign state actors make use of a variety of tactics to shape the behaviour, actions and policies of a target country to suit their own agenda, and recruit sources and carry out operations that would give them intelligence about the country. They may go further as in a case in Singapore in the 1970s where a foreign power enlisted a leader of a political party to interfere in Singapore’s domestic politics.
We have policies and measures in place to minimise the risks of such foreign interference. We conduct security clearance for public sector positions that have access to classified Government information. We also have legislative levers, such as the Internal Security Act, Political Donations Act, Broadcasting Act and Societies Act to guard against and respond to foreign interference.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have processes and protocols to maintain oversight over academic collaborations and partnerships, both local and overseas, and take measures to instil awareness among their staff on the risks of foreign interference.
The ultimate line of defence against foreign interference, however, must be a populace that is united in our belief that Singapore’s domestic affairs are for us alone to decide and who is discerning enough to identify attempts at manipulation. Through our security agencies’ engagement and outreach to constituencies within the Public Service and beyond, the Government will continue to raise awareness of the real risks and modus operandi of foreign actors, whether it takes the form of an online or offline influence operation aimed at shaping public opinion or policy-making, or foreign intelligence recruitment operation. Organisations and individuals who are more vulnerable to foreign interference, whether by virtue of the activities or issues they are involved in, will need to be even more aware of these risks.
Foreign interference operations are increasingly sophisticated and well-disguised. The affordances of the internet have increased the potential of online hostile information campaigns, but covert attempts to exercise control or influence over organisations and individuals are just as insidious. As the threats evolve, we need to continue to build up our capabilities to detect and disrupt such activities. These include introducing new legislative levers to prevent and counter foreign interference in Singapore’s domestic politics. As mentioned in previous parliamentary responses and speeches, MHA is studying other countries’ approaches. We will move on these proposals when ready.
For national security reasons, the Government does not publicise the actions taken in dealing with foreign states involved in influence operations and recruitment attempts in Singapore. Such actions must necessarily take place out of the public eye.
The Singapore Government has made it very clear that we will not condone our nationals lending themselves to be subverted or used by foreign actors for activities prejudicial to our security and national interests. We take a very serious view of anyone who enters into a clandestine relationship with a foreign government or engages in espionage or subversive activities at the behest of a foreign actor. We will deal very firmly with such individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Owners to Ensure Public Warning System Can Be Received at Basement of Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether SCDF can require, as part of its public warning system, that building owners ensure that broadcasts from local FM radio stations dealing with imminent threats that may endanger lives and properties can be received at the basements of buildings.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Public Warning System (PWS) is a network of outdoor sirens located on roof-tops throughout Singapore. The sirens provide warning of threats such as civil disasters, terror attacks and other home-front emergencies.
In 2017, the SGSecure mobile application was enhanced to also sound the relevant alert when the PWS is activated. At the sounding of the “Important Message” signal through the PWS and the SGSecure app, members of the public can access the message through various means, such as via the SGSecure app, by tuning in to Mediacorp’s free-to-air TV and radio channels, through SCDF’s Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as via location-based text message alerts through the SMS-based Public Alert System (SPAS). Members of the public need not depend only on FM radio broadcasts.
The SCDF continues to enhance how it relays its emergency messages to the public. For example, during emergencies, SCDF will be extending its emergency broadcast capability to Mediacorp’s meWATCH platform for TV programmes and Mediacorp’s meLISTEN platform for FM radio broadcasts. The emergency broadcast will also be available on Mediacorp’s TV channels carried on StarHub and Singtel’s platforms. In the next generation PWS which will be progressively rolled out from 2024, the system will be able to broadcast voice messages and interface with in-building Public Address (PA) systems. This will ensure an even more extensive coverage of emergency broadcasts, whether indoors or outdoors, and enable members of the public to take the necessary actions to keep themselves safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State of Implementation of Four Key Strategies of Security Industry Transformation Map","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the current state of implementation of the four key strategies of the Security Industry Transformation Map announced in 2018; and (b) what are the Ministry's immediate priorities to facilitate better outcomes and careers in private security.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the launch of the Security Industry Transformation Map (ITM) in 2018, all major initiatives have been implemented. Significant progress has been made across the four pillars of the ITM.
First, push for technology and innovation to transform operating models.
Sector productivity has improved with more small and medium sized enterprise (SME) security agencies adopting technology to increase manpower efficiency. In 2019, 98% (up from 77% in 2018) and 82% (up from 46% in 2018) of surveyed SME security agencies adopted at least one Stage 1 digital solution and at least one Stage 2 solution respectively, as recommended in the Security Industry Digital Plan.1
Second, align regulatory criteria with ITM objectives to raise standards.
The new Security Agencies Competency Evaluation (SACE) was developed by a tripartite taskforce comprising security industry associations, the Union of Security Employees and Government agencies, and will replace the current Security Agencies Grading Exercise (SAGE) from 1 January 2022. SACE will motivate security agencies to accelerate technology adoption in the areas of training, operations, and command, control and communications. The SACE competencies will be reviewed periodically to keep up with technological developments and complement efforts under the Security ITM, to raise overall industry standards.
Third, invest in skills to support career advancement and wage increases.
Since the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) in 2016, the PWM has benefited about 40,000 security officers (SOs). Real median monthly gross wages for SOs grew cumulatively by 36% from 2014 to 2019, outstripping the 21% growth for workers in general. The Skills Framework for Security was refreshed in 2019 to update the requisite skills and competencies for SOs. There are programmes in place to assist the industry with job redesign to incorporate technology and raise productivity. More than 80 security agencies and buyers have redesigned their work processes and job roles, which have benefited about 780 employees under Workforce Singapore’s Security Productivity Initiative. To support a new security consultancy career pathway, MHA worked with Temasek Polytechnic to launch a Specialist Diploma in Security Consultancy in 2019, and with industry partners to develop a Security Consultants Accreditation Programme. There have been two runs of the Specialist Diploma and 71 participants have completed the Diploma Programme to date.
Fourth, promote use of outcome-based contracts (OBC) in procurement of security services, with Government taking the lead.
The Government has taken the lead to adopt OBCs for security contracts from May 2020. All Government Procuring Entities are expected to operate on OBCs for security contracts by 2023. MHA will continue to work closely with industry partners in the engagement and training of buyers, to push for OBC adoption in both the public and private sectors.
We will continue ongoing work with tripartite partners on wage negotiations for SOs beyond 2022 under the PWM. To foster a safer environment for SOs to carry out their duties, MHA will also be amending the Private Security Industry Act later this year, to enhance protection for SOs executing their duties. The amendments will address the common types of verbal and physical abuse which SOs face.
In addition, MHA will work with relevant Government agencies on further initiatives to redesign jobs and upskill SOs. This includes training SOs to be adept in handling security technology and new operating models.
The Security ITM is an ongoing journey. As the security landscape evolves, MHA will work with tripartite partners to evolve the ITM initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Security Industry Digital Plan was jointly developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the industry, to provide a step-by-step guide on the digital solutions local SMEs in the security industry can adopt at each stage of their growth."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Race-related Incidents Investigated Annually over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the last 10 years, how many race-related incidents have been investigated by the Police annually; and (b) how many cases resulted in (i) stern warnings (ii) charges being made and (iii) convictions annually.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code cover acts that deliberately wound the racial and religious feelings of any person, that promote enmity between different racial and religious groups, or that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony. The number of cases that Police investigated from 2011 to 2020 under sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, and of these, the breakdown of whether the cases resulted in warning, charging or conviction, are appended at Table 1. The figures for cases \"warned\" or \"charged\" does not include cases where investigations are still ongoing at the time when this reply is issued, or where no further action was taken.
6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the total development cost of Connect@Changi; (b) what is the process by which the contract was awarded to the consortium; (c) what has been the room utilisation and revenues derived from the facility since its opening; and (d) what is the expected payback period for the project.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Connect@Singapore initiative is part of Singapore’s initiatives to allow a limited number of business and official travellers to enter Singapore for short-term stays of up to 14 days and to conduct business activities safely. For the entire duration of their stay, travellers will be housed in Appointed Facilities (AF), undergo regular testing and strictly observe all prevailing Safe Management Measures (SMMs).
An open call for applications to set up the AF was conducted. The Government assessed all proposals based on the effectiveness of their measures to ensure tight adherence to SMMs and segregation of travellers from the local community. Connect@Changi, which was developed by a Singapore consortium comprising The Ascott Limited, Changi Airport Group, Sheares Healthcare Group Private Limited, Constellar Venues Private Limited1, Surbana Jurong Private Limited and Temasek Holdings Private Limited, was selected as the first AF under the Connect@Singapore initiative.
As the Connect@Changi AF is a commercially operated facility, it does not receive Government funding and the information on costs, revenue, utilisation and so on as requested by the Member rests with the commercial operator and the Government is unable to provide it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Previously known as SingEx Holdings Pte Limited."],"footNoteQuestions":["6"],"questionNo":"6"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Census of Population 2020 Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the reasons for collapsing the demographics of the Indian resident population into \"Tamil\", \"Malayalee\", \"Sikh\", \"Hindi\" and \"other Indians\" for Census of Population 2020, unlike Census of Population 2010 where the same Indian resident population was sub-categorised in greater detail into \"Tamil\", \"Malayalee\", \"Hindi\", \"Sikh\", \"Punjabi\", \"Hindustani\", \"Urdu\", \"Gujarati\", \"Sindhi\", \"Sinhalese\" and \"other Indians\".
8 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what considerations determine the inclusion of new demographic sub-categories and the exclusion of previously reported sub-categories under \"Other Ethnic Groups\" in Census of Population 2020.
9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can explain the rise from 175,661 individuals to 244,529 individuals recorded in the sub-category of \"Other Chinese\" under Chinese resident population in the Census of Population 2010; and (b) whether this sub-category can be further expanded for greater clarity and analysis.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In line with its usual practice, the Department of Statistics (DOS) had reviewed the categories of data published in the Census of Population 2020 Statistical Release to ensure that they remain relevant and meaningful, taking into account factors such as the relative size and share of the categories while balancing against the need to preserve the continuity and comparability of the published categories over time.
In the case of the detailed breakdown of ethnic groups of the Indian resident population, the number of categories in the Census 2020 Statistical Release has been consolidated to reflect the top four detailed ethnic groups by size. For the Indian ethnic groups that are combined under \"Others\", each group was significantly smaller and comprised fewer than 10,000 Indian residents and contributed to less than 3% of the Indian resident population in 2020.
In the case of \"Other Ethnic Groups\", the detailed ethnic groups have been updated to reflect the largest ethnic groups outside of the Chinese, Malay and Indian ethnic groups in 2020. The ethnic groups combined under \"Others\" constituted relatively smaller shares.
Based on the Census of Population 2020, there were a total of 3,006,769 Chinese residents in Singapore, an increase from 2,793,980 in 2010. In line with the overall increase, all 10 sub-categories of Chinese residents by detailed ethnic groups presented in the Census of Population 2020 Statistical Release, including the residual \"Other Chinese\" category, saw an increase in their respective population sizes. The \"Other Chinese\" category includes Chinese residents of detailed ethnic groups that were generally small in size, such as Kwongsai, Chawan, Shantung, Luichew and Wenchow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health and Support System for Drivers of Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Transport whether there is a mental health and support system in place for drivers of public transport such as train, bus and taxi drivers.
Mr S Iswaran: Our transport workers’ mental well-being is an important priority for the Ministry and our transport operators.
Working with the unions, our transport operators provide and publicise channels through which transport workers can seek assistance. For example, taxi and private hire car (PHC) operators have set up driver relations teams to provide support and assistance to drivers. Supervisors are also trained to closely monitor the well-being of our bus and rail workers. Transport workers will be referred to medical professionals for psychological support and counselling if they are stressed or troubled, particularly those who may have experienced trauma such as serious accidents during their course of work.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) partners the transport operators and unions to provide customised workplace safety and health programmes. For example, HPB collaborated with the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU), the National Taxi Association (NTA), the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) and the transport operators to organise mental well-being talks, workshops for transport workers, and training for leaders to build a supportive workplace environment.
Our transport workers can also access public mental health resources, such as Mindline.sg and other community-based hotlines, for further support and assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on SimplyGo Account Sign-up and Breakdown by Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many commuters have signed up for the SimplyGo Account-Based Ticketing (ABT) system since its launch in April 2019; (b) what is the breakdown of the sign-up rate by age group; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to do more to assist seniors in adopting ABT.
Mr S Iswaran: The Account-Based Ticketing (ABT) system allows commuters to pay for their trips by tapping their contactless bank cards, credit cards, mobile wallets or their account-based EZ-Link cards on the fare reader. In May 2021, approximately 19% of all adult trips were paid for using ABT payment methods. We do not have a breakdown of sign-up rates by age group as the ABT users are not required to sign up or register.
LTA and EZ-Link will conduct a pilot for ABT concession cards later this year to gather feedback from seniors and other concession cardholders. We will take in feedback from the pilot and develop measures to help seniors and other concession cardholders transition smoothly to ABT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Global or Regional Immunity Passport to Ensure Authenticity of COVID-19 Vaccinations for Air Travel and Border Control","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any updates to plans for a global or regional immunity passport to ensure the authenticity of COVID-19 vaccinations for air travel and border control.
Mr S Iswaran: As vaccination gets underway in many countries, multilateral forums such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation and regional forums including ASEAN and APEC are exploring the development of global or regional mechanisms for the recognition of vaccination certificates. Singapore participates actively in these discussions, sharing our approach and contributing our expertise.
These discussions will likely take some time, as countries and regions are at different stages of progress in vaccinating their respective populations. Nonetheless, these multilateral and regional discussions are useful in laying the groundwork for us to reopen travel for vaccinated individuals between Singapore and these countries when we are ready to do so.
Concurrently, Singapore is in bilateral discussions with several countries on establishing mechanisms for the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates, including with Australia, Malaysia and Republic of Korea. We have set up inter-agency bilateral working groups with these countries and are exchanging information on how we may mutually verify the authenticity of each other’s certificates. This includes the exchange of public keys for the verification of digital certificates and the exchange of specimen copies for the verification of physical ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Vehicle Owners Failing to Renew Road Tax on Time after Move to Digital Communication Methods in 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has seen an increase in the number of vehicle owners failing to renew their road tax on time after its move away from physical letters to digital communication methods in 2019; and (b) whether LTA can make available an option for the public to receive physical letters.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA has replaced hard copy road tax renewal notices with electronic notifications from 1 July 2019. The electronic renewal notices are sent via SMS one month prior to the expiry of road tax, followed by three reminders, including a final one on the date of expiry. The overall on-time renewal of road tax has increased from 93.1% in 2019 to 94.6% in 2020 following the introduction of electronic notifications.
LTA has retained the option for vehicle owners to receive physical letters. Vehicle owners can opt to receive hardcopy notices via LTA’s OneMotoring website or make a request via LTA’s hotline.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation of Fire onboard Singapore-registered Vessel \"X-Press Pearl\" and Its Subsequent Sinking in Sri Lankan Waters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau or MPA will be carrying out their own investigation in respect of the fire onboard the Singapore-registered vessel “X-Press Pearl” and its subsequent sinking in Sri Lankan waters; and (b) if so, whether the findings and any lessons learned will be made public.
Mr S Iswaran: The Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) has launched a marine safety investigation into the fire onboard the X-Press Pearl, in accordance with the IMO’s Casualty Investigation Code. The investigation report will be made public.
As the flag Administration, MPA has commenced a separate investigation into the X-Press Pearl incident under the Merchant Shipping Act.
MPA will share any relevant lessons learnt with the owners and operators of Singapore-registered ships.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Local Production Targets and Progress to-Date Towards the \"30 by 30\" Food Production Target","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment under the \"30 by 30\" food production target of SFA (a) what is the breakdown of local production targets for vegetables, eggs and fish; (b) whether there are local production targets for other farms such as goat, frog, shrimp, cattle and other food and, if not, why; and (c) what is the progress to-date towards the \"30 by 30\" target, broken down by food type.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The \"30 by 30\" goal was announced in 2019 to raise our ambition for local food production and enhance the resilience of Singapore’s food supply. This goal complements other strategies such as the diversification of our food imports, facilitating our companies to grow overseas and stockpiling of food items. The \"30 by 30\" goal is defined as meeting 30% of our nutritional needs locally by 2030, up from less than 10% today.
Local food production plays a key role in buffering against import disruptions. We launched the 30x30 Express Grant Call last year to support our farmers to produce more hen shell eggs, food fish and leafy vegetables. These are commonly-consumed food items that our local agri-food industry has been able to produce in a resource efficient and commercially sustainable manner, and with capabilities to ramp up production quickly. These food items also have a relatively short shelf life, making stockpiling a less practical option against supply disruptions.
As the local agri-tech industry is relatively nascent, we do not intend to fix the targets for each food item under the \"30 by 30\" goal at this stage. SFA will continue to develop our food production plans with our stakeholders, taking into consideration the productivity, resource efficiency and technologies to be deployed. While we are prioritising the production of hen shell eggs, food fish and leafy vegetables in our grants and land tenders, support is available for the production of other food items, as long as they contribute to our food security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Cooked Food Stalls and Annual Numbers of Newly Registered Hawker Stalls and Stall Closures at Social Enterprise Hawker Centres from 2016 to 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) from 2016 to 2020, what is the annual number of cooked food stalls at social enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs); (b) what are the annual numbers of newly registered hawker stalls and stall closures at (i) SEHCs and (ii) non-SEHC hawker centres; and (c) whether there have been any substantive changes in the monthly rate of newly registered hawker stalls and stall closures in the first six months of 2021.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2016, there were 110 cooked food stalls at three Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs). This increased to 274 cooked food stalls by 2018, when four more SEHCs became operational.
From 2016 to 2020, there was an average of 20 terminations of tenancies and 59 new entrants per year in SEHCs. In non-SEHC centres, there was an average of 301 terminations of tenancies and 315 new entrants per year. Overall, the average occupancy rates of hawker stalls have remained high at both SEHCs and non-SEHCs, above 90%.
In the first six months of 2021, we observed a lower monthly turnover of stalls in hawker centres compared to previous years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deploy Recycling Bins with Capacity Sensors at HDB Estates and Develop App to Show Locations and Availability of Recycling Bins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA can deploy at HDB estates recycling bins with bin capacity sensors and develop an app showing the locations and availability of recycling bins which are not full to deal with the problem of residents wanting to discard materials for recycling but finding the bins full instead.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA will be conducting trials to improve the collection of recyclables. Under the new Public Waste Collector (PWC) contract for the Ang Mo Kio-Toa Payoh sector starting in October 2021, sensors will be installed in recycling bins within the HDB estates in this sector. This will allow live monitoring of bin levels to facilitate more responsive collection and reduce bin overflow incidents. NEA will monitor the effectiveness of these recycling bin sensors and consider extending such sensors to the recycling bins in other PWC sectors, while also considering the potential impact on refuse collection fees.
The locations of recycling bins in HDB estates are available on the OneMap website and OneMap mobile application. NEA requires PWCs to clear the bins on scheduled collection days and adhere to a minimum collection frequency. Should residents find their nearest recycling bin full, they can look for another recycling bin in the vicinity and provide feedback through the NEA website, or via the myENV or OneService mobile applications.
We urge members of the public to follow the instructions on the labels of recycling bins to deposit only recyclable items. Non-recyclable items such as styrofoam boxes and bulky items, or reusables like clothes, toys and shoes, not only contaminate the recyclables, but also fill up the bins quickly and could lead to overflowing bins. Large carton boxes should also be flattened before being deposited into the bins.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration to Change Average Class Size or Infrastructure of Primary and Secondary Schools to Better Equip Schools to Face Threat of Current and Future Pandemics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider any future changes to the average class size or infrastructure of Primary and Secondary schools to better equip our schools to face the threat of the current and future pandemics.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As different diseases and viruses have different characteristics and transmission modes, we will need to tailor our response and implement the appropriate measures to keep our schools safe.
Class size or school infrastructure may not be the most critical factors to deal with future pandemics of an unknown nature. What has been key, thus far, in our fight against the current COVID-19 pandemic have been various other measures, such as maintaining good personal hygiene and good ventilation in schools, and putting in place Safe Management Measures (SMMs), including daily temperature-taking and screening of students and staff for COVID-19 symptoms, regular cleaning of high-touch surfaces and disinfection of premises, wearing of masks and cohortising students to minimise inter-mingling. Increasingly, with effective and safe vaccines developed for school children, vaccination would also play a critical role in keeping our schools safe.
MOE will continue to take in advice from medical professionals, adapt our pandemic strategies and introduce appropriate measures based on scientific evidence and data to enable effective teaching and learning to take place in a safe manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schools to Grant Students Excuse from Strenuous Physical Activity after Each Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine and Carry Out Active Monitoring of Students' Condition Post-Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether schools will grant students at least one week of excuse from strenuous physical activity in school after each dose of a COVID-19 vaccine; and (b) whether active monitoring of students’ condition post-vaccination will be carried out to detect symptoms of myocarditis or pericarditis.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will excuse students from physical activity for one week after receiving their COVID-19 vaccination, whether it is for the first or second dose. All PE and CCA teachers will check in with students before the start of these activities. We have also advised all parents and students to be mindful of any potential side effects from the vaccination. In particular, if they were to develop chest pain, shortness of breath or abnormal heartbeats, students should seek medical attention promptly.
MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) have also been closely monitoring recipients of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. On 12 June 2021, MOH issued a circular to all registered medical practitioners to ask them to be vigilant in detecting inflammatory conditions affecting the heart muscles and outer lining of the heart respectively, when assessing patients who have been recently vaccinated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Medical practitioners are also urged to report all serious adverse reactions, including myocarditis and pericarditis, to HSA as soon as possible, so that swift regulatory actions can be taken where necessary.
MOE will continue to work with MOH and HSA to closely monitor students who have experienced adverse reactions after the vaccination to ensure that suitable and appropriate care is given to these students. We will review and update our guidelines if needed, to ensure the safety and well-being of students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Vaccination for Children Aged 12-18","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can assure parents who still have concerns of medical risks in respect of the COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 12-18 that (i) there will be no pressure for their children to be vaccinated if their parents have any reservations (ii) such parents will be given the right to indicate non-consent on all such consent forms and (iii) no Primary 6 child will be vaccinated before reaching the age of 12.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In line with current MOH’s medical advisories, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly encouraged for all children aged 12 to 18 who are medically eligible. Vaccination is voluntary. MOE respects parents’ decisions on whether to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Hence, children are not included in the vaccination exercise as a default. Parents have to opt in for their children to be included, such as signing up for vaccination appointment or by informing the school with the necessary consent forms completed and submitted to the school.
MOE has invited age-eligible students to get vaccinated. As parents may not always be able to get to the invitation in a timely manner, our educational institutions have, therefore, reached out to parents to ensure they are aware of the vaccination exercise, and if they need any assistance. This is to ensure that no student is unable to get vaccinated due to lack of information or support. Only parents who wish for their children to be vaccinated and require assistance need to reply to MOE.
As per prevailing medical recommendations, only those who are aged 12 and above can receive the vaccination. MOE conducts checks before the invitations are made. Vaccination service providers and HPB also verify the child’s date of birth in ID (NRIC/FIN/Student Pass) on site before proceeding with vaccination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Land Sales Revenues and Investment Receipts Recognised as Revenue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether Government land sales revenues and investment receipts have been previously fully recognised as revenue; and (b) if so, when was the change effected and why.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Constitution was amended in 1991 to create the institution of the Elected President to protect Singapore’s Past Reserves. This was a major shift in our fiscal framework, to prevent any profligate government from spending beyond its means by drawing down on the reserves built up over previous generations.
Our physical endowment of land is scarce and finite, and protected as part of our Past Reserves. Land sales simply convert physical assets to financial assets. As such, proceeds from land sales accrue fully to Past Reserves and are not available as revenue for spending in the Budget, for the reasons explained by the Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah in Parliament on 5 April 2021. Instead the proceeds are invested and the Government can spend from the income generated by these investments.
The framework for spending from investment income has evolved over time, reflecting the careful deliberations by the Government on how to spend from the returns generated by the reserves, balancing the needs of current and future generations.
Prior to 2001, the Government could spend all of the investment income that was accumulated during its term. Investment income at that time referred to interest and dividends received, and excluded capital gains.
In 2001, the Constitution was amended to protect at least 50% of the net investment income (NII) earned from the Past Reserves of the Government. This amendment underscored the Government’s commitment to take a longer-term view, to save some of the investment income to ensure that our reserves would continue to grow, so that future generations would be better able to deal with rainy days.
In a further evolution of the framework, the Constitution was amended in 2008 to implement the Net Investment Return (NIR) framework, which allowed the Government to spend from the long-term expected real return on the net assets invested by GIC and MAS. The returns under the NIR framework include capital gains. Temasek was included in the NIR framework in 2016.
Today, the Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) is the largest single contributor to the annual budget. It is estimated to be $19.6 billion for FY2021, or 20% of the Budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes in Highest Personal Income Tax Rate and Corporate Income Tax Rate since 1991 and Changes in Other Taxes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Finance (a) what are the changes in the highest personal income tax rate and corporate income tax rate since 1991; and (b) what are the changes in other taxes like GST, water tax and other taxes since 1991.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The highest marginal personal income tax rate for tax resident individuals, corporate income tax rate, GST rate and water conservation tax rate since 1991 are as follows:
23 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Finance (a) how will Singapore be affected by the G7 agreement to reform the global tax system; (b) how will this global reform be implemented; and (c) how can Singapore capture opportunities or mitigate its impact.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 2016, there have been concerted efforts to strengthen international co-operation in taxation matters, to stamp out harmful practices and to increase the taxes paid by multinational enterprises (MNEs). These efforts were first initiated by the OECD to deal with the issue of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) by MNEs. To ensure a wider international consensus, the discussions were subsequently broadened to include more than 130 jurisdictions through a platform called the Inclusive Framework (IF) on BEPS.
Singapore has been actively involved in these international discussions as part of the IF. The IF has been discussing two major tax changes.
The first proposal concerns the re-allocation of taxing rights of the largest and most profitable MNEs from where they conduct their substantial activities to where their customers are. This is known as Pillar 1. The current proposal is that Pillar 1 will apply to MNE groups with global revenues above 20 billion euros and profitability above 10%.
The second proposal is the introduction of an internationally-agreed minimum corporate tax rate for large MNEs, wherever they operate. This is known as Pillar 2. The G7 and IF have proposed a minimum effective tax rate of at least 15% for MNE groups with global revenues above 750 million euros.
With respect to how Singapore will be affected by these proposals, as well as our response to them, these have been addressed in my reply to similar questions in Parliament on 5 July 2021. In brief, Singapore has never relied on tax incentives alone to attract investments. We have consistently invested in our talent, infrastructure, R&D, and created a conducive business environment. These have allowed us to build a vibrant economy and create good jobs for our people.
As for how Pillars 1 and 2 will be implemented, the members of the IF will agree on an implementation plan in the coming months. To ensure the coordinated and consistent implementation of the consensus, the IF is considering the development of multilateral instruments for both Pillars 1 and 2. Depending on its own domestic legislation, each jurisdiction may also need to translate these international tax rules into its domestic tax systems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding System for Family Service Centres and Average Number of Cases Per Social Worker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years, among social workers at Family Service Centres whose duties do not include supervising other social workers, what are the average 25th percentile, 50th percentile and 75th percentile numbers of cases per social worker.
25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the rationale for changing the Family Service Centre (FSC) funding system from a tiered system to one based on the exact number of cases handled by each FSC.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Social workers in Family Service Centres (FSCs) partner individuals and families to address their social needs. In the past five years (FY2016 to FY2020), the FSCs served an average of 350 clients each per year, with an average of 22 cases per social worker. Caseloads vary across FSCs, depending on factors such as the profile of the community served and the manpower situation in each FSC.
MSF does not have readily available data on the number of cases managed by each social worker with or without supervisory duties. The FSCs have autonomy on how they distribute cases. MSF maintains a close watch over the total caseload and overall manpower situation of the FSCs on an ongoing basis. The Ministry engages FSCs regularly to understand their situations and challenges, especially those with higher caseloads or higher staff turnover, and works with them on possible solutions such as hiring more social workers and attending to staff development.
MSF provides funding to the FSCs based on their caseloads. Before FY2018, MSF funding was disbursed in blocks and did not take into account the risks and complexity of each case. Since FY2018, to better tailor funding to the resourcing needs of the FSCs, MSF funds FSCs based on the actual number of cases managed, with higher funding given to cases with higher risks and complexity. This revised funding approach more precisely meets the resourcing needs of the FSCs. Based on the resourcing provided, the FSCs have the flexibility to hire staff to match their case mix and client risk profile.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Clusters of COVID-19 Infection of Pre-schoolers Arising from Households Served with Leave of Absence, Stay-home Notice or Quarantine Order and School Fee Relief for Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are measures to prevent clusters of COVID-19 infection of preschoolers arising from households served with Leave of Absence (LOA), Stay-Home Notice (SHN) or Quarantine Order (QO); (b) whether the Ministry will mandate stay-at-home orders for preschoolers and staff with COVID-19 symptoms even if they have not sought medical consultation and hence not been served with LOA, SHN or QO; and (c) whether more support in the form of school fee relief can be provided to parents when children are required to stay home.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The safety and well-being of children and staff in preschools is of utmost importance. To ensure this, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has enhanced safe management measures in preschools, in consultation with MOH.
ECDA requires all preschools to observe strict safe management measures (SMMs). These include:
(a) Measures to restrict entry of persons that pose transmission risks such as by restricting visitors, more frequent health checks for staff and children, and disallowing staff, children or visitors on Stay-Home Notice (SHN) and Quarantine Order (QO) to enter the preschool. As an added precaution, ECDA introduced a Leave of Absence (LOA) policy for children or staff staying with household members who are on Home Quarantine Order (HQO) or SHN1.
(b) Enhanced personal and environmental hygiene practices such as more frequent handwashing and cleaning of high-touch points.
(c) Measures to reduce transmission across groups in preschool by ensuring that children and staff are cohorted by class and do not mix across classes.
Children, staff or visitors who display any symptoms of being unwell will not be admitted into preschools even if they have not sought medical consultation. Preschools will advise them to promptly seek medical attention. In addition, children and staff who report feeling unwell during the day will be required to leave the preschool immediately to seek medical attention. As a precautionary measure, preschool staff and children are also advised to stay home if any of their adult household members is unwell.
With the increased transmissibility of the new COVID-19 variant strains, ECDA recently tightened SMMs in preschools.
(a) For children and staff staying with a household member placed on QO or SHN, they will be issued an LOA and can return to the preschool only after the household member has completed serving his/her quarantine or SHN. From 8 June 2021, this requirement was enhanced to include issuing an LOA to children or staff staying with a household member who has to serve QO at a Government Quarantine Facility (GQF). The child or staff can return to the preschool only after the household member has been conveyed to the GQF and has a negative COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test result at entry into quarantine.
(b) For children and staff who are placed on QO and were recently in preschool, the preschool will issue an LOA to the children and staff from the same class, if the child or staff placed on QO was recently unwell before the start of quarantine or becomes unwell soon during quarantine. If the child or staff placed on QO was generally well when he/she was in the preschool, parents in the same class will be informed and strongly encouraged to keep their children at home until the child or staff who is on QO receives a negative COVID-19 PCR test result at entry into quarantine.
(c) Preschools will also issue an LOA to a child or staff who is undergoing mandatory testing, for example, the testing for all residents of a particular HDB block or workplace cluster due to potential exposure to COVID-19 cases. The child or staff can return to the preschool after receiving a negative COVID-19 PCR test result. If the child or staff’s household member is the one undergoing mandatory testing, parents are strongly encouraged to keep their child at home, if possible, until the household member has a negative COVID-19 PCR test result.
Keeping our preschool community safe and healthy is a collective effort. We urge parents to monitor their children’s health closely and seek immediate medical advice if their child is unwell. Children and staff who are unwell should stay at home to rest and return to preschool only when they have fully recovered.
The Member also asked if more support in the form of school fee relief can be provided to parents when children are required to stay home due to LOA, QO or SHN. As preschools continue to incur costs for service provision and the situation varies from centre to centre, we will leave centres and parents to work out suitable arrangements for their children. To support parents who choose to keep their children at home, MSF and ECDA will exercise flexibility on an appeals basis to waive the minimum attendance requirement for preschool subsidies and Child Care Financial Assistance (CCFA) for families with valid reasons, such as for children placed on LOA, SHN or QO.
These enhanced measures are necessary precautions during these exceptional times to ensure that our preschools remain a safe environment for all children and staff. We recognise that the measures may inconvenience families and preschools, but it is important we step up precautions, given the increased transmissibility of the new variants and there is currently no vaccine available for young children. We will continue to review and adjust our measures in line with the national posture, and in consultation with MOH, for the health and well-being of everyone in the preschool.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : For staff staying with household members under HQO or SHN, preschools may issue LOA to the staff or redeploy them to back-end administrative tasks. From 8 June 2021, this measure was tightened further such that preschools may choose to lift the LOA and redeploy the staff to back-end administrative tasks only after the staff’s household member under QO tests negative for their entry swab test."],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending SG Enable's Taxi Scheme to Individuals under Special Circumstances with Monthly per Capita Household Income above $2,800","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether SG Enable’s Taxi Subsidy Scheme has been extended to individuals whose monthly per capita household income is above $2,800 due to special circumstances of the applicant; (b) if so, how many of such cases are there and what are the reasons for doing so; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising (i) trips other than those between the home and workplace/school, subject to a cap and (ii) trips by private hire operators for persons in wheelchairs who face limited vehicle options.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Taxi Subsidy Scheme helps to defray the cost of taxis and private hire vehicles, for Persons with Disabilities attending school, work or employment-related training. The scheme is designed for individuals who meet the means-test criteria, and are medically certified to be unable to take public transport. MSF has increased the monthly per capita household income from $2,600 to $2,800 in January 2020 to enable more individuals to qualify for the scheme. Currently, we do not have any individuals on the scheme who exceed the per capita household income criteria. Needy individuals who miss the criteria may appeal and we will assess them on a case-by-case basis.
Besides the Taxi Subsidy Scheme that subsidises transportation to schools, training venues and workplaces, MSF also subsidises the cost of dedicated transport for Persons with Disabilities attending Government-funded programmes through the Voluntary Welfare Organisation Transport Subsidy Scheme. These Government-funded programmes include the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshop and Special Student Care Centres.
Eligible Persons with Disabilities who require assistance in travelling to medical appointments or treatment at acute and community hospitals, specialised outpatient clinics and polyclinics, may also tap on the Medical Escort and Transport service administered by the Agency for Integrated Care.
MSF will continue to review our transport subsidy schemes periodically to ensure that they remain relevant and affordable for our clients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migration of Wakaf Haji Pitchay Meerah Hussain to 11 Beach Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of the migration of Wakaf Haji Pitchay Meerah Hussain to 11 Beach Road (a) what is the land area, gross plot ratio and gross floor area of 11 Beach Road; (b) how does MUIS derive income from 11 Beach Road; and (c) how much income has been derived since the migration.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: 11 Beach Road is a six-storey commercial property with a land area of 714 square metres and a total lettable area of 3,202 square metres. The building was purchased from the collective sale proceeds of 43 wakaf assets.
The income from 11 Beach Road is mainly derived from the rental of commercial spaces. It is distributed to the 43 wakaf based on their shareholding. Since the migration, the building has disbursed a total of $23.79 million to the various shareholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Claims for Serious Pregnancy and Delivery-related Complications Covered by MediShield Life in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health in each year of the past three years (a) what is the number of claims for serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications that are covered by MediShield Life; and (b) what is the median age of patients experiencing these complications.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediShield Life extended coverage to inpatient treatment for serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications on 1 April 2019. In the one-year period between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2020, about 3,300 claims were covered by MediShield Life. The median age of these patients was 33 years old.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Subsidise Hospitalisation Costs for Birth Deliveries up to C-class Ward Rates in Public Hospitals for First Two Children of Each Singaporean Family","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can consider to subsidise all hospitalisation costs for birth deliveries up to C-class ward rates in public hospitals for the first two children of each Singaporean family regardless of whether the child is delivered in public or private hospitals in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singaporean patients are eligible for Government subsidies of up to 80% for inpatient treatment in B2 or C wards of public hospitals, with no limit on the number of inpatient episodes. However, Government resources are limited, and for more equitable distribution, the subsidies have to be means-tested and hospitalisation stays in A or B1 wards at public hospitals, or private hospitals, are not subsidised. The same principle applies to all healthcare services, including maternity and delivery services.
Nevertheless, regardless of the choice of public or private hospitals, as well as private or subsidised wards, all Singaporeans can tap on the MediSave Maternity Package (MMP) to offset hospitalisation costs for deliveries. Under the MMP, patients can claim up to the daily hospital charge limit of $550 for the first two days and $400 for the third and subsequent day of their hospitalisation episode from their MediSave. They can also claim from a separate withdrawal limit for the delivery procedure, which ranges from $750 for a normal vaginal delivery to $2,150 or more for a more complicated delivery such as caesarean birth. For instance, patients can claim up to $3,150 from their MediSave for their pre-delivery expenses and a normal vaginal delivery with a three-day hospitalisation stay.
The Government also provides support for children’s healthcare needs. Singaporean newborns receive a $4,000 MediSave Grant, and there are free nationally-recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at all polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioner clinics.
Following a Singaporean child’s birth, parents also receive up to between $14,000 and $28,000 in Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Government contributions to their Child Development Account savings, depending on their child’s birth order. These are part of the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package which also includes support for other aspects such as housing, preschool and parental leave.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Sinovac Vaccine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current take-up rate of the Sinovac vaccine; (b) how many reimbursements has the Government made to patients who took Sinovac; and (c) how does the Government assess whether these patients took Sinovac for medical reasons, that is, patients who cannot take the mRNA vaccines due to medical reasons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As at 3 July 2021, a total of 17,296 unique individuals have received one dose of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine.
Some individuals cannot take the mRNA vaccines due to medical reasons. Providers will not charge these groups of individuals for the vaccination and MOH will reimburse the providers directly.
Vaccination with Sinovac-CoronaVac started on 18 June 2021. As at 29 June 2021, two non-serious adverse event reports have been received. MOH and HSA will continue to monitor this and will provide an update if any significant safety concern is detected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Receive First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine with Minimal Waiting Time and Longest Possible Gap between First and Second Dose","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has an alternative plan to ensure all COVID-19 vaccine registrants are able to receive at least one dose of the vaccine with minimal waiting time; and (b) what is the longest possible gap between the first and second dose for the mRNA vaccine without sacrificing efficacy of the vaccine or safety of the patient.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our rate of vaccination has been contingent upon our vaccine supply. In recent weeks, we have confirmed our supply delivery and accelerated our vaccination programme. All who have registered for vaccination can expect to receive their first dose of the vaccine within the month of July.
The Expert Committee on COVID-19 has recommended that the maximum interval between mRNA-COVID-19 vaccines could be extended to between six and eight weeks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Appeals Received for Waiver of Quarantine Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health to-date, what is the number of appeals received for waiver of quarantine requirements by Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and Employment Pass holders who are already vaccinated against COVID-19 respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We currently do not waive quarantine measures on the basis of vaccination and there is no formal appeal process to do so.
Vaccinated individuals have a lower risk of getting infected. However, if infected, they can still transmit the disease to others in the community, especially to unvaccinated individuals. Therefore, all persons in close contact with COVID-19 cases are required to be quarantined regardless of vaccination status, until we reach higher vaccination coverage levels in our community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Applications and Payments Approved under Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme since May 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) since the update given in May 2021, how many more applications have been made under the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme; and (b) how many payments have been approved under the programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of 25 June 2021, MOH has received 292 complete applications for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP), of which 267 applications have been reviewed by the independent VIFAP Clinical Panel.
Of the 267 applications which have completed review, 102 applications were assessed by the Clinical Panel to have met the qualifying criteria for VIFAP. A total of $451,000 have been paid out or are in the process of being paid out to these individuals.
A total of 159 applications did not meet the VIFAP eligibility criteria. Thirty-one applications are pending review by the Clinical Panel, or are pending additional medical information from the applicant’s doctor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cases of Breaches under HDB (Renovation Control) Rules Reported since Start of COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases of breaches under the Housing and Development (Renovation Control) Rules have been reported since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) what action has HDB taken to ensure compliance with the Rules; and (c) whether HDB will set up a process to enable affected residents to lodge requests for deferment of noisy renovation works before HDB issues a renovation permit.
Mr Desmond Lee: Certain types of renovation work, such as the demolition of walls and hacking of flooring, require a renovation permit from HDB and must be conducted by a contractor listed in the HDB Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC). This is to ensure that the works will not damage the building structure or pose a safety risk to residents. Renovation works that will not affect the structure of the block, such as carpentry or installing light fixtures, are not regulated by HDB and do not require a permit from HDB.
The number of infringements committed by renovation contractors since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has remained largely the same as before. In 2019, there were 52 cases of infringements out of the 63,642 HDB renovation permits issued. In comparison, between the start of the circuit breaker in April 2020 and May 2021, there were 53 cases of infringements out of 76,340 permits issued. The infringements included carrying out unauthorised works in the flats, or contravening HDB’s renovation guidelines.
To facilitate compliance, HDB sends circulars to remind contractors listed in the DRC about HDB’s guidelines. In addition, HDB conducts audit inspections on flats, as well as investigations based on feedback from residents on possible infringements. Errant contractors can be penalised by HDB, for instance, by the imposition of a financial penalty and/or demerit points. HDB can also debar contractors who exceed the threshold for demerit points, or who commit serious infringements.
There are processes in place to help manage disamenities from renovation noise. For instance, contractors listed in the DRC are required to inform households within a radius of two flats of the unit being renovated, including the upper and lower floor neighbours, at least three days in advance of the impending renovation works. Contractors who have applied for an HDB renovation permit are also required to put up a Notice of Renovation Works outside the flat entrance during the renovation period so neighbours will know whom to contact if they face issues. To expand outreach, we have also added the notices to the OneService app. From July 2021, HDB residents will be able to receive and view notices for upcoming flat renovation works at their blocks, that have been approved by HDB, through the app. The advanced notices will allow immediate neighbours who may be affected to make alternative arrangements such as returning to office for work, if necessary, or to approach the contractors to adjust the renovation schedules for noisier works. We have seen instances where contractors or flat owners have found mutually agreeable arrangements when approached by affected residents.
We empathise with residents who could be affected by renovation noise. At the same time, new flat owners will need to renovate their flats, sometimes urgently, so that they can move in as soon as possible. In Singapore’s high density living environment, some amount of give-and-take will be necessary. Therefore, we seek residents’ patience and understanding as we adapt to new work-life arrangements and tackle the COVID-19 pandemic together. HDB residents with feedback on renovation works may contact HDB’s branch service line at 1800-225-5432 or the Essential Maintenance Service Unit after office hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Flat Rental Application by Single Unwed Parents in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the past five years (a) how many single unwed parents have applied to rent a flat from HDB; (b) how many of such applications have been rejected; (c) what are the top reasons for the rejections; and (d) if such data is not being collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting it.
Mr Desmond Lee: To best assist single unwed parents with their housing needs, HDB reviews each application to rent a public rental flat to understand the applicant’s individual circumstances, housing options and level of family support, taking into account input from social workers, if necessary.
From 2016 to 2020, HDB received 1,218 requests from single unwed parents regarding rental flats (see Table 1). Fifty-five percent of the requests were successful and the number of successful requests quadrupled from 48 in 2016 to 214 in 2020. The remaining requests included enquiries on eligibility conditions, incomplete requests and rejected requests.
The common reasons why requests for a public rental flat were rejected included applicants having the means to buy a flat, having family members who can house them, or not providing the full information required for assessment. HDB will continue to review every request from single unwed parents holistically and render housing assistance to them in the best interest of their children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Good Soundproofing during Renovation Works and Advanced Notices of Renovation Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development considering that working from home and home-based learning will occur frequently, whether the Ministry will require that (i) renovation contractors provide good soundproofing so that loud drilling and hacking does not affect neighbouring residents and (ii) notices of renovation works be placed at lift lobbies at least one week in advance so that neighbours are better able to prepare and make adjustments to work and study arrangements.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB regulates renovation works that may affect the structural integrity of the HDB block, such as the demolition of walls and hacking of flooring. Hacking work can only be carried out on weekdays, with only up to two approved handheld power tools in use at any point in time and must be completed within three days. Contractors that carry out these works are also required to close the doors and windows of the flat during renovations to minimise the noise generated. However, due to the nature of hacking and drilling works, there is a limit to the extent to which soundproofing can reduce noise vibrations transmitted through the walls, ceilings or floor.
Renovation contractors are required to put up a Notice of Renovation Works outside the flat being renovated during the renovation period, displaying the contact details of the renovation contractor, the duration of the renovation and the dates of the hacking works. HDB does not require these contractors to paste the Notice at lift lobbies to avoid cluttering walls in the common areas though individual Town Councils can allow this. In addition, from July 2021, HDB residents will be able to receive and view Notices for upcoming flat renovation works at their blocks, that have been approved by HDB, through the OneService app.
Additionally, contractors are required to inform households within a radius of two flats of the unit being renovated, including the upper and lower floor neighbours, at least three days in advance of the impending renovation works, to give the neighbours advance notice and time to make prior adjustments. Given the current situation where more residents are working and studying from home, HDB will look into the Member’s suggestion to increase the advance notice from the current three days to a week.
Renovation works that do not affect the structural integrity of the HDB block, such as electrical and carpentry works, are not regulated by HDB. Nonetheless, as these works may also generate some noise, HDB will advise the flat owners and their contractors to adopt measures to minimise the noise generated and keep their immediate neighbours informed of the works in advance. For strata-titled developments such as condominiums, management corporations are empowered to enact by-laws to manage the development and can consider adopting similar measures to mitigate the impact of noise generated from renovation works.
We empathise with residents who need to work or study from home given the COVID-19 situation, and who could, therefore, be affected by renovation noise. At the same time, new flat owners may need to renovate their flats, sometimes urgently, so that they can move into their new homes as soon as possible. In Singapore’s high density living environment, some amount of noise is inevitable and some give-and-take will be necessary. We have seen instances on the ground where contractors have adjusted the schedule for renovation works after being approached by affected residents. Residents who need assistance can approach HDB, who will help to facilitate alternatives, including providing information on the prevailing available alternative work and study spaces, such as those in community centres and commercial co-working spaces, and working with MOM to see if the resident can return to the office, subject to safe management measures.
We thank Singaporeans for your efforts and patience during this period, and seek your continued understanding as we adapt to new work-life arrangements and tackle the COVID-19 pandemic together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on HDB Resale Flats Sold Below and Over Valuation in Past 18 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past 18 months, how many HDB resale flats have been sold below valuation; and (b) how many have been sold with cash over valuation of (i) $10,000 or below in each district (ii) between $10,000 and $20,000 in each district (iii) between $20,000 and $30,000 in each district and (iv) above $30,000.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB resale flat transactions are conducted on a \"willing-buyer-willing-seller\" basis, with prices negotiated and mutually agreed upon between flat sellers and buyers. The transacted prices of resale flats for the last 12 months are published on the HDB InfoWEB to guide potential sellers and buyers.
After a resale price has been agreed upon, the flat sellers will grant an Option to Purchase (OTP) to the buyers. If the buyers wish to use their CPF savings or a housing loan to pay for the flat purchase, they will need to make a \"Request for Value\" to HDB. Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) arises when the resale price is higher than the market valuation of the flat, as the difference can only be paid by cash. Otherwise, there is no COV. Buyers can decide whether to exercise the OTP for the resale transaction depending on the valuation and any COV payable. Should they choose not to proceed with the transaction, buyers will forgo the option fee of between $1 and $1,000 paid to the seller.
Based on resale flat transactions registered from January 2020 to April 2021, less than one in four involved a COV. Of these, about six in 10 paid a COV of not more than $20,000 while four in 10 paid a COV of more than $20,000. The details of the COV paid for the resale transactions which involved a COV for the different regions in Singapore is in Table 1.
39 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether workplace injuries in the food and beverage industry that are caused by slips, trips and falls can be attributed to the manpower shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic where workers have increased workloads and working hours; (b) what is the number of such injuries in the past five years, broken down by (i) slippery areas (ii) slopes (iii) uneven areas and (iv) cluttered areas; and (c) whether technology can be deployed to mitigate the risks and foster better workplace safety.
Dr Tan See Leng: We recognise that COVID-19 border restrictions have resulted in manpower challenges in the food and beverage (F&B) industry, but it is unclear the degree to which these have contributed to the increase in workplace injuries. In fact, slips, trips and falls (STF) have been identified to be the main driver for rising injuries in the F&B industry over the past few years, even before the COVID-19 pandemic started.
In the past five years, there have been close to 1,200 STF injuries in the F&B industry, including one fatal injury in 2019. The STFs in the F&B industry have been increasing by an average of 12% a year from 2016 to 2019, and only reduced slightly in 2020 due to COVID-related work stoppages. Based on MOM’s data, STF accidents in the F&B sector are more likely to occur due to wet or slippery surfaces and near steps, as compared to uneven or cluttered surfaces.
These trends are indeed becoming an area of concern. This is why MOM, together with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, are strengthening our efforts on this front. The WSH Council recently worked with industry associations, including those in F&B, to launch a national STF prevention campaign on 17 June 2021. The campaign educates employers and workers on how to prevent STF injuries by taking simple steps, such as wearing non-slip footwear on wet or oily surfaces, always holding handrails, and cleaning spills up immediately. The campaign has reached almost 1,600 members of F&B industry associations.
For companies that need help on learning to be safer, WSH Council also provides free guidance visits to eligible companies, such as through the StartSAFE programme to help employers identify WSH risks and implement good WSH practices.
Companies can also proactively implement measures to manage floor safety and reduce STF accidents, including through the use of technology solutions. In fact, promoting technology-enabled WSH is also one of MOM’s WSH 2028 strategies.
Today, measurement of slip risks can be performed using slip meters which are simple to use. Readings for slip meters supplement risk assessments especially at locations where STF near misses or accidents are caused by contaminants requiring specific chemical clean up. For real-time monitoring of STF incidents and hazards, MOM, together with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), worked with a local technology firm to develop a solution using vision analytics and wearables in the Facilities Management sector. This solution is currently being trialled in other sectors including the F&B sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Employment under India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement and Breakdown on Labour Force Statistics according to Standard Occupational Classification 2020 Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower since 2005, what has been the total number of visas granted for (i) intra-corporate transferees and (ii) professionals under the terms of chapter 9 of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement.
41 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower what is the size of the total and Singapore Citizen/Permanent Resident labour force respectively for each of the three years before and after (i) 2005 (ii) 2007 (iii) 2014 and (iv) 2018, broken down according to the two-digit Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2020 level.
42 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government has studied the employment and wage changes in the sectors listed in Annex 9A of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement; and (b) if such studies have been conducted, whether the Government will be willing to share these findings and, if not, whether it will consider such a study.
Dr Tan See Leng: The questions have been addressed by the Ministerial Statements delivered by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng on 6 July 2021. [Please refer to \"Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower\", Official Report, 6 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 32, Ministerial Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Average Working Hours and Overtime Hours for Full-time Security Officers Working for Private Security Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in 2020, what percentage of full-time security officers working for private security agencies worked overtime hours; (b) what were the average and median hours worked per officer per month; and (c) what was the highest number of hours worked per officer per month.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2020, 79.4% of full-time security officers in private security agencies worked more than 44 hours per week, where overtime is payable under the Employment Act for eligible security officers. The mean and median hours worked per week were 56.4 hours (that is, 12.4 overtime hours) and 60.0 hours (that is, 16 overtime hours) respectively1.
Previously, before the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) in the security sector, many private security agencies relied on overtime exemptions under the Employment Act, so that their security officers clocked more than 72 hours of overtime per month. In November 2017, the Government accepted recommendations from the Security Tripartite Cluster – comprising representatives from the unions, employers, service buyers and the Government – to remove Overtime Exemption for the security sector from January 2021. This meant that security agencies would only be able to deploy their security officers for a maximum of 72 overtime hours per month (or 16.6 overtime hours on average per week). This reduces excessive overtime hours worked by security officers, improves their well-being and avoids compromising their alertness.
In 2020, through the Security PWM, security officers saw an increase in their base salary by 12%, even though their total working hours are capped. This ensures that most would not be adversely affected due to a reduction in overtime hours. The three-year implementation lead time allowed security agencies, service buyers and security officers sufficient time to adjust.
In 2020, about 30% of security officers still worked more than 72 overtime hours per month2. With the implementation of the PWM recommendation to remove overtime exemptions in January 2021, this percentage is expected to decline further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This refers to the number of hours an employee typically works in a week. For a worker with usual hours worked at the mean and median, his overtime hours are 12.4 and 16 hours respectively, assuming his contractual hours are 44 hours a week.","2 : Overtime hours are assumed to be those which exceed 44 hours per week."],"footNoteQuestions":["43"],"questionNo":"43"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4501,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Ong Ye Kung MS 6July2021-Chinese (mti).pdf","fileName":"Ong Ye Kung MS 6July2021-Chinese (mti).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4502,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Tan See Leng MS 6July 2021 -Chinese (mom).pdf","fileName":"Tan See Leng MS 6July 2021 -Chinese (mom).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4503,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ng Ling Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Ng Ling Ling LPA 6July2021 -Chinese .pdf","fileName":"Ng Ling Ling LPA 6July2021 -Chinese .pdf"},{"vernacularID":4504,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Don Wee LPA 6July2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee LPA 6July2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4505,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan LPA 6July2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan LPA 6July2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4506,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Hany Soh LPA 6July2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh LPA 6July2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4507,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Climate Birth 6July2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Climate Birth 6July2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4508,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-6 July 2021 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Regn Births and Deaths Bill.pdf","fileName":"6 July 2021 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Regn Births and Deaths Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4509,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210706/vernacular-6 July 2021 - MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Regn Births and Deaths Bill_MHA (clean).pdf","fileName":"6 July 2021 - MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Regn Births and Deaths Bill_MHA (clean).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}