1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the volatile situation in Hong Kong (a) what is the Ministry's advice to Singaporeans who are working on the island; and (b) how many Singaporeans in Hong Kong are currently registered with the Ministry.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, the protests in Hong Kong commenced in early June 2019. MFA has advised Singaporeans to avoid areas where protests are expected to take place. Singaporeans must be mindful that protests which are meant to be peaceful may turn violent with little or no notice. Singaporeans who are residing in or visiting Hong Kong should take the necessary precautions, stay vigilant, observe local laws and monitor developments through the local media and regular updates from the Singapore Consulate-General in Hong Kong.
We estimate that there are over 15,000 Singaporeans residing in Hong Kong. We keep in close touch with the Singaporean community there through the Singapore Consulate-General. Singaporeans in Hong Kong who require consular assistance should get in touch with us. We continue to urge Singaporeans to e-register with us whenever they travel. Singaporeans should have comprehensive travel insurance.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to thank the Minister for answering the question. I have got two supplementary questions. One is, have there been any instances so far of Singaporeans being affected in the separate incidents over the past month or so. The second question is, so far, among those registered with the Ministry in Hong Kong, do they include students on scholarships there and in other educational institutions there as well? Because a lot of the local demonstrators there, emanated from the educational institutions there.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: So far, we are not aware of any Singaporeans who have been directly affected or injured. Of the about 3,000 Singaporeans who have e-registered, it is usually about one-fifth of those who are there. We do not keep track of their activities. The purpose of e-registration is simply to enable us to be able to reach out to them if we need to provide updated information or for them to seek assistance from MFA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Imposing Criminal Liability on Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Law (a) whether an extension of the Protection from Harassment Act to cover entities will impose vicarious liability onto employers; and (b) if not, whether the Government plans to move away from the present individual criminal liability-based approach.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister for Law. For part (a) of the Parliamentary Question by the Member, the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) covers both entities, such as companies, and individuals. Apart from POHA, there are many pieces of legislation that cover both entities and individuals. That is the norm. The Penal Code is one example. Likewise, in the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the word \"person\" refers to individuals in Part 3 and to entities such as internet platforms and mass media service providers in Part 4.
The law, meaning Common Law, provides for various ways of attributing vicarious liability. Nothing in POHA specifically rules this out. Likewise, there are principles laid down in case law, establishing when an individual can be held criminally liable for the acts of an entity. Let me give an example.
POFMA empowers a Minister to issue Directions to an Internet intermediary. If an intermediary fails to comply with a Direction without reasonable excuse, its executives may be held liable for that non-compliance if, for example, they are found to have abetted the non-compliance. They may be found to have abetted the non-compliance if they had, amongst other things, suggested, supported, or encouraged the non-compliance – whether by words or by their silence. This is as per existing law.
The Member’s second question is whether the Government plans to move away from the present \"individual criminal liability based approach\". Criminal liability can be imposed on both entities and individuals, when they commit criminal offences. That is already the position in law today.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. Could I please follow up with two supplementary questions? The first is, I understand that in POHA, as much as entities are included, they are included insofar as they can seek protection from harassment, but they are not actually liable if they are the ones harassing. So, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify that because I think that is the understanding that we have of POHA?
In relation to the question being specific to the employer, the concern here is about workplace harassment. So, whether the employer has the liability in addition to responsibility in maintaining a workplace that is free from harassment and violence?
I would also like to understand what was the intention behind us extending POHA to include entities in terms of being protected but not in terms of them being liable as the harassing party.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think the third and first questions are in a way related, so I will try and handle them together. POHA was amended in May this year to clarify that entities can be liable for contraventions and that entities can be victims and seek relief under POHA. But I would like to add that in section 3 of POHA, an individual or entity must not, with intent, cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person by a series of means. There is a part (a), part (b) and part (c) to it. So, actually, the entities can be criminally liable. It is actually already expressly provided for in the provisions themselves. So, that is section 3, subsection (1), for harassment under POHA.
Under section 5 of POHA, it also states that an individual or entity must not by any means use towards another person any threatening, abusive or insulting communication to another person. So, there are sections in POHA which make it quite clear that entities can be criminally liable. So, that is one set of the Member's questions.
On the second question, I would just like to add that there are challenges involved in creating new rules relating to corporate criminal responsibility. I take her point that there is a need to protect employees from harassment but on the other hand, there is also a need to ensure that the burden on businesses or employers is not unduly onerous. Any proposed changes must be thoroughly thought out. This was a point that was also made by the Penal Code Review Committee in its report.
Yesterday, I heard the exchange that the Member had with Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo. It was in relation to Singapore's abstention from the vote on the ILO's Convention on Workplace Violence and Harassment. Without repeating the details that transpired, Minister Josephine Teo had talked about how MOM has put in place practical measures to eliminate workplace violence and harassment, and also that employers must meet the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. So, I think that is another means, apart from criminal law, whereby employees can seek comfort in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Professional Conversion Programmes for Mainstream Teachers Interested in New Career as Pre-school Educators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower what is the progress in running professional conversion programmes for retiring mainstream teachers and other professionals keen to take up a new career as pre-school educators.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, to support the expansion of the early childhood care and education sector, Workforce Singapore (WSG), SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) jointly offer the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) for Pre-school Teachers and the Place-and-Train Programme (PnT) for Educarers, under the Adapt and Grow initiative.
These programmes are designed to equip mid-career individuals with the necessary qualifications and skills for a fulfilling career in the early childhood care and education sector. Participating pre-schools receive salary and training support for their newly-hired employees. In the past three years, more than 2,000 jobseekers have been placed with over 400 employers in the early childhood care and education sector.
As the early childhood care and education sector continues to expand, we hope to attract more mid-career individuals looking to pursue careers as Pre-school Teachers and Educarers. WSG, SSG and ECDA will continue with efforts to raise awareness of these Adapt and Grow programmes and encourage pre-schools and interested jobseekers to take up these programmes.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister for the reply. It is heartening to know that 2,000 have been placed in pre-school centres since we started this. What are the target numbers that we are looking at in order to fill the demand in our pre-school sector? My second question is, in terms of salary and professional development, are we going to review that, so that while they are still in-service, they can continue to undergo professional development programmes that can be overseen under the Adapt and Grow initiative.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, the Ministry that is most appropriate to answer this question is MSF. But as it turns out, I do interact with Staff there quite regularly, wearing my other hat, the one looking after Marriage and Parenthood. The points that the Member raised are important, indeed. Of course, when we place jobseekers into new roles such as pre-school teachers or educarers, we do want to see that they have good career development, too. Indeed, if the career prospects were not sufficiently attractive, then it would be very difficult to attract them to take up these training opportunities as well.
What I can say is that MSF, through ECDA, has been very focused on this. There are, as part of the commitments to the support given to Anchor Operators, obligations on the part of the operators as employers, to improve the attractiveness of the jobs. But I think a more detailed explanation on this is probably better provided by MSF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Support Workers in Economic Slowdown and Effectiveness of Past Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how effective have the previous downturn measures been in helping workers to stay in their jobs or find new opportunities; and (b) what are the plans that the Ministry has in place to support workers should the economy continue to slow down and jobs may be lost.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the most severe downturn in recent years was triggered by the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Measures taken then helped companies to manage excess manpower and to invest in skills for the recovery. In an MOM survey carried out in 2009, three in four companies with earlier plans to retrench workers reported they would postpone or reduce the number of affected workers due to Government assistance schemes such as Jobs Credit and the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). Helped by improving external conditions, resident unemployment rate rose but did not exceed 5% throughout the \tGlobal Financial Crisis.
Our current situation and outlook are different from that in 2008. For example, \tin the first half of 2009, retrenchments exceeded 19,000, when in a typical year, during that period, retrenchments would be about 15,000. But in the first half of 2009 alone, retrenchments were 19,000. Job losses estimated for the whole year, some analysts came in with numbers such as 100,000. That was the situation in the beginning of 2009.
If you look at the situation today, actually, retrenchments have not picked up. If we look at the second quarter of 2019, retrenchments remained fairly low at 2,300. Total employment growth slowed but it did not stall. Employment growth remained robust in sectors such as (a) Information and Communications, (b) Community, Social and Personal Services, (c) Professional Services, and (d) Financial Services. This suggests that while most employers are exercising greater caution in hiring, most are not laying off their existing workers.
MOM, together with MTI and other Government agencies, is monitoring the economy and the labour market closely. We are ready to step up support for companies and workers under the Adapt and Grow initiative. Workers can tap on employment assistance and programmes offered by WSG and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). These include the Career Support Programme, Career Trial and Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) that provide wage and training support to help workers access new jobs or reskill for new opportunities. Jobseekers can also consider taking up the Attach-and-Train PCPs which train the workers ahead of hiring demand and these are available in selected sectors with strong growth potential. In addition, WSG's Careers Connect and NTUC’s e2i career centres offer employment facilitation services, such as career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching.
The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, which was formed in 2016, proactively reaches out to retrenched workers and provides them with timely employment support, including job matching. The Taskforce will also continue to engage retrenching companies on responsible retrenchment practices.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for her reply. I have two clarifications. One, in the event of a long and prolonged slowdown whereby jobs are lost, what are the levers that the Ministry is prepared to consider, including reducing the foreign manpower quota? Two, what are the supports given to the vulnerable workers, especially those who are older and might find it harder to transit to another growth industry?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, it is premature to speculate what kinds of support measures should be introduced, the reason being that, as I have explained earlier, the current situation is a slowdown, very different from the kinds of downturns we most recently experienced in 2008/2009. The approach that we take is to make a correct assessment of the situation. We will have to ask, in any slowdown or a general downturn, what are the reasons that have caused the slowdown or the downturn. Is it due to cyclical factors or is it due to structural factors or a combination of both? This is because the strategies that we then adopt to bring about a recovery will be very different under the circumstances, depending on what they are.
Specifically, Mr Choo asked about foreign worker quotas. In fact, in the services sector, the dependency ratio ceiling will be reduced downwards. We said in the Budget Debate during the Committee of Supply earlier this year that there was a need to bring us on a more sustainable path when it comes to the growth of foreign employment in the services sector. We actually had quite a lively debate about whether those measures were appropriate. We agreed that we would go ahead with two moves – one beginning in January 2020 and then another step coming in January 2021. Both are still on the cards. At the present time, the assessment that led to that set of recommendations has not changed. It is still important for us to press on with restructuring. So, that quota reduction is going ahead.
Mr Choo also asked about older workers. There have been a lot of support measures put in place for older workers, including the Special Employment Credit as well as many programmes, such as job redesign, that help companies to retain their older workers, help them to stay productive and able to contribute. I recognise where Mr Choo is coming from. He is concerned that, if there are job losses, will older workers bear the brunt of it. We are equally concerned and we will watch very closely. But in the meantime, that should not detract us from putting in place measures that will support senior employment for the medium to longer term because of the demographic transition that we can expect to observe in the next decade. That set of recommendations has been considered by a tripartite work group and I think it would not be too long before that set of recommendations is presented.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selection and Appointment of Members in Committee on Future Asatizah","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) who is involved in the selection and appointment of the members of the recently announced Committee on Future Asatizah (COFA); and (b) what are the criteria used in the selection and appointment of these members to COFA.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) established the Committee on Future Asatizah (COFA) in March 2019 to advance thinking about the skills and competencies of future asatizah and advise on strategies to develop the asatizah workforce. Future asatizah need to be equipped with strong grounding in religious knowledge as well as with work-relevant skills.
In selecting the COFA members, MUIS considered two key factors. First, COFA needs strong representation from the asatizah fraternity, since its work has a direct impact on asatizah, as well as from the Malay/Muslim community leaders. Both senior and young asatizah, including madrasah leaders, have been appointed to the COFA as they offer important perspectives on the key attributes of future asatizah and how to nurture them.
Second, the COFA includes professionals and academics from different fields who can advise on industry trends and continuing education and training in non-religious sectors where asatizah can contribute, such as in social work and counselling.
Since its establishment, the COFA has been engaging key stakeholders and the wider community extensively. More than 400 individuals have participated, including senior asatizah, representatives from Muslim organisations, Islamic education providers and VWOs, professionals and business owners, academics, youths, Islamic studies undergraduates, madrasah educators, religious officers and members of the mosque fraternity. Members of the public can also give their feedback and suggestions through an online portal. Through the COFA engagements, the wider community will be able to share their aspirations for our future asatizah and how they can better meet the evolving socio-religious needs of the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Likelihood of Ban on Single-use Plastics for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry will study the impact of the policy on banning single-use plastics in the UK and Ireland; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the likelihood of adopting a similar ban here.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): My Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) take a keen interest in how other countries manage their disposables. We will continue to study their policies and implementation outcomes and how they may fit into our local context. Our approach has been to reduce the excessive use of all types of disposables, not just single-use plastics, and to promote the use of reusables. We do not target plastics alone. NEA conducted a life-cycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposables and found that substituting plastics with other types of single-use packaging materials is not necessarily better for the environment. As such, our focus is to promote the use of reusables.
NEA launched the \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign last month as part of the Year Towards Zero Waste movement to drive awareness of the impact of excessive consumption of disposables and the need for reduction. Some 1,600 premises, ranging from retailers, food and beverage establishments, supermarkets, hotels, Community Development Councils, grassroots organisations, schools and non-governmental organisations have come forward to partner NEA in this nation-wide endeavour. Partners commit to actions, such as prompting customers to bring along reusables, encouraging them to decline disposable cutlery with online orders and displaying campaign visuals at cashier points. NEA has also launched the \"Towards Zero Waste Grant\" to support individuals, interest groups, non-governmental organisations, grassroots organisations and corporations to initiate or scale up waste reduction and recycling initiatives.
Moving upstream next year, NEA will require brand owners, manufacturers and importers of packaged goods, as well as supermarkets with an annual turnover exceeding $10 million to report information on the packaging they place on the market and their plans for reducing, reusing or recycling this packaging annually. This will increase companies’ awareness of the potential for waste reduction in their business operations. Companies should take action to reduce the amount of packaging used and minimise waste generation at source. This will also lay the foundation of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for managing packaging waste, including plastic waste, which NEA will put in place no later than 2025.
Besides reducing waste, we are also taking actions to increase our recycling rate. For example, we are working with the industry to tap on the Towards Zero Waste Grant to roll out 50 reverse vending machines this year. Through this initiative, we hope to engage the public to consciously recycle used PET bottles and aluminium cans.
At the same time, we are developing the local recycling industry. Where possible, we want to better extract resources from waste and close the waste loop domestically. NEA is currently studying recycling solutions and technologies and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. This may include mechanical recycling to turn plastic waste into plastic pellets for manufacturing new products, or chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into chemical feedstock or fuel. The Government will work with industry stakeholders to explore how these technologies can be applied to Singapore, such that it is both environmentally and economically sustainable. These are efforts which could help grow local enterprises and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Everyone needs to play our part to reduce packaging waste, including single-use plastics. We can do this in different ways. For example, we can opt out of receiving disposable cutlery when ordering food for takeaway or delivery, or we can bring our own reusable bags and containers and take only the plastic bags we need and use. The support of the public, businesses and the community is key to successfully reducing our packaging waste.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to commend MEWR for the various efforts on recycling, reducing and reusing and so on. But there is one common topic that I always hear being discussed by my residents, especially when they come back from overseas. They say that even Bangkok is charging for the use of plastic bags. Even Malacca is charging for the use of plastic bags and they were asking why is it that, in Singapore, we are so reluctant to charge for the use of plastic bags. Perhaps, the Senior Minister of State can share with us.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, I must say that, coming from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, this is pretty good news – commending MEWR for our work as well as giving me feedback that the residents are asking why we are not charging for plastic bags. As I have said earlier in my reply, we are interested and are closely monitoring developments on this front, such as how other countries are managing their disposables. We will study their policies and implementation outcome and see how they fit into our local context. But, currently, instead of just singling out single-use plastics – pardon the pun – we are focusing on reducing the excessive consumption of all types of disposables. We think this is a more sustainable approach for various reasons. Let me just highlight a few or reiterate some.
Firstly, we incinerate all our waste, including plastic waste. Therefore, we do not face the challenges faced by many other countries which are more reliant on direct land-filling of their waste.
\tWe also have use, for instance, for single-use plastic bags. Majority of Singaporeans live in high-rise public housing with the refuse chute and we have worked hard for years, to inculcate this habit of bagging your rubbish before you dispose it, to maintain good public hygiene. I think we do not want to undo such efforts. Irresponsible disposal is going to lead to public hygiene issues like pest infestation, for instance.
Thirdly, our life cycle assessment study has actually shown that replacing single-use plastic bags, for instance, with other types of disposables, does not necessarily lead to a better environmental outcome because all types of disposables have environmental impacts. In fact, the British government has estimated that a cotton tote bag would have to be used for 173 times before its greenhouse gas emission impact improves beyond that of the plastic bags that we use to line our bins. So, we are actually focusing on reducing all types of disposables and doing it upfront, for instance.
Finally, let me also say that we have a very strict anti-littering regime. We also have a very comprehensive and integrated waste collection and disposal system, and we have measures in place to address the issue, for instance, of marine litter pollution and micro-plastics, because we have litter traps to trap the waste or litter that may get into the oceans. We have beach, coastal and underwater clean-ups, and we have flotsam removal craft that we use regularly. And therefore, we are moving upstream. As I have said, we have strengthened our efforts on this front in various ways to the \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign as well as the mandatory reporting and EPR framework in future. And in fact, for the\t\"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign, what we are really doing is to work with our partners and get our partners to come up with ground-up programmes to discourage the use of disposables and encourage the use of reusables, either by incentivising consumers or charging for single-use plastic bags, as some had done, or not using plastic bags at all.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I also join Er Dr Lee to congratulate MEWR for the good work you are doing, but, I think we are not saying to ban plastic bags or replace plastic bags. We are calling for the plastic bag charge so that we can reduce the use of plastic bags, so that we do not over-consume it. I think if we focus on this, then the \"Say YES to Waste Less\" campaign will go a lot faster. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about other countries. In the UK, where they have introduced the plastic bag charge, it resulted an over 80% decline in the use of plastic bags. So, it is not about replacing but about reducing.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his comments. Not to repeat myself again, let me say that we are taking into account our own local unique context. And for the various reasons that I have listed earlier and shared, we are taking the approach of actually not singling out single-use plastics. Charging for single-use plastic bags will be singling out just plastics. Therefore, we are looking at how we can reduce excessive consumption of all types of disposables, including plastics, of course.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): A few months back when Mr Louis Ng moved the Adjournment Motion on reducing the use of plastic bags, I thought he made a lot of sense. I do not see why MEWR is so resistant to imposing charges for plastic bags. When I go overseas, and when they tell me, \"You have to pay five cents or ten cents if you want a plastic bag\", the general attitude of most consumers is that, \"I must as well cut on it\". That helps to reduce the use of plastic bags. I would urge MEWR to reconsider the Motion moved by Mr Louis Ng again, because I really think that it will help reduce the use of plastic bags.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me thank the Member for his comments. As I have said, we will continue to monitor developments on this front. We have just strengthened our efforts in terms of the campaign as well as we are going to put in place mandatory reporting upstream to remove packaging waste upstream – to remove the amount of packaging used and packaging waste generated – and then implement an EPR framework, latest by 2025.
So, let us look at how these policies and measures will pan out in terms of effectiveness of reducing the amount of disposables.
I would like to say that we will continue to monitor reception, for instance, to ideas about charging for plastic bags. Firms, supermarkets, retailers etc can already do this on their own volition, and we will support them.
Our feedback has not been as if it is overwhelmingly that charging for plastic bags is the way to go. In fact, every time when there is an issue on this, there will always be views from both sides of the camp. And when we look at this, as I have said, there are actually good reasons that single-use plastic bags have to be given, for instance, or used by the public for bagging their waste and so on. And therefore, the issue is really about excessive use; not that you cannot use plastic bags but excessive use of plastic bags.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. The Senior Minister of State alluded to studies that show that one has to use reusable packaging or reusable bags a certain of times before you improve on the carbon emissions, vis-a-vis using single-use plastics. I think such data has been cited also previously. Would the Government consider making public the studies that it is using that lead to such data, the methodology behind those studies, the limitations of those studies and to put that into the public domain, if it has not done so already.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We have actually shared a life cycle assessment study at various opportunities. The one that I have just quoted is a British government study, which is also available publicly.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just one quick supplementary question. I believe there is a factsheet online from NEA on the findings of the life cycle assessment study on carrier bags and food packaging. I would like to ask the\tSenior Minister of State, following up from what Mr Perera asked: can the full study be made available by the Government on the NEA website?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think what we have put up is what is useful to the public, not some of the details. But obviously, we can share with you some of the methodologies. This is actually commissioned by NEA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Prosecuted for Illegal Discharge of Wastewater into Public Sewage System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in the last five years, how many companies have been prosecuted for illegal discharge of wastewater into our public sewage system and how many of these have been second-time offenders and multiple repeat offenders.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Under the Sewerage and Drainage Act, companies have to obtain Written Approvals from PUB before they can discharge industrial used water or trade effluent into the sewers. Any discharge has to comply with stipulated quality requirements.
PUB has a comprehensive programme in place to tackle discharge which do not comply with quality requirements. This consists of online sensors in the public sewerage system for effective monitoring and early detection, periodic inspections of premises as well as engagement of companies to comply with the quality requirements. These efforts complement the penalty framework that PUB has in place.
While most companies abide by the quality requirements, PUB has prosecuted 119 companies since 2014 for illegal discharge of trade effluent into the sewers, where the discharge did not comply with stipulations. Of these, 21 companies are second-time offenders and another 23 companies committed the offences more than two times.
Repeat offenders will face harsher penalties and be subjected to more frequent inspections by PUB. PUB may also suspend or revoke the Written Approval granted to the company for the discharge of trade effluent into the sewers. For severe cases where the discharge contains toxic, dangerous or hazardous substances, PUB will issue an immediate stop-order notice to prevent the company from further discharging trade effluent into the public sewers. The order will be lifted only when the company has implemented remedial measures.
We take a serious view of illegal discharge of trade effluent into our sewers. We will not hesitate to take enforcement action against companies that threaten the quality of our water supply.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have three supplementary questions regarding the levers that PUB has to use against errant companies. The first is, regarding repeat offenders with multiple occasions of doing this illegal discharge, there is a very popular bakery that was charged in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Does constant surveillance actually act as a deterrent for these companies? The companies do not seem to be caring for the reputational damage, even when the names are released to the public. So, is constant surveillance a deterrent at all?
The second question is, when would approval to discharge the trade effluent be suspended or revoked for repeat offenders? So, how many times and what kind considerations does PUB have in revoking the approval?
The third question is, regarding the fines, are they adequate? Under the law, offenders can be fined up to $100,000. But the fines for repeat offenders do not seem to exceed $20,000 so far, as reported in the press.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Regarding the first question about repeat offenders with multiple offences, let me first say that Written Approvals for companies to discharge trade effluent into our public sewers, currently, have been given to about 5,000 premises or companies. As I have said earlier, majority actually comply with the requirements under which they can discharge trade effluent into the public sewers. But from time to time, there are some who do not comply.
PUB takes this very, very seriously. PUB manages about 3,500 km of sewers and used water is a resource. PUB needs to ensure that every drop of used water that goes into our water reclamation plants, does not disrupt the water reclamation process. Of course, it also takes seriously the potential impact on the environment as well as harm, for instance, to the staff managing the water reclamation plants. And therefore, stringent enforcement is carried out, together with a suite of measures.
In the context of the 5,000 Written Approvals, as well as the fact that there are 3,500 km of sewers, the suite of measures, as I have said, include online sensors for early detection and unannounced onsite surveillance visits.
For repeat offenders, we would increase the on-site surveillance visits to as often as even twice a month, if need be. Some of them may be required to put in, install their own online water quality monitoring sensors, for instance. For some of these repeat offenders, we also engage them closely to try and ensure that these do not happen again. It may happen for various reasons. Enhancements to the enforcement regime and penalty regime have also been made. So, they are not just liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or $100,000 if they discharge hazardous, toxic substances into our public sewers. They are also liable to imprisonment, or both.
\t
As for the second question, I think I have answered it, which relates to when Written Approvals will be revoked. Written Approval will be revoked, for instance, when they discharge a dangerous or hazardous toxic substances. First of all, we may issue an immediate stop order, so that they do not discharge dangerous toxic effluent. And then, if they are very egregious, we will revoke the Written Approval, which means that if they want to continue business, they will have to engage the services of a licensed toxic industrial waste collector.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Duration of Bicentennial Exhibition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will extend the Bicentennial Exhibition through to the end of 2020 or even consider making it a permanent exhibition that can be updated as Singapore celebrates future milestones of nation-building.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, the Bicentennial Experience is an interactive exhibition showcasing 700 years of Singapore history and housed at the Fort Canning Centre. The Bicentennial Experience opened on 1 June 2019, and is scheduled to end on 15 September 2019.
Response to the Bicentennial Experience has been excellent. More than 300,000 visitors have seen the Experience so far, and we expect to welcome our 400,000th visitor in early September. Over 95% of visitors surveyed have rated the Bicentennial Experience positively or very positively. Many have used words like \"inspiring\", \"moving\", \"powerful\" to describe the Experience, and that it reaffirmed \"what it means and what it takes to be Singaporean\". I thank the public for their support and encouragement.
Since the opening, we have received many requests for the Bicentennial Experience to be extended as visitors felt that more Singaporeans and especially the young should enjoy it. Some have even called for the Experience to be made permanent so that visitors to Singapore and new citizens as well as future generations of Singaporeans can be educated on our history. We are reviewing these requests.
There are several issues to consider. For example, we need to calculate the additional costs required, and work out the technical implications of extending the Experience. We also need to find the right format if we were to make the Experience permanent, as it was never designed as such.
The Singapore Bicentennial Office will study the options of retaining the key elements of our Bicentennial year, including not only the Bicentennial Experience but also the many community showcases and publications this year, and share our plans in due course.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, first let me say that the staff and volunteers behind the Bicentennial Experience Exhibition at Fort Canning have done an excellent job and, in my view, it is uniquely Singaporean.
My questions are, I was hoping it could be extended, so that it can be updated at major milestones of our country's progress. For example, Singapore's 60th birthday in 2025.
My second supplementary question is, at the end of the exhibition, people are asked \"What is important to you?\" and one of the balls you can put in that interactive survey is \"self-determination\". I would ask that the Ministry consider another type of interactive survey, for example, what should our priorities be, going forward, and what is our future dependent on. So, those who come can either put a ball in for defence, education, unity, international trade and so on. So, let it not just be about what is the past and how we got here but what are the ingredients that we need, going forward; in addition to my request to make it a more permanent exhibition.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestions and comments. We will take on board at the Bicentennial Office the suggestion about extending it; that is number one, and consider whether or not it could be updated at major milestones. As I said, we have not taken that decision yet because we are reviewing the cost as well as the technical implications, but we will take that on board.
With respect to the second question or the second comment, again, that is something that we can consider. The current little survey which asks them to rate which of the three they rank the most important – self-determination, multi-culturalism and openness – that was directed at helping people to identify what is the Singapore DNA, to think about who we are and what our 700 years of history have made us.
The elements that Mr de Souza has raised is the future elements about what should our priorities be, and, indeed, those are important as well. So, we will certainly consider that and I thank the Member for his suggestions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Repetitive Findings of IT Lapses in Government Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister in light of the Auditor-General's observations with regard to IT lapses in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2018/19 and similar observations in preceding years (a) what are the systemic reasons that explain these repetitive findings; and (b) what are the findings of the major audit on public sector IT systems carried out from 2009-2011.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Mr Singh has asked about audit findings over two periods – 2009 to 2011, and, secondly, 2018 to 2019 – across our IT systems.
Major IT systems belonging to 85 agencies were audited over three years from 2009 to 2011. A common finding from these audits was that agencies were not carrying out regular reviews of their system architecture and standards to make sure that there were no weaknesses and to bring them up to date with the latest available security systems. This has been addressed through the deployment of central IT infrastructure and common services, whose architecture and standards are reviewed regularly at a whole-of-Government level. Some agencies also had lapses in the conduct of regular reviews of security controls in their systems, including the validity of access rights. GovTech has tightened the rules and guidelines to improve governance processes by agencies in these areas.
One specific type of IT lapse in the Auditor-General’s Office's audit for FY 2018/19 and the preceding years is where agencies’ processes depend on individuals to manually update and monitor areas like access and log management. Such manual processes can result in delays and errors. To address this decisively, the Government will introduce systems to relieve our officers from carrying out these processes manually and reduce the likelihood of such lapses. We will systematically automate IT processes across the public sector to manage user access rights, review privileged users’ activities and review system logs.
The use of automated solutions will facilitate compliance but will still require supervision and oversight by our officers. Officers must also be alert to situations where IT lapses can occur and flag these up. Thus, we will also continue to raise IT security awareness and capabilities among our public officers. The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee, chaired by Senior Minister Teo, will present its final recommendations to the Government in November and will look into not just the technical measures such as automation, but also process and people measures to raise data security across the public sector.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for that reply. My question pertains to the second part of the original Parliamentary Question – the three-year long IT processes audit that was carried out in the public sector.
Just two quick clarifications. What was it prompted by, such an extensive review? Secondly, were the issues, which have been repeatedly raised in Auditor-General's Office's Report from 2011/12 right up to the current year, of vendor management, access rights – they keep coming up every year – actually raised in the first report which is identified in the second part of my Parliamentary Question? Were these issues brought up and was there a review of the Government IM, for example, to ensure that access rights ought to be more heavily controlled?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for his questions. The audit findings from 2009 to 2011 were largely about the systemic processes around IT systems, namely whether the agencies have put in place the right kind of internal reviews and oversight. The 2018 to 2019 findings were largely whether individuals were able to easily comply with the manual implementation of processes and policies that were already in place. So, the two audits in 2009 and then subsequently 10 years later, both covered vendor management and access rights, but from very different perspectives.
In the latter case, it was largely about the individuals' ability to comply with, sometimes very onerous or very complex policies. In the first instance, 10 years ago, it was largely about whether the agencies had processes in place and whether they were reviewing those processes adequately.
As for the first question, I do not know if there was one specific factor that I can point to, but I would be happy to get back to the Member about what triggered the audit. My assumption would be that this was part of the on-going review that public agencies would take for risk mitigation, where areas of concern are audited.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Achieving Goal of 80% Green Mark Buildings by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether Singapore is on track to achieve the goal of 80% Green Mark buildings by 2030; (b) what is being done to improve the uptake rate among private sector buildings; (c) whether there are plans to make the BCA Green Mark Scheme compulsory; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider mandating the use of renewable energy in buildings that are eligible.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, currently, we have greened close to 40% of Singapore’s total gross floor area in buildings. We are still aiming to reach the target of 80% by 2030.
All new projects and major retrofitting works are already required by law to meet environmental sustainability standards that are equivalent to the minimum Green Mark certification level.
To encourage owners of existing buildings to green their buildings, BCA also provides financing arrangements where building owners can obtain financing from participating financial institutions and pay off the loan through the energy savings that they reap. We will continue to monitor the progress and explore additional measures as needed.
With regard to the Member's question on renewable energy in buildings, the most promising option is the solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on the rooftop. There is already good take-up of such PVs today because the costs have come down. The BCA Green Mark Scheme also encourages this by recognising projects that have solar panels on their roofs, or have conducted a solar feasibility study. However, there are physical constraints for some buildings that limit the adoption of solar energy. We will continue to explore how to increase the use of solar and other renewable options in our buildings.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer that he has given. I have three supplementary questions.
One is in relation to part (c) of my question, whether there are plans to make the BCA Green Mark Scheme compulsory.
The second question is with regard to energy efficiency. We have been discussing about single-use plastic bags but, in addition, the usage of energy in an efficient way in buildings is actually a very important factor. Does MND has plans to ensure that companies and buildings use, for example, more efficient air-conditioners, and efficient usage of them in terms of setting temperature levels? That is my second supplementary question.
Third supplementary question: can MND share how they incorporate on an on-going basis, progressively over the years, increasingly advanced sustainability elements and requirements in its assessment criteria? The target is 2030, we are still about 11 years or 12 more years including 2019. There are new sustainability measures probably that may emerge over time. Can the Minister of State share with us?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I will start with the third question. I just want to assure the Member that certainly we continuously look at how we put up the criteria for the Green Mark Scheme. So, the Green Mark awards or criteria do not only cover energy per se. Energy efficiency is just one aspect, that is the air-cons or chillers. But it also includes ventilation, lightings, escalators, lifts and how we do system monitoring over these systems. At the same time, we also look at water efficiency, sustainable operations in management, even the indoor environment quality and other green features as well. So, that includes whether you have green rooftops and so forth. So, these are elements which we consider today. Of course, the status will change over time and we will review. So, let me just to assure the Member that, yes, we do look at various criteria.
Certainly, today, we have done quite okay in terms of getting 40% of all possible GFA on the Green Mark. Our target is 80% and certainly there is work to be done. But as I mentioned in my reply earlier that, today, all new projects and major retrofitting works are already required by law, so that is one way in terms of industry push. So, you find, for example, Bugis Junction Towers and Bugis Junction, and the 85-year-old Police building, these are old buildings that have been retrofitted and today have achieved not just the Green Mark status but the Green Mark Platinum status as well.
So, it is possible for really old buildings to be retrofitted. We are seeing some movement there, largely also because some of the technologies are more established, and you also find the industry a lot more able to cater and to provide for more green technologies or green sustainability elements to be put into our buildings. I hope that answers the questions.
\t
\tAs for air-conditioning, as part of the Green Mark certification, one of the things that we require of all the new buildings and retrofitted buildings is to keep the temperature at 23 to 25 degrees Celsius. That is one thing that is being stated. And, as a minimum design requirement, there are certain efficiency standards that will be required of their chillers and air-condition systems. But, of course, for existing buildings, it is a bit more difficult. So, we will wait till they retrofit. But today, they also score points for keeping the air-conditions to 23 to 25 degrees Celsius, and having efficient systems. I hope that answers. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safe Usage of Park Connector Networks by Cyclists and PMD Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of paths on the Park Connector Network where one side of the path is marked \"PCN\" and the adjacent side has a sign of a person walking (a) whether cyclists or PMD riders are required to keep to the part marked \"PCN\"; (b) whether those who are on foot are required to keep to the side with the sign of a person walking; and (c) what are the measures taken to monitor and ensure safe usage of such paths by all users.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, park connectors are shared paths meant for all users. The lane markings that the Member speaks about are part of a pilot project started by NParks in 2018 to try to guide slower pedestrians away from faster bicycles, personal mobility devices and so on. This pilot was tried out on 30 km of the Park Connector Network (PCN) out of an entire network of some 330 km – so, less than 10% were taken in as part of this pilot.
For the lane on the left marked with the pedestrian sign, the intent was for this to be used primarily by pedestrians and other people who are moving more slowly, for example, on wheelchairs or assisted mobility devices. For the lane on the right marked with \"PCN\", the intent was for this to be used primarily by faster traffic, such as bicycles, personal mobility devices and other mobility devices
During the pilot period, NParks had carried out public outreach along these stretches. For instance, NParks officers go onsite to educate PCN users on how to use the PCNs safely. NParks has also put up physical banners and standees to promote responsible track etiquette. For hotspot areas, NParks works with LTA to conduct joint enforcement efforts against errant PCN users who exceed speed limits or ride recklessly. In addition, NParks has also been encouraging a \"keep left\" etiquette on our PCNs where slower users should keep left, while faster users overtake on the right.
In areas where there is sufficient space, and here, I am talking about sufficient width of the PCN, NParks will work towards having physically separated paths for the different user groups. To further ensure the safe usage of PCNs, NParks will continue to introduce safety measures, such as additional lighting, speed regulating strips and advisory signs at high usage areas. NParks will also continue to work with LTA and the community to promote the safe and orderly use of our PCNs.
\t
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Second Minister for his reply. I have asked this question because I have observed that despite the markings, which I agree is quite helpful, actually, on the ground, a lot of people are not really following the markings. It has caused certain confusion which I witnessed personally and I have also witnessed accidents where you have PMDs or bicycles on the part marked with the \"foot\", and then, on the PCN marking, you have people walking. So, may I ask if NParks can increase the public messaging on the safe use of these paths.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his suggestions. If we think of a PCN, typically, they are between 2.5 metres and four metres. And it is a shared path – people who walk, who brisk walk, who jog, who run, who cycle, who use mobility devices. It is a shared space for people to move from place to place, for people to commute. And so, for the PCN to be a safe space for everyone depends on a couple of factors. One would be physical infrastructure. So, clear markings make it easier people to follow certain rules. Or physically segregated pathways – so you are very clear these are for pedestrians and these are for other users. That is one – physical infrastructure.
Second, the enforcement of rules. And NParks does enforce, like LTA, against reckless behaviour, against speeding. Thirdly, public outreach and education. As the Member rightly pointed out, we need to continue this effort to share with all PCN users about the safe use of PCNs and the co-existence of different users of PCNs. And lastly, of course, and I think probably the most important would be user consideration, user etiquette and the behaviour and habits of all PCN users. So, a combination of all these will make the PCNs a much safer space for everyone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire-rated Doors for HDB Rental Flats Given Recent Boon Lay Fire","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether all HDB rental flats are installed with fire-rated doors in light of the latest fire incident in Boon Lay.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, all HDB rental flats are fitted with fire-rated entrance doors where required under the Fire Code. The purpose of fire-rated doors is to prevent the spread of fire and smoke from one flat to the other areas. So, if a flat faces a corridor where one side is open with good ventilation, fire-rated doors are not required under the Fire Code as smoke can disperse quickly from the corridor. So, the provision of fire-rated doors in rental flats by HDB is done in accordance with the Fire Code today.
All HDB blocks also incorporate other fire safety features. For instance, common corridors and lift lobbies are designed to be naturally ventilated for quick smoke dispersal. Equipment like fire hose reels, rising mains and fire-fighting lobbies are also provided, where required by the Fire Code, to facilitate fire-fighting.
In addition, HDB, SCDF and the People's Association (PA) have been working together to provide free installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs) for all public rental flats by the end of 2021. This will help to alert residents to fires early, and enable them to put out the fire or evacuate to safety.
\t
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Minister for the answer and response. Recently, in Boon Lay, there was a fire at one of the HDB rental flats which generates this question. Can I suggest to MND possibly to have fire-rated doors on every unit outside of the Fire Code?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I think we have to stand guided by what SCDF's requirements are. They are the fire specialists and we will explore with them if indeed that is necessary. I do not think SCDF's requirements are just the bare minimum. They are very stringent where it comes to fire safety and they impose these very stringent requirements which HDB will comply with. So, whether or not there is a need for more than the existing requirements, certainly, HDB will explore with SCDF. And if there is a need to, we will comply.
\t
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply as well. But as I raised yesterday, I think we have seen recent fires of units that face external corridors, it did affect the neighbouring unit. The smoke did not just dissipate upwards and it was well-ventilated. So, I support Mr Patrick Tay's call to have fire-rated doors for all units.
Second, can we at least offer it as an option during the HIP? Because I think when we go to the HIP showroom, they only offer non fire-rated doors there. So, if we cannot supply, then can we at least provide it as an option for residents to choose to pay for the fire-rated doors if they want?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, we have a separate fire safety unit in MHA for a very specific purpose. They are the specialists in this area, not HDB. So, let us explore these requirements. I understand and appreciate the Members' concerns about fire safety. We are very concerned as well. But let us take dressing from what the fire safety standards are and we will make sure that HDB complies with that fully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grants for Fees for Faith-based Pre-schools Run by Non-profit Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider providing grants for fees for faith-based pre-schools run by non-profit organisations such as those by churches, mosques and voluntary welfare organisations.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the Government's priority is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable pre-schools for their children. We seek to achieve this by providing support to both parents and operators.
Today, parents can tap on the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, as well as the Child Development Account First Step grant of $3,000 and further matched savings, to offset their children's preschool fees. In addition, all enrolled Singaporean children in childcare centres receive a Basic Subsidy of up to $300 per month, while those from lower to middle income households are eligible for an Additional Subsidy of up to $440 per month. This applies to children enrolled in all childcare centres, including those run by faith-affiliated operators, non-profit organisations or commercial entities.
Apart from subsidies, the Government provides broad-based funding support which is available to all operators to help them raise the quality of their pre-schools. This includes the Professional Development Programmes which all pre-schools can tap on to upskill their educators, as well as grants to improve productivity through technology solutions and to foster more innovative teaching practices. In addition, we support eligible operators under the Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) schemes with recurrent funding to uplift pre-school quality while providing affordable options. These include some operators from not-for-profit and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs).
We also provide targeted support through the VWO Development Grant, a capital grant extended to affordable, quality not-for-profit pre-schools. All pre-schools can also tap on the Pre-school Opportunity Fund, which provides funding support for pre-school programmes that provide holistic development opportunities for lower-income children. Of the 180 pre-schools supported under these two schemes, about a third are faith-based.
The Government will continue to review policies to improve access to quality and affordable pre-schools across the sector, so that every child can have a good start in life.
\t
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I am assured that there are sufficient subsidies and grants available for both students and staff in the pre-school sector. I do recognise that AOPs, POPs and MOE Kindergartens (MKs) are there to help and expand the pre-school sector and engage that there are quality education. However, kindergartens run by faith-based organisations do serve a specific segment of our society, particularly parents who are looking for certain value-based systems that they want to enrol their children in.
So, I hope that MSF would also consider expanding the KiFAS to all children, regardless of which pre-school centre or kindergarten that they enrol in, very much like how the Edusave accounts is made available to Primary school and Secondary school students, regardless of which school they enrol in.
And, can I also clarify that the Opportunity Fund is available even to students who are enrolled in kindergartens run by faith-based organisations?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, the pre-school sector remains diverse, comprising commercial, not-for-profit, faith-affiliated and MOE-run pre-schools, each with their own value propositions. And with these, parents continue to have choice in selecting a suitable pre-school for their children.
The Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme at this moment, is provided to support lower and middle income families in the AOPs and MKs which are generally fee-controlled. So, this, as the Member mentioned earlier, is part of our strategy to provide parents with quality and affordable kindergarten places.
And relating to the Opportunity Fund that the Member asked, all non-AOP pre-school operators, including not-for-profit and faith-affiliated kindergartens, can tap on the Pre-school Opportunity Fund. It essentially is to support their enrolled children from less advantaged or at-risk backgrounds.
\tNevertheless, we feel that kindergartens continue to play a very important role in offering pre-school programmes to parents who do not need full-day care for their children. Currently, we are reviewing the pre-school subsidies to ensure that every child has access to affordable and quality pre-school education.
I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. We will take that into consideration and we will provide an update on the review when it is completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Risk for Unlisted Assets in Portfolios of GIC and Temasek Holdings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the valuation of unlisted assets in the portfolios of GIC and Temasek Holdings is taken into account when the Government reviews the overall risks of its whole portfolio of assets; and (b) if so, what approaches are taken by the Government to ensure that unlisted assets are valued realistically by GIC and Temasek at the time of injection and in each subsequent year.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, in reviewing the overall risks of the Government's portfolio, the Government does take into account the valuation of unlisted assets in GIC and Temasek Holdings.
These unlisted assets include private equity, infrastructure, and real estate. They are valued at the time of investment and then regularly updated. Both GIC and Temasek adopt valuation methods that are in line with industry practices and in accordance with international accounting standards. This includes independent valuation from valuation firms and testing for any potential impairment.
In addition, the entities are subject to an annual independent audit. As part of the audit, their auditors assess the reasonableness of the methodology used to value the entities' assets, including unlisted assets. To date, the auditors have not raised any issues about GIC and Temasek’s valuation practices.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question. If you look at valuations of unlisted assets in the private equity sector, these valuations – which are done according to standard accounting practices – have been associated with a certain amount of volatility and change over time. I think it is in our interest to make sure that the portfolio valuations of the Sovereign Wealth Funds come as close as possible to the value that could be realised if these unlisted assets are sold eventually or if the unlisted company is actually publicly listed.
So, in the interest of achieving that kind of realism, would the Government consider requiring the Sovereign Wealth Funds to, in addition to publishing portfolio valuations based on these accounting practices for unlisted asset valuations that the Minister described, also publish more conservative figures for valuing the unlisted assets based on the cost of the acquisition, so as to serve as a kind of check on the extent to which that valuation would be realisable in the future?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the existing accounting standards are already conservative, in the sense that they require the valuers to ensure reasonableness of the methodologies and to test for impairment. So, even in private equity, the initial cost of investment is used as book value but subsequent to that, you can test for subsequent valuations because there will be other rounds of fund-raising, which allow you to have a market test of where the valuation of the underlying entity is. And if there is any potential impairment to the asset, the valuers are required to mark down and write down the asset value.
These are established accounting standards for valuation of private equity, which as I have said, GIC and Temasek fully comply with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process for Granting Clinical Privileges to Medical Professionals","subTitle":"Ensuring clinical competence for high-risk and specialised procedures in private practice settings","sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) how are clinical privileges for medical professionals granted based on their education/training to ensure clinical competence for high-risk, specialised procedures in private practice settings; and (b) what is the oversight process undertaken by the Ministry for the verification of these credentials.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, to be accredited as specialists who can perform higher risk and specialised procedures, doctors trained in Singapore must complete local post-graduate specialty training that includes workplace-based and clinical knowledge-based assessments. The training and assessments are overseen by the Specialist Accreditation Board (SAB) and are designed to ensure that the doctors acquire the required levels of clinical competencies in these specialised procedures.
Overseas-trained doctors can apply for medical registration and specialist accreditation in Singapore. They have to submit their educational qualifications, training and employment history for review by the Singapore Medical Council and SAB. The SAB will then ascertain if the doctors have the requisite clinical competence to perform the range of procedures deemed equivalent to those performed by locally-trained specialists.
MOH also imposes additional requirements for specific specialised procedures or services with higher risk. Examples include transplants, assisted reproduction and renal dialysis services. Doctors who wish to provide these specific specialised procedures or services are required to have the appropriate qualifications and have to apply to MOH for authorisation before performing these procedures or services.
In addition, licensed hospitals are also required to put in place a clinical privileging system that grants their doctors the appropriate scope of practice commensurate with their areas of competence. The hospitals must ensure that each doctor, granted the appropriate clinical privileges, practises within the approved scope and remains up to date with practice. Hospitals also establish quality assurance committees to monitor and evaluate the safety and quality of the practices, procedures and services. MOH inspects hospital licensees periodically to assess that these regulatory requirements are met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comprehensive Audits of Healthcare Institutions Seeking External Accreditation for Continuous Improvement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's position with regard to healthcare institutions seeking external accreditations for continuous improvement; and (b) whether the Ministry is looking into coming up with more comprehensive and progressive audit standards like the Joint Commission International (JCI) to sustain Singapore's reputation of a world-class healthcare system.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the healthcare institutions are required to meet core governance, clinical and patient safety and welfare requirements as stipulated in the legislation, as well as licensing and regulatory framework of MOH. MOH carries out regular inspections to verify that these requirements are complied with. These requirements are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant. For example, following a review and public consultation, MOH is working towards replacing the current Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act with a new Healthcare Services Bill that will better meet the needs of a changing healthcare landscape.
At the systems level, MOH also benchmark the performance of our system against international counterparts. We examine how our care outcomes fare in international studies such as the EIU's Healthcare Outcomes Index, Bloomberg's Global Health Index and WHO's World Health Statistics report. We also benchmark ourselves in specific areas, such as our mortality rates in key diseases versus OECD countries. Singapore’s healthcare system has fared well in many of these international comparisons and studies.
In addition to these efforts, MOH encourages and supports quality improvements in healthcare institutions through different initiatives, such as performance monitoring and Quality Improvement programmes, to help healthcare institutions achieve better care quality and excellence.
Some healthcare institutions have voluntarily undertaken external accreditations such as those provided by the Joint Commission International (JCI). These accreditations had been useful in helping our healthcare institutions make continual improvements in their service standards and quality, but we will need to mature beyond traditional accreditation.
Our healthcare landscape is rapidly changing, with emerging challenges in an ageing population, increased complexity of care needs and limited workforce growth. To meet our unique needs, MOH is working with healthcare institutions to develop our own models of care. We are also partnering them as well as leading international organisations such as the JCI to develop more customised quality regimes and standards that meet our needs without imposing excessive burden on our healthcare workforce.
\tMs Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Can I ask the Senior Minister of State when will be the timeline for implementation of this new audit system?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Currently, MOH is working with the National Quality Council and the clusters' Public Health Institutions (PHIs) to chart our way forward to ensure that there will be continued care quality and safety. We are also engaging leading international organisations including JCI as well as the Australian Council for Healthcare Standards (ACHS) to share some of the needs of the Singapore healthcare system, so that whatever suggestions that had been submitted to us, actually meet our unique circumstances. One of the purpose of this is to move away from the focus on just relentless auditing which many healthcare workers have given feedback about.
As for the timeline, we will have to come back to Ms Irene Quay. Once we have finalised the decision, we will update the House, as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Broadcast of Research-based Children’s Educational Programming on Free-to-air Television Channels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will develop a media strategy for improving educational and psychosocial developmental outcomes in young children through subsidising or supporting the broadcast of research-based educational programming on free-to-air television channels or online provision.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, MOE guides schools in harnessing technology to support the learning and holistic development of students. The extent and mode of technology used is guided by considerations such as educational value and developmental appropriateness.
At the pre-school level, children learn best when they explore using their five senses, engage in hands-on activities, and learn through face-to-face interactions. Teachers facilitate the use of media content and educational technology in appropriate ways to complement these learning experiences.
From the Primary level, all students are given access to educational resources via the Singapore Student Learning Space, an online platform that was rolled out to all schools in 2018. The resources on this platform contain media content developed in-house by MOE and schools, as well as content curated from external sources, including free-to-air television channels and online media. These resources include educational videos, interactive games and simulations.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. My concern is that children and their parents do spend quite a lot of time watching free-to-air television and other resources outside of schools. Will the Ministry look into developing standards for what counts as educational programming for the purpose of guiding the free-to-air television channels, for example. A lot of commercial programming aimed at children has the objective of selling merchandise or advertising, not educating the youth.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we look at it not only from the very specific educational perspective. We work with our agencies to see how we can provide that educational experience and calibrate it in the sense that it brings goodness to the children. In fact, we even look at the free-to-air channels as well as how we provide the opportunities. We want to make sure that those in our future generation understand and are able to immerse themselves in the new environment, using technology, to maximise its potential in gaining the benefits. We now have Toggle platform, also the SLS. How all these resources can be looked at together, and in addition to the instructions or guidance that we give to pre-schools. For example, MOE has developed a set of teaching and learning guidelines on the use of information and communication technology in pre-school centres in 2017. This has become quite useful for our teachers and educators on the ground.
Nevertheless, the over-arching perspective and our vision is that we want to provide a wholesome experience to all our children while making use of the advantages and the benefits of ICT media platforms. At the same time, we have certain programmes, for example, the Cyber Wellness Programme in schools, to enable them to make a choice, a choice that will bring them goodness in their lives.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18-23, 25 and 27-28 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 24 and 26 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish and provide for the CareShield Life Scheme and other measures to provide for long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Team Science and Technology Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time\".
I will cover two main points: the role of the new Home Team Science and Technology Agency; and how the agency will be established.
Mr Speaker, I have previously spoken in this House about the Home Team Transformation. In gist, it is about fundamentally transforming the way the Home Team operates, in policing, emergency response, drug control, corrections and checkpoint security.
Home Team Transformation is an ambitious, multi-year plan, requiring significant investments. Why is it necessary?
Our challenges are mounting and threats are evolving. The work of the Home Team continues to rise, in volume and complexity. A vibrant economy attracts more travellers and cargo moving through our checkpoints. In the past 10 years, traveller volumes through our checkpoints have risen by 42%, from 149 million people in 2008 to 212 million in 2018. Cargo volumes went up by 25% over the same period.
The threat of terrorism remains high. Attacks are still happening around the world in the name of ISIS, including those by self-radicalised lone wolves. While ISIS has suffered heavy territorial losses, its ideology continues to attract supporters, not least in our region.
Technological advancements have also brought about new security challenges. According to the US Center for Strategic and International Studies, the cost of cyber crime around the world may be as much as US$600 billion annually, or nearly one percent of global GDP.
I have previously spoken about how greater use of science and technology is key to meeting these challenges. That is why the Home Team will almost double its investments in science and technology from $979 million in FY2019 to $1.9 billion in FY2025.
The new Home Team Science and Technology Agency will play a central role in ensuring that our investment achieves maximum operational impact. It will be called “HTX” in short. “HT” stands for the Home Team while the “X” symbolises the agency’s role as a Force Multiplier for the Home Team. HTX will build cutting-edge and transformative capabilities that will augment the Home Team far beyond our 27,000 regular and 54,000 National Service and volunteer officers.
Let me now go into the specific ways in which HTX will support the Home Team.
First, HTX will build systems and solutions that will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Home Team. One example is ICA’s New Clearance Concept (NCC). We have been used to large teams of officers manning rows of physical counters and clearing travellers manually. That will be a thing of the past. NCC imagines “breeze-through” clearance for citizens, who can walk through immigration channels without even taking out their passports. Foreign visitors can perform self-clearance at automated immigration gates. The NCC will bring about greater convenience to travellers, without compromising security.
The NCC will need to incorporate several different domains of technology, which HTX will put together. These include:
a)\tBiometrics solutions that will accurately capture a person’s biometric information. The BioScreen-Multi Modal Biometrics System (MMBS), which takes iris, photo and fingerprint data is one example.
b)\tSmart sensors, like cameras, can identify persons of interest, including those who have run afoul of the law.
c)\tData Science and artificial intelligence algorithms will be used to analyse advance information integrated from various sources, including the Electronic Arrival Card and advance passenger information from Airlines. The analysis will then be used to assess the risk profile of travellers before they arrive at our Checkpoints.
Emergency response is another area that will be transformed through science and technology. Data analytics can be used to dynamically identify where emergency resources should be deployed in advance, so that they can respond to the incidents faster when they occur.
When an emergency call comes in, artificial intelligence can be used to assist emergency call dispatchers in their work. The system is able to not only recognise speech, but also transcribe and log emergency calls. With almost 200,000 emergency calls each year, such technology will significantly reduce the time needed to process calls.
And when SCDF officers respond to the incidents, robotics and unmanned systems can help to reduce their risk exposure and enhance safety. SCDF has already started to put on trial an exoskeleton which enables firefighters to carry heavy loads and improve their performance. Another example is the Pumper Firefighting Machine (PFM). It is a firefighting robot that can be controlled remotely, and which has already been successfully deployed for operations at the frontline.
Besides science and technology capabilities, HTX will also strengthen our ability to procure and execute projects on time and on budget. Thereafter, we must ensure that our capabilities are refreshed and updated to benefit from new advances.
Second, beyond systems and solutions, HTX will better enable the Home Team Departments (HTDs) to adopt a One Home Team approach, for example, in joint operations to respond to a terror incident.
HTX will support the development of a Home Team Operations Centre. This will bring together all Operations Centres across the Home Team under one roof.
Enabled by technology, there can be faster communication and stronger co-ordination between responders from different HTDs. A common sense-making platform will allow HTDs to have a common situational picture, drawing feeds from Home Team officers responding to the incident, data from the island-wide sensors on the ground, media reports and so on.
A One Home Team approach will also extend to coordinating intelligence sharing and investigations across Home Team Departments.
Having a single agency in the Home Team to develop systems and solutions will ensure coherent technical architecture and interoperability across our many systems. This will also enable greater synergies to be reaped.
Mr Speaker, I have spoken on how HTX will support the Home Team. I will now briefly touch on how the agency will be established and why this is significant.
We aim to set up this new agency by December 2019.
In establishing HTX, scientific and technological resources across the Home Team will be consolidated within a single agency.
By centralising our science and technology resources, there will be greater career progression and development opportunities for science and technology personnel. As a start, HTX will bring together about 1,300 officers from the Home Team departments.
HTX will also recruit scientists and engineers for new positions. With the Home Team’s increased demand for science and technology capabilities, HTX will need to grow its capacity in the coming years. This will create exciting new STEM job opportunities for Singaporeans.
HTX will also add to the whole-of-Government push towards building up engineering expertise in the public service. By enhancing partnerships with counterparts such as DSTA, DSO, GovTech and HSA, HTX will enrich the public service eco-system of science and engineering talent.
Beyond the public service, HTX will be closely partnering with industry and academia in its efforts to translate cutting edge research into effective security solutions.
These collaborations will serve to further boost the innovation ecosystem in Singapore.
Having explained the mission and functions of HTX, I will now describe the significant elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises nine parts.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes the functions and powers of the agency. The functions are broadly aligned to HTX’s mission as a force multiplier for the Home Team.
Adopting a whole-of-Government perspective, HTX will also be able to build new capabilities for other government agencies that have similar technological needs as the Home Team departments.
Parts 3 to 6 pertain to the formation of HTX’s Board, the decision-making procedures, personnel and financial matters. These are similar to that of other major statutory boards and is consistent with the Public Sector Governance Act 2018.
Part 8 provides for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees from MHA to HTX. Employees will be transferred on terms no worse off than what they enjoyed on the eve of transfer.
Finally, Part 9 covers the consequential amendments to other acts.
Chiefly, it includes an amendment to the First Schedule of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). As HTX will support the Home Team’s 24/7 operations, its services will be deemed an Essential Service under the CLTPA.
Mr Speaker, the Bill presented before the house today sets out the legislative framework to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency, or HTX.
The formation of this agency will not only build mission-critical capabilities within the Home Team, but create important synergies within the larger science and technology eco-system in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Home Team Science and Technology Agency will help to address current challenges in a way that prepares for the future.
Firstly, its research in applied sciences enables the home team to utilise science and technology to overcome the challenges that are faced. Some examples of what have been done or are being worked on include:
(a) Smart glasses with video feeds and facial recognition technology to assist Police operations;
(b) Surveillance cameras in prisons that can detect when a person suddenly collapses or when there is a fight so that the surveillance video cameras do not need to be closely monitored round the clock; and
(c) The IDEAS II System used by the CNB which analyses data to establish behavioural patterns and crime hotspots.
In these ways, technology can help the Home Team work more effectively and efficiently, but the challenges continue.
The low total fertility rate, which was 1.16 last year, projects manpower shortage across different sectors. Technology can be used to reduce the need for manpower. For instance, the CNB is working on automating the process of registering and administering urine tests and using robots to handle the samples securely, reducing the need for manpower.
The new clearance concept is another example. It streamlines the immigration process, allowing Singaporeans to experience a contactless immigration clearance as well as allowing first-time visitors to use automated immigration lanes. This will help the ICA cope with increased travel while keeping the time needed to clear immigration low. This is especially important given that the number of travellers transiting through and travelling to and from Singapore has increased drastically over the years. Last year, there were 212 million travellers and this is projected to increase by 40% by 2025.
In order for Singapore to continue being a popular tourist destination and hub for international travel, it is important that the immigration clearance system be both fast and effective. With increasing use of online shopping, the number of parcels being sent to and from other countries as well as within Singapore has increased exponentially.
Last year, there were 10 million consignments, containers and parcels. This is likely to increase by 70% by 2025. In order to screen for illicit drugs, guns and other dangerous and prohibited items, it is important that the Home Team's capabilities are built up. Last year, the number of contraband cases detected at the checkpoints hit the highest annual figure recorded, averaging 300 cases per day. On 29 June this year, the ICA detected 20 items suspected to be gun parts in a parcel marked \"merchandise\". So, the threat is real.
Although manpower coupled with machinery is a possible solution, the more sustainable and feasible way is through technology working in partnership with the excellent ICA officers and the Home Team officers that we have today. Both their commitment, dedication, ability as people and officers coupled with technology, I think that is the way for it, and that is exactly what we are wanting to do today.
Crime committed through the use of technology is increasing. The number of cases under the Computer Misuse Act increased by 40% from 2017 to 2018, from 858 cases to 1,204 cases. These included unauthorised access or transaction of online accounts, unauthorised purchase using credit or debit cards, and phishing emails. The number of e-commerce scams also increased by 11.4% from 2017 to 2018, numbering 2,125 cases in 2018 through which $1.9 million had been committed. Seventy percent of these e-commerce crimes happened on the popular e-commerce platform Carousell.
Some of the unique challenges cybercrime pose to police investigations, around the world, are the transnational nature of cybercrime, anonymity through VPN or other anonymous proxy services, and availability of “cybercrime as a service” which allows less tech savvy persons to hire persons with high expertise knowledge and specialised tools and services to commit cybercrime on their behalf. This shows that investing in science and technology to keep up with and outpace cybercriminals is necessary to ensure deterrence and rule of law in a world where an increasing number of transactions and communications are happening online.
Photos and videos can be doctored or fabricated almost indiscernibly. Evidence can be fabricated and alibies can be falsified. Fake news can be masqueraded as true and authoritative. As deepfake technology speeds ahead, technology that detects deepfakes often plays catch up. Therefore, investment in forensic technology is necessary to keep up with technological advancements to prevent them from being used for malicious ends.
Atrocious child pornography syndicates and terror cells organise themselves online, making it harder to detect their activities. While there is legislation that provides for powers to confiscate and access electronic devices, there will be situations where the police will need to crack into the device without the password given to them. Investment in technology and careful application of it is, therefore, important to administer justice, prevent recurrence and dismantle syndicates. As terror attacks could be high tech, for example through the use of commercial drones, or low tech, for example through a vehicle-ramming incident or a knife attack, a wide variety of technology and science is needed to detect, prevent and counter terror attacks. The factual matrix in any given attack situation is hardly ever the same.
While this agency is well-situated to solve the challenges and needs we see today, the agency would also ready our Home Team for the future.
The Home Team Science and Technology Agency will be at the forefront of technological and scientific developments. Some people say that criminals are two steps ahead and the authorities only play catch up. This agency, that we are debating today, endeavours to prevent that situation. While it is grounded in the present, it also looks to the future.
How? By consolidating the Home Team’s related science and technology into a centralised location. Instead of individual projects scattered across different private and Government partners to address different Home Team agency’s needs, this Bill creates a Statutory Board which consolidates this expertise into one place – both in terms of people as well as location, or virtual location.
Firstly, this allows for the concentration of the Team’s talents. There can be deep collaboration over teams with overlapping science and technology expertise, overcoming the silo effect by bridging the space gap, or the virtual space gap. Because iron sharpens iron, the galvanising environment will spur the individuals, officers and various groups working there to create even better ideas and possible solutions.
Secondly, the career path in home team-related science and technology development can be longer and wider. There would more opportunities for career progression even in the specialised area of science and technology. This makes the career path longer term, allowing scientists and engineers to accumulate experience in the sensitivities of what the Home Team requires. The career options can also be widened as there would be, quite possibly, more opportunities for transfers within the agency to related but different teams. This would allow people to learn new skills, and apply old skills in new ways, while still utilising and increasing their experience in the Home Team. Just as the career path is lengthened and widened, so also is the incentive for the Home Team to invest in and develop its scientists and engineers, further enabling Singapore to\tbenefit\tfrom\tcutting-edge\ttechnology\tin\tits\thome affairs. This could also incentivise students to read applied science and engineering which are important in an age of information and technology.
Thirdly, it creates a centralised location where Home Team agencies can source for solutions. Instead of needing to hunt for research and technology partners with expertise in the area of research, they are looking at for a solution, they are able to approach a single connecting point which will then be able to connect the most appropriate team to work on a solution to meet that need. And it could be a very pressing need and time-sensitive.
Further, while the concentration, consolidation and collaboration of science and technology teams in the various Home Team agencies bode well for the development of science and technology, I would like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to ensure that technologists will continue to have the opportunity to work closely with ground officers to understand operational needs and operational requirements?
Fourthly, having a dedicated agency for science and technology opens up greater collaboration opportunities with science and technology home departments in other countries. It would be easier to explore and coordinate possible projects to collaborate on since all the Home Team-related science and technology teams are concentrated in a single agency. The increased opportunity to work with counterparts in other countries and to learn from their experience will be valuable for the development of our Home Team capabilities and experiences.
Even as this new Statutory Board allows science and technology to develop solutions for the Home Team’s unique challenges, what the Home Team needs is not always unrelated to what is needed by other agencies or Ministries. For instance, drone technology used for search and rescue could also be utilised by MINDEF for reconnaisance operations or recce ops. Where there is possibility for utilising technology for other purposes other than Home Team operations, I would like to ask the Minister how will this new agency work within the broader science and technology eco-system in Singapore to achieve a safe and secure environment for us here in Singapore? Because there are current science and technology projects going on between the various Home Team agencies and private and public partnerships, I would like to ask the Minister how will this new agency affect such existing partnerships or even bolster them?
Will the Minister consider allowing for non-sensitive Home Team technology to be used in consumer products should the opportunity arise? For instance, if the Home Team develops video cameras that capture better quality images, these cameras can be used to enhance private security cameras and increase security throughout the island without necessarily installing a Police camera each and every time. This would help strengthen the Home Team's ability to work with private security industry and private players to keep Singapore a safe country to live in and to respond quickly in the event of a crisis or terror attack.
In conclusion, Sir, the Home Team Science and Technology Agency is an important addition to our Home Team, enabling them to go farther and further. It does so by utilising technology for their future and present challenges and by building up a strong team of technologists whose wealth of experience in the sensitivities of Home Team requirements will be able to help fashion future solutions fit for the Home Team’s purpose. And for these reasons, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency. The plan to set up the Agency was announced at MHA's Committee of Supply Debate earlier this year. Many welcomed the move to boost capabilities across the various security agencies, and said it was a timely move, given the continued global threats posed by terrorism as well as rising threats of cyber attacks and transnational crime. Second Minister for Home Affairs Mrs Josephine Teo also highlighted during the Debate that the greater use of science and technology will enable the Home Team to be effective, in the face of manpower constraints and future challenges. This resonated with many people. Some made reference to the setting up of the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), a Statutory Board under MINDEF set up in 2000.
Dr Antonio L Rappa, an associate professor and head of Management and Security Studies at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) School of Business in an article in The Straits Times in February 2019 observed that the military sector has produced innovative variants for military security across the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. He said the Home Team too is quick to adopt new technologies. One example is the new body-cameras used by the Singapore Police Force. Also, officers involved in investigating crime can now access the most updated information anywhere in the region. The Singapore Police Force is also reportedly considering new infrared technology which has been used in a limited fashion for the Police Coast Guard units. Ms Josephine Teo also has earlier given many exciting examples in her speech.
Dr Rappa also said that while Home Team officers do share some similarities with defence force officers, it is also clear that their different security functions and specialist nature of work require a different range of advanced technologies. The range of issues dealt with by the Home Team officers is diverse, and the skill sets of officers must also rise in tandem with the complexity of the threats. This is where a dedicated science and technology agency for the Home Team can raise capabilities for the security sector. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposal to set up dedicated agency for the Home Team that can look into matters related science and technology is a good move. With our country facing a multitude of global challenges arising from terrorism, cyberattacks and transnational crimes, this agency will help to build the Home Team's capabilities to overcome increasingly complex issues. The use of science and technology will also help the Home Team manage its manpower and meet new challenges.
When this proposal was first announced, many made reference to the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) which was established some time ago. Through the DSTA, the defence sector managed to come up with many innovative solutions for the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. The Home Team has also employed many new technologies. The establishment of this dedicated agency will continue to strengthen such efforts and raise the capabilities of the security sector in Singapore.
(In English): I am therefore supportive of the setting up of the agency and this Bill. I have a few quick comments and queries though. The work of this agency will generate meaningful data and insights that may be useful to all departments within the Home Team and even other Government agencies. The power of data and actionable insights being shared should not be underestimated. I would like to know if there is a framework on how the data and insights garnered will be shared across the Home Team agencies. In addition, is there also a framework for the sharing of data and information with other Government agencies?
There are also opportunities to collaborate with different agencies within the broader science and technology eco-system, to build a stronger and more meaningful science and technology sector for Singapore. There may also be existing partnerships which could be enhanced. How will this new agency work within the broader eco-system including with other Government agencies?
On another note, as we use science and technology to improve surveillance and fight terrorism, there may be concerns of how privacy and personal data may be impacted. It may also be useful to assure the public that any images, videos or data collected in the course of the use of various security innovations, will be used in a proper manner and are well protected by a sound data security framework.
Notwithstanding my comments above, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, globally, policing has undergone a series of transformational changes, especially the last 10 years heralding in the most technologically advanced and technologically dependent era to-date. Without doubt, the next decade holds the potential to surpass these changes at an even faster rate, with futuristic technological innovations becoming a reality.
Today, the Home Team faces increasing public expectations and scrutiny, changes in crime profile and increasing non-crime-related demand. They are expected to deliver improved services despite facing tough resource constraints. There is an ever increasing pressure to deliver more – for less.
With the addition of Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Singapore's Total Defence strategy, the setting up of the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) to drive innovation and develop technologies to enhance the Home Team's capabilities is timely and much needed.
In my speech today, I would like to focus on two areas: (a) Evolving Operating Landscape; and (b) Predictive Policing.
The operating landscape for the Home Team has vastly evolved over the years, bringing about new challenges and expectations. We are witnessing the nature of crimes evolved with rapid advancement of technology. Cyber-enabled crimes, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and sophisticated. For instance, in 2016, GozNym Malware was used to steal over US$100 million from over 41,000 businesses and financial institutions in the US, Canada, Germany and Poland. False e-commerce transactions, fake loans and Internet love scams are now among the most common scams reported.
In Singapore, the threat is real as seen in the recent hack on the SingHealth database and the leak of HIV-related data. How will the new agency work with existing ones such as GovTech, MCI and other Government agencies to mitigate such breaches without duplicating existing efforts?
In the opening speech at recent Interpol World 2019, Minister Josephine Teo highlighted three areas of innovation that hold promise – biometrics, data analytics and digital forensics. Indeed, these areas of innovation have the potential to rapidly solve crime. Biometrics facial recognition technology is able to scan through thousands of video footages to identify criminals. Data analytics is able to plough through enormous amount of data and improve sense-making. Digital forensics has the ability to extract and analyse digital evidences from the latest Internet of Things (IOT) devices, among others.
At the heart of the Home Team transformation, \"digital\" has to be about helping officers serve the public more effectively, enabling them to spend more time problem-solving, providing them the information required to make intelligent decisions faster, more effectively, and in greater depth. And I would like to remind the fundamental role of human instinct, emotional intelligence and pragmatic decision-making in responding to situations must be recognised in designing digital.
My second point on predictive policing – declining birth-rates have led to an ageing population that will increase the demand for emergency services, while at the same time putting constraints on the manpower available to the Home Team to tackle these challenges. The Home Team needs to continuously innovate and leverage on technology to fundamentally change the way it operates in order to deal with these challenges.
The most advanced crime analytics of the day relied on analysts leveraging on geographic information systems. Regardless, the trends identified were based on what had happened and it did not provide any insight into where crime might shift. The missing component was the ability to forecast where and when crime would occur or in other terms, a transformation from retrospective to forecasting. Predictive policing bridges those gaps by providing the best place and time for the police to problem solve.
A driving force behind a shift in paradigms is the potential outcome for law enforcement to increase its effectiveness and efficiency, enhance criminal investigations, and to allow agencies to \"work smarter\". It is within this political and social climate that predictive policing has emerged as a possibility of enhancing public safety.
Predictive policing can become a reality here in Singapore similar to how predictive maintenance helps to avoid breakdowns of critical infrastructure. In a way that is evidence based, accountable and ethically sound, ultimately aiming to achieve crime reduction success, while functioning with fewer human resources and thereby reducing operating costs.
There are several models of Predictive Policing that Singapore can learn from. One such model, the City Pulse project, by the Dutch police was highlighted by Minister Teo in her speech earlier. I would also urge our authorities to study the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) Predictive Policing Project that has yield remarkable results.
The VPD undertook a six-month pilot project to evaluate a newly developed machine-learned, crime forecasting system that was designed to project predicted crime locations and temporal intervals. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether police actions, guided by the forecasting system, would have a measurable impact on property crime, specifically residential break and enters. The results of the evaluation indicated residential break and enters dropped substantially during the pilot study.
Based on the positive crime reduction results and demonstrated ability to operationalise the technology in a police service, the predictive policing initiative was formalised and expanded into other areas of the organisation. One of the most innovative application being the Community Policing Block Watch Programme.
Block Watch is all about neighbours helping neighbours. Participants watch out for each other’s homes and report suspicious activities to the police and each other.
In practice, the predictive policing outputs are reviewed by the Block Watch Coordinator every morning, identifying the top 10% of the forecasted locations, with the aim to mobilise community resources for the time period that dedicated police resources are not actively deployed to predicted locations.
The Block Watch Captains in each estate then electronically distribute a notification to their members, informing them of the increased risk with recommendations that they exercise increased vigilance during those times. The community members are reminded not to directly engage with any suspicious individuals and to call the police emergency line should they witness any criminal or suspicious activities.
This has the net effect of mobilising hundreds of citizens every day and providing actionable information to the community.
The ancillary benefit is that this process helps reinforce the connection and communication between the community and police that is often lacking in other Community Policing initiatives once they are formally established. This ongoing communication and feedback also helps foster a more inclusive approach to crime prevention and one where the community plays a critical role in its success.
The pilot study found that when adequately resourced, the top 10% of the predicted crime locations could accurately interdict and prevent up to 70% of the anticipated incidents for each two-hour interval, equal to six to eight locations for every two-hour interval.
It is from this pioneering use of predictive policing technology that the VPD accomplished what police services frequently struggled with, limited resources and the inability to reassign patrol officers from often a busy call-load and dedicated emergency response.
This, I believe, is a worthwhile model from which Singapore can learn from and incorporate into SGSecure – a New Generation of Community Policing with Predictive Policing and Community Engagement.
Lastly, before I conclude, I would like to seek an update from the hon Minister on the “Lamppost-as-a-Platform” project that was announced last year for pilot roll out in 2019 by GovTech. Also, with the formation of the new HTX, will such Surveillance Programme come under the purview of the new agency?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to set up a new agency to focus on scientific domains critical to operations of the Home Team. Without deploying digital technology, the task of fighting crime and protecting citizens becomes almost impossibly tough in a world where citizens and criminals alike are increasingly digitally savvy. Failure to adopt digital technologies also restricts the ability of our Home Team officers to operate effectively within an ever more constrained operating environment.
Mr Speaker, I stand in support this Bill and any broader measures that enhances Singapore’s safety and security.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The nature of modern threats to national security are increasingly complex and must be tackled through the use of cutting-edge science and technology. That said, I have two points of clarifications to raise.
My first is on membership. Section 11 of the Bill provides a list of four categories of individuals who are disqualified from serving as a member of this new Agency. This list is not unfamiliar to us. Indeed, in legislation that provide for the existence of other statutory boards, we see similar sections outlining these conditions for disqualification.
However, this list is different from legislation providing for other Statutory Boards, such as the Defence Science and Technology Agency Act and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research Act. These two statutory boards either deal with similar science and technology topics or exist under the same category in the Public Sector (Governance) Act. Yet, they disqualify members differently.
Speaking generally, the A*STAR Act bars those with mental illness, undischarged bankruptcy and unpardoned dishonest offences. The DSTA Act adds to that list a fourth condition: unpardoned imprisonment of six months.
This Bill we read today adds two new conditions: The individual cannot be a judge or judicial officer. The individual also cannot be disqualified from serving as a director or manager under the Companies Act.
I raise two questions pertaining to this point.
One, why have we added these two new conditions of disqualification? Why are these conditions relevant here and why are they not relevant to the other Statutory Boards?
Two, does the Government have plans to harmonise these conditions of membership disqualification?
My second point is about privacy, which fellow Member Rahayu has raised as well. Every Singapore citizen appreciates the centrality of public safety and security to our way of life. We are able to walk on the streets at night with ease because we know that we will be safe. At the same time, even as Singaporeans feel physically safe, they have also become uneasy at the risks involved with giving away their data. A spate of data leakages from the Government has exacerbated such fears.
In its mission to keep Singapore safe, this new Home Team Science and Technology Agency will surely leverage heavy use of data. Minister Teo highlighted that the agency will make intensive usage of video analytics and surveillance in its crime deterrence and incident response.
Given the potential intrusion on privacy that this represents, can the Ministry share the protocols and structures it plans to put in place to safeguard the data it collects?
I have two specific recommendations to make on accountability mechanisms that can be implemented. First, will the MHA publish annual reports on its data security measures to enhance public trust on this issue? Second, will the MHA consider setting up a hotline for employees to whistle-blow on lax data security measures?
It is paramount that the Government takes active steps to demonstrate transparency, accountability and security with the great powers our people have entrusted it with.
Take the example of the \"smart lamp posts.\" ST Engineering won the tender last year and these lamps will hit the streets this year. The press release has highlighted its benefits to society. We will be able to better catch speeding motorists and PMDs. Crime can be further deterred. In times of a transport breakdown and traffic congestion, authorities can proactively provide solutions.
But some citizens were also surprised by the extensiveness of its systems. Because these street lamps will be able to identify faces in real time and because they might eventually be everywhere, this means that there is potentially no place in Singapore where you would not have data on your whereabouts stored in some Government database.
Perhaps, most Singaporeans will take the angle that if you do nothing wrong, you have no need to fear. But if leaks of such pervasive, universal data ever happen, it could strongly undermine trust in our public institutions. I hope the Ministry will take proactive steps to prevent such breaches from ever happening. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s safety and security enable us all to perform at a high level, contributing to a good standard of living. However, like many other countries, we still face terrorist threats and other challenges from the evolving nature of crimes. Hence, it is necessary for us to utilise technology to enhance the capabilities of our Home Team. I stand in support of this Bill but I have two brief clarifications.
First, setting up a dedicated agency to gather expertise in science and technology to provide customised, dedicated solutions for the Home Team sounds very logical. However, in setting up this new agency, I would like to ask whether scarce research and development resources could be divided and diverted from current R&D institutions. I also want to express my concerns about the substantial budget allocated to this new agency and the accountability in the way funds are distributed and spent. I would appreciate it if the Ministry could share more details on how it justifies the amounts allocated and the measures to ensure accountability and transparency in its spending.
My second clarification concerns this – that the new organisation will focus on areas critical to the Home Team’s operations, namely, sense-making and surveillance, forensics, robotics and unmanned systems. I would like to ask if the Ministry would also consider measures to look into how we can counter biological threats. Could more be done in this area of research to defend us against the threat of bio-terrorism or biological attacks? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. I commend the bringing together of more than 1,000 research scientists, engineers and technical staff from the Home Team departments in the set-up of the new agency to focus on developing cutting-edge technologies, such as detection and surveillance capability, forensics as well as robotics and unmanned systems, to safeguard Singapore in this digital age.
However, as we continue to amass the latest and increasingly sophisticated technologies in surveillance and data analytics in our homeland security arsenal, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight three areas of concern for this House and the Ministry to consider.
First, we must ask ourselves what is the impact on the society’s prevailing mindset and mental health as we live under the constant gaze of surveillance with security technologies becoming more chillingly ubiquitous?
Second, as we increase the use of artificial intelligence and surveillance in a preventive manner, whether for criminal actions or terrorist threats, what are the implications of algorithmic biases and unwarranted systemic discrimination on our multiracial and multicultural society? How do we maintain a resilient and cohesive society with unbiased policing as we fight terrorism with new technologies?
Lastly, how are we creating a culture of respect for privacy and accountability as the presence of numerous surveillance and data analytic methods by Government agencies makes it difficult for individuals to control the use of their data?
Mr Speaker, the proliferation of smart technologies is a double-edged sword. Technologies that allow the Government to monitor, analyse and manage behaviour to fight crime, detect threats and keep us safe are also the same technologies that may paradoxically give us less psychological safety and have detrimental consequences on our society’s mental well-being.
Let us take the example of the $7.5 million \"smart\" lamp post project which was awarded to ST Engineering in October last year which includes the installation of artificial intelligence or AI-based facial recognition surveillance cameras on 110,000 lamp posts around Singapore, amongst other smart features.
We already have an existing and extensive network of security cameras but the use of more sophisticated technologies on these cameras means information could be shared between agencies. According to a report by The Straits Times, the new camera systems can, for instance, analyse faces – down to race, gender and age – for catching speeding e-scooter riders and other purposes. With the surveillance information, Government agencies can increase their situational awareness, detect potential problems and respond quickly to incidents, such as unruly crowds, train breakdowns and traffic congestion. It has been shown that the fear and uncertainty generated by surveillance inhibit activity more than any action by the police. This is clearly a good outcome for law and order. Yet, Mr Speaker, we must not forget that the well-being of our citizens goes beyond just physical safety and security.
A 2018 study by the Digital Ethics Lab of Oxford University found that surveillance has been linked to increased levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety. This constant state of being monitored shapes an environment where one’s sense of personal control becomes greatly diminished. We behave in a desired way just in case we are being watched. Another research by Duke University from 1966, which has been cited in numerous other articles and books on privacy even to today, showed that the shrinkage of free space where a person can be “off-stage” and simply be themselves rather than trying to be respectable under society’s standards may increase the frequency of anxiety and withdrawal from social roles, which are signs of mental illness. Other studies have also argued and reported that the long-term damage on one’s psyche from prolonged surveillance creates a culture of self-censorship and apprehension which clearly inhibits creativity and innovation – the very bedrock for the future of our economy and our Smart Nation vision.
Mr Speaker, I may now sound like a broken tape recorder but I cannot emphasise enough the urgent need for us to make mental health a national priority, what with the upward trend of one in seven Singaporeans experiencing a mental health condition in our lifetime, according to the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study that was published just last year.
Unless the mental well-being of our citizens is the top priority in policy narratives, we may never intentionally and adequately address the trade-offs between the security imperative and potentially suffocating psychological effects of living under the gaze of the authority. Again, let me use this example of the 100,000 POLCAMs, how did we decide how much surveillance is enough when we currently already have a desirable low crime rate? What is truly necessary and when does it become a surveillance overreach, especially considering the financial and social costs involved?
I urge the Ministry and the new agency to be mindful of the delicate balance needed between keeping our streets safe and safeguarding the psychological resilience of our people to maintain a strong social compact. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if an additional clause can be provided in section (5)(2) of the Bill such that the agency, in performing its functions, to have regard, in addition current provisions, for the social and psychological consequences of these scientific and technological advances on our citizens.
Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second concern – unbiased policing with predictive technologies. While predictive policing through AI is the future of data-driven law enforcement because of convenience and accuracy in the face of potential threats, we cannot ignore the risks that may arise with unwarranted systemic biases that might lead to inadvertent discrimination towards some communities. Predictive policing risks reinforcing known biases in law enforcement. Bias may also lead to the over-policing of certain communities, heightening tensions, or, conversely, the under-policing of communities that may actually need law enforcement intervention but do not feel comfortable in alerting the police.
Facial recognition systems tend to disproportionately mis-identify women and those from ethnic minorities. These neural networks are built on a vast number of faces from different groups. As a result, if it is trained and built for the better part on male subjects from the ethnic majority, for example, which is statistically more likely, the system will be more accurate for this group and less accurate for others. Let me share two examples, Mr Speaker.
First, last year, Amazon’s face recognition technology falsely identified 28 members of the American Congress as people who had been arrested for crimes, disproportionately misidentifying African-Americans and Latin-Americans. This raises concerns that face surveillance used by governments can fuel discriminatory surveillance and target racial minorities.
Second, these harmful effects are also already being felt in China, where facial recognition software targets the domestic minority populations, particularly the Muslim Uighur minority in China’s “war on terror”. “Anomalies” in their behaviour that can trigger suspicion include “dressing in an Islamic fashion and failing to attend nationalistic flag-raising ceremonies”. This is worrying as suspicion can be activated based on culture, religion and ethnicity as legitimate identifiers of threat.
In Singapore’s multicultural context, inadvertent algorithmic bias can put our harmonious social fabric at risk. No community must be perceived to be singled out. Can the Minister please clarify the safeguards and mitigating measures we have in place to avoid such mis-identifications and algorithmic biases?
Last but not least, Mr Speaker, please let me share my third concern on data privacy and accountability.
An article by TODAY in 2016 claimed that Singaporeans saw national security as more important than privacy. Nevertheless, this does not offset the value of privacy and the need for the Government to remain accountable to its citizens. Though there may be a predominant mindset that Singaporeans are not that concerned with privacy, the fact the Personal Data Protection Commission saw over 1,600 complaints on data protection issues in 2018 alone, as mentioned by Minister Iswaran to this House, shows that privacy is valued in Singapore.
Convenience cannot be the sole consideration of data collection – citizens deserve to know the purpose and how their data is being used. Therefore, if we want to create a culture of respect for privacy, the way the Government handles individuals’ data must set the example.
While the Government has in place the Public Sector (Governance) Act where Government agencies can share relevant data only when there are data sharing directions issued by relevant Ministers, citizens may not be aware of what these directions entail and how their data is being shared between agencies. When the public is aware of the efforts that the Government takes to safeguard their data, trust with the Government is built and the public live in less fear that their every action is subject to scrutiny. With transparent safeguards, the public also play the role of a compliance officer, as they can identify lapses that occur. Hence, I urge the Government to consider informing the public on what kinds of data different Government agencies are authorised to access and use and for what purposes to build a more informed citizenry.
The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee had identified technical, process and people strategies to strengthen our data security regime, given the rising complexity of our systems as our demand to use data grows in our society. It has found that there are varying levels of training on data protection in the public sector and that many data incidents have previously been the result of human error. Furthermore, it is not just the Government systems that are at risk but also the ecosystem with which our citizens’ data interacts with and, given the recent data breaches, we need to ensure high data protection standards by third parties.
I understand that the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee has until 30 November to submit its findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I would like to urge the Government to consider constituting an independent oversight body that will evaluate on an annual basis whether various forms of personal data, collected through forms or surveillance, has been legally and properly collected and managed by the public officers. This would include reviewing cases of misuse, the public organisation's data management culture and whether any changes have to be made to prevent future cases of misuse or breaches.
In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers by intelligence agencies, police forces and other public authorities. IPCO is comprised of judicial personnel, scientific experts, inspectors, lawyers and communications experts. In the United States, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reviews information-sharing practices related to terrorism protection efforts.
Establishing an oversight body is important as the Government increasingly gathers massive amounts of information with new surveillance measures, including smart lamp-posts and drone cameras, being rolled out. The report of this body should be made public to ensure state accountability and to also demonstrate the respect that the Government has on data privacy.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is clear that artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of all things and 5G will change and are changing the face of law enforcement. It is tempting to brush off the concerns shared above with the rhetoric of \"it's better to be safe than sorry\" or \"if you have nothing to hide, it won't affect you\". However, we must ask ourselves what is the kind of society we want Singapore to become.
Do we want to build a psychologically resilient and informed citizenry that will also be the ears and eyes for each other in these times of increasing security threats, or a people that depends completely on these ubiquitous electronic eyes on every lamp-post and leaving security entirely to the responsibility of the state?
Do we want to build a culture of respect for privacy, starting with the Government setting an example for transparency and accountability, that provides the bedrock of our social compact where there is trust between people and faith in the Government, or a culture of fear and distrust that may impede creativity and innovation?
Mr Speaker, answering these questions will help us fortify the Social and Psychological Defence pillars of our Total Defence for a strong and united Singapore, one that is built in partnership between the Government and the people.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, against a landscape of rapid technological advancement and to meet new and emerging threats to Singapore's safety and security, this Bill seeks to create a new Science and Technology Agency. The agency will enable the Home Team to stay in the forefront of science and innovation with the mission to develop the best capabilities to address national security threats now and, more importantly, in the future.
Core to the success of this new agency will be the strategy and ability of the agency to attract and develop a world class team with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and digital skills. Without strong science and technology capability, the Agency will not be able to deliver its mission for the Home Team.
With digital transformation on the agenda for many businesses and Singapore's drive to building a Smart Nation, there is high demand for skilled STEM and digital talent. Roles in high demand across all industries and the public sector are data scientists, user experience (UX) designers and digital roles. Cyber security, of course, continues to be an area of focus. So, with the competing demands on a limited talent pool, the ability to attract and retain good talent will be critical for the agency.
The agency's people strategy to centralise recruitment, development and management of all Science and Technology personnel across the Home Team is sound. The bringing together of more than 1,000 research scientists, engineers and technical staff from the Home Team departments will give the agency a good base to build on. It will also need to have a strategy to build a pipeline of STEM and digital talent.
But while the focus of this talent pool will be deep skills in science and technology, it is important to keep in mind that innovation will require more than that. Innovation requires technology, but it also requires human insights and the willingness to think and to see things differently. And to this point, the Minister's elaboration on the agency's One Home Team approach is welcomed. And I think the points made by other Members with regards to the privacy concerns and how technology will be used, these are all very critical in pointing out that while we are focusing on an agency that looks at Science and Technology, and the deployment of technology, what is important is the actual usage and how it is implemented. And, in doing that, I think the human side of things, the insights, will be very critical and, of course, the policies behind them.
In March this year, during the Committee of Supply debate, Minister Josephine Teo had shared the need for the Home Team to possess capabilities in the three areas that she had outlined: biometrics, data analytics and data forensics.
Faced with the rapid pace of change and against a landscape of evolving crime, increasing terrorist and security threats, and the pace of change, I do agree that the Home Team does need to have its own capabilities to be able to ensure preparedness, combat crime and keep Singapore safe.
While the Home Team builds its own capabilities, we must ensure that the efforts are coordinated throughout the whole-of-Government to minimise duplication and, more importantly, that research and development are effective.
Minister Teo had shared previously that MHA has thus far partnered other Government agencies like the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and DSO, together with other private sector organisations like ST Engineering and Singtel to develop these capabilities. I am glad that in her speech today, the Minister stressed that even after the Home Team has established its own Science and Technology Agency, it would continue to work across Government agencies and in collaboration with industry and research institutions. This will ensure that the agency, together with the whole-of-Government, keeps pace and develop the best capabilities for crime prevention as well as to protect Singapore.
Apart from the organisations that MHA has partnered, even within the public sector, there are other agencies focused on similar areas that the new Home Team Science and Technology Agency has outlined for itself. These include the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) as well as the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG).
Using and deploying technology securely and the better use of the vast amounts of data for insights to serve our citizens more effectively are clearly priorities for all Government agencies.
While I agree that the Home Team does have its unique requirements and requires deep capabilities to be able to meet these needs, there are also many areas of similarities with what the other agencies and industry are working on, for example, data science and analytics, cyber security and artificial intelligence (AI). The difference is in the application of the technology or solutioning and domain knowledge. The Home Team is not alone in the quest to build science and technology capabilities. The ability to work together across the agencies and industry will allow leverage and enable the realising of the value of synergies across the larger science and technology eco-system.
This coordination and partnership is also key when we look in the area of talent and skills, given the limited talent pool of STEM capability and digital skills in Singapore.
As we build new capabilities for the future, it is important to balance technology with operational needs.
While technical talent is key for innovation, it is equally important that the operational talent within the agencies are also tech-savvy. The reason for this is to allow for operational and technology integration so that operational and technology talent can have a common language for more effective outcomes. This combination of operational insights and new capabilities can lead to the discovery of new ways to seeing and doing things and for more effective execution and delivery of services. For example, as what Minister had shared in the example of the new clearance concept, there are potential security benefits and productivity gains in the development and deployment of biometrics solutions for passenger identity verification for immigration clearance.
However, as many of the Members have shared in this Chamber today, there will also be concerns around privacy given the use and collection of personal identifiable information. Therefore, it is important that such technologies are validated in an operational context for the effective deployment of such solutions and, more importantly, to address stakeholders concerns because, otherwise, we are going to be in a situation where we are concerned about leading edge, cutting edge technology, but we are in fear of using it because of the so-called \"concerns of the downsides\". The best way to do that is really work together to look at the implementation in the operational context so that people can understand the value beyond just the convenience of the use of technology.
This brings to mind some examples when we always say, \"Do not collect information\" because if you do not store it and you do not keep it well, it is a concern. But when you need that information, you really wish you had collected it because you cannot turn back the clock. And this is the same with regards to technology. If we do not start, and we do not try and iterate and then learn from it, I think that would be the biggest danger that we will face as a society. I do encourage us to take a very balanced approach between the concerns we have as well the excitement around the deployment of technology.
In conclusion, I would like to make a related point: as we drive innovation and deployment of new technologies and solutions, trust amongst stakeholders is critical for success. Mr Speaker, with that, I support the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) and will be a Statutory Board under MHA. While I support having a dedicated Science and Technology Agency for the Home Team to augment and maintain our operational edge, I have three concerns which I hope Minister will be able to address and respond to.
First, duplication of work and resources. Looking at the areas of work and terms of reference of HTX, I see possible overlap of work and duplication with the science and technology agencies already in existence, such as DSTA, MINDEF, GovTech, HSA, DSO and A*STAR. Some of these capabilities and expertise already reside within these agencies.
What then is the rationale for setting up a HTX and not tapping on expertise residing within an existing Ministry or agency like MINDEF, DSTA or DSO?
Whether system engineers, specialists in marine and maritime engineering, technology or logistics specialists or even specialist forensic investigation, these experts are already serving in these agencies safeguarding Singapore. Should not we strengthen those existing agencies instead of having to set up another dedicated agency? Notwithstanding, if HTX is eventually set up, how is the agency going to not just value add but value create for the Home Team and Singapore in terms of safety and security?
Second, manpower concerns. Singapore has a tight labour market situation and there are exacting manpower needs and a demand for talent such as engineers and so on.
Every additional new headcount created will be a strain for those hiring outside of the public sector. With the set-up of HTX, I have some burning questions. What is the full manpower establishment of this new Agency? How many are fresh hires outside of the Home Team and public sector? How many are transferred from each of the Home Team units, such as SCDF, SPF, MHQ, ICA, Prisons and so on? Will there be personnel transferred from outside the Home Team, such as DSTA, DSO, HSA and GovTech?
For those within the Home Team or related Government agencies and are transferred to HTX, I am deeply concerned about their interests, welfare and their fate including career progression and terms and conditions of service. I am aware the Bill states in explicit terms that they will not be worse off.
I think the question is not just whether they will be worse off at the point when they are transferred over, but more in terms of their long-term prospects and future. This is especially pertinent as many of them may be in different schemes of service, such as the Pension scheme, Invest scheme or other similar schemes of service which are unique to their service. These officers who may be affected by the transfer would naturally be concerned and uncertain about their future and what lies ahead.
Section 47(5) of the Bill states that the employee being transferred will be on existing terms until such time the conditions of employment are drawn up by the agency.
When will the exact conditions of employment be ready so that the affected staff can be apprised of their new terms and conditions and whether they will be given an opportunity not to take up the new terms and stay in their current job roles and schemes of service?
Similarly, as with the set-up of any new agency, amalgamation or integration, there will be new cultures to adapt to and new management to adjust to. Can the Minister assure this House that the affected employees will be well taken care of and truly be not worse off in the short term as well as in the long term?
Thirdly, classification of HTX as an \"Essential Service\" and accountability of HTX. I am particularly concerned that under this Bill, there will also be a consequent amendment of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to classify HTX as an \"essential service\". This simply means employees employed in HTX may go on strike, but they are guilty of an offence if notice of intention to strike is not given to their employers, at least 14 days before the strike.
I appreciate the sensitive nature of the work of HTX and that we must not and cannot afford strikes and disruption in such a sensitive area. Naturally, some are concerned as to whether it is something that infringes the right of every worker in Singapore and whether we are compromising the rights of workers in Singapore. As employees of a Statutory Board, I assume that they can be union members and form a trade union and be collectively and individually represented. I look forward to the HTX working out an arrangement, together with the trade union movement, to ensure that workers within the HTX are represented and adequately protected.
Finally, I would like to ask on the question of accountability of HTX to Parliament because the Bill does not seem to provide an explicit answer to this. There is, however, explicit mention of the Minister and the agency members and I hope they will be able to exercise their powers judiciously and effectively for the safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, let me first thank the hon Members for their questions and comments. Many Members spoke at length about why it is important for MHA to leverage science and technology to address the challenges ahead and to set up the new HTX. I thank them for their support of the Bill.
As Members have rightly pointed out, the growth of new technologies has changed the Home Team's operating environment. New threats are emerging as our adversaries are also taking advantage of technological advances. The Home Team must therefore not be handicapped on this front. We will need to invest in building new capabilities and transform the way we work. The setting up of a dedicated Home Team Science and Technology agency is to achieve these purposes effectively and efficiently.
Mr Mohamed Irshad asked about the capabilities that HTX will build. There will be a range. Besides transforming emergency response and enabling new clearance concepts, HTX will also develop forensic solutions to enhance investigations. For example, HTX scientists will conduct leading-edge research into the forensic analysis of suspected drug compounds. Advances in DNA forensics will boost Police's capability to generate leads for criminal investigations. Digital forensics and tackling cyber crime is another area of focus for HTX.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about countering biological threats. The detection and handling of chemical, biological or radiological materials is an important area for HTX. HTX will work with SCDF and related agencies such as the National Environment Agency, to develop sensor systems to detect such materials, and the capability to effectively respond to incidents involving hazardous materials.
These unique capabilities demonstrate why MHA is setting up HTX instead of leveraging on other existing agencies like DSTA, DSO or GovTech. This is also Dr Chia's question as well as Mr Patrick Tay's. The mission, operating environment and requirements of these agencies are different from those of the Home Team. Technological solutions and applications need to be customised or in some cases built organically. This is a point that Ms Jessica Tan emphasised.
There is enough scale within the Home Team to merit a dedicated science and technology agency, give specific focus on areas that would otherwise remain ancillary. This is the nature of things. If you do not put it as the focus of a particular dedicated agency, then you must run the risk that these are ancillary to other agencies. Whether you can build up sufficient capabilities in a short time to counter the challenges, that would be a question mark. I think that is an important point to make because if we were not to be able to plug the gaps that we identify, it actually is a disservice to Singaporeans, who obviously expect us to be up to speed, up to mark in all of these areas that we face threats in. But I must stress that the agencies; even though they are dedicated and separate; they do not operate in silos. They do cooperate very closely with one another and later on, I will also give some examples.
Sir, allow me to now answer specific questions on the Bill's provisions.
Mr Patrick Tay asked who HTX will be accountable to. HTX is a Statutory Board under MHA. As such, the Minister for Home Affairs has overall responsibility for the agency. The Minister is in turn accountable to the Cabinet and to Parliament. And to Dr Chia Shi-Lu's specific question, about accountability for budgeting as well as utilisation, the same parliamentary and audit processes that apply to all Government Statutory Boards will apply to HTX as well.
I recall when I was in MOF, for example, the Estimates Committee which consists of Members of Parliament, posed tough questions on Ministries' uitilisation of Budget. HTX will be subjected to the same discipline.
Mr Tay also asked about the classification of HTX services as an essential service under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, or CLTPA. As the work carried out by HTX officers directly contributes to national safety and security, we have classified the science and technological services provided by HTX as an essential service under CLTPA. This is the same as services provided by the Home Team, which are also deemed as essential services. HTX employees, are however, not Home Affairs Uniform Scheme officers. They will therefore be allowed to join the unions.
Mr Tay asked about the transfer of employees to the new HTX scheme. The new HTX scheme of service will be introduced in December 2019, when the agency is set up. Clause 46 of the Bill ensures that existing officers on the Home Team Specialist Scheme who are transferred to HTX will enjoy terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by the respective individuals on the eve of transfer.
Mr Tay also raised important questions about career prospects as well as how we get the different cultures to work together. It is a Home Team culture, to begin with.
But the short answer to Mr Tay's question on career prospects is that it is certainly in HTX's own interest to ensure that officers feel motivated and want to give of their best. So, I see no reason why HTX leadership would want to slacken on this front.
Mr Louis Ng had a question about clause 11 of the Bill which lists the five categories of individuals who are disqualified from serving on HTX's Board, and why these are different from that of A*STAR and DSTA. The categories listed are the same as Statutory Boards that were set up in recent years. This includes GovTech and the Info-communications Media Development Authority, which are both agencies in the technology domain. Statutory Boards adopt these categories as a measure of good governance. As for his suggestion to standardise this across all Statutory Boards, we will refer this to the Public Service Division for their consideration.
Lastly, Dr Chia Shi-Lu had a question on funding for HTX. The funding for HTX will come from MHA's block budget and not from other R&D funding sources. HTX, like other statutory boards, will submit its annual report and accounts to Parliament.
Mr Speaker, I now turn to the points raised by Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Mohamed Irshad on the topic of data. Specifically, they have queries and suggestions on the collection, sharing and security of data – all of which are very important.
The collection of data will continue to be done by the respective Home Team Departments, in accordance with their statutory duties or to maintain their mission-effectiveness. That is something they will have to continue doing. For example, ICA is required by the National Registration Act to collect personal information from residents. Police officers may also ask for a person's particulars as part of a criminal investigation. It is unlikely that HTX officers will collect any kind of personal data in the course of their duties. I should make this clear.
HTX will, however, play the important role of the safeguarding the Home Team's IT systems and the data they hold. To support Home Team operations and ensure that our data is well-protected, HTX will run the MHA Security Operations Centre (M.SOC). Operating 24/7, M.SOC will proactively monitor and detect suspicious activities or attempted intrusions into the MHA network. M.SOC will also provide immediate response and investigate into cyber security incidents and issues.
While we continue to improve data security protocols, the sharing of data between public agencies must also carry on. As Ms Rahayu has pointed out, data and insight sharing across Government agencies can lead to better outcomes for citizens. One such example is how Traffic Police shares accident data with LTA. This helps LTA identify junctions or roads for engineering redesign and enhancements to improve road safety.
Ms Ong and Mr Mohamed Irshad also raised concerns about privacy as we improve our surveillance capability. I think Ms Ong talked about the stress related to increased surveillance. I believe Members of this House, being all public figures, can relate to that kind of stress.
We are very conscious of the need to protect privacy. In this regard, we have strict protocols in place, to ensure that only officers with proper authorisation can access them. The feedback we have received about POLCAM is that the public feel safer with the cameras. And indeed, in tandem with other Police enforcement efforts, POLCAM has resulted in the sharp reduction of many crimes such as property crimes and unlicensed moneylending harassment. POLCAM footages have also been critical in solving many crimes and locating missing persons.
MHA takes its responsibility as a custodian of the data it collects very seriously and will continue to pay careful attention to this. We will also work closely with GovTech and the Cyber Security Agency to ensure a whole-of-Government approach to data and cyber security.
MHA is currently working together with other Government agencies, to review our data security policies and practices as part of the review process under the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee led by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean. The Committee is currently deliberating on specific measures to improve the data security regime for the Government and will submit a report to Prime Minister by 30 November 2019; Ms Ong noted this.
The Committee takes the key guiding principle that the Government places utmost importance on its duty to use citizens' data responsibly and securely. So, responsibility and security are the key guiding principles for the Committee. This is very much in line with the spirit of Members' suggestions on how MHA can protect citizens' data better.
I am sure that the Committee will also take into consideration Members' specific concerns and suggestions, and we will certainly raise them in our discussions with the Committee.
If I may paraphrase Ms Jessica Tan: we must also, at the same time as being cautious, not become paralysed by fear. If we do not try to use data responsibly and securely, for good purposes, then we will also never learn; and that would be a missed opportunity.
Ms Tan spoke about HTX’s future success being contingent on its ability to attract and develop science and technology talent. We agree fully. The key determinant of HTX’s success will be the quality of its people. That is why HTX will have a two-fold human resources strategy. First, developing the existing pool of officers, and second, attracting new talent to join the agency.
I spoke about how HTX will start off with about 1,300 officers brought together from the different Home Team Departments. Mr Patrick Tay has asked about the establishment. That is something that is still evolving because the agency is new. The agency has to decide on its priorities and what the focus will be for the next couple of years. It will not be too late to establish the sizing and the type of people we will need, when these priorities are firmly established.
We have started investing in the resources to further the professional development of our existing officers for a start.
This year, MHA has rolled out a new sponsorship programme for officers to take up more advanced degrees and professional certification. We must maximise the talent and potential of our officers, through continuous learning and upskilling.
To Mr de Souza’s point on the benefits of consolidating science and technology expertise, setting up HTX will indeed mean better career progression for Home Team scientists and engineers. A dedicated agency such as HTX can offer multiple routes of advancement for STEM talent, whether it is leading research teams, managing projects or leadership positions. This is quite clear compared to if they remain within individual Home Team Departments.
Besides developing existing officers, HTX will also be recruiting STEM talent in the next few years. This is in line with MHA’s increased investment in science and technology capabilities, which is projected to go up to $1.9 billion annually by 2025. Attractive scholarships will be introduced to groom future STEM leaders. Mid-career professionals with the right training, skills and aptitude will also be recruited to augment our talent pool. There may be some specific areas for which we may not have local expertise, and thus may need to source for them internationally. But I do not expect this to be very large.
For young Singaporeans taking up studies in STEM, I think it is a very exciting future for them. The establishment of HTX will add to the range of meaningful careers that they can take part in in Singapore, so that they can be at the leading edge of developing technology solutions to keep our nation safe.
Members like Mr Christopher de Souza also raised questions on how the new HTX agency will work within the broader science and technology eco-system. I think Dr Chia also raised similar concerns. Singapore today has a vibrant network of science and technology actors, thanks in part to Singapore’s investments in science and technology over the decades. Not only are there established multi-national corporations, we also have many innovative start-ups.
HTX intends to fully tap on this rich environment. Over the years, MHA has built strong collaborative relationships with key industry partners. Public-private co-creation through innovation trials have led to the development of new capabilities. SCDF’s iconic light fire attack vehicle, popularly known as the Red Rhino, is now in its sixth version. The vehicle’s evolution into an essential fire-fighting platform is the result of the sharing of ideas and experimentation with a local company Hope Technik from the time it was quite a modest start-up. Partnership with the private sector will continue to be a mainstay of MHA’s capability development efforts.
Mr Irshad will be glad to know that HTX will also partner other public sector Science and Technology agencies, such as GovTech, DSTA and DSO, to name a few. For example, HTX will coordinate and work closely with DSTA. In areas where DSTA has deep expertise and experience, such as Command, Control and Communications (C3) systems and marine systems, HTX and Home Team Departments will continue to tap on DSTA. This is just the most sensible thing to do.
I would also like to thank Mr de Souza for his suggestion that HTX share with other agencies as well as private companies. HTX will share its expertise and capabilities with agencies which have similar needs to the Home Team. For example, forensics and sense-making solutions can be used by other agencies with enforcement functions like the CPIB and Singapore Customs. As for the private companies, where the opportunities present themselves, we will keep an open mind.
Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members for their questions and suggestions. The strong interest in HTX shows this House’s support for the Home Team, and the hard work they put in to keep Singapore safe and secure. The creation of HTX as a force multiplier for the Home Team ensures we remain mission-effective in the face of future challenges. And I am confident that HTX will deliver on its promise as the multiplier to transform the Home Team through greater use of science and technology. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the support of the House, I beg to move.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Mr Speaker, given the discussion around creating a Science and Technology eco-system, I was just curious and wish to ask Minister where will the HTX be located? Will it be amongst the community in the eco-system or will it be within the Home Team facilities?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, it is a very interesting question. It also has to do with how we try to be prudent in our use of resources. So, it is in New Phoenix Park where MHA is located. We have found some space to accommodate the new HTX and we will work within our resources for a start because the emphasis really is on building the capabilities. We want the officers to have a good environment within which to work. The location of MHA is good in the sense that where public transportation is concerned, our ability to link up with our partners will be quite convenient.
Ms Anthea Ong: Can I ask when we are expecting the 100,000 lamp posts to be smartened up? I know the contract was already awarded last year. So, could the Minister share with the House when we are expecting all our lamp posts to be watching us?
Mrs Josephine Teo: The smart lamp post project is actually led by GovTech. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) supports the initiative by providing potential use cases, what can we use the data for. The sensors will be used by SPF strictly to supplement our efforts in crime deterrence and detection. As far as I am aware, the installation of the sensors on the lamp posts and the back-end development is currently on-going. I believe that there is a trial that is projected to start in the second half of 2019. So, I think the Member can be assured that the agencies involved are very mindful that great responsibility is expected in how they carry out their duties with the data collection and storage as well as its use.
Mr Vikram Nair: We may get requests from the public for access to this data, say, in the events of incidents taking place. What is the Ministry's view on requests from private individuals for access to this data?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I am afraid we are straying a little bit from the topic that is being debated. As I explained, HTX itself is very unlikely to collect data. And as I also explained, the Home Team Departments will continue to collect data on their use. There are certain instances, for example, viewing of traffic footage that the public has access to. But for other kinds of data, we will have to look at them specifically, always guided by the principles of using data securely and responsibly. So, we will have to look at the nature of the request.
[(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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (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":"Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
A few months ago, LTA launched the latest Land Transport Masterplan (LTMP) outlining our vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network by 2040. Taxis and private hire cars (PHCs) are very much part of this vision and complement our bus and MRT networks. Today, about 6% of all journeys are completed on taxis or PHCs, which make up the Point-to-Point Sector, or P2P sector for short.
In many other cities, the introduction of PHC booking service operators has led to disruptions, strikes, and protests by taxi drivers. Here in Singapore, the Government, operators and the driver associations have worked closely together to address the challenges that came about as a result of technological disruption and the emergence of new players. The regulatory framework has evolved gradually and smoothly, in partnership with our tripartite colleagues. Today, we enjoy a P2P sector that is able to meet the needs of commuters and drivers, as well as our broader transport objectives, while also allowing innovation to thrive. This healthy balance is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters and safe drivers, and in addition, the active involvement of our colleagues from the Government Parliamentary Committee led by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and his deputy, Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Prior to the entry of the ride-hail platforms into Singapore in 2013, P2P services were primarily delivered by 28,000 taxis. Taxi drivers would mostly cruise around or queue at taxi stands to look for and pick up passengers. These are what we call \"street-hail trips\". This is in contrast to what we label \"ride-hail trips\", where the ride is booked in advance. Prior to 2013, this booking was usually done by a phone call or text message and accounted for only a small proportion of rides. Long wait times and a lack of available taxis, especially during peak hours, were common complaints.
The commuter experience has significantly improved. Today, there are about 20,000 taxis and 45,000 PHCs, providing many more P2P options and improved service standards.
With the convenience and popularity of ride-hail applications, commuters have benefited. Today, more than two-thirds of all P2P are ride-hail trips, of which 30% are carried out by taxis.
The matching of demand and supply has also been enhanced through these ride-hail apps. As a result, commuters now enjoy shorter waiting times for both street-hail and ride-hail trips. For example, the waiting time for a taxi booking has fallen by about two minutes in 2016, to just under seven minutes in 2018. Dynamic fares have also allowed better matching of supply and demand – with higher prices during peak hours and also lower prices during off peak hours. This allows commuters to have a range of options at different price points.
Commuters have also benefited as operators innovate to attract passengers, through pricing strategies, trip incentives and value-added services. There are even specialised services to meet different commuter needs – from families with young children to commuters with pets.
Street-hail services will continue to have an important role and LTA’s data shows that commuters prefer street-hail services in areas with a higher concentration of commuters and taxis, such as central areas and around Changi. Commuters also prefer street-hail services for shorter trips as it is more efficient to street-hail a taxi than to wait for a booked ride. Almost all respondents in a recent Customer Satisfaction Survey were satisfied with P2P services.
The increased efficiency of matching drivers with commuters has benefited drivers as well. Drivers have a higher chance of finding commuters and can also reduce the amount of time spent cruising without a passenger.
All this demonstrates how market-driven innovation can benefit commuters and drivers. Members can easily appreciate that if there were to be excessive regulations, this may compromise the current environment and the current situation. But it is also important to understand that these benefits can also easily be lost if there is insufficient regulatory oversight. For example, operators may compromise commuter and driver safety at the expense of profits. Operators might also try to compete by \"locking in\" drivers using exclusive contracts, which would affect market contestability, which in turn harms commuters by increasing prices.
Mr Speaker, it is timely for us to review the regulatory framework for the P2P sector, and to put in place legislation that will help to maintain the current balanced position we enjoy. This Bill has benefited from extensive consultations with operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, members of the public and the GPC. Their feedback, suggestions and active involvement have improved this Bill. The framework aims to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers, while facilitating an open and innovative P2P sector.
Sir, let me now outline our overall approach to regulating the P2P sector.
First, we will license PHC booking service operators. Currently, LTA already regulates taxi operators under the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and third party taxi booking service providers under the Third Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act (TPB Act). Like taxi operators, PHC booking service operators have an equally important responsibility in ensuring commuter and driver safety in the course of their operations. The Bill will give LTA the necessary regulatory levers to ensure that the PHC booking service operators discharge these responsibilities. With this change, LTA will have regulatory oversight over all major P2P operators in Singapore.
Secondly, we will regulate P2P operators based on whether they provide street-hail or ride-hail services. Currently, LTA has one set of regulations for taxi operators, which generally provide a mix of street-hail and ride-hail services, and another set of regulations for TPB service providers. However, street-hail and ride-hail services have different characteristics and need to be regulated differently. This will ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose. Given the growing proportion of ride-hail trips, it makes better sense to have one set of regulations for all street-hail services and a different set of regulations for all ride-hail services, regardless of the type of vehicle used. This means that taxi operators will be required under our new regulatory framework to hold separate licences for their street-hail and ride-hail services. PHC booking service operators and TPB service providers will be licensed as ride-hail service operators. LTA will also be able to issue different sub-classes of street-hail and ride-hail service licences, such as for operators offering different types of services.
Today, we already regulate drivers through the Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) process. We currently also regulate vehicles at the vehicle level. What this Bill sets out to do is to regulate the operators by regulating them on the basis of the service they provide, not on who the operator is.
Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the three key areas of the proposed licensing regime for operators that carry out P2P services using taxis and PHCs.
First, our licensing regime focuses on the larger operators, given the wider impact they have on commuters and drivers. This will also manage regulatory costs for smaller ride-hail service operators and will allow small, new and innovative services to emerge. Today, all taxi operators have a minimum fleet size requirement of 800 taxis to ensure that they can provide an adequate level of service to commuters. Moving forward, this requirement will continue to be imposed for street-hail service operators – no change. We will also license all ride-hail service operators with 800 or more vehicles on their platform.
Ride-hail service operators with fewer than 800 vehicles on their platform will be exempted from the need to obtain a licence. Nevertheless, we will continue to impose basic safety regulations on them to ensure commuter safety. These operators must ensure that their drivers and vehicles are appropriately licensed and insured. LTA will continue to have the powers to issue a suspension order under the Road Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from driving for these exempt ride-hail service operators if their participating drivers fail to meet this requirement. We will continue to safeguard commuter safety via the separate licensing of drivers and vehicles.
It will be an offence for any person to provide street-hail or ride-hail services without a licence or an exemption. If convicted, they may face a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day that the offence continues after conviction. It will also be an offence to drive for these illegal operators.
The Bill has provisions for LTA to have regulatory oversight over the entire P2P sector. This includes the ability to regulate new business models, or P2P services involving new vehicle types. This will allow LTA to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological and commercial trends in the sector.
Secondly, our licensing regime will require operators to ensure the safety of commuters and drivers. We will extend today’s safety-related regulations for taxi operators to all licensed ride-hail service operators.
The need for enhanced safety measures is an area that industry stakeholders and members of the public agreed is of critical importance. The Bill will give LTA the powers to set safety requirements on licensed operators. LTA will track the number of accidents and driver offences that occur when a driver carries out a trip for a particular operator. Operators whose drivers have committed too many accidents or offences can be penalised through regulatory sanctions. This is to ensure that operators play their part to encourage safe driving behaviour and reduce driver offences. Operators must also ensure that the vehicles used to provide P2P services are able to pass the requisite vehicle inspections and are roadworthy. This ensures that operators play their part to keep the vehicles they deploy well-maintained and serviceable, for the safety of commuters, drivers and other road users.
The Bill also gives LTA powers to issue emergency directives to all P2P operators, including licence-exempt service operators. For example, LTA will be able to prohibit operators from using vehicle models which are found to be defective and therefore pose safety risks.
Thirdly, in regulating the P2P sector, we will keep the market open to support the development of innovative and accessible services. We have benefited from having an open P2P sector, with increased ride availability and improved service standards. We should continue to allow market forces to drive service delivery and improvement. As the market has evolved, LTA will adopt a light regulatory approach towards service standards and will streamline regulatory requirements where possible. This will help to lower compliance costs.
We intend to prohibit operators from offering exclusive arrangements to \"lock in\" drivers that in effect prevent them from driving for other operators. This is because such arrangements make it difficult for new players to enter the market and naturally favour incumbent operators. This is detrimental to driver and commuter interests. We will, however, make an exception for operators who directly employ drivers, as full-time employment is inherently exclusive.
In line with our vision for an inclusive transport sector, we will ensure that P2P services continue to remain accessible to all commuters. For now, LTA will continue to require taxi companies to provide call booking services. This ensures that those who may not be comfortable with an online booking process or an app, will continue to be able to book trips using a phone call.
The Bill also includes other standard regulatory provisions such as requirements for operators to keep records, and to provide relevant information and data to LTA. Operators who fail to comply with LTA’s regulatory requirements will be liable for financial penalties, suspension or even revocation of their licences.
Mr Speaker, today, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has regulations to standardise taxi fare structure, while leaving fare amounts deregulated. However, there are no such regulations for PHC fares. Fare evasion and overcharging for PHC trips are also not prohibited, unlike for taxi trips today. Given the rising proportion of trips by PHCs, we are amending the Public Transport Council Act (PTC Act) to give PTC the powers to extend today’s taxi fare regulatory approach to PHC fares. The amendments will empower PTC to safeguard commuter and driver interests in the area of taxi and PHC fare transparency in the following ways.
Firstly, for street-hail trips, there will be no changes to existing fare regulations. Street-hail service operators will continue to be required to charge metered fares for street-hail taxi trips, in accordance with the fare structure now set by PTC. This allows commuters to compare fares across taxi operators more easily.
Secondly, for ride-hail trips, licensed ride-hail service operators can continue to offer metered fare trips using taxis, as is the case today. Licensed ride-hail service operators will also be allowed to independently set flat fares for ride-hail trips using taxis and PHCs. The only requirement is that these flat fares for taxi and PHC bookings by licensed ride-hail service operators must be provided upfront to commuters. We will allow licensed operators to adjust both metered and flat fares.
In addition, we will amend the PTC Act such that the offences of fare evasion and overcharging extend to PHC trips booked through licensed ride-hail service operators. This is to deter such behaviour, to protect commuters and to protect drivers.
Lastly, the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to update provisions in certain Acts and to clarify our regulatory intent.
Sir, this Bill sets out a forward looking and flexible regulatory framework for the regulation of P2P services and providers in Singapore. We will open licence applications for street-hail and ride-hail service operators in February 2020, and the new regulatory framework will commence in June 2020. This will help to facilitate an open market to support the development of responsive P2P services, while also providing sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. It is a necessary piece in our long term vision for a well-connected and convenient land transport network.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who took the time and effort to contribute invaluable feedback during the consultation process – operators, drivers, the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and members of the public. This feedback has allowed us to better understand commuter, driver and industry needs and has helped to shape a better Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
3.29 pm
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Six years ago, Grab and Uber have disrupted our local taxi market. At that time, taxi drivers were worried about livelihood. They did not know whether they would be ousted. In comparison, taxi drivers and operators from other countries were also thinking of ways to stop private hire cars from sinking roots into their local markets. Some taxi drivers even had conflict with PHC drivers or went protesting on the streets. They did not think of a space where the two can co-exist. The only choice was to fight.
Compared to them, although our taxi drivers were also concerned, they did not create conflict and disturb our social order. Everyone has made huge effort, learn to adapt and use technology. This is our unique Singapore spirit. Things do not come easy. I hope we can cherish what we have today.
Today we can discuss in a very peaceful environment debate on this P2P legislation, we must thank our taxi drivers. They are very patient and adapt to market changes and challenges in a calm manner. They believe we can provide a good arrangement for them. In many industries, new technologies, funds worth of billions of dollars and the digital economy have brought about many new opportunities. To be successful, the mindset of workers are more important. Our taxi drivers have demonstrated resilience by overcoming the challenges, embracing new things and learning to take on technologies as opposed to fearing them. This attitude is worth encouraging. Today we also have taxi drivers in the gallery. This is the first time in Parliament. I hope in the subsequent debate today, we can give them a very positive response and give them some encouragement.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the first ride-hail operator I met was about six years ago in Singapore. The company was called Hailo. Subsequently, many came and left, even as I participated in many debate about its impact. Fast forward to today, we have over 40,000 private hire and 100,000 taxi drivers in Singapore.
Together they serve over 1.2 million daily trips, up from where we had only taxis which served a million trips a day.
Indeed, many livelihood and commuter convenience are dependent on how the industry operates and how the LTA regulate the sector. Once this regulation of point-to-point is in place, I hope it will lead to fair competition among the various types of point-to-point operators and ensure greater accountability to our drivers and commuters.
Who can be an operator moving forward? Currently, as we heard from Senior Minister of State Janil that only taxi operators are subjected to regulatory controls and we have previously called for and I am glad that the LTA will regulate the private hire operators as well.
Back when Uber suddenly left Singapore a year plus ago, many felt that the way that these ride-hailing firms operate made it very easy for them to exit and it also left drivers, commuters and their employees in a lurch. Nobody knew what happened because overnight they closed their office and all the senior management exited Singapore.
To avoid such negative outcomes, all street-hailing service and ride-hailing service operators should comply with the Tripartite Standards in managing self-employed persons. In some cities, Mr Speaker, regulators have considered treating these drivers as employees because, truth be told, many of them are tied to employee-like requirements. But I believe Singapore, again, has a better solution in that the Tripartite Standards set forth by MOM is a better option.
Today, many operators continue to unilaterally suspend drivers or offer contracts that say more about the obligations of drivers than what the obligations of the operators are. Indeed, fair and reasonable terms should be the norm of contracts moving forward.
Fortunately, our operators have also supported good schemes. There is the Enhanced Drive and Save Medisave co-contribution scheme offered by taxi operators together with the National Taxi Association for taxi drivers. There is also the free insurance offered by Grab and Gojek with the National Private Hire Vehicle Association to help drivers manage loss of income due to prolonged illness. These are good measures and show that our operators are indeed responsible ones.
Notwithstanding these initiatives, we recommend that all operators comply with the Tripartite Standards as part of the licensing requirements. This will not create new burden on the existing operators because they are already currently doing many of these good things. But we also want to ensure that new operators coming to Singapore in future comply with the same type of good practices.
Who can be a driver? Currently, to qualify as a private hire driver you only need to have two years of driving experience. So, technically, at age 20, you can be a private hire driver. In comparison, to drive a taxi you need to be at least 30 years old and above.
The argument that ride hailing caters to part-timers and those who avail their vehicles in a share-economy do not quite reflect reality. Instead, we have seen a surge in bidding of new cars by leasing companies and many drivers becoming full-time vocational drivers. Do we really want to see more young drivers doing this on a full-time basis, forgoing the opportunity to delve into a career, enlarging their skillset and going professional in the work they do or to take a low-entry barrier job like vocational drivers.
Currently, we have 20,000 taxis, 45,000 private hire cars plus 140,000 vocational drivers. The demand for such rides have slowed down since the exit of Uber. I recommend that all new applicants for private hire driver vocational licence to be similar as taxis and that they all be at least 30 years old and above and for Singaporeans only. We are not short local drivers, Mr Speaker.
What more can LTA do? They have done quite a fair bit but I am glad to hear today that they will be reviewing the Taxi Availability framework and the Quality of Service standards for taxi operators. With the current fleet of private hire vehicles exceeding more than twice the number of taxis, I am glad that the new standards will be reviewed and rationalised. I am also very happy to hear that the new regulatory framework will seek to prohibit driver exclusivity arrangements by all parties. This will disallow operators to prevent their drivers from taking jobs from others and reduce the risks of market domination by the operators. I am glad that LTA has supported our call for this change.
One last point with regards to operator is the car pool platform. LTA also needs to pay particular attention to possible abuse on the private hire carpool platforms. These are subjected to two trips a day where the driver is either on the way to work, to the market or somewhere else; and he gives somebody a ride in exchange for a small fee to cover fuel or ERP costs. These drivers need not possess a vocational licence. But because of no regulatory control in this market space, a driver could possibly join several platforms and take on multiple trips beyond the stipulated daily limits. This is the feedback we have heard from the taxi drivers as well as the private hire drivers that there is this potential loophole. If left unchecked, it would offer a back-door to those who not want to comply with the operator or driver licensing requirements.
With appropriate regulatory oversight, Mr Speaker, I hope we will be able to attract more new point-to-point operators to our local scene, drive new innovations to bring about better commuting experience for commuters and offers a sustainable career for drivers. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, point-to-point passenger transport acts as a key complement to our public rail and bus infrastructure. In times where speed, comfort, convenience or connectivity is desired, such point-to-point transportation helps to fill in the gaps that our rail and bus infrastructure may not be able to. However, the industry was not always able to bridge that gap and has led to ride-hailing, working on the principles of the sharing economy, to disrupt the market.
Yet, all disruptions to the market, given time, will become part of the new normal. Ride-hail, while bringing much-needed competition and innovation to the P2P transport space, has been regulated initially as a technology disruption, rather than a transportation alternative. The Bill before us today is not the first time MOT and LTA have sought to regulate such services, but this Bill is finally a proper recognition of the fact that ride-hail providers do play a big role in our transport eco-system and deserves to be regulated as such. I support the Bill, but I do have concerns surrounding the P2P transport landscape that I wish the Senior Minister of State can give clarity to.
Mr Speaker, currently, Grab is the dominant operator in the ride-hail transport industry, with upward to 80% of the market share at the time of the Infringement Decision by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) in 2018. Since then, it has had to operate under the terms set forth by the CCCS judgement. However, the CCCS judgement hinged on defining the provision of ride-hailing platforms, and crucially excluded street-hail providers.
Should this Bill pass, would the CCCS directions continue to be in force? Noting that the regulatory framework set forth is one of harmonising regulations between street-hail and ride-hail operators, will the Bill loosen the current restraints via redefining the market that Grab operates in as a P2P transport operator, rather than just a ride-hail platform? MOT and LTA should ensure that the constraints currently on Grab do not just loosen overnight as the potential for abusing its market position is still there. What measures will the Government be taking to prevent this?
On a related note, clauses 58, 59 and 60 of the Bill will allow PTC to regulate ride-hail service providers, notably on the issue of fares as well. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the regulation of such fares and its related standards will be determined. Will it be one aimed to make transparent the algorithms that power the fare structures, or will it be one that will institute hard rules such as surge pricing caps or standardising the fare per kilometre travelled? Ultimately, any fare regime must balance the needs of allowing drivers to earn a meaningful living, while the commuters themselves do not need to pay exorbitant prices especially during peak hours and times of stress in our public transport infrastructure.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also seeks to address various safety, welfare and privacy concerns by allowing LTA to issue Codes of Practices that will contain various requirements. This potentially includes, among others, the matters on the condition of vehicles, conduct of drivers, and measures to deal with customer complaints. While it may be reasonable to expect street-hail operators to follow existing taxi regulations, it is not clear how such Codes of Practices will look like for ride-hail operators. I hope the Senior Minister of State will provide some clarity to the House on this issue.
In the meantime, I would like to touch on three topics related to P2P transport that I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify on how they will tackle in the industry moving forward.
First, safety on the roads. Research by researchers from University of Chicago and Rice University on US transport cases has shown that the arrival of ride-hailing services have led to an increase in motor vehicle and fatal accidents. Preliminary data in Singapore from motor insurers indicate an increase in road accident rates since the debut of ride-hailing firms. I would like to ask some questions relating to safety.
One, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government is satisfied with the overall quality of private hire car drivers in respect of safe driving, knowledge competency, driving skills and considerateness while driving. Does the Senior Minister of State think that more can be done to improve the standards in these respects?
Two, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what measures will be taken to mitigate against the continuing risk of more accidents arising from private hire cars?
Next, a related issue or concern is that of child seats. Even as taxis do not need to carry child seats currently, private hire cars do need to have child seats for use when they have young children as passengers. In the consultation phase of these regulations, more than half support having child seats in all P2P vehicles including taxis. While I can appreciate that there may not be easy answers for the Government, there has to be some consistency in its policy-making. If child seats are deemed to be a safety necessity for children travelling in private hire cars, young children travelling in taxis without child seats are surely subject to the same hazardous risks.
Secondly, driver welfare. In other parts of the world, Uber drivers have gone on strike demanding better pay at the same time Uber went public. Even as companies here seem to be able to give drivers meaningful income, only the ride-hailing operators are clear whether their drivers are able to earn a liveable income while driving reasonable hours so as not to result in tired drivers endangering the lives of commuters and the public.
Crucially, drivers should also be able to earn a liveable and meaningful wage driving for ride-hail operators but with reasonable working hours. Does the Government have any comparative statistics of the average working hours and average income of our private hire car drivers vis-à-vis their counterparts in other first world cities?
In other words, are both the average hours they work each day as well as their daily income comparable with those of their counterparts in other first world cities? Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours, for example, more than eight or 10 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the drivers’ health and families? Would this issue be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations?
Finally, privacy concerns for passengers. Negative behaviour by passengers and drivers alike have made for regular headlines in recent times, spurred by the proliferation of smart devices, both handheld and in-car. However, as LTA allows for in-car video recording in 2018 and audio recording just last month, privacy concerns still remain. PDPA guidelines are still vague on the retention of such data, only noting that the data be no longer retained when it is no longer necessary for business or legal purposes. Would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the proposed code of practices will be specifying a time limit for video and audio recordings to be deleted so that the privacy of individuals can be safeguarded and what will such time limits be?
Next, there may also be a need to assess whether too many young adults may be lured by the promise of flexibility and wages they can gain from private car hire-driving as opposed to finding other employment. Does the Senior Minister of State have the data for private hire car drivers broken down by age? The concern here is that, career training wise, such young adult drivers, particularly those who do private-hire driving as a full-time occupation, may risk becoming obsolete with the possible advent of autonomous vehicles in perhaps the not too distant future.
If so, younger private-hire car drivers may find themselves unemployable earlier in their working life and would need to retrain. The Government may really need to encourage more pathways to skill up private hire car drivers as well.
I also want to speak on the impact that the operator-owned or -run private hire cars has on the value of COE premiums. Mr Speaker, COE prices saw an upsurge a few years ago when private hire cars were first introduced with Uber and Grab. With the departure of Uber, we saw the sharp drop in COE prices. With Gojek entering the market, the COE prices have picked up again earlier this year.
To be fair, such big players buying or leasing a big fleet of cars having a distortionary effect on the value of COE premiums is not new to private hire cars. Taxi operators were once bidding for COEs and they, too, had an undesirable impact on the COE prices.
When Uber departed, the end result was not pretty as well, as industry experts place the number of unused cars in the private-hire fleet at over 2,000. For our stated zero-car growth policy, having idle cars is a market failure.
This is also all rather unfair to individual car owners.
There has also been media reports of news or speculation that taxi companies may be allowed to bid for COEs again. I seriously hope that the Government is not entertaining this thought. It will certainly lead to an unwelcome spike in COE prices.
With such big players having the uneven power to distort COE prices, vehicles owned by or leased to all P2P passenger transport operators should be subject to a new category of COE so that these vehicles will not affect or drive COE pricing for current categories, to the detriment of private car owners. Alternatively, LTA should limit the fleet size of taxi and private-hire cars and ensure that all P2P passenger transport operators are not able to bid for COEs with other passenger cars.
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, although I support this Bill, I do have a few reservations.
First of all, in respect of our full-time Private Hire Car (PHC) drivers, I would like to ask the Minister whether the average working hours each day as well as their daily income are comparable with those of their counterparts in other first world cities. Are the incentives set by the operators causing drivers to work an unhealthy number of hours e.g. more than 8 hours? And if so, should we be concerned with the impact on the driver's health and families?
Apart from this, can the drivers' income be guaranteed? Will it be reasonable and meaningful? I would also like to know whether these concerns that I have mentioned above would be regulated in the Code of Practices or other regulations.
Secondly, will ride-hailing operators affect COE prices? A few years ago, when the ride-hailing service was introduced in Singapore, Uber and Grab entered the market and COE prices saw an upsurge. In the subsequent few years, COE prices continued to rise significantly. With the departure of Uber, COE prices fell sharply. When Gojek entered the ride-hailing market this year, COE prices rose once again. Such price fluctuations are not welcomed by private-car owners. I would like the Government to consider the following suggestions.
First of all, we should set up a different COE category for the ride-hailing companies. Second, we should limit the number of cars that can be owned by them. Third, we can consider not allowing the ride-hailing operators to directly bid for COEs with owners of other private cars.
(In English): I look forward to the Senior Minister of State’s clarifications. Notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as I am the CEO of the ComfortDelGro taxi business.
Six years after the first ride-hailing company entered Singapore, MOT has finally decided to regulate the ride-hailing sector more comprehensively. It is late but it is better to be late than never. One taxi company, SMART Taxi, exited the market in 2013, the same year Grab entered Singapore to grab a share of the P2P market.
China started to regulate the private hire car sector comprehensively in 2016, almost three years earlier than us. In the same year, 2016, OECD also published a paper on the regulation pertaining to the for-hire passenger transport. China’s regulations have stipulated clearly that they would like to have the co-existence of taxis and private hire cars (or PHCs). In London, licensed taxis decreased by a mere 1,000 from 2013 to 2017, while PHCs increased from 50,000 to 87,000 or a 74% increase.
In Singapore, the total taxi fleet has decreased from the height of 28,000 to 19,000 as of last month while the PHC fleet has increased from almost zero to 50,000, so maybe 50,000 times. When we compare Singapore’s situation with that of China and London, the contrast is significant. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOT has a view of the right mix of the number of registered taxis and PHCs. Or is MOT happy to allow market forces to determine the equilibrium mix of taxis and PHCs?
In determining the policy intention and direction, I would like to point out that there is a severe market imperfection in the Point-to-Point (P2P) passenger transportation industry. This is one of the reasons why the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) is still not removing the restrictions on the large ride-hail company.
On the regulation of fare. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier this year, Indonesia announced that it would regulate ride-hail fare, with a maximum and minimum fare. Interestingly, clause 59 of the current Bill, Part 5 of the Public Transport Council Act, is amended to allow PTC to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy that, amongst other things, fixes the components of ride-hail fares, specifying the factor or factors to be applied, which is more commonly referred to as surge pricing; and fixes a maximum or minimum price or price range.
Very often, ride-hail passengers are irritated by surge pricing where the fare can surge by 100%, 200% or more whenever there is a shortage of vehicles or there is a sudden surge of demand. Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the P2P Bill that proposes to impose a ride-hail fare pricing policy is a signal that the authority is ready to regulate ride-hail fare or is it a mere provision to regulate the ride-hail fare in the future that is far, far away.
On the qualification of drivers. Both taxi and PHC drivers send passengers from point A to point B and, yet, it is easier to be a PHC driver than a taxi driver. Why? Does MOT have the intention to enlarge the supply of PHC drivers and shrink the supply of taxi drivers?
Let me illustrate why it is easier to become a PHC driver. First, PHC drivers can be as young as 21 years old while the minimum age to qualify as a taxi driver is 30 years old. PHC drivers only need to pass a one-day course but taxi drivers need to pass a two-day course. PHC drivers can be either a Singaporean or Permanent Resident, although PR needs to work as a chauffeured-service driver. On the other hand, a taxi driver must be a Singaporean and no PR is allowed. There is a historical reason why taxi drivers need to be 30 years old and above. I suppose the same logic applies to PHC drivers unless MOT thinks that the PHC drivers are a totally different category as compared to taxi drivers.
The collection of data. We note that under clause 30, LTA is empowered to issue one or more codes of practice to street-hail and ride-hail operators. Currently, taxi companies – or in the future, renamed as street-hail operators – have to provide trip data to LTA in real time. I would like to ask if LTA intends to require ride-hail companies to also provide real-time trip data to LTA? If so, the real-time trip data would enable LTA to better analyse the overall travel pattern of all passengers using P2P transport providers. Such real-time data can also assist LTA and users of P2P services in the following ways.
One, when a passenger loses an item in a bookable vehicle, as defined in clause 4 of the Bill, LTA can help to locate the lost item in the PHC or taxi in real time. This piece of work is best undertaken by LTA as a bookable vehicle is able to take booking jobs from different ride-hailing platforms and different operators within a single day or even within a single hour.
Two, LTA can better identify the appropriate ride-hail operator when the driver has committed an offence or met with an accident.
On the sandbox regulation. Under clause 5b, it is stated that one of the purposes of the Bill is to enable development and operation of innovative and accessible point-to-point passenger transport services which contribute to the mobility and safety of people in Singapore. Thus, it is understandable that clauses 24 to 26 under Part 4 of the Bill allow LTA to exempt a ride-hail operator from applying for a licence, especially if it is an aggregator of a few ride-hail services like what Google is doing. I understand these clauses are meant to encourage innovation and thus the provision of a sandbox regulation. However, I notice that a similar provision for sandbox regulation is not provided under Part 3 of the Bill for street-hail services. Does MOT think that street-hail services cannot innovate?
I have a case in hand whereby a start-up named \"Vouch\" would like to refer taxi services provided by existing taxi operators to hotel concierge through a chatbot. Such service is similar to that provided by Google where it aggregates ride-hail services from a few ride-hail operators and Google is exempted from applying for a ride-hail licence under sandbox regulation. Apparently, the said start-up Vouch is required to apply for a third-party taxi licence but not Google. Why the discrepancy?
On fare evasion. Clause 59 of the Bill seeks to amend the Public Transport Council (PTC) Act, which spells out an offence of non-payment of ride-hail or street-hail fare under section 24D of the PTC Act. This is timely. Many passengers choose to pay the ride-hail fare by cashless mode, especially by way of credit or debit card. Unfortunately, many debit card users attempt to pay the ride-hail fare even though there is insufficient fund in their bank accounts. They get away with non-payment of the ride-hail fares as banks can only verify their bank balances after they have left the vehicles. Attempts by the ride-hail operators to recover the fare often drew a blank. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOT could consider refusal by debit card users to pay the ride-hail fare because they have insufficient funds in their bank accounts to be considered a form of fare evasion? If so, it will serve as a strong deterrent for those who want to cheat the fare.
Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers have been troubled by the private hire cars (PHCs) for many years. The private hire cars, are essentially pirate taxis in disguise when they first entered the market. They are unrestrained and not regulated by LTA. With the growing number of PHCs, LTA is finally introducing this Bill to regulate ride-hailing service operators. It is unwise and risky not to regulate PHCs. This Bill comes late but it is better late than never.
I have been a Member of Parliament for more than eight years. Many residents, including taxi drivers, approach me to appeal for waiver of their traffic offences. Residents typically see me to appeal to waive one or two traffic offences. However, it is not uncommon for PHC drivers to see me to appeal for more than 10 traffic offences, a reflection of PHCs' traits in their early days.
At the same time, many residents have also told me that private hire car drivers often use their fingers to fiddle with GPS on their phones while driving. In addition, they often make sudden turns in order to follow GPS instructions, endangering themselves, passengers and other road users. I hope that this Bill will allow LTA to have better oversight over PHC's safety and safety of passenger and other road users. It is also essential for LTA to treat taxi drivers and PHC drivers equally.
When I read Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, I discover that MOT seems to be imposing the current regulations governing taxi operators on ride-hail service operators. On the surface, LTA appears to level the playing field. Unfortunately, it is not the case. For example, Clause 30(2)(i) stipulates the Quality of Service that taxi operators have to meet. Likewise, clause 30 2(i) also requires ride-hail service operator to meet a set of service standards. When pressed by the operators, LTA appears to have no intention to require the ride-hail service (PHC) operators to meet the same service standards as the street-hail service (taxi) operators.
Meanwhile, I would like to know whether MOT has the intention of asking PTC to set a maximum and minimum fares for the ride-hail service operators? PHC passengers are often annoyed by the surge pricing. I hope that LTA can do something about this.
In addition, I will like to appeal to MOT to spell out clearly what are the regulations that will be implemented in the near future, and what are the clauses in the bill that are mere provisions to be implemented much later or during an emergency. Otherwise, the bill may give an impression that it is more form than substance.
Taxi drivers have been serving Singaporeans and Singapore for the past 54 years since our independence. They are unsung heroes. When this bill becomes an act, I hope that taxi drivers will continue to survive; continue to serve our nation, and will not be diminished to a mere historical figure.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill is an important step to regulate the ride-hail industry which has grown very big. While I support the Bill, I hope MOT can help to address the above irregularities.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.03 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Mr Speaker, earlier, I forgot to declare my interest as the Adviser to the National Taxi Association and the Adviser to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. And I have a clarification I would like to seek from Mr Dennis Tan on his comment in Mandarin, if I may.
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: In Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Earlier on, Mr Tan mentioned that in terms of the working hours and the salary of the drivers. That is his concern. So, I am just wondering whether he is equally concerned about the working hours and the income of our taxi drivers. And, is he proposing to limit the working hours of the drivers or to increase the fare, in other words, is he looking at increasing the taxi fares so that the taxi drivers will enjoy higher income or is he proposing to our operators to cut down the fuel charge or to cut down the ERP fares in order to allow our taxi drivers to enjoy higher income without reducing their working hours?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: My concern would be the same for whether it is the taxi drivers or the private hire car drivers. It is a concern that I have for the industry.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Okay. Sorry. I shall, therefore, revert to English since the reply is in English. The point I was trying to make was, yes, we are all concerned about the hours you put on the road and the pressure you face on the road. The issue then is: do you, therefore, seek to ask that we reduce the hours and, therefore, you want to balance the cost by reducing the car rental or by increasing the fees that the commuters pay for each ride they take so that the drivers need not work such long hours on the road?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I am raising the issue for the Senior Minister of State to discuss with the industry. So, I am not making a proposal as such.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio)(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I welcome this new Bill. I have been waiting for the Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill for a long time. I think it is necessary to harmonise the regulations of taxi and private-hire car operators in order to create a more level playing field and provide safer and more satisfactory passenger services. We should review and harmonise the market as existing taxi operators are exempted from COE bidding while ride-hail operators need to bid for COE.
We should welcome more industry players to the industry and offer incentives to both drivers and customers. We should take note that the operators have provided incentives to encourage drivers to attend to commuters' need during non-peak hours. Has any customer satisfaction survey been done for different age groups and different types of customers, such as those who are IT-savvy and those who are not?
Henceforth, under LTA's new licensing framework, two types of licences will be issued, which will be according to street-hail service or ride-hail service, and the fees for both services will be regulated by the Public Transport Council (PTC). I am sure passengers welcome these new regulations. With the PTC regulating the fares, the way fares are calculated and the range of charges, particularly the dynamic billing introduced during peak periods, will be more transparent and give passengers greater peace of mind. Bear in mind that we need to balance the conflicting needs between drivers who hope for higher income and customers who hope for lower fares.
I propose that a new definition of the private chauffeur services be provided within the new framework in order to clearly distinguish it from the ride-hail services.
I would like to ask the Minister how many drivers have Taxi Driver Vocational Licences, how many have Private Hire Car Driver Vocational Licences, and how many have both?
Does the Government also have the number of drivers working for each operator and the number of drivers who work in each band, for example, 24 to 30 hours, 31 to 40 hours, 41 to 50 hours and so forth? What employment benefits and security do these drivers enjoy such MediSave and MediShield Life?
I suggest that only Singaporeans are allowed to be licensed drivers. I hope that the Ministry will consider my suggestions I have just made. I support this Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Point-to-Point Transport sector Bill regulates both taxi and ride-hailing industry operators, treating them as a single point-to-point transport sector. Notable provisions include the requirement for all providers to be licensed and the prohibition of driver exclusivity arrangements. On the whole, the provisions of this Bill are a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it.
I have a few clarifications to seek and suggestions to make.
Firstly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about competition policy in relation to the P2P sector and, in particular, whether the CCCS infringement decision in 2018 would still apply after this Bill is passed.
I note that within the PHC sector Grab currently has a market share that has been estimated at approximately 80% last year. This kind of market concentration is unhealthy and would allow the vendor to have an unusually high degree of bargaining power vis-à-vis both commuters and drivers. I understand other players are present and ramping up such as Gojek, for example.
Can the Government provide an update on two questions?
Firstly, what is being done to interest more players, or to support local start-ups, to enter the PHC space to increase competition?
Secondly, in relation to the sale of Uber's Southeast Asian business to Grab in 2018 which was a subject to the Competition Commission's infringement decision, what steps will be taken to minimise the possibility of a large concentration of market share arising in future as a result of M&A deals and against sound competition policy setting considerations?
The CCCS infringement decision about the Grab-Uber case from 2018 stated \"CCCS has examined internal documents of the parties and found that Uber would not have left the Singapore market by simply terminating its business if the transaction had not taken place. Instead, Uber would have continued its operations in Singapore while exploring other strategic commercial options, such as collaboration with another market player or a sale to an alternative buyer. The transaction has removed Grab's closest competitor and ride-hailing platform services, namely, Uber. CCCS has received numerous complaints from both riders and drivers on the increase in effective fares and commissions by Grab post-Transactions.\"
In 2018, I filed a Parliamentary Question on the matter of relative merits of a mandatory notification regime for m&a deals which is practised in the EU, USA, Vietnam and the Philippines for deals above certain specified thresholds, versus Singapore's current voluntary notification regime where some variant is practised in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. As part of his reply, at that time, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Tan Wu Meng said, \"On the other hand, under a mandatory notification regime, all merging parties that cross pre-determined notification thresholds have to notify the Competition authority regardless if there are competition issues or not. This imposes compliance costs in businesses and may impede common place market activities. It also requires larger commitment on the Competition authority's resources to ensure that all mergers that cross the notification thresholds are duly notified, and to review these mergers.\"
I acknowledge that this discussion touches on general competition policy rather than the P2P per se, but in the context of this Bill and in the light of what happened when Uber sold its assets to Grab in 2018, I would nonetheless like to ask if there will be consideration of measures to prevent a recurrence of a similar outcome.
Major market changing M&A deals do not occur all the time and huge changes in market share are not necessarily extremely difficult to measure. Compliance costs related to pre-approving major M&A deals may not be unduly high on the part of either the business sector or the regulator. A mandatory approval regime does not appear to have deterred M&A transactions in the USA and the EU.
Next, the Bill gives the PTC the power to regulate and set pricing policies for ride-hail services for the first time. In this context, I would like to ask if the regulatory regime for all P2P services will continue to require there to be fixed pricing options available to commuters, within the P2P eco-system, in addition to dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing efficiently matches demand and supply, going by classical economic considerations. However, notwithstanding the means-tested Persons with Disabilities (PWD) taxi subsidy scheme, a fixed pricing option on offer within the P2P industry eco-system is still of value to lower income persons who may have ambulatory problems, for example, PWDs. One could argue that dynamic pricing can address all needs, as those with greater price sensitivity can wait for the dynamic prices to fall. However, a fixed price option provides greater assurance and peace of mind to those who really need it, even if it is associated with longer wait times.
Lastly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the future advent of autonomous vehicles and how this might lead to the obsolescence of the skills acquired by P2P transport drivers. Has the Government given some thought to this? Will the Government consider working closely with the driver community such that when autonomous vehicles are about to be phased in, drivers are notified ahead of time and given some runway and facilitation to reskill and move to a different industry if they choose to do so?
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as a Director of the Singapore Taxi Academy.
Sir, taxis, like housing and education, are an evergreen topic in this House. Taxis were debated on 750 separate occasions since the Legislative Assembly first sat in 1955. A basic question – which we are debating today – is whether and to what extent taxi services should be subject to regulation. In the early years after Independence, the poor quality of our public bus services, combined with restrictions on the number of taxis, led to huge demand for pirate taxis. When the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Motor Transport Service of Singapore was tabled in 1970, there were only 3,800 licensed taxi cabs, but an estimated 7,000 or more pirate taxis in service. The question then: what to do with them?
Mr Yong Nyuk Lin, then Minister for Communications, stated in Parliament on 9 April 1969, and I quote: “I agree that pirate taxis, though running illegally, are performing a form of social function in providing an element of public transport service. But they are performing this function at the expense of the law-abiding licensed taxis and the bus companies. They are able to operate at a much lower cost because they pay less tax, incur very little maintenance expenditure and pay no insurance cover for passenger liability. Thus, they offer an unhealthy type of competition to the licensed operators which is harmful to our long-term planning for an improved public transport service in Singapore.”
Sir, the basic regulatory questions are the same then as now. The 1970 White Paper put an end to pirate taxis, added thousands of licensed taxi cabs and helped create the Worker’s Transport Co-Operative, the forerunner of Comfort Taxi.
The recent changes to our taxi industry have been just as dramatic. In 2014, before the private hire platforms started offering transport services, the taxi population stood at 28,736 vehicles. Private hire chauffeured cars stood at 1,609. By 2018, the taxi population fell to 20,581 vehicles but the number of private hire chauffeured cars rose to 45,342. We have had a two-fold increase in point-to-point hire vehicles in just a few years.
Sir, we know the reasons for this rapid growth. Commuters complained in the early 2010s about the quality and availability of taxi services, especially during peak hours. There was pent-up demand for point-to-point transport that was not being met by the incumbent taxi industry. Private hire platforms such as Grab and Uber stepped in. First they provided third-party booking services for taxis. Then, they introduced private hire rides, which were quickly embraced by Singaporeans. In the recently released Household Expenditure Survey 2017/2018, private hire services now account for 38 cents out of every dollar spent on point-to-point transport services.
What led to such disruptive change in our point-to-point transport systems? We should acknowledge that these private hire platforms used investor financing to operate at a loss to grow rapidly, subsidising cars, drivers and commuters alike. Some growth was unsustainable. But the problem of unmet demand for P2P transport was caused at least in part by regulation. For decades, our taxi services have been subject to strict regulation. This is not a bad thing by itself. Visitors to Singapore are impressed by our high quality, clean and safe taxi cabs who strictly charge by the meter. We should not take this for granted. Singaporeans who travel know that in some other cities, you are putting your life and wallet at risk when taking taxis.
But a long era under regulation often leads to excessive caution and perhaps even complacency, by both the regulator and the regulated industry. Under regulation, our taxi services were not able to meet demand because they did not increase fleet size rapidly enough, did not address difficulties in booking taxis and did not innovate in fares and service offerings.
It is not fair for me to speculate on whether responsibility lies at the feet of regulators, versus the regulated. But it is clear that point-to-point transport regulation must have a holistic objective. I commend this Bill for specifying in the primary legislation that regulation should achieve not just the traditional goals of quality, safety and reliability, but also efficiency, innovation, social impact and sustainability, as part of the broader urban transport system.
I think reasonable people will agree with these broad objectives. The question lies in what these objectives mean in practice and what regulators will do with the considerable powers afforded by this Bill. Regulators will have the power to control fares, vehicle and driver quantity, driver contracting, quality of service and licence ownership – in short, nearly all substantive aspects of the P2P system. It mandates that P2P firms provide Government with unprecedented access to data on key competitive aspects including ride data, prices charged, and potentially, the algorithms that determine fares and matching.
So, I hope the Ministry will discuss in detail the objectives of regulatory policy and how they shall be measured. Clarity is especially important because these regulations, when enforced, will affect not only all commuters, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of drivers, and billions of dollars of investments. The teeth of these regulations are in section 35 which authorises LTA to revoke a licence, or levy a penalty that could be up to 10% of annual turnover or $100,000, for specified lapses. Consider that section 35(1)(d) allows LTA to take action if the licensee fails to provide, and I quote, “adequate and satisfactory street-hail or ride-hail service”. This seems to be difficult to enforce without a policy statement setting out what is in fact adequate and satisfactory and what are the specific benchmarks.
Let me state what I think is the central question of point-to-point regulation policy. It is how to trade off efficiency and equity. A completely efficient system may not be fair, and a completely fair system may be slow, unreliable and costly. The network economies of point-to-point ride-hailing platforms, and the use of advanced pricing algorithms based on big data, inherently generate this trade-off, or at least, they create substantial risks that efficiency gains will be exploited by platforms at the expense of other stakeholders.
Before I touch on efficiency, let me first touch on equity. I think most commuters in Singapore will wonder what is so unfair about taxi and ride-hailing services, grumbles about surge pricing aside. But that is because we enforce certain basic principles of service.
For example, we enforce the cab-rank rule: commuters and taxis, must be served in the order they start queuing. We enforce universal service: for-hire drivers cannot refuse to take a passenger to their destination. We enforce metered fares: drivers cannot overcharge. These are not principles unique to Singapore, but I daresay we are better than most in enforcing them for the benefit of all.
Let me point out a different transport market where many of these principles are thrown to the wind – the market for air travel. Airlines are generally free to price services. Freedom in pricing is efficient. Those who want to fly and who can pay more, get their seats. Airlines respond to profit by scheduling more or fewer flights. But airline tickets are often priced and sold in ways that can seem unfair. The same flight from A to B costs a different amount depending on when you bought it, which connection you are taking, whether you are a frequent flyer or not. Some price differences are justified by differences in costs. Others are price discrimination. Airlines do their best to charge different customers the most they can, for exactly the same service.
These pricing principles can be readily applied to P2P markets. A ride-hailing provider can prioritise favoured commuters and give them shorter wait times. A commuter who is price sensitive could be given larger discounts, which means that less price sensitive commuters pay higher fares. Fares today treat each trip in isolation, but trips are part of a network. An efficient fare might mean that you should pay more if your driver has to reposition after completing your trip.
Sir, I think we must decide as a society what types of innovations in pricing we are prepared to accept and which we consider inequitable.
Now, let me touch on efficiency, which is less straightforward than it seems. Efficiency in a narrow sense means satisfying transport demand using as few real resources – cars, drivers, time and money – as possible. In the broader sense, efficiency means integrating P2P travel into the public transport network so that our overall demand for urban travel is satisfied at the least cost.
What is often mistaken for efficiency, but is in fact not efficiency? Low prices, unfortunately, are not a direct gauge of efficiency. A P2P trip can be very cheap but inefficient if it discourages commuters from taking the MRT which parallels the route. A low price is not efficient if it is subsidised, or if it is because regulations on public safety are being evaded. Nor is quantity or availability a measure of efficiency. Commuters enjoy having a full taxi rank, or short booking times, but this is hardly efficient if taxis are sitting idle at the taxi stand, or if many drivers are cruising empty looking for fares.
One central reason why there is a trade-off between efficiency and equity, is that ride-hailing platforms have network economies. The larger they get, the more commuters and drivers they have, the more efficient they become, because the chance of finding a good match goes up. But of course, when they are large, they also have more market power over both commuters and drivers.
In a paper \"Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber\" published in the American Economic Review in 2016, Cramer and Krueger find that in the US, private-hire cars are 38% more utilised than traditional taxis. This gain is because ride-hailing software makes matching faster and more efficient; traditional taxis in the US have to cruise for commuters or be dispatched by phone call. This increase in productivity means that fares could be 28% less and driver hourly earnings would be the same.
So, the matching system is important. In a paper \"Frictions in a Competitive, Regulated Market: Evidence from Taxis\" published in the American Economic Review in 2019, Frechette et al model the New York City taxi market, which is entirely street-hail. They show that a perfect ride-hailing matching system would increase trips and reduce wait times, by about 13%. But they also show that if the market is segmented between street-hail and ride-hail, then outcomes are negative – wait times go up, trips go down.
These studies show that network size, which is achieved through market concentration, leads to efficiency. The problem is that a large ride-hailing platform is efficient but has inherent market power. While commuters may grumble about high prices, they are willing to pay if they can get fast and reliable P2P services. In \"Using Big Data to Estimate Consumer Surplus: The Case of Uber\", published as an NBER working paper in 2016, Cohen et al find that commuters on Uber are very price inelastic – they still book rides even when surge prices rise. An 8% increase in fares, for example, only leads to a 3% reduction in bookings. That is important because it suggests ride-hailing platforms have considerable room to raise prices.
The ability of a large platform to raise prices has already been demonstrated at home. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore fined Grab and Uber $13 million because their merger in 2018 led to a substantial lessening of competition. Effective fares went up between 10% to 15% after the merger, largely through the withdrawal of discounts.
Taken together, the evidence is clear. To harness the efficiency gains of technology and network economies, ride-hailing platforms need the largest possible reach. But when they have such reach, they have great market power and they can abuse this in ways that can be hard to detect. As more of our P2P network gets converted to ride-hailing, our street-hailing network becomes less dense and hence less efficient.
I think our regulatory policy cannot ignore these economic principles. A policy should be developed that aims to maximise the efficiency benefits of P2P transport services, while protecting commuters and drivers against the market power of these platforms. I have a few suggestions for policy principles.
The first principle I suggest is harmonisation of the Codes of Practice and other aspects of regulation, to ensure that street-hail and ride-hail licensees are treated as evenly as possible, to ensure that competition across licensees for drivers and commuters is as active and innovative as possible. The standards of service and quality across street-hail and ride-hail licensees should be harmonised. Segmentation of these markets along any dimension is likely to lessen the intensity of competition. One issue concerns child seats, which are required in private-hire vehicles but not in taxis. Harmonisation that aims for a common high standard of safety will ensure that the relevant market and the intensity of competition, will be as high as possible.
The same harmonisation process should apply to how prices and quantity are regulated, with the aim of allowing both street hail and ride-hailing licensees to enjoy maximum flexibility subject only to restrictions to protect the public interest. Under this Bill, taxis will continue to face restrictions on fleet size that private hire vehicles are not subject to. When combined with the fact that taxis cannot be readily converted to non-taxi use, this means that taxi fleets are inherently less adaptable. This handicaps street-hail licensees.
However, ride-hailing licensees are also subject to regulation on the quantity of drivers.
The problem is, having a driver on your platform does not equal having a driver available for service – some drivers are committed to driving for a given platform, but many more are casual drivers who switch platforms rapidly. I urge the Government to engage the industry with a view to ensuring that price and quantity regulation is used only as a last resort, to protect the public against abuses of market power, and not as a means of creating unnecessary differentiation between licensees.
The second principle I suggest is to develop a stated policy for guiding the industry to maximise the efficiency benefits of network size, while minimising the potential for abuse of market power. Every major platform aims to maximise the size of their driver and commuter network while creating barriers to entry for competitors. To counteract this, drivers and commuters must face minimal or no barriers to switching between platforms. While the Government already aims to eliminate driver exclusivity contracts, we should consider if it is possible to go further, by facilitating multi-homing – that is, having drivers and commuters match through many platforms at once, rather than one platform at a time.
It is possible that the efficiency benefits of network size are so large, that we will end up with a monopoly or dominant platform facing little competition. The taxi industry was characterised by a dominant player for many years. It is important for the Ministry to clarify how competition issues will be regulated, given that both the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and the Ministry of Transport have responsibility over the sector.
Finally, on emerging issues. The presumption is that the dominant ride-hailing platforms will continue to be well-organised and identifiable, allowing for regulatory levers to shape behaviour. But there are innovations that blur the line. There are decentralised booking systems, such as those based on blockchain, or those which run through social networks or messaging apps, that do not fall neatly within the ambit of this Bill. There are services which claim not to operate for profit, such as social car pooling, and which thus appear to fall outside the ambit. And there are third parties linked to the industry, such as private-hire car rental companies, which appear to fall outside the ambit if they are nominally independent of the platforms.
I do not expect that we will be able to answer all these questions today. But these are issues that our regulators will have to grapple with in the years ahead.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is a bold piece of legislation that will be closely watched by cities worldwide, struggling to regulate the rapid growth of ride-hailing. But while this legislation is comprehensive, the real test lies in how LTA will use these powers to wisely regulate the industry. This Bill gives regulators a broad set of tools. It is up to the Government to decide if the industry will be shaped by a hammer or a chisel. I support this Bill.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare at the outset that I sit on the Public Transport Council. However, my views expressed today are my own, based on interaction with some residents and feedback I received.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
This Bill is intended to regulate the provision of point-to-point passenger transport services in Singapore. The point-to-point passenger transport services, including the street-hail and ride-hail services, form an important part of the transport services in Singapore. I am not sure about other families, but I recall that when I was younger, taking a taxi was a luxury and you would only do so when you really needed to get somewhere fast or had a lot of things to carry. Private hire vehicles were not always accessible to the masses. Now, it is more commonplace to see people using point-to-point transport services, especially with the entry and proliferation of the private hire vehicles in the sector. It therefore becomes imperative to have proper rules regulating the sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to convey some of the views that I have received from some drivers, especially from private hire vehicles. There is some anxiety from among the drivers about what this new Bill and further regulations would bring. I believe in this respect, there may be concerns with regards to what sections 30 and 31 of this draft Bill would mean to the drivers. Some of my residents are private hire drivers and have shared some challenges they face dealing with competition and with customers. In a conversation with one resident, he shared his concerns about the impact of further rules especially on penalties that may affect the income he eventually brings home. I have also received feedback calling for parity and fairness to the drivers, in making rules regulating this sector.
In this regard, there are some specific anecdotes that I would like to share. I am told that currently, private hire drivers enter additional fares, such as ERP, manually into the eventual charge to the passenger. Someone shared that some drivers include extra additional fares to the actual fare without the passenger knowing. This is especially the case, when the passenger make the driver wait quite long and the driver arbitrarily charges the passenger for \"waiting time\". This does not seem right but some drivers feel that the \"waiting penalty\" is fair because they say that very often, passengers will book way in advance and have the drivers wait for them at the passengers' convenience. Sometimes, the wait can be up to 15 minutes. Besides lowering their potential income, they may also incur fines if they are waiting in a no parking area in the Central Business District.
There was also a feedback on the fare start and stop for private-hire drivers or the ride-hail services. For taxis, the fare starts when drivers hit the start button on the meter and stop when drivers stop the meter. However, the point at which the fare starts is not clear for private hire drivers. An example given by a private hire driver is that a passenger made the driver drive all the way up seven storeys in an industrial park building to reach the exact unit. Because of the large size of the building, it may take close to 10 minutes to reach the top of the building. This is even as the destination was supposed to be arrival foyer of the building itself.
Drivers also said that surge-pricing is a good mechanism as it does encourage drivers to come out and drive when the supply of drivers on the road is low. This really does improve service levels. Drivers are notified of higher prices and are \"activated\" and motivated to drive. However, some drivers wish to get more clarity on how much of the fare actually goes to the drivers and how much just goes to the companies or operators.
These are some examples but the point is that drivers are asking for some fairness as authorities set rules to regulate conduct with passengers and the business operations.
Other points relating to regulations include whether we want to regulate cancellation policies as well. I am informed that some operators may not charge cancellation charges. Further, even though passengers are charged a certain penalty fee for cancelling on the drivers, what are the rules for drivers cancelling on passengers? Are we looking at specific rules to regulate these issues?
On passenger safety, I would like to ask if there a need to regulate and enforce a certain standard for reporting of emergency situations during rides. Currently, ride-hailing apps have emergency buttons. However, are there standard operating procedures that the companies adhere to upon receiving the report and whether there is also a need to regulate such SOPs?
In conclusion, I believe we can all agree that, over the years, there have been some improvements in the point-to-point passenger transport service sector especially with the ride hailing apps. The improvements have indeed raised convenience and service levels of such transport services in Singapore. We should encourage continued innovation on this front. I appreciate that we do need to strike the balance between regulation and allowing for some space for the sector to grow. I believe it is important to continue to share and engage drivers and operators to improve this sector.
Notwithstanding the inputs I gave above, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I welcome the proposed initiatives to level the playing field and make the industry more contestable. Both consumers and drivers stand to benefit from more clarity and uniformity in how the rules are applied for street-hail and ride-hail services.
I would like to raise some clarifications and also some recommendations.
I welcome the introduction of code of practices across the industry. Standardisation is welcomed as it levels the playing field. I would like to query about LTA’s process of drafting these codes of practices and to stress the importance of having an inclusive and consultative process.
Can the Ministry shed light on the process of developing the codes of practice? While sections 30(2), 30(3), and 30(4) suggest some possible areas that the codes of practice might cover, we do not know how specific or prescriptive the codes will be.
I hope that LTA will conduct thorough stakeholder consultation when drafting these codes. It is important to engage key stakeholders, such as industry partners, in the consultation process to ensure that the codes of practice do not hinder innovation and market forces.
Next, in line with the aim of the Bill to safeguard consumer interest, I hope we can adopt international best practices of having an emergency alarm service button in the vehicle and tracking real-time locations. This is a feature that is already available for some ride-hail services through the mobile application. For instance, Grab riders are able to request assistance or notify up to three emergency contacts with an in-app Emergency button. Riders who tap on the button will receive a call from a security company and unanswered calls may be escalated to the Police. Leading ride-hailing platforms such as Uber also have them.
We can make 24/7 emergency alarm service buttons, which are linked to local authorities mandatory for all point-to-point passenger services. This could be a feature available to both drivers and passengers in the event they face a security threat. Will the Ministry consider piloting this feature for some street-hail and ride-hail services?
I also recommend that we require both street-hail and ride-hail services to have child safety seats, as many Members have previously stated as well. It is currently illegal for private cars, including ride-hail services, to ferry children under 1.35 metres without a child restraint appropriate for the child’s height and weight, a booster seat to supplement the seat belt, or an approved adjustable seat belt. Oddly, the street-hail services are exempt from this requirement.
Sir, a Toyota Vios is a Toyota Vios, regardless of whether it is registered as a street-hail service or ride-hail service. This inconsistency in application of the law is not in the interest of the child. Why should there be a compromise on child safety for street-hail? From a safety perspective, there should be equal treatment across the board. Will the Ministry consider harmonising this requirement for both street-hail and ride-hail services?
Lastly, while I agree that it is necessary for the PTC to have oversight of prices, it is important not to overreach. The Bill gives the PTC the discretion to set a pricing policy for fares charged by ride-hailing operators. I would like to clarify when and under what conditions PTC will step in to regulate. What are their considerations and guiding principles of how they will regulate ride-hail services? What are the limits to the powers of the PTC in relation to ride-hail services?
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill proposes a new regulatory framework based on how passengers access the vehicles – by hailing on the street or booking via a call centre or online app. This is a move in the right direction. By issuing two operating licences, one for street-hail and one for ride-hail, the Ministry will be able to ensure more consistent application of regulations covering all point-to-point services in Singapore.
This is an improvement from our current framework that regulates taxi operators, which provide both street-hail and ride-hail services, but handles the ride-hail service sector with a very light touch. As a result, service delivery standards are largely left to the ride-hail companies. Since both taxis and private-hire cars serve members of the public, I am glad to note that this inconsistency will be rectified with the new legislation.
An article titled \"Disruption\" in this year's 28 January issue of Bloomberg Businessweek described an accident involving a Grab vehicle in Singapore. The writer asked, \"Was it possible, for all the convenience ride-hailing services offered, they were making cities less safe?\" This is a pertinent question. Most private-hire drivers work part-time and many are more dependent on GPS assistance compared to taxi drivers. Even their vehicles may be unfamiliar if they are rented, unlike taxi drivers who also lease, but usually operate the same or a similar vehicle. This combination of factors makes them more vulnerable to traffic accidents.
Passengers want certain standards, especially for safety, driving competence and route knowledge. The new rules are intended to provide greater regulatory oversight for the protection and safety of commuters and drivers. I urge the Ministry to empower LTA to obtain all the necessary data from all service providers to inform and update its regulations for greater protection of passengers.
As for private hire drivers, we must ensure that they are in good health and mental condition to drive safely and competently, just as we expect from taxi drivers. I would like to ask the Minister about measures to require private hire drivers to go for regular health screening and driver training.
Next, I would like to express my support for the proposal to empower the Public Transport Council to regulate fares set by ride-hailing operators. This will provide greater assurance to passengers, many of whom have expressed concerns over dynamic pricing. While I agree that there should be leeway to allow fares to fluctuate based on demand, I feel that there should be upper limits set to protect the interests of commuters. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I would like to express my support for the proposal to empower the Public Transport Council (PTC) to regulate fares set by ride-hailing operators. This will provide greater assurance to passengers, many of whom have expressed concerns over dynamic pricing. While I agree that there should be leeway to allow fares to fluctuate based on demand, I feel there should also be upper limits set to protect the interests of commuters.
(In English): Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill. Thank you.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the objectives of this Bill is to ensure that we have sufficient regulatory oversight to protect the safety and interests of commuters and drivers. Back in February 2017, I spoke in this House on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. I highlighted how the entry of private hire car operators such as Grab and Uber have led to a seismic shift in commuter behaviour, as well as many people opting to become freelance private hire car drivers.
Previously, while the taxi industry comes under much regulations, there is limited regulations for the private hire car point-to-point passenger transport sector. Only the drivers and the vehicles come under some form of regulations but the main service providers, such as Grab, which provides the platform, is not regulated.
In a sense, this Bill seeks to level the playing field between taxis and private hire cars.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, one area which I noticed the rules are still very unevenly applied is the required age and driving experience of the drivers. To apply for a Taxi Driver’s Vocational Licence, one must be at least 30 years old at point of application. Assuming a person passed his driving test soon after turning 18, a taxi driver would have at least 10 years of driving experience.
On the other hand, someone applying for a private hire car driver’s vocational licence only need to have held his driving licence for two years. Assuming the driver takes his driving test soon after turning 18, a private hire car driver may not even be 21 years old. Moreover, having obtained a driving licence for more than two years is not the same as having two years of driving experience.
So, now, we have a situation where we would not trust a 20-year-old to act wisely when voting, but he is trusted to ferry our children and loved ones from point to point in a private hire car.
Sir, it is of paramount importance that we try to keep our roads as safe as possible. I would like to ask the Minister for Transport what are the accident rates between taxis and private hire cars as a percentage of fleet size as well as distance covered.
Anecdotally, I see a lot of private hire car drivers that drive at excessive speeds and not following basic road manners. I suppose this might be related to the relatively young age of the drivers as well as lack of maturity. Older and more experienced drivers who have experienced one or two minor accidents would have learnt to be more patient on the roads.
Sir, I would like to propose a few suggestions for the Minister to consider.
First, to introduce an age requirement of 25 years for private hire car drivers. Existing private hire car drivers who are below the age of 25 may continue to drive.
My second suggestion is that someone applying for a private hire car driver’s vocational licence must demonstrate that he has owned or rented a car or be a named driver in the car insurance of a family car for at least two years. This will level the playing field to bring the rules for private hire cars closer to those applicable for taxi drivers.
Sir, I am not against young drivers, but inevitably we have to acknowledge that age, maturity and actual driving experience matters and are key factors affecting accident rates.
Notwithstanding my comments and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Regulating private hire vehicle ride fares will benefit the population at large. Stipulating the Codes of Practice gives a common framework of standards for the different players in the ride-hail and street-hail services to provide a consistent experience for passengers while ensuring their safety and comfort. I am decidedly pleased that sections 2f and 3f of clause 30 of the Codes of Practice explicitly specify measures to facilitate access to, and use of, the ride-hail and street-hail services by individuals with disabilities.
Indeed, I would like to ride on this Bill and the recent announcement of the SG Cares-GoJek Medical Transport Subsidy Scheme in Kembangan-Chai Chee by none other than our dear Speaker himself to discuss how we can push the envelope further for a 3P partnership to support the point-to-point transportation needs of vulnerable groups in our community as part of our Smart Nation vision. To support this accessibility, we must also look at how we can train current and potential drivers. And finally, I would like to discuss how the fair pricing policy is a way for us to account for carbon emissions as we continue to be a good steward for the environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while writing this speech and gathering ground feedback from community practitioners who work with our vulnerable seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income communities, I went from feeling informed to confused to determined. Please let me elaborate.
Where I was informed is the spread of point-to-point transport schemes that are currently available for our vulnerable groups.
First, we have the Medical Escort and Transport or MET services, funded by MOH for community providers to provide transportation and/or someone to accompany their vulnerable clients to travel to and from their homes for medical appointments and treatments, for example, at hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics, or polyclinics. It is for those who need help to move around and have no care-giver or whose care-giver is unable to provide support because of their own health and physical conditions. There are currently nine community providers, including Handicapped Welfare Association, HWA, Red Cross and others who provide the service via specialised vans. They now make about 2,000 such trips monthly.
Second, we have the Taxi Subsidy or TSS Scheme funded by the MSF which specifically targets people with disabilities. The scheme only covers school, work or training supported by SG Enable. The scheme reimbursed qualified beneficiaries 35% to 80% of their monthly taxi fares including from private hire cars registered with LTA like Grab. MSF expects the number of beneficiaries on TSS to grow to 300 by 2021.
Lastly, we have the VWO Transport Subsidy Scheme also funded by MSF which I guess, should be now called SSA Transport Subsidy Scheme since we have now officially dropped the VWO for Social Service Agency (SSA). This scheme supports persons with disabilities who are attending Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshops or Special Education (SPED) schools.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I then got confused because I can clearly see it is entirely plausible that an individual may need to tap on multiple transport services, but how would this individual, already dealing with challenging circumstances, manage that with the way the schemes are now organised? It looks like he would need to apply to one organisation for help to his medical appointment under MET service and another to bring him to day rehab under VWO transport subsidy scheme. From what I understand, only a handful of organisations like HWA and Red Cross can provide a one-stop shop for all these services.
In addition to the perplexing fragmentation, there is also the unnecessary exclusion of debilitating conditions from the above schemes. Simon – not his real name – was in his late 50s, was diagnosed with terminal stage cancer. He needed to go for chemotherapy and subsequently palliative radiotherapy plus several other medical appointments regularly. Apparently, the MET scheme does not cover trips for chemotherapy so he was rejected. Thankfully, the Singapore Cancer Society stepped in to support him.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this was a dying man who was not literate, had little family support and yet had to face all these accessibility challenges in his last days. Thankfully, a group of volunteers were there to hold his hand and help him navigate through all this. He passed on earlier this year.
I also know of people with severe mental health conditions who clearly cannot manage taking the public transport being rejected by these schemes too. In addition to the fragmentation and accessiblity issues, there is also the issue of availability. In his late 70s and living with dementia, Steven – not his real name – was referred to the MET service after his discharge from the hospital because he had lost his mobility. The service provider took some time to admit him into the service and even after being accepted as a client, they could not serve him for his post-discharge appointments because they were all fully booked. The same happened to Simon too – the service could not support on short notice but as his condition deteriorated, there were many appointments that he needed to go for urgently.
If you think that the numbers accessing these point-to-point transport schemes are negligible, I am here to disappoint you with just these two sets of numbers that I managed to find.
MOH is on track to meet targets with 6,200 daycare places, 10,000 home care places and 17,000 nursing home beds by 2020. The Agency for Integrated Care or AIC reported that a projected 60% of these clients will need some form of transport.
HWA provided more than 77,000 trips in FY2017 for rides catered to medical consultations, rehabilitation sessions, recreational activities, ferrying children with disabilities to and from schools. They do this through Handicare Cab Scheme, a collaboration with ComfortDelGro to provide wheelchair-bound persons a guaranteed cab during rush hour driven by a specially-trained cabby, MET services, they also provide Taxi Subsidy Scheme, amongst others.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am determined that we have and must take this opportunity with this Bill to call for a whole-of-Government action and out-of-the-box approach to address the above challenges. We all know how our lives have changed with the ability to just tap for a Grab or GoJek on our phones and knowing that a driver with a car will be at our doorstep in no time. Would not this point-to-point convenience mean even more for vulnerable persons in our midst who are already struggling with the challenges of money, illness and disabilities?
Given the growing accessibility needs and existing challenges with availability and responsiveness, I would like to urge the Government to consider partnering the private sector with their existing technology and drivers to address this challenge at a national level as part of our Smart Nation vision. Even for a lay person like me – although I did invent a technology product in a past life – it seems completely conceivable that there could be a special button on the booking apps visible only to those who are eligible for the subsidy schemes to access the very same underlying booking platform that will ping to hundreds of drivers out there who are trained and available to come to them within minutes or on advanced booking.
Some may even be trained to be medical escorts. The financial process is automated and electronic, relieving the community service providers to provide more high value add services to their clients. On a side note, there is no reason why Meals on Wheels cannot do the same too with the food delivery apps. It is not so simple as I have described, I understand of course, but it is definitely not impossible. This can truly be the kind of socially innovative 3P partnership that we want to see more of for a Smart Nation and as a caring and inclusive society.
I would like to also ask the Government to: (a) look at streamlining these support schemes to make them more accessible to the very people who will be using them, as well as the care workers supporting them – be it social workers and/or community volunteers. The MET scheme is clearly one that will see an increase in demand with our ageing population and therefore needs an urgent review; and (b) to consider broadening the qualifying criteria for these schemes to include those with severe mental illness or low cognitive functioning given their challenges with taking public transport as well as expand the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to include trips to and from medical appointments.
Improving accessibility will require drivers to be sensitive to the needs of passengers with access needs. Currently, there are some schemes in place. I mentioned ComfortDelGro's collaboration with HWA earlier. Grab has a Grab Assist option where drivers are trained by AIC to offer additional assistance to seniors and persons with disabilities. I ask that the Government looks into broadening these schemes to include more ride-hail and street hail drivers and providers, so that we can meet the access needs of our society with more frequency and consistency. A possibility could be requiring ride-hail and street hail providers to have all or at least a certain substantial percentage of drivers trained in providing for passengers with disabilities through a Code of Practice, under clause 30 of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me switch now to our climate change responsibility as a nation and the opportunity this Bill affords us to do so. Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% below business-as-usual (BAU) levels in 2020, and made a further commitment to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise our greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.
We could consider tier-pricing according to the carbon emission of the vehicles. This way, passengers could be nudged to consider the ecological footprint of one's transportation choices in their daily commute. A framework to follow could be the Vehicular Emissions Scheme that takes into consideration a vehicle's emissions of four pollutants and the vehicle's carbon dioxide emissions. Another pricing structure for private-hire cars could be based on electric, petrol-electric hybrid, compressed natural gas, bi-fuel (CNG/petrol) vehicles.
This will not only push passengers and drivers to opt for more environmentally-conscious options, but will also increase the environmental consciousness of our population. Singapore's pledge to reduce greenhouse gases will require the population's recognition of the severity of the climate crisis, in order for various corporate and civil society stakeholders to resolve the issue in unison.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040, which brings Singapore together clearly ensures that Singapore's transport system is inclusive through priority cabins, Hearts Zone initiative, making public sector infrastructure barrier-free. Making our taxis and private-hire vehicles more accessible will allow the burden to be shared between the private sector and our Social Service Agencies. Those with access needs can choose among different travel options, thereby affording them more convenience and bringing their options closer to the rest of the population. Because we must change the focus from mobility to accessibility.
Last but not least, we simply must use every opportunity we have to shape green habits in our people. Almost everything we do emits carbon. Instituting carbon emission-based pricing for our point-to-point passenger transport services further reinforces our commitment to integrate climate change measures into national strategies and policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Before I go into addressing the specific issues raised by the Members, I would just like to make a few general points.
The P2P sector is very innovative and rapidly-evolving. There are already a wide range of services available. The operators themselves continue to evolve their service provisions and business models on an on-going basis. This has resulted in benefits to commuters, who have many more options, as Members have highlighted repeatedly. We have today, PHCs with child seats, wheelchair-friendly services and we have the availability to book taxis with flat fares.
Members have raised a wide range of issues. For some, like safety, LTA does need to and will step in to regulate and ensure basic standards. When we intend to do so, LTA has consulted widely, and where there was consensus or where we could engineer a compromise amongst the various tripartite partners and stakeholders, we did. There are some issues which we could not move on for now, and which we will continue to work on. I will elaborate a little bit on that.
But it is not necessarily desirable to regulate all aspects of the Point-to-Point sector.
For some of the issues, like fare caps and the extent to which we have to push environmentally-friendly vehicles, there needs to be a role for the market to play as well. We need to get the right balance between what we regulate and what we leave to the industry; ensuring that our regulations are fit for purpose, but commuters benefit and businesses continue to have space to innovate and grow.
Our priorities are to make sure that commuters have good, high quality and safe services; that the interests of drivers are protected in seeking economic opportunities in the space; and thirdly, that the operators are encouraged to innovate and new operators are encouraged to come in.
How will we do this? We have to look at some of the controls that we have and some of the levers that we have over ensuring that the market encourages new entrants and innovation, that there are protections for the drivers and the commuters, and especially that the structure protects, ultimately, consumers from excessively high charges as well.
What are the things that we can do? We can make sure that the barriers to entry for new operators are low. In particular, the way in which they engage with the main resource, which is the drivers. The removal of driver exclusivity would be the main lever to ensure the barrier to entry for new operators in the space is low.
The next thing that we should do is help commuters to make choices. Some of the regulations that we are putting in place to make sure that the way in which fares are communicated to commuters is transparent and upfront, will effectively allow multi-homing for commuters – that the commuters themselves are deciding amongst the variety of offers and which to choose. If this is insufficient to achieve the right kind of outcome, we may then have to intervene further. But we hope that by allowing drivers the choice of who to drive for and commuters the choice of which ride to take, this would effectively give us a multi-homing market and achieve some of the outcomes that we want. There may be more to be done but we will watch and see.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also brought up a general point about harmonisation across the street-hail and the ride-hail services. We cannot have an entirely harmonised market; otherwise, you would not have differentiation between street-hail and ride-hail services. Today, the fundamental point is that we still believe that there is a role for street-hail services. There are differences in the kind of vehicles that are needed, the training of that drivers for street-hail and safety, and also the operations associated with a fleet of vehicles under one livery, supporting one brand. Which is really very different from the operations for ride-hail services which is about the matching of resources and the appropriate algorithms for that supply and demand.
So, there is a fundamental difference between what we see as a street-hail operator today and ride-hail operator today. We are trying to harmonise some of the regulations. When we look at the regulations for drivers and vehicles, there is already quite a lot of harmony and we will continue with that. But for the operators, there needs to be a little bit of differentiation.
To the point about the responsibility between CCCS and MOT, well, very clearly, CCCS will have oversight over the competition issues and continue to do so. And to address a similar point made by Mr Leon Perera, after the Bill is implemented, CCCS will examine the matter and they will have to come to a decision about how the Bill applies to the previous stance that they had taken with respect to Uber and Grab.
Let me now address then some of the specific issues Members have raised about the scope of the licensing regime.
On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on private chauffeured services such as those provided by limousine companies versus electronic applications, both are considered ride-hail services because the key differentiating factor is that there is a matching between a ride and a commuter, and that ride is pre-booked for the commuter. So, they will fall under the ambit of the ride-hail services and be subject to similar regulations.
Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about carpooling activities. Carpool operators are also considered ride-hail service operators. However, they are not operating at the same scale and they are operating for a different outcome: ostensibly, an informal way for drivers to give rides to friends and neighbours. We therefore have different regulations for carpool operators and we would not be subjecting them to a full licensing regime, provided they continue to operate as car-pool operators as opposed to a full ride-hail operator. So, if a car-pool operator has more than 800 vehicles on its platform, we will license them as a sub-class of ride-hail service operators and they will be required to ensure that the drivers comply with car-pooling regulations so that their car-pooling is carried out on a restricted non-commercial basis. As we collect data and as we examine the market, if those conditions are breached, we will not hesitate to take firm action against the drivers or the operators that have contravened those regulations.
I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that innovation is indeed important and both street-hail and ride-hail service operators have been innovating and we assume will continue to innovate. We are certainly open to the sandboxes for both street-hail and ride-hail services, and the proposed regulatory regime clearly allows for both. In looking at such sandbox proposals, LTA will study the specific product, and use the full scope of legislative instruments and varying regulatory requirements as appropriate.
The Codes of Practice were brought up and, indeed, we will consult heavily with industry – we have actually already begun. We have a number of fora to do that and I will explain a little bit about that later on. We encourage the operators to participate in the drawing up of the Codes of Practice. Without spending too much time, clause 30, sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Bill expand on the different areas that the Codes of Practice could potentially cover.
Several Members spoke about the importance of ensuring safety. We agree this is really very important. Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked about normalised accident rates. This is in contrast, I think, to the data that Mr Dennis Tan had said, suggested an increase, which is \"un-normalised\". Actually, when we normalise the data, in other words, we take into account the number of kilometres travelled and the number of taxis that are available, there has not been an increase.
In 2013, for taxis, there were five accidents for every 10 million km travelled. Five years later, in 2018, this has not changed. The number for PHCs is only slightly higher at six accidents per 10 million km travelled. So, when examining the data, we do have to normalise and once we normalise it, we see that there has not been a significant change. But we do have to ensure that safety remains at top of mind for the drivers and also for the operators. So, we have to have measures for safety at the driver-level, at the vehicle-level and at the operator-level.
At the driver-level, we have the vocational licence requirements and we have had that in place since 2017. Drivers are required to have held a driving licence for two years before they can obtain a Private Hire Car Driver' Vocational Licence (PDVL), or for one year before they can obtain a Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL).
Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested that owning a car or renting a car may be necessary to ensure that drivers are safe. However, just owning or renting a car actually does not necessarily make you any safer. And so, we have, therefore, not imposed this and we do not have any plans to do so.
Ms Joan Pereira asked about health screening, which is another way of ensuring driver safety. We have regular medical check-ups and driving fitness tests for taxi and PHC drivers aged 50 years and older. This is more than what is required for private drivers and this is in addition to the mandatory health screening and training requirements at the point at which they obtain their vocational licences. So, we will continue to monitor this and review our regulations, if necessary.
The other thing I will point out is that there were some suggestions that younger PHC drivers are more dangerous. In fact, the data does not support that at all. There is no data to suggest specifically that younger private hire car drivers are over-represented in the accidents.
At the vehicle-level for safety, we are also making some changes. Today, the private hire car inspection regime is the same as that for private cars, ranging from once every three years to annually based on the vehicle age. However, in future, all private hire cars will be required to go for annual inspections. Taxis will continue to be required to go for six-monthly inspections. The reason for this differentiation is that the annual mileage for the private hire cars is almost three times that for private cars at about 48,000 km a year. So, they need to go for more frequent inspections than the private cars. Taxis then have an even higher average annual mileage of about 130,000 km and so we will retain the requirement that they be inspected every six months.
And thirdly, for safety, at the operator-level, I have explained in my opening speech some of the measures. We do want to ensure that the responsibility for safety is taken up by the operators. This cannot be the responsibility of the driver only. And so, part of the operators' responsibilities is to provide data to LTA, to update the safety measures and to encourage their drivers to drive safely. These are some suggestions to Members have made, including Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Ang Wei Neng.
To answer Mr Ang Wei Neng's question, we are still reviewing the data requirements for licensed operators. We will work with industry to make sure that those are reasonable and useful.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam made some suggestions about emergency buttons on point-to-point apps and how operators should respond to emergency reports. Actually operators are already starting to take the initiative and offer these types of services. It is a space in which they can compete against each other for the provision of services to commuters. We encourage other operators to step up.
On child seats, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan suggested requiring taxis and PHCs to be fitted with child seats when ferrying children below 1.35 metres in height. I must say that when we started consultations for this Bill, there was the sense that this was perhaps something that we could move on and was something we wanted to move on. So, we consulted the public and the stakeholders quite extensively. The opinions were very divided; and it was not that the opinions were divided for one group of people against the other. Amongst the general commuting public, the opinion was divided; amongst the operators, the opinion was divided and amongst the drivers, the opinion was divided.
We were trying to but we have not been able to engineer a compromise in time for this Bill and we thought we would move ahead with these provisions in the Bill today. The matter is live, we continue the conversation, we will study the matter further. One of the reasons why we thought we could move forward with the Bill prior to settling this matter is that there are already the opportunities today for parents to ensure that their children are in child seats. When they book a private hire car, they can indicate that they need child seats. Secondly, they have the ability to bring their own seats with them when they take a taxi. So, one of the considerations was that child seats today are already available and accessible to parents. The argument can be made that it needs to be more widely available, and that has been made by some Members. I actually personally agree. The question is, how to make sure that that is something that the industry can carry and the market can support. We will continue to work on this and I hope Members would be able to support us going forward in trying to achieve that.
On fares, there were questions on fare-related regulations by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Ang Wei Neng. We are amending the PTC Act to extend its purview over PHC fares.
We have to be very clear what our regulatory approach is. Some have asked us not to overreach, whereas other people have asked us to impose an upper limit on fares. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also suggested that we should prevent operators from offering the same service to different customers for different prices.
Mr Leon Perera also asked about flat fares. I wish to point out that today flat fares are already offered by a number of operators and, again, like some of the other suggestions, we would encourage that this becomes a differentiating factor, a potential competitive advantage of one operator against the other.
Building on what Mr Gan Thiam Poh has suggested, our fare regulations will ensure that there is transparency at the point that the commuter chooses the ride. This must be made clear to them: what the fare is or that there is going to be a metered fare in the case of a taxi. The intention is not for PTC to start regulating fare levels nor setting caps nor providing algorithms. The fare levels are an important part of the process to influence the supply and demand for P2P services. Many of the advantages and benefits that we have seen over the last few years, and that Members have spoken about, have come about precisely because the fares have been allowed to work as an efficient resource matching mechanism, ensuring that rides can be found during peak hours. There are many forms of services, each requiring different fare levels. Given the breadth of service offerings and the dynamic nature of these offerings, we think we best leave it to market forces; and that means that, ultimately, potentially, the most important controls would be the choices made by consumers, by commuters. The operators are indeed very alive to this, very sensitised. If you have any doubt abut this, one of the operators, Members would know, offers a durian delivery service. They have not taken maximum advantage of surge pricing for this because, I suppose, they assume that if they do, there will be a public outcry about the price of durians at peak season. The role of the commuter and the consumer in moderating the behaviour of our various operators here, would be very, very important.
For fare evasion and overcharging, we will step in to deter and prevent fare evasion and overcharging. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Ang Wei Neng raised some examples. There are some of areas they raised where it would be more appropriate for the operators to take action, including being clear to drivers about commissions charged, handling cancellations by commuters or drivers or even lost-and-found services.
Mr Dennis Tan also raised a question about video recordings. This is already regulated today. LTA has stringent regulations in place around the installation of these devices and the access to the recordings and none of this is dependent on the Bill before the House today. There is already a seven-day limit on the retention of footage today.
There were a few other issues that do not lie directly under the provisions of this Bill but let me just address some of them in terms of how we are thinking.
Driver income and welfare: we do not have comparable data for other cities. I think Mr Ang Hin Kee made an important point that if we were to intervene in this space there will be consequences and trade-offs in respect of some of the other factors such as the cost of rental, the fares that are available. I would just point out that the average time worked for full-time drivers is about eight hours. It is not unreasonable. But unfortunately, that is an average and it does not give us the full picture of a very wide range of working hours. And that includes the very occasional work that some of the private hire car drivers do.
We do need to allow that space. Someone might choose to do one or the other. If we try to constrain and constrict either the operator or the driver too much, firstly, it may reduce the attractiveness of this job and people might it difficult to enter the job, and it may constrain the supply of drivers and may, ultimately, affect prices. So, we do have to look at that quite carefully. But I think in general, eight hours, on average, full-time drivers.
There were some suggestions about driving age. Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Ang Wei Neng made several suggestions about who should be eligible to be a private hire car driver.
We agree that this is not an area where we need either foreign manpower or any significant excess of manpower. Since April 2019, we have stopped issuing PDVLs to Work Pass holders.
But, the other issue of raising the minimum age is not quite an easy decision. There is no common consensus on what this age should be. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested 30 years old; Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested 25 years old.
On one hand, raising the minimum age will affect the number of drivers in the P2P market and, in turn, reduce the taxis and rides available to commuters. On the other hand, there are not that many drivers who are in this age bracket – only 4% of PHC drivers are between the ages of 20 and 24; another 12% between 25 and 29. Many of them are part-time drivers. It is not very clear that we necessarily need to raise the minimum age. But in general, I think the concerns brought up are valid. We are going to review the size of the driver pool against the needs of the P2P sector, and will study the issue of the driver age carefully. We will certainly consult all the stakeholders before making a considered decision.
On the COE regimes for taxis and private hire cars, we will make no change. Private hire cars will continue to be bidded in the COE market like private vehicles. This will allow us to maintain some flexibility in our private hire car pool, so that private cars can continue to be converted to private hire cars, and vice versa. So, they should be drawn from the same COE pool. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Ms Anthea Ong spoke passionately on the transport needs of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and vulnerable persons. We agree that our transport sector as a whole does indeed have to cater to the needs of all Singaporeans. It is not entirely clear that the taxi and PHC sector alone can meet those needs, especially those with specialised needs. So, for dedicated transport by VWOs and transport subsidy schemes, we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in MSF and MOH to ensure that all commuters are taken care of.
We agree with Ms Ong about the importance of making sure that we address the environmental concerns in this sector as well. Under the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040, all taxi companies have committed to 100% cleaner vehicles by 2040, and this is an industry-led target under the LTMP. It is a commendable first industry-led target. And some of the private hire car booking providers and car rental companies have also done the same and committed to making their entire fleet run on cleaner energy by 2040. Again, another area in which the commuter and the consumer can perhaps assist in asserting some pressure as well. But I think it is important that we continue to work with the industry to address the environmental concerns of the transport industry.
Speaking of working with the industry, the role of the operators, the associations and the drivers in this review has been very important. They have contributed their views extensively; they have provided feedback; we have refined our regulations, hopefully to better meet the needs of the commuter and the industry.
Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng, who spoke a little bit about this, will be happy to know that we will be removing the Taxi Availability (TA) standards and we will let the market drive availability of services instead. We are also lowering call booking Quality of Service (QoS) standards. All of these will reduce compliance costs for taxi companies and, ultimately, we hope will also benefit the taxi drivers.
We have institutionalised the way in which we work with the industry. We have established through LTA a tripartite platform to discuss strategic and regulatory issues for the private hire car sector, in addition to the existing one that we have for taxis. This is something that Mr Ang Hin Kee himself has called for and has participated very actively in.
Mr Ang will also be happy to know that we will extend the current dispute management system for taxi drivers to include private hire car drivers. This will take effect in June 2020.
We hope that this tripartite approach of bringing the partners together can continue, so as to address the issues of benefits for the drivers and vocational licence holders, address the issues of driver welfare, driver income, what is the appropriate role for the industry, and how we can make sure that the regulations looking after the drivers as well as looking after the commuters.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been a long ride!
We started with introducing a registration regime for the third-party taxi booking service operators in 2015. We then licensed private hire car drivers in 2017. Each step of the way, we took calibrated decisions based on the circumstances, taking into account stakeholder and public feedback.
The sector must and does continue to innovate and evolve to meet the needs of commuters and drivers. We will continue to monitor the developments in this space and strike a balance between what to regulate and what to leave to the industry. The aim is always to ensure that commuters and drivers benefit, and the businesses continue to have the space to innovate and grow. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: I would like to like get some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. I hear my colleagues speak about requirements, whether it is for green vehicles, wheelchairs, baby-seats, electric vehicles and the likes of it. In Japan, they tried this innovation called JPN Taxis. They asked everybody what they wanted wanted in a taxi and they designed a taxi for everyone. The cost was three times the existing price of existing taxis. Nobody rented them. No commuters wanted to pay for JPN Taxis.
What I want to urge MOT and LTA to do is: instead of seeking views from everybody and therefore coming up with this wonderful product that nobody wants to pay for, how do we therefore move forward in addressing the needs, ensuring that commuters, drivers and operators are able to calibrate when such innovations and requirements kick in. Otherwise, we are going to have these requirements and just say, \"Maybe the drivers can figure out how to pay for it or the operators can reduce their fees for it\". It just does not bring us anywhere to what a proper, appropriate commuting experience and needs for the future will be.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, I thank Mr Ang for that suggestion to not create a taxi that is three times more expensive that nobody wants to pay for.
We do need to address needs. We do need to find a way to make sure that all the needs are met. But not all the needs need to be met in the same way, by the same platform, or by the same service.
The approach that we are taking is to allow both street-hail and ride-hail to co-exist, and for sub-classes, particularly, for ride-hail services, to co-exist. So that the commuter, regardless of whether they are an individual or a family, or a PWD or a person with medical risks, will, in the system and the network, be able to find a service that matches their needs. It does not mean that every single service, every single vehicle has to be exactly the same. That is on the ride-hail side.
On the street-hail side, clearly, it is different because you cannot pre-book your ride and you do need a certain minimum level of acceptable service that is a common denominator across the variety of needs. That is why the regulations specify the minimum boot size for taxis, for example, so that luggage can be carried, or a folded wheelchair can be carried. There is a point where these regulations becomes inappropriate. So, for example, the taxis are not required to be MPVs.
We take that approach, and we do so in partnership with various industry stakeholders. We want to make sure that there is enough fluidity to make sure that a variety of services are available to serve everybody’s needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two points of clarification for the Senior Minister of State.
First, on commuter multi-homing. From time to time, third-party apps do come up and they try to aggregate services across ride-hailing platforms. What is the Senior Minister of State’s view if the platform were to take measures to keep their services off these aggregators? Would he support Codes of Practice that require the platforms to be opened to such third-party aggregators for multi-homing?
The second point is price discrimination where you charge different people, different prices for the same service. Am I correct in understanding that that would be permitted as an innovation?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: For multi-homing, the space is evolving. The different services that multi-homing providers and mobility-as-a-service providers are offering, on the face of it, may look similar, but actually have very different underlying business models.
But if I take the simple example that he had suggested, where it is simply about aggregating information and a platform decided to prevent their information from being provided on that aggregated platform, that in the first instance, would not necessarily compromise our regulatory outcomes that we are trying to achieve, provided it did not then subsequently lead to either the drivers not being able to drive across the platforms, or the commuters not being able to find the information to take rides.
If you have to launch two apps to compare prices, I think that would be okay. But if you cannot fundamentally install the app on your phone because another app is there, it might be a step too far.
So, I think for now, we want to step back and let this market evolve. As I have said, for the multi-homing space, the mobility-as-a-service space, there is probably a fair number of iterations to go through before we get the right industry model. So, we probably do not want to constrain or intervene too much.
On the second point of price discrimination, in truth, it happens already. If you are a regular customer for one of the apps, you can apply a discount code, you can apply points that you already have. The effect, though, what it means is that you will get the same ride as someone next to you who is using the app at the same time, to arrive at a similar destination, for a different price. So, that situation already exists today. And again, our approach will be as long as there is adequate choice, relatively good dynamics within the market, I think we will let it be and see what happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply with regard to the child seat. I am a big fan of public consultation and trying to engineer a compromise. But in this case, it really is a safety issue. I am just wondering whether we should try to compromise when it comes to safety. If you are in a private car and your child is not in a car seat, for repeated offence, you could go to jail. We have such a heavy penalty because of safety. I am just wondering how does the safety disappear when that same car becomes a taxi.
I recognise my colleague, Mr Ang Hin Kee's point about the cost. We are on surge pricing now. For me to go home now is $27; for me to have a Grab car with a car seat is actually only $2 more. For a Grab car with a car seat for a child aged one to three is extra $5. So, it is not three times the price. If it is $27, and for a car seat, it becomes $60 or $80, of course, any reasonable person would say no. But in this case, if $2 more could save the life of your child, I am not sure what is holding us back.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, and as I have made quite clear, I agree with Mr Ng on this, and it is my personal stance. One point is that, it is not that there is no safety. It is possible to assure the safety of that child, and that is currently a choice that parents have to assert. Bring a child seat along into a taxi. It is not that it is not possible. It is whether people choose to do so.
I would like to do more work in this space to see how far and how quickly we can perhaps engage with operators, drivers. The difficulty for taxis though is, truly, that it means they have to carry something with them at all times, and this significantly restricts the options that they have in terms of what they can have as customers.
I would also point out that in our public consultation, a fair amount of the concerns came from the commuting public themselves. If you have three children, as I do, of different ages, and each of them needs a different-sized car seat, potentially, it would be impossible for us to take a taxi unless the taxi had three different child seats in it. If you are a family of five, then you would have to split up into two taxis. But if you are an individual adult looking after three children, it would mean that it would then be impossible for you to get into a taxi which only routinely carries one child seat. And then, what do you do with your other two children?
These are some of the scenarios that were thrown up by the commuting public in our public consultation. And so, we were unable to engineer a compromise. We do feel that there is an opportunity for safety to be secured, as is today. Yes, it could be better and we would like to do more work on it. And I would encourage Mr Louis Ng to participate and help us to get this work done.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I ride on this opportunity and ask if you would, together with the two Senior Minister of States from MOH and MSF, look at starting an inter-agency workgroup or taskforce to look at the issues that I have mentioned in the fragmentation, availability and accessibility issues for our vulnerable groups.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, we will. I would say, though, that the nature of this problem and the market, the services that are provided out there is not quite as Ms Ong had characterised it. The Member is right; there may be five or six, or potentially a lot more providers. But there are a number of agencies, offices, whose task it is to help you navigate that space. Patients or clients should not have to keep working through the fragmentation, as the Member has described.
The other way of thinking about it is, there is a variety of service providers that are working in different niches to address different client needs, different route needs and different demand needs. It is probably useful that we have an approach like that. This is because, today, one of the fundamental problems we have in this space is an inadequate supply of personnel. We will have to work to make sure that that gap is closed as well. So, there is work on-going and I will work with my colleagues to see what else LTA and MOT could do to help on the transport space.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary]. (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":"Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Dr Janil Puthucheary]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.05 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Low Take-up Rate of Business and Institution of Public Character Partnership Scheme that Recognise Employee Volunteering Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the reason for the low take-up rate of the Business and Institution of a Public Character Partnership Scheme whereby employees of businesses can undertake volunteering hours; (b) what will be done to address the issues; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the scheme to include assets, such as the space used by charities and for charitable purposes, and other forms of corporate-giving to further encourage tripartite partnerships.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We share Ms Ong's desire to see more companies take up the Business and Institution of a Public Character Partnership Scheme – or BIPS – which was introduced by the Government to encourage more employee volunteerism. BIPS offer businesses a 250% tax deduction on basic wages and related expenses incurred when their employees volunteer or provide services to Institutions of Public Character (IPC).
To better understand their feedback, we organised a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) together with MOF and the National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) last year with businesses and IPCs on BIPS. We found two main areas for improvement: firstly, awareness among both businesses and IPCs about BIPS; and secondly, the administrative ease of the scheme.
We will do more to raise awareness of BIPS. NVPC will actively promote the scheme to businesses, such as through their corporate giving guide and Company of Good Fellowship programme. We will also share about BIPS with the IPCs through the Commissioner of Charities’ platforms and outreach events.
We are working to refine the administrative processes for tax claims, both for businesses and IPCs. Today, businesses claim tax deduction based on the pro-rated wages of individual employees who had volunteered. We will provide an alternative for businesses who prefer to claim based on fixed man-hour rates. We expect this to take effect from the Year of Assessment 2020.
Regarding Ms Anthea Ong's suggestion for BIPS to include assets, the scheme currently allows businesses to claim tax deductions for other qualifying expenditures, such as rental of spaces, if they are incurred as part of the volunteering activity. We can do much more to grow employee volunteerism, and will focus on improving the existing scheme and making its administrative processes more seamless and convenient for both businesses and IPCs. We thank Ms Ong for her suggestion for BIPS to include assets, and will also take it into consideration as we review our strategies to encourage corporate giving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Patients Suffering from Bedsores or Pressure Injury in Community Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, whether the number of cases of patients suffering from bedsores or pressure injury have increased in community hospitals and nursing homes; and (b) whether the Ministry has an action plan to improve preventive care for bedsores.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The number of severe pressure injuries in community hospitals has remained stable, at approximately three cases a year, in the last five years. MOH currently does not mandate reporting of pressure injuries in nursing homes, as they are assessed to be a lower risk setting. This is based on studies which have shown that the pressure injury risk and impact is higher and more severe in patients requiring higher levels of care. Nonetheless, based on discussions with nursing homes, MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care have not noted an increasing trend in pressure injuries.
Our healthcare professionals monitor patients for pressure injuries, and implement preventive measures for at-risk patients, which include those who are malnourished or critically ill. Examples of such preventive measures are the use of air mattresses, and turning patients regularly.
MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care have been encouraging cross-institutional sharing of learnings and quality improvement initiatives. MOH has also recently convened a Pressure Injury Workgroup comprising nursing wound experts across the care continuum, to explore and develop further preventive and management measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution for Sale of Illegal Weight Loss Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) how many persons have been prosecuted in the past three years for the sale of illegal weight loss products; (b) whether there are plans to regulate the import and sale of weight loss products; and (c) what steps are taken by the Ministry to ensure that such products are safe for consumption.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) adopts a risk-based approach in the regulation of health products. Pharmaceutical medicines, which contain inherently potent medicinal ingredients and are used in disease treatments, are stringently evaluated by HSA before they can be approved for registration. Supplements and traditional medicines do not require registration, but any addition of potent medicinal ingredients in such products are prohibited.
HSA also carries out post-market surveillance, adverse reaction monitoring and routine sampling and testing on the safety of marketed health products. When unsafe products are detected, HSA issues alerts to keep the public informed and takes action against the parties concerned. Dealers who import and supply products containing prohibited ingredients are liable to prosecution and if convicted, may be imprisoned for up to three years and/or fined up to $100,000.
In the past three years, HSA has prosecuted three persons for selling illegal weight loss products that contained undeclared medicinal ingredients. The illegal weight loss products are typically purchased by consumers over the Internet or overseas. HSA has thus been conducting public education on the dangers of buying products from unfamiliar sources, unknown websites or persons posting offers on online platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal of 3,000-tonne Heap of Scrap Rubber Materials Left at Sarimbun Recycling Park","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is being done to get the responsible parties to remove the 3,000-tonne heap of scrap rubber materials left at the Sarimbun Recycling Park; (b) whether the Ministry will issue an order for them to remove the materials; (c) how has the heap of materials affected park operations and the surrounding vegetation; and (d) whether such materials pose any health or environmental hazard.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The scrap rubber material is located within one of the plots at Sarimbun Recycling Park (SRP). As the public has no access to the plot and SRP is sited on an old landfill, these materials do not pose any health or environmental risks. There has also been no impact on the operations at surrounding plots in SRP, or on the vegetation surrounding SRP.
The SRP plot where the scrap rubber material is located was leased to Morelastic Green Resources Pte Ltd. However, the tenancy was terminated in January 2019 as the company incurred substantial rental arrears. Under the tenancy agreement, it is the tenant's responsibility to remove the scrap rubber.
Morelastic Green Resources Pte Ltd has started clearing the stockpile since 17 June 2019 and has removed most of the stockpile. NEA will then reinstate the land, including removal of any remaining stockpile, and recover the associated costs from the company. NEA will also investigate and take firm enforcement action against any environmental public health offences committed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings from Project to Measure Singapore’s Carbon Footprint","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the five-year project launched in 2014 to measure Singapore's carbon footprint has been completed; (b) if completed, what are the findings of the project; (c) how much reduction in emissions will the carbon tax of $5 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions be expected to be achieved given that industry is projected to contribute 60.3% of our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; and (d) what is the expected increased carbon footprint with the impending construction of Terminal 5.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I believe that Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Anthea Ong is referring to the study undertaken by the National Parks Board to measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals from Singapore's Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF).
As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Singapore reports our total GHG inventory across various sectors in our National Communications (NC) and Biennial Update Reports (BUR). In this regard, the National Parks Board undertook a study from 2013 to 2018 to set up a system to measure GHG emissions and removals from Singapore's LULUCF sector. Latest estimates for the reporting year 2014 indicate that the LULUCF sector accounts for about 0.1% of Singapore's net GHG emissions. Details were reported in Singapore’s third BUR last year. The study also found that our nature reserves, mangroves, and trees in urban areas served as key carbon sinks that offer significant GHG removals. The BUR is subject to stringent review by international experts under the UNFCCC’s International Consultation and Analysis process. Singapore has been commended for its robust, scientifically sound and comprehensive reporting standards of its LULUCF sector.
Singapore has comprehensive measures to reduce our carbon emissions. The carbon tax of $5 per tonne of GHG emissions, which came into effect in January this year, is intended to send an economy-wide price signal to incentivise companies to reduce their emissions where it makes the most business sense. This tax will cover about 80% of our total GHG emissions and complements Singapore’s suite of mitigation measures to incentivise emissions reduction and transition to a low carbon economy. Given that this is the first year of implementation, we are monitoring the progress of the carbon tax. We are prepared to spend more than the estimated $1 billion that will be collected in carbon taxes over the next five years to help our industry and companies improve their carbon efficiency and reduce their emissions.
We are also mindful of the need to reduce our carbon emissions from new developments. Changi Terminal 5 is still in the design stage and the carbon footprint has not yet been determined. Changi Airport Group and its consultants are exploring solutions to improve the terminal's energy efficiency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Export of Singapore’s Recyclable Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how much of Singapore's recyclable waste is exported to overseas processors and which countries are the largest receivers of our recyclable waste.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Singapore recycles, on average, around 60% of our total waste generated. In 2018, about 30% of recyclable material, such as paper, plastics, glass and metal, was exported to countries including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand for processing and recycling.
While the bulk of recyclables are already processed locally, my Ministry recognises the need for Singapore to continue building up our local recycling capabilities. This will allow us to better extract resources from waste and close the waste loop through adopting a circular economy approach. NEA is currently studying e-waste and plastics recycling solutions and technologies available in the market, and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore in terms of both environmental and economic sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Violence Against Persons of Minority Sexual Orientations or Gender Identities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Ministry doing to reach out to persons of minority sexual orientations or gender identities who are facing physical, psychological or sexual violence from family members\tor intimate partners; (b) whether state-run institutions are trained to be sensitive to their needs and particular experiences when they report incidents of domestic violence; and (c) whether there are plans to launch awareness-raising campaigns and programmes to work with NGOs to support LGBTQ victim-survivors and reach out to those suffering in silence.
Mr Desmond Lee: We do not and should not tolerate violence against any person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
The Penal Code criminalises violence and the use of force against all persons, including LGBTQ persons. The Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA, enables victims of harassment to apply for protection orders against their perpetrators. The recent Criminal Law Reform Act has strengthened protection in both the Penal Code and POHA, by enhancing penalties for offences against vulnerable persons and victims of violence in intimate or close relationships with the perpetrator. The recent POHA amendments have also strengthened the protection framework for intimate partners under POHA.
Our institutions and social workers are trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of victims of violence, including those of LGBTQ persons. Victims of violence may approach our Social Service Agencies, such as Family Violence Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres, for assistance. These services are provided to anyone in need, without discrimination.
No victim of violence should have to suffer in silence. MSF has run public education initiatives to raise awareness. Our Break The Silence campaign, in particular, focuses on the role of bystanders in preventing and reporting acts of violence – regardless of marital status or sexual orientation of the victim.
Everyone has a part to play to prevent, detect and report all forms of violence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends of Persons of Minority Sexual Orientations or Gender Identities Seeking Mental Healthcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the figures and trends of persons of minority sexual orientations or gender identities who are seeking mental healthcare; and (b) whether there are plans to provide resources to targeted counselling and social services, as well as LGBTQ-sensitivity training to service providers, to address their specific mental health and psychological well-being needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH does not keep track of the number of people with minority sexual orientations or gender identities seeking mental health care.
Public mental health services are available to all Singaporeans irrespective of gender identity. Over the years, MOH has worked with partner agencies, healthcare institutions and community service providers to develop and expand mental health services for persons who require care and support. In addition, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has set up the Gender Care Clinic in 2017, offering counselling and mental health support for persons experiencing emotional difficulties pertaining to gender identity. As the service is relatively new, it is premature to infer trends at this point in time.
Healthcare providers caring for persons with mental health conditions are trained to support these persons with empathy, sensitivity and due consideration of their specific care needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Victims When PMD Riders Speed Off After Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) in accidents involving PMDs, what recourse do victims have if the rider speeds off before the victim is able to obtain a picture for submission to the MyTransport.SG app; and (b) whether physical barriers can be added to deter PMDs from high-traffic places where they are disallowed.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for the question, which has been addressed by the Ministerial Statement on Personal Mobility Devices delivered on 5 August 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration to Make Government Financial Statements Available Online","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government Financial Statements can be made available online for public perusal; and (b) what are the reasons for not making them available online.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government Financial Statements (GFS) comprises yearly detailed statements of government accounts, prepared by the Accountant-General in accordance with the Constitution and Financial Procedure Act for the purpose of submission to the President and the Parliament. Copies of the GFS are made available for access by Members of Parliament in the Parliament Library, and for public access in the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library.
To make it easier for the public to understand the detailed statements in the GFS, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) extracts relevant information from the GFS every year and publishes them in the Budget Book and other documents related to the Budget. These information are made available online on the MOF website. We will continue to review and update the various methods in which we release and publish information on Government accounts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Divorcees Who Failed to Comply with Court Orders to Sell Their Matrimonial Flats Within Stipulated Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law for each year in the past five years (a) what is the absolute number and the percentage of divorcees who failed to comply with court orders to sell their matrimonial flats within the stipulated time; and (b) what was the average and median time it took beyond the stipulated time to sell the flat.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have checked, and have been informed that the time taken to complete the sale of such matrimonial flats, upon divorce, and whether there was compliance with time limits set in Court Orders is not tracked by any agency. The terms of the Court Orders, and whether any extension of time is needed by the parties, is a matter between the parties, unless the parties inform the Housing and Development Board (HDB) of the same.
Parties may apply to Court for an extension of time to sell the flat. Parties can sell their HDB flat as long as they are able to reach an agreement in doing so, and HDB will process the sale accordingly. It also depends on the terms of the Court Orders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Children Below Seven Years Old and Between Seven and 12 Years Old Contracting HFMD in the Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years among children (i) below 7 years old and (ii) between 7 and 12 years old (inclusive), what is the absolute number and the percentage of children who contracted Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) (i) once (ii) twice or (iii) three or more times respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) is a common childhood illness. Most children recover from HFMD on their own without treatment. As HFMD infections are not reportable and the majority are mild, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the number or percentage of children who have contracted HFMD and the number of times they have contracted the disease during their life. As HFMD can be caused by different viruses, infection by one virus does not confer immunity to other viruses. As such, a person who has recovered from HFMD may be infected again.
The key to controlling the spread of HFMD is to maintain high standards of personal and environmental hygiene, and to seek medical treatment early when the child is unwell. MOH works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE), Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and People's Association (PA) to ensure that educational institutions, including childcare centres, remain vigilant and take measures to minimise the spread of infectious diseases. Parents should also ensure that their children with HFMD remain at home for the duration of the illness as advised by the doctors, to prevent spread to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Cash Paid by Singaporeans and Permanent Residents after Account Subsidies, MediShield Life and Medisave Deductions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health in respect of subsidised hospitalisation for each year from 2015 to 2017, how much did Singaporeans and permanent residents respectively pay in cash at the 10th to 40th deciles after taking into account subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave deductions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2015 to 2017, Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents at the 10th to 40th percentile of subsidised hospitalisation bills paid $0 in cash, after taking into account subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave deductions.
Over the same period, the median amount of cash paid by Singaporean Citizens in the 10th to 40th per capita household income percentiles for subsidised hospitalisations was also $0, after taking into account subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave deductions. The corresponding figures for Permanent Residents ranged from $38 to $47 over the same period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Free Trade Agreements and Studies on Their Economic and Social Benefits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) does Singapore have as of today; (b) how many are in the pipeline to be signed/ratified and with whom; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted detailed studies of economic and social benefits of each or most of the bilateral and multiparty FTAs; and (d) if so, what are these benefits and how much change in trade has been seen after the FTA with each of the trade partners has been implemented.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Singapore currently has 24 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). We are also working with the European Commission to bring the EU-Singapore FTA (EUSFTA), which was ratified by the European Parliament in February 2019, into force at the end of 2019.1 In addition, we are negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which connects all ten ASEAN economies with six other economies accounting for about 30% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as well as FTAs with the Eurasian Economic Union, MERCOSUR, and the Pacific Alliance.
Our trade and investment partnerships create opportunities for our economy and strengthen our strategic relations with other countries. A study by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) estimated that on average, Singapore's domestic exports to an FTA partner increased by 18% two years after its entry into force, and a further 16% in the third year.2 New agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the EUSFTA can potentially increase Singapore's GDP by up to 0.2% and 0.35% respectively.3 Our FTAs also make it easier for our companies to do business in foreign countries by providing preferential market access for our businesses, including lower tariff and non-tariff barriers for Singapore goods, fewer restrictions for services sectors, and enhanced protection for investments.
Beyond market access benefits, FTAs also establish common enforceable rules that provide certainty for businesses. For instance, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership's (CPTPP) rules for intellectual property rights and e-commerce help attract research and development, and spur the growth of transformative digital services that we all enjoy today.
MTI regularly reviews our trade agreements to account for new business models and regulations. With the rapid growth of the digital economy, we have started negotiating digital economy agreements with Chile and New Zealand, as well as a collaboration with Australia. We also upgrade our FTAs in light of changing economic circumstances. For instance, we upgraded our FTA with China in November 2018, to provide our businesses with enhanced investment protection, greater access to China’s legal, maritime and construction services sectors, and improved Rules of Origin for petrochemical and plastics exports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The EUSIPA is expected to come into force in two years, as it has to be approved by the regional and national parliaments of the EU member states.","2 : Source: Economic Survey of Singapore Second Quarter 2011 - Do Free Trade Agreements Matter? Evaluating the impact of FTAs on Singapore’s domestic exports of goods.","3 : Sources: East Asian Economic Review, Ciuriak et. al (2017) Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Singapore – Analysis, Directorate-General for External Policies, European Parliament (2018)."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Households Switching Suppliers in Open Electricity Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many households, expressed as a percentage, have switched to purchasing electricity from suppliers other than SP since the launch of the Open Electricity Market; and (b) whether the Energy Market Authority is actively considering a simpler sign-up procedure for low-income households in particular.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: From May this year, all consumers have the option of buying electricity from a retailer of their choice under the Open Electricity Market (OEM). As of end-June 2019, about 34% of household consumers have made the switch.
The switching process for OEM consumers was designed to be simple and accessible to all, regardless of income or household types. OEM consumers can approach their preferred retailer to sign up and can do so via different channels, including online, over the phone, as well as at the retailer's roadshows or physical stores. The retailer will then work directly with SP Group to make the switch. Surveys commissioned by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) show that 98% of OEM consumers who have switched to a retailer found the switching process easy. We have also introduced the necessary consumer safeguards; OEM consumers have access to various avenues, such as the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) or the Small Claims Tribunal, for dispute resolution in the event of any contractual dispute with their retailers.
EMA will continue to work with SP Group and retailers to provide a positive consumer experience under the OEM.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Per-undergraduate Student Annual Expenditure on Teaching and Education Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average per-undergraduate student annual expenditure on teaching and educational services broken down by faculty/school for each of the autonomous universities; and (b) what is the breakdown of the source of such expenditure by tuition revenue, government grant and endowment income.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Expenditure for undergraduate education varies across the Autonomous Universities (AUs) and course clusters, depending on factors, such as the education model and pedagogy, faculty-to-student ratio for the courses, and the capital costs involved in delivering the course. Courses with better faculty-to-student ratios include the law programmes, while courses with higher capital costs include laboratory-based programmes like computing, science and engineering.
For similar courses, the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not vary our funding to AUs based on their expenditure. Instead, we establish a per-student cost norm for similar courses across universities and fund programmes based on these norms. This approach encourages cost discipline across our AUs even as they strive to deliver high quality undergraduate education. Overall, the average Government funding for operating expenses per undergraduate in FY2019 is around $22,000.
Government grants continue to be the main source of funding for university education. Students generally pay around 25% of the cost of education. The AUs tap on income from endowment, which is built up with Government matching, to supplement Government funding for their programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time from Lodgement of Claim at Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management and Referral to Employment Claims Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last three years (a) what are the average and median lengths of time between the lodgement of a claim at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management and the subsequent referral of the claim to the Employment Claims Tribunal through the issuance of a claim referral certificate; and (b) in how many of these cases have the process taken more than eight weeks.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In both 2017 and 2018, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) resolved about 85% of salary claims filed under the Employment Claims Act (ECA). The remaining 15% of claims were referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) for adjudication through the issuance of a claim referral certificate.
More than 80% salary claims filed under the ECA were successfully resolved within eight weeks. Cases referred to the ECT tend to be more complex and difficult and may take a longer time to resolve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Setting Seven Days as Minimum Legal Entitlement for Annual Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for setting seven days as the minimum legal entitlement for annual leave; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the number so that Singapore can rank higher among developed nations for annual leave entitlement.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Employment Act (EA) stipulates employees' minimum terms and working conditions, including for paid annual leave. It seeks to protect the basic interests of employees while balancing business needs and ensuring employees' employability.
Specific to annual leave, the statutory minimum entitlement of seven days applies to employees who have worked with their employer for at least three months, but not more than one year. With each year of service, an employee's statutory entitlement increases, up to 14 days.
Statutory annual leave entitlements vary across developed economies. Some like the United Kingdom and Australia have relatively more generous provisions, while the United States does not have a federal law regulating paid annual leave. The minimum statutory annual leave entitlement in Singapore is comparable to that in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Singapore's statutory annual leave entitlements should also be viewed alongside the paid sick leave, childcare leave, and other forms of leave provided for in our laws. Employees can use these other forms of leave over and above their annual leave entitlements. In other jurisdictions, such leave may not be available, or fully paid.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), together with the tripartite partners, completed a review of the EA in 2018. While there are currently no plans to increase the minimum statutory annual leave entitlement, MOM will continue to monitor employment trends both locally and internationally, and regularly review our laws and policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Childcare Centres' Utilisation of Annual Closure Days for Each of Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years, what percentage of childcare centres utilise (i) the full six days of annual closure (ii) five days of annual closure and (iii) fewer than five days of annual closure respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Childcare centres are allowed to close for up to a maximum of six days each year to carry out organisational activities, such as curriculum planning and staff training. This also includes one day off for early childhood educators on Teachers' Day. Preschool operators take the opportunity to bring their staff together for skills upgrading on a range of topics, such as teaching methods and child management, updates on operational procedures for the safety and well-being of children, as well as team bonding activities.
In setting the guidelines on closure days for childcare centres, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) strives to balance parents' childcare needs and the operational needs of childcare centres. Centres are required to inform parents about closure days at the beginning of each calendar year, and remind parents one month prior to each closure day. This enables parents to make alternative care arrangements for their children.
From information provided by centres, the majority of centres utilise the full six days of closure annually. In 2018, 77% of centres who reported their closure days to ECDA1 had utilised the full six days of annual closure. 94% of centres that reported to ECDA utilised five or more days of annual closure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : In 2018, 85% (or about 1,300) of childcare centres reported their closure days to ECDA. From 2020 onwards, all childcare centres are required to inform ECDA and parents of their closure days at the beginning of each calendar year."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of Government-paid Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave by Fathers in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years, what percentage of fathers did not take any Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and Shared Parental Leave (SPL) were both introduced in 2013 to support fathers in playing a bigger role in child-raising. Since 2017, fathers have been eligible for two weeks of GPPL (doubled from one week previously), and up to four weeks of SPL (increased from one week previously), shared from their spouse's Maternity Leave.
The estimated percentages of fathers who did not take at least one day of GPPL or SPL in the last five years are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below.
The percentages are based on records of employers who have submitted claims for the leave taken by their employees, and the pool of eligible fathers based on working status of fathers as declared at the point of application for Baby Bonus.
The take-up of GPPL increased between 2013 and 2017. More than half of eligible fathers took GPPL in the 2017 cohort. The GPPL take-up for 2018 will likely increase further as fathers can take paternity leave up to one year after their child's birth, and employers then have up to three months after the leave was taken to submit claims. Consistent with the experience of other countries, fewer fathers take SPL than GPPL. Nevertheless, SPL provides parents the option to manage their caregiving arrangements flexibly.