1 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the ban on formaldehyde in paints used for application on interior surfaces of buildings can be brought forward from 1 January 2026 and, if not, why not; (b) what penalties will be meted out for firms found to have used interior paint products with formaldehyde content exceeding the limit of 0.01% of the paint weight; and (c) how many households have filed complaints in the last two years regarding formaldehyde levels arising from renovation works.
2 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what measures are in place to ensure that imported wooden furniture that have been chemically treated and contain formaldehyde are safe for indoor use; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing stricter import regulations or mandatory testing measures on imported wooden furniture to protect consumers from potential health hazards.
3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past five years, how many complaints has NEA received regarding high levels of formaldehyde in new furniture; and (b) whether NEA will consider regulating formaldehyde as a hazardous substance under the Environmental Protection and Management Act given that exposure to high levels of formaldehyde can lead to cancer.
4 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry conducts checks on companies selling building products to ensure that the products offered do not contain or emit formaldehyde; (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring renovation contractors to show proof that indoor formaldehyde concentration levels are within limit when renovations are completed; and (c) what support can be given to owners of non-air-conditioned places such as residential homes to ensure that the concentration level of unwanted chemicals in the vicinity are within safe limits.
5 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what steps are being taken to address health concerns related to formaldehyde emissions from wooden furniture in homes; (b) how is the Ministry monitoring and regulating the levels of formaldehyde in residential environments to ensure that they are within safe limits; and (c) whether there are plans to review and update existing regulations on indoor air quality and furniture safety standards to better protect public health.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 1 to 5 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, my Ministry has been monitoring the issue of formaldehyde levels in indoor premises. Since 2020, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has received 19 feedback cases on formaldehyde levels arising from renovation works.
We announced at the Committee of Supply 2024 that we will introduce regulations on formaldehyde in interior paints. From 1 January 2026, interior paints with formaldehyde will not be allowed for sale in Singapore. \"Formaldehyde in Paint\" will be regulated as a hazardous substance under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA). Companies found importing, manufacturing, possessing for the purpose of selling or offering for sale in Singapore, interior paints with formaldehyde levels equal to or exceeding 0.01% weight in weight, are, upon conviction, liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term up to two years or both. NEA will carry out market surveillance and take appropriate enforcement action.
This implementation timeline strikes a balance between safeguarding public health and giving the industry sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements based on its feedback. In the meantime, interior paints with no added formaldehyde are already available in the Singapore market.
We recognise that apart from interior paints, there are products such as composite wood products and adhesives which may emit formaldehyde. NEA is actively studying this issue, including the review of international best practices, guidelines and regulatory requirements.
The furniture industry has made an effort to lower formaldehyde emissions. The Alliance for Action on Sustainable Spaces, jointly formed by the Singapore Business Federation, Singapore Furniture Industries Council (SFIC) and Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC) developed and launched a set of industry guidelines and recommendations to improve indoor air quality last year. Among other things, these guidelines recommend formaldehyde emission limits for products and furnishing used indoors.
We encourage the public to use products that are certified with the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme (SGLS) administered by the Singapore Environment Council, or the Singapore Green Building Product (SGBP) Certification Scheme administered by the SGBC. For wood products bearing these green labels, the formaldehyde levels are certified to be low or non-detectable, while interior paints certified with these labels are required to have no formaldehyde. The SFIC’s website also lists its member companies that have pledged to supply or adopt low or no formaldehyde products and solutions.
If products containing formaldehyde are installed in indoor spaces, occupants are advised to improve ventilation and promote air circulation by opening doors and windows where possible, as well as utilising fans and ventilation systems, which can help dilute the concentration of formaldehyde in those areas.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary two supplementary questions. He mentioned that NEA is conducting a review of formaldehyde treatments on wooden furniture. I just want to ask what is the timeline and what are the considerations, considering the fact that there is legitimate public safety concerns regarding formaldehyde in wooden furniture. So, timeline and the considerations of the review.
Second, in terms of public awareness, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is accreditation by the Singapore Environment Council. How is NEA going to create more public awareness among residents who appoint small renovation contractors, how would they be able to know what are the products being used by renovation contractors?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, as mentioned, we are reviewing what is being done in overseas jurisdictions. We are taking reference from them, learning from them to see how we can adopt these in Singapore. Like what we did for the formaldehyde controls in paints, we strike a balance between protecting public health as well as how the industry is able to adapt to the new requirements, because any changes may affect the industry and ultimately, consumers if they are not able to respond accordingly.
Sorry, what was the second supplementary question?
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Public awareness on certified products.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Yes, okay. We will work with the various industry associations, those in the renovation or furniture supply sectors, to raise awareness amongst consumers. But when the law is implemented for \"formaldehyde in paints\", for example, that will be a law that does not allow the sale of such products. I urge consumers and the public to do more research, do some homework, especially when they are concerned with such products used in their home furnishings.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): I have got a supplementary question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. From now till when the official regulation is in place is still some time away. For home owners, they would not have a means to be able to detect formaldehyde levels because they would not know. As much as we want to raise public awareness, this is after all a chemical.
I just want to ask what recourse would these home owners or consumers have if they were being supplied this by the renovation contractors and are there other things that can be done more actively, because, today, all the actions that are taken are very reactive?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: In the case of \"formaldehyde in paints\", there are already paint products available in the market that do not contain any formaldehyde. This would be something that consumers can easily check by looking at the details about the paint content. They should also question their renovation contractors or painters about what type of paint is being used. Based on the 19 feedback cases I mentioned earlier, a lot mainly dealt with cases of smell nuisance. When the home owners or in some cases employees in offices, they may find out and they will give the feedback, and usually, it is settled between themselves and the renovation companies.
In cases where people find the smell to be noticeable, the formaldehyde content will get diluted over time. So, it is quite common, like in newly renovated spaces, the smell would be more obvious, but with proper ventilation, the smell, which is also a proxy for the formaldehyde level within the product or paint, will get diluted to a level that will be more acceptable by the occupants of the premises. The advice is to ventilate and allow some time after renovation works are completed before the occupants move in on a permanent basis.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I declare I am the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore or CASE. Sir, in the first half of 2024 alone, CASE received 10 complaints regarding strong chemical odours emitted by new furniture, such as mattresses, sofas, wardrobes. Some consumers reported experiencing symptoms such as headache, dizziness and coughing after being exposed to what they suspect to be formaldehyde. I would like to ask would the Ministry consider regulating formaldehyde levels in furniture, in addition to, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said, for paints. Since that regulation has not come on board, can we include furniture as well in the regulations?
As what Miss Cheryl Chan had said, beyond what you can do after the furniture and renovation have been completed, I think what we can do is to go upstream and educate consumers on what are the furniture that have these levels of formaldehyde, so that they can make a considered decision on whether to purchase them or advise the contractors what they can use and what they should not use.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, as mentioned in my reply, apart from paints, we are reviewing how the law could also apply to other products such as composite wood products and adhesives which also contain formaldehyde. Consumers or people undertaking renovation works should discuss with their contractors to demand that the products used meet these requirements. Also, if they are personally more concerned with such content, they should specify for products that do not contain formaldehyde.
There was a publicised case recently, which based on reports, we understand there was agreement in the end where the renovation company actually compensated the family to move out of their flat to give them a temporary accommodation. And in the end, there was some sort of court case or legal demand for them to dismantle and reinstate the affected furniture. So, these can be settled commercially. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Correction By Written Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Procedure for Consulting Authorities of Intended Receiving Countries before Proceeding with Deportations of Foreigners Convicted of Offences in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has a standard protocol of consulting the authorities of the intended receiving countries before proceeding with the deportations of foreigners convicted of offences in Singapore; and (b) in the case of a money laundering convict who was deported from Singapore to Cambodia in June 2024 and subsequently expelled by Cambodia after one month, what consultations did the Government undertake with the Cambodian authorities before deporting him there.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): As regards whether the Government has a standard protocol of consulting the authorities of the intended receiving countries before proceeding with the deportations of foreigners, the short answer is that there is no such standard protocol.
As stated in my Ministry's reply on 2 July 2024, foreigners who are being deported can leave for any country to which their passports allow them to go. [Please refer to \"Factors Considered in Deciding Deportation Destinations for Foreigners Who Have Served Their Sentences in Singapore\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The foreign country can, as a sovereign state, choose to allow entry or it can choose to disallow entry when the person arrives on its shores, or it can take subsequent actions to expel the person after entry. The way we treat these persons is no different from any other traveller. We do not consult the foreign countries beforehand as a general rule as to whether a traveller is allowed to go there.
As regards Ms Lim's second specific question, the general position is that we do not disclose specific discussions. Discussions may sometimes take place for operational security reasons, for intelligence reasons, other similar purposes.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
But since this particular question seems to interest the Member of Parliament (MP), because she asked last month and followed up with several supplementary questions, and now, again. I will say no, we did not discuss with the Cambodians or the Cambodian authorities. But having made that position, for future, let me make it clear to MPs, the general position that my Ministry takes about discussions with foreign governments on deportations is that we should not be disclosing this. It is not in the public interest to disclose it because there are a variety of reasons why we may be in touch with foreign governments, and likewise, we may want people to be deported from foreign governments as long as the law allows it and we sometimes will not want that publicly disclosed upfront. Otherwise, others who are collaborating with such persons of interest may then get wind of it.
So, these are, sometimes, matters of operational security. But here, in answer to the question, no, we did not discuss with the Cambodians.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\t
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, I accept that there could be some operational considerations and not revealing too much information. So, I would like to say that upfront.
I would like to ask the Minister, because it was indicated in this House that offenders are permitted to indicate their choice of jurisdiction, to where they would like to be deported. So, my question is, is the Ministry concerned that the offender would tend to choose a jurisdiction which he considers to be favourable to him? By that, I mean that he might be concerned about possible prosecution for the predicate offences which led to the money laundering, for instance. Would that be something that the Government would take into account, that he may choose a jurisdiction that would actually facilitate his avoiding prosecution for certain other crimes that he may have committed overseas? That is the first question: whether the Government is concerned about this in giving the offender the choice.
Secondly, I wonder whether the Minister could confirm whether or not the choice of the deportation country is part of the plea bargain process.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Madam, on whether offenders can choose to go to where they want to go, we have said it several times. They can choose to go to where they want to go. The law allows them to go where their passports allow them to go to.
So, what we think about what will happen to them in the receiving country, whether it will be more favourable or less favourable, as Ms Lim will appreciate, is legally irrelevant and is not something that the Government can take into account.
Second, as regards the choice of deportation and whether that is part of the plea bargain process, again, strictly speaking, if the offender, the person who is asked to leave, can choose to go wherever he wishes to go to, then the relevance of it becomes small. I do not engage in plea bargains. That is a matter between the Attorney-General's Chambers and the defendant's lawyers. I cannot rule out that these discussions take place, but I can tell you what the legal position is.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. One further supplementary question. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that what might happen in the jurisdiction that is chosen is legally irrelevant. But I am just wondering whether he will agree with me that money laundering, being transnational in nature, that we would also like to be seen to be doing our part to ensure that the offenders face justice for whatever offences they have committed. So, as such, are we not interested in the likelihood of such offenders facing prosecution or being charged for any predicate offences that they may have committed overseas and to that extent, we should play our part as well?
\tMr K Shanmugam: Well, in the first place, they would have served time in Singapore if they have committed an offence here. Second, of course we are interested, which is why we are the chair of the Financial Action Task Force. We take this very seriously. But it is wishful thinking to think that every other country will take the same approach or that we can control how other countries can or cannot operationalise their legal position.
If the Member were to ask any country, they will all tell the Member that they take it very seriously. We should not be making those value judgments. However, rather than engage in this back and forth, Ms Sylvia Lim may be aware that we have amended our legislation last year such that once it is operationalised, which should be sometime later this year or next year, the law will allow us to decide where to send such a deportee. But the only consideration cannot be what we think of the different legal systems. There has got to be a multiple set of considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implication of Allianz Insurance's Proposed Acquisition of Income Insurance on Affordable Insurance for Singaporeans and Government's Support of Co-operatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether NTUC Enterprise's sale of its 51% stake in Income Insurance Ltd to a foreign insurance company will impact affordability and availability of essential insurance products to the broad mass consumers and small enterprise segment in the long term; and (b) whether there is social value for NTUC Enterprise to retain its controlling stake in Income Insurance Ltd so that the provision of insurance services remains inclusive and accessible.
8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the proposed majority stake acquisition of Income Insurance Ltd by Allianz Insurance, how will the Government continue to support the co-operative movement in providing Singaporeans with affordable essential goods and services in the future.
9 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth regarding the potential acquisition of a majority stake in Income Insurance Ltd by Allianz Insurance, whether the Government will work with the National Trades Union Congress to assess the potential impact on (i) insurance coverage for lower-income groups and workers and (ii) Income Insurance Ltd's original social mission if it is acquired by a foreign-listed profit-driven commercial entity.
10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether MAS can provide an update on the sale of Income Insurance Ltd to Allianz Insurance, a foreign for-profit insurer; (b) what steps can MAS take to ensure that Income Insurance Ltd continues to provide accessible insurance products to Singapore citizens; and (c) whether companies set up with a social purpose and has performed a critical role in keeping prices affordable for Singaporeans should be designated by legislation as critical entities which require approval from the Government for ownership or control changes.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Madam, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 10 in today's Order Paper as well as a Parliamentary Question (PQ) by Mr Christopher de Souza1 scheduled for a later Sitting, together please?
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) have received several PQs on the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Enterprise's social mission and the Income-Allianz deal. Singaporeans have long recognised NTUC Income as a pillar of social support. It is, therefore, understandable that many Singaporeans are concerned about Allianz's plan to buy a majority stake in Income Insurance. I thank Members of this House for giving voice to these concerns through your many questions.
Allow me to, first, address the PQs relating to the social mission and the support given to co-operative societies, or co-ops, in Singapore, in my MCCY capacity. Minister Chee Hong Tat will, then, address questions relating to the regulatory aspects of the Income-Allianz deal in his MAS capacity. So, reserve your questions on the social mission for me, and then, later on, for the regulatory aspects for Minister Chee in his subsequent reply.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, co-ops remain an important pillar of our society and their work helps to strengthen our nation's social fabric. Co-ops are member-owned business entities that operate on the principles of self-help and mutual assistance. They address the common economic or social needs of their members or of the wider community. Some co-ops seek to provide goods and services at affordable prices for the benefit of their members and the community, while others seek to care for and serve the vulnerable within our community.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Government appreciates and values the role of co-ops and social enterprises in Singapore. We will continue to support the co-operative movement to ensure that Singaporeans' economic and social needs are met and that these goods and services remain affordable and of good quality. We have done so in a few ways.
First, MCCY has amended the Co-operative Societies Act twice within the last seven years, as part of our efforts to update our regulatory requirements to better support co-ops' formation, operations and development. In fact, I took Parliament through the latest amendment in April 2024, where one of the key amendments was to provide co-ops the flexibility to tap their reserves to pay dividends to their members. MCCY will continue to review our policies to ensure that they remain relevant and effective for our co-op sector.
Second, MCCY works closely with the industry body, the Singapore National Co-operative Federation (SNCF), to provide resources and training opportunities for our co-ops. MCCY and SNCF will continue to review the relevance of these training programmes and provide additional ones to our co-op sector to address current and emerging needs, where needed.
Third, the Central Co-operative Fund (CCF) has provided various grants to assist co-ops in their development. CCF disbursed about $2.7 million in grants to our co-ops over the last five years, including startup funding for new co-ops and grants that co-ops can use to address their emerging threats, risks and needs. These grants are reviewed from time to time to ensure that they remain relevant and useful to co-ops.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Government values the role played by NTUC and its enterprises. NTUC Income was established in 1970 with the founding premise of providing Singaporeans, especially underserved workers, with essential, affordable insurance. At the time, most of our workers, particularly from our Pioneer Generation, were uninsured. Through NTUC's affiliated unions, Income provided these workers with much-needed insurance protection at an affordable rate.
But social enterprises must, themselves, be sustainable. If a social enterprise cannot sustain itself financially and Government subsidy is needed to prop up the entity, then we will have to consider whether such a service ought to be provided by the Government. Taxpayers must also be prepared to pay their share of taxes to fund the service.
There are areas like preschool and skills training where the Government has a framework to provide funding to selected operators to deliver affordable services. Where such a framework exists, then the Government has appointed social enterprises, like the NTUC First Campus and NTUC Learning Hub, given them funding support and worked through them to provide the services.
But insurance is different. The insurance market is very different now, compared to when Income was first established in 1970. It is, now, a very competitive market, with many options available to Singaporeans. The Government has also significantly strengthened our social support system. Public healthcare is heavily subsidised. We have MediSave for Singaporeans, MediShield Life offering universal protection against large hospital bills and MediFund as a medical safety net for those with financial difficulties. We also have a universal retirement annuity scheme with CPF LIFE.
So, Income has to operate in this new environment. In fact, the premiums for several of Income's schemes are not the cheapest in the market. Besides competitive pressures, there are also regulators, like MAS and the Ministry of Health (MOH), who ensure that policyholders' interests are protected. Minister Chee will cover this in his reply.
The point is that Singaporeans, including lower-income workers, are well-served by our national insurance programmes and our competitive and well-regulated insurance industry. All these provide Singaporeans with wider choices and better value in insurance services and products.
NTUC has explained the reasons for the deal with Allianz. Let me briefly reiterate the points that NTUC has made. The current situation for Income cannot be sustained and Income's capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure. NTUC Enterprise has supported Income with capital injections and will continue to do so. But NTUC Enterprise cannot do this on its own. That is why Income sought to corporatise in 2022, so that it could consider more options to access more capital.
Questions have been raised about the corporatisation exercise. When this was surfaced to the Registry of Co-operative Societies (RCS), RCS had advised all parties that this was a matter for NTUC Income and its members to collectively determine and resolve. What was important was the need to be upfront and transparent about the arrangements and to allow Income's members to decide whether or not to proceed with the corporatisation. We note that Income had done so. Eventually, members voted overwhelmingly in favour of corporatisation. And from a regulatory perspective, therefore, RCS is satisfied that due process was followed.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, NTUC has stated its preference was to keep a majority stake and also, local ownership. Majority stake, local ownership. But Income was unable to find a willing partner. Hence, Income assessed that the deal with Allianz provides the best alignment of interests.
I can understand why many Singaporeans are concerned that the partnership with Allianz may impact Income's social objectives. As I have explained, we need to first appreciate that Income, today, operates in a very different competitive and regulatory environment. Allianz has committed to honour Income's existing policies; participate in national insurance programmes; and continue its charity commitments, including the pledge of $100 million over 10 years from 2021 to provide social mobility among the lower-income and support the well-being of seniors.
NTUC and Income have also given their assurance to keep premiums affordable for Income's low-cost schemes for its members. In fact, NTUC's Secretary-General has put out a statement yesterday, re-affirming NTUC's full commitment to its social mission.
On Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question, the Government has introduced the Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA, safeguards, to designate entities that provide a critical function to national security interests. Companies that provide a \"social purpose\" will not meet this high bar.
In fact, many companies in Singapore will want to do well and to do good at the same time. It will not be feasible to legislate and prevent ownership changes in all of these companies. Ultimately, the best way to keep prices affordable is to facilitate competition, ensure options for customers and put in place a sound regulatory framework. And that is what the Government is committed to doing.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Before I take questions, Minister Chee, will you be covering for MAS now? Later? Alright, Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Madam, the crux of the matter here is that we expect entities under the NTUC Enterprise to not only do well, but also to do good, such as offering affordable and inclusive insurance to the mass consumers as well as to the underserved. This has always been ethos and mindsets of the management and board of NTUC entities.
So, my first question to the Minister of State is with NTUC Enterprise ceding control of Income to a foreign company, how is NTUC Enterprise able to ensure that the acquired company, which will be foreign-owned now, will be able to continue to do good, like what they have always done before. And if the acquired entity is no longer able to do as much good, will the Government be prepared to step in to plug the gap?
My second question is, in Singapore's context, entities that run as social co-operatives have always been an added and valuable instrument for the Government to do some of the public good, such as helping to stabilise inflation, to manage cost of living and launch more affordable, inclusive products, whether it is healthcare, childcare, groceries or insurance. So, my second question is, in the light of this sale of Income and its earlier corporatisation, do
social co-operatives still have a role in our society?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Madam, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary questions. I can understand why and, in fact, there have been many questions with regard to if NTUC had only a significant ownership in the proposed deal, whether NTUC and Income Insurance can fulfil its social mission.
I think if we take a step back, the reasons why Income has gone into this proposed deal is well laid out. There are realities on the ground – competitive, Government stepping in to provide that social assurance, as well as the capital requirements. The capital buffers, for example, were under pressure. So, that is the first principle.
In this new proposed deal, NTUC as well as Allianz has made assurances. I have outlined these assurances in NTUC's statement, that it will continue with the two schemes, NTUC Gift and Income Insurance's \"LUV Life Insurance\", and to keep these premiums affordable for policyholders, especially for the low-income segments. And NTUC has stated publicly that Income will uphold this commitment.
NTUC has also stated publicly that NTUC's social mission will not change. On its part, Allianz has also said that the proposed deal will not affect the current policy and they will continue to uphold the pledge to disburse the $100 million over 10 years, from 2021.
Ultimately, this is something that NTUC, Income and Allianz, if the proposed deal goes through, they will have to decide together, but Income Insurance will have board members, they will have substantial share in this and they will work together with this proposed entity to fulfil that mission.
On Mr Liang Eng Hwa's second question, there are a variety of social enterprises, co-ops, many of which many Members know about. For NTUC, there will be a huge portfolio of enterprises, be it in insurance, in childcare and eldercare, supermarket, skills' training, many that I have outlined.
The co-op sector, social enterprises continue to play a very, very important role to provide affordable products that particularly those that are vulnerable and are low income will continue to enjoy. I think that is not just NTUC, but the whole slew of the co-op sector which we have been supporting. And I have shown how we have been supporting them – with training, with grants and also with tweaks in the Co-operative Societies Act. We will continue to support them because we value them and we know that they are a huge value to society.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. May I first declare that I am an independent director of a life insurance company registered and operating in Singapore. I have three supplementary questions for Minister of State Alvin Tan.
My first question is, although he has touched on the assurances that Allianz has given for the deal, but I would still like to ask whether Allianz has given a commitment in writing to allow Income to continue its social mission. If yes, is there a time limit to their commitment? If no, would he agree that NTUC or NTUC Enterprise, has no basis to give the assurance that Income's social mission will be continued? Because after all, if you sell a majority stake to a private company, you cannot have that assurance given to Singaporeans for the very long term.
My next question is whether the Government actually continues to view NTUC Enterprise and Income as social enterprises or private companies. Because Singaporeans are confused that NTUC Income's CEO, Mr Andrew Yeo, had stated two years ago, that the corporatised Income will remain an NTUC social enterprise, while NTUC Enterprise Chairman, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has just implied in a recent interview that Income should be treated as a private enterprise and thus, we should not interfere in this transaction.
My third question is, if the Government continues to view NTUC Enterprise and Income as social enterprises, is it not in the interest to intervene in this transaction to ensure that Income continues to be majority-owned by Singaporeans, so that the social mission of Income will not be affected? After all, NTUC Enterprise is a co-operative set up by NTUC and affiliated unions, and the Singapore Labour Foundation – which is a Statutory Board of the Ministry of Manpower – has been providing funding to NTUC over the years.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his questions. First, I want to say that Income's social mission has already evolved. It only offers two low-cost options right now, and the other products have competitive options and are well- regulated.
But allow me to also, as I answer his questions, take a step back, because he has questions about Allianz's commitment in writing, social enterprise and private companies. I have answered the second one.
And then this other question, with regard to the social mission. I have explained and in NTUC's statement, it has already said that Allianz is committed to honouring Income's existing policies, participating in national insurance programmes, continuing its charity commitments, also including the pledge of $100 million over 10 years.
But Mdm Deputy Speaker, maybe I can take a step back, to again remind Members here why. Because the questions have been: \"Why sell?\", \"Why sell to foreign owners?\" and \"Can NTUC continue to fulfil its social mission?\" I think that is the crux of Mr Leong Mun Wai's question.
Let me also state that the reasons why these questions arise. And I think Mr Leong Mun Wai has also expressed that, as well as others who have asked the questions: why is this such an emotive topic? This is an emotive topic because Income is special to all of us. For many years, since 1970, it is a trusted brand, it is a brand that Singaporeans identify with, it is a brand that Singaporeans trust.
And for many of us, that is our first policy. For example, if you go to National Service, it was your first policy. And that is why this is something which we all care about and care about deeply, and all Members do so. Can I also just say that because it is something we care about, we all want the best for NTUC Income, we want the best for Singaporean policyholders, we want the best for Singapore. And therefore, you have raised these questions.
But there are different views about this on the ground, there are different views about this in the House and there are also different approaches to how NTUC Enterprise, as well as Income, will have to deal with the realities on the ground.
And so, the question is whether NTUC Enterprise and Income's approach is the right one. Because that is what the discussions have been publicly – whether NTUC Enterprise and Income's approach is the right one.
Time is the best judge, but let me, again, put it out very clearly, that, number one, Income's capital buffers have been under pressure. There is no doubt about this. And in fact, if you think about the insurance industry, there are also other insurance companies and financial institutions who have gone through repeated financial crises – be it the Asian Financial Crisis, the Global Financial Crisis, SARS or the COVID-19 pandemic that has just passed – where they have been unable, for example, or have faced challenges to adhere to capital adequacy ratios and solvency standards. And therefore, NTUC Enterprise had to put in capital injections of up to, it is publicly known, about up to $630 million. But it cannot do so alone and it cannot do so in perpetuity. So, that is one, the financial capital adequacy that is the reality that Income faces.
The second reality is that, both in the private insurance market as well as the public insurance market, the landscape has changed. In the public insurance market, the Government, over time, has stepped in, provided very comprehensive healthcare, comprehensive insurance, and therefore, that it has become more competitive for Income.
On the private space, because we have a well-regulated insurance industry, with a whole variety and suite of options for Singaporeans to choose from, Income also finds itself in that competitive space. So, this is why. These are the rationales which they have articulated and these are the realities.
Then, it also begs the question, could Income and NTUC Enterprise then have looked for other funding sources, which is the question on the ground. They have. In their statements, said that they have. They have looked at financial institutions and non-financial institutions, locally and foreign. They have also tried their very best, as they had mentioned in their statement, and they have said their preference is that they want, ideally, the deal to be majority-owned and, ideally, for it to be locally.
So, they have tried. And make no mistake about that, they have tried, which is an answer to many of these questions that are floating on the ground. But after having tried so many of this and being cognisant of the fact of the challenges on the ground, they said \"Allianz has the best alignment with NTUC Income.\"
What is the purpose for that then? It is not just to address all of the challenges which I have lined up, the capital side and the competitive side, but it is also one central reason why they do so. That is a long-term view to protect Singaporeans for the long term.
\t
Because right now, these challenges are apparent in the near term and the medium term. But insurance is a long-tailed business, as the Members would know. And if you can fulfil your liabilities now, all well and good. But if you are unable to fulfil your liabilities 50 years down the road, then who picks up the tab?
So, we can have a very good debate about the approaches. I think this is what we are trying to do. Ultimately, time will tell. It is a judgement call. That is what leadership is. That is what a judgement call is and that is what I think is already stated clearly. What NTUC Enterprise, Income Insurance have already stated very, very clearly. So, I thought that this is very useful for us to put out there, so that all Members are very clear.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Madam. I would like to further ask the Minister of State about what he has just mentioned. I think this whole debate today is that we want clarity. What the Minister of State has mentioned is that the social mission of Income is no longer a very important part. Because he mentioned that currently, there are only a few policies with regard to that.
That may be the case. But, however, social mission also means intact. Maybe today, the condition of the market, Income does not need to do that much on social mission, but it gives Singaporeans a sense of security that we always have a life insurance company there, protecting us. Just like we seek comfort in the fact that FairPrice is always there. FairPrice is no longer the cheapest in Singapore, we know. But when there is a food crisis, we have FairPrice. So, we are also talking about the long term.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, please ask your question.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, so my question is, first of all, does the Government admit that they are only going to concentrate on the capital adequacy of Income and disregard the social mission? This is the first question. Secondly — okay, maybe the Minister of State can answer that first.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think many other Members also have questions, but I have already articulated to Mr Leong Mun Wai. There were quotes by some of our founding leaders. Let me quote Dr Goh Keng Swee. Dr Goh Keng Swee firmly stressed the key principles for co-ops. He said that co-ops must be competitive, it must be financially sustainable, receiving no privileged treatment from Government. He concluded that a bankrupt co-operative will be of no use.
And I have already outlined why NTUC had done its homework and really wanted to make it as majority-owned as possible and locally-owned. I have already outlined this.
If Members were to take one step back and look at NTUC, and look at its social mission, many of us here are advisors to NTUC unions, we have worked very closely with them. I work very closely with my union's Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU). I work very closely with the co-ops under SNCF. I meet them very regularly.
But let me put to the Member, Mdm Deputy Speaker, NTUC's history. These are proof points that the social mission remains true. These are the proof points that in crises and in peace time, NTUC remains true. Since its founding in 1961, NTUC has protected and uplifted workers' lives and livelihoods. You meet the workers, they will tell you. We were just there, at the SISEU convention recently. They have kept true to its mission. And since 1969, the Labour Modernist seminar 55 years ago, NTUC has continued to care for workers and families.
More recently, on the social mission, NTUC has worked to raise wages of our low-wage workers through the Progressive Wage Model – again, a social mission, focused on workers, because every worker matters. Then, during COVID-19, it was a lifeline for workers, with the Job Security Council. And throughout the years, throughout the decades, NTUC and the NTUC social enterprises have contributed over $300 million to various charity programmes.
So, NTUC has shown time and time and time and time again, since its founding, since NTUC Income's establishment in 1970, that it has continued its social mission and it has continued to, not just talked about it, but fulfilled the social mission. But it has to be responsible, it has to look long term. It has looked at its books, it has looked at the external environment and it has done its homework, and that is why it is doing what it is doing now.
And it has made commitments, which I have stated in NTUC's statement and Allianz has also made its statement as well. And so, Mdm Deputy Speaker, time will tell whether this approach is right, but if you think about this, it is very clear that all of these things have been lined up quite clearly.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank Minister of State for answering my PQ. I have one supplementary question, a somewhat similar question as that asked by the Member Mr Leong.
In terms of co-ops playing a role, it is very significant. My question is that, in terms of market failure, issues that have been addressed in the past, I think market failure in the insurance industry in the past, has been addressed somewhat like what Minister of State has mentioned.
So, my question is a bit more technical – it is about governance structure of the new entity. If the Minister of State can share, whether there is any reassurance beyond what he has mentioned, from Allianz, in terms of commitment, whether there are any control measures from the governance structure, going forward. And not just for this case, but future cases, for changes or acquisition of co-ops going forward as well, in terms of the legislation.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Madam, it is still a proposed deal, yet to be approved. But in public, the structure of the deal is that NTUC Enterprise, up to 49%, and it is a significant shareholding, and Allianz, 51%. So, NTUC Enterprise will have a significant say in how this proposed new entity will run and they have already publicly made very clear statements, on both sides, both NTUC Enterprise, Income, as well as Allianz, about what they will do should this deal progress.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: I do see a few hands coming up, but I do want to allow for those who have filed PQs, to be able to ask their questions. So, I am going to move on to the next related PQ. And then, I will open it up for supplementary questions. Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the proposed controlling stake buyout of Income Insurance Limited by Allianz, what can the Government do to ensure that Income Insurance Limited’s social role of offering affordable insurance coverage to Singaporeans will continue."],"footNoteQuestions":["7","8","9","10"],"questionNo":"7-10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Assessment of Allianz Insurance's Planned Acquisition of Income Insurance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS will be working with the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to scrutinise the planned purchase by Allianz Insurance of a 51% stake in Income Insurance Ltd; and (b) whether MAS will take into consideration of the ability for Income Insurance Ltd to continue fulfilling the social mission of providing affordable insurance plans to Singaporeans after the acquisition by Allianz Insurance as one of criteria for approving the acquisition.
12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS is aware of the key considerations behind the planned acquisition of Income Insurance Ltd by Allianz Insurance; (b) if so, what are they; (c) what is MAS’ assessment of the impact of the acquisition on (i) the availability of existing and future insurance products that were designed for social good and (ii) the options available to Singaporean consumers and SMEs; and (d) whether MAS is aware if Income Insurance Ltd’s mission as a social enterprise will be preserved post-acquisition.
13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is MAS’ assessment of the impact of the planned acquisition of Income Insurance Ltd by Allianz Insurance on the social mission of Income Insurance Ltd in providing affordable and well-structured insurance products for Singaporeans; and (b) what avenues and measures are available for Income Insurance Ltd policyholders to allay their concerns about the balance of interests shifting in favour of the new potential shareholder.
14 Mr Mark Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance Ltd to Allianz aligns with the Government’s strategy to build national champions that can compete globally; (b) if so, how; and (c) what measures will be implemented to ensure that Singapore (i) retains control over strategic national assets in the insurance sector (ii) safeguards the interests of local policyholders and stakeholders and (iii) balances the benefits of foreign investment with the need to develop and support homegrown companies.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 11 to 14 and Written Question No 3 in today's Order Paper together, regarding the proposed deal between Income Insurance Ltd and Allianz Europe BV?
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Madam. My reply will also cover Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the same subject matter which several Members have filed for subsequent Sittings.
Madam, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has just replied to the PQs pertaining to Income's social mission and NTUC Enterprise's reasons for entering into this proposed deal with Allianz. I will focus on the following areas from Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') perspective as regulator of the insurance sector.
First, how would MAS assess the proposed deal for regulatory approval and did the deal involve any conflicts of interests? Second, would the proposed deal affect Singaporeans' access to affordable insurance products? Finally, what will be the impact on Income's existing policyholders and employees?
MAS' primary role as regulator is to promote a sound and progressive financial sector. For the insurance sector, we want insurers to manage their risks well so that policyholders are assured that their long-term policies are safe and will be adequately protected.
When MAS assesses the application for a change in substantial shareholder in an insurer, we will consider a range of criteria, in particular, the applicant's track record, financial soundness, reputation, as well as fitness and propriety. For example, we will assess if the proposed shareholder has the financial capacity to support the insurer when needed, coupled with the willingness and ability to ensure that the insurer's operations are well-run. The insurer must also have effective risk management systems and controls so that it can continue to meet its obligations to policyholders for the long term.
For the boards of major licensed insurers, including Income, MAS requires the majority of board members to comprise directors independent of the shareholders, management and business relations. Board appointments are also subject to MAS' approval. When assessing an application, MAS' considerations include the background, skillset and experience of the applicant.
With regard to Mr de Souza's question on the management of conflicts of interest, MAS had reviewed and was satisfied with the relevant processes Income's board had put in place to address conflicts of interest with respect to the appointment of its financial advisor on this proposed deal and the decision to enter into the deal with Allianz. In the appointment of the financial advisor for the deal, the Chairman of Income's board had recused himself. The decision to enter into the deal was made by the board, comprising a majority of independent directors.
Madam, fostering a competitive insurance market with financially strong insurers is a key part of MAS' approach to ensuring that insurers operate sustainably and serve the public well. We believe that a competitive market is the most effective way to meet the insurance needs of Singaporeans and facilitate access to affordable insurance options and good service over the longer term.
Allianz is one of the largest insurers globally, although it only has a small retail and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) insurance presence in Singapore today. Allianz Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd is ranked 14th in general insurance with a market share of 2% based on written premiums. There is no significant overlap between Income and Allianz's overall insurance business in Singapore and hence, there is no concern about adverse impact of the proposed deal on competition in the sector.
The insurance market in Singapore is highly competitive. There are currently more than 50 direct insurers in Singapore offering a wide range of insurance products to meet the insurance needs of individuals and businesses. In both life and general insurance, Income has market shares of less than 10% based on written premiums. For many insurance products, Income does not always offer the lowest prices compared to other insurers.
Take life insurance as an example. A check on CompareFIRST, an online portal that allows consumers to compare life insurance products from various insurers, shows that the most competitive rates for Direct Purchase Insurance Term and Whole Life products, include a mix of local and foreign insurers.
With regard to Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), the Ministry of Health (MOH) helps to exercise regulatory oversight over the IP insurers and they have to seek approval from MOH for changing IP premiums or terms and conditions. MOH also publishes a comparison of indicative lifetime premiums and coverage across different IPs. There is strong competition in the IP market, with each insurer offering plans for different levels of coverage to the public and it is not dominated by any single insurer. Income's IPs are also not the cheapest in the market for most categories.
\tFinally, I would like to address the impact on Income’s existing policyholders and employees. Madam, we understand their concerns. Like many hon Members here in the House, I too have residents from Bishan-Toa Payoh who are existing policyholders and employees of Income.
Should the proposed deal be approved, there will be no change to the terms and conditions of existing insurance contracts. MAS expects Income to fulfil its obligations to all policyholders under the terms of its existing insurance contracts. I note that Allianz has also publicly stated its intent for Income to continue to honour the terms of the existing policies underwritten by Income and ensure a seamless transition with no impact to existing policyholders. MAS will hold Income and Allianz to account to these commitments.
In addition, MAS has regulatory requirements and guidance in place for insurers to maintain sufficient capital reserves, put in place robust governance and risk management frameworks, and also to treat their customers fairly.
For participating policies where policyholders share in the profits of the participating fund, MAS protects the interests of policyholders by restricting the ratio of profits allocated to shareholders and the type of expenses insurers may charge to the participating fund.
And with regard to employees, MAS does not regulate employment decisions of financial institutions (FIs). However, we expect all FIs, including Income, to treat their employees fairly and to fully comply with the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM's) employment laws and guidelines.
To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, MAS encourages all insurers, both local and foreign, to continually innovate, adopt best practices and ensure robust risk management. This will foster a competitive insurance market that offers choice, value and stability to protect the interests of policyholders.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Given that the acquisition involves a very well-established social enterprise, what considerations did MAS take into consideration regarding the potential shift in corporate culture and mission alignment post-acquisition?
And secondly, looking ahead, how does MAS plan to monitor and evaluate the long-term outcomes of this acquisition in terms of social impact and financial inclusion?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed those points in my main reply, but let me just reiterate the key messages. So, first, as regulator, MAS will look at the interest of the policyholders. For the existing policyholders that have existing insurance contracts with Income, we will hold Income and Allianz to their commitments that they have both made to ensure that the terms and conditions of the existing insurance contracts will have no change. So, therefore, this is the way to protect our existing policyholders.
For the other commitments that NTUC, NTUC Enterprise as well as Allianz have made, I think my colleague, Minister of State Alvin Tan, shared some of these earlier in his reply, referring to the statements made by NTUC Enterprise and also by NTUC. I think these are the assurances given by the shareholders and also by NTUC, that its social mission will not change and that it will continue to look after the well-being, especially of the lower-income policyholders.
For MAS, our belief is that the best way to protect our policyholders, whether existing or future, is to have a competitive insurance industry. And insurers, which are well run, will then provide stability over the longer term and offer choice of options and offer competitive rates to policyholders. Then, from a policyholder's point of view, you can choose which insurance product best suits your needs, which insurance product would actually be most competitive for you.
So, choice and stability bring greater value to policyholders, and this is best done through a competitive insurance market.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the Second Minister for Finance for the comprehensive reply. Can I ask supplementary questions to the Minister? What is the time frame for assessing and approving the deal proposed by Income and Allianz? And secondly, what is MAS' assessment of the current Income's financial viability and stability vis-a-vis the rest of the insurance companies in Singapore, particularly, the life insurance companies in Singapore? And, thirdly, can I just clarify again that when MAS evaluates whether to approve the deal, it is looking more at financial viability as well as protecting existing policyholders, rather than whether Income and Allianz will fulfil their commitment to provide affordable insurance to the policyholders?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, the proposed deal is subject to MAS' regulatory approval. So, MAS would have to go through the details, get the information and there is a due process for this. I would not be able to give the Member a specific timeline because I think what is important is that the process is done in a rigorous manner and in a comprehensive manner.
The second question that the Member asked, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is with regard to how we will assess, if I understood him correctly, the longer-term viability and the financial viability of Income. I think this has been explained by both NTUC Enterprise and also by NTUC that even though at the moment, Income is able to meet its commitments, insurance is a business that has a long tail. So, whether Income would, in the future, continue to be able to remain competitive, continue to be able to meet its obligations, I think, those are the questions that are also important. So, it is not just ensuring that Income is able to meet their obligations now. I think, collectively and not just MAS, all of us, we want Income to do well, so that they can do good. We want Income to be able to meet its obligations, not just now, but also into the future, so that is not only now that they are able to fulfil their social mission, but also in the future, they are also able to continue to fulfil their social mission.
So, that is what NTUC has said; they want to retain the social mission. They do not want that to change. But the best way to enable them to continue to fulfil their social mission and to fulfil their social mission more effectively is to have a strong Income. As NTUC has shared in their statement, with Allianz coming into this proposed deal, they would now have two strong supporters, two strong shareholders. Instead of only relying on NTUC Enterprise, they also could tap on the resources and the networks of Allianz.
MAS focuses on what is in the best interest of our policyholders because as regulator for the insurance sector, that is a key target group for us. Speaking not as Second Minister for Finance, but speaking as an MAS board member, that is how MAS will assess this from a regulatory approval point of view. And I have explained earlier in my response to Mr Yip why I believe that ensuring a stable insurance sector, a competitive and vibrant insurance sector, is the best way to benefit policyholders.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Madam. I have three supplementary questions on this. The first would be in relation to governance and controls. First, I know that Allianz settled a criminal case in the United States (US) two years ago for around US$6 billion over allegations that it defrauded investors, and its US subsidiary pleaded guilty to criminal securities fraud and agreed to pay fines and make restitution to investors. Did MAS look into this and also is MAS then therefore satisfied that corporate governance and controls have been strengthened and that there are no residual concerns? Because after all Income serves 1.7 million Singaporeans with a significant market share in areas such as motor insurance, about 20%, in property and also health, roughly around 15% for each of those.
My second supplementary question relates to a point made in the Allianz announcement. In the announcement, it said, and I quote, \"Allianz and the offeror intend to undertake a strategic and operational review of the company and its subsidiaries with a view to enhancing the value of existing businesses, operating the company in a more capital-efficient manner.\" And then, further on, it states, \"Pending the outcome of such a review, Allianz may make changes to the operations and businesses of the company and its subsidiaries\".
I note that there are approximately 1,900 employees of Income at the moment and, having worked on a number of acquisitions, I note the standard for discussions to be had between parties about streamlining operations, possible redundancies and sometimes certain undertakings are made about continued employment for a certain amount of time, particularly for key officers. However, it is natural that existing staff, especially those who are more junior, would be concerned and wonder whether and how they would be supported through this.
Given the above, is the Government or MAS aware of any discussions being made about possible job losses or will MAS consider if any guarantees should be made and sought from Allianz about existing employees, about their employment situation and would this form part of the MAS regulatory assessment and ultimately, decision whether or not to approve the transaction?
And finally, if I may, on the point about the financial sustainability of Income, I note a report that was published in December 2023 by Zero One Research, where it notes that the capital adequacy ratio of Income Insurance was roughly as 193% under the Risk-based Capital framework, called the RBC 2 framework, and this was based on reported data. This exceeds, by a wide margin, the minimum required level of 120% under Singapore's Insurance Act. [Please refer to \"Personal Explanation\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Personal Explanation section.]
So, my question is, could I get some clarity about why are there concerns about Income's unsustainability as a business, given this healthy buffer?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her three questions. Let me start off with the first one about the case against the Allianz Global Investors in the US.
Madam, the Allianz Global Investors is a US entity under the Allianz Group and this structure, this entity is not directly linked to the entity that will be entering into a deal, this proposed deal, with Income. The product that got into trouble with the US regulators, the Allianz entity that is in Singapore, they did not manage and they also did not offer similar funds, like this fund that got into trouble, which is called the Structured Alpha funds. The investigation by the US Department of Justice on Allianz Global in the US also did not reveal that any other entities within the Allianz Group, including the entity here in Singapore, were aware or had participated in the misconduct. So, I hope that addresses the question that Ms He raised.
\t
Ms He's second question, with regard to the announcement by Allianz that they intend to do a review of their operations and see how they can deploy capital and also streamline their operations, I think that is to be expected, that every time you have a merger, you have a corporate restructuring, whether it involves another party or it is done internally, we are always looking for ways to work more productively and to become more efficient. Whether that then translates into what Ms He was concerned about, which is job losses, I think let us not jump too far ahead. They have not even entered into the proposed deal yet. It has not been approved yet. It is a bit too early, a bit too premature to start to talk about whether there will be job losses.
But as I mentioned earlier in my main reply, in response to a question that Ms Foo Mee Har raised, because I know Ms Foo is also very concerned about our workers and wanted to make sure that their interests will be protected, the MAS does not directly regulate employment practices of FIs. This is not just for Income, this is across all FIs. But we do expect our FIs to comply fully with the MOM employment laws and guidelines. If the workers are not treated fairly, that is where MOM and NTUC will be able to come in and help to speak up for our workers, just like what NTUC has done in previous cases. Where there are job losses and the workers were not fairly treated, NTUC will step forward and fight for our workers, so that we give our workers a fair deal.
As I qualified earlier, this is too early for us to talk about that. In Chinese, they say, \"八字都还没一撇\". You have not even completed the deal. Therefore, it is too early for us to start talking about some of these potential downstream issues.
The assurance I want to give to the Member and also to our workers is that we expect Income and Allianz, we expect the entity to treat its workers fairly and to comply fully with the MOM employment laws and guidelines.
To Ms He's last question, I would like to go back to what Minister of State Alvin Tan mentioned earlier in his reply, which is why NTUC Enterprise had to inject additional capital into Income. Maybe the healthy state of what Ms He has seen being reported, is the outcome of NTUC Enterprise injecting additional capital into Income.
As I also mentioned earlier in my response to Mr Ang, this does not mean that in the immediate moment, at the immediate point in time, Income is having a problem with its finances. That is not the case. But we know insurance is not a just here and now business, it is a long-term business with a long tail. How do you ensure that over the longer term, you are stronger and better able to meet your obligations and to protect the interests of your policyholders – both the existing policyholders and also new policyholders that you may take on later on. This is best done when you have a stronger insurer.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the many assurances of holding Income and Allianz accountable to their commitment for this deal. It is also comforting to hear NTUC also weighing in to give their commitment.
I think what is in many people's minds is that with a minority shareholding, what would be MAS' regulatory powers? In specific details, how are they going to exercise that to make sure that the interests of policyholders are safeguarded? The Minister did touch on the composition of the board of directors, but can the Minister elaborate further, including maybe on regulatory levers like approving pricing strategies and monitoring the product offerings so that the parties can honour Income's existing policies and ensure essential insurance products remain affordable and accessible under the new ownership structure, should it come through?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her questions. I know where Ms Foo is coming from because just as I mentioned earlier, she is very concerned about making sure that the workers are well looked after. She is also very concerned about making sure that the existing policyholders' interests are protected.
I appreciate where Ms Foo is coming from and I want to assure Ms Foo and Members of this House that indeed, MAS' focus is to make sure that the interests of policyholders are protected. I mentioned in my main reply earlier what are some of the ways in which we can do this and also what are some of the things that we can do to promote a competitive, vibrant and stable insurance market that would then give policyholders options and good choices.
I would like to reiterate this point in response to Ms Foo and then, add one important consideration to address the point that she mentioned. In order for us to promote a competitive and vibrant insurance sector, we need to make sure that our rules and regulations for the financial sector, for the insurance sector, are being implemented and that the regulator's decisions are being taken with transparency and also in accordance with what the law provides.
This is what we mean by rule of law – that it is not one set of treatment for one entity and another set of treatment for another entity. We have to have even-handedness and a level playing field across different entities within the market so that we are able to promote more competition in a more vibrant, in a more competitive market, which ultimately will serve the interests of our policyholders.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a few questions for the Minister. This pertains to the second thrust of his original reply, which was on the subject of Singaporeans' access to affordable insurance products. Both my questions pertain to what has happened over the last 24 hours.
The first pertains to the statement by the NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng. He stated that, \"Today, Income offers two low-cost schemes for union members – NTUC Gift and LUV term life insurance. Income has assured NTUC that it will keep premiums affordable for policyholders, especially those in the lower-income segments.\"
Can I ask the Minister, with regard to MAS as regulator of insurance companies, has it queried NTUC on the basis of such a commitment that has been made in view of NTUC Enterprise's projected minority shareholding – if the deal goes through? Relatedly, can I enquire whether MAS is looking at the market to provide more low-cost options for Singaporeans, especially underserved communities who require insurance protection?
The second question pertains to NTUC's joint statement on 4 August and the response of the former Income CEO, Mr Tan, yesterday.
MAS, as regulator, would note that there is a point of difference between NTUC Enterprise's alleged representation that its undertaking to hold on to the relevant shares was \"not for an indefinite period\". Mr Tan, on the other hand, represents that this is not true and he invites MAS to ask both NTUC Enterprise and NTUC Income to produce all the material board minutes on the undertaking given by NTUC Enterprise. What is MAS' position on this matter?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his two questions.
The first question on the insurance products that Income will continue to provide and also what the NTUC Secretary-General said in terms of those two specific low-cost products targeted at, especially, the lower-income workers, we are glad that NTUC has stepped forward to provide this assurance to look after the lower-wage workers. From a regulatory point of view, we do not go into the level of details in which the Secretary-General of NTUC has provided because he has gone beyond what is the regulatory requirement for him to give this assurance. He did it because he understands the concerns and he wants to give the assurance to the lower-wage workers that NTUC will continue to stand by them.
For MAS, my reply earlier to Ms Foo, to Mr Ang and others, and also in my main reply, that is what MAS will focus on. We will make sure that the terms and conditions of the existing policies will not change after the proposed deal has gone through. That is something that we will hold Income and Allianz to. That is something that will be part of our regulatory approval.
To Mr Singh's second question, we have noted the two letters from Mr Tan Suee Chieh. We will do some further work to establish what the facts are before we assess what our position is and our next steps. I want to assure Mr Singh and the House that MAS takes a serious view of protecting the interests of our policyholders and other stakeholders. We will establish the facts and we will assess what our next steps should be.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you to the Minister of State and Minister for the responses. I do not know whom I should direct this to, so my question is to either one of you. I help to run charities and also social enterprises as an active volunteer. I agree with Minister of State Alvin's quote by Dr Goh Keng Swee that —
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Phua, please ask your question. We have only three minutes.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng: — co-ops and social enterprises cannot remain forever just because they are there or they started at a certain time. Social enterprises are difficult to run because they have to meet both financial and social bottom lines. It is even costlier to keep them around just for sentimental reasons.
Will the Minister of State or the Minister, through this episode, review and provide better guidelines to educate co-ops, social enterprises, even Singaporeans at large, on the best practices on when these entities like social enterprises or co-ops should enter a market, when they should exit, especially when the landscape has changed? And also, if it is truly an essential sector, how would the Government then come in to support like in the case of preschools and so forth with anchor operator schemes? I just want to know what we learned from this episode.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. You cannot direct your question to the Minister of State as we have passed the last PQ. So, it is now Minister Chee who will take the question.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may exceed the time a little bit. I just want to apologise because I forgot to answer part of Mr Singh's question earlier. Mr Singh asked about the options and products for lower-income Singaporeans and underserved segments. Income, through the assurance given by NTUC and NTUC Enterprise, has said that they will want to continue to ensure that they provide affordable products for lower-wage segments. The provision of these different insurance products that cater to different segments of the society, including the vulnerable segments that Mr Singh mentioned, today, it is not just the purview of Income. The other insurers are also doing it.
So, we believe that a competitive market with sufficient competition and sufficient numbers of insurers, a stable, vibrant, competitive market, will allow us to be able to have more insurers step forward to provide products that may serve the needs of different segments in society, including the lower-wage segments and the vulnerable segments.
\t
If I may now turn to Ms Denise Phua's question, Ms Phua's starting point is a correct one, and that is also the view of NTUC and NTUC Enterprise. I believe my colleague, Minister of State Alvin Tan, had also reiterated that this is also the Government's belief that in order for an entity to do good, it must first be able to do well, so that it can sustain doing good. If you are unable to do well, you cannot continue to do good. So, that philosophy, as Dr Goh Keng Swee articulated, still remains very true today.
For this particular proposed deal, one of the key objectives that NTUC and NTUC Enterprise want to achieve is exactly that. They are not moving away from their social mission. They continue to want to fulfil their social mission. But this is a better way of fulfilling that social mission and this is a more effective way for them to do good if they are able to have a strong Income.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for National Development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Control (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Building Control Act 1989 to enhance energy efficiency measures for existing buildings and to make a miscellaneous amendment\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) on behalf of the Minister of National Development; 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":"Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Energy Market Authority of Singapore Act 2001, the Electricity Act 2001 and the Gas Act 2001\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng); 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":"Casino Control (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Casino Control Act 2006 and to make consequential and related amendments to the Gambling Control Act 2022 and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Act 2022\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Second Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament in September, 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":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for Manpower; 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":"Platform Workers Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the rights and obligations of platform operators and platform workers, to register and recognise platform work associations and provide for matters connected therewith, to amend certain Acts to provide for the rights, obligations, protections and representations of platform workers and platform operators under those Acts and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for Manpower; 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":"Land Surveyors (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister for Law.
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Before I deal with the Bill proper, please allow me to outline the important roles and functions that land surveyors perform.
Land surveyors conduct land, building or property surveys in Singapore. Such surveys are necessary to demarcate property boundaries required for the issuance of titles and land development works. They also have the expertise to conduct other types of survey work, such as as-built, topographical and setting-out surveys.
Land surveyors play an important role in the built environment sector. By depicting accurate boundaries and areas in their cadastral surveys, land surveyors contribute to a stable and reliable property ownership framework, which gives certainty to individuals and businesses alike in their dealings. Land surveyors also work with other professionals within the sector, including architects and professional engineers, throughout the lifecycle of a development project. The work stretches from concept to construction and even beyond, from topographical surveys of the site to the final stage of cadastral survey when the building is completed.
Conversely, any errors by land surveyors, such as in the determination of property boundaries in a cadastral survey, can have significant downstream consequences. For example, discrepancies in the surveyed land area occupied by a property could affect the property's valuation. Errors could also lead to inaccurately demarcated boundaries, resulting in encroachments onto neighbouring plots of land owned by different parties.
The Land Surveyors Act 1991, the Act, was enacted to establish a system of registration and regulate the qualifications and practices of land surveyors who supply their services in Singapore.
Under the Act, the Land Surveyors Board (LSB) oversees the registration of land surveyors, regulation of the qualifications and practice of land surveyors, as well as related matters. LSB is also empowered by the Act to establish, maintain and develop the standard of professional conduct and ethics of the surveying profession.
Under our current framework, individuals, regardless of nationality, can only engage in land survey work in Singapore, if they are registered surveyors who have a valid practising certificate issued by LSB; authorised surveyors; or carrying out land survey work under the direction or supervision of such registered surveyors or authorised surveyors.
Registered surveyors are individuals who are registered as land surveyors under section 12 of the Act. These individuals must meet LSB's eligibility criteria, such as passing of examinations and a professional interview conducted by LSB. Authorised surveyors refer to land surveyors employed by the Singapore Land Authority, regardless of whether they are registered under section 12 of the Act.
This framework has served Singapore well over the years. It has ensured that all land surveyors providing services in Singapore are fit and qualified to do so.
At the same time, land surveying is evolving, for example, to include the use of rapidly developing land surveying technologies, such as ground penetrating radar. This is creating new and exciting opportunities for cross-border exchange of expertise.
Given these developments, we are introducing this Bill to help the local profession to pursue these opportunities. In addition, as the last major amendments to the Act were made 20 years ago, we are also taking the opportunity to update certain aspects of the Act.
There are broad proposals in this Bill. They are: facilitating the implementation of Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) between Singapore and other countries or territories and/or between LSB and its foreign counterparts in other countries or territories; granting registered surveyors greater professional recognition; and updating the penalties and fines and dealing with the consequential amendments in the Act. I will take hon Members through these areas in turn.
First, the amendments to facilitate the implementation of MRAs. As defined in the Bill, MRAs are bilateral or multilateral arrangements for the mutual recognition of land surveyors who are registered in their respective countries or territories and the survey work that may be performed by these land surveyors in each such country or territory that is party to the MRA.
The proposed amendments will facilitate the movement of local registered surveyors from Singapore who wish to pursue new opportunities overseas, subject to the rules in the foreign jurisdiction. It also allows Singapore to benefit from the expertise of foreign land surveyors.
MRAs will also allow us to build up and strengthen new capabilities within the local surveying profession, through the mutual exchange of knowledge, expertise and best practices. For example, registered foreign surveyors may be able to share their experience or expertise with specialised equipment in emerging areas like aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) scanning, underground survey and large-scale mapping.
Our local registered surveyors can also benefit by collaborating with registered foreign surveyors who have access to specialised equipment, such as cameras used to conduct aerial mapping. This can help them to take on new or different types of projects, with lower upfront capital investment.
For local registered surveyors intending to engage in survey work overseas under an MRA, the new section 10A, inserted by clause 7 of the Bill, will provide for them to apply to LSB to be recognised for the purposes of that MRA.
Meanwhile, for foreign surveyors who wish to carry out survey work in Singapore, clauses 3 to 6 and 9 of the Bill will amend the Act to require LSB and its Registrar to administer and maintain a register of foreign surveyors who have successfully registered with LSB and allow registered foreign surveyors to carry out survey work in Singapore in a manner permitted by LSB pursuant to an MRA.
These changes are supported by the members of LSB, which includes private sector representatives. They are also in line with the 2017 amendments to the Architects Act 1991 and Professional Engineers Act 1991, which facilitated the implementation of MRAs in these related professional fields.
Hon Members who are familiar with the developments in the built environment sector will know that land surveyors, architects and professional engineers are often collectively referred to as allied professionals. The amendments proposed in this Bill on MRAs will have the effect of ensuring that local registered surveyors are on par with their allied counterparts. MRAs can make it easier for local registered surveyors to practise abroad in a participating jurisdiction.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute handouts that illustrate how MRAs will add to our current landscape.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App.
As set out on page 1 of the handout, currently, a local registered surveyor who wishes to engage in land survey work overseas is likely to have to go through the full qualification process to be registered to practise in that jurisdiction. The surveyor will have to meet that jurisdiction's requirements, including residency or citizenship-based restrictions, if applicable. The application process may also involve steps, such as passing examinations or professional interviews conducted by the overseas Board or Authority.
However, where there is an MRA in place, the local registered surveyor can apply to LSB to be recognised for the purposes of the MRA instead. One example is the ASEAN Framework Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of Surveying Qualifications (ASEAN MRA) which was signed in 2007. After the ASEAN MRA is implemented, the ASEAN Registered Surveyor Scheme, the Scheme, will be introduced. Eligible land surveyors can apply through their local survey authorities to the ASEAN Competent Authority Committee on Surveying (ACACS) to be recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors.
Local registered surveyors in Singapore who have been recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors will be able to collaborate on land surveying projects in other ASEAN member states. Such ASEAN registered surveyors will not have to go through the full qualification process in that country but will remain subject to any conditions imposed by the relevant overseas survey board or authority. This will help our local registered surveyors to tap on business opportunities in different markets and broaden their exposure and experience. The ASEAN member states have been working together to implement the Scheme. LSB will update the local registered surveyor community, when the Scheme is ready for implementation.
Next, turning to page 2 of the handout, such MRAs will also introduce a new way for foreign land surveyors to contribute to land survey work in Singapore. Aside from the three existing pathways through which individuals can engage in survey work in Singapore, which I touched on earlier, foreign land surveyors will be able to apply to LSB to be registered foreign surveyors. This will allow them to engage in survey work in Singapore in a manner permitted by LSB pursuant to an MRA.
For example, under the Scheme, ASEAN registered surveyors from other ASEAN member states will be able to collaborate with our local registered surveyors on surveying projects in Singapore, after they are registered with LSB. These registered foreign surveyors will not be allowed to practise independently. They can only do so in collaboration with a local registered surveyor.
On the matter of safeguards in the implementation of MRAs, I wish to highlight that foreign land surveyors will need to meet certain requirements before they can provide land surveying services in Singapore in accordance with the terms of an MRA. For example, under the Scheme, there will be binding minimum requirements in terms of qualifications and work experience, which individuals must meet before they can be recognised as ASEAN registered surveyors.
The new section 12A(4) inserted by clause 9 of the Bill also allows LSB to impose additional conditions on foreign land surveyors as part of their registration as registered foreign surveyors. This enables LSB to ensure there are safeguards to protect the interests of the public, where required, and allows it to continue to effectively regulate the quality of land surveying services provided in Singapore.
Registered foreign surveyors will support, rather than compete with, our local registered surveyors. For example, as mentioned earlier, foreign ASEAN registered surveyors will not be allowed to provide land surveying services independently in Singapore, that is, without a local partner. If they wish to practise independently in Singapore, they must go through the same process as any other individual who wishes to be a local registered surveyor today. This includes passing the examinations and professional interview conducted by LSB, being registered with LSB and having in force a practising certificate.
When the Scheme is implemented, LSB also intends to impose a condition that foreign registered surveyors under the Scheme will only be able to take on one project and, thus, collaborate with only one local registered surveyor at any one point in time.
LSB will continue to monitor the implementation of the Scheme in Singapore and make adjustments where necessary.
I now move to the second proposal in the Bill, the introduction of official titles for local registered surveyors and registered foreign surveyors. This will grant greater recognition to local registered surveyors and help distinguish local registered surveyors from their counterparts.
Under section 10(2) as amended by clause 6, local registered surveyors will be able to use the title \"RS\". This is similar to the use of professional titles amongst registered architects and registered professional engineers. Registered foreign surveyors will be able to use a separate designation to be determined by LSB.
The final proposal in the Bill is to update the fines and penalties for illegal practice and improper conduct in land surveying. The quanta of fines and penalties have remained unchanged since the Act was enacted in 1991. It is thus timely to review them to ensure they remain effective deterrents going forward. LSB carried out a holistic review, referencing similar offences in the Architects Act 1991 and the Professional Engineers Act 1991, while keeping in mind the difference in the nature of the work of land surveyors and that of these allied professionals.
For specific offences, such as illegal practice, wilful falsification of register and wrongly procuring registration, stiffer fines are proposed. Clause 6 proposes to raise the maximum fine in section 10(5), which sets out the penalties for engaging in survey work in Singapore without meeting the requirements stipulated under the Act and falsely representing oneself as a person authorised to supply survey services in Singapore, from $4,000 to $10,000. Similarly, clause 15 proposes to raise the maximum fine stated in section 34, which prescribes penalties for the wilful falsification of any register kept under the Act and wrongfully procuring registration under the Act from $4,000 to $10,000, too.
As for disciplinary proceedings and revocation of licences, clauses 11 and 12 provide for the raising of the maximum penalties under sections 25(2) and 27(2) to $20,000 and $50,000 respectively, from the existing maximum penalties of $10,000 and $20,000.
LSB is empowered to impose these penalties on (a) registered surveyors and (b) licensed corporations/partnerships/limited liability partnerships respectively, in cases where LSB considers that no cause of sufficient gravity for cancellation of a registration, suspension from practice or revoking a licence exists but some form of disciplinary action is appropriate.
Next, clause 13 will raise the maximum fine under section 30(2) from $2,000 to $5,000. This pertains to a refusal or failure, when required to do so by LSB or an Investigation Committee convened by LSB, to give evidence, answer truthfully and fully any question or produce any book, document or paper.
Finally, clause 17 makes consequential amendments to certain other Acts. These will make clear that the term \"registered surveyor\", when used in these other Acts, only applies to the land surveyors registered under section 12 of the Land Surveyors Act, that is, to local registered surveyors. This will avoid any confusion with the introduction of registered foreign surveyors into the local land surveying landscape.
In closing, Sir, these amendments will make it easier for local registered surveyors to tap on opportunities overseas and, at the same time, allow Singapore to tap on external land surveying expertise and resources to support the built environment sector. They will also provide strong recognition for practising local registered surveyors on par with their allied counterparts, such as architects and professional engineers.
Finally, the amendments will strengthen LSB’s regulatory powers. This will allow it to continue upholding the standing and integrity of the professional land survey fraternity in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in response to the introduction of the Land Surveyors (Amendment) Bill 2024. I appreciate the Ministry's efforts to elevate and integrate Singapore's surveying profession within the ASEAN framework.
The proposed amendments, particularly those facilitating the ASEAN MRA and the introduction of the ASEAN ARS, hold significant potential for strengthening the profession in Singapore and the region. However, while the Bill aims to enhance the mutual recognition of land surveyors within ASEAN, I have several clarifications on the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let us first consider the timing and rationale behind these proposed amendments. The Bill seeks to amend the Land Surveyors Act 1991. This is primarily to allow for mutual recognition of survey works under MRAs.
I note that the ASEAN MRA on surveying services was signed in 2007. However, even after 17 years later, the detailed scheme has not been fully established. Why has there been such a notable delay in finalising the MRA? Is it prudent to implement this Bill when the details of the scheme remain unclear? Without the finalised details, how can we ensure that the mutual recognition arrangement will be beneficial and fair to our local surveyors? Can the Minister provide a timeline for when the details of the ARS scheme will be announced?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask about the potential impact of this Bill on our local surveying professionals. We should support the vision of a more integrated ASEAN surveying landscape. Nonetheless, we must ensure that our local surveyors are not inadvertently disadvantaged by this process.
Opening our market to ASEAN-based surveyors raises several concerns.
Firstly, on the issue of competitiveness, have our ASEAN counterparts announced similar bills or schemes in their jurisdictions? If not, by being the first, will Singapore inadvertently disadvantage our local surveyors? The possibility of lower-cost ASEAN-based surveyors competing for jobs in Singapore could negatively impact the livelihoods of our local professionals. I urge the Ministry to clarify what measures are in place to protect our surveyors from unfair competition and ensure a level playing field.
Furthermore, the principle of reciprocity must be carefully examined. Our local surveyors will be required to register with LSB to perform work overseas under this scheme. Yet, are our ASEAN counterparts equally prepared to accept Singaporean surveyors? Will our professionals face any red tape, bureaucratic hurdles or barriers in these foreign jurisdictions hindering their ability to compete for projects fairly overseas? Clarity on these reciprocal arrangements is essential to ensure that this Bill truly fosters mutually beneficial professional mobility within ASEAN. Do we know of any other ASEAN jurisdictions which may be implementing such an arrangement soon?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to uphold the highest standards of professional practice within the Singaporean surveying sector. While we seek greater regional collaboration, we should never compromise on the quality of surveying work conducted within our nation.
To maintain these high standards, it is essential to ensure that foreign surveyors entering our market are adequately qualified and their work meet our stringent requirements. This raises the question of verification. How will we ensure that ASEAN-based surveyors possess the necessary qualifications and competencies for the scope of work required in Singapore? Will there be stringent and transparent verification processes in place to validate their credentials and ensure equivalence with our local standards?
Moreover, I believe it is critical to address the issue of quality assurance. Will the work of foreign surveyors be subject to rigorous oversight by our local registered surveyors? To guarantee accountability and maintain the highest levels of professional rigour, should we consider mandating that a local registered surveyor co-signs the work of foreign surveyors engaged in projects within Singapore? Should there be any dispute on the work of these foreign surveyors, what recourse do potential clients have?
Mr Speaker, Sir, beyond these key areas, I believe there are additional considerations that warrant our attention. Firstly, we must carefully examine the potential economic implications of this Bill on Singapore's surveying industry. Have we conducted a comprehensive impact assessment to fully understand how local surveyors and businesses, particularly smaller firms, will be affected by the increased competition?
Secondly, we must address the question of potential differences in technological and methodological standards between Singapore and other ASEAN countries. Do such discrepancies exist? If so, how will we address them to ensure consistent, high-quality survey work across borders when projects involve professionals from different nations? Maintaining our standards of precision and accuracy necessitates a clear understanding of how we will navigate these potential differences.
Given that laws, regulations and even established methodologies can vary among countries, should we consider mandating that ASEAN surveyors, before practising here, undertake a mandatory familiarisation programme? This programme could focus on Singapore-specific surveying regulations, legal precedents and common practices.
Additionally, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the instruments and technologies used in other ASEAN nations directly compatible with our own standards and systems? If not, how do we ensure uniformity and accuracy when integrating data collected using potentially disparate methodologies? Should foreign surveyors be required to utilise equipment that aligns with Singapore's standards while operating here? This, again, highlights the need for a comprehensive integration process, perhaps through the mandatory familiarisation programme I proposed earlier.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us take a moment to consider the importance of land surveyors and land surveying. In a small and densely populated nation like ours, where land is an invaluable and finite resource, the role of land surveyors is critical. They are the guardians of our boundaries, ensuring the precise demarcation of every square metre. Their meticulous work underpins our property ownership records, our construction projects and even the management of our underground infrastructure. The very foundation of our built environment relies upon the expertise of our land surveyors.
While I commend the intent behind the Land Surveyors (Amendment) Bill to foster greater collaboration and professional recognition within ASEAN, I believe it is imperative that we proceed with a measured and cautious approach. We must thoroughly examine the potential implications on our local surveyors. We must also ensure that robust measures are in place to sustain the high standards of surveying work that are synonymous with Singapore.
Firstly, the timing of this Bill in relation to the still developing ARS scheme raises concerns that must be addressed. Secondly, we must safeguard the interests of our Singaporean surveyors against unfair competition and ensure genuine reciprocity in professional mobility within ASEAN. Thirdly, stringent verification of qualifications and rigorous quality assurance mechanisms are non-negotiable aspects of upholding our professional standards.
Only through careful consideration, thorough planning and a commitment to transparency can we ensure that this Bill achieves its intended goals of regional integration, without compromising the interests of our local surveying professionals. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for raising very thoughtful points in his speech. I would like to respond to three areas raised in his speech.
First, on the timing and rationale of the Bill. The hon Member is right to observe that it has been about 17 years since the Framework Arrangement was signed in 2007. This reflects the complexity of the task at hand. We had to deal with the unique characteristics of jurisdictions across ASEAN and, of course, the domestic legislation dealing with boundary and geographical locations of the various properties as well.
In addition, there is a need to strike a balance between greater ease of movement for land surveyors and also meeting local requirements. So, all these led to the time that has been taken. But the passing of this Bill is an important milestone because it is an indication that we are turning the corner and, hopefully, we will be able to get the details of the Scheme, as commonly agreed amongst the ASEAN member states.
I want to also highlight one very important point. It does not mean that when we passed the Bill, the Scheme is implemented straightaway. It would not. It would only be implemented after the details of the Scheme has been ascertained and member states agree to the Scheme as well. So, this is a safeguard to make sure that at any one point in time there would be reciprocity between member states. So, that is one big safeguard which will address some of the concerns that were raised by the hon Member just now.
The next area which I want to touch on is the issue of timing. As I said in my speech, LSB would be making announcements on the details of the Scheme as and when they are ready.
Moving to the second area for clarification, the impact on local surveyors. The first point to note, as I mentioned earlier, is that the MRA would only be put into effect when other member states are ready. So, we ensure that the benefits are reciprocal.
The other point to note is that registered foreign surveyors would only be allowed to practise in Singapore in collaboration with local registered surveyors. In other words, when they do the work and they sign off, it is not enough for the registered foreign surveyors to sign off. The local registered surveyors would have to sign off as well and this is a good safeguard, the reason being, with the local registered surveyors in play, we will be able to ensure that the local registered surveyor community would generally benefit because otherwise they would not employ registered foreign surveyors, and this is also to ensure the level of standard that is required in relation to any survey services that have been contracted.
As far as qualifications and standards are concerned, which is the third area that the hon Member has raised, he will be happy to note that we are ad idem, we also agree that there must be a high standard of qualifications as well as experience before a registered foreign surveyor is allowed to practise in Singapore in collaboration with a local registered surveyor. So, this is where LSB has to come up with the criteria. Commonly, the ASEAN Competent Authority Committee on Surveying would stipulate the minimum qualifications and experience that a registered foreign surveyor must possess before seeking to admit itself in the jurisdiction of another member state.
I now come to some of the additional points that the hon Member made in his speech.
First, he asked whether there was a study on the potential economic implications. As I said in my speech, this initiative was really promulgated at the instance of LSB, which includes of members from the private sector. So, they are all looking forward to it and I also mentioned that allied professionals, such as professional engineers and architects, have already been subject to MRAs and they are benefiting from it as well.
Singapore remains a little red dot and we can see that with the MRA, our land surveyors have the potential to practise across jurisdictions. Certainly, what we have here is the prospect of having in place an ASEAN MRA and that is something which I am sure they will look forward to.
The hon Member also mentioned about the prospect of standardising the methodology standards for surveys and that is a fair point. But one would have to put in place the MRA first and then work and endeavour towards standardisation. At this point in time, one good safeguard is the fact that a registered foreign surveyor has to collaborate with a local registered surveyor so that the local standards would be observed.
Sir, I believe I have answered most, if not all, of the questions raised by the hon Member.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Land Surveyors Act 1991 will facilitate the implementations of MRAs and, through the cross-border exchange of expertise, support our local registered surveyors in adopting new or different technologies, exploring opportunities in different fields and locations as well as upskilling themselves.
This is important, given the shrinking manpower pool, the increasing use of technology in the field and the emergence of new focus areas in the industry. All of these mean that it will no longer be sufficient for our local registered surveyors to be proficient only in the traditional domains of land surveying.
It is thus critical that we take advantage of new areas of opportunities to pivot and launch the profession to even greater heights and be ready for future challenges. I thank the hon Member for his questions and suggestions. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Minister of State, Mr Yip? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Murali Pillai.] (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":"Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Home Affairs.
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that, \"The Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, Singapore has a comprehensive anti-money laundering regime, comprising legal and institutional levers. This regime is well established and highly regarded internationally. But the landscape does not stay static and new risks emerge regularly. Rather than to expect perfection at any point in time, our approach has been to stay responsive and to get ahead of the curve once these risks are identified and assessed. This is what this Bill seeks to do.
Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to ask the Clerks to distribute a handout with some details of our regime?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, our laws to tackle money laundering include the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, or CDSA for short, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC. Like our other laws, we regularly review the CDSA and CPC to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.
Money laundering, in particular, is one crime which has evolved significantly. Money launderers are finding new ways to evade detection, taking advantage of technological innovations meant to facilitate legitimate financial and business transactions. Consequently, international standards against money laundering have been enhanced. This includes those set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international body that sets global standards to tackle money laundering and terrorism and proliferation financing.
Each new money laundering case uncovered in Singapore or around the world provides useful lessons and this includes our $3 billion case. We have been distilling the learning points through careful studies of the changing modus operandi, as well as the new standards promulgated by FATF. This Bill is a continuation of our ongoing efforts to ensure that Singapore’s regime keeps pace with evolving standards and trends, so that we can continue to deal effectively with attempts to launder criminal proceeds through Singapore.
According to the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL), around US$2 to $3 trillion of illicit proceeds are channelled through the global financial system every year. US$2 to $3 trillion. Think about it. These numbers are bigger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of most countries, Singapore included. In the ocean of money flows, criminal proceeds are like toxic waste that gets carried along. Inevitably, some of them enter pristine waters, polluting rivers and estuaries, much against the wishes of local communities.
Illicit monies flow through many jurisdictions, but are especially attracted to global financial centres, such as London, Hong Kong, New York, Delaware, Switzerland and Singapore. This is because the open, efficient and well-connected infrastructure of such centres that makes them attractive to legitimate investors is also useful for criminals to move and hide their monies. I shared some examples with Parliament last year. More of such cases have surfaced since.
In February this year, the Hong Kong authorities arrested seven Hong Kong residents suspected of laundering US$1.8 billion of proceeds from online scams in India and the illegal sale of electronics and rare gems. The authorities seized more than US$21 million worth of assets as part of the operation. In April, two managers of a Saudi oil exploration company went on trial in Switzerland for alleged fraud and money laundering of at least US$1.8 billion.
Singapore strives to be a reputable, trusted and thriving financial and business hub. We have a hard-earned track record and every intention to keep our system clean. This must mean keeping money launderers out of our system as best as we can.
Our anti-money laundering regime has three pillars: (a) prevention through a robust legal and regulatory framework to deter such criminals; (b) detection to ensure that illicit activities are picked up early; and (c) enforcement. We take firm and prompt enforcement action against money laundering.
In this Bill, we have proposed enhancements across all three pillars to empower our agencies with strengthened levers and toolkits against money laundering.
Sir, allow me to elaborate on the key features of the Bill.
The Bill seeks to: first, align our framework for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism, or AML/CFT, framework with the FATF standards to better prevent and detect money laundering; second, enhance the ability of Government agencies to detect and enforce against money laundering through enhanced data sharing and strengthened prosecutorial levers; and third, clarify and improve our processes to deal with seized or restrained properties linked to suspected criminal activities.
First, on our AML/CFT framework for casino operators.
Customer due diligence (CDD) checks conducted by gatekeepers in various sectors, is key to preventing suspicious individuals from sinking roots into our system and detecting any illicit activities early. Casino operators are one such gatekeeper.
To align with FATF's standards, clause 2 will amend the Casino Control Act to require casino operators to conduct tighter CDD checks on patrons at the point of transaction. The threshold for CDD checks will be lowered from the current threshold of single cash transactions involving $10,000 or more or deposits into a deposit account involving $5,000 or more to cover single cash transactions or deposits involving $4,000 or more.
Additionally, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore will be empowered to require casino operators, when conducting CDD checks, to also consider proliferation financing risks. These are the risks of financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Second, this Bill will enhance the ability of relevant Government agencies to detect and enforce against money laundering through enhanced data sharing, and strengthened prosecutorial levers.
On data sharing. Very often, money launderers will conduct and layer their activities across different sectors and use different front entities, so as to avoid detection. When interacting with individual Government agencies, they may leave traces of suspicion, which, on their own, may not raise concerns. However, when triangulated and pieced together with information from other agencies and sources, including Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs), a more revealing picture may emerge. This can then trigger and support investigations by the relevant law enforcement agencies.
Clauses 18 to 21 introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act, Goods and Services Tax Act, Regulation of Imports and Exports Act, and the Free Trade Zones Act. The amendments will allow the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and Singapore Customs to share tax data and trade data respectively, with Singapore's Financial Intelligence Unit. This will allow the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office of the Singapore Police Force to augment its analyses of money laundering risks and, in turn, provide richer financial intelligence to law enforcement agencies and AML/CFT regulators for appropriate enforcement action.
The United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Korea have similar tax data sharing arrangements. Likewise, Hong Kong, the United States (US) and Luxembourg have trade data sharing arrangements with their Customs agencies.
Additionally, clause 10 introduces amendments to the CDSA to allow any AML/CFT regulator, such as the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), to have access to suspicious transactions reports filed by their respective regulated entities. Regulators will then have greater insight into the risks and trends relating to their sectors, and be able to take more effective supervisory and regulatory actions. Guardrails for the data-sharing will be implemented to protect data confidentiality.
Next, we will amend and enhance the levers for prosecution of money laundering cases arising from criminal conduct abroad.
After our investigators painstakingly turn over the stones and uncover the suspects and their activities, the next big challenge is navigating the legal hurdles to successfully prosecute them. To do so, the prosecution needs to show that the monies, allegedly laundered in Singapore, are benefits derived from criminal conduct. In cases where the criminal conduct is committed outside Singapore, the authorities are currently required to show the complete trail of the monies from the point the crime was committed overseas to the point the monies were deposited with the money launderer in Singapore.
In many cases, law enforcement agencies face enormous challenges in obtaining the necessary evidence from foreign victims, entities and authorities. This is especially so if the criminal proceeds had flowed through many jurisdictions before entering Singapore, which is often the case. Criminals do this to conceal the origin of their proceeds and exploit such legal requirements to their advantage.
To enhance our abilities to effectively prosecute money laundering offences, clause 11 of the Bill amends section 56 of the CDSA such that the prosecution will no longer need to prove that the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore were benefits from criminal conduct nor show the complete trail. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the money launderer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the property he was dealing with were the gains from criminal conduct. This amendment will significantly alleviate the challenges faced by the prosecution today when dealing with money laundering offences, in cases where the monies laundered had passed through many bank accounts and intermediaries in foreign jurisdictions before entering Singapore.
We also propose to designate foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences.
Currently, law enforcement agencies are only able to investigate money laundering offences arising from the commission of an offence outside Singapore if the foreign offence is also a serious offence under Singapore's laws. Environmental crimes, such as illegal mining, illegal waste trafficking and illegal logging, are not applicable in our domestic context and, hence, not considered serious offences in Singapore. This limits our ability to investigate money laundering associated with such foreign offences.
However, these crimes are one of the largest contributors to transnational organised criminal activities in the East Asia and Pacific region. There is a high propensity for funds arising from such crimes to flow into Singapore, given that we are a well-connected international financial, trading and transit hub. This was highlighted in Singapore's Environmental Crime Money Laundering National Risk Assessment, which we recently published.
Clause 13 therefore introduces a Third Schedule to the CDSA, which will designate serious foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences. We have taken a risk-based approach, aligned with FATF's recommendations, and propose to designate specific foreign environmental crimes which have been assessed to pose a higher risk of their proceeds being laundered in Singapore. These are illegal logging, land clearing, mining, waste trafficking and wildlife trade. The amendment will allow the law enforcement agencies to investigate money laundering offences if it is suspected that the monies in Singapore are derived from such serious environmental crimes committed overseas.
Third, this Bill introduces three proposals to improve the processes to deal with seized properties in general, including those linked to money laundering.
Currently, when seized or restrained property is no longer required for investigations or court proceedings, law enforcement agencies must obtain the consent of all parties involved if they want to obtain a court order to sell the property. This is highly impractical because, if there is no consensus amongst the parties, law enforcement agencies will need to continue to manage and maintain the property. These properties can include vehicles, liquor, luxury watches and livestock. Not only are they costly to maintain, they also tend to depreciate in value. The costs of maintenance are borne by the state.
Clauses 14 to 16 will amend the CPC and the CDSA to allow the Court to order the sale of a seized or restrained property without the consent of all parties involved, provided the Court is satisfied that, the value of the property is likely to depreciate or undue costs are involved in maintaining the property; or the sale would be in the interests of justice. These amendments will allow law enforcement agencies to reduce the cost of property maintenance and preserve the value of seized or restrained properties to facilitate subsequent asset recovery and restitution to the victims.
We will also make amendments to deal with properties in cases where the suspect has absconded.
In the course of investigations, law enforcement agencies may seize properties linked to persons who are suspected of having committed offences under Singapore's laws but cannot be found despite efforts to reach out to them. In some cases, the persons may have left Singapore and cannot be extradited or refuse to return. This is not uncommon in cross-border financial crimes, such as money laundering and scams. Investigations can be wilfully stalled by such absconded persons if they decide to stay out of Singapore in order to avoid being imprisoned for their crimes. But law enforcement agencies need to interview them for the investigations.
Today, the CPC prohibits the Court from releasing a seized property if the property is required for any investigation, inquiry, trial or any proceeding under the law. However, if the law enforcement agencies fail to satisfy the Court that any of these grounds for continued seizure of the property applies, the Court may order the property's release or disposal.
If the absconded person refuses to return to Singapore, it may become increasingly difficult for the Police, over time, to justify how the continued seizure of the property remains relevant to the investigations, which are not making headway because they cannot interview the person. This presents an opportunity for absconded persons to frustrate due process. By staying out of Singapore and, hence, stymying investigations, they have hope that the seized property would eventually be released back to them.
Clause 16 amends the CPC such that the Court must not dispose of the seized property, if there is any pending investigation in relation to an absconded person who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence in respect of the property, regardless of the progress of the investigation. Law enforcement agencies can lawfully seize property only where they have reason to suspect that an offence has been committed or the property has some nexus to the offence. Further, the Court will also have to determine that the continued seizure will not cause injustice to any person entitled to the possession of the property. This ensures due process in the proceedings.
Next, section 372 of the CPC currently provides that if the person entitled to a seized property is unknown or cannot be found, the property will be vested in the Government if no one establishes a claim to it within six months of a public notice. However, an absconded person can lay a claim to the property through a legal counsel, while refusing to return to Singapore to cooperate with the investigations.
Moreover, absconded persons could try to find creative means to insulate their properties from forfeiture or confiscation. For example, they could vest the legal title to the properties in other individuals, who may not have committed offences in Singapore. These individuals may then present themselves as innocent claimants to the property.
Clauses 16 and 17 amend sections 370 and 372 of the CPC, to include a requirement that an absconded person who is suspected of having committed an arrestable offence under our laws or serious offence under the CDSA, must personally present himself before a law enforcement officer to assist in the investigations, prior to making a claim to the property seized in respect of the offence.
Additionally, clause 16 amends the CPC to provide that the Court may consider whether the property was obtained through legitimate sources, such as income or investments, before the seized property may be released to a third party, even if that third party has not committed any crimes. That party cannot prove his entitlement to the property simply because it was a gift from the absconded person.
Taken together, these amendments will enable the Government to better deal with absconded suspects, through depriving them of the financial gains of their money laundering and other criminal activities, if they refuse to return to Singapore for investigations.
To be clear, these amendments continue to be subject to judicial oversight and only affect persons who are suspected to have committed offences in Singapore and have absconded, as well as properties seized in relation to these offences. The proposal does not change the existing law or procedures for persons who are not \"absconded persons\".
Sir, today's Bill is another step in strengthening our AML/CFT regime. It will not be the last. Criminals will continue to explore other ways to circumvent even the most stringent of measures, in the fast-changing money laundering landscape.
Singapore will therefore have to continue to be vigilant and we will not hesitate to further tighten our laws against money laundering where necessary, to ensure that our financial and business ecosystem remains reputable and trusted and continues to thrive. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill – the AMLOM Bill in short.
As a prominent global financial centre with substantial flows of capital, Singapore faces inherent risks related to money laundering. It is therefore imperative that our anti-money laundering regime remains dynamic and consistently ahead of the evolving tactics of criminals. These individuals are becoming increasingly sophisticated, employing advanced technology, intricate financial networks and cryptocurrencies to outmaneuver systems of detection and prosecution.
Sir, I would like to raise three points in support of the AMLOM Bill.
First, the amendments in this Bill will empower Government agencies to share tax and trade data with Singapore's Financial Intelligence Unit, the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO). Additionally, amendments will allow STRs filed by entities regulated under CEA and ACRA to be accessed by relevant authorities.
Data sharing across Government agencies is a significant step forward. It is the key to seeing the full picture of illicit activities. Like pieces of a puzzle, each agency's data may seem insignificant on its own, but together, they reveal the wider scope of money laundering's operations. The ability to corroborate different sources of data will empower enforcement agencies to identify real threats in the vast number of suspicious transactions filed. Without this collaboration, crucial connections are lost and our understanding of the threat remains fragmented.
However, Sir, with the influx of additional data from various agencies, the capability to analyse and make sense of the information must be correspondingly elevated. I would like to ask how STRO plans to handle and analyse the large volume of data from different sources, especially as it already receives an average of 43,000 STRs annually. How will it update its methods, enhance the quality of its intelligence and leverage technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to help agencies better connect the dots from these diverse sources?
Furthermore, with improved detection capabilities, how well-resourced are our agencies to respond promptly and effectively to suspected illicit activities? It is crucial that our analytical capabilities and resources keep pace with the increased data flow to ensure we are not overwhelmed with the sheer volume of information, but rather, empowered to act swiftly and decisively.
Second, the Bill expands the toolkit for law enforcement agencies to deal with seized criminal assets.
I support the provision for early sale of seized assets to minimise the cost of property maintenance and preserve the value of these properties. By streamlining these procedures, law enforcement agencies can act swiftly to order the sale of seized properties, thereby avoiding depreciation or undue costs associated with maintaining these assets.
The importance of these measures is underscored by Singapore's largest money laundering case to date, where the $3 billion in seized assets has already incurred around $650,000 in expenses for storage, maintenance and safeguarding. These provisions are therefore crucial for maintaining the efficiency and effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies and ensuring that justice is both swift and financially responsible.
Mr Speaker, once the assets are seized, it is vital to ensure that the Government has processes in place to secure competitive prices in forced sales. The unique nature of some seized assets, which can include luxury goods, rare collectibles and high-value personal items, requires specialised knowledge and handling to prevent significant losses during forced sales. Ensuring that these assets are appropriately appraised and sold through channels that can attract the right buyers at the best possible prices is essential. This not only maximises the return from these seizures but also reinforces the credibility and efficiency of our asset recovery processes. Therefore, I would like to ask whether the current procedures are robust enough to manage these complex and high-value assets effectively. For instance, how will the authorities market the collectible Bearbrick toy figurines or some 250 luxury handbags and watches to recover the best prices?
Third, I strongly support the provisions in the Bill that allow for the continued seizure of properties in cases where the suspects have absconded and introduce significant barriers to claiming properties linked to these individuals.
Dealing with absconded criminals presents substantial challenges, as jurisdictional issues and international legal complexities often hinder swift justice. The ability for authorities to seize and maintain control over assets even when the suspect is beyond our reach is therefore crucial. It disrupts the financial incentives for fleeing, for running away and makes it clear that evading justice will not protect one's ill-gotten gains.
Moreover, by creating legal barriers to claiming properties associated with absconded suspected criminals, we strike at the heart of criminal networks, undermining their financial base and reinforcing the principle that crime does not pay. These measures are essential for upholding the rule of law and maintaining public confidence in our justice system.
Mr Speaker, the AMLOM Bill will add to Singapore’s ongoing legislative efforts to strengthen Singapore's AML/CFT regime. Since 2023, a total of four Bills have been passed in this House to safeguard our systems from exploitation and enhance our defences to protect the integrity of our systems. There is also an ongoing Inter-Ministerial Committee on AML, with findings and recommendations expected in fourth quarter of 2024.
Sir, the intensity of this legislative activity is a very clear testament to the Government's zero tolerance for money laundering. It underscores our commitment to staying ahead of evolving threats by ensuring our legal frameworks remain both robust and adaptive. We address risks head-on as soon as they come to light.
However, Sir, we must ensure that these new measures do not come at the cost of jeopardising Singapore's reputation as a competitive global business and finance hub. I have received feedback and frustrations from affected parties that the account opening process is now protracted and delayed, with layers of checks perceived as disproportionate and not commensurate with the assessed level of risk. Some have expressed concerns that our banks have taken a knee-jerk reaction in the reviewing accounts, issuing retroactive requests for documents and information that are cumbersome and time-consuming to produce, often seen as unnecessary given the accounts' sizes, tenure of the relationship with the financial institutions and transaction patterns.
Wealth owners shared that they no longer feel welcomed in Singapore. Bankers fear their clients are bringing their money to other centres such as Switzerland, Hong Kong and Dubai.
Mr Speaker, I urge the relevant authorities to work closely with the industry to ensure that the implementation of new AML rules is well guided, well understood and implemented proportionately. Most businesses and investors are legitimate and checks must be risk-based, proportionate and considers the history of the relationship and transaction pattern.
Mr Speaker, as we move forward with these crucial reforms, let us strike a careful balance between vigilance and openness. While we are resolute in our commitment in combating money laundering, we must also ensure that our actions reflect the same confidence and clarity that have long defined Singapore as a trusted global financial hub. By implementing these measures thoughtfully and proportionately, we reinforce that Singapore remains a place where legitimate business thrives and where the integrity of our financial system is safeguarded with both strength and wisdom. And in doing so, we send a strong message to the world: Singapore is open for business and we welcome those who seek to contribute to our shared prosperity under the rule of law. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I will first make some general observations about money laundering in Singapore before raising three queries about the Bill.
Sir, this Bill is part of Singapore's efforts to enhance its anti-money laundering measures. The Workers' Party supports the Bill. Nonetheless, if implemented, this Bill is just part of an entire ecosystem that needs to be scrutinised for gaps and vulnerabilities. Member He Ting Ru will speak later about some areas of concern regarding Singapore's ecosystem.
Sir, Singapore is one of the 40 members of FATF, which conducts mutual evaluations on the ecosystems of countries. The most recent mutual evaluation by FATF on Singapore was done eight years ago in 2016, with the next one due next year.
In the 2016 evaluation, Singapore was assessed to have a mostly robust and competent regulatory system when it came to financial institutions. However, the same could not be said for sectors outside the finance industry, collectively known as designated non-finance businesses and professions (DNFBP). The DNFBP sectors were noted to lack many of the obligations and supervisions that financial institutions were subject to. The 2016 evaluation identified that we did not have a strong awareness of illegal fund flows from foreign predicate offences. It also pointed out that the private sector had weak knowledge of money laundering risks from transnational transactions.
Fast forward to today, Singapore just published its own Money Laundering National Risk Assessment (ML NRA) report. This report concurred that there were significant risks in the DNFBP sector which needed to be addressed.
Last month, this House took a step in the right direction by enhancing the requirements on corporate service providers. Other private sector industries, such as real estate and luxury retail, have rightly been identified as needing to be stepped up too.
To illustrate, we just need to look at the recent $3 billion money laundering case. The money launderers had managed to channel their ill-gotten gains into Singapore with the purpose of washing them through items of tremendously high value. For example, just one of the men involved had purchased 10 condominium units at Canninghill Piers worth $85 million, a transaction in which red flags should have been raised. It has since been reported that some real estate agents were being investigated for giving kickbacks to their clients from the huge commissions earned. It is clear then that an effective AML approach needs not just a robust framework. How it is executed is key. To this end, Member Dennis Tan will seek clarifications later on the adequacy of AML due diligence measures in the recent cases.
I now move to the Bill before us. On this, I have three queries: (a) on restitution to crime victims; (b) on the change in the law to Jeanette Ang's case; and (c) on STRs.
First, on restitution to crime victims. In the Government's recent paper, National Asset Recovery Strategy 2024, it was stated that the strategy had four operational pillars. I was pleased to note that under Pillar 3, the strategy aims to \"deliver maximum recovery of assets for forfeiture and restitution to victims\". The paper affirmed that Singapore adopted a victim-centric approach towards asset recovery. I agree that where offenders have profited at the expense of victims, then the assets purchased using such fruits of crime should rightfully be delivered to these victims. I, therefore, welcome the provisions, such as clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill, which will help ensure that the value of seized assets is preserved.
One challenge regarding delivering restitution to victims is that money laundering is typically transnational in nature. The victims of crime are often located in other countries. In the National Asset Recovery Strategy report, it was stated that in the five-and-a-half-year period between January 2019 and June 2024, authorities here seized about $6 billion in assets. Out of this, the majority of $4.6 billion is still tied up in ongoing investigations and Court cases. This leaves about $1.4 billion freed up to make restitution, out of which, $416 million, or less than one third, has been returned to victims.
During the Parliamentary Sitting in July, I had asked whether it would be too late for victims to make claims after a Singapore Court had already forfeited the assets. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had indicated that it would still be open to foreign parties to make requests for MLA even after the Court had made forfeiture orders. For us to assess whether the MLA route is meaningful for victims, could the Ministry confirm how many countries have filed MLA requests with Singapore in the last two years and which three countries have filed the most MLA requests?
Next, I move on to the change in the law arising from Jeanette Ang's case. I have a query on the change in clause 11. Clause 11 will amend the law set out in the 2011 High Court case of Ang Jeanette vs Public Prosecutor to make it easier for the prosecution to prove certain money laundering offences. Let me summarise why.
In Jeanette Ang's case, the High Court had ruled that to prove that an accused had committed money laundering, the prosecution needed to show that the monies in the accused's accounts came from criminal conduct. Clause 11 would remove this requirement. Instead, it would simply be sufficient for the prosecution to show that the accused had a guilty frame of mind, that is, that he knew or had reason to believe that the monies came from criminal conduct.
In explaining the rationale for the change, the Ministry pointed to evidentiary difficulties. It was said that the proceeds of crime could have been channeled through other bank accounts in other jurisdictions before coming to the accused. It was stated to be difficult to obtain documents from foreign banks to prove the trail of monies. I think earlier, the Minister also touched on this point.
Sir, this amendment in clause 11 would fall squarely within the concern raised by the judge in the Jeanette Ang case. The Court in that case had stressed the importance of requiring the prosecution to prove the trail of monies. The judge noted that if the prosecution did not need to prove that the monies came from criminal conduct, then a person could be prosecuted for money laundering in situations where he mistakenly thought that the monies were the proceeds of crime when the monies were, in fact, clean monies. The Court opined that prosecuting such a mistaken person would not further the purposes of the anti-money laundering conventions and laws. With the change in clause 11, how will be risk be addressed?
Sir, finally, on STRs. STRs are a key step through which the authorities are alerted to potential money laundering transactions. Clause 5 of the Bill will increase the jurisdiction of STRO, that is, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). STRO will soon be receiving STRs arising from additional legislation, such as the Free Trade Zones Act, Goods and Services Tax Act, Income Tax Act and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act. In order to facilitate the work of STRO, what can we learn from our experience so far about the filing of STRs?
In answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in January last year, the Minister for Home Affairs revealed that CAD received an average of 37,000 STRs each year from 2019 to 2021, or about 102 reports daily. I believe the numbers are much higher today, a point that Ms Foo Mee Har alluded to earlier.
Sir, what is concerning is that of the STRs filed in those two years from 2019 to 2021, the Minister reported that only 20% of them resulted in or supported investigations eventually. Does that mean that the other 80% were found to be of low quality and not actionable?
Similarly, when it came to digital payment tokens (DPTs), a similar trend is being observed. According to our Money Laundering National Risk Assessment report this year, a majority of the STRs relating to DPTs did not point to any specific offence.
Sir, all this suggests a possible wastage of investigative resources to look into unactionable STRs. It may also suggest that the STRs are being filed defensively to avoid possible trouble down the road.
Being unclear about the threshold that warrants the filing of an STR harks back to the earlier concerns expressed by FATF about the level of private sector knowledge in Singapore regarding AML risk. What is being done to promote a deeper understanding of what STRs should contain?
Sir, let me conclude. The Workers' Party is in support of the Bill. I look forward to the Ministry's clarifications regarding the three concerns I have raised about restitution to crime victims, the change to the law in the Jeanette Ang case and the quality of STRs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, safeguarding Singapore's financial integrity is paramount to upholding our reputation as a flourishing global financial hub. A robust legal framework for AML/CFT is critical in this endeavour.
This Bill consists of proposals across prosecution, foreign environmental crimes, cross-agency data sharing and others. Taken together with past amendments fronted by MHA, the Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Law (MinLaw), as well as the recently published National Asset Recovery Strategy and updated Money Laundering National Risk Assessment, it underscores an unwavering whole-of-Government emphasis on strengthening our AML/CFT regime amid a dynamic financial crime landscape. On this basis, I support the Bill but would seek some clarifications.
I will begin with the enhanced levers for prosecution of money laundering cases. As is, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) are required to show the complete trail of monies from point of crime to deposit in the suspect's account. Recognising the challenges, especially when crimes originate or when monies are dissipated through accounts overseas, clause 11 of the Bill makes it sufficient for prosecution if the money launderer should reasonably know or believe he possessed criminal proceeds, with no need to prove the complete trail of funds.
This is sensible. A lower bar for prosecution will further deter money mule activities in Singapore while at the same time avail our LEAs with greater capacity to focus on efforts with more systemic outcomes like crippling syndicates with our international partners. That said, while the public cheers every successful anti-crime operation by our LEAs, what is foremost on their minds, particularly victims of scams, is how to get their money back.
Given that LEAs' efforts on illicit funds tracing would be instrumental in determining their rightful ownership and facilitating their proper seizure for restitution, consistent with one of the four pillars in our National Asset Recovery Strategy, may I seek the Minister's clarification whether the amendment will impact the likelihood of asset recovery for Singaporean victims? Will these victims have any recourse for cases where investigations reveal an ownership connection but where details of fund flows are unavailable or are no longer required to be pursued for prosecution?
In addition, as it is challenging to obtain information from foreign agencies and entities, international partnerships remain a crucial lever to combat financial crimes. This will facilitate the greater visibility and timelier confiscation of illicit overseas assets for investigation and restitution to Singapore victims as well as to detain fugitives on the run. On the $3-billion-dollar money laundering case that the Minister had mentioned, the 17 remaining absconders come to mind.
Given that Singapore was the FATF president for two years until June 2024, can the Minister also share further plans to boost international cooperation for more robust investigations and asset recovery?
I now turn to clauses 4 and 13 of the Bill, which would empower our LEAs to act upon the criminal proceeds resulting from foreign environmental crimes, which will be listed in the Third Schedule of CDSA. These proceeds may inevitably flow through Singapore as we are a global financial centre. In addition to closing the legislative gap highlighted by FATF, this move also signals Singapore's commitment to environmental sustainability on the global stage. On this, I have the following clarifications.
First, looking back, can the Minister share the value and number of money laundering cases from environmental crimes that could have been pursued in the past five years had this legislation been in place; and, secondly, clarify if there will, indeed, be retrospective application of this law?
Looking ahead, we may have limited visibility on how these overseas offences evolve. Other than relying on FATF, can the Minister clarify plans to be more proactive in ensuring the Third Schedule continues to be comprehensive and relevant?
Next, I move to the enablement of cross-agency data sharing to enhance financial intelligence. This is pursuant to clauses 18 to 21, which allow IRAS and Singapore Customs to share tax and trade information respectively with STRO to facilitate more holistic sense-making. Agencies like CEA and ACRA will also have more access to information.
I previously spoke in support of the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') Project COSMIC, or Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases, and I shared about the parable of the blind men and the elephant, and it is only by collecting information and thereafter pooling them all together, can a more accurate picture and understanding of money laundering risks emerge. I, therefore, welcome the amendment not only because it directly addresses a gap highlighted in Singapore's 2016 FATF evaluation, but more substantially, because it furthers an ecosystem approach to counter AML/CFT.
What is clear from the $3 billion and the other money laundering cases is that, criminals leverage multiple and intertwined points of entry into Singapore's financial ecosystem, be it by asset purchases, shell companies, illegal trade, bank deposits or others. This risk is expected as with any global financial centre, so the key question is: how can we enhance vigilance across the board, by promoting information sharing, pooling and access to risk insights by both agencies and the private sector.
Given the above, may I seek the Minister's view on (a) how may STRO further enhance the collection, pooling and delivery of insights to both the private and public sectors, to boost the effectiveness of entities' CDD, as the first lines of defence; and relatedly, secondly, whether information from agencies, such as IRAS and Customs, can be integrated with COSMIC that was launched in April 2024 this year, in the longer term, for more automated and secure sharing of intelligence across the entire financial ecosystem?
Lastly, I spoke to and I note the amendments related to dealing with seized properties linked to suspects who have absconded, which introduce safeguards to prevent a premature release when investigations are ongoing to trace the absconder. On this, can the Minister clarify the prevalence of previous cases where an absconder had wilfully stalled investigations by staying overseas, and yet, successfully made a claim to seized properties? Was this observed with absconders in the $3 billion money laundering case, which continues to be of public interest?
So, in conclusion, Sir, together with the final key amendment on tightening the CDD thresholds for casinos, this Bill will further align our defences against AML/CFT with international best practices and represent progress in safeguarding Singapore's financial integrity.
Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Speaker, while the strengthening of our anti-money laundering laws is welcome, the recent $3 billion money laundering case is a good reminder that we have to tackle money laundering comprehensively and I will speak on this today. Like my Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, I support the Bill's objectives. However, we cannot just react to the immediate circumstances of money laundering cases, but need to more holistically address structural problems at their root to prevent ourselves from being caught out on the back foot.
It would also prevent a situation where our legislation and regulations, which take time, end up having to constantly play catch-up to outlaw new ways in which criminals evolve to launder illicit funds. The challenge of money laundering that we face has several key facets. First, money laundering can originate from any area within financialised assets, including Single Family Offices (SFOs), cryptocurrencies, fine art and real estate.
Second, we would be best served by a comprehensive omnibus AML Bill that consolidates and streamlines the various existing regulations including CFT, CDSA and MAS guidelines. This unified approach should cover all relevant sectors, including financial institutions to dealers in precious metals. These laws should also be easily understood by all Singaporeans, not just specialised legal and compliance experts.
An omnibus Bill would present an opportunity to future-proof our legislation by introducing a unifying principle of a duty of financial transparency for our intermediaries, which does not require suspicion of a predicate offence and ensures that Singapore does not become a place that facilitates obfuscation of funds.
Third, to effect real change, we must alter the incentive structures to foster a culture of vigilance throughout the financial industry and we should act decisively to establish a whistleblowing fund.
First, individual verticals. Mr Speaker, money laundering is an issue that can only be effectively combated by addressing multiple potential entry points to maintain the integrity of our overall financial system. Given the rapid pace of financial innovation and the increasing complexity of corporate structures, we cannot, realistically, stay ahead of all asset classes unless we legislate proactively. I will focus on three areas not covered by the Bill: SFOs, cryptocurrencies and fine art.
I hope that there can be discussion about the Government's assessment of the risks in these sectors. It will be insufficient to merely state that these areas are not covered by the Bill. We must understand how the Government intends to address these areas and ensure that any gaps are effectively closed.
Mr Speaker, the 2021 collapse of Archegos Capital Management, a US$20 billion SFO, highlights a critical regulatory overlap between AML concerns and systemic risk. Archegos used equity total return swaps to build US$100 billion of portfolio exposure while avoiding disclosure requirements, exposing a significant gap in financial oversight.
In response, the US is contemplating significant regulatory changes. These include bringing family offices under the Investment Advisors Act, mandating ownership and business structure disclosures and enhancing trade reporting under the Securities Exchange Act. Such measures could compel SFOs to provide detailed information about their trades and portfolios. I strongly advocate for similar advanced disclosure requirements for SFOs in Singapore.
This approach would not only bolster our AML defences, but also curb potential market abuses by SFOs. We can hit two targets with a single type of policy instrument. For SFOs, recent events have demonstrated that SFOs can be a significant conduit for illicit funds entering Singapore. In July 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong revealed that six SFOs awarded tax incentives were linked to individuals convicted in the recent money laundering case.
The number of family offices in Singapore has grown by nearly 200%. From 400 in 2020 to about 1,100 by the end of 2022. This rapid expansion increases the risk of importing financial crimes from jurisdictions with weaker AML controls. This is a live vulnerability in our AML framework. The current regulatory landscape presents a glaring gap. SFOs are exempt from MAS legislation or licencing requirements under the SFA, as they do not handle third-party funds.
While this is an MHA Bill, cooperation with MAS is key to addressing the risks. What, then, is the current status of the MAS Public Consultation on Strengthening Defences Against Money Laundering Risk in SFOs, launched on 31 July 2023? The consultation proposed that all SFOs maintain a relationship with an MAS-regulated financial institution for AML checks. We have not seen any public updates on actions taken.
If this public consultation has not been operationalised, then, as stated by the Minister of State Alvin Tan in Parliament on 3 October 2023, only SFOs applying for MAS tax incentives are subject to DDCs. This means, SFOs not seeking tax incentives remain outside our AML framework. How do we justify this discrepancy? MAS Managing Director, Mr Chia Der Jiun, stated on 18 July 2024, that Singapore had already issued a set of enhancements for SFOs last year.
Can we get more clarity on this statement? Is this an operationalisation of the July 2023 public consultation? To close the current regulatory gap, I suggest requiring all SFOs, regardless of tax incentive status, to register with and be licenced by MAS. Mr Speaker, there is a related issue of remittance companies working with SFOs. Currently, SFOs are exempt from many due diligence requirements, allowing their transactions with remittance companies to go largely unscrutinised.
Since 2019, MAS regulations have not required remittance houses to seek prior approval for new customers without face-to-face meetings. Are remittance houses now included in the April 2024 MAS Notice PSN01 (Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism - Specified Payment Services)? If not, what strengthening of remittance house diligence can we expect?
I propose two immediate measures for remittance companies.
First, to introduce cumulative transaction limits for SFOs receiving funds through remittance houses, with an automated system to flag transactions exceeding those limits. Second, reinstate mandatory face-to-face verification for new customers, especially for high-value or frequent transactions involving SFOs.
I will move on to cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies and other digital assets present unique challenges to our AML efforts. Recent data indicates rising illicit fund flows. Chainalysis reports nearly $100 billion has been sent from known illicit wallets to conversion services since 2019, peaking at $30 billion in 2022. Crypto is increasingly used to launder proceeds from off-chain crimes, like drug trafficking and fraud, not just crypto-specific crimes.
In 2022 alone, the FBI reported that US victims lost $2.6 billion to pick butchering and other crypto fraud, with the true scale of losses unknown, as victims are often too embarrassed to report crimes to authorities. There is great technical complexity involved. While blockchains offer transparency, sophisticated laundering techniques involving multiple transactions and intermediaries pose tracing challenges.
Both centralised exchanges with consolidated wallets and decentralised protocols enable the co-mingling of illicit and legitimate funds. This can take the form of consolidated exchange hot wallets for exchanges, such as Binance; but also decentralise co-minglement protocols through crypto tumblers, such as Tornado Cash; or core protocol features, such as Privacy Coins or Monero's ring signatures.
There is a fundamental tension between crypto's desire for instant, irreversible transactions and the need for financial safeguards. While instant transaction finality is desirable in crypto for censorship resistance, it poses risks when it butts up against traditional finance. Our priority must be preserving Singapore's reputation for clean finance over accommodating crypto's preference for irreversibility.
To address these concerns, we should consider methods like increasing off-ramp fiction. Solutions, could include enhancing scrutiny on crypto-to-fiat conversions, including one-to-three-day escrow periods for large transactions, with the time bought to perform on-chain analysis through providers, like Chainalysis, to check for co-mingled funds or suspicious sources both on centralised exchanges and decentralised protocols.
Finally, I will move on to art. The art market, with its high value transactions and potential for anonymity, has recently become an attractive avenue for those seeking to launder illicit funds. The 1MDB scandal provides a stark example of how the art market can be exploited. From May to September 2013, approximately $137 million from an account controlled by Jho Low's associates was used to purchase art at Christie's auctions.
This includes, Jean-Michel Basquiat's Dust Hits for $48.8 million, along with significant works by Alexander Calder and Mark Rothko. Low further leveraged these assets, using 17 artworks to collateralise loans worth $107 million from Sotheby's. Effectively creating additional layers of transactions to obscure the origins of the stolen funds. The scale of this issue is significant and growing with the depth of the market.
In early 2023, China saw a 14% year-on-year increase in art auction sales to $7.9 billion, with the Old Masters' segment alone rising 15% to $1.1 billion. Globally, the art-secured lending market has expanded rapidly, with Sotheby's financial services alone originating more than $10 billion in loans since its inception. The entire global art secured lending space was valued at up to $34 billion in 2023.
This growth in art-related financial services presents new challenges for anti-money laundering efforts. Collateralised portfolios of art can more easily obscure the origin of funds and complicate scrutiny of wealth sources. The US Treasury, recognising these risks, recommended in a 2022 report that certain art market participants be subject to AML requirements, including suspicious activity reporting and KYC requirements.
Given these developments, what steps is Singapore taking to address the risks of money laundering through the art market and other alternative assets? Are we considering implementing AML requirements for auction houses, galleries and art-secured lenders operating in Singapore?
Next, I will move on from individual markets to overarching considerations.
Mr Speaker, given the evolving nature of money laundering techniques, we should consider creating a single dedicated omnibus AML legislation. This would consolidate the various amendments currently scattered across different acts, including the CFT, CDSA and the numerous MAS guidelines. Such consolidation would encompass regulations for financial institutions, professionals, trustees and dealers in precious metals.
This omnibus approach serves two purposes. It simplifies compliance for industry professionals and makes our AML laws more accessible to the general public. Secondly, and more importantly, we should future-proof our legislation by introducing the unifying legal principle and being affirmative in the duty of financial transparency.
Currently, our laws require reporting of suspicious transactions when there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity. I propose we go further. Financial institutions and gatekeepers should have an affirmative duty to ensure the transparency of all the transactions they facilitate. This new standard of care would require reasonable efforts to ensure transparency, which is more proactive than our current suspicion-based reporting. It would involve comprehensive origin and destination checks for funds, verification of the economic rationale for complex transaction structures and enhanced ongoing monitoring for high-risk clients or transactions.
The advantage of this approach is that it does not require suspicion of a predicate offence. Instead, it ensures that Singapore does not become a place that facilitates the obfuscation of funds, which some call \"Singapore-washing\". We can protect private wealth without enabling financial opacity. This approach allows us to target the core issue of financial opacity, adapting to new financial instruments and practices as they emerge. It positions Singapore as a leader in combating global money laundering while maintaining our attractiveness as a financial hub.
Finally, Mr Speaker, in response to the clear need to shift the culture among our financial gatekeepers, we can approach it from a different angle. Rather than viewing AML measures as mere administrative burdens, we must foster an environment where vigilance is valued and rewarded. In our fight against money laundering, we must recognise the crucial role of whistle-blowers and create a system that incentivises proactive reporting and cooperation. I propose that we allocate a portion of the assets confiscated from money launderers to establish a whistle-blowing fund. This fund would serve to reward those who come forward with valuable information, with the size of the awards proportional to the value of the assets seized as a result of their disclosures.
The US offers an instructive model. In 2023, the US enacted the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023. This legislation, passed unanimously by the Senate, significantly enhances incentives for whistle-blowers. Key provisions include: first, guaranteed awards of 10% to 30% of the financial fines collected for qualified whistle-blowers; second, establishment of a $300 million financial integrity fund funded by criminal forfeitures, fines and victim restitution; and third, expansion of eligibility to include non-US citizens, corporate auditors and compliance professionals. The US experience offers valuable lessons for crafting an effective whistle-blower campaign.
Mandatory awards are crucial. Discretionary awards are rarely paid and have proven ineffective in incentivising whistle-blowers. Confidentiality and anonymity protections allowing whistle-blowers to file complaints anonymously and maintain their anonymity encourage higher participation rates. Compensation for related actions where whistle-blowers are rewarded for enforcement actions by all relevant agencies resulting from their tip promotes comprehensive reporting to all relevant authorities.
For us in Singapore, the $3 billion money laundering case has indicated that there is somewhat of a culture of viewing self-reported checks as administrative hurdles to be avoided in the pursuit of profits. This cultural issue needs addressing in any regulatory framework. I believe that a whistle-blower fund, properly implemented, offers us the best shot of changing the game and mindset around suspicious transaction reporting. In the fight against money laundering, we will need both carrots and sticks.
While the US already has a strong AML framework, as evidenced by its prosecution of the 1MDB case, it still saw the need to enhance the whistle-blower system. Singapore should follow suit, recognising that motivating individuals to come forward is essential to maintaining a clean and transparent financial system.
By implementing these measures, we can turn the current AML lapses into a catalyst for positive change, fostering a culture of integrity and vigilance within our financial sector. A whistle-blower fund, seeded from the ill-gotten gains of the Fujian money launderers, could be the cornerstone of a cleaner, more transparent financial future for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step in strengthening Singapore's fight against financial crime. The proposed amendments, aimed at enhancing law enforcement capabilities, streamlining asset management and aligning regulatory frameworks with international standards are commendable. While I support the Bill's overall objectives, I would like to seek some clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some queries with regard to the potential impact on specific groups. For instance, the reduction of the transaction threshold for customer due diligence checks in casinos, from S$10,000 to S$4,000, raises questions about its effect on small business owners and patrons who rely on these establishments for legitimate recreational or business purposes. In particular, whilst $4,000 is not an insignificant amount, the much-lowered sum of $4,000 may reduce the attractiveness of the casinos to tourists. They may be put off by the additional due diligence process. Can the Minister provide data or studies that justify this reduction and its projected impact on these stakeholders?
We should find a balance between allowing the genuine punters who are here to enjoy the thrill of gambling versus those who are here to game the system and wash their ill-gotten gains in criminal activities. Otherwise, we will be suffocating the very clients who are essential to the casinos to keep afloat and contribute to the tourism traffic in Singapore. Furthermore, the money launderers from the recent high-profile cases or convictions know that they will keep a wide berth from using Singapore as their playground. There is no lack of alternatives in the region for them to move around.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I understand the necessity of robust customer due diligence measures, I am also mindful of the potential operational challenges and financial burden these measures may impose, particularly on smaller enterprises. The amendments proposed rigorous customer due diligence measures for casinos and other entities. Has the Ministry conducted a cost-benefit analysis on the operational feasibility and financial burden these measures may impose on smaller enterprises? Understanding the rationale and considerations behind implementing such stringent measures across diverse business sizes is critical.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the success of this Bill hinges not only on the strength of its provisions, but also on the effectiveness of its implementation. The Bill emphasises coordination amongst various Ministries and agencies, such as the Gambling Regulatory Authority which oversees the Casino Control Act, amongst others. What measures are in place to ensure seamless coordination and avoid potential jurisdictional conflicts? Can the Minister elaborate on the framework designed to facilitate this interagency collaboration?
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I recognise the necessity of information sharing to combat financial crime, it is critical to ensure that individual privacy is protected. The Bill also addresses the sharing of information among Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officers and regulatory bodies. What safeguards are in place to protect individuals' privacy? How do we ensure that the information shared is used solely for its intended purpose? Is there a timeline when information shared needs to be destroyed after its intended use? Given the sensitive nature of financial data, I believe it is paramount to address any potential privacy concerns comprehensively.
Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to understand how we measure up to international standards and best practices. The Bill aims to align with recommendations from FATF. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to understand how Singapore's approach compares with international best practices. Can the Ministry provide a comparative analysis highlighting why certain FATF recommendations were adopted while others were not?
Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is essential to ensure that the measures introduced in this Bill remain effective in the face of constantly evolving financial crimes. What mechanisms are in place to review the effectiveness of the new measures and make necessary adjustments? Regular evaluation will ensure that the legislation remains relevant and effective in combating evolving financial crimes.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has long been recognised for its commitment to upholding international standards in the fight against financial crime. This year alone, we have seen a slew of Bills introduced to tackle various aspects of financial crime, demonstrating our unwavering dedication to this critical issue. Despite these Bills, we have also seen a rise in the number of people wanted for money laundering and financial fraud in Singapore.
While I commend the Government for its efforts in introducing this Bill, I believe that it is essential to carefully consider the potential impact on specific groups, ensure operational feasibility and cost-effectiveness and establish robust safeguards for privacy and data protection. A thorough understanding of the comparative analysis with international best practices and the implementation of robust evaluation and review mechanisms will further strengthen this Bill and ensure its long-term effectiveness in safeguarding Singapore's financial integrity. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend certain Acts to give effect to certain recommendations of FATF to enhance the legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting offences relating to money laundering and terrorism financing and so on. The recent infamous $3 billion money laundering case has cast a negative spotlight on Singapore. It is, therefore, important that the right lessons are learnt and applied, and laws and procedures are enhanced to prevent or minimise similar cases in future.
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification in respect of the amendment under clause 17 of the Bill, that is to say, section 372 of the CPC 2010. In MHA's press release of 2 July 2024, it was stated at paragraph 16 that, I quote, \"...taken together, these amendments will prevent the premature release of seized properties while investigations are ongoing and avoid a situation where an absconded person evades investigations by staying out of Singapore and makes a successful claim to the seized properties because investigations have not been able to proceed\". May I ask the Minister whether there has been a recent precedent, such as a recent case or precedent, such as from the recent $3 billion money laundering case, or has there ever been any precedent at all where an absconded person evaded investigations by staying out of Singapore and then made a successful claim to the seized properties as investigations have not been able to proceed?
Mr Speaker, in the recent $3 billion money laundering case, we read of mostly Cambodian nationals of Chinese origin setting up residency in Singapore, buying expensive real estate, posh cars and other types of valuables and properties. We read that, and I quote, \"millions of dollars earned over the years from an illicit gambling ring were turned into luxury cars, extravagant watches, properties in Singapore's most lavish neighbourhoods, jewellery, designer goods, cryptocurrency and cold hard cash\". And this is from a media report.
So far, we read of media reports of kickbacks received by property agents or bankers taking cuts for property purchases. But the purchase of these properties required various parties or professionals who should be obligated to do AML due diligence checks required by the authorities.
The money launderers could have brought monies into Singapore either by cash or by remitting monies to Singapore via their existing bank accounts. Where money was remitted to bank accounts in Singapore, the banks located in Singapore would have had the chance to do their AML due diligence searches. For those who bought real estate here, besides the banks, the real estate agents as well as the conveyancing lawyers would have been required to do AML due diligence checks, including especially on the source of funds they put up for payment.
I would like to ask the Government for the banks, lawyers, jewellers or other persons who helped with or handled any of the sales transactions for the different types of properties on behalf of the members of the $3 billion money laundering ring, whether all of them carry out the necessary AML due diligence searches. Did they file any suspicious transactions report? And if so, what were the authorities' responses to such reports?
Mr Speaker, a few years ago, I was among an early group of practitioners who had to complete a prescribed AML/CFT course and an AML/CFT proficiency test as part of new requirements by ACRA for anyone seeking to register or renew his registration as a Registered Filing Agent (RFA) of companies. The programme aims to ensure that RFAs are well equipped to comply with AML/CFT regulations through continuous education. RFAs have to fulfil the new requirements once every two years as a precondition for their renewal.
I passed the test but, subsequently, I did not remain an RFA. However, the course and the test left me with deep impressions. In particular, while strict adherence can be onerous, if all professionals and service providers were to take the AML due diligence checks seriously and conscientiously, one would have thought that they would greatly help to prevent, or at least to minimise, the bringing in or the utilisation of funds which are subject to prohibitions under the AML regulations.
So far, not much is directly disclosed about AML due diligence efforts of the bankers, property agents, lawyers or other service providers or sales agents who serve or assisted the convicted members of the $3 billion money laundering case. Will the Government share with this House what are the lessons learnt from this case, if any, in respect of the adequacy of the current AML due diligence efforts required of the banks, property agents, sellers of precious stones or metals, lawyers and other service providers involved?
Mr Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's clarification. Notwithstanding the clarifications I seek, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.31 pm until 3.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER MATTERS BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the founder and CEO of a fund management firm. With my past experience as the head of a leading local stockbroking company, I am aware of the challenges and temptations faced by financial institutions with regard to money laundering.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the move by the Government to enhance the legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting money laundering offences through this Bill.
Over the past year, many Singaporeans have been shocked by the scale of the $3 billion money laundering scandal. Our nation's reputation as a rule-based financial centre has taken a great hit.
As one of the premier financial hubs in Asia, we are structurally exposed to money laundering. People from all over the world want to park their money here because they know that their money will be safe. This has created huge economic benefits for our financial industry and PSP recognises this.
But we want the money to be legitimate. Integrity is the most enduring competitive advantage for a global financial centre. We believe that even if the trade-off for taking a tougher stance against money laundering is slower growth of our financial services industry in the short term, it is a worthy trade-off in the long term.
It is vital that we take steps to protect our reputation by tightening our legal and sentencing framework to deter money laundering. We support the Government's decision to reduce the standard of proof for money laundering offences.
Under clause 11 of the Bill, the prosecution will no longer need to show under the CDSA the direct link between the criminal conduct and the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money launderer knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that he was dealing with criminal proceeds. This is a step in the right direction, which will enhance the prosecution's ability to pursue and prosecute money launderers.
However, I am also concerned whether this will also lead to banks adopting an overly cautious approach towards restricting or closing bank accounts out of concern for potential legal consequences, thus hindering legitimate transactions. Does the Ministry envision any safeguards to protect legitimate customers who may be inevitably caught in such a scenario?
We also support the move to reduce the threshold for casino operators to perform customer due diligence when they enter into cash transactions with patrons or receive deposits. However, at the same time, I would like to know whether there is a maximum cap on the amount of cash that a casino can accept in one transaction. For example, are our casinos allowed to take in cash exceeding $1 million in one go?
Madam, most importantly, even though the Bill has strengthened the legal framework for money laundering offences, we are concerned that the sentences that have been meted out to the recent $3 billion money laundering case do not provide sufficient deterrence against Singapore being used as a base to launder the proceeds of illicit activities.
We maintain the mandatory death penalty for serious drug trafficking offences because of the immense harm caused to drug abusers, their families and the community. But are we doing enough to punish money launderers who may be trying to conceal money which originated from drug trafficking or other serious illegal activities?
In his written reply to my PQ on 8 May 2024, the Minister for Home Affairs told me that the risk of imprisonment is an important deterrent against money laundering. I agree to that.
However, to an ordinary Singaporean, the jail terms of 13 to 17 months meted out to the nine men and one woman involved in the $3 billion money laundering case appear to be relatively short, especially given that the CDSA provides for jail terms of up to three to 10 years, depending on the nature of the money laundering offences.
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of Singaporeans being caught for being money mules. In many cases, they handed over their bank accounts and private information in exchange for small amounts of money, usually in the range of hundreds of dollars each time.
Some of these offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment for periods of two to three months for their offences. In comparison, the offenders of the $3 billion money laundering case got to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle worth millions of dollars in Singapore for several years before they were caught. Are the jail terms of 13 to 17 months proportional to the crimes they have committed, when compared to those of the money mules?
It would be appropriate for me to ask at this juncture this question. With money laundering in the billion-dollar scale only attracting up to 17 months of imprisonment, what sort of money laundering crimes did the Government envision would potentially attract the maximum imprisonment sentences under Part VI of the CDSA?
The Inter-Ministerial Committee Reviewing Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime will publish its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter. PSP hopes that one of its recommendations will be to strengthen the sentencing regime and increase the deterrent effect against money laundering by way of imprisonment.
We understand that MHA most recently reviewed the adequacy of the prescribed penalties against money laundering only in 2023. However, we believe that the sentencing regime should be reconsidered, given the relatively short jail terms that were handed down to those who had been caught in one of the largest anti-money laundering operations worldwide.
Can I also ask the Minister if the Sentencing Advisory Panel will consider issuing an advisory on the sentencing framework for offences under the CDSA based on the lessons learnt from the $3 billion money laundering case?
Finally, for any anti-money laundering regime to be effective, besides the perpetrators, strong actions against the gatekeepers like the banks and other financial institutions who contravene the rules are necessary. Can the Minister tell us for each of the banks and corporates involved in this case, the actions that have been taken against them and the internal actions these institutions have taken so far to strengthen their AML Regime?
Following the review of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, we hope we will further strengthen the penalties against banks, other financial institutions and their senior management who contravened anti-money laundering rules. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fellow Singaporeans, the $3 billion money laundering case has severely damaged our country's reputation as an international financial center and has had adverse effects on our society. PSP supports the Government in amending several related laws following the money laundering case, including the CDSA Bill being discussed today, to strengthen our enforcement efforts against money laundering.
PSP believes that the most important aspect of the anti-money laundering regime is proper sentencing. Many Singaporeans feel that the 13 to 17 months of imprisonment meted out to the 10 individuals involved in the $3 billion money laundering case is not sufficient to deter and prevent money laundering in Singapore. We would like to ask, under the existing CDSA, whereby money launderers can be sentenced to 3 to 10 years of imprisonment, why the offenders in the $3 billion money laundering case were only sentenced to 13 to 17 months? Furthermore, we hope the Minister can clarify, under what circumstances that money launderers can be sentenced to the maximum penalty?
PSP believes that in order to prevent money laundering and uphold Singapore's reputation and moral values in our society, we should increase the sentencing of money launderers and take strong measures against the implicated financial institutions.
(In English): PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate on this important legislation.
This Bill seeks to send a strong signal to the international community that Singapore is fully committed to combating money laundering.
I also believe the importance of this Bill in strengthening anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures can improve trade relations with other countries, as partners will have greater trust in Singapore's regulatory framework.
Singapore’s compliance with the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force will increase confidence among international investors and financial institutions and help attract more foreign capital. This is quite evident from the healthy inflow of investments we continue to see, as reported in in the recent announcements by the Economic Development Board (EDB) and by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI).
By cracking down on illicit activities, the Bill helps protect legitimate businesses from being undermined by unfair competition from entities engaged in money laundering or financing terrorism.
I believe the Bill may also lead to development of new services and products in the financial sector such as advanced compliance software, consulting services, and anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing training programmes.
Furthermore, the need for enhanced compliance can spur innovation in Regulatory Technology or regtech, leading to the development of new solutions to help businesses comply with the regulations more efficiently, positioning Singapore as a leader in the regtech innovation.
However, despite many favourable outcomes for the overall economy, this Bill could lead to certain challenges for businesses especially SMEs.
Implementing stringent AML/CTF measures often requires significant investments in technology, staff training, and process changes, which can be financially burdensome. Compliance costs may also increase substantially leading to closure of some SME businesses. While some consolidation in this sector may be necessary there is also a risk that overly stringent regulations might stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. Businesses might be hesitant to engage in new ventures or adopt innovative practices due to the fear of non-compliance or excessive regulatory scrutiny.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
First, regarding the scope and application of this Bill, could you please specify which businesses and sub-sectors are directly affected by the new AML/CTF regulations? Are there any exemptions for small businesses or any specific sub-sectors?
Secondly, is there a stipulated timeline for businesses to comply with the new regulations? Also, are there any transitional provisions provided to help businesses adjust to these new requirements?
Thirdly, how do our regulations align with international AML/CTF standards and the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force? Are there any specific international guidelines that businesses should be aware of?
Lastly, could you please also clarify the procedures and measures for ensuring privacy and security of collected customer data?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Singapore has a comprehensive Anti-Money Laundering Regime centered around the three pillars of prevention, detection and enforcement. This Bill helps us to continue to be responsive to new threats in the future that threatens the status and confidence in Singapore as an international financial hub.
My speech is focused on the amendments: firstly, to remove the requirement to trace back the assets or proceeds as benefits of criminal conduct overseas; secondly, the early sale of seized assets; and lastly, tightening the criteria for third parties to claim assets linked to absconded persons still under investigations.
On the first amendment, the law as it currently stands requires the Prosecution to prove that property or assets are benefits of criminal conduct. This is quite difficult to do especially in sophisticated financial transactions, with layers after layers of sophisticated transactions, across various jurisdictions and split over different amounts. Some are even converted into other types of assets to further mask the transactions.
It will be tough to conduct the tracing exercise to the predicate offence which usually occurs overseas. In fact, even if the account or asset holder admits that he or she has acted as a money mule or has given up control of the account to receive and transfer such illicit funds, that alone may not be enough to prosecute. As such, I welcome the amendments to remove this requirement.
Jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Canada and Australia have already done away with such requirement to prove that the property or asset in question came from or are benefits of the criminal conduct.
However, I have some clarifications and suggestions.
Firstly, I understand that there is still a requirement to prove whether or not the subject was involved in the financial or property transfer. May I confirm that this is still the burden of proof for the Prosecution to discharge? And that it is not presumed that the accused is in receipt of illicit funds just because the last transfer of monies went into his or her account.
Secondly, what level of involvement would the subject have to be, in respect of the transfer? Is this to be referenced similarly to an objective test as to whether or not he or she ought to have known that such monies were criminal proceeds?
Next, I welcome the amendment to allow for the early sale of seized properties. This is especially important for seized assets like vessels or specialised items. In my previous experience as a maritime lawyer, I arrest vessels to secure maritime lien and admiralty claims on behalf of clients and if no release has been made, then through the Sheriff, the arrested vessels will be put up for sale.
However, the process will be long and expensive. While the vessel is still under arrest and if the owner has abandoned the vessel, the arresting party has to foot the bills for the wages and sustenance of the crew, security guards, repairs and maintenance, bunkering costs, insurance coverage, port dues, and many other expenses. And the longer the vessel sits under the arrest, the higher the exposure of liability on the arresting party. For instance, in one case that I had, the Master or the captain of the vessel, fell and suffered a chipped tooth and needed medical attention. In another case, a homesick crew with special extenuating circumstances had to be repatriated and change of crew had to be made.
All of these means more costs and risks will be saddled on the arresting party. We cannot have the same situation saddled on our law enforcement agencies as this will be a burden on taxpayers.
For specialised items that are being seized, they also may require special storage with the right temperature and humidity conditions to ensure that the value and veracity of the items are preserved. Handbags, watches and other high luxury items fall into such category.
I have six clarifications.
Firstly, how much has been spent by MHA annually to preserve or maintain such seized items? What is this in terms of percentage of the value of the seized assets? Will MHA look at setting a standard threshold set for the costs of maintenance in terms of percentage of the value of the seized assets, beyond which it will be unfeasible to continue to retain those assets under seizure because this then will provide clear guidance?
Secondly, I understand that the CPC and CDSA will be amended to allow the Court to order the sale of the seized or restrained property without the consent of all parties involved. However, what are the safeguards to balance the rights on interested parties in the assets? For example, will ample notice be given by way of advertisement to ensure that any interested parties can attend the Court hearing to be heard before the sale of the assets?
Thirdly, before determining that such assets can be sold, what are the steps that can be taken to ensure that any evidential value from the property or asset has been extricated and preserved? For example, through the cloning of any metadata, photographs and videos of the assets, anything and everything that may have evidentiary value to the investigations must already been taken, before such assets can be sold.
Fourthly, the prerequisite to such early sale is that the asset may depreciate in value or undue costs will be involved in the maintaining of the property and that the sale will be in the interests of justice. Hence, will the relevant law enforcement agencies consult industry valuation experts who are familiar with such properties or assets to determine the risk of depreciation?
Fifthly, what are the safeguards to ensure that the sale of the seized assets is for the right value and made to genuine purchasing parties. For example, in the standard Sheriff’s Condition for Sale of vessels, the Court's approval will be required to sanction any accepted bids below the appraised value.
Lastly, what are the safeguards to ensure that the value of the seized assets continue to be protected even after the sale order has been made? For instance, it will be better to approach a calibrated sale rather than flooding the market with many items, all being put up to auction all at once. Alternatively, married deals through specialised auction houses for a specific group of accredited bidders, can be made to ensure the exclusivity of the offer and higher bid returns.
Next, on third parties' claims to properties linked to absconded persons. Usually, the perpetrators not only mask their illicit activities and transactions through layering of transfers and transactions but also through putting such assets in the names of proxies like family members or friends. Hence, I welcome the amendments to the CPC to tighten the criteria of any ownership claims by third parties over assets linked to absconded persons. No longer can such parties hide behind the excuse that these ill-gotten gains are gifts made to them.
The amendments bring the position in line with the common law principle in AB Partners Pte Ltd v PP. In any case, the common law principles of presumption of advancement or gift still apply to family members like spouses or children. Hence, it is incumbent upon this group of third parties to prove that if the assets are not gifts, how are they able to afford the assets with regard to their own income, revenue or savings. This is only fair.
I do have a small clarification in this regard. In law, there is the concept of \"equity's darling\" – a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Hence, family members or friends who are truly not proxies need not fear this amendment if they can show how they gave value to the acquisition and how they came into ownership of such asset. However, what about gifts or donations made or pledged to charities or foundations with a social cause? Will such assets be clawed back, given that they are linked to the absconded persons?
In this regard, I have a suggestion. In a previous response to the Parliament, MHA has explained that the forfeited assets and cash will go to the Consolidated Funds. Perhaps, we can set aside a portion of such forfeited assets to be put up to benefit the larger community by establishing some criteria or guidelines.
For example, in Australia, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 establishes a scheme to confiscate proceeds of crime and allows for such confiscated funds to be used to benefit the community. Under section 298 of the Australian Act, confiscated proceeds of crime can be reinvested in programmes for relevant purposes, including crime prevention and law enforcement. There is also a call for a grant to be provided for deserving programmes under such a scheme.
If Singapore has a similar lever, then such assets that have been pledged or donated to charities that are recognised and accredited in Singapore can also stand to benefit those charities, assuming that the charities played no part in the commission of the offence.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the aforesaid clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill. The Bill seeks to amend several other Acts and aligns with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Speaker, the $3 billion money laundering case uncovered last year has captured the public's attention. Many wondered how this was possible in a country that is known internationally for being safe, crime and corruption free, and having sound governance. Such cases not only contribute to a negative image of Singapore, they also have direct implications on the public safety and security of Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, Singapore is a global financial hub, which makes it an attractive target for illicit financial activities. Measures that enhance anti-money laundering improve the integrity of our financial systems and foster trust and confidence among domestic and international investors and stakeholders. Additionally, they assist to protect the country's reputation, deter criminals from exploiting our financial infrastructure and safeguard the broader economy from the adverse effects of financial crimes.
Importantly, strengthening anti-money laundering is also crucial for public safety and security as it helps prevent the flow of illicit funds that can be used to finance terrorism or drug trafficking or other criminal activities.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has already taken proactive steps to address money laundering. At the opening of the Financial Action Task Force Plenary Meeting in June 2024, Prime Minister Wong announced the National Asset Recovery Strategy with the objective of deterring money laundering in Singapore by stripping criminals of their illegal profits. The amendments proposed in this Bill aim to actualise the National Asset Recovery Strategy, namely, by allowing greater flexibility to law enforcement agencies so they can detect illicit funds, seize illegal proceeds, maximise asset recovery for restitution and deter the use of Singapore as a haven for illicit wealth.
Mr Speaker, I welcome the proposed amendments. However, I do have some clarifications. Before I do so, I would like to note that I am currently the Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Mr Speaker, the Bill seeks to enhance levers for prosecution of money laundering cases arising from criminal conduct abroad. I understand the importance of prosecuting so-called money mules and I agree that we need to take timely and firm action against those who circumvent the law. I am, however, concerned about individuals who may be more easily subject to exploitation or coercion, including young people, migrant workers, people with disabilities or women and how we best respond if these individuals have unwittingly or involuntarily become involved in money laundering activities.
Perhaps the Ministry should consider some sort of education campaign to remind people to be vigilant to the risks of unknowingly getting involved in money laundering activities and what to do if they suspect that someone is trying to engage them or someone they know in illegal activities.
I am also concerned about how we respond if charities or non-profit organisations are being exploited for the purpose of money laundering. Perhaps the Ministry should also consider a similar education campaign targeting the community sector.
Mr Speaker, I welcome the suggestion to designate foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences. However, given Singapore's fortunate position of not experiencing significant environmental crime, I would like to know what training and awareness programmes are in place to assist our officials to identify, detect and investigate crimes that may occur overseas.
Furthermore, successful prosecution of environmental crimes often requires international cooperation. What kind of support is provided to officials to enable them to better collaborate and cooperate with international stakeholders?
Mr Speaker, the Bill enables cross-agency data sharing. This initiative will significantly enhance our ability to detect and prevent financial crimes at an early stage. By sharing data, the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office can improve its analyses of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing risks, thus providing more comprehensive intelligence to law enforcement agencies and government regulators.
Given the importance of public awareness in assisting to prevent crime and enhance community confidence, perhaps the Ministry could provide regular update reports on current risks.
Mr Speaker, AI has the potential to be a significant game changer in the global fight against money laundering and financial crime. The Financial Action Task Force acknowledges the importance of innovative approaches to enhance Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism activities.
In addition to approaches currently utilised and taken by the COSMIC platform and the STRO, I would like to know how generative AI is being utilised to tackle the issue of money laundering in Singapore and what future plans are in place to integrate advanced AI technologies in this effort.
Relatedly, I would like to know if the Ministry has considered enhancing the COSMIC platform alongside the STRO to strengthen efforts in preventing money laundering activities in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, the measures to seize and restrain properties linked to suspected criminal activities aim to reduce property maintenance costs, preserve the value of these properties and enhance subsequent asset recovery and restitution to victims.
My clarification relates to the process of restitution to victims. Specifically, how is restitution established and what happens to the proceeds if victims are unidentified or cannot be located? In such cases, would the Ministry consider diverting unclaimed or unallocated funds to a general victim compensation fund?
Finally, aligning the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism framework for casino operators with FATF standards is crucial.
Regarding proliferation financing risks, what strategies or programmes are currently in place to educate and support casino regulators in detecting unlawful activities? Is there a need to further strengthen and raise awareness among individuals working in this sector? If so, what specific measures will be taken to achieve this?
In conclusion, as we strengthen our efforts against money laundering, we must reinforce the foundations of our financial systems and uphold global standards of transparency and accountability. Mr Speaker, by implementing the measures proposed in this Bill, we can deter criminal activities and ensure that Singapore remains a secure, trusted and resilient financial hub for future generations.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the recent $3 billion money laundering case has illuminated the clandestine activities and loopholes that money launderers exploit as well as their intricate cross-border operations. I would not dwell into the specifics of the particular case, but suffice to say, with billions of dollars involved, many are questioning how this could happen in Singapore, what measures can be taken to prevent a recurrence and whether our current safeguards are adequate.
I am glad that this Bill, amongst many others, would strengthen our stance on anti money laundering.
On the one hand, the arrest of the individuals involved in these money laundering activities, despite their complex cross-border operations, instils confidence in the capabilities of our Police Force to handle such intricate cases. On the other hand, it underscores the need for more robust measures to prevent money laundering crimes and to empower our law enforcement agencies to seek justice more effectively when a crime has been committed.
Hence, the proposed amendments to the Bill are crucial. They aim to enhance the ability of our law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute money laundering offences and to clarify and improve our processes for dealing with seized or restrained properties linked to suspected criminal activities. These steps are vital for strengthening our anti money laundering efforts.
While I stand in support of the Bill, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Firstly, in Part 2 of the amendment to section 56 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act, Clause 10 states that the prosecution does not need to show a direct link between the criminal conduct and the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore. It would be sufficient for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money launderer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that they were dealing with criminal proceeds.
This is a welcomed change as it enables the prosecution of money mules in cases where money is laundered through bank accounts and intermediaries in foreign jurisdictions before entering Singapore. However, I have a few concerns.
How will we address situations where money launderers use innocent, unaware victims within Singapore to deceive and mislead investigators? How can we ensure adequate protection for these innocent victims?
I have encountered cases where the bank accounts of suspected mules were frozen for months, only to be cleared of any wrongdoings. In some instances, their accounts remain frozen for over three months, leaving them without access to their funds. How can we better protect innocent victims in such scenarios?
Secondly, in Part 3 of the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, clauses 14 to 17 allow for the sale of seized or restrained properties. I have a few questions regarding this.
What is the threshold for the depreciation in value of the properties for the Court to order their sale? In cases where the seized properties are vehicles, does this then imply that the vehicles should be sold off as soon as possible to recover the maximum value?
Mr Speaker, the amendments in the Bill are crucial. They aim to enhance the ability of our law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute money laundering offences. However, we must also ensure that the amendments to the Bill are implemented effectively and justly, safeguarding the interests of innocent parties while enhancing our anti money laundering efforts.
Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the proposals in the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill to combat money laundering (ML) and related crimes more effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Does the revised law allow banks to hold assets for a certain number of days after a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) is filed, so that the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) can decide whether to issue a seizure order?When a customer instructs a bank to make a payment and the bank holds the transaction pending STRO approval, how does the law prevent tipping off the customer that an STR has been filed, which could prejudice ongoing investigations?
Regarding the proposal to allow Government agencies to share information and data with one another, it must be done, in order to facilitate and expedite investigations and prosecution. However, I have some concerns about this arrangement too.
How will the Government ensure data privacy and security with the increased sharing of sensitive tax and trade data information? Will there be a heightened risk of shared data misuse and, if so, what preventive measures will be in place to mitigate this risk? Will the Ministry share what kind of guidelines and oversight mechanisms have been established to prevent data misuse and ensure accountability? I urge the Ministries involved to implement robust data encryption and access control measures.
(In English): The prosecution will no longer be required to show a direct link between the money which had entered Singapore and the associated foreign crimes. Would the Minister share which specific challenges are anticipated in the process to prove that the individuals knew they were dealing with criminal proceeds and how will these be addressed?
Next, about the proposed change to designate serious foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences, how will the authorities manage the increased workload and complexity arising from the inclusion of foreign environmental crimes like illegal logging? May I suggest that we develop agreements and protocols for cooperation with foreign jurisdictions to streamline evidence gathering and information gathering? We also need to provide training and resources to law enforcement agencies to handle the complexities of international money laundering cases.
I strongly support the proposal to allow the Court to order the sale of seized or restrained properties linked to suspected criminal activities. I would like to ask, how will the courts determine the \"interest of justice\" when deciding to sell the seized properties in the absence of unanimous consent. What procedures will be put in place to ensure fair and transparent sale of the seized assets? How will the Ministry ensure a transparent process for the valuation and sale of seized assets? Will public auctions or third-party assessments be conducted? I hope the proceeds from the sale of seized properties can be used to support victims and further crime prevention efforts.
Finally, regarding the lower threshold for cash transactions and deposits at casinos, do the authorities expect any impact on the operations of casinos? What support will be provided to casino operators to comply with the new regulations? Would the Ministry also consider a phased approach to give casinos time to adjust their processes and systems?
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Others Matters Bill.
Singapore plays a pivotal role as a global financial hub. As such, our financial regulations should align with international standards to preserve our reputation. Singapore's reputation has an immense impact on job creation and securing good jobs for Singaporeans. These amendments, along with four other Bills passed since May 2023, collectively enhances our defences against money laundering. This is a critical aspect of our commitment to global financial integrity.
I also recognise that these amendments' roles in fortifying our defences against illicit activities. These enhancements, along with previous amendments, bolster our enforcement capabilities. They also provide us with the tools needed to effectively combat bad actors.
However, the successes of these measures depends on their implementation and the perceptions of those responsible for their enforcement, especially our compliance officers. We need to ensure these regulations are communicated. Compliance officers must have an accurate understanding of the intents and specifications of the various AML amendments and avoid taking an overly-conservative approach that places excessive compliance burdens.
Striking a balance is essential, as being too strict or too lenient can be detrimental. Excessive conservatism can stifle legitimate financial activities, deter investment inflows and negatively impact job creation. Therefore, compliance officers must find a middle ground that ensures regulatory compliance without imposing unnecessary constraints.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification on a specific point, namely clause 16. This introduces friction for individuals trying to establish entitlement to properties linked to absconded persons.
There are concerns that these new laws might deter legitimate investments and businesses, particularly, by increasing the risk of property seizure, impacting investments. While we understand the necessity of these amendments, there is a perception that they may confer excessive power on the Police to seize properties without due Court process. This raises questions about the impact on the perception on foreign investors.
It is important to consider the psychological aspect. In Singapore, we enjoy a high trust in our society and law enforcement agencies. This may make these measures seem fair to our citizens. However, foreign investors may come from societies with lower trust in similar institutions. Their concerns about potential overreach should be addressed.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister, what specific powers do the Police have under clause 16. What are guardrails are in place to prevent a potential overreach? Furthermore, how can we assuage concerns from our international investors regarding these powers?
Next, I would like to address a significant issue related to compliance, particularly within the financial and real estate sectors.
There is feedback from the ground, including private bankers, that compliance officers are interpreting regulations with an overly-conservative approach. For example, a client who has purchased a property and received the Temporary Occupation Permit is now being retroactively asked to prove the source of funds.
Also, investors are questioning whether real estate developers can depend on the Know Your Client (KYC) and due diligence conducted by banks. This cautious approach can sometimes seem excessive and it has led to perception that Singapore is becoming an onerous place for investment and that Singapore is no longer open for business.
Given the measures in this Bill and the four AML-related amendments enacted since May 2023, there is a concern that this could unduly increase the compliance burden on our industries, particularly in finance and real estate. Could the Minister ensure that these amendments do not lead to an excessive compliance burden?
It is important to note that compliance officers in different industries have varied timelines to adjust to new regulations. For example, the finance industry has had a longer period to develop KYC policies, compared to the real estate industry. There is also a concern about uneven standards of personal data protection. Therefore, we need to support these industries in levelling up their compliance practices for consistent application.
Additionally, could we provide clear guidance to compliance officers to ensure they do not adopt overly conservative approaches that could deter investment and hinder our economic growth?
Mr Speaker, Sir, these regulations intend to safeguard our financial systems. However, they must not, inadvertently, create a heavier compliance load or foster negative perceptions. While we aim to strengthen our defences against illicit activities, our approach should also foster a dynamic economic environment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the topic of AML has been a subject of numerous speeches and PQs since news of the $3 billion money laundering case broke in August 2023. Since then, the last of the 10 offenders have been convicted and deported from Singapore just last week.
So, I am sure most of my Parliamentary colleagues would agree with the principle behind this Bill – to enhance and clarify our powers to combat attempts to use Singapore's trusted reputation for illegal activities. However, I would like to take the opportunity to seek the Minister's clarifications on the implementation of a tighter AML, terrorism financing (TF) and proliferation financing (PF) regime.
First, on the timing of this Bill.
In the Ministerial Statements regarding the billion-dollar money laundering case last year, it was announced that an Inter-Ministerial Committee, comprising officeholders across MAS and various Ministries, would look into keeping our AML regime up-to-date.
The latest announcement was that the Inter-Ministerial Committee is due to share its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter of 2024. May I ask the Minister is there a reason why this Bill is being tabled before the Committee's full findings and recommendations are shared for this House's consideration? Is there a special urgency for the measures that are proposed in this Bill?
As was pointed out in the Ministerial Statements of October 2023, we must avoid a \"knee-jerk\" reaction to the billion-dollar case. We must balance any responsive measures with the consideration that there are still legitimate business and fund flows, which we do not want to unduly impede.
With that consensus, would it be more expedient to consider our AML strategy in the round after the Inter-Ministerial Committee's findings and recommendations are known? That way, we can fashion a more holistic update of our regime, as compared to making piecemeal tweaks at various times. That would also allow businesses and investors to undertake a single review of their operations and compliance policies and keep compliance costs competitive.
Just as an illustration, I note that the Bill is lowering the monetary threshold for casinos to perform CDD measures when it is entering into a single transaction of $4,000 or more with a patron. By way of comparison, the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing and Proliferation Financing) Act 2019 (PSPM Act), sets the threshold amount at $20,000 for a dealer of precious stones and metals to perform CDD measures. How are these quantitative thresholds set? We should ensure that they do not come across as arbitrary.
Mr Speaker, one aspect of the Bill, which clearly appears to be triggered by the recent case, is the new power to convert seized property to cash under certain circumstances, without the consent of all parties involved.
When I asked a PQ back in May 2024, Minister Shanmugam updated that the Police had incurred about $646,282 as of March 2024 for the storage, maintenance and safeguarding of the seized assets. How much more have been spent to store, maintain and safeguard properties, vehicles and luxury goods to date? What is the amount of depreciation suffered from the time that the various assets were seized? How much of the seized assets have yet to be appropriated to the consolidated fund for Government use?
The new powers will allow the Police or the Public Prosecutor to apply to Court for an order of sale if the property is likely to depreciate in value, if keeping or maintaining the property would be dangerous, unduly costly or not reasonably practicable or if the sale would be in the interests of justice. Can the Minister please clarify, what circumstances would fall under the \"interests of justice\" limb? If these proposed powers were available in 2023, for example, what are the types of assets which would have been sold after they were seized in the billion-dollar case?
I note that the Bill also contains new provisions to prevent absconded persons from making successful claims to seized properties. May I ask how commonly has this occurred over the past 20 years? What is the value of seized properties that absconded individuals have been able to make away with and how have they managed to obtain delivery of such properties from the authorities despite being absent from jurisdiction?
Clause 11 of the Bill also seeks to make it easier for the Prosecution to prove a money laundering offence. The Prosecution will no longer need to provide the full chain of how the monies laundered in Singapore are traced to the benefits or gains from criminal conduct, as long as they can show that the money launderer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was dealing with the benefits from criminal conduct.
Does this mean that someone can be criminally liable as a money launderer if he mistakenly believes that he is dealing with ill-gotten gains, or must the monies dealt with still need to be attributable to criminal conduct? If it is the latter, what would be the standard of proof required?
This change comes slightly a year after we had tightened our laws to act against money mules, who sell or use their payment and Singpass accounts for criminals to receive or transfer money. May I ask if there was a reason why we did not make the present amendment then as well?
The Bill also introduces amendments to allow Government agencies to share tax data and trade data with Singapore's Financial Intelligence Unit, the STRO of CAD. Sectoral regulators, such as the CEA and ACRA, will also be given access to STRs filed by their respective regulated entities.
As explored in the clarifications to the Ministerial Statements last year, the key is not in an indiscriminate blasting of the confidential STRs to anyone who wants them, but to be clear about who is the central node who is making sense of all the STRs and the data that is being reported and fed to. Who will play the role of this central node or do we envisage a semi-decentralised system where different regulators keep an eye on different scopes? Is there merit in setting up a central coordination point like the Anti-Scam Centre does for our scam-fighting efforts?
An effective solution must harness an ability to access information across different spheres. This would include the developed system of STRs that are now regularly filed by our financial institutions. While I understand that MAS is taking a phased approach in the implementation of the COSMIC platform, starting with six major commercial banks, is there an update on when we would consider if it can be extended for use by a larger audience, including other non-financial institution gatekeepers, such as law firms and accounting firms? What is the status of the implementation of COSMIC and what are some of the lessons learnt so far?
Finally, given the new laws to enhance detection and enforcement against money laundering and improve our processes to deal with seized or restrained properties linked to suspected criminal activities as well as increasing frictions for any person connected to an absconded person to establish his entitlement to properties and assets, may I ask if MHA and MAS can reassure concerns that the new laws will not deter legitimate investments and businesses as well as lead to higher compliance costs and layers in the financial sector?
The concern is that it may lead to higher risks of seizures and impact wealth flows. Can MHA and MAS share their assessment of these new laws impact on the financial sector flows either directly or indirectly? Would it be possible for the relevant agencies to engage the financial sector's compliance departments, to clarify that the efforts are targeted and aimed solely on illegitimate investments and should not be taken as a further broad tightening on all investment flows?
So, I look forward, Mr Speaker, to seeing the Inter-Ministerial Committee's findings and recommendations later this year. Among other things, I think it is key to our AML objectives to focus on parts of the ecosystem that have not been regulated or as closely regulated. For example, high-value assets, such as luxury cars, bags and liquor, do not have the same structural regulation as financial instruments and real estate. But these are beyond the scope of this Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill to strengthen our AML/CFT regime.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will enhance the powers of law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute money laundering offences, clarify our processes to deal with seized or restrained properties and put into effect certain recommendations of the FATF. This is a positive move that will strengthen both our ability to address the transnational nature of money laundering operations and tighten our internal anti-money laundering processes.
I have four points for clarification.
My first point, is on the lower threshold for the prosecution of money laundering cases arising from criminal conduct abroad. Under the amended section 56 of the CDSA, the prosecution will no longer need to prove, as a physical element of the offences that property dealt with by the defendant is, in fact, the benefits of drug dealing and criminal conduct. The rationale provided by the Ministry for removing the physical element is to remove the impediment that law enforcement agencies currently face in obtaining evidence from victims, entities and authorities outside jurisdiction.
To address evidential difficulties, there are other legal mechanisms, such as rebuttable legal presumptions. Can the Minister share why the Ministry considered legal presumptions to be insufficient for addressing the evidential difficulties, such that it had to resort to removing the physical element altogether?
Next, it is a defence if a defendant can raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the money laundered in Singapore were, in fact, benefits from criminal conduct. Given that the defendants in such cases may be money mules, who may have limited resources and access to financial institutions, can the Minister share examples of how practically a defendant might be able to show reasonable doubt?
I previously filed PQs on classifying wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Organised Crime Act 2015. On 5 October 2020, the Ministry said that no links with corruption, money laundering or fraud were established for cases of illegal wildlife trade in Singapore. On 2 November 2021 and 7 November 2022, the Ministry said that, where illegal wildlife trade seizures involve entities outside of Singapore, our enforcement agencies work closely with the source and destination countries and share information with international organisations, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and INTERPOL.
In removing the physical element for prosecuting money laundering cases, the Ministry explained that documents from financial institutions of foreign countries to prove the trail of monies are dependent on the cooperation of foreign entities, which is often difficult to secure.
Is it the case, then, when no links were found between illegal wildlife trade and money laundering when cooperating with entities outside of Singapore, we were working on the basis of inadequate evidence? Will the amendments, then, allow us to more proactively tackle environmental crimes?
Beyond prosecuting money mules, can the Minister confirm that tracing the financial trails to prosecute the masterminds and kingpins behind these operations will remain a priority? If documents from financial institutions are difficult to secure, what other steps are being taken to improve the flow of information between countries?
My second point, is on the proposed sharing of data between Government agencies. Under the proposed Bill, STRO has powers to obtain information on personal tax and trade data from a number of Government agencies. The data that is obtained by STRO may be passed on to the AGC or other prosecuting agencies for use in prosecutions. The information may, then, emerge in open court trials. Can the Minister share what safeguards are in place when data is passed from one agency to another?
If a prosecution is brought based on evidence obtained by STRO from other agencies, would the data still be treated as confidential? Would the Prosecution apply to Court to redact or seal the documents? Or would the public interest in an open hearing mean that the information will no longer be treated as confidential?
The amended section 45 of the CDSA, allows STRO officers to disclose information disclosed by a regulated person to a regulator. Can the Minister share what factors STRO will consider in deciding what data to share with regulators? What are the purposes and limits on STRO's power to share data with regulators?
Can the Minister also share what happens to the data after there is no longer a need for STRO or regulators to possess the data? For instance, if it is determined, after investigations, that no wrongdoing has been committed, will STRO and regulators permanently delete the data obtained? If data is retained, what is the retention period for this data and where will the data be stored?
My third point is on the sale of seized or restrained properties. The amended section 35 of the CPC allows the court to order the sale of any property that is seized or restrained. One scenario where the court can do so is if the property is likely to be subject to depreciation.
Can the Minister clarify how the law enforcement agencies will determine if the value of the property is likely to depreciate? What factors or framework will be used by said agencies to determine the expected value of the property? Will there be a specific timeframe set by the agencies to determine the expected valuation of property within that timeframe? Will the agencies seek the assistance or expertise of professionals in determining the valuation of more niche assets?
One example of a highly volatile asset in today's landscape is cryptocurrency. How will law enforcement agencies determine the valuation of a defendant's cryptocurrency wallet, which is highly volatile?
The Ministry has stated that the powers relating to the sale of properties is to enhance restitution to victims. Can the Minister consider detailing how the proceeds of sales will be used for victim restitution? What factors will determine whether an individual qualifies to receive restitution? Further, what is the process for an individual to receive said restitution?
My fourth and final point, is on the designation of foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences. The Third Schedule to the CDSA recognises environmental offences, such as illegal mining, illegal logging and illegal wildlife trade, as serious offences in Singapore.
I welcome the Ministry's designation of illegal wildlife trade as a \"foreign serious environmental offence\". Defining and addressing wildlife crimes as transnational crimes is a step in the right direction.
As a possible next step, I would again propose classifying certain wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act. I have previously spoken up about this suggestion, as the close links between wildlife crime and other organised crimes, such as drug trafficking and money laundering, constitutes a serious threat to public safety in Singapore.
This measure would empower our local enforcement agencies to effectively tackle wildlife crime. Further, it would have a strong signalling and deterrence effect against wildlife crime, both in Singapore and globally. Given this, can the Minister look into taking this next step to classify wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Organised Crime Act?
Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters (Amendment) Bill. This legislation aims to fortify our financial system against the threats of money laundering, terrorism financing and the financing of weapons of mass destruction.
Singapore, known for its clean and transparent financial hub, remains a target for malicious actors. Against backdrop of the recent $3 billion money laundering case, it is crucial that we take decisive action to further strengthen our financial system.
The Bill proposes crucial amendments to the CDSA to simplify the prosecution of money laundering cases, particularly those with international ties. Currently, prosecutors must establish a direct link between criminal conduct and laundered money in Singapore. This is extremely challenging when funds move across multiple jurisdictions.
The proposed amendments remove this requirement to prove this physical link, allowing prosecution based on the intent of the accused. Prosecutors must, of course, still demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that they were handling criminal proceeds.
This amendment strikes a necessary balance between facilitating prosecution and protecting individual rights. However, the subjective nature of the \"reasonableness\" standard requires careful monitoring. How would the Ministry be guided in determining what constitutes \"reasonableness\"? What are the precedent cases and judgments that would guide the Ministry?
The Bill also introduces a Third Schedule to the CDSA, categorising serious foreign environmental crimes as predicate offenses. This move is timely, reflecting the global urgency to combat environmental degradation. Offenses, like illegal mining, logging and waste trafficking, will now be recognised as serious offenses under our laws, aligning Singapore with international efforts to protect the environment.
To ensure effective enforcement, I ask the Ministry to clarify the measures it will implement to foster international cooperation in investigating these offenses. Establishing partnerships with global environmental agencies and enhancing information-sharing protocols will be essential.
The Bill also emphasises the importance of enhanced cross-agency data sharing to improve the detection of money laundering activities. Amendments to various Acts will enable agencies, such as IRAS and Customs to share data with STRO.
Given the increasing complexity of financial crimes, real-time data sharing is vital for timely intervention and regulatory action. Considering the recent data breaches, the Ministry must ensure that robust data privacy and security measures are in place within this framework. Strengthening data security protocols and conducting regular audits will be crucial to protecting sensitive information.
A key aspect of the Bill is the focus on leveraging technology to combat money laundering and other financial crimes. Technologies, like artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain and advanced data analytics, offer significant potential to enhance transaction monitoring and regulatory oversight. Can the Minister also share, how does the Ministry intend to use these technologies and to outline plans for further integration?
The Bill also amends the Casino Control Act to tighten requirements for casino operators regarding CDD checks. Under the new provisions, operators must conduct CDD checks for cash transactions or deposits of $4,000 or more, considering the risks of proliferation financing.
These changes align our regulations with international standards, ensuring that our casino sector remains resilient against money laundering and terrorism financing threats. However, it is also important to balance these new requirements with operational feasibility.
I suggest that the Ministry also consider a phased approach to introducing these requirements, accompanied by industry feedback sessions and consultations. The Labour Movement is ready to assist with any education or awareness sessions required. This phased implementation will help a smooth transition while upholding robust AML/CFT standards.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters (Amendment) Bill represents a significant step towards strengthening our financial system and aligning with international standards in the fight against financial crimes. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I thank all 16 Members who spoke for their support of the Bill. I will respond to their speeches in two parts. The first part will be on the broad themes that they raised. The second part will be on specific questions.
One broad theme concerns the robustness of Singapore's anti-money laundering, or AML, regime. Members acknowledge that the Bill would further strengthen our regime. Some, like Ms He Ting Ru, advocate for more proactive legislation, although it is not clear, how much in advance, proactive means. At the same time, Members, like Mr Edward Chia, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and even Mr Leong Mun Wai, worry about the signal to legitimate investors and businesses.
In astronomy, there is a sweet spot known as the \"Goldilocks Zone\" where planets are orbiting at a distance from a star that is \"just right\". Any closer to the star and water on that planet turns into steam. Any further and the water will freeze. Neither scenario will support life as we know it.
Though just a character in a children's story, Goldilocks' famous approval of things that are \"just right\" has been applied many times over, including in regulations, to describe the desire to strike a right balance.
Is our AML regime within the \"Goldilocks Zone\", enough to deter criminals but not so much as to drive away legitimate investors? Here are some facts that strongly suggest that we are \"in the zone\".
Singapore was ranked third in the Global Financial Centre Index last year, behind only New York and London in terms of competitiveness. A broad range of factors was considered, including \"Political Stability and Rule of Law\" and \"Institutional and Regulatory Environment\".
The financial sector contributes to about 13% of our GDP and employs about 200,000 of our people in good paying jobs. It is also important for sustaining Singapore's vibrant business environment and growth in other sectors, such as legal and professional services.
In the last Mutual Evaluation of Singapore in 2016, FATF assessed Singapore to have a strong legal and institutional framework to fight money laundering, with highly sophisticated coordination involving all relevant authorities. While Singapore had achieved strong outcomes in some areas, FATF recommended improvements in others, such as DNFBPs, for example. Notwithstanding its recommendation, FATF's overall assessment of Singapore puts us in good company. The handout I had circulated earlier contains some further details that show this clearly.
Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how our AML regime compares internationally. The Basel AML Index of 2023 ranked 152 regions around the world for money laundering risks. Singapore was placed within the lowest quartile, which means that more than 75% of the regions presented higher AML risks than Singapore, and they include Hong Kong and Japan.
We share Mr Yip's view that interagency coordination is critical for the successful implementation of our AML measures. To achieve this, we have established interagency mechanisms, such as the AML/CFT Steering Committee, co-chaired by the relevant Permanent Secretaries of MHA, the Ministry of Finance and MAS.
The fight against money laundering is a journey without end and our measures cannot come as one burst of fire with no further heat applied to the problem areas. This is, in fact, how we have worked in the past and how we will need to work in the future.
To Mr Saktiandi's question, we did not time this Bill to respond to any specific case. We continually review and tighten our regime in response to new threats.
To Mr Dennis Tan's question on what lessons have been learnt from the recent money laundering case, I have dealt with this comprehensively in my Ministerial Statement last year. Many further enhancements have been made. I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for mentioning some of those on our behalf.
Members will also recall that in April, we launched COSMIC, a digital platform which MAS co-developed with the major banks to allow financial institutions to share information with one another on customers whose behaviours are indicative of financial crimes. In June, we updated our Money Laundering National Risk Assessment as part of our ongoing efforts to raise awareness and guide all stakeholders to better detect key money laundering risks. We also launched our inaugural National Asset Recovery Strategy, which sets out Singapore's comprehensive approach towards the recovery of illicit assets from criminals for forfeiture and restitution to victims. We convened an Inter-Ministerial Committee, or IMC, to review our AML regime, which will publish its findings in the fourth quarter of this year.
We are pushing ahead with this Bill because it has been in the making for about two years and there is no value to hold it back once the work is done. Should the IMC recommend further measures that require legislative updates, we will plan for them to be enacted as soon as practicable.
Sir, the Government does not consider it a chore to keep our AML regime effective and robust. In fact, it is critical to our success as an international financial centre. We cannot be competitive if financial services are poorly regulated or if financial institutions and other gatekeepers here are inadequately supervised. Legitimate investors and asset managers will not feel sufficiently protected to flow their capital through Singapore.
On the other hand, poorly designed regulations will not keep out illicit money flows and may instead turn away legitimate businesses, to our detriment. More regulation and, sometimes, proactive legislation, do not always equal effective protection – we must be clear about that.
In short, we have zero tolerance towards criminals who exploit our financial system and have sought to get our AML regime \"just right\" by taking a risk-based approach in line with the FATF standards. This means that we must have a good understanding of the risks we face, including emerging trends and developments that are being exploited by criminals.
To prevent, detect and enforce against their illicit activities, we developed tools and frameworks which are fit-for-purpose, proportionate to the risks and effective. Guided by the principle of responding appropriately to risk, we have established a strong track record of providing a stable and predictable environment for businesses to thrive and investors to manage their wealth here. This will not change with the passage of the Bill.
Mr Chia, Ms Foo, Mr Parekh and Mr Saktiandi raised concerns about potential increases in compliance costs. To be clear, this Bill does not introduce any additional regulatory requirements in the financial and real estate sectors. The proposed amendments are very targeted. They seek to improve our law enforcement agencies' abilities to detect and enforce against illicit activities. The amendments will also not impose undue friction nor burden for legitimate businesses. In fact, we made it a priority to ensure that they are reasonable and practicable.
Nonetheless, I thank Members for raising concerns about knee-jerk reactions. It is not surprising to see financial intermediaries heighten compliance checks after major cases, especially in the sectors which the money launderers exploited.
Such vigilance is not a bad thing in and of itself. Gatekeepers do have an outsized role in our collective defence against money laundering. However, aligned with our overall approach towards money laundering, these checks need to be sensible and calibrated and not unduly impede legitimate businesses and investors. Sectoral regulators will continue to engage and work with the gatekeepers in the respective industries to level up compliance capabilities and to strike the right balance.
This approach also applies to the sectors which Ms He Ting Ru raised in her speech, namely, single family offices, cryptocurrency and fine art. While we do not disagree with the need to be vigilant, ultimately, what serves us best is a risk-based approach, which we have taken. This means not viewing all transactions with suspicion but looking into instances of concern.
Sir, I will now deal with specific queries about the Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Don Wee, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip asked about the lowered threshold for customer due diligence checks, or CDD checks, and its impact on casino operations. FATF stipulates a lower CDD threshold of about S$4,000 for casinos compared to about S$20,000 for dealers in precious stones and metals based on the money laundering risks it has assessed for each sector. Other FATF jurisdictions are similarly expected to impose the same CDD threshold on their casino operators. While this would increase the number of CDD checks on patrons, it is unlikely to deter bona fide patrons from visiting the two casinos or affect their competitiveness.
To Mr Leong's question, while there are no limits to the amount that casinos can accept, casino operators will be required to conduct the necessary CDD checks, and be satisfied that the funds are from legitimate sources.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also asked about educating and supporting the casinos in tackling proliferation financing. The casino operators have already put in place processes to prevent and detect proliferation financing in line with FATF standards, such as monitoring of patrons for proliferation financing risks. The Gambling Regulatory Authority had consulted the casino operators on the revised CDD threshold and upcoming requirements to mitigate proliferation financing and they did not raise any concerns.
Mr Choo, Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Foo, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Saktiandi, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Wee and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the processes to enhance data sharing and sensemaking by STRO.
To Mr Tan's question on whether STRs were filed for the recent money laundering case, financial institutions and other companies had, indeed, filed STRs. The Police had looked into these alerts, as I shared in my Ministerial Statement last year. Where possible offences are detected, STRO disseminates financial intelligence to law enforcement agencies or regulators for further investigations and appropriate actions.
In response to Mr Tan and Mr Leong's queries, supervisory follow-ups and investigations had been conducted against the regulated entities and individuals relevant to the recent money laundering case.
The amendments will allow STRO to develop richer financial intelligence. STRO regularly engages gatekeepers and their regulators to discuss ways to enhance the quality of STRs filed and the efficiency of the processes. The amendments will further enhance upstream detection by allowing regulators to access the STRs filed by their regulated entities. This is already the case for regulators, such as MAS, MinLaw and the Gambling Regulatory Authority. After the Bill is passed, other prescribed regulators, such as ACRA and CEA, will also have such access.
The amendments do not change the existing process of how entities like the banks handle assets after filing an STR. STRO is not an approving authority. There is also no obligation for filers to withhold transactions unless, of course, they have assessed the risk to be unacceptable. Likewise, any tipping off or disclosure of information relating to the filing of STRs continues to be an offence under section 57 of the CDSA.
Like Mr Choo, Ms Foo and Assoc Prof Razwana, we recognise the need to leverage technology and optimise resources as we connect the dots in the sea of financial information. I shared previously that in February 2022, STRO commissioned an enhanced data analytics and management system to strengthen its ability to process large volumes of STRs and other data to be translated into richer financial intelligence. STRO will continue to update its capabilities to keep pace with the evolving operational needs and share relevant intelligence with the community of regulators and gatekeepers.
We agree with Mr Choo, Mr Ng, Mr Parekh, Mr Wee and Mr Yip on the importance of data safeguards. There are strong legal safeguards and information security protocols within STRO to protect and prevent unauthorised access to all data received by STRO, including tax and trade data. Only selected STRO personnel are authorised to request relevant tax or trade data from IRAS or Singapore Customs. They are strictly prohibited from onward sharing of the data.
Furthermore, STRO can only share the results of its analyses of tax and trade data. Where law enforcement agencies need tax or trade data for investigation or prosecution, they have to separately request them from the data owner. This is regulated under the legislation relevant to that data.
Next, I will touch on the amendments to section 56 of the CDSA. Mr Choo, Mr Goh, Mr Leong, Ms Lim, Mr Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Wee and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about the elements of proof, impact on victim restitution and international cooperation.
This amendment will allow us to better act against money laundering cases and to pursue persons who exploit our financial system, whether the subject is a money mule or kingpin. This would in turn facilitate confiscation of illicit monies and any subsequent restitution to victims.
To clarify, the Prosecution would still have to prove the physical element of the offence, namely that there was transferring, converting, receiving, or acquiring of the property by the accused. What is no longer required? Only the need to prove, as a physical element of the offence, that the property is in fact the benefits of criminal conduct.
The Prosecution would also have to prove the necessary fault element – that the person dealing with the monies knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that he was dealing with benefits of criminal conduct.
Other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Australia already have similar laws where there is no need to prove a direct link between the property and criminal conduct.
A few Members have questions on reasonableness, both what the Prosecution must do to show reasonable grounds and defendants can do to demonstrate reasonable doubt.
Members will appreciate that we are unable to provide examples of how a defendant might show reasonable doubt to counter the Prosecution’s assertion of reasonable grounds. Explicitly spelling this out may also unwittingly benefit criminals. Such a determination would be made by the Courts based on the specifics of the case. These are not matters unfamiliar to the Courts. Proof of reasonableness is something that they deal with all the time.
An innocent person engaged in legitimate business should easily be able to show that the monies received were not benefits from criminal conduct and that he did not have the necessary fault element. Legitimate businesses that do not break the laws in Singapore, therefore, need not worry about this amendment.
The Police will continue to raise awareness on the consequences of being unwittingly involved as money mules or in other criminal activities through advisories and public education campaigns.
On international cooperation, Singapore actively leverages MLA arrangements with bilateral counterparts and multilateral platforms, such as INTERPOL’s Global Rapid Intervention of Payments, Egmont Group and the Asset Recovery Interagency Network Asia Pacific, to trace, intercept and freeze criminal proceeds.
We will strengthen our partnership with international colleagues when there are good opportunities to do so.
To Ms Lim’s question, Singapore received MLA requests from 53 foreign jurisdictions in 2022 and 56 foreign jurisdictions in 2023. The Government does not disclose the foreign jurisdictions from which we have received MLA requests, so as not to prejudice ongoing foreign criminal matters.
Mr Goh, Mr Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana and Mr Wee also spoke on the introduction of the Third Schedule to CDSA, including its intent, impact on Police training and resourcing, and whether it would apply retrospectively.
The introduction of a Third Schedule to the CDSA will allow law enforcement agencies to investigate money laundering offences arising from foreign serious environmental crimes, which they were previously not able to do. This Schedule will be reviewed periodically, in tandem with evolving money laundering risks. We will also regularly review the training and resourcing of law enforcement agencies to equip them with the capabilities to deal with these risks. This amendment will not be applied retrospectively.
Ms Foo, Mr Ng, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Wee and Mr Zhulkarnain sought clarifications on the processes involved in the early sale of seized property, including how law enforcement agencies assess whether a property is likely to depreciate, how the Court would determine whether the sale would be in the interests of justice, how the sale process would secure competitive prices, as well as the safeguards to ensure fairness.
The underlying intent of these amendments is to preserve the value of seized or restrained properties, at reasonable costs. Examples of assets which may be eligible to be sold under the amendments include vessels and vehicles.
It might not be practical or desirable to set a standard threshold for the costs of maintenance or depreciation beyond which the seized assets will be sold. The timeframe for assessment of the value of a seized property will depend on factors such as the estimated length of the investigations or court proceedings, and the expected rate and extent of depreciation of the value of the property.
Agencies will generally look at open-source market value trends or seek expert opinion. Mere fluctuations in valuation will not be sufficient for the Court to order an early sale. Seized properties will only be put up for early sale when there is no evidential value from the actual property that is necessary for investigations or court proceedings.
Before the application to the Court for the sale, law enforcement agencies will notify all known parties by delivering the notice personally through registered post or other prescribed modes of delivery under the CPC. If any person objects to the sale, he can raise this for the Court’s consideration. Furthermore, the Court can only order the sale of the property if it is satisfied that the costs of sale are, or are likely to be reasonable.
There are also established protocols on the conduct of the sale of seized property. In general, law enforcement agencies would follow established industry practice for the sale of particular properties, which can include public auctions or direct sale.
The Court will also have the flexibility to order the early sale of a property if the sale would be in the interests of justice. In determining so, the Court may take into account various factors, such as the interests of the parties involved and whether there would be any injustice caused by the sale.
To Mr Ng's and Assoc Prof Razwana's questions on victim restitution process, this Bill does not change the current process. Victims with an interest in the property will be duly notified and the Court will assess what they are entitled to.
As Ms Foo, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Zhulkarnain have pointed out, the Police have incurred over $600,000 in the last financial year, to maintain the seized assets in the recent case. This is the latest we have, as the Police track the consolidated expenses on an annual basis. They also do not track the costs of asset depreciation. Seized assets will only be appropriated to the consolidated fund after the Court has ordered their disposal and they have been converted into cash.
Of the $3 billion in seized assets, $944 million have been forfeited and are in the process of being converted and appropriated into the consolidated fund. Investigations are still ongoing for the remaining assets.
Mr Chia, Mr Tan, Mr Goh, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about the amendments to deal with seized properties linked to absconded persons, including their impact on foreign investors and the relevant safeguards. We thank Ms Foo’s for recognising that the amendments here, and I quote her, \"strike at the heart of criminal networks and reinforce the principle that crime does not pay\".
To be clear, the proposed amendments do not change our existing thresholds for the seizure of properties, as expressly provided under the CPC – they concern the procedure for the disposal of seized property. Law enforcement agencies are empowered to seize properties only in certain circumstances, as expressly provided for under sections 35 and 78 of the CPC. One such circumstance is when the law enforcement agency suspects that the properties are evidence of an offence.
Under the proposed amendments, the seized properties will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the CPC and subject to judicial oversight. Interested persons can make their claims to the relevant Court and the Court will determine their entitlement to the properties and deal with it as appropriate.
The mere fact that the seized property was a gift will not be sufficient, without other evidence, to prove a person’s entitlement to the property. This will similarly apply to any donations by absconded persons that may have been seized.
There have been cases where persons, who were under investigation here but remained overseas, appointed counsel to apply for the release of their funds while investigations were ongoing. While there have been no successful claims by absconded persons thus far, the scenario of an absconded person remaining overseas to frustrate investigations while making a claim for his seized properties is a real possibility. Thus, we act proactively.
As to whether this has been observed with the absconded persons in the recent money laundering case, investigations are still ongoing and I can only say that none of them have returned to Singapore so far.
I reiterate these proposals are targeted at absconded persons, as well as properties linked to them. Legitimate investors have nothing to worry about.
I will now deal briefly with the other questions and suggestions which are outside the scope of this Bill.
Mr Leong asked about the adequacy of our sentencing regime. This issue was dealt with during the Parliamentary Sitting last month and there is nothing more to add. But allow me to reiterate the key points for the benefit of Members who may not have seen the written reply.
First, the maximum penalties for money laundering under the CDSA are comparable with the sentencing regime in other jurisdictions, such as Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand, Germany and France.
Second, the sentenced meted out for money laundering would depend on the nature of the offence. The penalties for money laundering offences in the CDSA are comparable to those for other serious offences that are similar in nature, like cheating and forgery. The penalties meted out to convicted subjects can only be for the offences committed in our jurisdiction and not for the offences they may have committed outside of our jurisdiction.
Third, the Courts independently considered the facts of the case to decide on the appropriate sentence. Generally, the Courts considered factors such as the length of the offending conduct, the culpability of the accused persons as well as the mitigating factors such as the accused person's plea of guilt and whether he has shown any remorse such as by voluntarily disgorging his illicit proceeds of crime.
Mr Ng has suggested that wildlife crimes will be prescribed as a serious offence under the Organised Crime Act. The Government is studying his suggestion carefully and will respond on this matter separately.
On Mr Goh, Assoc Prof Razwana and Mr Saktiandi’s questions about COSMIC, MAS will be providing updates in due course.
To Ms He's suggestion on the whistle-blowing programme, we will look into all leads that are worth investigating, whoever provides the information.
On Ms He's suggestion of an Omnibus Bill for AML, it may be ideal but there is a trade-off between tidiness and timeliness. We have to be practical because there are existing laws, and it is easier said than done to try and put everything together. What is most important is whether together our laws help us prevent, detect and enforce against money laundering effectively. And I believe the answer is that as we continue to update these laws through amendments such as those that are proposed today, we can keep our anti-money laundering regime robust and effective, whilst ensuring that our interest in promoting and strengthening our financial ecosystem is not compromised.
Mr Speaker, once again, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there clarifications for the Minister? Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Minister. Earlier in my speech, I talked about STRs and I noted that in a previous reply by the Minister for Home Affairs, he had indicated that out of the STRs filed, 20% of them led to or assisted in the investigations.
So, I wanted her comment on whether she finds that this percentage of 20% indicates that the quality of STRs still needs beefing up or is this percentage acceptable for some other reason?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a very interesting question and I think it is a reminder to us not to take any single number on its own and forget the context.
If you look at 20% of a very large number of STRs, are we happier that filers have chosen to surface information that they are concerned about and then we manage to find that only 20% of them are useful, or are we happier that they are very sparse with their filing and then the base becomes very small, but those that you can act on may be very high, and are you better off under those circumstances?
I would say that we are not overly seized by a single number, but the point that the Member made is still a relevant one, which is that gatekeepers and their sector regulators need to improve the way in which they are looking at transactions and their effectiveness in identifying those that are suspicious.
So, that is the process that is still ongoing, and I think because the landscape for money laundering will change very quickly, what may look like very obvious signs of financial crime today will be superseded by new types of behaviour that deserve greater attention. So, that is, I think, the greater emphasis of where our efforts need to be.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, I have three questions for the Minister. First, she said there is no limit for the casinos to accept cash. So, can the Minister confirm that the casinos are actually allowed to take in more than a million dollars in cash in one go? And, if possible, can we know what is the maximum amount of cash that our casinos have accepted? This is the first question.
The second question is, while she said that the 13 months and 17 months sentencing given to the offenders are in line with international standards, can I ask whether, in the IMC review, will we be demonstrating our resolve further to look at this sentencing regime? Is it part of the review that the IMC will do?
And my last question is, can the Minister update us what are the actions taken against all the institutions that are involved in this $3 billion money laundering case?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I think, with respect, I would request the Member to file PQs to his first and third questions. He asked specifically about what casinos may have received in terms of cash proceeds from their customers and from their patrons. I do not have the information offhand. So, respectfully, I would ask the Member to file a PQ if it is something that he is very interested in. And I believe his third question is also in terms of the actions. They do not relate directly to this Bill. So, respectfully, please file a PQ.
The Member did talk about sentencing and I think I have responded to it in my round-up speech. The Member himself has referred to Minister Shanmugam's reply to the Member at the Sitting in May. To reiterate, the sentencing regime is quite comparable to other leading jurisdictions. What the Courts decide to mete out by way of the sentence itself is something for the Court to decide. And I have explained earlier what are the factors that the Courts look into. I think one thing that we need to keep in mind is that, ultimately, the Courts must consider what crime was committed within our jurisdiction. The sums may be very large, but what was the activity in Singapore that constituted the crime? That is something we have to keep in mind.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Minister? I do not see any.
[(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":"Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, it has been a month since the First Reading of the Bill and my excitement for this Bill continues to grow exponentially and so, I hope that you will continue to enjoy hearing my excitement in my Bill speeches today.
Let me start by sharing my journey in coming up with this Bill. I have to say first, that sometimes people do not like having a meal with me because I constantly nag them about not wasting food. In fact, I will sometimes join a table of people who are already eating and they will say, “Louis is here, cannot waste food already”.
I secretly quite like this when they say that because tackling food wastage is something very close to my heart. It is something I teach my daughters. I constantly tell them, “Do not waste food, take what you can eat and finish eating what you have already taken”.
Sir, it was a meal with my children that started this four-year journey of drafting and now tabling this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. More than four years ago, I was at a buffet. Just as we were finishing our meal, my daughter, Ella, and I saw perfectly edible food being thrown away right before our eyes, because the buffet had ended. An entire cake, freshly brought out not long ago and missing just the slice, was dumped into a trash bag. As parents, we always tell our children not to waste food. I could not explain to Ella why we were now seeing good food being thrown away.
I spoke to the restaurant and asked if the food could be donated instead of being dumped or being wasted. The reply was that they were worried about liability issues. I offered to sign a waiver of liability and even offered to bring the food to distribute to families in Yishun, families struggling to have three meals a day. Even then, the restaurant refused to donate the food.
I actually do not blame the restaurant. Not all liability can be waived and the uncertainty of legal proceedings can be a huge business risk. It pains me to say this, but it can be easier to just throw food away.
More than four years after this meal, I stand here before this House with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. This Bill is only possible thanks to the amazing and collaborative work done by the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee over the past four years.
We consulted extensively, holding public consultations and meeting with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The Committee took the consultations seriously. The first public consultation was conducted through an online survey from 30 July 2021 to 12 September 2021. We also held several extensive focus group discussions. On 4 April 2024, the Committee conducted the second public consultation, where we presented the draft Bill to members of the public and seek their inputs and feedback.
We scrutinised and debated every clause of the Bill. We revised the draft Bill after the second public consultation to address all the feedback we received. Where we were not able to incorporate the feedback, we explained why to the public and the various stakeholders. In this Second Reading, in addition to responding to my fellow Members’ questions, I will also respond to additional feedback we received from members of the public and other stakeholders.
This Bill is the work of many people who have shared their views, suggestions and feedback, and I am immensely grateful for the important role they played in shaping this important piece of legislation. Let me now outline the problems this Bill aims to tackle.
We have a serious food waste problem in Singapore. An average of about 750,000 tonnes of food waste was generated every year for the past five years. We should be concerned about this astounding wastage for four reasons.
The first reason is food security. Food does not come naturally to Singapore. More than 90% of our food supply has to be imported. At the mercy of global trade winds, we have to fight harder than most countries to put food on our tables. When we waste food, we undermine this fight.
We can do the math – 750,000 tonnes of annual food waste divided by 1.6 million tonnes of commonly consumed food imported annually. The number is 47%. It could be that nearly half of our most commonly consumed food imports go into our trash, not our stomachs. We have to spend so much more and work so much harder because of our food waste habits.
The second reason to care about food waste is the strain it puts on our waste disposal system. Food waste makes up 11% of total waste in Singapore. As we incinerate food we do not eat, we will still have to find space to store the ashes left behind. Semakau Landfill is expected to fill up by 2035. There is no second landfill waiting for us. We must reduce the problem of food waste if we are to have a chance of prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.
The third reason to care about food waste is climate change. It is an issue I have spoken up about repeatedly in this House. I am glad that Singapore has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Reducing food waste is an often-overlooked climate solution. Producing food and transporting it takes up valuable resources. When we waste food, we also waste the energy and water it takes to produce the food.
Noor Hanisah, a Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Member and an activist from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, shared, I quote, “Food waste is one of Singapore’s biggest waste streams. And we often do not realise that each part of the food journey from production, transportation, handling to wastage have huge carbon footprints that worsen climate change. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law can reduce this through excess food distribution to the ones in need.”
This Bill will also help address a fourth problem which Noor Hanisah spoke about. It will help increase availability of food for redistribution to needy families.
Sir, I am glad we are recycling the food waste as one of the ways to reduce wastage. We currently recycle less than 20% of our food waste. I am also glad that we have mandated food waste segregation for treatment and reporting this year. But we must remember that much of the food wasted is edible food. In addition to recycling food waste, redistributing excess edible food is another solution we must explore, especially when many people in Singapore still go to bed hungry.
A study by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation and supported by the Food Bank Singapore found that in 2019, 10.4% of the 1,200 surveyed households experienced food insecurity at least once in the past 12 months. Food insecurity is when a household does not have access to sufficient, adequate food for a healthy life.
While the figures represent a minority of the population, the numbers are still significant and troubling. Food insecurity has far-reaching impacts. The study found that food insecurity is associated with serious physical and mental health effects.
Sir, when we encourage food donation, we tackle so many of our existing problems. We address the issue of food security, we extend the lifespan of the Semakau Landfill, we tackle climate change and we increase the food redistributed to needy families.
During our consultations, I heard outrageous stories about the type of perfectly edible food that goes to waste. Chickens that are bruised are rejected because they do not meet beauty standards. Juicy fruits and crunchy vegetables are dumped because of their imperfect shape or colour. The food that we waste while others go hungry is astounding.
The Government recognised the need to address liability in food donation as early as 2014, nearly 10 years ago. Ms Tan Poh Hong, CEO of what was at the time the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore, said: \"A lot of people do not want to donate […] in case someone gets food poisoning and sues you. [...] I am not saying we are going to have this [Good Samaritan] law, but we are learning from other countries.\"
In August 2019, the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) published a report which found that the lack of liability protection for donors means that traders, distributors and wholesalers prefer throwing instead of donating food. SEC noted that a possible solution is introducing policies to safeguard entities from liability.
In 2021, the then-Ministry of Environment and Water Resources partnered with youth from the National Youth Council's Youth Circle to study the effectiveness of a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. The study found that such a law will address the important concern of liability that businesses face.
The Government, our NGOs and our youths have all spoken up for a long time for a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. I am glad we are finally taking this step forward. This Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is an important step forward. It is a Bill for the people, by the people and for our planet.
Sir, I have shared the problems this Bill aims to tackle. Let me now explain how waiving liability, which is what this Bill is proposing and what many have been calling for, helps with the problem of food waste and food insecurity.
Like the buffet restaurant in my story earlier, many businesses are understandably worried about being liable for someone falling ill from eating the food they donate. Businesses have to worry about potential liability under common law negligence and potential penalties under the Sale of Food Act, the Food Regulations, the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations and the Penal Code, just to name a few.
Mr Dellen Soh, the Chairman and CEO of Minor Food Singapore and Committee Member of the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) shared, \"Many restaurants want to do good. Restaurants do want to donate excess edible food to reduce food waste and help the community. But the very risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants. Unfortunately, food waste may be priced into the cost of business. To encourage more food donation, we need laws to tackle the issue of liability.\"
I am very glad that a recent survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill found that 80% of surveyed restaurants strongly support or somewhat support this Bill. Importantly, 60% are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if the Bill is passed; and 20% were neutral.
However, the concern of legal liability is obviously very significant for restaurants with 80% of those surveyed remaining unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses. This underscores what significant chilling effect the risk of liability has on restaurants.
Through this speech and the debate on this Bill, I hope to clarify how this Bill will protect donors who have done all that they can to ensure the safety and hygiene of donated food. I hope to allay the very valid concerns and uncertainties restaurants have.
Food charities too have to worry about liability under these laws that I have mentioned. I want to stress that we should never compromise on food safety and hygiene, whether the food is donated or sold. However, food donors and charities who have done all that they can to ensure that donated food is safe for consumption should not be punished for doing good because of things beyond their control.
After a food donor or charity has donated the food, a recipient may still fall ill from consuming the food if the food is not properly handled or consumed within a safe period by the recipient. Again, if a food donor or charity has taken all steps to ensure that the donated food is safe, they should be able to donate food with peace of mind from liability.
This is what we are proposing to do with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. In fact, this is nothing new. Many other countries have implemented their own food donation laws to address the concerns of liability. These laws have been effective in increasing food donation and still safeguard food hygiene and safety standards.
In the United States (US), the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act grants protection from civil and criminal liability as long as the food is fit for consumption and donated in good faith and if there is no intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The US introduced this law nearly 30 years ago in 1996. After this law was passed, 7-Eleven announced that the law would allow the company to increase its food donations by as much as 150% over two years.
Many other jurisdictions have similar laws, including Italy, Alberta in Canada, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania in Australia. In Italy, no safety issues have arisen in the 10 years since the passage of the law and their food banks have recovered more than three million meals and 23,400 tonnes of food products.
I should also add that in Singapore, the public understands and supports waiving civil and criminal liability: 83% of respondents to our public consultation agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from civil liability; 81% agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from criminal liability.
Businesses agree too. Marina Bay Sands shared, \"Donating surplus food is important to Marina Bay Sands, demonstrated by our long-standing partnerships with Food from the Heart and The Food Bank Singapore, which have allowed us to donate over 51,000 kilogrammes of unserved food to communities in need between 2016 and 2023. We support the Bill and hope it will encourage other companies to donate food more regularly and reduce food waste.\"
Mr Sebastian Chung, who is the Director of Safety, Health, Environment and Food Hygiene at Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group said, \"The implementation of the Good Samaritan Food Donation legislation will help to protect hotels against possible liabilities when re-distributing surplus food responsibly. This will encourage hotels to proactively embrace the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) of food waste management and to support Singapore's vision of becoming a Zero Waste Nation.\"
I have shared why we are proposing a waiver of liability but let me stress again and make clear that a waiver of liability cannot be a shield for those who donate unsafe and unhygienic food.
In the RAS' survey, all restaurants surveyed indicated that food safety and hygiene was a concern they had with the implementation of the Bill. We agree that food safety and hygiene must remain the top priority. This is why we will introduce four conditions that must be met before a donor can enjoy a waiver of liability. I will explain these four conditions later. These four conditions strike a balance between encouraging food donation through the waiver of liability and safeguarding food hygiene and safety standards.
Sir, let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. The Committee took pains to ensure that the Bill takes a balanced approach. The waiver of civil and criminal liability is very carefully scoped and accompanied with the necessary safeguards. First, I will talk about the scope of persons covered by the Bill. Second, I will talk about the definition of food donations. Third, I will talk about the four conditions to be protected from civil and criminal liability.
Let me first talk about who is covered under the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill defines a \"food donor\" to mean a person who donates food or an entity which donates food in the course of a business. A food donor can be an entity or an individual. The entity does not need to be a registered charity.
The Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity.
A food donor will cover those who donate food directly to beneficiaries, as well as those who donate food to an intermediary, such as The Food Bank or Food from the Heart, for ultimate distribution to beneficiaries. For example, the Bill will cover soup kitchens and non-profit organisations that donate food to needy communities, food businesses giving away its surplus canned food products to an aged care establishment for consumption by residents at that establishment, and local restaurants and grocery stores that allow individuals to pick up free food from their outlets.
Now that we have discussed the definition of a food donor, let us talk about what constitutes a food donation under this Bill.
Clause 2 defines \"food\" to have the same meaning as in the Sale of Food Act 1973. This may include packaged food, like canned food, bottled food or food packed and sealed in a plastic packaging, perishable food, like cakes or bread, cooked food, beverages, fruits and raw vegetables.
Clause 2 also defines \"donate\" to mean a person giving to another anything for a charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose. The definition of \"donate\" also covers a person giving a thing donated by another for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose. This means that the Bill covers both direct and indirect giving, as long as the purpose of the giving is charitable, benevolent or philanthropic.
Any person can be considered a recipient of food donations. There is no requirement that the recipient must be from a certain income group for the Bill to apply. This Bill will not apply if any money is exchanged for the food. This includes any fee charged by the donor for providing the food, even if the sum is a nominal sum or is lower than market price.
Next, clause 3 sets out the purposes of the Bill which are to reduce food waste and to increase availability of food for redistribution to food‑insecure communities.
I now move on to the waiver of civil and criminal liability.
Clause 4 protects a food donor from civil and criminal liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from consuming the food donated. The protection applies to all food donors, regardless of whether the food is donated directly to consumers or given to an intermediary, such as a food bank. It also does not matter whether the intermediary is a charity or a profit‑making social enterprise.
Food donors must meet four conditions to ensure food safety and hygiene before benefiting from the waiver of liability. This is to balance the interest of donors with that of ultimate recipients. These conditions are not intended to be onerous for food donors. Instead, the Committee believes that these conditions will benefit the food donation ecosystem in Singapore. Beneficiaries would have confidence that the donated food is safe. The safeguards also prevent potential abuse of the waiver.
Through our consultations, we arrived at these conditions which are, in fact, best practices that many food donors are already following.
First, the food must not be unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated. Second, the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. Third, the food donor must inform the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable. Fourth, the donor must take all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation.
If a donor meets these conditions, even if a beneficiary falls sick after eating donated food, the donor is shielded from civil and criminal liability. Importantly, being shielded from liability does not take away the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA's) powers to investigate any food safety issue. If any food safety issue arises with donated food, SFA can still investigate and take enforcement action. The difference is that food donors only need to show SFA that they have met the four conditions and SFA would not impose any liability on the food donor.
Let me now elaborate and give examples on how the four conditions can be met.
The Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Members, The Food Bank Singapore and Food from the Heart helped to come up with these practical steps that donors can take to fulfil these requirements. These are examples of many different ways that a food donor can fulfil the conditions. A food donor does not have to do all the practical steps listed here to enjoy liability protections. Again, these are just suggestions so that everyone can better understand the four conditions.
The first requirement is that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated. A food donor can show that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable by showing, for example, that the food donated had a reasonable period before its expiry date or that cooked food was donated within the four-hour timeframe recommended by SFA.
A food donor can also show that it has processes to ensure that the donated food was properly packed and that the packaging was not damaged. For example, Food from the Heart has guidelines on packaging of donated bread and the type of bread that it will accept from bakeries. This can be as simple as requiring donated bread to be tied up in plastic bags or not accepting buns with fillings. They also ask that homes and self-collection centres check the bread for mold, pest infestation, bad smells, before distributing to beneficiaries.
The second requirement is that the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. These handling requirements may include proper refrigeration, heating, storage temperatures and packaging requirements. The food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of handling requirements.
For instance, food donors can ensure that each individual package of donated food has a sticker label informing the recipients of handling requirements. Food donors can also have a sign with handling requirements at the location where donated food is collected or they can verbally brief recipients on the handling requirements. They can either have recipients confirm in writing that they were briefed or can also show that recipients were briefed on handling requirements through messages sent to recipients.
The third condition is that the food donor informs the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable. Similar to the handling requirements, the food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of any time limit for consuming the food. The key is to ensure that the food donor has proper documentation of the information conveyed to recipients on the time limit for consuming food.
The fourth condition is that the donor took all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation. One key document here is the SFA Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and Community Groups Involved in Food Preparation and Distribution Activities for Charitable Causes. That was a mouthful and is probably the longest name for any guideline. Food donors must comply with these guidelines.
In addition, the donor can have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for its food donation operations and training for its volunteers which complies with food safety and hygiene requirements. As an example, again, Food from the Heart requires its donors to fulfil its SOPs for its Bread Run. Volunteers are also required to comply with the SOPs, including that bread must be collected and redistributed on the same day.
If all these four conditions are met, a food donor will enjoy the waiver of civil and criminal liability. All four conditions must be proven before protection can apply. I should stress that the defendant seeking protection has the burden of proof. The defendant continues to enjoy any defence available under any other laws like those in the Sale of Food Act and the Penal Code. I should also stress that clause 5 provides that the protection from liability applies only to liability arising on or after the operative date of the Bill.
Sir, the Committee intends for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food. To increase safeguards for food safety and hygiene, the Committee considered requiring food donors to be accredited to enjoy waiver from civil and criminal liability. The proposal was surveyed in a public consultation and there was some support for accreditation. However, the Committee also received feedback from smaller food charities and food rescue groups that accreditation will make donation activities more onerous.
We did not want the Bill to have the unintended consequence of dissuading food donations by imposing conditions that are too difficult to achieve. For this reason, the Committee decided not to include accreditation as a condition for waiving liability.
Even then, the Committee recognises that food donors could use some help to incorporate the proof of meeting these conditions into their operations. I hope that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), SFA and the Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to engage the industry and food charities and provide this support that is very much needed on the ground.
Finally, under clause 5(2), the waiver will not apply in two scenarios.
The first scenario is where food is exchanged between individuals as part of a personal relationship. For example, the Bill would not apply to giving food to friends or snacks in the office pantry bought for colleagues even though no money is exchanged.
The second scenario is where food is provided together with accommodation to an individual in a private residence in exchange for services or labour. This means that employers would not receive a waiver for food provided to their domestic helpers.
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill will encourage food donation to address the twin problems of food wastage and food insecurity by waiving civil and criminal liability for food donors. To enjoy the waiver of liability, food donors will have to fulfil four conditions which safeguard food safety and hygiene.
Sir, in closing, I once again thank the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee, who have worked tirelessly to make this Bill possible and who have helped to draft this Bill from scratch.
I am grateful to Ms Elyssa Chua from Breadtalk; Ms Adalia Tan from DBS Bank; Mr Robin Lee from Food from the Heart; Mr Tan Hang Chong from Foodscape Collective; Ms Soh Li Sar from NTUC Fairprice; Mr Dellen Soh from the Restaurant Association of Singapore and Minor Food Group Singapore; Mr Sebastian Chung from the Singapore Hotel Association and Mandarin Oriental Singapore; Ms Noor Hanisah from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action; Mr Nicholas Ng from The Food Bank Singapore; Ms Jeanne Ng from The Fullerton Hotels and Resorts; Mr Jesher Loi from Ya Kun International; grassroots leaders Ms Chua Wei-Shan and Mr Wong Jin Feng; and my fellow Members of Parliament, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this Bill to Nizar, the founder of Free Food For All, who passed away last year. He was invited to be a part of the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee but could not make it due to his health. Nizar was an inspiration to many for his work in providing food to the needy. I am sure he would be very proud to see what we have accomplished today. His legacy of giving to others will continue. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill being debated today is, in my view, a valuable piece of legislation that will improve the incentives for donations of food made in good faith while helping those in need, combating waste and promoting environmental sustainability. For this reason, the Workers' Party supports the Bill.
Let me begin, first, by acknowledging Member Louis Ng for his work on this front. I believe that he first flagged food waste as an issue back in 2018 before following up with a suggestion for a Good Samaritan Act in 2020. The Bill today is a culmination of his efforts.
I should also disclose, at the outset, that there are currently various food rescue and distribution programmes in operation across Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), the constituency that I serve, and that I and my fellow Sengkang Members of Parliament have, at various times in the past, participated in these community-led initiatives while also offering our support to them. This is also the case for several other Workers' Party divisions in Hougang and Aljunied GRCs.
Sir, the Bill seeks to provide indemnity to food donors so long as reasonable steps have been followed to ensure that food safety and hygiene standards are being met. The four stipulations, outlined in clause 4 of the Bill, delineate these conditions while ensuring consistency with existing laws.
Part D, for example, requires that measures be taken \"to comply with any applicable requirement under any written law relating to food safety and good hygiene\".
This is sensible and the circumstance that especially comes to mind pertains to the existing NEA guidelines for catered meals, which limit the consumption time of food at room temperature to four hours from the time it is cooked. Notably, however, the observed duration is a guideline and, as far as I am aware, not mandated by law. This strikes me as fair since we do not wish to excessively police folks who may decide to tapao leftovers, nor would a blanket requirement cater for the wide variation in windows for safe consumption of different types of food. After all, I would be far more comfortable stuffing my face with a day-old cupcake, for instance, than I would with a day-old plate of laksa.
However, how would the fact that these existing guidelines not crossing the threshold of the law alter the stipulation in Part D? Would a potential donor be able to pass along leftover food that had been in a buffet line for four and a half hours to the youth hostel next door, for example, under this Bill?
I understand that Part C does insist on informing recipients of the timeline for safe consumption, but does this also imply that donating food that exceeds this duration is permissible so long as this step is undertaken? Would it perhaps be safer, for the case of cooked food, that a \"donated food\" label be affixed? This approach aligns with the US Department of Agriculture's definition of \"qualifying food\" under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.
Finally, it may also be useful if it is made explicit that the stipulations in clause 4 apply to donors who do so in good faith. In particular, I would suggest that line 19 on page 5 consider the inclusion of this term so that it would read \"A food donor who donates any food in good faith shall not, in fact, be liable\" and so on.
I also observed that this is not the first time that questions concerning Good Samaritan acts have been discussed in Parliament. This occurred on four prior occasions, in 2008, 2012 and 2014, by former People's Action Party Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, and more recently in 2021, by the hon Member Hazel Poa.
To be clear, on each of those occasions, the then-Ministers of Law explained that such legislation was unnecessary since both civil and criminal liability would generally be waived for those acting in good faith and it was stated explicitly that \"our current laws strike the correct balance\".
Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions actually compel aid, whereas the Bill in question today is essentially voluntary in nature.
Still, I believe it is fair to ask why this particular Good Samaritan law, which waives liability in a voluntary context, is deemed necessary while an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm is not.
Importantly, I think it is useful for us to put ourselves in the mindset of those rendering aid. Would their knowledge of the potential for liability inhibit their choice to render succour even if the law would not explicitly hold them to account? Would it be better to have the waiver made explicit, as it is in this present Bill, albeit in a different context.
Sir, in the final part of my speech, let me move on to practical ways that I believe the Government can further advance the objectives of this sustainability practice.
First, MSE can support the development of, potentially, an online database of potential food donors and recipients to promote scaling up at the national level. This could then become a one-stop shop which matches those in the F&B industry with those with a desire to contribute back to the community and social welfare groups, such as food banks or grassroots organisations.
This will relieve these groups from the need to maintain their own independent network of suppliers and distributors. It will also help imbalances of access where certain more-connected groups are able to leverage their establishment connections to acquire a higher volume of donations but may be left with perhaps an embarrassment of riches even as other groups face shortages.
Consistent with the thrust of the present Bill, the site can also prominently post reminders, perhaps even explicitly require donors to declare that the four stipulations of clause 4 of this Bill are being adhered to.
Second, I believe that the pervasiveness of residents participating in food rescue programmes hints at the squeezed middle class in our society. In Anchorvale, we routinely welcome an average of about 130 collectors on a weekly basis. While some of these participating households are undoubtedly doing so out of an abundance of thrift or a desire to promote sustainable living, many that I have spoken to do so because the regular channels of support are unavailable to them.
Indeed, their ranks have actually increased somewhat as the costs of living have risen and, as a House, we must be aware of the struggles with food security that are faced by Singaporeans that fall just above the threshold of assistance programmes but continue to struggle to stretch the purchasing power of their dollars.
By way of conclusion, I wish to thank the many donors, coordinators and food banks that have already stepped forward to support food sustainability programmes across the nation. They have done so despite the potential liability exposure that they could have faced prior to this piece of legislation and this speaks to both their commitment as well as courage. And for all the so-called \"Food Rescue Uncles and Aunties\" who have been tirelessly working to distribute food to those in need, week after week, including in our town of Sengkang, thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will encourage more food donation by offering legal protection to well-meaning donors against liability. At the same time, recipients are protected as there are clear specifications to ensure that the food donated meet hygiene requirements and delivery timeframes for food safety. This Bill will also go a long way to cut down on the unfortunately huge amounts of food waste in Singapore.
Many other countries had already enacted similar legislation. In the US, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act has been providing liability protection to donors since 1996. Canada has similar laws with slight differences in each province. In Australia, the Civil Liability Amendment (Food Donations) Act 2005 offers similar protections too. In 2016, the Italians passed a law in the Senate to relax regulations for food donated, such as allowing companies to donate mislabelled food as long as these do not pose a safety risk. France and Spain, on the other hand, have legislations penalising food waste, compelling entities, such as supermarkets, to donate unsold food to charities. Five years ago, Japan introduced the Act on Promotion of Food Loss and Waste Reduction to reduce food waste and support food banks. The South Koreans are charged for the disposal of food waste by weight, prompting them to treat surplus food more conscientiously.
It is a crying shame that much of perfectly safe and edible food are thrown away every day while the most vulnerable segments of our society face food insecurity. This new legislation will help suppliers and sellers overcome their concerns about liabilities and donate to those in need. Companies involved in food donation can enhance their reputation and image. Based on the information and food data available, there is more than enough food to feed our needy regularly and nutritiously. In addition to reducing food waste, food donation will reduce our environmental impact and footprint associated with the wastage. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to raise my concerns to the relevant Government departments. May I ask, how do the authorities enforce the guidelines established for the safe handling, storage and transportation of donated food? How will the relevant Ministry ensure that staff and volunteers receive regular training on food safety practices?
Will there be requirements to prove traceability of the donated items, such as the maintenance of records, to ensure accountability in case issues arise? Will the Ministry conduct audits or regular inspections to check on the food quality and safety standards? Will donors be encouraged or be required to have liability insurance as an extra layer of protection?
How will SFA foster partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure the proper distribution and use of donated food, avoid duplicate deliveries and prevent abuse of donations, such as reselling? Will public accountability measures be implemented, such as the collection and publication of donation data and impact reports?
(In English): By implementing these strategies, I am confident that Singapore can optimise the benefits of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, while mitigating the risks and preventing potential abuse of the system. I would like to conclude with my strong support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health.
The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill that we are debating today helps to promote more acts of kindness in our society.
Every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. This is a tremendous amount of waste, which is even more regrettable because we import more than 90% of our food. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) hopes that the enactment of this Bill will encourage more F&B premises, food producers and retailers to be kind and donate excess food instead of throwing it away.
With this Bill, these donors will be shielded from liability from deaths or health issues from the consumption of cooked food, provided that four conditions are met. We believe that these conditions, which include ensuring that the food must not be unsafe at the time it was donated and the food donor must inform the food recipient of the handling requirements, are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors.
The National Population Health Survey, conducted by the Health Promotion Board in 2019, found that approximately one in 10 households in Singapore lack sufficient access to food. [Please refer to \"Personal Explanation\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Personal Explanation section.]
Even though we live in an era of great material abundance and our country has achieved great economic progress, there are still some amongst us who are struggling to even put food on the table. As a nation, we can and should do more to help this group of vulnerable Singaporeans.
Sir, I hope that beyond this Bill, the Government will also do more to encourage individuals and companies to donate their excess food to the needy. This will also have a positive impact on the environment. Singapore’s only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is already more than half full as of the end of last year and is projected to reach capacity by 2035. Food waste is one of our biggest waste streams, accounting for about 11% of the waste generated in Singapore in 2023. Any reduction in food waste will go towards extending the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.
The Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses that donate unsold or excess food to charities, so that there is a stronger incentive for companies to do the right thing and redistribute their unsold or excess food instead of throwing it away.
Additionally, would-be food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting their excess food to food distribution centres or charities. We can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist in this effort by providing food pickup and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill.
In February this year, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health. The Bill that we are debating today, will exempt businesses or individuals donating food from liability. This helps promote more acts of kindness in our society.
It is said that food is of utmost importance to people. In prosperous Singapore, approximately one in 10 households lack sufficient access to food. At the same time, every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. Many of these discarded food items are still safe for consumption. If they can be redistributed to food-insecure households, it would benefit numerous families.
Besides passing this Bill, the Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses to encourage them to donate excess food. Additionally, some food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting food. The Government can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist by providing delivery services and deliver the donated food to charities. In doing so, we can also reduce the food waste in Singapore, contributing to environmental conservation efforts. It is a win-win situation.
Kindness makes us happy. I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate excess food to help the needy.
(In English): Sir, I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate the excess food after their catering events or unsold food at the end of the day to the needy. There will always be someone out there who will appreciate having that food on the table.
Let us reduce food waste and build a kinder Singapore together. Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I had not actually intended to speak on the Bill, but this is more of a clarification in response to a few points raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had made a few observations regarding the Bill and statements made by various Ministers for Law in response to questions. And I was one of those, at that time, Senior Minister of State for Law, who had addressed a question on the point of Good Samaritan Bills.
I believe Assoc Prof Lim asked why this particular Good Samaritan law is deemed necessary, when an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm by a helpful bystander would not. And actually, the question, if you had listened to his speech, was actually answered by Assoc Prof Lim himself.
He had said this, and I quote, \"Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions compel aid, whereas the Bill in question is essentially voluntary in nature.\" And that is exactly right. In short, the context of the previous Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and the replies to them is different.
The previous PQs referred to Good Samaritan laws in the context of rendering medical or emergency assistance to people who are ill or injured. For example, in his reply, Prof Jayakumar explained that Good Samaritan laws adopted in other countries broadly take two forms.
First, to reduce bystanders' hesitation to render assistance because of significant liability concerns. In these jurisdictions, there are laws granting persons who offer aid in emergency situations, certain protections from legal liability. And second, to impose a positive legal requirement on people to assist others in distress, unless they will put themselves in danger.
On the first point, that is, to overcome bystanders' hesitation, the various Ministers for Law explained in their replies that, in Singapore, we have not encountered reluctance on the part of our citizens to step forward to help in those emergency situations.
And on the second point, Prof Jayakumar said that helpful bystanders do not face any major liability concerns in Singapore. For civil liability, a person who offers assistance need only comply with what is expected of a person of his or her skills or experience, so an untrained person would not be held to the standard of a doctor, for example. As for criminal liability, that is generally premised on an intent to cause harm or injury. A person who has acted reasonably and in good faith is unlikely to be held criminally liable.
As such, in the context of rendering emergency assistance, it is MinLaw's assessment that there is no need to introduce a Good Samaritan law, though MinLaw said that it would continue to study the experience of other jurisdictions and would review our position if the need arises.
The context of the current Good Samaritan Bill is different. First, it deals with food donations, not emergency medical services. The considerations are different. And second, as I understand it, Mr Louis Ng is moving the Bill because potential donors are hesitant to donate because of potential liability concerns. And this is different from the emergency scenarios addressed by the Ministers for Law, where they have not encountered reluctance to step forward and there are no major liability concerns.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Minister for the clarification, which I truly appreciate. If I could clarify, since the Minister did suggest that she had spoken about this Good Samaritan law elsewhere before, do all other jurisdictions compel the rendering of aid? Are there some Good Samaritan laws that simply waive liability? And I ask this because in that case, then analogous to this law, the idea of providing that peace of mind to bystanders that may choose to render aid, I think, would nevertheless still be helpful.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification. I had actually addressed that earlier, because he asked whether all jurisdictions compel bystanders to provide aid. And as I had explained, which was also explained by Prof Jayakumar, there are two forms. Firstly, there are some jurisdictions where you have Good Samaritan laws because you want to reduce hesitation. So, in other words, it is because people are reluctant to step forward and help.
And in some other jurisdictions, they take a more aggressive approach and they say you must help. But of course, having said you must help, then the corollary is you also provide the waiver of liability.
So, in short, there is no one-size-fits-all, you have a law where there is a need or you assess that you want to do it for a particular reason. In this case, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill. The need, as I understand it, is Mr Louis Ng feels that people are hesitant to donate because they are concerned about liability.
The context of the Ministers for Law talking in the emergency medical assistance context was that there was not a need because people are not hesitant to step up, number one. And number two, there is no major concern about liability because our law pitches the liability at your level of skill or expertise. So, if you are a doctor, you are held to a higher standard. If you are just an ordinary person helping out, you are held to that standard. So, the considerations are different.
Mr Speaker: One final clarification.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I promise to be quick. Just one note and that is, I do not think we can actually know if it is true that someone who is hesitant has not actually hesitated to step up. Because we do not observe all those individuals that have stepped up. So, I am wondering if the Minister would agree with me that, indeed, we will never know the counterfactual to the situation.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had missed reports in the newspapers from the last few days. I was present at Home Team's National Day Observance Ceremony at the Home Team Academy and there were dozens of members of the public who had voluntarily stepped forward in emergency situations to help others. So, perhaps, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, would like to look at those news reports and see for himself.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee, would you like to respond as well?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I am sorry, Sir, because I was listening to Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and I had forgotten Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question, would the Member like to repeat it?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: The question is whether, it is not so much whether we observe that some people are indeed stepping forward. I am certain that is the case and we have news reports that say this.
My question is, what we do not observe is all the instances where people have chosen not to step forward because of fear of liability. That is fundamentally unobservable as a counterfactual and, that is why, I asked whether the Minister would agree that we would not know the full extent to which individuals have not stepped forward.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, perhaps instead of debating this issue in a theoretical manner, look at the practical issues, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Perhaps Assoc Prof Jamus Lim would join me in encouraging members of the public to do so rather than debating this in a theoretical manner. If all of us encourage members of the public to do so and tell them not to be afraid, I am sure they would do so and more of them would do more and not be hesitant.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I do not think I have more to add to what Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has said, other than the fact that you take the assessment based on what you see. If we do not see that there is a particular need, then there is no need to pass legislation or move a Bill. But Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean's point is perfectly well taken, which is that it is good to encourage people to step up.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important step towards reducing food waste, increasing food availability for food-insecure communities and developing a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. While this Bill has noble intentions, I have several clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Bill seeks to address liability concerns, we must also consider the practical aspects of encouraging greater participation. The intent alone, while admirable, may not be sufficient to shift behaviour on a larger scale. What specific incentives or support mechanisms are being considered to motivate eateries or bakeries to donate their surplus food? Although liability protection is a step forward, it is essentially removing a barrier; we must now provide and encourage people to be more active.
To this end, I urge the Government to consider tangible incentives. Tax benefits for food donations, like those already in place for charitable giving, could be effective. Subsidies for logistical costs associated with donated food, particularly for smaller businesses, could also boost participation. Furthermore, public recognition programmes, perhaps, a \"Food Rescue Champion\" award, could incentivise businesses through positive reinforcement. By incorporating such proactive measures, we can transform this Bill from a shield against liability, into a sword actively combating food waste.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, clear and consistent communication is paramount to ensure clarity and safety for recipients. Beyond merely requiring donors to inform recipients about handling requirements and consumption time limits, we should consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food.
A visible and clear \"consume by\" label could minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses arising from miscommunication or forgetfulness. Such labels would serve as a visual vivid reminder, even after verbal communication has taken place. This could empower recipients to make informed decisions about food consumption. It can also provide an additional layer of protection for well-intended donors. It would also foster greater trust and transparency within the food donation ecosystem.
However, practicality is key. We must consider the feasibility of implementing such labelling requirements, particularly for smaller businesses involved in food. A balanced approach, perhaps, with exemptions or tailored guidelines for different types of food donations, may be necessary.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, greater clarity is needed on the Bill’s stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives. While we strive to ensure the safety and suitability of donated food, we must also recognise the valuable contributions of initiatives operating at the community level. These initiatives often involve collecting and redistributing food that might be aesthetically imperfect or nearing its \"best by\" date. However, they are still safe for consumption.
Does the Bill explicitly extend liability protection to these prevalent endeavours? Explicit inclusion would provide these groups with much-needed legal assurance and encourage their growth. This allows them to expand their reach and impact on minimising food waste in addition to supporting vulnerable individuals.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not overlook the critical issue of food allergies. These can present significant, even life-threatening risks, if not managed carefully. I seek clarification on how this Bill addresses the potential for allergic reactions, particularly, in situations where donors may not be fully aware of the allergen content in the food they are donating.
Among food-insecure groups, those with allergies already face an uphill battle in balancing their dietary needs with financial constraints.
While some might suggest that individuals with allergies could simply avoid donated food with unclear labelling, this ignores a critical aspect of food insecurity. By denying themselves access to potentially safe and nutritious food due to a lack of information, individuals with allergies are deprived of economical choices that could significantly ease their burdens.
To mitigate health risks associated with allergic reactions, I urge the Government to consider implementing guidelines for clear and consistent allergen labelling, wherever possible, within the framework of this Bill. Collaboration with health authorities to develop a standardised allergen labelling system, perhaps drawing from existing regulations requiring businesses to declare known food allergens on their food labels, would be invaluable. This could be done for common allergies, like seafood, nuts or gluten, if they are known to be present in the donated food. Furthermore, greater efforts could be made to educate food donors on best practices for minimising allergen consumption risks, such as avoiding cross-contamination and providing accurate ingredient information.
Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a multicultural society, we must respect and accommodate the diverse dietary needs of our population, especially those with specific religious or cultural requirements. For example, Muslims are required to consume Halal food and Hindus and many Buddhists abstain from consuming beef.
Therefore, I urge the Government to outline guidelines for donors to follow, preventing unintentional non-compliance with these various dietary standards. Clear and accurate labelling of ingredients, particularly when it comes to potentially \"sensitive\" ingredients like beef or pork products, is paramount in empowering recipients to make informed choices. Resources should also be made available on proper handling and labelling, to ensure that food intended for halal consumption remains untainted.
But in cases where this is not practical or where such oversights occur despite best efforts, does the Bill offer legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's religious dietary needs? Addressing this aspect thoughtfully will not only demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity. It can also instil greater confidence in the food donation system, encouraging wider participation from both donors and recipients.
Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is equally critical that we ensure faithful compliance to food safety and hygiene. The success of this initiative hinges on maintaining public trust in the safety and quality of donated food. Therefore, I seek clarification on how the Bill will ensure that food donors are well-informed and fully compliant with existing food safety and hygiene laws.
Recent incidents, such as the mass food poisoning cases involving the Singapore Civil Defence Force Academy and Bytedance, serve as stark reminders of the risks associated with large-scale food handling. These situations, often involving catering or bulk cooking, can increase the likelihood of issues, such as undercooking, improper storage and prolonged exposure to hot weather, a concern further amplified by Singapore's rising temperatures.
It is also precisely such events, where large volumes of food might otherwise go to waste, that could benefit most from the food donation framework established by this Bill. Therefore, we must be particularly vigilant in mitigating the risks. I urge the Government to consider incorporating targeted guidelines and training for donors handling large quantities of food, emphasising best practices for safe storage and transportation.
Perhaps the Bill could incorporate provisions for mandatory training programmes or certifications for frequent food donors. These programmes could be developed in collaboration with relevant agencies, like SFA, providing donors with the knowledge and skills to handle food safely throughout the donation process. Additionally, raising awareness among recipients about the importance of thoroughly reheating donated food, where possible, before consumption, could further minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications on the Bill's broader implications. The Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal framework. It can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a nation, approach food waste and food security.
To fully realise this potential, I believe it is vital that the Ministry provides us with a broader perspective. What are the long-term goals and strategic vision underlining this Bill? How will its implementation impact Singapore's overall food security and waste management strategy and contribute to our national sustainability targets, such as the \"30 by 30\" food sustainability goal set by MSE?
A clear understanding of the Bill's intended impact beyond the immediate legal implications would be invaluable to all stakeholders. It will enable us to identify potential synergies, areas for future refinement and opportunities for collaborative action. This can empower businesses, organisations and individuals to play a meaningful role in building a more sustainable and food-secure future for Singapore.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Yio Chu Kang, we have seen, first-hand, the power of community action on reducing food waste. Our Food Rescue programme, run entirely by volunteers, sees about 60 dedicated individuals, many of them youths from nearby schools, including Presbyterian High, Nanyang Polytechnic, the Institute of Technical Education Central and so on, coming together every fortnight to volunteer their time in the name of sustainability. They help to collect imperfect or expiring food from wholesale centres and shops that would have otherwise gone to waste. They sort out and throw away parts that cannot be eaten and redistribute the good and edible portions. We have about 200 regular residents who participate in this programme. Both our Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee have witnessed how our Food Rescue Programme works during their visits to Yio Chu Kang.
Nonetheless, as much as we strive for careful sorting and quality control, there are always inherent risks associated with redistributing food that are deemed commercially unsellable or nearing its expiry date, particularly when problematic food products are unintentionally overlooked during the sorting process. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill would play a vital role in addressing these concerns, providing legal clarity and peace of mind for those involved in such initiatives.
While the Bill is a significant step in the right direction, I believe that addressing the points and questions that I have raised today will further strengthen its effectiveness. For instance, to truly shift behavior on a larger scale, we should go beyond merely removing legal barriers. Offering tangible incentives, such as tax benefits, logistical support and public recognition, could significantly motivate more eateries and bakeries to participate in food donation efforts.
Clear labelling is another important aspect that should be mandated. The Bill should also explicitly extend legal protection to community fridges and food rescue initiatives, which play a critical role in reducing food waste. Providing these groups with legal assurance would encourage their growth and amplify their impact. Additionally, this Bill must address the issue of food allergies, which pose significant risks if not properly managed. Clear guidelines for allergen labelling are essential to protect those with food allergies, ensuring that they have safe access to donated food.
Given Singapore's multicultural society, it is also equally important to respect religious dietary requirements in food donations. The Bill should include guidelines and legal protections to prevent unintentional non-compliance, fostering inclusivity and confidence in the food donation system.
It should also incorporate mandatory training for food donors, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to handle food safely.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal safeguard. It can serve as a catalyst for positive change in how we approach food waste and food security. It aligns perfectly with the spirit of Forward Singapore, where sustainability is a key pillar. By addressing these key areas and working collaboratively with all stakeholders, we can build a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" − [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Access to Fertility Preservation for Young Cancer Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a medical doctor looking after cancer patients. In my Member of Parliament capacity, I have also met Clementi residents who are young cancer patients.
Many of us know someone who has cancer – a loved one, a friend or a colleague. Some cancer patients are younger. About six out of 100 cancer patients diagnosed each year in Singapore are under the age of 40. Young cancer patients.
If you look at the Singapore Cancer Registry, between 2017 and 2021, each year, on average, 340 young men and 620 young women under the age of 40 were diagnosed with cancer – about 1,000 young men and women. Young patients, under 40. In the prime of their life. Some trying to start a family, hoping to become parents someday. Some might not yet have found a life partner, have not yet decided whether they want to have children, but wanting to keep their options open and not close off their future choices.
But when a cancer hits you or your loved ones, sometimes, things change suddenly and decisions have to be made on a timeline that you and your loved ones did not expect. Because some cancer treatments, while trying to save the patient's life and cure the cancer, some of these treatments can also affect a patient's fertility. For example, some chemotherapy treatments can affect fertility, sometimes, for the long term. We know from the experience of young cancer patients who became infertile after life-saving cancer treatment that their infertility can be emotionally devastating even years later, among the survivors.
So, what is the current situation in Singapore?
In a Parliamentary Question earlier this year, I asked about fertility preservation for cancer patients undergoing medically necessary treatment where the medically necessary treatment can affect the patient's fertility. These fertility preservations may include sperm freezing, egg freezing or in vitro fertilisation (IVF). I asked the Ministry of Health (MOH) whether the Ministry has evaluated the available insurance policies on the commercial market.
Let me quote from MOH's answer, \"MOH does not evaluate private insurance coverage of fertility preservation therapy as these are optional products subject to insurers' commercial considerations.\" Furthermore, MOH said, \"MediShield Life does not cover fertility related treatments as it was designed as a basic health insurance scheme.\"
In short, today, fertility preservation is deemed optional by the insurance industry, even if you are a cancer patient undergoing medically necessary treatment which may affect your fertility. In short, today, fertility related treatments, even for cancer patients, are not covered under MediShield Life because these are not considered part of basic healthcare.
Mr Speaker, today, I call upon the Government to take a fresh look. This is not just my own view. I have met young healthcare workers across different hospitals and different hospital clusters. They care for young cancer patients, walking with them through the cancer diagnosis, treatment and recovery. They see the ups and downs, the pain, the suffering and sometimes, the heartbreak.
Some are trying to help young cancer survivors realise their dream of having children someday despite the treatment journey, despite the side effects of medically necessary cancer treatment. These young healthcare workers have put together a number of views and suggestions and approached me in their personal capacities. I have looked, discussed with them and raised their suggestions to MOH because I personally found their suggestions to resonate with me and I have sympathy for their views. Let me share their thinking and some recommendations for the Government's consideration.
The first recommendation: can MOH and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) work with the insurance industry so that fertility preservation for cancer patients is covered under Integrated Shield Plans? This is not a major policy deviation, in my view, and, as I will explain to you, it is actually a harmonisation of existing policy principles.
Today, healthcare insurance already covers restoration of natural biological function when someone has been seriously injured. If tomorrow, you are in a life-threatening car accident, you undergo emergency surgery and, as part of that life-saving surgery, you need to undergo some kind of reconstruction which preserves your ability to start a family, if you have bought insurance, you would expect the insurer to cover it.
So, why is it different when someone has an accident of fate – a life-threatening cancer? When a cancer patient has life-saving treatment which may compromise their fertility and then needs to restore natural biological function after the illness, surely the insurers could consider it the same way too.
Sir, people do not choose to get cancer, so there is no moral hazard arising from including this under insurance coverage. The insurers should move on this.
To help shape market norms and send a signal to the healthcare insurance sector, I call upon MOH to be the first mover – to see the issue through the lens of natural biological function and preserving or restoring natural biological function so that a fellow Singaporean who becomes ill with cancer and undergoes fertility preservation should be considered the same way as a Singaporean in a major accident who undergoes reconstructive surgery to preserve their ability to have a child.
Today, only one of these patients would be covered by MediShield Life for the purpose of preserving the ability to have children. Both should be covered.
If MOH moves on this for MediShield Life, it will shape the market and send a strong message to the private sector insurance providers – the healthcare insurers, financial institutions – and encourage them to do the same. That is the first recommendation.
The second recommendation: to front-load the funding for fertility preservation for patients who are young cancer patients undergoing medically necessary treatment that might compromise their fertility.
Today, married couples undergoing assisted conception procedures in a public hospital can receive co-funding from MOH up to 75% if the couple are both Singaporeans. But what happens if a young woman diagnosed with cancer is not yet married and finds that she has to go for egg freezing to preserve her fertility? To preserve her prospect of having a family in the future? Is there a way to mobilise the future funding and front-load this to help that young cancer patient at a time when the fertility preservation is most likely to be helpful, early on, to help preserve her fertility for the future?
The third recommendation: I also call upon the Government and MAS to work together with the banks and financial institutions to provide interest-free loans for young cancer patients needing fertility preservation.
Let me share, by comparison, an example from the education sector.
Today, students on a full-time Ministry of Education course at a polytechnic or autonomous university can apply for tuition fee loans. The loan is interest-free during the first few years when the course of study is ongoing and, importantly, when young students have not had the chance to start work and accumulate savings and financial resources of their own. The purpose of this policy – the interest-free loan – is to ensure that students do not forego the long-term benefits of higher education because of short-term challenges with cash flow.
The same approach can be applied for young cancer patients. Some have fallen sick early in life before building their careers. They may be low on savings, low on resources, low on MediSave at that point in life. If they come from a family starting with less, their parents may not be able to underwrite some of these costs.
But if the banks provide interest-free loans, it will help ensure young cancer patients do not miss out on fertility preservation because of cash flow concerns. It will help ensure a young cancer patient does not have to choose between their long-term prospects of starting a family, their long-term fertility prospects, and, on the other hand, short-term cash flow considerations.
This approach will also help some young cancer patients who come from a sandwiched class situation, where they may not be very wealthy, but at the same time, this will assist with some of the cash flow situation too.
The fourth recommendation: on better supporting philanthropy in the fertility preservation sector. The philanthropy sector is an important part of Singapore's social fabric. Several voluntary welfare organisations support cancer patients, including young cancer patients.
Can the Government help crowd-in and stimulate philanthropy to support young cancer patients needing fertility preservation? For example, can the existing 250% tax deduction on charitable donations be enhanced further for specific designated charities or even a specific fund for fertility preservation that could be co-managed by MOH or the health authorities in the public sector? Can there be matching grants to help multiply the impact of charitable donations to help needy young cancer patients when it comes to fertility preservation?
There are many ways to concentrate and focus funding and co-funding. Six years ago, in this House, I moved an Adjournment Motion on helping patients with rare diseases. The Government later set up a Rare Disease Fund, which receives 3-for-1 dollar matching of public donations with tax deduction.
Fertility preservation for young cancer patients is a different issue, but I wonder if MOH and the Ministry of Finance can draw lessons from that experience and see what can be done for young cancer patients seeking fertility preservation.
Mr Speaker, some might ask: why go through such effort to help a relatively small number of Singaporeans – 1,000 young cancer patients per year? To that question, let me say this. Even if just 1,000 young cancer patients a year, even if only 6% newly diagnosed cancer patients are young, under the age of 40, if it happens to you or your loved one, you are 100% affected.
In life, we do not get to choose whether we are born lucky or unlucky. We do not get to choose whether early in life we are diagnosed with cancer. But as a society, we can choose how to look out for one another at the individual level and in how we build our social compact. We can choose whether to be more inclusive and to help young cancer patients worrying about whether someday, they can have a chance to start a family.
We mention the potential beneficiaries being about 1,000 a year but the actual number might well be less, because not every young cancer patient may seek to take up the proposals to support them further. But I suggest to this House: it is worth us considering and trying.
There is a broader important point, that a young cancer patient should not have to forego fertility preservation and the chance of starting a family some day, giving up on dreams of a family, because of cost concerns, tight cash flow, or because a private insurer decided that it is optional to preserve fertility, even if you are a cancer patient who did not ask to get cancer, even if you are a cancer patient undergoing medically necessary treatment that might affect your future childbearing potential.
Our approach to supporting Singaporeans into that dream of starting a family someday, is also about a broader message within Government and to our Singapore society. In an era of fewer children being born, when Singapore's total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped to 0.97, the TFR below 1.0 for the first time in Singapore's history, the message we send is all the more important. A message must be sent that every child matters, every potential child matters and that every opportunity to start a family can be a moment of hope. And for those who seek that hope, we must try to support that and not let it be taken away early in life during to accidents of fate.
Mr Speaker, as we take Singapore forward as part of Singapore's Forward SG, this is a call for change. It is a call for a fresh look, it is a call for action, a call to help support young cancer patients in their hopes and dreams and especially dreams of a family. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for raising the plight of young cancer patients who desire fertility preservation. These patients already suffer the misfortune of a cancer and the side effects of cancer treatment. We deeply empathise with the anxiety and emotional distress that they face.
Mr Speaker, the Government has supported and remains committed to supporting the parenthood aspirations of all Singaporeans.
In 2008, the Government introduced co-funding for Assisted Reproduction (AR) treatments, such as In-Vitro Fertilisation, or IVF, at public AR centres. Any couple where at least one spouse is a Singapore Citizen would be eligible for this co-funding.
Over the years, we have made enhancements to further support couples requiring AR treatments. We raised the Government co-funding quantum in 2013 and again in 2018. We also increased the number of co-funded cycles. Today, a Singaporean citizen couple can enjoy up to 75% in Government co-funding for up to three fresh cycles and three frozen cycles. This is subject to a dollar cap of up to $7,700 for each fresh cycle and up to $2,200 for each frozen cycle.
On top of co-funding, we allow MediSave use of up to $6,000 for the first cycle, $5,000 for the second cycle and $4,000 for the third and subsequent cycles, with a lifetime limit of $15,000.
In 2020, we expanded our co-funding coverage to include Intra-Uterine Insemination, or IUI, to provide better support to couples who may prefer less invasive procedures. The Government would co-fund up to three IUI cycles, subject to a dollar cap of up to $1,000.
We also recognised that couples who marry late also have parenthood aspirations and wanted to give them the best shot at it. In 2020, we removed the statutory age limit of 45 years old which restricted when a woman may go for AR treatments. This allowed more couples to undergo procedures like IVF, as long as they were considered suitable for the procedure by their doctor. We also allowed couples to tap on up to two out of six co-funded AR treatments above the age of 40, as long as they had attempted AR before the age of 40. This was so that we do not inadvertently encourage couples to start their families too late, given the higher likelihood of clinical complexities associated with late pregnancies.
Last July, we took a further step. Women between the ages of 21 to 37 are now able to undergo elective egg freezing. Prior to last July, women were only allowed to do so on medical grounds. This shift came after careful consideration, recognising that there may be women who desire to preserve their fertility because of personal circumstances, such as being unable to find a partner when they were younger.
The policy shifts we have made over these years reflect the Government's ongoing commitment to support fertility and parenthood. This is an ongoing journey. We will continue to refine our policies to ensure that these continue to meet Singaporeans' aspirations and needs in the area.
On this note, I thank Dr Tan for his recommendations on financing fertility preservation procedures among young cancer patients.
We note that some young married couples are facing a situation where one of them is afflicted with cancer and will be receiving treatment. Yet, they are still currently trying to start a family. Today, these couples are eligible to tap on Government co-funding and their MediSave for embryo freezing as part of their AR treatments, to preserve the option of having children in the future.
For singles who want to undergo fertility preservation so that they can have children in future, we recognise these procedures can be quite expensive. For example, egg freezing alone can cost up to $10,000. Other fertility preservation procedures, like egg storage or ovarian tissue storage, can cost several thousand dollars over the course of five years. Today, young women can already tap on MediSave for egg freezing, if it is done on medical grounds, such as due to their cancer treatment. If they get married in the future and would like to use their eggs for AR treatments, they can also receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments.
MOH will study Dr Tan's proposals to extend Government co-funding and insurance, bearing in mind there may be other medically necessary treatments for conditions besides cancer that could affect fertility of young Singaporeans.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr Tan's other recommendations, such as to support philanthropic initiatives in the fertility preservation sector and to collaborate with financial institutions to provide interest-free loans for fertility preservation.
To bolster philanthropic efforts in the fertility preservation sector, Dr Tan has proposed enhancing the current 250% tax deduction rates for donations and introducing Government matching grants, similar to the approach taken for the Rare Disease Fund. Today, donations made to Institutions of a Public Character, or IPCs, that focus on supporting cancer patients, will qualify for a tax deduction of 250%. This is consistent with other IPCs in Singapore, which is high compared to other jurisdictions. We appreciate the support that existing cancer charities provide to patients, such as the support from the Singapore Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Foundation and Children's Cancer Foundation. But we also note that they may encounter difficulties in prioritising fertility treatments for these patients if it means diverting funds from other cancer patients.
As for the suggestion of interest-free loans, like the Tuition Fee loans, we note that these are ultimately financed and subsidised by Government, similar to the co-funding support that is currently already available for AR treatments. We will, however, continue to review the adequacy of co-funding and other support to address the fertility treatments for these patients and welcome any additional support that charities can provide alongside, to address affordability issues.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Doctor Representation, Claim Rules and Premium Charges of Integrated Shield Insurance Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider (i) publishing information on Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers' extent of IP panel doctor representation across the respective medical specialties, including the proportion of specialists empanelled and the extent of panel turnover in each year respectively; and (ii) establishing a platform for policyholders to share their experiences of IP insurers so that prospective new policyholders and customers can make better considered choices.
17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to Integrated Shield Plans (a) what are the considerations on whether to expand claim rules to include more medical specialties and diagnostic tests for common conditions; (b) whether the Ministry will mandate a minimum co-payment for new private insurance policies to moderate healthcare costs; and (c) what measures will be taken to safeguard policyholders' access to necessary care and ensure insurance companies do not wield excessive influence in deciding what tests and procedures are claimable.
18 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to expand the scope of the Claims Management Office (CMO) as well as the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) to handle claims on private insurance policies; and (b) in light of concerns regarding insurance companies delaying or cancelling payouts after policyholders make claims, what avenues of recourse do policyholders currently have; and (b) what penalties will be imposed on insurance companies engaging in such practices to ensure fairness and timely resolution for policyholders.
19 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will continue to publish updated information and comparison of Integrated Shield Plan insurers' premiums and coverage regularly; and (b) if so, at what frequency.
20 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health whether measures will be in place to ensure that any increases to premiums for Integrated Shield Plans (IP) are fair and sustainable for policyholders, given that the two-year period where premiums for IPs remained unchanged to support policyholders amid implementation of the Cancer Drug List will end on 31 August 2024.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover the matters raised in the written question by Mr Yip Hon Weng1 which is scheduled for today's Sitting.
Before addressing the specific queries, let me reiterate the current health insurance situation, as explained in my public speech last month.
Our assessment is that the health insurance industry is very competitive, so much so that insurance companies are offering very generous terms to compete for market share. It is only human nature that when terms are too generous and someone else is paying the bill, the behaviour between patients and doctors changes and a buffet syndrome is created. The health insurance industry is at risk of becoming a race to the bottom. Claims and, in turn, premiums, are rising fast and the system is in danger of becoming unsustainable.
The questions raised by Members reflect this deeper issue. Embedded in the questions are many requests to make claims easier, coverage better and premiums lower. We all wish for such better deals. But we also know it is highly impossible. They will probably make the system even more unsustainable and the current problem even deeper. To be more specific:
First, there is a question on whether the Ministry of Health (MOH) can ensure premium increases are fair. Indeed, as claims escalate, insurance companies are under pressure to raise premiums. For national health insurance, namely, MediShield Life, we can increase premium subsidies or provide MediSave top-ups to make premiums affordable. However, private health insurance is commercially offered in a free market. What MOH can do is to continue to publish premiums and coverage annually to facilitate policyholders making the right choices.
Second, is the request to expand doctor panels. To contain costs, insurance companies introduced panels, comprising doctors who charge responsibly. Due to public feedback, insurance companies have expanded the panels somewhat. But expansion beyond a certain point will likely mean less ability to contain costs. Since each insurer publishes their list of panel doctors on their websites, it will be better for policyholders to enquire from their agents or seek out the latest information on the insurance companies’ websites than for MOH to publicise the information.
Third, and in a similar vein, it will be better for consumer groups to establish platforms and fora for sharing of insurance experiences, not different from how such fora are set up for various services, from retail and restaurants to hotels and point-to-point private transport.
Fourth, there are questions on whether MOH can ensure policyholders have access to necessary care, control coverage for private health insurance and set up avenues of recourse for private insurance claims disputes. As mentioned, private insurance policies are commercial contracts that policyholders enter into with insurance companies. It is very important for policyholders to know what treatments are covered and what are not, before they enter into the contracts. If they are looking for something with very wide coverage, it will most likely fetch higher premiums. The Monetary Authority of Singapore and MOH require insurance companies to uphold their contractual obligations and process claims in a fair manner. Insurance companies that fail to do this can be subject to penalties, such as warnings, offers of compositions and sanctions. Policyholders who wish to dispute a private health insurance claim outcome may appeal to their insurer. If they are still not satisfied with the outcome, they may tap on the Clinical Claims Resolution Process for Integrated Shield Plan (IP) claims disputes of a clinical nature and the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) of a contractual nature. The Claims Management Office set up by MOH also uses complaints on unreasonable medical bills as a basis to identify cases for potential claims adjudication. These cases usually comprise hospital bills covered by private insurance. The Claims Management Office also develops claims rules to guide doctors in making appropriate MediShield Life claims for common procedures or those more susceptible to complaints. While claims rules are developed to govern MediShield Life claims, private health insurers also reference them when assessing IP claims.
It is also useful to remember that regardless of any disputes with insurance companies, all policyholders will be able to access subsidised care in public hospitals. Our public hospitals may vary subsidies based on means-testing but will not deny access to care. So, the request to restrict private insurance policyholders to unsubsidised or private care is not consistent with our fundamental policy of ensuring universal accessibility to healthcare.
It is natural for policyholders to want better coverage, greater access to care, more choices of doctors and lower premiums. But in today’s situation that MOH has explained, these are not likely achievable. We need to break the current cycle of overly generous terms, over-charging and over-utilisation, leading to rising hospital bills, escalating claims, higher premiums, which then result in policyholders demanding better terms.
Members have put forth questions that may be part of the solution. First is education. We can do more to help consumers better understand insurance, how a hospital bill is covered by subsidy, MediShield Life, MediSave and private insurance, so that they know what they are paying for and can make better choices.
Co-payment instils discipline in the system and keeps the inflation of hospital bills and insurance premiums in check. Today, there is already co-payment. However, those who bought riders can minimise their co-payment to 5% of the hospital bill, up to a limit of $3,000. These are parameters we have to constantly review.
There are complex interdependencies across the healthcare system, the private insurance industry, as well as all of us, as patients and policyholders. If we are to break the vicious cycle of runaway healthcare costs, unaffordable premiums and increasing anxiety, all stakeholders must play their part to treat, insure and consume responsibly. MOH will have to carefully consider appropriate interventions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider conducting an education campaign to guide the public on their actual insurance needs, considering that a significant proportion of patients with the Integrated Shield Plan (IP) and rider protection opt for subsidised public healthcare despite paying for higher coverage; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider any means-testing mechanisms to encourage IP holders or those with rider protection to utilise private healthcare options, thereby potentially alleviating strain on subsidised healthcare."],"footNoteQuestions":["16","17","18","19","20"],"questionNo":"16-20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conflict of Interest Declaration by Individuals Involved in DSA Selection Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education whether individuals who are involved in the selection process for the Direct School Admission (DSA) exercise in schools are required to (i) make a conflict of interest (COI) declaration or (ii) abstain from the selection process should there be a COI or close affiliation with the DSA candidate, prior to each DSA exercise.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Patrick Tay, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
The Direct School Admission, or DSA, seeks to broaden the recognition of talents and achievements of our students beyond academic grades. This has provided many students with an alternative pathway to enroll in secondary schools or junior colleges, matching their talents and potentials with schools that have niches in those areas.
The DSA selection process is undergirded by the principles of transparency, objectivity, inclusiveness and student-centricity. While schools have autonomy in their selection, schools are required to abide by a set of guidelines from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to ensure that the selection goes beyond manifested skills to include whole person qualities as well as potential, among others. For example, the guidelines stipulate that the school leadership team is required to lead DSA selection panels and oversee the selection process. Non-school staff, including coaches and instructors, may be invited to join the selection process and provide inputs.
MOE also requires all individuals involved in the DSA selection process to declare any potential conflict of interest and to recuse themselves from the process, if there are any. Schools are also required to inform coaches and instructors that if they market their services by implying that they can influence or determine DSA outcomes, they may be de-registered from MOE.
Arising from the allegations of wrongdoing involving a basketball coach, the coach has been de-registered and is no longer working in any MOE school, while his membership in the National Registry of Coaches has been suspended. MOE has reminded schools to ensure that their DSA processes are in line with the guidelines, including that the school leadership team should be involved in the final decision-making.
MOE reviews our selection guidelines regularly to take on board observations and feedback from the previous DSA exercise and engages schools on the updated guidelines. We will continue to update these guidelines to strengthen the process and address gaps.
However, no system is perfect and the DSA selection process, ultimately, depends on the integrity and professionalism of individuals involved. MOE takes a serious view of allegations of wrongdoing in the DSA selection process and will investigate every case. If there are allegations of any wrongdoing, we will refer them to the relevant authorities for investigation. Let me assure Members that we will take firm action against the parties involved, both the giver and taker, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, to ensure the integrity and fairness of the DSA selection process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings from Trial of Giving Unconditional Cash Aid to Lower-income Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will examine if the findings by AWWA that unconditional cash aid can help lower-income families have better job outcomes and mental health can be applied to national social assistance programmes; and (b) whether the Ministry will support more of such trials at selected constituencies so as to examine the effectiveness of unconditional cash aid.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My reply will also address questions filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Ong Hua Han1 and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim together. If Members’ questions are adequately addressed today, they may wish to withdraw their questions for the Sitting on 7 August 2024.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development appreciates the effort and initiative by Asian Women’s Welfare Association (AWWA) to test different approaches to uplift lower-income families. Their pilot and findings will give us a better understanding of how we can continue to improve our social interventions.
The term “unconditional cash transfers” was used in this pilot initiative. Some had the impression that it was a Universal Basic Income pilot, where every individual receives a cash transfer regardless of their circumstances. But this was not the case. AWWA only provided cash transfers to clients whose per capita household income was less than $1,000 a month and whose total household income was not more than $3,600 a month.
Furthermore, the transfers were not given purely on an “unconditional” basis. AWWA has clarified that the beneficiaries were, in fact, asked to meet with their case officers regularly, who would continue to actively help them with the challenges they faced.
AWWA’s pilot found that respondents felt that the cash transfers helped to improve financial well-being and reduce mental stress, at least in the short term. We were also interested in finding out if the study achieved longer-term effects that could be easily and objectively measured, such as time spent in employment, income security or hours worked. But AWWA’s findings in these areas were inconclusive.
On whether the Government will consider replicating or scaling up AWWA’s pilot, there are no plans to do so. There was no clear evidence from the study that the cash transfers led to longer-term positive effects. Another recent study done in the United States also found that providing unconditional cash transfers led to decreased work hours, with the saved time spent on leisure, rather than capacity-building, such as upskilling or searching for better jobs. Positive effects on well-being and mental health also petered out after the first year.
We are instead focusing on strengthening our safety nets and providing support in other ways.
The Government currently provides financial assistance to lower-income individuals and families through ComCare, to help them meet their basic living needs. We review the quantum of support provided under ComCare regularly and will continue to do so.
We are also providing additional support to lower-income families with children through ComLink+. Under ComLink+, dedicated family coaches work with families to assess their needs, co-develop action plans, and coach and motivate families as they work towards stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
ComLink+ families who take active steps to secure a better future for themselves and their children will also receive further help in the form of ComLink+ Progress Packages. These are cash transfers that go beyond what is needed for basic living needs and will be disbursed when families take steps to improve their circumstances and prospects in specific domains, in line with the action plans that they themselves would have co-developed with their family coaches. We will work with local academics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ComLink+ Progress Packages in a rigorous manner.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked what programmes or resources are available to help families identify and respond to early signs of financial distress. This is where our ComLink+ family coaches come in to help families better navigate social support services and help to coordinate support across multiple programmes where needed. Families requiring specialised support for debt relief, financial management and long-term employment will be referred to community and Government agencies that provide such support.
Our system of social support will continue to evolve as new evidence presents itself. Where such evidence is robust, we will take these into account as we refine our national programmes like ComCare and ComLink+.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider replicating social service agency AWWA’s family empowerment programme by providing unconditional cash aid for lower-income families on a larger scale; and (b) whether the Ministry can look into designing social assistance that incentivises and assists lower-income families to find long-term employment alongside such unconditional cash aid."],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address and Mitigate Risks of Social Media Addiction among Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Education what measures are being implemented in schools to address and mitigate the risks of social media addiction among students, particularly on short video social media platforms.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Through Cyber Wellness lessons in Character and Citizenship Education, students are taught to maintain a healthy balance of online and offline activities, including managing use of social media. Students are taught skills to recognise risks in the digital space, identify and discern negative influences, and avoid excessive use of social media as these have an impact on their mental, social and emotional well-being.
School Counsellors are trained to render appropriate support to students who are at risk of excessive social media use, including working with their parents and making referrals to community resources for more specialised intervention.
Parents play a key role in guiding and monitoring their child’s leisure online activities. Schools work closely with parents by sharing resources, expert insights and strategies that help parents guide their child in the use of technology and devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Ministry of Digital Development and Information as New Ministry Name","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the key considerations that have led to the renaming of the Ministry to Ministry of Digital Development and Information; (b) in what ways will the renaming of the Ministry give urgency to the national effort towards digital development; and (c) whether the Ministry will engage with chambers of commerce and trade associations on how they can contribute towards achieving the objectives behind the Ministry’s name change.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The renaming of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, or MDDI in short, reflects the growing digital development agenda across the whole-of-Government.
Digitalisation has become an increasingly important part of our daily lives: from how we communicate and access information, to how businesses operate and how the Government delivers services. Advancements in technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), are also driving unprecedented change. They present opportunities for growth and innovation, as well as significant risks that we must address.
Over the years, the Ministry and other agencies across the Government have been deepening our work in the digital domain to address emerging issues and meet growing demands. For example, we have teams negotiating digital economy agreements, shoring up AI governance and improving our digital infrastructure, such as through upgrades to our Nationwide Broadband Network. We regularly update our laws and regulatory approaches to address new risks and threats in the digital domain. We are growing the range of digital Government services and have achieved high adoption rates for our national digital identity system. We are continually working to strengthen digital inclusion for vulnerable groups. Other agencies have also been harnessing digital technologies to improve citizens’ everyday lives, such as implementing seamless, automated immigration clearance at our airport and enabling the convenient booking of health appointments.
Last October, we merged the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group and the MCI’s digital development functions to better position the Government to advance Singapore’s digital agenda. The Ministry’s name change is thus a natural progression from our expanded work scope and reflects the role we already play, leading a range of digital developments across the economic, social and Government domains.
Collaboration with trade associations and chambers (TACs) has been and will continue to be important to the Ministry’s mission to create a thriving digital future for all. TACs are valued partners in engaging businesses and contribute much to the shaping of digital economy strategies and initiatives. We work closely with TACs, such as the Singapore Business Federation, Singapore Computer Society and SGTech, in upskilling our workforce and in strengthening enterprise digitalisation. In fact, they are amongst the network of partners that pledged their commitment to the recently launched Digital Enterprise Blueprint, which aims to establish Singapore as a nation of empowered enterprises and workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Actions When Children Do Not Register for Primary 1 in National Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) what follow-up actions are taken by the Ministry when a child does not register for Primary 1 in a national primary school; and (b) whether the Ministry is reviewing and strengthening these follow-up actions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Compulsory Education Act requires all Singaporean children above the age of six and below the age of 15 who are residing in Singapore to regularly attend a national primary school, unless they are exempted from doing so.
When a child is not registered for Primary 1, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes steps to locate the child and engage the child’s parents or legal guardians to provide advice and guidance on schooling matters, including facilitating the child’s placement into a suitable school. Where needed, MOE works with other Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development and social service organisations, such as the Family Service Centres, to support the child and the family.
MOE may escalate the case to the Compulsory Education Board, which is empowered to summon the parents and child for a formal hearing. Legal action may also be taken against uncooperative parents.
Over the years, MOE has enhanced processes to more quickly contact parents who have not registered their child for Primary 1, as well as to support families in placing their child in a suitable school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revising Childcare Leave Entitlement for Parents with Two or More Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government has any plans to increase the childcare leave entitlement for parents of second or more children as an additional incentive to promote fertility.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We recognise that many parents with young children require support in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities. We have, therefore, progressively increased parental leave provisions over the years. The most recent enhancement was implemented on 1 January 2024, when we doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis, and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from six to 12 days per parent per year in their child’s first two years. We are presently studying how to strengthen parental leave support for those with infants who typically have high care needs.
In considering any enhancement to leave provisions, including increasing childcare leave for parents with more children, we will need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers’ manpower and operational requirements. Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we also encourage other sustainable ways that support parents in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs and constraints.
It is also critical for our workplaces to have a family-friendly culture and we encourage employers, supervisors and colleagues to be supportive when working parents need to tap on these measures to care for their children. On the Government’s part, we will continue to work with the Tripartite Partners and community partners to foster a conducive environment to support Singaporeans’ marriage and parenthood aspirations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contingency Plans and Dispersal Measures for Proper Crowd Control for Large-scale Events at Sports Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the contingency plans and dispersal measures by Sports Hub Pte Ltd for proper crowd control whenever there are major concerts or sports activities to ensure the safety of all participants; and (b) what measures have been taken by Sports Hub Pte Ltd to ensure that participants do not park indiscriminately around the Sports Hub area.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Kallang Alive Sport Management (KASM) is committed to delivering world-class events smoothly and safely.
KASM has stepped up transport management measures for large-scale events. These include encouraging event attendees to arrive early and to utilise public transport, such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. These measures are communicated through event guides, mainstream and social media channels, as well as directly to event attendees via email and short message service (SMS).
KASM partners closely with agencies and entities, such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA), SMRT, Housing and Development Board and Singapore Police Force (SPF) by having close coordination via the Traffic Management and Crowd Control Committee, a platform where monthly meetings are conducted to update and coordinate with stakeholders on major events within the Sports Hub, crowd planning and traffic management plans.
On the day of the event, Government agencies step up their presence at public residential areas around the Sports Hub to stop/deter illegal parking, if necessary. KASM also employs additional marshals to manage traffic within its precinct on the day of events when large crowds are expected. KASM is able to disperse crowds within 15 minutes for most events.
KASM continues to partner Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) of nearby condominiums at Tanjong Rhu through the Residents’ Committees. This ensures that residents can share their feedback if illegal parking is observed.
KASM works with relevant agencies like SPF and LTA on contingency plans and provides access to the Sports Hub’s Integrated Command and Control Centre for coordination of responding efforts to incidents. Under the Public Order Act 2009, KASM will notify and work with SPF on the appropriate measures to be deployed for public safety when major events at Sports Hub are expected to attract crowds of 5,000 persons or more. As part of the measures, KASM also has dedicated teams on site to respond to incidents immediately during major events.
This has been successful by and large. One positive example where KASM partnering closely with other agencies had led to successful outcomes were the Taylor Swift concerts. Officers were stationed at nearby residential car parks to deter illegal parking and ensure sufficient parking lots for residents.
KASM also piloted having an emcee who entertained guests as they waited outside Stadium MRT while managing the crowd flow to ensure that the station would not be overcrowded. This received praise from media outlets and are measures that KASM will continue to explore to facilitate crowd dispersal post-event.
KASM will continue to partner other agencies to further improve our crowd, traffic and parking management, even as Sports Hub continues to host more major events for Singaporeans to enjoy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives in Schools to Cultivate Creativity, Collaboration and Lifelong Love of Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education what whole-of-school initiatives are in place across primary and secondary schools to cultivate creativity, collaboration and a lifelong love of learning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been addressed by written answer to Question No 96 on 2 July 2024. [Please refer to \"Updating Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details on Assisted Living Government Sandbox Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether details on the assisted living Government sandbox initiative can be shared, including its key objectives and measures of success; (b) what are the projected scalability prospects of this assisted living model; and (c) what are the anticipated manpower needs to ensure that caregivers with the right skills can be hired quickly to support this model.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We launched the Shared Stay-in Senior Care Services sandbox in September 2023 to test out more ways to enable seniors to age in the community and support families with caregiving, without resorting to institutional care as a default.
The sandbox provides work pass flexibilities for participating companies to try out different models of manpower deployment to senior care. The caregivers need not be professional healthcare workers. Eligible companies can arrange for the training and tap on the Agency for Integrated Care’s Learning Network or Community Care Training Grant to train their workers in caregiving.
Companies have been onboarded since the start of this year and, to date, four participating companies are serving about 200 clients. We will review the scheme at its one-year mark, before determining the next steps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ticketing Policies to Enhance Accessibility of Arts Performances for Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth how is the Ministry working with ticket providers and event organisers to develop equitable ticketing policies to enhance accessibility of arts performances and concerts for wheelchair users and persons with disabilities.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We are committed to enhancing the accessibility of arts performances and concerts for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
While event organisers and concert promoters have their own ticketing policies, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY’s) cultural institutions support accessibility to arts programmes by offering ticket concessions to PwDs, including wheelchair users.
For example, all Esplanade Presents programmes that offer concessions have ticket concessions for PwDs, which can also be used by one accompanying companion. Take-up among our PwD community increased by 33% from 2022 to 2023.
Arts groups, such as the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, also offer discounted tickets for PwDs.
Apart from ticket concessions, our cultural institutions work closely with community partners like SG Enable to develop and introduce inclusive programming for PwDs. This includes introducing more accessibility features during performances, such as audio description, captioning and sign language interpretation. A recent example is the mini concert staged by the Singapore Chinese Orchestra on 26 June 2024 at the National Gallery Singapore for the visually impaired from the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped.
The Esplanade also offers “relaxed performances” as part of its PLAYtime! series of theatre productions for children. These performances feature adjusted lighting and sound levels, ensuring visitors with sensory needs can thoroughly enjoy the experience.
These initiatives are complemented by the ongoing capability development efforts of the National Arts Council (NAC) and National Heritage Board (NHB) among the arts and cultural organisations, museums, practitioners and volunteers to strengthen inclusive programming.
Examples include the Arts and Disability Forum, jointly organised by NAC and non-profit organisation ART:DIS, and the Accessibility and Inclusion Month, organised by NHB for the Museum Roundtable members. Both platforms share best practices on access and inclusivity in the arts and heritage sector.
To expand access to quality arts experiences for PwDs upstream, NAC also supports arts education efforts in Special Education schools through its Artist-in-School Scheme and the Tote Board Arts Grant subsidy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Dengue Prevention Strategies to Ameliorate Dengue Infection Rate Given Heightened Numbers in 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the heightened numbers relating to dengue infections in 2024 (a) what are the steps taken to ameliorate the dengue infection rate for the year and beyond; and (b) what has been the progress of previous initiatives to arrest dengue infection trends and whether they continue to be effective.
43 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of NEA’s second quarter 2024 Dengue Surveillance Data published on 24 July 2024, whether NEA will review its dengue prevention strategies to further improve their efficacy.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The weekly number of dengue cases has remained high since the start of 2024, with over 10,400 dengue cases reported by end July. This is more than the 9,949 dengue cases reported in the whole of 2023. The Aedes aegypti mosquito population has also remained high. The low immunity of our population to all four dengue virus serotypes, coupled with the warm and humid weather which accelerates the development of the Aedes mosquito and multiplication of the dengue virus, presents a continued dengue transmission risk.
Given the continued presence of these risk factors, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been working with partner agencies and Town Councils to intensify inspections and conduct flushing of drains and chemical treatment in dengue cluster areas in order to remove potential sources of mosquito breeding and suppress the adult mosquito population. NEA also launched the annual National Dengue Prevention Campaign on 31 March 2024, ahead of the traditional peak dengue season from May to October, to rally members of the public and stakeholders to take immediate action to reduce mosquito breeding and protect themselves against dengue. NEA has been working with grassroots organisations, non-government organisations, such as social service agencies and schools, to promote dengue prevention messages on their digital communication platforms or through their events. NEA deployed volunteers to areas with high footfall, such as hawker centres and transport hubs, and worked with supermarket operators to ramp up awareness of the dengue situation.
With these collective efforts, we have seen positive results thus far. In the second quarter of 2024, the number of dengue cases decreased by 20.8% and the number of dengue clusters decreased by 16%, compared to the first quarter of 2024.
NEA’s Project Wolbachia has seen positive results across all study sites. We have generally observed an 80%-90% reduction in the Aedes aegypti mosquito population in these sites after six to 12 months of releases. We have been expanding the project in phases, covering 480,000 households since March 2024. In addition, we will continue to conduct field studies to further understand the environmental factors affecting the efficacy of Project Wolbachia in dengue risk reduction in order to improve our deployment strategy and enhance its cost-effectiveness before expanding the programme to cover more areas.
Nevertheless, Project Wolbachia is not a silver bullet. Collective action by stakeholders and residents to prevent mosquito breeding remains critical to reducing the risk of dengue transmission. All of us need to play our part to ensure that our homes and surroundings are free of stagnant water and to take precautions if we are residing in dengue cluster areas, such as spraying insecticides in dark corners, applying insect repellent and wearing long sleeves and pants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating or Incentivising Installation of Grab Bars and Senior-friendly Features in Toilets of Privately-owned Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Minister will consider measures to mandate or incentivise the installation of grab bars and other senior-friendly features in the toilets of privately-owned coffeeshops to cater to the senior citizens.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 1990, the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility in Buildings, subsequently renamed the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, or the Code, has stipulated requirements and recommendations for buildings to provide toilets with senior-friendly features. The Code has been progressively enhanced over the years and the latest Code was published in 2019.
The current Code requires new buildings and existing buildings that undergo addition and alteration works with plan submission to BCA to have at least one accessible individual washroom on every level where toilets are provided. For selected building types which seniors frequent, the Code requires toilets to have at least one water closet compartment for the ambulant disabled. These sanitary facilities are required to have senior-friendly features, such as grab bars.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons that Workforce Re-entry Rates for Retrenched Workers Have Dipped and Further Help for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the Ministry's recent Labour Market Report for the first quarter of 2024 which indicated that the rate of re-entry for retrenched workers has dipped, (a) what are the causes of this trend; (b) whether more can be done to help retrenched Singaporeans find jobs sooner; and (c) whether there is a risk of higher structural unemployment.
Dr Tan See Leng: The re-entry rate six months after retrenchment for retrenched resident workers dipped slightly from 61.5% in the fourth quarter of 2023 to 59.4% in the first quarter of 2024. The decline in re-entry rate was driven by residents retrenched from Information and Communications, Financial and Insurance Services and Professional Services. These sectors saw relatively higher retrenchments in 2023 and slightly lower re-entry rates due to their exposure to global economic headwinds. Re-entry rates of residents retrenched in most other sectors remained similar. Among residents who have yet to find employment at the six-month mark, some might still be looking for a preferred role, are undergoing training or taking a break. Given that many of the retrenched workers from these sectors possess in-demand skills, we expect re-entry rates to improve over time. The re-entry rates of previous cohorts of retrenched workers usually rises to around 75% at the 12-month mark. In addition, the majority of such workers receive similar or higher salaries in their new jobs.
The long-term unemployment rate, which is associated with structural mismatches in skills, is a better indicator of structural unemployment. This rate has remained low at 0.8% as of March 2024, within the range observed during non-recessionary periods. At the same time, overall labour demand has remained strong. Resident employment growth was positive in the first quarter of 2024 and job vacancies continue to outnumber jobseekers.
The Government will continue to extend support to local workers who are retrenched. Firstly, for immediate employment facilitation, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, comprising Government and union representatives, reaches out to all affected retrenched workers via their employers to offer career matching services and information kits. Second, there are a variety of reskilling programmes, such as Workforce Singapore’s Career Conversion Programmes and the Mid-Career Pathways Programme, to help workers transition into new jobs.
Finally, we will be introducing a support scheme to help involuntarily unemployed jobseekers to bounce back into employment. We are close to finalising the scheme parameters and more information will be announced later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Earned Income Relief Granted to Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the Earned Income Relief granted to persons with disabilities (PWDs) to encourage more PWDs to work and aspire towards higher wages; and (b) whether expenses incurred by PWDs for the acquisition and maintenance of assistive technology can be included as a tax-deductible expense.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government is committed to helping persons with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. For persons with disabilities who are able to work, we want to provide an inclusive and supportive environment for them to be gainfully employed.
Today, persons with disabilities are eligible for a higher Earned Income Relief (EIR). The Handicapped EIR ranges from $4,000 to $12,000, depending on the age group. In addition, there are various schemes which support the employment of persons with disabilities. These include the Enabling Employment Credit, which provides wage offsets, and the Open Door Programme, which provides grants and employment support services to persons with disabilities and their employers.
SG Enable works with partners, such as the Autism Resource Centre and the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), to provide up to one year of job matching, training and other support services for persons with disabilities. In 2023, SG Enable also launched the Enabling Business Hub, which seeks to bring training and employment opportunities closer to the homes of persons with disabilities.
Generally, personal expenses, including costs incurred on assistive technology, are not tax-deductible. Nonetheless, the Government supports persons with disabilities in acquiring and maintaining assistive technology to improve their quality of life. Eligible persons with disabilities from lower- and middle-income families can tap on the Assistive Technology Fund and receive subsidies of up to 90% of the cost of the required equipment, subject to a lifetime cap of $40,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Record Resale Flat Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the breaking of the HDB resale price record three times in the past three months is a concern that the Ministry is looking into; (b) whether the Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model is driving up the resale prices of non-PLH flats in choicer locations; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering imposing a cap on HDB transaction prices so that HDB flats remain fair and accessible to all Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government remains committed to providing affordable public housing for Singaporeans. COVID-19 disrupted our Build-To-Order (BTO) building programme and significantly impacted supply. At the same time, demand increased as more Singaporeans sought to move out to live on their own, a trend accentuated by the pandemic. These led to an imbalance in supply and demand, and resale prices increased.
This is why we have significantly ramped up BTO flat supply, and we remain on track to offer 100,000 flats from 2021 to 2025. BTO flats are priced significantly below comparable market value, as the Government provides market discounts to ensure affordability for Singaporeans. Middle- and lower-income first-timer buyers are also given a housing grant of up to $80,000.
Last year, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) completed about 21,400 flats across 23 housing projects, the highest number of projects and flats completed annually in the last six years. This year, we are on track to complete another 18,000 flats.
Last year, we committed to launching 2,000 to 3,000 Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) flats by 2025. HDB is now able to do this one year ahead of schedule and would have offered more than 2,800 SWT flats by the October 2024 BTO exercise.
Families that need temporary housing while awaiting the completion of their BTO flats can tap on the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) or the PPHS Voucher.
For the resale market, we have implemented three rounds of cooling measures since December 2021 to temper housing demand and encourage greater financial prudence among home buyers.
Today, the majority of resale flats remain within reach. About eight in 10 first-timer families who collected the keys to their resale flats in 2023 could service their monthly loan instalments with Central Provident Fund (CPF), with little to no cash outlay.
Resale transactions with high prices continue to make up a small minority of total resale transactions. Out of these, about a third are maisonettes and Jumbo flats which are much larger than most flats and have limited supply. More than 70% of the remaining units are 5-room flats with very good locational attributes, high floors, and/or very long remaining leases.
For 4-room and smaller flats at the higher end of transacted prices, they are predominantly located in four HDB estates in or very near to the city centre. So, they are very central and well-served by transport connectivity and comprehensive amenities. More than half are also located on very high floors, above 30 storeys, and have good facing and views. So, they come with very attractive attributes and make up just 0.5% of all 4-room or smaller flats transacted in the last two years.
Since the introduction of Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) in 2021, there is so far no conclusive evidence that the launch of PLH projects has driven up HDB resale prices in those towns. That said, it has only been less than three years since the PLH model was launched and it will be some years more before the first of the PLH flats enter the resale market and we will continue to monitor closely. We have also put in place safeguards to keep prices affordable even upon resale of PLH flats, such as a 10-year minimum occupation period and an income ceiling on resale buyers.
We thank the Member for his concern about rising resale flat prices and for his suggestions. Housing policy is complex and any change in one area may have wide ranging implications in other areas. Our approach to tackling this has been to address the supply and demand imbalances. As set out earlier, we have ramped up supply and implemented measures to moderate demand. As these measures take time to work through the market, we have also increased the CPF Housing Grant to provide quick, targeted and direct support to first timers.
While the resale market has risen in the last few years, we should not expect housing prices to go up indefinitely. History has taught us that the property market moves in cycles. In a time of market exuberance, prospective buyers should be extra careful, because those who buy high will also be harder hit when the market eventually comes down. We encourage buyers to consider the wide variety of housing options available and exercise prudence in their flat purchase.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Immediate Tasks for Nine Designated Entities under Significant Investments Review Act 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what immediate tasks are expected of the nine designated entities under the Significant Investments Review Act 2024 (SIRA); and (b) what steps will the Ministry take to ensure that these nine designated entities will implement the necessary protective measures within the expected timeframe as required under SIRA.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The nine designated entities under the Significant Investments Review Act need not undertake any immediate tasks or additional protective measures.
Designated entities and relevant parties only need to take action when there are certain changes in ownership or control. For example: (a) prospective controllers, existing controllers and designated entities may need to notify or seek approval from the Minister when there are changes in ownership or control at specified thresholds; (b) designated entities need to seek the Minister’s approval for changes in key personnel; and (c) designated entities cannot be dissolved, terminated, wound up voluntarily or be subject to judicial management without the consent of the Minister.
The Ministry has set up the Office of Significant Investments Review to oversee the implementation of the Act and serve as a one-stop touchpoint to provide affected stakeholders with guidance. The Office has been closely engaging designated entities prior to their designation and will continue to work with them to facilitate their compliance with the Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process for Coordinating Technical Takedown, Legal Assistance and Victim Support across Ministries for Deepfake-related Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current process for coordinating technical takedown, legal assistance and victim support across the Ministries for deepfake-related crimes; (b) how does the response time and interagency coordination for deepfake incidents compare to those handled by the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC); and (c) given the unique technical challenges of deepfakes, what considerations have been given to centralising the response to such incidents, similar to the ASC model.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not differentiate their takedown protocols, investigation timelines or victim support measures specifically based on whether the crime is deepfake-related or not.
For online criminal activities, including those involving deepfake-related content, the Police can issue directions to online service providers under the Online Criminal Harms Act. Providers of designated online services are also required to put in place measures to disrupt scams and malicious cyber activities, including those facilitated by deepfakes, under the Codes of Practice which were introduced in June 2024.
Where there is any deepfake-related crime committed, the Police will consider the predicate offence involved and investigate the offence, including working with other agencies where necessary.
To deal with the technical challenges of deepfakes, the Police have been working with the Home Team Science and Technology Agency to develop technologies to detect AI-generated audios and videos. The Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety is also building tools to detect harmful online content, including deepfakes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Participation Rates for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening Pilot Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the steps taken to increase the participation rates for the pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) pilot programme; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reducing the current age criteria for PGS.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) pilot, any woman enrolled in an accredited in-vitro fertilisation programme who is 35 years old and above, who has suffered two or more recurrent implantation failures or experienced two or more pregnancy losses, is eligible for the screening test.
Since the last update in February 2024, a total of 605 patients have been enrolled in the study, among which 199 patients were tested for PGS. The Ministry will need to review the clinical outcomes and safety of the pilot to determine if PGS should become mainstream. In the meantime, we will continue to recruit consenting patients into the study.
Based on research literature, the risk of aneuploidy, which refers to an abnormal number of chromosomes, increases significantly from 35 years onwards. As such, lowering the age limit of 35 is not clinically appropriate, taking into account the risks and limitations of the PGS procedure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Inclusion of Section in Animals and Birds Act for Enforcement Officers to be Accompanied by Relevant Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider amending the Animals and Birds Act to include a section allowing an enforcement officer to be accompanied or assisted by persons necessary for the exercise of his powers, similar to section 11C of the Wildlife Act.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under section 11C of the Wildlife Act, enforcement officers may be accompanied or assisted by persons necessary to remove wildlife traps, search premises or vehicles, or seize wildlife or items related to offences under the Act. This is because during the course of enforcement, officers may encounter wildlife species that require specialised handling and assistance from persons with the necessary training qualifications or experience is required.
We do not currently have plans to include a similar provision under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA). Nonetheless, as part of the ongoing review of ABA, we will study the need to include such provisions, where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Climate Vouchers to Households in Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the Climate Friendly Households Programme, whether vouchers or subsidies for purchasing climate-friendly appliances may also be extended to households in private properties.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Member may refer to the written reply given on 2 July 2024 in response to related Parliamentary Questions on the Climate Friendly Household Programme. [Please refer to \"Redemption Rate for Climate Vouchers\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations to Disallow Unlicensed Moneylender Advertisements on Social Media Platforms and via Communication Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are Government regulations that require telcos, social media platform and app service providers to restrict and disallow the use of their platforms by unlicensed moneylenders, including that for advertisements.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Criminal Procedure Code allows the Police to order telcos to terminate phone lines used for unlicensed moneylending and other crimes. Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Government can direct online services to stop accounts or content perpetrating crimes, including unlicensed moneylending, from interacting with or reaching Singapore end users.
Between January 2023 and May 2024, the Police flagged more than 4,500 phone numbers and more than 5,300 online accounts and advertisements involved in unlicensed moneylending activities for termination. The Police also work with online platforms on upstream measures against unlicensed moneylending activities, such as pre-emptively detecting and blocking accounts involved in such.
59 Mr Darryl David asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what systems and processes does the Government have to ensure that Singaporeans who have multiple businesses and investments in other countries are liable for all appropriate taxes as stipulated under Singapore's taxation laws.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Internationally, when it comes to taxing income earned overseas by their own residents, jurisdictions can choose to adopt either a worldwide tax system or a territorial tax system, or some variant of these two systems. The key difference between the two is that foreign-sourced income is taxed under a worldwide system but not under a territorial system.
Singapore adopts a territorial, remittance-based income tax system. This means that domestic-sourced income is taxable in Singapore. While foreign-sourced income is taxable when remitted to Singapore, to enhance our attractiveness as a business hub and boost our financial services sector, we have exempted most foreign-sourced income received from tax in order to avoid double taxation for these individuals. For example, a Singaporean businessman does not need to pay tax in Singapore on dividends that he earns from an overseas business that he invested in. This is because such income might already be taxed overseas, depending on the other jurisdiction’s tax regime.
In the event the foreign-sourced income is remitted and taxed in Singapore, Singapore would provide foreign tax credits for the taxes already paid overseas on such income, so as to avoid double taxation.
While the revenue risk of foreign-sourced income is low, given Singapore’s territorial tax regime and the foreign-sourced income exemption for individuals, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) carries out regular audits to ensure that taxable overseas income is reported in taxpayers’ tax returns. When selecting cases for audits, IRAS leverages all information available, including information received from other tax administrations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of CrowdStrike Outage on Singapore Government Services and Cybersecurity Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether there will be actions taken to strengthen the response and recovery of essential services dependent on digital platforms to minimise the impact of outages or disruptions of services in view of the outage caused by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike’s software update on 19 July 2024; and (b) whether there will be further requirements for organisations and businesses that provide essential services to have robust business continuity plans and to test them regularly.
64 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the key learning points for Singapore’s cybersecurity strategy from the CrowdStrike outage on 19 July 2024; and (b) how are key Public Service systems protected from risks of outage from such single point of failure.
65 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the learning points from the global outage of IT systems related to Microsoft Azure and CrowdStrike on 19 July 2024; (b) how does the Ministry support companies in Singapore whose services to the public are affected by the outage; and (c) whether guidelines or legislation will be considered to safeguard against hidden technological dependencies on a small handful of technology companies.
66 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is Singapore’s approach to ensure economic continuity to address the risk arising from integration of third-party software into our critical digital infrastructure; (b) how much coordination with the relevant Government agencies is required of third-party software suppliers when they make independent changes to their software which may affect the overall system; and (c) whether the Ministry will require key digital suppliers to conduct regular drills simulating different incident scenarios and test the joint response plans towards these incidents.
68 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the global disruption of systems related to CrowdStrike on 19 July 2024 (a) how does the Ministry ensure that critical infrastructure in Singapore is not overly dependent on a small group of providers; and (b) how has the Ministry strengthened resilience in the technology infrastructure in Singapore.
69 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what measures are in place to protect Singapore’s critical business and aviation infrastructure from cyber outages, such as the recent incidents affecting the banks and Changi Airport; (b) what contingency plans and support systems are available during such outages and how are these made known to the affected stakeholders; and (c) how can the Ministry work with international partners and cybersecurity firms to mitigate the risks of such outages.
Mrs Josephine Teo: These questions for written answer will be addressed by oral reply to similar questions on the Order Paper for 7 August 2024. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Preparedness for Global Technology Outages and Impact of Recent CrowdStrike Incident\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flights Affected by CrowdStrike Outage and Enhancing Resilience of Singapore's Air Hub Status in Face of Such Threats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport as a result of the massive global IT crash triggered by CrowdStrike (a) how many flights arriving and departing Changi Airport were (i) cancelled (ii) delayed or (iii) otherwise affected; (b) what are the key lessons learnt from external feedback as well as internal reviews; and (c) how can Singapore further enhance the resilience of our world-leading air hub.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Changi Airport handles an average of 1,000 flights daily. Due to the systems outage triggered by CrowdStrike on 19 July 2024, 108 departing flights were delayed by more than 30 minutes, and one departing flight and its turnaround arriving flight were cancelled.
During the incident, the Changi Airport Group (CAG), affected airlines and ground handlers activated their business continuity plans, such as the use of manual check-in processes and active management of congestion on the ground. These measures allowed the airport and airlines to continue operations, albeit at lower efficiency levels.
CAG is working with affected airlines and ground handlers to review their business continuity plans, taking into account the learning points from this incident, including how back-up measures can be implemented more efficiently. For instance, adjustments were made during the incident to convert common check-in operations by airlines to dedicated flight check-ins to better manage passengers and prioritise flights with earlier departing times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Direct Investment Commitments Secured in First Half of 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether an update can be provided on the foreign direct investment commitments that the Singapore Economic Development Board has received in the first six months of 2024; (b) whether Singapore is on track for its investment targets for 2024; and (c) what will be some of the important and special factors for Singapore to uphold to ensure that the country remains an attractive investment destination and good jobs are created in the future economy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) attracted S$1.7 billion in Fixed Asset Investment (FAI) commitments in the first quarter of 2024. Data on FAI commitments for the second quarter of 2024 will be available in the later part of August 2024. Barring unforeseen circumstances, EDB expects to meet its medium- to long-term investment commitment goal of S$8 billion to S$10 billion in FAI this year.
The global business and investment environment has become more challenging due to ongoing geopolitical tensions, increased competition for investments and macro-economic uncertainty. We must, therefore, continuously enhance our value proposition and investment promotion toolkit to attract high-quality and high-value investments. For example, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced at Budget 2024 that we will introduce a new Refundable Investment Credit to support qualifying firms which develop high-value and substantive economic activities in Singapore.
To retain Singapore’s competitive edge as a knowledge-based and innovation-driven economy, we are doubling down on our strengths. For example, we are investing heavily in R&D and talent development. In addition, we are building and ramping up new economic engines of growth in areas, such as artificial intelligence, green economy and precision medicine. These moves are part of our ongoing and concerted efforts to ensure Singapore remains an attractive investment destination which creates good jobs for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blanket Approval and Subsidies for Residents in HDB Rental Flats to Install Energy-saving Air-Conditioning Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to subsidise or give blanket approval for residents in HDB rental flats to install cost-efficient and energy-saving air conditioning units.
Mr Desmond Lee: Public rental tenants are required to obtain Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) consent before carrying out any renovation works, including the installation of air-conditioners. This is consistent with market practices, where tenants are usually required to seek the landlord’s consent before carrying out renovation works. HDB generally approves such requests, taking into consideration tenants’ circumstances.
HDB households, including public rental tenants, can tap on the $300 climate vouchers provided under the Climate Friendly Households Programme to offset the cost of buying energy-efficient appliances, including air-conditioners, from participating retailers. In this financial year, the Government will also provide up to $950 in U-Save rebates to help eligible households offset their utility expenses. On average, this will cover about eight months of utility bills for those living in one- and two-room flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Loss of Public Funds from Lapses in Grant Disbursements in Auditor-General's Report for FY2023/2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the lapses identified in the Auditor-General's Office report for FY2023/24 regarding grants disbursement (a) what is the estimated amount of loss of public funds as a result of these lapses and overpayments; and (b) how can Government agencies enhance their capabilities to improve their oversight of disbursements so as to detect anomalies and suspicious claims.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Each year, the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) conducts thematic audits in specific domains, including grants management. For financial year (FY) 2023/2024, the focus was on selected parenthood support measures1 managed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and \tEarly Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), where a total of $4.55 billion was disbursed from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2023.
The AGO thematic audit is in addition to existing proactive measures put in place by Government agencies, which include internal audit checks, risk management, leveraging data analytics to flag suspicious transactions and designing effective controls. These help to ensure good governance, reduce recurrence of lapses or human error and minimise fraud.
AGO’s audit found that, in general, MSF and ECDA had put in place processes and controls across the various grant stages to ensure proper management of the schemes. Based on test-checks conducted, AGO noted over-disbursements of $446,000 in grants and subsidies. There were also indications of possible abuse of Government-Paid Leave Schemes (GPLS) for disbursements amounting to $1.16 million, and potential irregularities in withdrawals from Child Development Accounts (CDA).
MSF and ECDA have commenced reviews on cases with indications of possible abuse or potential irregularities. Where over-disbursement is established, MSF and ECDA will seek to recover the amounts in full to prevent loss of public funds. MSF has blocked further GPLS claims from employers suspected to have abused the system while pending investigations.
The Government remains committed to ensuring good governance and processes in our grants administration. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued a grants governance framework to all agencies in 2020. The framework sets out clear rules and guidance on the grants management process, from grant design, approval and disbursement, to monitoring and anomaly detection. This is part of the same five-stage process that was referenced in the AGO report. MOF, in collaboration with the Civil Service College, will continue to strengthen capabilities in grants administration and knowledge of the grants governance framework.
MOF is also working with agencies responsible for grants management to uplift capabilities in data analytics, fraud detection and investigation. These capability building efforts include providing practical resources to agencies. For instance, a fraud risk management checklist has been developed by MOF and the Commercial Affairs Department to help agencies better prevent and detect fraud or abuse through improved grant design, administration and audit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Parenthood support measures included the following schemes administered by MSF and ECDA: (i) Government-Paid Leave Schemes (GLPS) and Baby Bonus Scheme – Child Development Account (CDA) benefits under MSF; and (ii) Infant Care and Childcare (IC/CC) subsidies, Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) and the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator schemes under ECDA."],"footNoteQuestions":["74"],"questionNo":"74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Actions to Investigate and Claw Back Any Over-disbursement of Funds for Ineligible Grant Claims by Seven Childcare Centre Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of AGO’s audit finding where ineligible grant claims submitted by seven operators of childcare centres were approved for disbursement (a) whether the Early Childhood Development Agency has conducted a comprehensive review of all grant claims to determine the extent of over-disbursement; (b) whether the over-disbursements have been fully clawed back; and (c) what measures have been implemented to prevent the recurrence of such errors in future.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has taken immediate steps to recover the over-disbursed funds and issued stern reminders to operators with ineligible grant claims. ECDA expects to fully recover all over-disbursements by September 2024.
As noted in Auditor-General's Office's (AGO's) report, ECDA has existing processes and controls across the various grant management and disbursement stages to ensure proper administration of the Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) schemes. These include internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) to verify the eligibility and accuracy of claim amounts prior to disbursements and annual audits by ECDA-appointed auditors to ascertain the accuracy of grant claims made by AOPs and POPs.
ECDA has reviewed and tightened its SOPs to enhance verification of grant claims before disbursement. To strengthen controls on the detection of ineligible grant claims, ECDA has also expanded the scope of its commissioned audits. Earlier this year, ECDA updated its Funding Guidelines for AOPs and POPs to make clearer the eligibility criteria for claims. ECDA will also be leveraging data analytics to better detect ineligible claims as part of enhanced checks on disbursed monies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifications of Staff Working in Student Care Centres and Centre Policies to Safeguard Welfare of Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether all staff employed by Student Care Centres are required to have any mandatory qualifications related to the care and supervision of children; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all Student Care Centres to develop individualised policies, procedures and practices to guide the implementation of safeguarding obligations, including those contained in the Children and Young Persons Act 1993.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not set requirements for mandatory qualifications for staff employed by Student Care Centres (SCC).
While we have issued guidelines recommending the minimum educational qualifications and training requirements, it is generally up to the SCC operators to decide what qualifications and training are needed for their staff to best meet the needs of their students. This is similar to other services that include provision of a basic level of care to children of school-going age outside of school hours, such as sports and arts activities conducted in the community.
Some SCCs, including all school-based SCCs, are registered with MSF to administer the Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme. These SCCs must comply with stipulated standards set by MSF pertaining to the care and supervision of children in the areas of safety, health and hygiene, supervision, physical environment and emergency preparedness. MSF conducts regular audits to ensure compliance with the requirements. Non-compliance with the requirements can result in a revocation of the SCC’s SCFA administrator status.
All SCCs and their staff must comply with prevailing laws, including the Children and Young Persons Act and the Penal Code, and SCCs are expected to have policies and systems in place to ensure this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expectations on Companies Tapping Anchor Fund @ 65 and Growth IPO Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has a role in determining the prerequisites for companies tapping on the Anchor Fund @ 65 and Growth IPO Funds; (b) if so, whether an eventual local public listing is a prerequisite for companies tapping on these funds; (c) what have been the total dollar investments tapped from such funds to date; (d) whether there are any target fund life for such funds; and (e) whether there are any exit timeline for the current portfolio of companies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In 2022, the Government established the Anchor Fund and Growth Initial Public Offering (IPO) Fund to support promising high-growth companies and encourage their listing on the Singapore Exchange (SGX). To date, both funds have invested more than $500 million of capital in a total of nine companies.
The respective fund managers make their investment decisions on a commercial basis, in line with their fund mandates. The fund managers look for companies with the potential for investment returns and which are also seriously considering a listing. The fund managers will advise these companies on the listing requirements of SGX, facilitate engagements with investment banks and advisers, and plan a viable timeline for listing based on the company’s growth strategy and prevailing market conditions. But the call on when and where to list remains a commercial decision for each company to make.
The last two years have been challenging for equity markets, not just in Singapore, but globally, due to inflationary pressures and the high interest rate environment. Globally, the total number of initial public offerings declined to 1,298 in 2023 from the 2021 peak of 2,436 IPOs. Likewise, IPO proceeds declined in 2023 to US$123.2 billion raised, from the 2021 peak of US$459.9 billion1. More IPOs are also gravitating towards larger equity markets.
The two funds may encourage more promising companies to list on SGX. But they are not a silver bullet. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has recently set up a Review Group to consider other measures to strengthen the Singapore equities market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : EY Global IPO Trends 2023."],"footNoteQuestions":["78"],"questionNo":"78"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Extension of Housing Grants to Parents Who Buy Over Children's HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) why are parents who are buying over their child's HDB flat ineligible for housing grants, such as the CPF Housing Grants for Resale Flats and the Proximity Housing Grant; and (b) what other grants are available to such buyers.
Mr Desmond Lee: Parents who buy their child’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat are not eligible for the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant, Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and Proximity Housing Grant. This is because they tend to end up with a large flat, contrary to our objective of supporting seniors to right-size to a flat that better meets their retirement needs. Seniors who are right-sizing to a 3-room or smaller flat can benefit from the Silver Housing Bonus of up to $30,000.
Parents buying over their child’s flat due to extenuating circumstances can approach HDB, which will evaluate their appeal for housing grants on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Upcoming Office Supply in Punggol Digital District on Occupancy Rates at Changi Business Park","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the state of occupancy at the Changi Business Park (CBP); (b) whether vacancies at CBP will increase with upcoming new supply of office space, such as the Punggol Digital District; and (c) whether the overall offerings and the attractiveness of the business parks need to be improved to bring in new demand.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of the first quarter of 2024, the overall occupancy at Changi Business Park (CBP) was 69.6%, lower than the occupancy of 71% in the previous quarter and the average occupancy of 82.4% over the past decade.
The JTC\tCorporation (JTC) does not expect the upcoming supply of spaces at Punggol Digital District (PDD) to significantly affect vacancies at CBP, as PDD and CBP cater to different industries. CBP's tenants are predominantly financial institutions engaged in back-end support, whereas PDD’s tenants are primarily in emerging technologies, such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and robotics, fintech and smart living.
JTC monitors the vacancies of business parks closely. Overall occupancy for business parks remains healthy at 78% as of the first quarter of 2024. While there appears to be lower occupancy in older estates and estates further from the city centre, we do not observe inherent weakness in any specific sector. JTC will continue working with other agencies to improve the value, appeal and relevance of our business parks, so that they remain attractive to a wide range of occupants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Caring for Mental Well-being of Singapore Airline Staff Involved in Mid-air Turbulence Incident of Flight SQ321","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent mid-air incident on Singapore Airlines (SIA) flight SQ321 on 21 May 2024, whether the Ministry is working with SIA on implementing measures to support the mental well-being of SIA’s staff and passengers affected by the incident.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Singapore Airlines (SIA) has been providing affected SIA staff and passengers from the SQ321 incident with medical assistance and counselling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"E-commerce Scams Reported since Launch of E-Commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of e-commerce scams reported for each month since the E-Commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings (TSR) was launched in May 2022; (b) if so, what is the number; and (c) what is the assessment on the effectiveness of TSR in tackling e-commerce scams since its implementation.
Mr K Shanmugam: E-commerce scams are among the most common types of scams seen in Singapore. There were 4,762 cases reported in 2022 and 9,783 cases reported in 2023. However, in terms of average amounts involved in each case, the losses in e-commerce scams are among the smallest.
E-commerce marketplaces which have implemented the recommended safety features under the E-Commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings (TSR), such as user verification and secure payment option, see significantly fewer scams. For example, following the launch of TSR, Shopee progressively implemented user verification against Government-issued identity documents for sellers in December 2022. Subsequently, the number of reported e-commerce scams on Shopee went down by 65% in 2023.
Amazon and Qoo10, which have implemented all the recommended safety features, have seen negligible numbers of e-commerce scams. In contrast, platforms that have yet to implement the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) recommended safety features have continued to see spikes in the number of scams on their platforms.
Overall, we assess that TSR has helped prevent even more e-commerce scams from succeeding. It incentivises e-commerce marketplaces to enhance their safety features. It also educates users on the availability of safety features on e-commerce marketplaces and what they should look out for when transacting online.
Apart from TSR, MHA has worked with industry partners to revise Technical Reference 76, the national standard for e-commerce transactions, to include additional anti-scam guidelines. And in June 2024, we published the E-Commerce Code of Practice under the Online Criminal Harms Act, which requires platforms that pose the highest risks of e-commerce scams to implement additional upstream measures, such as user verification against Government-issued identity documents.
Beyond e-commerce marketplaces, we have observed scammers making use of other platforms, such as Facebook and Telegram, to perpetrate e-commerce scams. We urge all online platforms to create a safer and more secure environment for their users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Individuals Identified with Suicide Ideation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Health for each year from 2019 to 2023 (a) what is the number of patients diagnosed with suicide ideation; and (b) what are the top three circumstances or conditions leading to thoughts about suicide.
84 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has information on those identified with suicide ideation; (b) if so, for each year from 2019 to 2023, what is the percentage for (i) children and youth and (ii) seniors respectively; and (c) whether there have been discernible trends for both groups.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track data on suicidal ideation.
The 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study estimated lifetime prevalence of suicidal ideation at 7.8%. Young persons 18 to 34 years old are more likely to have suicidal ideation, compared to those 50 and above. The top three mental health conditions associated with suicidal ideation are Bipolar Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Among other factors associated with suicidal ideation are being divorced or separated, and having a physical illness.
Due to the complex nature of suicide, it is often not possible to attribute an individual’s suicidal ideation to any particular circumstance or condition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Impact from Maritime Accident Involving Singapore-flagged Tanker Hafnia Nile","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the facts relating to the maritime accident involving the Singapore-flagged tanker Hafnia Nile on 19 July 2024; and (b) whether there has been any environmental impact due to the accident.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: On 19 July 2024 at about 6.15 am, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) was alerted to a fire on board both Hafnia Nile, a Singapore-flagged tanker, and Ceres I, a São Tomé and Príncipe-flagged tanker, about 55 kilometres northeast of Pedra Branca within Singapore’s Maritime Search and Rescue Region. MPA was the coordinator for the search and rescue operations. MPA put out two media statements on 19 July 2024 and an additional media statement on 24 July 2024 on the incident. The Member may wish to refer to the media statements on the MPA website for the details of the incident.
Navigational traffic in the vicinity of the incident was not affected. The owner of Hafnia Nile informed MPA on 23 July of light oil sheens near the vessel. The owner has undertaken measures for containment and clean-up of the localised seepage, such as deploying an oil boom around the damaged area of the vessel. To date, we have not detected oil pollution arising from the incident to the coastline of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons that Wrong Recipient Names Were Sent Out on Single Sender “gov.sg” SMSes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to wrong recipient names being sent out on the first operational day of the single sender “gov.sg” SMSes (a) how many messages have been sent with the wrong recipient names; (b) what has been the specific administrative error that led to this; and (c) what steps have been or will be taken to prevent their recurrence.
Mr K Shanmugam: On 1 July 2024, the Police sent a legitimate scam advisory to alert members of the public to the re-emergence of a fake bulk order scam. This was sent via the “gov.sg” SMS Sender ID. The advisory was sent to more than 7,000 members of the public with the wrong recipient names.
This resulted from an officer making an administrative error when sorting the list of names and contact details of the SMS recipients. Upon realising the error, the Police immediately sent a follow-up SMS to the affected recipients and apologised. The recipients’ personal data was not compromised.
As Members will understand, while officers are trained, human errors will happen sometimes. Our task is to ensure that it is not a systemic issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island, and Projected Reduction from Sale of Shell's Oil and Chemicals Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current level of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island; (b) what is the projected reduction in emissions from Shell's sale of its oil and chemicals facilities in Singapore; and (c) whether the Government will be working with the buyers of Shell’s facilities to reduce emissions and to convert the production to more sustainable products.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Around one-third of Singapore’s total carbon emissions are direct emissions from the refining and petrochemicals sector, which accounts for most of the activities on Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island.
At this point, it is not yet clear how the buyers of Shell’s refinery and petrochemical assets intend to operate or transform the facilities, as the sale is only due to be completed in end-2024. In any case, the Government is not at liberty to disclose company-level emissions data.
The Government’s commitment to reducing the carbon footprint of the petrochemical sector and creating a Sustainable Jurong Island remains unchanged. We will work with the buyers of Shell’s assets and other companies in the sector to support their efforts to decarbonise and to transform their product slate towards more sustainable products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers with Special Needs Hired in Progressive Wage Model Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) annually from 2019 to date, how many employers in the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors have hired workers with special needs/disabilities and what is the number of such workers hired; (b) whether the Ministry has observed any challenges faced by employers in the PWM sectors when hiring individuals with special needs/disabilities, despite exemptions from PWM requirements for persons with disabilities; and (c) whether there are measures to alleviate the administrative burden on these employers who request for exemptions from PWM requirements.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2024, across all Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors and occupations, about 1,200 employers hire about 3,500 employees with disabilities1.
By default, employers should fulfill the PWM wage and training requirements for their employees with disabilities, as long as they are able to meet the job requirements. Some jobs may need to be redesigned for employees with disabilities to be able to perform them more effectively.
Employers who need support to do so can approach SG Enable and register for the Open Door Programme. The Open Door Programme helps employers hire, train and integrate their employees with disabilities. Employers will be assisted by dedicated consultants and various grants, such as the Job Redesign Grant and the Training Grant. They can also tap on SG Enable’s recruitment programmes to hire persons with disabilities.
In addition, employers currently receive a wage subsidy under the Enabling Employment Credit of up to 20% for each eligible employee with disabilities earning below $4,000 a month. Employers who hire eligible persons with disabilities who have not been working for at least six months will receive an additional time-limited wage subsidy of up to 20%.
Notwithstanding these efforts, we recognise that some employers may need to adjust the roles of their employees with disabilities to better match their abilities. Their wages may also need to be calibrated to reflect their modified responsibilities.
Employers can appeal to SG Enable to waive the PWM wage or training requirements for these employees. To date, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Manpower have not received feedback from employers with regard to seeking PWM exemptions for their employees with disabilities.
The appeal process is made simple. Employers can do so online and will receive the outcomes of their appeal within 15 working days after registering for the Open Door Programme and submitting the completed appeal documents to SG Enable. SG Enable will also work with these employers to provide the necessary support to assist their employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are known persons with disabilities who have tapped on Government-funded services and programmes for persons with disabilities."],"footNoteQuestions":["88"],"questionNo":"88"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent High-tech Farm Delays and Failures on \"30 by 30\" Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following a series of delays, failures or reconfigurations of high-tech farms (a) whether the goal of producing 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs locally by 2030 is a realistic one; and (b) whether there are plans to delay the implementation of the Lim Chu Kang Masterplan.
90 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will the \"30 by 30\" plan on local food production be revised to move the local farming sector back on track; and (b) how will the Government better assist business operators to cope with business costs challenges, such as land leasing and energy costs, so that business operators can continue to support the \"30 by 30\" goal that aims to produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This will be addressed in the next Sitting on 7 August 2024, together with similar Parliamentary Questions for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Reasons Behind Liquidation or Scaled Down Operations of High-tech Farms in Lim Chu Kang and Impact on \"30 By 30\" Goal\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Government Funds Extended to MENDAKI for Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy Scheme and Amount Not Disbursed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs for each year since 2020 (a) what is the amount of funds granted by the Government to Yayasan MENDAKI (MENDAKI) for the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) scheme; (b) what percentage of the funds granted to MENDAKI are not disbursed; (c) what percentage of Malay students in tertiary institutions have benefited from the TTFS scheme; and (d) what is the median percentage of tuition fees waived for each student.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government is committed to ensuring that Malay students in financially challenged families have access to higher education. No Malay student will be denied a tertiary education because of financial difficulties.
The Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) scheme subsidises the tuition fees of eligible Malay students at local institutes of higher learning (IHLs), such as the polytechnics and universities, with students from lower-income households receiving higher subsidies.
From 2020 to 2023, the Government disbursed about $65 million annually to MENDAKI for the TTFS scheme with more than two out of three Malay students, or more than 9,000 Malay students in total, in local IHLs, receiving TTFS each year. Most of these students received the TTFS subsidy for the full amount of their tuition fees. Any undisbursed TTFS funds are channelled to MENDAKI’s Education Development Fund (EDF) to support educational assistance schemes and programmes to advance the academic progress of Malay students across different levels. In 2023, more than 90,000 beneficiaries benefited from MENDAKI’s various programmes.
Beyond TTFS, MENDAKI and the Ministry of Education, including the IHLs, also offer students other financial assistance schemes and study loan schemes to defray their education costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Anticipated Revenue from Increase in Carbon Tax to $25 Per Tonne of Emission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the increase in carbon tax to $25 per tonne of emission in 2024 (a) how much revenue is anticipated to be collected from the increase in carbon tax; (b) what key decarbonisation efforts have taken place as a result of the increase in carbon tax; and (c) whether the current plan to increase the carbon tax to $45 per tonne of emission remains set for 2026.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The carbon tax revenues are published annually in the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates (Budget Book). The Government is refining the carbon tax revenue estimate for Emission Year 2024 and will publish it in the Budget Book 2025.
The carbon tax provides an economy-wide price signal and impetus to improve energy- and carbon-efficiency in all sectors and enhances the business case to invest in low-carbon solutions. It is a key part of Singapore’s comprehensive suite of mitigation measures and underpins the implementation of other decarbonisation initiatives.
The Government does not expect to derive any additional net revenue from the carbon tax increase within this decade. The revenue will be channelled to facilitate the development of decarbonisation solutions which require significant capital investment, support businesses’ shift to new low-carbon and more energy-efficient solutions and cushion the impact on households.
Singapore remains on track to raise the carbon tax rate to $45 per tonne of emissions in 2026 to support our net-zero emissions target by 2050.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into Bankers, Property Agents and Others Linked to Property Transactions in Multi-billion Dollar Money Laundering Case","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the recent $3 billion money laundering case in Singapore, whether the authorities have started investigations into individuals, such as bankers and property agents, who facilitated the property transactions on behalf of the convicted persons and who have failed to comply with requirements for money laundering background checks and suspicious transactions reporting.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Investigations by the law enforcement authorities into the recent major money laundering case have resulted in the identification of specific individuals who had facilitated financial and property-related transactions. Individuals who had been involved in criminal wrongdoing will be dealt with accordingly under our laws.
At the same time, sector regulators have conducted supervisory follow-ups and investigations against pertinent regulated entities and relevant associated individuals to assess whether they had performed anti-money laundering measures to the standards expected of them. Where any non-compliance with regulatory requirements is identified, sector regulators will not hesitate to take firm and appropriate action against these entities or individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Powers and Training of LTA Enforcement Officers and Traffic Police Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the jurisdiction of LTA enforcement officers differ from that of the Traffic Police (TP); and (b) whether LTA enforcement officers on motorcycles are given the same training as TP officers on motorcycles, especially with regard to the pursuit of errant motorists.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Both Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforcement officers and Traffic Police (TP) officers conduct enforcement under the Road Traffic Act. LTA’s enforcement focuses on regulatory offences related to vehicle standards, registration and roadworthiness, while TP’s enforcement focuses on behavioural offences related to road accident and road conduct, including speeding, reckless driving and drink driving.
LTA enforcement officers undergo an Enforcement Riding course conducted by TP. The course equips them with skills, such as defensive riding techniques, as well as stopping and engaging traffic violators, to enable officers to carry out their enforcement roles on motorcycles safely and effectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Progress of NEA’s Toilet Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the progress of NEA’s Toilet Improvement Programme since its launch in 2020; (b) how many privately-owned coffee shops are on board this initiative; (c) what support is available to these coffee shop owners to ensure that they have adequate resources and manpower for maintaining toilet cleanliness; and (d) how can the public give feedback on these coffee shops’ toilets to ensure compliance with cleanliness standards.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Toilet Improvement Programme, or TIP, for coffee shops was launched in October 2020 and closed in October 2021. The programme provided support of up to 90% co-funding, capped at $45,000, for coffee shop owners or operators to improve toilet designs, install sanitary fittings or adopt technology that facilitates the cleaning and maintenance of toilets in coffee shops. A total of 44 coffee shops had successfully tapped on TIP and completed their improvement works under the programme.
The National Environment Agency works closely with organisations, such as the Public Hygiene Council, the Restroom Association (Singapore) and the Singapore Kindness Movement, to support coffee shop owners or operators to maintain toilet cleanliness through toilet cleanliness audits and provision of public education materials for display in toilets.
Keeping our public toilets clean requires collective action. We encourage everyone to conscientiously clean up after themselves after using public toilets. Members of the public who wish to provide feedback on cleanliness issues in public toilets can do so through the OneService mobile application.
As part of the Year of Public Hygiene, we have set up the Public Toilets Taskforce, which I am co-chairing with the Chairman of Public Hygiene Council Andrew Khng, to work with stakeholders, including coffee shop operators and owners, academics and relevant agencies, to identify ways to improve the cleanliness of public toilets. The work of the task force is still ongoing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Junior Doctors Who Served During COVID-19 Pandemic and Have Been Rotated Out or Did Not Receive Resilience Medal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) how many junior doctors of House Officer or Medical Officer grade served at the public healthcare institutions (PHIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) of these, how many have been rotated among different PHIs; (c) of those who later left the PHIs amidst the pandemic to serve full-time National Service commitments, how many have been then deployed as SAF Medical Officers; and (d) how many of such doctors did not receive the COVID-19 Resilience Medal and what are the reasons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Many Junior Doctors, including House Officers, Medical Officers and Residents, are employed by the Ministry of Health Holdings (MOHH) and rotated through our public healthcare institutions (PHIs), including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bulk of Junior Doctors who served during the pandemic have been awarded the COVID-19 Resilience Medal (CRM). However, many were also not nominated by their employing organisations because they were not in a single place of practice throughout the pandemic.
We recognise that many of these Junior Doctors who were on rotation as part of their training had also contributed significantly to our pandemic response, and the Ministry of Health has worked with MOHH to review and nominate additional healthcare workers for CRM. Other than Junior Doctors on rotation, Medical Officers who had served in our PHIs but subsequently re-enlisted for National Service during the pandemic period have also been nominated. The updated list of awardees will be published in the latter half of 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Years Served during Re-employment in Long Service Benefits of Public Sector Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for public sector employees who have reached the prevailing Minimum Retirement Age and have been re-employed by the Public Service, whether their full tenure will be considered for long service benefits, as provided for in clause 29 of the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service Re-employment Guidelines are aligned to the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees.
In the Public Service, re-employed officers generally enjoy the same benefits as pre-retirement officers. Key benefits, such as medical and dental treatment benefits, are not differentiated by years in service. Re-employed officers will have their past years of service considered for their vacation leave entitlement and are eligible for the Special Appreciation Award which recognises their continuous service in re-employment, in lieu of the Long Service Award.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for Appointments for Patients Referred by Medical Social Workers to Medical Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average waiting time for patients referred by medical social workers to medical service providers, such as doctors or specialists, to obtain appointments; and (b) whether this matching process is triaged in any way for urgent cases.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Medical social workers in public healthcare institutions do not refer patients directly to doctors in polyclinics and public hospitals. Patients typically make direct appointments with polyclinics or are referred by family physicians to see specialists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Collection on Causal Links between Academic Stress and Increased Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry collects data on the causal links between academic stress and increased mental health issues, including anxiety and depression, among children in both primary and secondary schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will also cover the matters raised in another question by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. [Please refer to \"Collection of Data on Causal Links between Academic Stress and Suicide Attempts by Students\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Students may encounter some academic stress in the course of learning, as they attempt to understand concepts, solve problems, work with peers on projects, meet deadlines and take assessments and so on. By learning to manage and overcome such stresses, students grow in resilience and become more equipped to cope with other stressors in life and work. Educators monitor and provide timely support to help students overcome their challenges.
However, academic stress can also be driven by unrealistic expectations of academic performance that stem from self and others or the desire to outperform others. If such stresses become excessive and are left unmanaged, they can adversely affect the students’ mental well-being.
Student mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, are typically not caused by academic stress alone, but are compounded by other factors, such as low self-esteem, relationship issues with parents and peers, or challenging life circumstances.
Similarly, the underlying causes of suicide are complex, typically involving multiple stressors and are not attributable to a single cause.
The Ministry of Education, schools and our Institutes of Higher Learning will continue to work closely with parents as we continue our efforts to strengthen students’ mental well-being and resilience and support those students who need more help. Ultimately, as a society, we must help our children discover and hone their strengths and interests. We should provide a nurturing environment for them to develop holistically and form healthy relationships. Then they will grow into confident adults capable of contributing their talents to the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Take-up Rate for Breast Cancer Screening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) what has been the take-up rate for breast cancer screening in Singapore in the past two years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the Health Promotion Board’s Screen for Life programme to enhance its access by easing the eligibility for free or subsidised breast cancer screening.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on the National Population Health Survey 2022, close to 40% of women in the 50 to 69 years age group went for breast cancer screening through a mammogram in the last two years.
Under the national subsidised screening programme, the number of breast cancer screenings from the first half of 2024 has increased by almost 50%, compared to two years ago. One key reason is because of Healthier SG, where eligible enrollees can go for free breast cancer screenings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Flights In and Out of Changi Airport that Were Delayed or Cancelled","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of flights in and out of Changi Airport that are delayed or cancelled in the last three years; and (b) whether such delays and cancellations are above pre-COVID-19 levels.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Based on industry standards, an aircraft is delayed if it departs or arrives more than 15 minutes past its scheduled departure or arrival time. From 2021 to 2023, the proportion of commercial passenger flights delayed annually was 13.4%, 27.1% and 24.7% respectively, compared to 19.5% in 2019. The proportion of commercial passenger flights cancelled annually was 1.5%, 0.9% and 0.6% respectively, compared to 1.2% in 2019.
Flight delays and cancellations are primarily caused by delays in upstream connections, which cause downstream effects on connecting flights, as well as adverse weather conditions. These factors may differ from year to year. In 2020 and 2021, there was a decrease in delays likely due to a reduction in overall traffic during the pandemic, resulting in fewer upstream delays. With the subsequent recovery of the aviation sector, delays saw an uptick as global flight operations rebounded.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Childcare Leave Allocation to Support Parents and Encourage Higher Birth Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider increasing the current allocation of six days of childcare leave per calendar year, in light of the Government's efforts to support parents and encourage higher birth rates.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We recognise that many parents with young children require support in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities. We have therefore progressively increased parental leave provisions over the years. The most recent enhancement was implemented on 1 January 2024, when Government-Paid Paternity Leave was doubled from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from six to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years. We are presently studying how to strengthen parental leave support for those with infants who typically have high care needs.
In considering any enhancement to leave provisions, we need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers' manpower and operational requirements. Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we also encourage other sustainable ways that support parents in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory Guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties' needs and constraints.
It is also critical for our workplaces to have a family-friendly culture, where parents are supported in tapping on these measures when required. We encourage employers, supervisors and colleagues, to play their part by being supportive of working parents who take time off or use FWAs to care for their children. We will also continue to work with tripartite partners and community partners to foster societal and workplace norms that embrace families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hiring of Ex-offenders in Financial Services Sector and Recourse for Those Not Issued Prohibition Orders under MAS Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for each year over the last five years, what is the number of ex-offenders who have been hired for positions in (i) banks and (ii) other financial services firms respectively; (b) whether MAS reviews the grounds on which relevant persons have been rejected on the fit and proper criteria; and (c) what is the recourse for ex-offenders, who have not been issued prohibition orders under any Act administered by MAS, should they experience discrimination in the hiring process.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not restrict the hiring of ex-offenders in the financial industry in all instances. Rather, it issues prohibition orders to specific individuals who have committed serious offences or misconduct in the financial industry. These individuals are, for a period of time, barred from conducting regulated financial activities and may not take part in the management of a financial institution (FI) or act as its director.
An ex-offender who has not been issued any prohibition order or an individual whose prohibition order has expired may be employed by an FI if he or she has been assessed to be fit and proper for the role. The FI may consider the seriousness and circumstances of the previous offence, and time elapsed since the offence, if relevant to the duties and responsibilities of the role. MAS does not track the number of ex-offenders hired by FIs or require FIs to inform MAS of the rejection of candidates.
All employers in Singapore, including FIs, are expected to adhere to the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). They should recruit fairly on the basis of merit and in a non-discriminatory manner. Employers may also consider previous offences, if relevant to the role that the individual is applying for. Ex-offenders who encounter discriminatory hiring by the FI can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for advice and assistance. Where there are breaches of TGFEP, TAFEP will require the employer to address the complaints and correct its employment practices. In egregious cases, TAFEP will report the case to the Ministry of Manpower to take further action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of NTUC Enterprise's Divestment of Income Insurance Ltd on Insurance Industry Competitiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the Government's assessment on how NTUC Enterprise Co-operative's proposed divestment of its majority stake in Income Insurance Ltd to Allianz Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd will impact upon the competitiveness of the insurance industry; and (b) whether this development will adversely affect Singaporeans' accessibility to affordable insurance policies.
[(proc text) Note: The Member has given notice of his declaration of interest as a non-executive and independent director of China Taiping Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (proc text)]
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): I will answer oral Parliamentary Question (PQ) Nos 11 to 14 and written Parliamentary Question No 3 in today's Order Paper together, regarding the proposed deal between Income Insurance Limited and Allianz Europe B.V. My reply will also cover PQs on the same subject matter, which several Members have filed for subsequent Sittings.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth has just replied to the PQs pertaining to Income's social mission and NTUC Enterprise's reasons for entering into this proposed deal with Allianz. I will focus on the following areas from the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') perspective as regulator of the insurance sector:
First, how would MAS assess the proposed deal for regulatory approval? Did the deal involve any conflicts of interests? Second, would the proposed deal affect Singaporeans' access to affordable insurance products? Finally, what will be the impact on Income's existing policyholders and employees?
MAS' primary role, as regulator, is to promote a sound and progressive financial sector. For the insurance sector, we want insurers to manage their risks well so that policyholders are assured that their long-term policies are safe and will be adequately protected.
When MAS assesses the application for a change in substantial shareholder in an insurer, we will consider a range of criteria. In particular, the applicant's track record, financial soundness, reputation as well as fitness and propriety.
For example, we will assess if the proposed shareholder has the financial capacity to support the insurer when needed, coupled with the willingness and ability to ensure that the insurer's operations are well-run. The insurer must also have effective risk management systems and controls so that it can continue to meet its obligations to policyholders for the long-term.
For the Boards of major licensed insurers, including Income, MAS requires the majority of Board members to comprise directors independent of the shareholders, management and business relations. Board appointments are also subject to MAS' approval. When assessing an application, MAS' considerations include, the background, skillset and experience of the applicant.
With regard to Mr Christopher de Souza's question on the management of conflicts of interest, MAS had reviewed and was satisfied with the relevant processes Income's Board had put in place to address conflicts of interest, with respect to the appointment of its financial advisor on this proposed deal and the decision to enter into the deal with Allianz. In the appointment of the financial advisor for the deal, the Chairman of Income's Board had recused himself. The decision to enter into the deal was made by the Board, comprising a majority of independent directors.
Fostering a competitive insurance market with financially strong insurers is a key part of MAS' approach to ensuring that insurers operate sustainably and serve the public well. We believe that a competitive market is the most effective way to meet the insurance needs of Singaporeans and facilitate access to affordable insurance options and good service over the longer term.
Allianz is one of the largest insurers globally, although it only has a small retail and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) insurance presence in Singapore today. Allianz Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd is ranked 14th in general insurance, with a market share of 2% based on written premium. There is no significant overlap between Income and Allianz's overall insurance business in Singapore and, hence, there is no concern about adverse impact of the proposed deal on competition in the sector.
The insurance market in Singapore is highly competitive. There are, currently, more than 50 direct insurers in Singapore offering a wide range of insurance products to meet the insurance needs of individuals and businesses.
In both life and general insurance, Income has market shares of less than 10% based on written premium. For many insurance products, Income does not always offer the lowest prices compared to other insurers. Take life insurance as an example. A check on CompareFirst, an online portal that allows consumers to compare life insurance products from various insurers, shows that the most competitive rates for Direct Purchase Insurance Term and Whole Life products include a mix of local and foreign insurers.
With regard to Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), the Ministry of Health (MOH) helps to exercise regulatory oversight over IP insurers and they have to seek approval from MOH for changing IP premiums or terms and conditions. MOH also publishes a comparison of indicative lifetime premiums and coverage across different IPs. There is strong competition in the IP market, with each insurer offering plans for different levels of coverage to the public and it is not dominated by any single insurer. Income's IPs are also not the cheapest in the market for most categories.
Finally, I would like to address the impact on Income's existing policyholders and employees. We understand their concerns. Like other hon Members, I, too, have residents from Bishan-Toa Payoh, who are existing policyholders and employees of Income.
Should the proposed deal be approved, there will be no change to the terms and conditions of existing insurance contracts. MAS expects Income to fulfil its obligations to all policyholders under the terms of its existing insurance contracts. I note that Allianz has also publicly stated its intent for Income to continue to honour the terms of the existing policies underwritten by Income and ensure a seamless transition with no impact to existing policyholders. MAS will hold Income and Allianz to account to these commitments.
In addition, MAS has regulatory requirements and guidance in place for insurers to maintain sufficient capital reserves, put in place robust governance and risk management frameworks and, also, to treat their customers fairly.
For participating policies where policyholders share in the profits of the participating fund, MAS protects the interests of policyholders by restricting the ratio of profits allocated to shareholders and the type of expenses insurers may charge to the participating fund.
With regard to employees, MAS does not regulate employment decisions of financial institutions. However, we expect all financial institutions, including Income, to treat their employees fairly and to fully comply with the Ministry of Manpower's employment laws and guidelines.
To conclude, MAS encourages all insurers, both local and foreign, to continually innovate, adopt best practices and ensure robust risk management. This will foster a competitive insurance market that offers choice, value and stability to protect the interests of policyholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Software Update Outage on Financial Institutions and Lessons Learnt","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many financial institutions in Singapore were affected by the recent outage on 19 July 2024 that was caused by a software update; (b) how were the account holders of the respective financial institutions affected by the outage; (c) how long did the financial institutions take to restore their operations back to normalcy; and (d) what are the lessons learnt from the said outage.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): On 19 July, a faulty security update from a major cyber security vendor resulted in a global disruption of numerous organisations' IT systems and operations. Major financial institutions (FIs) in Singapore reported limited or no impact to their critical systems and customer-facing operations. A few FIs experienced disruptions to some of their IT systems meant for internal staff.
The Singapore Exchange experienced a temporary disruption to its post-trade services on the Central Depository, resulting in a limited number of trades being rolled over for settlement on the next business day. However, all other trading and clearing services continued to operate normally.
Among the affected FIs, operations proceeded normally by the next business day on Monday, 22 July.
The incident highlights the importance of having FIs implement robust processes and controls to identify and manage risks, including those arising from the reliance on third parties. It also underscores the need for FIs to build capabilities to recover systems and operations quickly in the event of a disruption as this will minimise the impact on customers. The Monetary Authority of Singapore expects these of all FIs and will continue to work with FIs to strengthen their operational resilience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Single Family Offices Benefiting from Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme, Donations Made and Enhancements Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of Single Family Offices (SFOs) that have applied to benefit from the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme (PTIS) since its launch; (b) what is the total amount of philanthropic donations made by SFOs through this scheme to date, both domestically and overseas; and (c) whether any feedback on PTIS has been received and, if so, what are the plans to refine PTIS to enhance philanthropic giving.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme (PTIS) for Family Offices was opened for applications this year and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has, thus far, received nine applications and indications of interest from Single Family Offices (SFOs). As the first reporting cycle will only take place next year, we do not have data on the total amount of philanthropic donations made through the scheme.
MAS has been engaging industry stakeholders, including SFOs, tax and legal professionals, private banks and charitable organisations on PTIS. These stakeholders have provided feedback that the scheme is useful in encouraging greater philanthropic giving among SFOs and in supporting the growth of the philanthropic ecosystem as well as capabilities in Singapore. MAS will continue to engage stakeholders to increase awareness and understanding on PTIS. MAS has received some suggestions to streamline and reduce the scheme requirements. We will monitor the take-up of the scheme, continue to take feedback and review the scheme, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Management of Conflicts of Interest for Permanent Secretaries on Private Sector Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many Permanent Secretaries are currently appointed to the boards of directors of private sector businesses; (b) which businesses or business sectors currently have boards of directors that include a Permanent Secretary; and (c) how are potential conflicts of interest managed in such situations.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): There are currently 10 Permanent Secretaries serving on the boards of private sector companies, in sectors, such as finance, utilities and maritime. Having public officers on private sector boards and, likewise, private sector individuals on public sector boards, encourages greater diversity in perspectives and helps strengthen the understanding between the public and private sectors.
Like all civil servants, Permanent Secretaries are required to seek the necessary approvals prior to accepting requests to serve as board directors of private sector companies. There are checks in place to ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that their ability to carry out their primary duties are not compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Malaysia's Diesel Price Increase on Singapore's Inflation Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what is the estimated impact of the 56% rise in Malaysia's diesel price in June 2024 on the rate of inflation in Singapore, especially on the price of food.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The increase in Malaysia's diesel prices is not expected to have a significant impact on Singapore's inflation rate, because imports from Malaysia by land constitute 6.3% of Singapore's total imports and 14.4% of our total food imports in 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies and Mitigation Efforts to Counter Decline in Singapore's Appeal to MNCs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry given reports that foreign companies are leaving Changi Business Park (a) whether there is an observable trend of MNCs moving their back-end operations to more cost-effective countries; (b) what are the factors leading to a perceived decline in Singapore’s business appeal and what are the strategies being implemented to counteract this trend; and (c) beyond financial grants, what other proactive measures are being adopted to ensure that businesses continue to view Singapore as a conducive environment for growth and innovation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore's economy remains competitive. This year, we ranked first in the International Institute for Management Development's World Competitiveness Ranking. The Economic Development Board's and the Singapore Department of Statistics' latest surveys of companies in the manufacturing and services sector, respectively, also indicate that firms continue to hold a positive outlook of business conditions.
We also continue to be an attractive location for new investments. For example, the cloud service provider Amazon Web Services is investing $12 billion in Singapore, over the next four years, for cloud and AI projects. In addition, pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca is building a $2 billion manufacturing facility for antibody drug conjugates. Vanguard and NXP Semiconductors plan to invest $7.8 billion in a new wafer manufacturing facility in Singapore. These new investments will create significant job opportunities for Singaporeans and generate economic growth.
As we continue transforming our economy to be more innovative and productive, we expect that more companies will renew and refresh their activities here in Singapore. This may include relocating some of their existing operations to other locations while pursuing new economic activities. Furthermore, as markets evolve, companies, especially those in the technology sector, must adapt by transforming their business models. This often requires them to drive greater productivity and right-size their workforce. The rise of hybrid work arrangements has also led some companies to reduce their office footprint. These trends have affected tenancy rates at Changi Business Park.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry will ensure that Singapore's ecosystem continues to be attractive to businesses. For example, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced in Budget 2024 that we will introduce a new Refundable Investment Credit for firms anchoring high-value and substantive economic activities in Singapore. Beyond financial incentives, we continue to invest in research and development, nurture talent and support our enterprises to seize opportunities in external markets and new growth areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application of Safeguards and Measures under Significant Investments Review Act 2024 on Sale of Majority Stake in Income Insurance Ltd to Allianz","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry to ensure that Income Insurance Ltd continues to serve the national social interest when it was first set up, whether the relevant safeguards and measures under the Significant Investments Review Act 2024 will apply to the sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance Ltd to Allianz.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Income Insurance Limited and Allianz Europe BV are not designated entities under the Significant Investments Review Act. As such, the ownership or control provisions under the Act will not apply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of International Court of Justice's Ruling on Israel-Palestine Conflict on Singapore's Diplomatic Relations and Policies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in respect of the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories (a) how does this ruling impact Singapore's diplomatic relations and policies concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict; and (b) what steps is Singapore taking to support international efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: MFA will provide a consolidated response to this Parliamentary Question and related Parliamentary Questions on this same topic, at the sitting on 7 August 2024. [Please refer to \"Impact of Escalating Tensions and Intensified Fighting in Middle East on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has updated plans to tackle the transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in our prisons; and (b) whether the Ministry can ensure that all prison inmates are vaccinated for Hepatitis B.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may wish to refer to the reply given on 6 April 2020. [Please refer to \"Plans to Tackle Transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in Prisons\", Official Report, 6 April 2020, Vol 94, Issue 129, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The Singapore Prison Service's healthcare measures are in accordance with the Ministry of Health's standards and protocols. There remains no known instances of inmates contracting HIV, Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C while they are in prison. That said, there is a higher prevalence of some of these diseases in Singapore's inmate population as compared to the general population. This is not a reflection of active transmission within prison, but may be a reflection of what had happened prior to incarceration, in particular, for inmates who have drug antecedents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supervision and Oversight of Auxiliary Police Officers in Foreign Worker Management Patrol Teams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent conviction of an Auxiliary Police Officer who was a team leader of one of the Foreign Workers Management (FWM) patrol teams for misappropriating seized sex enhancement drugs (a) what are the supervisory measures and oversight taken by the Police over FWM teams which typically comprise contracted auxiliary Police or security officers; and (b) what are the roles and powers provided to FWM teams in the execution of their duties.
Mr K Shanmugam: As part of efforts to manage law and order concerns in areas where there is high foreign worker concentration and high propensity of public order incidents, the Police deploy Foreign Workers Management (FWM) teams, comprising Auxiliary Police Officers and Security Officers, to reinforce Police presence at these areas. As part of their duties, the FWM teams take enforcement action against offences, such as urinating, littering, spitting in public and sale of illegal drugs.
The FWM teams are required to follow strict protocols when carrying out their enforcement duties, to ensure that all evidence seized are properly accounted for. For example, the officers are required to take photos of the evidence, in the presence of their team members, before seizing the exhibits and putting up an incident report. The exhibits would then, be handed over to the relevant law enforcement agencies, who will tally the exhibits seized against the incident report. In addition, FWM teams are not allowed to collect any summons payment in cash, to minimise the risk of the payments being misappropriated.
The Police exercise supervisory oversight over FWM teams by conducting pre- and post-shift briefings and checks as well as surprise checks on the teams during their shift. In addition, all FWM teams will be equipped with body-worn cameras by March 2025, which will provide another avenue of supervisory oversight. Should FWM teams be found to be not in compliance with the prescribed protocols, the Police would refer the officers for internal disciplinary action. If an offence has been committed, the Police would prosecute them, no different from other offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Criminal Acts Involving Alleged Image-based Sexual Abuse Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last three years, how many instances of alleged criminal acts involving the possession or distribution of voyeuristic or intimate image or recording or any other alleged image-based sexual abuse have been reported to the Police; (b) how many involved deepfakes or other Generative-AI tools with manipulated images and videos; (c) what is the breakdown by the victim's gender; and (d) how many eventually resulted in further action being taken.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2021 and 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) received an average of about 340 reported cases per year, involving possession or distribution of voyeuristic, intimate or abusive images under sections 377BC, 377BD, 377BE, 377BI, 377BK and 377BL of the Penal Code.
SPF does not track the number of such cases involving deepfakes or manipulated images or videos using generative artificial intelligence tools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Singaporeans Charged with Offences under Section 125 of Penal Code","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many non-Singaporeans residing in Singapore have been charged with the offence under section 125 of the Penal Code since January 2023; and (b) of these cases, how many concern acts committed whilst outside Singapore, given that such actions may impact Singapore’s security, reputation and social harmony.
Mr K Shanmugam: There have been no cases of non-Singapore Citizens residing in Singapore who have been investigated or charged with the offence under section 125 of the Penal Code since January 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Singaporeans Acting as Money Mules and Plans to Arrest Trend","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the number of cases of Singaporeans acting as money mules by giving others access to their Singpass or bank accounts has increased over the past two years; (b) if so, what are the plans to arrest this trend; and (c) what is the age profiles of such persons.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have indeed observed an increase in the number of persons acting as money mules over the past two years. The Police investigated more than 7,800 persons in 2022 and more than 9,600 persons in 2023 for money mule offences. The Police do not track the age or nationality of money mules.
The authorities have adopted a multi-pronged approach to try to arrest this rising trend. Legislative amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA) and the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (CMA) were passed in May 2023 and operationalised in February 2024, to allow the Police to take firmer enforcement action against money mules and those who allow others to use their Singpass for criminal activities.
The Police have intensified public education. Public education materials, available in the four official languages, include scenario-based examples to illustrate what would constitute criminal offences under the amended CDSA and CMA. Media advertising has been used to boost public awareness through online platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, as well as out-of-home media such as HDB’s Digital Display Panels, MRT station platform doors, bus stop shelter ads, and taxi and bus wraps.
The Police and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have also worked with the banks on public education. For instance, the advisory that is provided to customers when they open a new bank account has been updated to include the new offences. These messages are also disseminated via electronic direct mailers and on Automated Teller Machines.
The Police have also stepped up efforts to raise awareness among youths on the consequences of being a money mule, as we have observed that a good number of money mules are youths. Crime prevention talks have therefore been organised for secondary and post-secondary students, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education.
16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, what is the average processing time for (i) hardcopy correspondences from lawyers and (ii) e-Letters, to be delivered to prison inmates respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing a separate e-Letters system with a shorter processing time that lawyers can use to correspond with prison inmates.
Mr K Shanmugam: On average, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) takes five working days to process hardcopy correspondences from lawyers, well within the service standard of ten working days. SPS facilitates urgent requests on a best effort basis.
The average processing time for incoming e-letters is two days. The system was designed for families and friends to correspond with inmates, but SPS is considering whether enhancements can be made to also offer this as a mode of communication between lawyers and their inmate clients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Scams Perpetuated through Deepfake Video and Images","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the number of scams perpetuated through deepfake video and images is being tracked and, if so, what are the numbers of such reported scams to date.
Mr K Shanmugam: As replied to two similar Parliamentary Questions in the April 2024 Sittings, the Police have not been tracking the number of such cases. While we have received some reports, the number is not high.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Rising Interest Rates and Operating Costs on Singapore's High-Tech Farming Sector and Feasibility of Open Farm Style Traditional Agriculture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the Government's assessment of the impact of rising interest rates and operating costs, such as electricity and water costs, on Singapore’s high-tech farming sector; and (b) whether open farm style traditional agriculture can be equally supported to meet the goal of local farms producing 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs locally by 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This will be addressed in the next Sitting on 7 August 2024, together with similar Parliamentary Questions for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Progress of \"30 By 30\" Food Production Goal Given Recent Farm Closures\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Boost Waste Recycling Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given that latest statistics from the NEA indicate recycling rate in Singapore has declined in 2023 (a) how can waste recycling rates be increased; and (b) how can recycling resource loops be improved.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The response to this question also addresses related Parliamentary Questions on efforts to promote recycling filed by Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for the Sitting on or after 7 August. [Please refer to \"Trends for Domestic Waste Recycling Rates\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Measures to Promote Recycling Efforts and Progress Towards Zero Waste Masterplan Targets\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The National Environment Agency (NEA) released the 2023 Waste and Recycling Statistics on 19 June 2024. The overall recycling rate remained largely steady at around 60 per cent since 2013, but experienced a sharp decline around 2020 due to COVID-19 and was at 52 per cent in 2023. A similar trend was observed for the domestic recycling rate, which hovered around 20 per cent before declining in recent years to 12 per cent in 2023. The decline in recent years is largely due to structural factors, such as higher freight costs and lower demand for recycled materials due to the weaker economy following COVID-19 and geopolitical tensions as well as trade restrictions imposed by foreign countries towards recyclables.
NEA's 2023 survey on household recycling showed an increase from 64 per cent in 2021 to 72 per cent in 2023 in recycling participation. Our domestic waste generated per capita and non-domestic waste generated per dollar Gross Domestic Product, decreased by more than 15 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, over the past decade, which is a positive trend.
To continue our push for more recycling and to close the waste loop, we will redouble our efforts at recycling and resource recovery, even as we continue to encourage the generation of less waste in the first instance. Key examples, include segregation and reporting requirements for food waste in large industrial and commercial food waste generators as well as the upcoming beverage container return scheme.
We will also continue to study and develop new ways to close our resource loops. This includes exploring the use of mixed materials from Semakau Landfill, comprising incineration ashes and other materials, as reclamation fill.
With new initiatives being progressively implemented to shift attitudes and behaviours to make 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) the norm for citizens and businesses, we hope to see an improvement in our overall recycling rate and reduction in waste sent to landfill.
Everyone has a part to play to reduce waste and recycle right, to ensure that Singapore remains clean, green and liveable. Let us collectively press on with efforts to achieve our 2030 targets for recycling rates and reduction in waste sent to landfill in our Zero Waste Masterplan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Health Measures for Wood Products Containing Dangerous Chemicals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether home renovation contractors will be required to provide health warnings and mitigation measures when ordering or installing wood products that contain formaldehyde or other dangerous chemicals.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question will be addressed with similar Parliamentary Questions on indoor formaldehyde levels, and formaldehyde controls for building products and furniture at the same Parliament Sitting on 6 August 2024. Please refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 5 in the Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Complaints Leading to Ban on Formaldehyde in Paints for Interior of Buildings and Proposal for Similar Ban on Paints for Furniture\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Charging of Liquidated Damages by Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres on Hawkers Failing to Open for Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) to date, how many Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) have charged hawkers liquidated damages for failing to open for business; (b) whether NEA-operated hawker centres impose such liquidated damages on their hawkers; (c) if not, why are SEHCs allowed to levy such charges; and (d) in each year since 2020, how many hawkers operating at SEHCs have been charged such liquidated damages.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency does not manage the tenancies of the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs). Nevertheless, we understand that the tenancy agreements between SEHC operators and its stallholders have liquidated damages clauses to deter stallholders from breaching tenancy conditions, such as failing to open for business. This is to ensure that the centres serve residents in the community well, where patrons can have access to affordable food throughout the day. This is one of the important social objectives of our hawker centres.
Since 2020, one SEHC operator has imposed liquidated damages on three stallholders for failing to open for business. These liquidated damages were imposed after repeated reminders and engagement when the stallholders failed to open for business for extended periods without valid reasons, thereby causing inconvenience to residents and patrons. If no action is taken for the non-compliance, it would have been unfair to other tenants who have complied to the terms by working longer hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tertiary Institutions Grading Students According to Bell Curve","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether tertiary institutions grade students according to a bell curve; and (b) if so, whether there are plans to change this.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been addressed by written answer to Parliamentary Question No 81 during the Sitting on 2 July 2024. [Please refer to \"Bell Curves to Determine Final Grade or Grade Point Average for Students in ITEs, Polytechnics and Autonomous Universities\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
23 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education considering the low uptake of SG Enable's Capability Development Grant and the need to enhance course accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs) to boost their career prospects, whether the Ministry has considered mandating that all SkillsFuture-funded training providers shall implement reasonable accommodations for PwDs who will benefit professionally from the courses they offer.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Given the varied learning needs of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), it is more practical to take a targeted approach to help PwD learners access the training programmes that they wish to attend. Where practicable, training providers will make the needed accommodations and can tap on SG Enable's Capability Development Grant for funding support. PwD learners who are not able to access particular courses can approach SG Enable for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessed Impact of Reduced Junior College Places on Stress Levels for GCE \"O\" Level Students Seeking Admission","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) for Junior Colleges (JCs) that take in students progressing from the Integrated Programme (IP), how many and what proportion of places were reserved for GCE \"O\" Level holders not progressing from the IP in the years of admission 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of reduced JC places on stress levels for GCE \"O\" Level students seeking to enter JCs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Ten Junior Colleges (JCs), known as Integrated Programme (IP) JCs, take in students progressing from the IP and those with O-level qualifications, while eight JCs only take in students with O-level qualifications. In 2022, 2023 and 2024, students with O-level qualifications made up about 40% of students in IP JCs. This percentage is stable.
There are sufficient places in our JCs for all O-level holders who meet the JC admission criteria and wish to enrol in a JC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Use of iPads for Educational Purposes Do Not Expose Students to Online Harms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education how will schools ensure that the use of iPads for educational purposes will not create easy access and exposure to online sexual content and predators.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All Personal Learning Devices are pre-installed with a Device Management Application (DMA). DMA blocks students' access to undesirable Internet content, such as pornography, gambling and violence. Schools also have website filtering systems to restrict access via school network to inappropriate websites and content to ensure a safe online environment for students.
Through Cyber Wellness lessons, schools equip students with the values and skills to use technology safely, such as to recognise risks in the digital space and to be discerning of negative influences and inappropriate websites.
Parents play a key role in guiding and monitoring their child's leisure online activities. They can tap on resources, expert insights and strategies shared by MOE and schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replacing Outdated Terms in Legislation and Government Communications Relating to Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Government will review and update all current legislation and official Government communications by replacing outdated terms related to persons with disabilities, including removing all references to \"handicap\" in the tax relief schemes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government recognises the importance of using appropriate language to promote inclusion and respect for persons with disabilities. We progressively review and remove outdated terms in legislation and official publications. For example, in the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2023, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) removed outdated terms and phrases such as \"handicapped spouse\" and \"suffering from\". IRAS will also update their website and official communications to reflect these changes.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to work with the respective Ministries to update outdated terms in older legislation at the next available opportunity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancements to Strengthen Child Protection System for Vulnerable Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the steps taken by the Ministry, including monitoring and information sharing, together with Family Service Centres, crisis shelters or other community partners or religious organisations, to strengthen the child protection system in order to ensure the well-being of vulnerable children who have suffered or witnessed domestic violence and who are returned to their families after being discharged from alternative care or foster care.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Over the years, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has significantly enhanced our measures to build a robust child protection system, collaborating with community partners, such as the Family Service Centres, Child Protection Specialist Centres, Protection Specialist Centres, Police and schools.
There is now close coordination between case workers and community partners in terms of information sharing, reviewing and monitoring the safety of these children and their families. Personalised intervention plans are developed to address all aspects of the child and family's needs and risks, including interventions, such as counselling, trauma-focused interventions, parenting support, interventions to support healthy parent-child relationships; as well as educational and developmental support for the children.
Regular safety checks and monitoring are also conducted at least once a month for 12 months or longer after reunification, with the specific frequency, nature of these checks and duration of support depending on the circumstances and needs of each family. If parents refuse to allow agencies to sight or access their children during safety checks, MSF will invoke powers under the Children and Young Persons Act to mandate access to the child when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child or young person is in need of care or protection. Such measures ensure the continued safety and well-being of the children after they are returned to their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Post-Release Inmates to Enhance Familial Ties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what programmes and support does the Ministry or other social service agencies provide to help prison inmates improve familial ties with their young children once released back to society; and (b) if no programmes currently exist, whether the Ministry will consider developing one.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) work closely to support inmates and their families during their incarceration as strong family support is key to promoting long-term desistance.
For example, SPS has Family Resource Centres (FRCs) that are located at Prison Link Centre (Changi), where families have visits with their loved ones. The FRC was set up by SPS in 2006 to provide interim social assistance to inmates and their families. Trained social workers from FRC help to assess the inmates' and their families' needs and refer them to Family Service Centres (FSCs), Social Service Agencies (SSAs) or other community resources for longer-term support, as needed. The social workers are mindful to take a family-centric approach when supporting inmates and their families, including the importance of addressing family relationship issues at hand.
There are also structured family programmes delivered in prison by SSAs, such as The Salvation Army and New Life Stories. These programmes help to increase inmates' knowledge, skills and confidence in maintaining ties and building stronger relationships with their family members. During the programmes, parent-children joint activities and open visits are facilitated by the SSA workers.
Counselling support is also provided by the Strengthening Families Programme@Family Service Centres, both during and post incarceration. Such counselling can help offenders and their families navigate marital and parent-child relationship issues. After their release, ex-offenders can also continue to strengthen their parenting skills by attending the Families for Life parenting programmes that are offered by community agencies to all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Transportation of Injured Workers under Healthcare Services Act 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health in respect of the deaths of two construction workers at the worksites of the Tengah integrated rail and bus depot and the North-South Corridor at Cavenagh Road (a) whether the Ministry is investigating if the transportation of injured workers in private vehicles complies with the requirements under the Healthcare Services Act 2020; (b) if yes, what are the findings from the Ministry's investigations; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will conduct such an investigation.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Whether an ambulance is needed to convey a patient during a medical emergency, depends on the circumstances. Although, it is most likely that conveyance by emergency ambulance service is needed\tfor serious work injuries. Investigations on the fatal incidents at the worksites for the North-South Corridor at Cavenagh Road on 16 September 2023 and the Tengah integrated rail and bus depot on 2 December 2023 are ongoing. The Ministry of Health will provide further details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flesh-eating Bacteria Cases Reported and Measures to Prevent Local Outbreak","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has received any reports of \"flesh eating bacteria\" cases locally; and (b) how can the Ministry and Singaporeans safeguard Singapore against an outbreak locally.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Necrotising fasciitis is a rare but serious skin and soft tissue infection associated with necrosis of the infected tissue and is potentially life-threatening. This infection may be caused by many types of bacteria, such as Streptococcus pyogenes and Vibrio vulnificus, which can be found on body surfaces, including skin, nose and throat; or in the environment, such as natural water bodies, that is, seawater, lakes, rivers.
These bacteria are often reported in the media as \"flesh-eating bacteria\". Individuals with weakened immune systems and with breaks in their skin are at greater risk of developing necrotising fasciitis when exposed to such bacteria. Infections have also been reported from consumption of raw or undercooked seafood.
Based on claims data, the number of cases has remained stable in the last five years, at about 80 on average per year. No clusters of infections have been reported.
Necrotising fasciitis is treated with antibiotics and surgery to remove the dead soft tissue as well as to control sepsis. To minimise the risk of infection, individuals may avoid consuming raw or undercooked seafood and keep any skin wounds dry, clean and covered. If unwell or when wounds are infected, individuals should seek prompt medical treatment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clinics Investigated for Making Fraudulent Claims and Measures to Prevent Such Fraud","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) since 2019, how many clinics have been investigated for making fraudulent (i) CHAS (ii) MediSave and MediShield Life and (iii) Covid-19 related claims; (b) of which, how many clinics have been taken to task; and (c) what measures have been taken to prevent such fraudulent claims.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2019, close to 2,450 clinics have been audited for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), MediSave and MediShield Life (2M) and COVID-19 related claims. Of these, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has revoked or suspended the 2M and CHAS accreditation of 11 clinics; and suspended or terminated the CHAS participation of a further three clinics, for egregious non-compliances.
MOH takes a serious view of any attempts to defraud patients and the healthcare system and will not hesitate to take action in such cases. For the small minority with non-compliances, MOH will take enforcement action, calibrated according to the severity of their non-compliances. These range from engagement and training to suspension and revocation for egregious cases. Where warranted, we also refer the clinics and doctors/dentists to the Police, Singapore Medical Council and Singapore Dental Council for further investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Education Campaign on Actual Insurance Needs and Means-testing for Integrated Shield Plan Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider conducting an education campaign to guide the public on their actual insurance needs, considering that a significant proportion of patients with the Integrated Shield Plan (IP) and rider protection opt for subsidised public healthcare despite paying for higher coverage; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider any means-testing mechanisms to encourage IP holders or those with rider protection to utilise private healthcare options, thereby potentially alleviating strain on subsidised healthcare.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question has been addressed in my oral reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 16 to 20 on the Order Paper for 6 August 2024. [Please refer to \"Data on Doctor Representation, Claim Rules and Premium Charges of Integrated Shield Insurance Plans\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vaping in Private Hire Cars and Measures to Protect Drivers Reporting Such Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's plan to tackle vaping in private hire cars by passengers; and (b) how will the Government protect private hire car drivers against retaliation by passengers so that they will feel safe to report passengers for vaping.
34 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures are in place to protect private hire car drivers from passengers who use vapes during their rides; (b) what recourse is available to the drivers when a passenger is caught vaping in the vehicle by law enforcement officers; and (c) whether private hire car drivers are to report passengers who vape in their cars and, if so, how will such reports be dealt with.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: When taxi and private hire car drivers observe their passengers vaping, they are encouraged to inform their passengers that vaping is illegal in Singapore. While it is not mandatory for the drivers to report vaping by passengers, they may do so to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) via its hotlines.
The identities of persons who report these cases to HSA are kept confidential by HSA. Drivers will also not be penalised for passengers vaping in their vehicles. If passengers retaliate or are uncooperative, drivers can seek help from the relevant authorities, such as the Singapore Police Force, where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend and Waiting Times for Nursing Home Admission for General Care, Psychiatric Care and Intellectual Disability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has data on the five-year trend and current waiting times for entry into nursing homes, including stratification of the waiting times for nursing homes that are able to support patients with general care needs, psychiatric care needs and intellectual disability specifically.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address the written question filed by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi for the subsequent Sitting. [Please refer to \"Data on Trends and Waiting Times for Entry Into Nursing Homes for Respite Care and Night Respite Services\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The median wait time for a nursing home bed for general care needs has remained stable, at around one month for the past five years. Over the same period, the median wait time for a nursing home bed for psychiatric care needs is around two to four months.
Service providers have generally been able to place clients into nursing home respite and night respite services upon request. As caregivers submit requests for service with different lead times, wait times for nursing home respite and respite services are not meaningful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Directives to Mobile Operators to Remove Signalling System 7 and Diameter Protocols to Resolve Network Vulnerabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether IMDA has issued any directives to mobile operators to (i) remove the Signalling System 7 (SS7) and Diameter protocols from their networks to prevent cyber attackers from using SS7- and Diameter-based location and monitoring exploits and (ii) resolve vulnerabilities related to SS7- and Diameter-based location and monitoring exploits.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Signalling System 7 (SS7) and Diameter protocols are standard international telecommunication network signalling protocols used in 3G and 4G mobile networks, respectively. They are used by mobile operators who connect to each other for functions, such as the setting up of calls and routing of SMSes. While there are known vulnerabilities with these protocols, there are no alternative protocols in 3G and 4G networks which are more secure and approved by international standard bodies, such as 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
Mobile operators are required to put in place measures to secure their networks, including against vulnerabilities inherent in the SS7 and Diameter protocols. To address the vulnerabilities of these older protocols, mobile operators have implemented measures, such as specialised firewalls and system safeguards, to ensure early detection of suspicious network activities and blocking any unauthorised access detected. They have also implemented further control measures to secure their connections with other mobile networks, such as through the use of network encryption. These measures are aligned with international standards development organisations, such as Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA).
These older protocols are no longer adopted in 5G mobile networks, where more secure protocols have been implemented, which overcome the inherent vulnerabilities of older protocols by design.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Searches on Factually Government Website Relating to Falsehoods Subject to Directions under POFMA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in each of the last five years, how many searches have been conducted by members of the public on the Factually Government website; (b) how many of such searches are related to falsehoods that are subject to directions under POFMA; and (c) what is the breakdown of views by top five topics of articles on the website.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We do not track the number of searches on the gov.sg website, which hosts the Factually page. We can, however, identify the most viewed articles. The top five most viewed Factually topics published between 2019 to 2023, in descending order, were on COVID-19, Ridout Road, fiscal policy, the Central Provident Fund and public housing. Page views of COVID-19 articles are substantially higher than other topics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Seniors and Users Who Cannot Afford to Transit to 4G/5G Services with Gradual Retirement of 3G Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with the gradual retirement of 3G network by telecommunications companies in Singapore, whether active communication and support have been provided to 3G users, particularly seniors and those users who cannot afford to transit to 4G/5G services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In July 2023, Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) M1, Singtel and StarHub announced plans to retire their 3G networks. This will unlock spectrum capacity for future-ready 5G networks to provide users with a better mobile experience and support enterprise digital transformation. MNOs were informed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) that they could start retiring their 3G networks from 31 July 2024, provided they ensure the smooth migration of remaining 3G subscribers to 4G or 5G networks.
IMDA has closely monitored the MNOs' progress. Over the past year, the MNOs have actively reached out to their 3G subscribers to raise awareness of the 3G network retirement and their plans to assist subscribers in the migration. Beyond SMS messages, emails, and notifications via MNOs' mobile applications targeted at the broad base of 3G subscribers, there were concerted efforts to reach out to vulnerable groups. For example, M1 and Singtel called seniors directly and delivered 4G or 5G SIM cards to the homes of subscribers with mobility challenges. IMDA supported MNOs in their outreach efforts by roping in relevant community partners with touchpoints to vulnerable groups including seniors and creating awareness of the 3G network retirement.
The MNOs are also offering 3G subscribers 4G and 5G service plans that do not leave them worse off for at least two years (e.g. no additional subscription fees and no less favourable service terms). MNOs also support 3G subscribers with phone options, such as $0 phones with the purchase of lowest-cost contract plans and free upgrades to 4G or 5G SIM cards. Some MNOs have taken additional steps to support low-income 3G subscribers, such as providing them with refurbished or new mobile phones.
M1 has fully migrated all its individual and enterprise 3G subscribers to 4G or 5G services and has started the phased retirement of its 3G network since 1 August 2024. Singtel and StarHub plan to commence retiring their 3G services from November 2024 to give their remaining 3G subscribers more time to migrate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exemptions Granted and Enforcement Actions Taken for Non-compliance with Code on Accessibility in Built Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for National Development for each year from 2019 to 2023 (a) how many buildings have not complied with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment; (b) how many exemptions to the requirements have been granted; and (c) what enforcement action does BCA take for non-compliance of the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2019 to 2023, more than 80% of new buildings that were completed and existing buildings undergoing addition and alteration (A&A) works that require plan submission to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) have fully complied with the prevailing Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment (Code). On average, BCA has exempted about 160 buildings per year from full compliance with the Code, through waivers or modifications to the requirements, due to technical constraints that make complying with the full requirements impractical.
Applications for waivers or modification of requirements undergo a stringent evaluation process to ensure that the buildings remain largely accessible. For example, BCA may require building owners to provide mitigating measures, such as alternative access provisions for persons with disabilities. Approvals for waivers or modifications are also typically granted only for specific building areas or features and not the entire building.
Buildings that do not comply with the Code and are not granted waivers or modifications by BCA, will not be issued with a Temporary Occupation Permit and/or a Certificate of Statutory Completion and cannot be used by occupants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Temporary Relaxation of Occupancy Cap on HDB Flats and Impact on Open Market Rents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the assessment of the effectiveness of the Temporary Relaxation of Occupancy Cap since its implementation in addressing the mismatches in the rental demand and supply of HDB flats thus far; and (b) whether the open market rents of HDB flats have continued to rise.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2022 and 2023, rents in both the public and private rental markets rose sharply as a result of construction delays due to COVID-19 and strong rental demand.
We have undertaken a broad suite of measures to stabilise the property market. This includes ramping up our public and private housing supply, increasing the supply of flats available under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme as well as the temporary relaxation of the occupancy cap, from six to eight unrelated persons, for four-room and larger Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats and private residential properties of at least 90 square metres.
These measures have shown early signs of success in addressing the supply and demand imbalance. In the first quarter of 2024, the median rents for 4-room and larger HDB flats have remained stable, compared to the average quarterly increase of around 5.3% from 2022 to 2023. We will continue to monitor the property market closely and will recalibrate our measures, as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Usage of Land Parcels Housing Semi-permanent Quick Build Dormitories at Choa Chu Kang Grove","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development whether the usage purpose of the land parcels where the semi-permanent Quick Build Dormitories are located at 5A, 7A and 11A Choa Chu Kang Grove currently remains to be residential.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Master Plan 2019, the land parcels at 5A and 7A Choa Chu Kang Grove are zoned for residential use and the land parcel at 11A Choa Chu Kang Grove is zoned for health and medical care use. There are currently no changes to these plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Self-employed Persons Paying for HDB Flats by Cash and CPF and Plans to Encourage Payment by CPF Instead","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many self-employed persons (SEPS) are currently paying for their HDB flats by (i) cash and (ii) CPF respectively; (b) what is the percentage of SEPS from each group who are at higher-risk of having their flats repossessed because of frequent default on instalments; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce incentives and assistance to encourage SEPs who have been paying for their flat by cash to switch to using CPF to pay instead.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not collect information on whether flat owners are self-employed, as HDB treats all flat owners the same way, regardless of their occupation. We are, therefore, unable to provide the data requested in parts (a) and (b) of the Member's question.
HDB has no preference whether flat owners service their mortgage loans by cash, the Central Provident Fund or a combination of both. We, therefore, do not plan to introduce incentives and assistance to encourage flat buyers to adopt a particular mode of payment.
We encourage homeowners facing difficulties with their mortgage payments to approach HDB early, to explore options for support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Occupancy and Take-up Rate of PPHS (Open Market) Voucher","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current occupancy rate for HDB flats on the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS); and (b) what is the take-up rate of the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher since it was officially launched on 1 July 2024.
Mr Desmond Lee: The occupancy rate for Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats available for rent under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) is around 90%. The remaining flats are available for selection in the ongoing August 2024 PPHS application exercise.
As of 30 July 2024, HDB has received 90 applications for the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate and Assessment Criteria for Appeals for MOP Waivers from HDB Flat Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the success rate of appeals for waivers of the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) rule for HDB flat owners who are unable to stay in their units due to genuine circumstances; (b) what criteria does HDB use to assess these waiver appeals; and (c) how does HDB support homeowners in understanding and navigating the appeal process for MOP waivers.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not track the total number of unique appeals from flat owners who submitted appeals for waiver of the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). Therefore, the success rate is not available.
In 2023, HDB gave approval to about 1,000 households who submitted such appeals. HDB assesses each appeal on a case-by-case basis. Approval is granted for those with extenuating circumstances, such as overseas job postings or medical reasons. Owners who are unable to physically occupy their flats during MOP due to genuine difficulties can approach HDB for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flats Re-acquired by HDB Due to Regulatory Infringements and Support for Affected Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for National Development (a) since 2019, what proportion of flats re-acquired by HDB due to regulatory infringements belonged to owners whose sole properties are the re-acquired HDB flats; and (b) what steps are taken to ensure that such owners can still find a home subsequently.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between January 2019 and June 2024, 104 flats were compulsorily acquired for lease infringements. Of these, 84 were for serious infringements, such as unauthorised whole flat rental, non-occupation and purchase of private properties during the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). The remainder were largely due to loss of Housing and Development Board (HDB) eligibility status (e.g. change in citizenship or false declaration in flat application).
The vast majority (88%) of the 104 cases involved owners whose sole properties were the acquired flat. However, most of these ex-owners had already been living elsewhere prior to the compulsory acquisition. In many cases, this was what had led to the infringement in the first place. For these ex-owners, the compulsory acquisition did not affect their living arrangements.
For the small minority of ex-owners with pressing housing needs following the compulsory acquisition, HDB assisted them with housing options, including facilitating the purchase of another flat or allocation of a public rental flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Infractions by Prime Location Public Housing HDB Flat and HDB Plus Flat Owners Due to Longer MOP","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for National Development given the longer duration of Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) for Prime Location Public Housing HDB flats and HDB Plus flats, what further steps are being taken by HDB to prevent regulatory infractions by owners of these flats such as purchase of private properties during the MOP, unauthorised rental and non-occupancy of such flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, new flat buyers are informed of the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) of their flat and the MOP rules at various points throughout their flat purchase journey, including at the point of flat application, booking and signing of lease. This ensures that they are aware of the rules and make an informed decision when purchasing their flat.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) also regularly publicises enforcement actions taken against errant owners, to build public awareness of MOP-related rules. Flat owners may refer to the HDB InfoWEB for more information, or approach HDB if they have queries.
In addition, property agents who perform estate agency work are required to perform due diligence and provide accurate advice to their clients to ensure that the MOP rules are adhered to. As we transit to the new flat classification framework – Standard, Plus, and Prime – we will continue with these efforts to ensure adherence to MOP rules.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Encourage More Merchants to Provide Affordable Meal and Service Options for Households to Maximise Use of CDC Vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there are plans since the launch of the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme 2024, to encourage more food and beverage merchants to provide a minimum number of budget meal options and ensure that more merchants provide affordable services so that households may maximise the use of these vouchers.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Community Development Councils (CDCs) and the Ministry of National Development are working with coffee shop chains to offer residents more budget meal options.
Besides providing value meals and drinks, the stalls in these coffee shops also allow the redemption of CDC Vouchers as participating CDC Voucher scheme stalls. The presence of these food and beverage establishments helps Singaporean households further stretch the value of their CDC vouchers and better cope with their living expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support and Promotion of Malay Arts Scene Locally and Internationally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the current funding and resources allocated to support the Malay arts scene in Singapore; (b) how has the Ministry ensured that these resources are accessible to both emerging and established Malay artists; (c) what initiatives provide Malay artists with a platform to showcase their work locally and internationally; and (d) how is the Ministry promoting cultural education and engagement of the Malay arts scene among the broader Singaporean population.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Malay arts and heritage are a key part of our Singapore culture and essential to our national identity as Singaporeans.
The Government provides holistic support to develop Malay artists and arts groups. This enables them to continue creating and contributing to our vibrant Malay arts and culture landscape.
The National Arts Council (NAC) offers a suite of grants and initiatives to support content production in the arts sector, including by Malay artists and arts groups. For instance, NAC's Cultural Medallion (CM) and Young Artist Award (YAA) are pinnacle awards that recognise exemplary Singaporean artists. Award recipients have access to the CM Fund and YAA grant to further develop their artistic practices. Malay artists who were award recipients include, singer Mdm Rahimah Rahim (2021 CM recipient) and Mr Norhaizad Adam (2021 YAA recipient).
NAC's Major Company scheme has supported groups, such as Era Dance Theatre, that was co-founded by CM recipient, Mr Osman Abdul Hamid, to present annual events, like the Muara Festival which celebrates Malay dance. Under the Presentation and Participation grant, NAC has also supported performances organised by groups, such as the Persatuan Pemuzik Tradisional Melayu Singapura and many more.
To support capability development of young artists, NAC offers partnerships with local and international institutions for mentorship opportunities and the NAC Arts Scholarship for further education. The NAC Arts Scholarship has been awarded to many Malay artists, such as Nurul Shaza Binte Ishak, Muhammad Noramin Bin Mohamed Farid and many more.
The Malay Heritage Centre (MHC) also offers an Arts Incubation Programme to nurture up-and-coming Malay arts groups through collaborations with seasoned practitioners. NADI Singapura is one such beneficiary of the MHC programme.
There are also multiple platforms for Malay artists and arts groups to showcase their work to a broad audience at the international, national and community levels.
At the international level, Esplanade's annual Pesta Raya event offers Singaporean Malay artists and arts groups opportunities to celebrate and showcase their work to local and international audiences as well as collaborate with their regional counterparts. For example, Teater Ekamatra's sold-out production, Bawang Putih Bawang Merah, this year, featured artists from both Singapore and Malaysia.
At the national level, the People's Association's (PA's) Chingay Parade recruits over 150 performers to present the Malay ethnic segment, across various performing groups, such as music, percussion, dance and martial arts.
At the community level, as part of Wisma Geylang Serai's (WGS') programming, PA regularly engages Malay artists and arts groups to showcase their work.
There is a wide range of initiatives that promote broad-based interest and engagement in Malay arts.
NAC's Arts Education Programme (NAC-AEP) provides all students with access to quality arts education experiences. NAC-AEP includes more than 120 programmes conducted by Malay artists and arts groups that the Ministry of Education (MOE) schools can use in their arts education plans. The Cultural Performance Exposure Fund by the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee, MOE, exposes students in schools to Malay cultural performances. In addition, WGS works with the National Heritage Board to offer museum-based learning at the Geylang Serai Heritage Gallery for Primary 4 students.
PAssionArts initiatives, including Malay dance and music, are showcased at PA's community events in the local neighbourhoods. PA also encourages and supports residents to form Malay arts and culture interest groups at PA Community Clubs and Centres.
Bulan Bahasa (Malay Language Month), an initiative by the Malay Language Council Singapore, encourages the Malay community to embrace the Malay language and deepen its appreciation of Malay arts and culture. In conjunction with Bulan Bahasa, Esplanade organises Cipta Cita, to celebrate the Malay language through music.
Online resources are also available for the public to learn more about Malay arts and culture. On Esplanade Offstage, Esplanade's one-stop arts content and education platform for the performing arts in Singapore and Asia, traditional and contemporary Malay arts and artists are profiled through documentary videos, recordings of performances, articles, podcasts and educator resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Heritage Businesses and Balancing Their Preservation and Sustainability with Innovation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what financial support and grant schemes are available to heritage businesses in Singapore in addition to the Organisation Transform Grant; (b) whether the Ministry provides assistance to sustain these heritage businesses amidst rising costs and current economic challenges; (c) how does the Ministry balance between preserving the traditional aspects of heritage businesses and encouraging innovation when providing financial support and grant schemes; and (d) whether there are specific programmes that facilitate such balance.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the National Heritage Board (NHB) recognise that heritage businesses contribute to the overall character of an area and serve as important community anchors.
To increase their business sustainability, heritage businesses can tap on the wider ecosystem of business and financial support offered by Government agencies, such as EnterpriseSG, as well as organisations, such as small and medium enterprise centres, business chambers and trade associations. This includes the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant, which supports heartland merchants in organising innovative placemaking activities that can contribute to business growth and footfall and to raise their profile. In addition, NHB has introduced initiatives to encourage innovation to help our heritage businesses and practitioners reach out to new markets.
NHB's Organisation Transformation Grant supports heritage businesses in adopting and implementing business transformation efforts to enhance their longer-term sustainability. For example, Deli Maslina, a multi-generational family business specialising in traditional Malay kueh, utilised the grant to undertake redevelopment and rebranding efforts for their line of kueh lapis (layered cake). The project aimed to cater to changing consumer tastes and expand their appeal to a wider pool of customers and clients.
NHB's Craft x Design initiative seeks to reinvigorate interest in traditional crafts by pairing traditional craft practitioners with contemporary designers to co-create innovative products. This pairing allows them to draw on traditional craft sensibilities and contemporary design, raising the profile of these traditional crafts and enhancing practitioners' access to new markets, networks and designs.
NHB also works closely with other agencies on initiatives to profile our heritage businesses, such as the Street Corner Heritage Galleries in Little India, Chinatown, Kampong Gelam, Katong Joo-Chiat and Balestier. As part of this initiative, NHB partners with local shop owners with at least 30 years of history to develop the showcases, as well as to develop programmes, such as talks, tours and workshops, to promote greater public awareness and appreciation of these heritage businesses.
Heritage Activation Nodes (HAN) which provide opportunities for the community, including heritage businesses, to co-develop and participate in projects celebrating their neighbourhood's heritage. The first HAN was launched in Katong-Joo Chiat in April 2024 and a second HAN will be launched in Clementi in the second half of 2024.
NHB has partnered with the Urban Redevelopment Authority on the Kampong Gelam Citizen Engagement Project, to map and document heritage businesses in the precinct. The findings from the project will guide future initiatives and partnerships with the community to better preserve the precinct's identity and character. NHB is currently preparing for a similar project for Chinatown.
NHB's Heritage Institutions and Community Galleries also partner stakeholders in the community to showcase the unique history of their precinct and inject cultural vibrancy through programming. NHB is committed to supporting our heritage businesses whilst partnering them to document, preserve and safeguard their heritage, as part of a whole-of-society effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Deciding Images of Grassroots Advisers on Free Shuttle Service Buses for Marine Parade Cluster","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what were the considerations in deciding to feature images of Grassroots Advisers on the buses that provide free shuttle services for the Marine Parade cluster; and (b) what is the cost of these images.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The buses have drawings of iconic Marine Parade landmarks as well as caricatures of Marine Parade grassroot advisors, which and whom local residents can recognise and will be familiar with. This makes it easier for residents to identify the buses and build awareness, so more residents can use the buses to get to their destinations. This is not dissimilar to other grassroots programmes, which have banners of the grassroot advisors hosting the programmes.
The cost is part of the overall contract with the bus operator so we do not have breakdowns on the cost of this aspect alone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exclusions and Premiums for CPF Members with Pre-existing Health Conditions Under Home Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of CPF members under the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) who have pre-existing health conditions that are excluded from HPS claims; (b) how does CPF Board determine the broadness of exclusions based on declared pre-existing conditions; and (c) whether CPF members who have pre-existing health conditions that are excluded from coverage can pay lower premiums.
Dr Tan See Leng: Today, the majority of members with pre-existing health conditions who are covered under the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) do not have exclusions imposed. In the last three years, about 1.8% of HPS applications granted coverage had exclusions imposed due to pre-existing health conditions.
In line with general industry practice, the assessment of a member's eligibility for HPS coverage, including whether an exclusion is to be imposed, is conducted based on the overall severity, prognosis and control of the medical condition as well as the individual's health risk profile.
The exclusions imposed on these members are intended to bring their likelihood of a claim to a level that is comparable to healthy members. As such, standard premiums are applied to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approvals Granted to Work Permit Holders and MDWs to Continue Working in Singapore Beyond Age 60","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether approvals, upon appeal or application, have been granted to work permit holders and migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to continue working in Singapore beyond the age of 60; (b) if so, how many of such approvals have been granted to work permit holders and MDWs respectively in the past five years; and (c) what are some common reasons for the Ministry to allow such extensions.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) approves appeals from employers to continue hiring their Work Permit holders beyond age 60 based on considerations, such as the workers' health, experience and skills. From 2019 to 2023, MOM approved an average of 610 appeals a year for migrant workers and 350 appeals a year for migrant domestic workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nominal Gross Monthly Wage of Bottom Tenth Percentile and Coverage Under Progressive Wage Model and Occupational Progressive Wages Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the latest nominal gross monthly wage, excluding employer CPF, of the bottom tenth percentile (P10) of resident full-time income earners in Singapore; and (b) what proportion of P10 and below are covered under the Progressive Wage Model and the Occupational Progressive Wages scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: Currently, up to nine in 10 of full-time lower-wage workers1 benefit from the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)2, Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) and the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme. In 2023, the nominal gross monthly income from employment (excluding employer CPF) of full-time employed residents at the tenth percentile was $1,800, a cumulative increase of 50% from $1,200 in 2013.3
Among full-time resident employees earning at or below $1,800 (that is, B10 workers), about five in 10 are covered by PWM. Another three in 10 are covered by LQS.4 From July 2024, the LQS was raised from $1,400 to $1,600. This means that B10 workers, who were previously earning below $1,600, would have seen their wages increase at least to $1,600. In a tight labour market, workers who are not directly covered by PWM or LQS should also see increases in their wages as firms compete for manpower.
In addition to PWM and LQS, the Government provides lower-income workers with additional support through the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme. Eligible workers aged 30 years and older can receive WIS payments of up to $4,200 per year. As announced at Budget this year, the maximum WIS payment will be increased to $4,900 per year from 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Lower-wage workers refer to full-time resident employees earning at or below the 20th percentile gross monthly income from employment (excluding employer CPF) of full-time employed residents.","2 : PWM covers resident employees across nine sectors and occupations. Sectoral PWM covers the Cleaning, Security, Landscape, Lift and Escalator, Retail, Food Services and Waste Management sectors. Occupational PWM covers the Administrator and Driver occupations.","3 : Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (2023), Manpower Research and Statistics Department, MOM.","4 : Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (2023) and administrative records, Manpower Research and Statistics Department, MOM."],"footNoteQuestions":["53"],"questionNo":"53"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Worker Dormitories Licensed Under Foreign Employee Dormitories Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower what is the current percentage of foreign worker dormitories that are licensed under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act.
Dr Tan See Leng: As of June 2024, 78% of the foreign worker dormitories are licensed under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act. The remaining 22% are smaller dormitories with six or fewer beds. They make up less than 1% of the total foreign worker dormitory capacity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Measures to Ensure Safety of Singapore-Registered Boeing Aircraft and Enhance Regulatory Oversight over Boeing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) with the goal of preventing future occurrences of safety issues with Boeing aircraft, what additional measures has the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore implemented to address safety concerns specific to Singapore-registered Boeing aircraft, beyond existing regulatory requirements; and (b) what is the timeline for its implementation.
56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has explored working with the Federal Aviation Administration to enhance regulatory oversight over Boeing, with the goal of preventing future occurrences of safety issues with Boeing aircraft; and (b) if so, what specific measures have been discussed or implemented.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore works closely with relevant States of Design, including the Federal Aviation Administration and aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing, to ensure that aircraft operated by Singapore air operators meet all applicable airworthiness standards. Our air operators are also required to comply with any Airworthiness Directives issued by the States of Design to address any potential safety concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Recalibrate Streetside Parking Lots to Enhance Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Flow","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to recalibrate the allocation of streetside parking lots to enhance pedestrian safety and improve traffic flow along roads.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In consultation with the community and agencies such as the Housing and Development Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority, the Land Transport Authority will continue to review roadside parking to support walking and cycling in the area. Over the last few years, we have done so at Havelock Road, Tiong Bahru and the Ang Mo Kio Street 31 Friendly Street.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Global Shipping Capacity and Preparedness Arising from Red Sea Disruptions and Container Space Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update and outlook on the global shipping capacity situation due to the Red Sea shipping disruptions and the demand for container space as more retailers rush to restock inventories early; and (b) whether Singapore has sufficient manpower and container handling capacity in Tuas Port should the disruptions worsen for the remainder of the year.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Red Sea crisis has caused vessels on the Europe-Asia route to divert to the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope. This has disrupted many shipping companies' sailing networks and caused off-schedule vessel arrivals and \"vessel bunching\" at ports, resulting in congestion at ports worldwide.
At the Port of Singapore, we face increased complexity and additional demand for container handling, as shipping lines rely on Singapore as a key transhipment port to mitigate delays. In the first half of 2024, the Port of Singapore handled 20.25 million twenty-foot equivalent units, an increase of 6.4% from the same period last year, a record high. The average wait time at our port has reduced from between two to three days in May 2024 to less than two days in June 2024.
Container shipping lines have added 24% more capacity on the Asia-Europe route on a year-on-year basis in June in response to a shortage of shipping capacity servicing this route. The Member may refer to the Ministry of Transport's reply at the 2 July 2024 Parliament Sitting, for the measures we have taken to address the additional demand for container handling capacity at our port. [Please refer to \"Adequacy of Singapore’s Seaports to Anticipate and Manage Severe Cargo Congestion\", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) during Question Time for Question Nos 1-5 on “Complaints Leading to Ban on Formaldehyde in Paints for Interior of Buildings and Proposal for Similar Ban on Paints for Furniture” at the 6 August Sitting: (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng): There was a publicised case recently, which based on reports, we understand there was agreement in the end where the renovation company actually compensated the family to move out of their flat to give them a temporary accommodation. And in the end, there was some sort of court case or legal demand for them to dismantle and reinstate the affected furniture. [Please refer to \"Complaints Leading to Ban on Formaldehyde in Paints for Interior of Buildings and Proposal for Similar Ban on Paints for Furniture\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Baey Yam Keng circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply to the supplementary question from Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye during the Sitting on 6 August 2024. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng): There was a publicised case recently, which based on reports, we understand that the renovation company offered to compensate the family to move out of their flat to give them a temporary accommodation. And in the end, the family eventually hired movers to dismantle and reinstate the affected furniture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2652,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240806/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6171,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240806/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai AML 6Aug2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai AML 6Aug2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6172,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240806/vernacular-Don Wee AML 6Aug2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee AML 6Aug2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6173,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240806/vernacular-Don Wee Food Donation 6Aug2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Food Donation 6Aug2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6174,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240806/vernacular-Hazel Poa Food Donation 6Aug2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Food Donation 6Aug2024 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}